63
Washington Post losing its mind over the fact that Singapore is not as rabidly anti-China as the US wishes
(www.washingtonpost.com)
this post was submitted on 25 Jul 2023
63 points (83.9% liked)
World News
2283 readers
220 users here now
founded 4 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Malaysia has and will continue to be more Pro-China than Singapore ever will be you dumbass.
You don't even know what you are talking about LMAO.
In the arena of SEA politics, the most Western friendly countries are: Phillipines (neocolonial comprador puppet state of the US), Singapore (glorified tax haven for which International Capital uses as a node for value transfer, and to better control the geopolitically important Strait of Malacca) and Papua New Guinea (neocolonized by Australian companies).
Singapore isn't a "city-state" in Malaysia, it was booted out of Malaysia to fulfill the comprador Malay feudal classes interests here in Malaysia, that the British acquiesed because containing Communism was more important.
This division can still be seen as a modern-day example of a colonial scar, remaining unresolved because of past and present Western influence.
But surely and steadily this will be removed and our countries will be reunited. That is the logical conclusion of indigenous economic integration, as history has shown.
Well you seem very well informed, can you explain to me the difference between a city state, and a nation? Is it size? Is it governmental structure? Is it historical?
Honestly I didn't care much about your use of the term "city-state", I don't know why I put it in quotes in the first place.
My main contention was you called it "in" Malaysia, when the whole point was Singapore was excluded from Malaysia purposefully. I apologise for my brash response - I was really annoyed at that, especially after reading the original article shared here.
However I can say that nation and state are not synonymous. Nation-state is specifically a European concept in which was then retroactively applied to non-European cultures. It still has it's uses especially in International Relations but we must be cognizant of the fact that what it entails isn't universal.
Nation is more ambiguous and more culturally specific, it could be on the basis of a shared linguistic, economic, religious, cultural, or ideological history. It could be all at once or just one.
In the context of Southeast Asia, what it means to be part of the same nation is typically evoked to be those who practice the similar cultural norms, had similar shared histories, spoken certain dialects and languages. So it may be more useful to think nation as "ethnicity" but even then I wouldn't say is entirely accurate. I will have to say that this understanding doesn't include any sort of "blood quantum" rules or anything to do with biological lineage. That was and will always be a specifically Euro-Amerikan tradition.
Many countries are not nation-states, which would include countries like Bolivia, Indonesia, Laos, Viet Nam, China, India and South Africa. Studying them would be a good choice in understanding the nuances of nation, state and nation-state. Concepts like Plurinational State and Civilizational State is of key importance.
Even technically the United Kingdom is not a nation-state, although that is contested.
They key thing that binds them all is that a multitude of different cultures and ethnicities are practiced within the same territory and doesn't rely on a dominant identity (race, ethnic group, religion) for "nation-building".
Others in this site may be able to provide a better response than I.
No that was a great response, thank you. So basically they are different countries. Is the popular thought for them to rejoin? Sorry if I’m assuming you know. Honestly SEA is my weakest point for understanding cultural norms.
Yup they are seperate entities/states.
I would say it fits into the overal popular imagination of the "shared cultural realm" or nation I talked about but in terms of politically, as in a political union of some kind, I would say that it is not feasible or expected in the short and medium term.
The steps are being laid down though, through ASEAN and infrastructural initiatives. Economically, and culturally we are very much intertwined.
And Singapore and Malaysia are really new states, less than 75 years old, so things may change quickly.
Also, Brunei could be absorbed into Malaysia if the Sultan ever decides to in the future as that's also part of both countries' constitution.