[pear01]

Sen. Tom Cotton (R-AR):

So you said today, as you often say that you live in Singapore. Of what nation are you a citizen?

Shou Chew:

Singapore.

Cotton:

Are you a citizen of any other nation?

Chew:

No, Senator.

Cotton:

Have you ever applied for Chinese citizenship?

Chew:

Senator? I served my nation in Singapore. No, I did not.

Cotton:

Do you have a Singaporean passport?

Chew:

Yes, and I served my military for two and a half years in Singapore.

Cotton:

Do you have any other passports from any other nations?

Chew:

No, Senator.

Cotton:

Your wife is an American citizen. Your children are American citizens?

Chew:

That's correct.

Cotton:

Have you ever applied for American citizenship?

Chew:

No, not yet.

Cotton:

Okay. Have you ever been a member of the Chinese Communist Party?

Chew:

Senator? I'm Singaporean, no.

Cotton:

Have you ever been associated or affiliated with the Chinese Communist Party?

Chew:

No. Senator, again, I'm Singaporean.

[HSO]

what part of they are chinese citizens was hard for you to understand?

[pear01]

i understand that perfectly, which is why i responded sarcastically to a point trying to connect this to TikTok's "argument" re their Singaporean CEO by pasting an infamous digression on that very topic.

seems to have gone over your head... i edited out the crack about your iq, which was done only because you chose to engage that way to begin with. i would respect an apology for misreading me more than trying to sanitize your earlier arrogance, but c'est la vie.

[IncreasePosts]

Some people are ethnonationalists, and the CEO of Tiktok, while he is Singaporean, is also ethnically Chinese. It seems pretty clear that is what the line of questioning was about, and just saying you are Singaporean and not Chinese does not answer the unstated question. Like his politics or not, it is obvious that Tom Cotton is not an idiot who does not understand that Singapore is not in China (like conversation was interpreted on the Internet when it happened)

[pear01]

What is the American ethnicity? Should all other ethnicities be subjected to the same round of questioning before the United States Congress?

I'm not sure why you are defending Tom Cotton's intelligence. Rule #1 of asking questions in a courtroom or a congressional setting is to anticipate the answers. Put more strongly, it is often said you should not ask a question you don't already know the answer to. If he thought he was going to elicit some Chinese "ethnonationalist" response, then he failed, and as such, was idiotic in pursuing this line of questioning. I agree with you he knows Singapore is not in China. That's not what makes his line of questioning stupid. It is that he essentially asks the same question multiple times and gets the same answer. The reason he looks dumb is because his line of questioning is dumb.

If he had some evidence the CEO was an "ethnonationalist" he could have confronted him with that. He doesn't and he didn't, so instead he committed himself to a bs line of questioning that ended up embarrassing him. If there is an unstated question as you claim, he could have asked it directly. He didn't. Why is that?

What did he achieve by this line of questioning, besides making himself look like a fool? This is his one job, he's one of only 100 people (really less) who gets these opportunities and this is the best he can do? Why are you making excuses for him? Demand better from your representatives.

I should note I am really straining to be charitable to your view. I think the real unstated, obvious subtext here is a white guy from Arkansas with the last name "Cotton" is openly trading in the same type of racist dog whistling his ancestors more than likely engaged in. I mean if we are just going to randomly accuse people of being ethnonationalists why not start with the Senator? Since you see no problem with crafting lines of inquiry based on your rather broad statement that "some people are ethnonationalists" (ok... and?) then maybe we should start with the Senator himself. I mean, why not? What makes the Tiktok CEO a more compelling suspect? I think it's obvious why the clip resonated beyond the feeble questioning - it's because many Americans can empathize with the CEO in this case. If the Senator had done his basic homework he would know Singapore doesn't allow dual citizens, so he already had his answer at the first question, which he would have already known if he had done any basic research. They are supposed to prepare for these things you know.

I mean I really am just disappointed in you, as an American citizen. The idea you need to have your representatives ask these kinds of questions in the United States on the off chance someone is an ethnonationalist... it just feels ironic. You should probably read up on your history most people who ask these types of questions from the seats of power in the United States Senate have historically been the ethnonationalists. As I stated if Cotton had evidence of his views, he could have raised them. Or asked about them directly. Instead he essentially asked the same question about his citizenship numerous times. Why?

I appreciate you replying in what I take to be good faith though. I don't mean to turn it into a question of race/ethnicity alone, which I gather will only alienate you. Then again, you are the one who brought up "ethnonationalism". I'm not even sure I know what exactly you mean by that term, but I find your invocation of it here to be suspect. But I am trying to be charitable to your position. The point remains his line of questioning did not clear up any "ethnonationalist" notions, but honestly I felt I had to edit this and be more straightforward with my criticism of your rejoinder. I just think you might want to consider why this clip resonated, instead of the straw man you seemed to posit (internet thinks Cotton thinks Singapore is in China).

[627467]

Maybe it is about idealistic concepts like "ethnonationalism", but a pragmatic perspective is just that: someone with critical ties/stakes with PRC makes them vulnerable to PRC pressure (just look up PRC overseas police services, or the expanding reach of its National Security Law).

Tbh, its either naive or outright propagandistic to be surprised that powers with stakes on an issue won't pressure to have outcomes lean in their interests. There are centuries of examples of this.

[pear01]

And? What strawman are you attacking? No one disputed that pragmatic concern. How did Cotton's viral line of questioning help clarify if or how the CEO was "vulnerable to PRC pressure"?

Should American CEOs who do business in China be subjected to the same lines of questioning re their citizenship? You think Americans who do business in China aren't influenced or "vulnerable to PRC pressure"? China is a huge market, one of (if not perhaps the most) desirable in the whole world. You think American companies don't behave to please the PRC when operating in China?

Tbh it is either naive or outright propagandistic to be surprised at the idea that American citizens running international businesses are somehow immune to "PRC pressure" given the PRC is the government of one of the largest and most desirable markets in the entire world.

Tom Cotton's line of inquiry is embarrassing on all grounds. The fact you have to draw up a strawman to defend it says a lot. As with the claim of "ethnonationalism", if he had even a shred of concrete evidence re PRC pressure he could have brought it to bear and dispensed with the repetitive citizenship questionnaire.

[mothballed]

The fact you shouldn't ask questions you don't know the answer to is one of the indicators that the judicial and legislative systems is broken. That's a principle that is hostile to inquisitive and curious reasoning.

[pear01]

a cross examination or a congressional hearing is not a university lecture.

would you like your liberty to be at risk just so a judge or a senator can satisfy their curiosity at your expense? do you have any idea what the penalties can be for failing to comply with a judicial or congressional subpoena? is the penalty of perjury consistent with "inquisitive and curious reasoning"? or is that an instrument of "hostility"?

it would not be a free country if the judicial and legislative systems were equated with "inquisitive and curious reasoning". if they want to serve that function they can give up their power to deprive people of their liberty.