Comments by "Yerris" (@yerri5567) on "Singapore is building a city in China | CNBC Reports" video.

@TeleeFONE The Singaporean natives are the Orang Laut not the Malays...
195
@TeleeFONE Ya'll? Im not Chinese. Also, if you wanna be anal on this, then I must also say "Chinese" and "Indians" arent a race. Theres many ethnic groups in China and India. Youre just gonna lump them all as one? Might as well say the Germans are the same as the French then. Nobody knows what the real indigenous composition is of Singapore. These were primitive people that didnt have any written records. The only info you have from them are from the Malay Annals and from Chinese records. And in these records they say that there were "Chinese" already there in the 1300s. But the Orang Laut seems to be of the highest composition of Singapore.
129
@TeleeFONE Fool. I said the Orang Laut were primitive and didnt have any written records. I didnt say anything about OTHER people recording their history. And these records start recording from the 16th century onwards. Even the Malay Annals start recording from the 17th century onwards. By then, mass migration has already occurred through trade etc. Any records of the natives there are just estimations. And to say that the "Malays" are native to Indonesia/Malay/Singapore is ridiculous as saying Asians are native to North America just because they have similar DNA. Just because historians are ignorant doesnt mean they are the same people. And you lost the moment you said Im Chinese. Absolutely wrong and baseless.
70
@TeleeFONE "lol you said history back then was by estimations, if it is by estimations and inaccurate, why you believe Orang Laut are native to Singapore but Malays aren't? Biased much? " First of all, I never said anything about "estimations". I said nobody knows what the real indigenous composition is of Singapore as mass migration has already occured during the time of recording (16th century), and its a tiny island, history talks about regions and kingdoms, not an island. And there is strong evidence that the Orang Laut are the indigenous people to both sides of the Malacca Strait along with nearby islands including Singapore. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orang_laut "If all histories aren't accurate and based on assumptions and estimations, means all the histories of the world is a lie? Lol you so stupid, historians wouldn't write histories based on assumptions and estimations, everything is backed by proofs" Dont put words in my mouth. Nobody said anything about "estimations". Historians also said the natives of America are "Indians", does that mean they are? Fool. Historians can be ignorant too. They may at that time believe to be true and write that down, but doesnt mean is it true. You are buying in to their ignorance.
36
@TeleeFONE Also, if youre going to point out that XYZ was "never part of China", might as well point out a piece of land in every other country that was "never" historically was part of that country as well. Do you criticise the India? Russia? US? Canada? Australia and the likes?
35
@TeleeFONE Contradictory? Estimations? Do you even understand what the term "native" means? I didnt say Malays never resided there. I said the word NATIVE. Only the Orang Laut are native to the Malacca strait region shown in the link I gave you. Since you claim that the Malays are also "native" to Singapore, provide credible historical evidence to your claim. Im honestly flabbergasted that you claim that there can be more than one ethnic group can be NATIVE to a tiny island... Mind you, historians tend to be ignorant on ethnic groups. I want something specific. Not something broad equivalent to "Indians (Tamils) are in Sri Lanka, therefore Kumaonis (a different type of Indian) or ALL Indians are also native to Sri Lanka.
31
@TeleeFONE "if you understand the meaning of indigenous, it does mean the first people of that place/island/land, which equates to Native." Thats right. And I want you to provide me evidence that the first people there arent the Orang Laut. There can only be ONE group of "first people". "nowhere in that link that it said Orang Laut are the only people native to Singapore, there are other articles that said Malays are native to Singapore and to this region as well. Even singapore government recognized the Malays as native people to Singapore, what more proofs you want 😁 but people like you will only say Orang Asli are the only native people to Singapore" 'The Orang Seletar are also considered as part of the Orang Laut, natives of the Straits of Johor' https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orang_Seletar Like I said, there can only be ONE group of natives to a certain place, especially a tiny island, and the Orang Laut are those natives. Some may classify them as "Malays". And use that "fact" and incite that the "Malays" in Malaysia to cause social disruption in Singapore (something like what youre doing) when n fact theyre not the same people. The Singaporean government also uses the term "Chinese" and "Indian", when theres so many different ethnic groups in China and India. If the "Malays" are native to Singapore, then the "Chinese" are native to Korea. My point is that the Orang Laut specifically are native to Singapore, not any other ethnic group that are "Malay". So when you say that "Malays" as a whole group is native to Singapore. Its wrong. Otherwise India can claim that "Indians" are native to Sri Lanka, or that China can claim that "Chinese" are native to Korea, or that the Thais are native to China. "right now the I'm talking about Chinese colonialism, so why would Russia, India be brought into the picture, that is another subject. And my point is that once conquered, the conquered land becomes theirs. And everyone just has to accept it. This is universal, not something specific to one country.
29
@TeleeFONE Just because an authority says it is, doesnt mean it is. The world was said to be flat before. And that was the "truth" to them. Is it the truth? And what if Singaporeans are ignorant and lump Orang Lauts as "Malays"? Have you ever thought about that? "Who made the rules only 1 ethnic group can be native to an island, you?" So if 1 ethnic group came to an island, then another ethnic group came at a later time. Assume they coexisted. 10000 years later, who are the natives? The first ethnic group that arrived? Or both?
26
@davidhynes Youre unable to comprehend how cities are built in China. Youre used to your slow-build-upon already established cities. Whereas in China, they build new cities from scratch with the correct infrastructure. This process takes 15-20 years from start to finish. Western media comes in during the 5-10 year period when its still incomplete and saying theyre "ghost cities". Its not even complete yet! Those so-called "ghost cities" reported years ago are mostly filled already!
20
@TeleeFONE "China can't claim Taiwan as 1 of its territory coz Taiwan belong to Indigenous Austronesians of Taiwan, it is not a Chinese country" Once conquered, the land is theirs. Regardless of country. The fact that Taiwan is controlled by the Republic of CHINA and is flying a Chinese flag, clearly means they are part of China. "If you study history you would know that during the 1500s-1800s, the Han Chinese killed the Austronesians of Taiwan before they occupy Taiwan, because of this Taiwan is made up 95% Han Chinese now, Austronesians population in Taiwan now is only 3%" Taiwans indigenous population was tiny to begin with. Their number is low because of mass migration, not because the Chinese killed them all. Thats a lie. If you believe that is true then source your claim.
9
@TeleeFONE You seem to have trouble reading English. When did I even remotely suggest I want anyone to "go back" anywhere? Way to assume someones nationality as well. Im not Singaporean as well. Another baseless comment with no evidence. All these claims you made are all opinions. You still havent answered my question: "So if 1 ethnic group came to an island, then another ethnic group came at a later time. Assume they coexisted. 10000 years later, who are the natives? The first ethnic group that arrived? Or both?"
9
@nasrulsennin6515 "what an ignorant comment. Orang laut is Malay. Malays have a lot of ethnic groups just like the chinese. Chinese singaporean are always in denial of the land and region that they are living in based on history" Saying Orang Laut is Malay is equivalent of saying that the Koreans are Chinese.
6
@TeleeFONE Or maybe the authorities of Singapore dont care about the natives and lump the Orang Laut as "Malays"? And you still havent answered my question: "So if 1 ethnic group came to an island, then another ethnic group came at a later time. Assume they coexisted. 10000 years later, who are the natives? The first ethnic group that arrived? Or both?"
5
@nasrulsennin6515 "Orang laut speak loncong language. Its one of several language of malayan people which is the malay people" Lol Irish people also speak English, are they English? Thai people speak a language that came from China, are Chinese people Thai? The fact it, Orang Laut were "malayised". They were serving Malay kings and assimilated with their people. How about YOU do your research properly. Whos ignorant now? So what did you confirm again?
3
@nasrulsennin6515 Oh so you dont like my Irish/English analogy. Okay thats fine. I'll give you another example that suits your narrative. The Chinese and the Koreans. When migrating the Koreans migrated through China, and there are currently ethnic Koreans in China. Is it fair to say that Koreans are Chinese? In the same way Orang Laut are Malays? Its as you say, China has many ethnic groups, including Koreans. So at the end of the day, since you say the natives of Singapore are Malay, are the natives of Korea Chinese then?
3
@treepeenbawlz1934 If Orang Laut are Malays, then Koreans are Chinese.
3
@TeleeFONE "look around you, all those things around you are created/invented by white people, I am using white people products not chinese products hahahahahaha 😂😂😂" Guess you dont use toilet paper to wipe your @ss then 😂😂😂 Thats a Chinese product/invention.
2
@Emsyaz If you read my other comments you would see that I said if Orang laut are Malays, then Koreans are Chinese.
2
@Emsyaz "Chinese and Korean people are very different in terms of culture and language...Koreans and Chinese cant understand each other. Culture wise is very different too." Wrong. The traditional Korean and Japanese culture we see today stems from ancient China. Both Japan and Korea used to use Chinese characters until recently in a historical context. They could communicate using Chinese writing no problem in the past. As for language, every region of China has their own set of languages. The Korean peninsula and Japan is no exception. Orang Laut have been "malayised" due to the Malays influence. They initially worked FOR the Malays. They spoke a different language. But due to colonisation, they eventually malayised. "In fact, Orang Laut are ethnically Malays who are sea nomads" Like I said, if you consider Orang Lauts ethnic Malays, the Koreans and Japanese are ethnic Chinese. Theyre a completely different ethnic group that just happens to be of the same skin colour. "The languages of Orang Laut and Malay are mutually intelligible" No theyre not. Some words may be, but the language as a whole is not mutually intelligible. Also, mutually intelligible doesnt mean anything. I could mean total assimilation or colonisation of a group that diverged into a dialect so its a tiny bit different. Just like modern day Singaporeans, are they related to Americans now for speaking the same language? Their language is mutually intelligible.
2
@Emsyaz "We are not talking about ancient time. We are talking about post ancient time" Did my message fly though your head? I provide BOTH ancient time and modern time to prove my point. Language can change due to being colonised. Which is exactly what happened to the Orang Lauts. Theyre were "malayised". They completely assimilated to the dominant regional power. If language is used to "define" what people are, then are modern day Singaporean and Canadians, Australian, American, and English the same? "Chinese and Korean/Jap are very different in terms of language and culture in post ancient time and the Korean/Japanese never regard themselves as Chinese" As for culture, on a worldly context, Korean/Jap culture are very similar. One would be blind to not notice the difference between Korean/Jap/Chinese is no where near the difference between Middle Eastern, African, Western, and South Asian cultures. Culture between Korea/Japan/China is extremely similar. "On the other hand, Orang Lauts do consider themselves part of a large Malay ethnic group and the Malays regard the Orang Lauts as part of them" Orang Lauts in the past never consider themselves Malay. They WORKED for their Malay overlords. The mindset may have changed due to assimilation over the centuries. Just like China. Its as diverse as Europe as a whole. Theres as many ethnicities in China as is there in Europe. But they all consider themselves "Chinese" even though every region of China is of different ethnicities. DNA tests have proven so. What does that tell you? Just because you "THINK" or "CONSIDER" you are something, doesnt mean you are. "Most important of all, both the Malays and Orang Laut share common linguistic, ancestry, culture and genetic similarities" Same can be said between between Korea/Japan/China, except linguistics which I have explained what assimilation can do. "Thus, the Malays are indeed native to modern day Singapore, Malaysia and Indonesia" Based on your argument, those native to Korea and Japan migrated from China, thus they are indeed Chinese.
2
@gamerguy6098 k
1
@tianm1m160 I agree with everything you say. But just because authorities says this particular race is part of this particular race, it doesnt mean its true. And just because people (of the untrained eye) cant tell them apart, doesnt mean theyre the same. If one is not exposed to East Asians, one wont be able to tell the East Asians apart, same goes for Europe and Africa. Nevertheless, saying that the Orang Laut are Malays is equivalent of saying the Koreans are Chinese. This guy is saying that the natives of Singapore are the Malays and he as a Malay feels offended because the Chinese colonised "THEIR" land. When its a completely different group of people. Thats like saying the Chinese or Koreans should feel offended that the Russians are at their borders now and that theyve colonised their people...
1