Authoritarianism of Multi Cultural Law

By December 7, 2016 No Comments

There are two places in the world currently that can be considered multicultural by law: Canada and Singapore. Unlike Canadians, Singaporeans won’t have their enthusiasm for multiculturalism be turned into anger and disappointment. This due to the Authoritarianism of the government, required to maintain multiculturalism.

Of course, a stark difference between Canada and Singapore is that the history of Singapore was established as an independent country in 1963, while Canada’s independence was established at an earlier time (of when exactly is debatable). Both Countries have similar demographics.

An additional piece of information is that Singapore is flanked by Malaysians above it, and Indonesians who happen to share the same Religion, creating a necessity for ethnicity to be mixed up with politics. Malaysia, still legally practices Bumiputera, and Indonesia, still discriminates against a Chinese Minority.

The considerable argument is that the Chinese are simply not Native to the Region of Southeast Asia, holds true for the ethnically Malay and Indonesian majority, which makes for a very messy race-involved political system.

The effects of which are a history of conflicts may spark out of these clashes of culture and ethnicity, such as what is referred to as “Konfrontasi,” and revolts purported to be caused by neighboring countries, that may have the propensity to destabilize a government. And the inevitable result is Singapore’s racial, and religious policies in existence to appease the dominant Muslims of the region, which fuels the formation of more authoritarian governments for all involved.

The erosion of freedom of speech/expression

To ensure stable race relations, governments will have freedom of speech with provisions, Which of course, limit freedom of speech and expression. Singapore has Article 14, which allows parliament to restrict free speech at their discretion. Meanwhile, Canada has “hate speech” laws of Criminal Code 319, and more recently passed Bill C-16.

While the law is all encompassing for Singapore in one large Constitutional legal document, Canada will amend these laws constantly to keep up with the never ending, new types of discrimination and identities that will arise in their liberal societies.

Singapore has laws that restrict freedom of speech that binds everyone. However, will bind people individually, again and again, creating protected minority classes that will exclude the majority, binding the Canadian identity out of existence.

These types of laws have been invoked, and will continue to be, regardless of accusations bearing any merit. People will be financially affected or displaced by these laws.

The disintegration of any history and culture prior to a Multicultural establishment.

Singapore may be the first instance of the somewhat the pretentious Warren Ellis‘ concept of a monoculture. Legally and structurally, eventually the Singaporean society will exist in variations around the world, replacing the culture and history of what was once homogeneous cultures in those locations.

Singapore tries hard to hold onto, if not create a “Singaporean Identity,” Which may never occur as immigration -even of skilled workers will erode the existing culture and national identity.

Ethnicity just so happens to be the focus when citizens fight back against this, as foreigners just so happen to usually be of a different ethnicity. Yet, as a double-edged sword, any attempt to fight back against the push for multiculturalism results in brands of racism, as things like British Values are considered to be values that are racially based, rather than culturally espoused.

These cultural values are often blanketed to be and demonized as “White Nationalism.” More often than not, cultures exist homogeneously, and an invading minority culture either be assimilated or integrated and tolerated until assimilated by the children of that culture. The only other way to have more than one culture is to destroy the identity and history of the existing culture, through shame and guilt to build a new multicultural society, built upon arbitrary facets of liberalism.

To do that, the government requires the authority to do so. In a democracy, that authority is derived from the people, and as I had said: guilt and shame are powerful weapons. In chasing the Multicultural fantasy -the people, regardless of political ideology, will advocate to institute an authoritarian government to enact these purported higher ideals.

I would argue that Singapore is in a more perilous position compared to Canada. its institution of authoritarianism is a necessity to maintain a functioning society and culture to fulfill a demand for stability and security. Canada however is not in need of this, but is forcing itself into the same perilous position through the destruction of its own culture. The result of this destruction adopts multiculturalism to justify the accompanying authoritarian government.

Multiculturalism and diversity, being falsely equated to liberalism requires an authoritarian government to institute and force its deferment. This all culminates in a circular argument of what brings forth the other?

Authoritarianism and multiculturalism, or the chicken and egg.

Send this to a friend