I don’t want to repeat the points that I have clearly said.

The only thing I have not elaborated is with respect to why I consider those “aunties and uncles and grandparents” not “parents”.

Aunties and uncles who are single has no responsibility over a tiny human being. Parents do. They may dote on and care about their nephews and nieces but ultimately, the responsibility and the right of bringing these little tykes up belongs to their parents. Hence, their parents are the ones who has the final say what information the little ones can consume, not their doting single uncles or aunties.

As for grandparents. Well, they have had their chances. They were parents once and have brought up their little ones to adulthood and now have to leave them to their own devices. Again, the key point is they are responsible over no one.

Now you see the pattern? If you are responsible over a minor, then you have every right to ask for tools to control information access to the said minor. If you aren’t, then you don’t.

One day when my children grows up to be adult, I would have completed my job as a parent. Whether they becomes useful adults or a liability to society will be the result of the collecting efforts of my wife and I. And then we will be responsible over no one. My children will then have the right to demand tools to help them bring up THEIR children. Not us.

This is why I insist that the debate is not one of liberal versus conservative but liberal versus parents.

The other point I want to clarify is with respect to double standard. Of course there will be double standard. You will be out of your mind if you think we should treat minors the same way we treat adults.

Of course, personally, I will even treat minors of different age group different. Older children can be counseled and explained to while very young children simply do not have the reasoning skill to differentiate what is right and what is wrong. (Heaven knows how many time I tell my children not to touch an electrical outlet and how many times they think it was a game when daddy make the disapproving face and low threatening tone)

But if the same children grows up to be an adult, as defined by society (for me 18 is sufficient but 21 is really when I will “wash hand” off my children), then that’s it. I will feel I can teach them no more with respect to what is right or what is wrong and they have to come to that conclusion based on all the teachings I have given to them for their entire life.

The problem, I think, of conservative is they think some adult are still children and thus treats them as such. And the problem of some liberals is to treat some children as adults.

Both kinds of thinking to me, are wrong.

Hmm…

1) Well, if you put it that way … yes. But even so, putting it as “adult” only delays the influence somewhat, don’t you think? And Teen Magazines like Glamour and Lime are not much better either … really.

2) I personally prefer an informative advisory system to a censorship culture. We have started at censorship, and we need to move on.

I don’t agree with 13 year-old being considered an adult either. But well, age limits are something that are different in each culture. In Singapore, you need to be above 18 to be able to drive; in UK and USA you only need to be 16.

3) I am a social conservative more-or-less, and I don’t think “David” is porn. (Neither do I think that “David” represents Michelangelo’s repressed homosexuality.) It is difficult to determine who is right and who is wrong, but skirting the issue with the typical relativist declaration is just … irresponsible.

4) And my response to you is you don’t want them to be “corrupted”, but as a liberal you want to allow yourself to be “corrupted” by these same things. Double standards much?

5) Well, my point was not on that. My point was on the fact that aunts and uncles and other relations also care about their kin, so why should only parents be allowed to act on their care and concern, and not other kin? The quantitative experience is different – as you have rightly pointed out – but the qualitative experience is not that different, is it? Unless you are going to claim that aunts and uncles and grandparents do not care for nephews and nieces and grandchildren at all, which I think is a rather bold claim to make without any substantiation.

1.) Yes, being beautiful, as defined by slimming centres, cosmetic companies, fashion magazine is an adult thing. Children, especially girls, exposed to these messages constantly will not form a good opinion of their bodies. Why do you think there are cases of bulimic teenage girls?

2.) Yes, there are elements of arbitrary when defining the age of minors. But we have to start somewhere right? In ancient times, you are an adult if you kill your first deer, or if you got your first period, or if you got married and a host of random events that the community at large decided you are an adult. In modern society, being adult is also randomly defined. If you intend to visit a zoo, you are an “adult” if you are over 13 years old.

As such, we have to agree to yet another random age what constitute adult or minor and that age is usually 18 or 21.

The real answer, in my opinion, is it depends on the individual. Some are wise beyond their years, some who are chronologically adults displayed mentalities that are juvenile.

Ultimately, I feel it is the parents who have the responsibilities to decide if their child is mature enough to be an adult or if the child has reached universal suffrage age, whichever is earlier.

3.) At the end of the day, again it is a subjective matters. Some say David (of Michelangelo fame : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_(Michelangelo)) is work of art. The conservative will say it is porn. Who is right and who is wrong? Again, all adults should have the choice of whether to view it or not while parents have to decide if it is suitable for their children or not.

4.) Well I’m a parent so I can only answer for myself. My concern is I do not want my children to be “corrupted” by things I do not want them to see. You can say I am performing censorship on my children but it will be myself and my wife who will suffer should my children fall into the myriad of traps of human life (being bulimic, or teenage pregnancy, or being anti-social, or alcoholic, or a smoker, or a delinquent etc…etc…) I believe that is what all parents want. To have their children to grow up to be upright citizens and not problem citizens.

Lastly, to answer your question about singles with nephew or niece. Sorry, being a single with nephew or niece cannot be compared to being a parent. A lot of singles like to justify that they too experienced “parenthood” by having nephews/nieces. Any parents will laugh at such comparison. You have to personally be a parent to really understand what it is like to be responsible for a complete human being. Being an aunt/uncle will never have that experience.

By parents, I also include those who are legal guardian of a minor. So if you are single but you are the legal guardian of your nephew or niece because their parents have passed away, then yes, you are in fact, a parent. It also included single (i.e. unmarried) parents as well.

So in that effect, my stand remains conservatives who have no minor under their care have no right to demand control of information on other adults. While parents have the right to ask for tools to help them bring up the children they way they see fit.

hmmm…i note the political editor’s presence with much skepticism..

“Clearly ‘Her we go again’ doesn’t understand the intent of the author or his leanings.
RW, that is why a ban becomes ’symbolic’, it doesn’t serve any useful purpose except to point out the so-called prevailing moral values of the society.”

i agree that it serves no useful purpose.
but my point will be that since the ban is symbolic, (which we both agree), why should we spend energy fighting it?

1) It is the easy way out to blame parents. Blaming parents is valid in an agrarian, patriarchal society where the parents more or less have the autonomy to do what they like with their children, grandchildren and so on. But in our highly impersonalized, industrial society, parents themselves face pressure from external institutions that cut them off from access to their children: corporations, schools, NS etc. Because of the massive size of these institutions – they are sometimes called total institutions – parents do not have direct control on the policies of these institutions towards children. So those people running these institutions also have a responsibility for what they broadcast towards the children.

2) I agree with your point on the media. Being a radical (in this sense), I would propose dismantling the for-profit economic system part-by-part, and creating a new economy that has more than just the monetary bottomline. But that requires political willpower to achieve, and collective political willpower.

I would argue – as a Roman Catholic and a Human Rights advocate – that we need a paradigm shift on pornography; pornography should be regarded on the same level as sweatshops. Risque material can be eliminated if we have the political will to “handle” the escorts and the Condom Companies (e.g. Durex). Unsurprisingly, Condom Companies are sponsors of the sources of risque material; “safe sex” is merely a red herring. Unless … you can tell me what apple and banana-flavouring for condoms has to do with preventing pregnancy. It would be probably be true that if the Condom Companies were shut down, the risque magazines and materials would lose their sponsorship, and be forced to close as well. (Ever wondered what is the rationale of the Durex Sex Survey?)

How is this related to human rights? Because risque materials and activities reduce the human dignity of the people involved in them. Not to mention the numerous other illegal activities prostitution houses and escort agencies are involved in.

What we need to do is to shift the animal-rights mindset into the sex industry. After all, shouldn’t human bodies be worth as much as animal bodies, if not more?

1) “being beautiful” is considered “adult” to you?

Anyway, the liberals’ position is that there should be no censorship whatsoever. However, dogmatic insistence on that goal blocks out the liberals’ understanding of why censorship is suggested for certain materials. Admittedly, censorship is a knee-jerk reaction, but it is a still a reaction to something. It may be the wrong approach, but that does not mean that it is aiming at the wrong target.

2) That is the answer I dislike the most. It begs the question of why the Law defines minors that way. Yes, there is a reason for all of those, but it needs to be spelled out. For instance, minors are prohibited from drinking alcohol because their livers are not fully developed to remove the toxins in the alcohol from their bodies. Or – to take a harder concept – voting is not allowed for minors because minors are judged not to have adequate exposure to society at large.

And incidentally, minors can serve NS; although few people do, our law permits males 16 1/2 years to sign on for NS.

“Leading by example” does not simply mean “monkey see, monkey do”. It means explaining the differences where there must be differences and adhering to the proper procedures for each … procedure. Explanations themselves must be done in an “opportunities” manner that emphasizes criteria to meet in order to be able to perform that procedure in the proper manner.

That is why I see age-restrictions as an essentially discriminatory tool, or rather a shortcut out of a complex problem. People after all are different from each other (omitting the special case of sexuality) and develop at different rates. So assessing one’s maturity or suitability for a particular activity based on age is somewhat flawed and simplistic.

3) I don’t really think that viewing of naked bodies is of itself more harmful than alcohol and smoking. The problem is the setting in which the naked bodies are placed in,, and the fact that most of your “naked bodies” anyway are more rather partially-clothed bodies than purely buff bodies. It is the sexualization of the naked bodies which actually riles Conservatives and is of concern to parents.

4) Incidentally, haven’t you wondered why parents are concerned about it in the first place?

As for your comment on Conservatives with no children, can’t they be concerned for their nieces or nephews or younger siblings/cousins and so on?

RW, that is why a ban becomes ‘symbolic’, it doesn’t serve any useful purpose except to point out the so-called prevailing moral values of the society.

I do agree with your view – thats why i say the best solution would be a mix of parent supervision and tools recommended or devised by the authorities and placed in the hands of parents. To let the State nanny us in the name of preserving the good moral standards of society is a futile cause in the long run. As you correctly observed, we are constantly bombarded by the mass media every second of the day. Censorship works only to a very minimum extent in this day and age of the internet. What society needs to do is to educate parents to educate their young every step of the way. And i dun think it is a difficult task for parents if the child is their priority. If work, money, pleasure or any other issue is the parents’ priority then imagine what values the child will grow up with.

*Here we go again

As for the tyranny of the majority, there is also the tyranny of minority – in this case, the elite conservative voices. If u have been following the ST interviews and profiles on civil leaders and big time entrepreneurs etc you will have noticed that inevitably most of them would bring up religion in their interviews – how they are blessed with their careers and good fortune etc etc etc. The fact remains that the elite in Singapore are mainly conservative and christian and they dictate to a large extent many policies that determine the nature of our moral society. Singapore is not a case of the tyranny of the silent majority – rather it is the TYRANNY OF THE ELITE minority -the ones with wealth, resources and power behind them. And they will always think they are in the right and they behave the proof for this – successful powerful and very very moralistic.

Can’t you read someone’s argument without being judgemental?

And furthermore, the author is agreeing we shld have less censorship (i.e. opening up more space and freedom), so ‘fundie’ of not, i think both of you are on the same side.

~

My question to the author is this- given that we have so much alternative media on the internet, censorship of the mainstream media becomes merely ‘symbolic’, then why should any of us be concern abt a “symbolic censorship”?

In real terms, when ST omits smth, we will always find out through some other means. Mediacorp censors awards speeches, we can find it on youtube. So in practical sense, does the ‘symbolic censorship’ really change anything?

If not, why should we bother (and the author writing this article)?

Perhaps Terence should provide the answer, which he conveniently skipped, to the question he asked himself:

“What rights do conservative groups have to impose their values on those who clearly do not agree with them?”

Whether there is a majority against homosexuality in principle or homo porn in particular, should not be the issue – there is such a thing as TYRANNY/OPPRESSION of the majority. what is important is WHY the majority is against homosexuality is all its aspects and how does homosexuality affect them?

It is more hypocrisy and double standards when conservatives talk about MORALS/MORALITY.

Hi Oxford Dude-Good to hear from you. The Opposition in Singapore first needs someone to lead them and when we have this Chap-a mixture of Modern Lee Kuan Yew and Anwar Ibrahim, he needs to pick a strong, credible and constructive people and present them to the Ordinary Singaporeans like us plus their Manifestoes and convince us that they deserve our votes (not many will give them their votes at least 30% will continue to vote the PAP hence this round of General Election is not so easy to replace the PAP as the government of the day and we have seen similar trends ie Taiwan, Japan, Malaysia, Australia with excepton of Thailand with the help of the Army, the Democrats is now the government of the day. Inshort, this chap and his team, must be very good and outstand and earn all our votes come next round of General Election. I hope I have convinced you. An Alternative Government needs time to nurture and this is a very real world.

Regards
Andrew Chuah

You can tell your children until the cows come home that inner beauty is still the best but when they see all these messages from various sources, it will be hard for them to listen to you.

So while the parents has responsibilities to teach their kids, and they very well should, they also need help in the form of tools and information to help either to combat against the negative influence, which children have very little defenses against. At the same time, it should not restrict the freedom of liberal adults.

One good example is the American R-rated movie system. In the US, R-rate movie does not mean children cannot watch. Children can watch as long as accompanied by the parent. This simple tool placed the control of access on the hands of the parent and each parent can decide if they want to let their children watch such a movie or not.

Another example is the computer game rating systems. While we have rating system, this is not enforced. As such, minors can have access to ultra violent games which may be detrimental to their mental well being. If the law can enforce the rating system, such that only adults can buy all rating but minor can only buy those ratings meant for them, then it will be a help. Parents who are OK with their children playing ultra violent games can then buy for their kids if they choose to do so.

I feel this is a win-win situation for both liberals and parents.

Therein lies the problem of who to blame. You can have children exposed to similar external ‘harmful’ influences and yet one child can grow to develop an entirely differently set of moral principles as the other. How does this come about? External influences happen all the time but it is the parent’s duty to communicate with the child on how these influences affect his moral growth. It is the parents that will have to put in that extra effort to ensure that their child end up beig the kind of moral person thay expect.

The reality now is a media that creates content for the most profit; if there is a demand for rique materials, they will create it within the acceptable boundries of the law. And if not within the law, the internet has provided a ready platform for ‘obscene’ materials eg. child pornography for paedophiles. How does one propose to prevent a child from experiencing this ‘reality’ that is changing everyday? Does one shield him/her from it or does one impose more and more restrictions and censorship on the countless media platforms that are forever changing? A good solution is to have a mix of measures but the truth is that the authorities themselves are barely grappling and keeping up with ‘reality’ as it evolves as a break neck speed

It all boils down to parental guidiance and supervision. Depend not on the authroties to do the work that essentially is the parent’s firsty duty – to rear a child.

There are two questions I will address to you.

Firstly, “why do we need all these “adult” stuff in the first place”.

Liberals do not see it as “needing” the adult stuff. Liberals see it as there should be no censorship in the first place when it comes down to adult stuff. By adult stuff, I do not only talk about porn. But other adult issues like gay rights, relationship, looking beautiful, relationships etc…

Secondly, “Why should you treat yourself – and your older children – any different from your young children”.

We treat minor (as defined by the law) different from adult precisely because the law treats them differently. There is a reason minor cannot sign a contract, get married, drink alcohol, smoke or do a myriad of things that adult can do. To say we have to “lead by example” is really being unrealistic. Do we lead by example by not getting married? Not sign contracts? Not voting? Not serving NS? After all, minor cannot do all these right?

As for minor access to adult magazines and books, like you said, all these are easily accessible in the net now. Books and magazines are not going to impact that much. I would treat these items similar to tobacco and alcohol products. You can’t sell to minor but a minor can get a friend to buy for them. But the law also says anyone who do so will be subjected to the punishment of the law. So the same thing should apply to adult materials. If it works with alcohol and tobacco, why not adult materials? And in my view, smoking and drinking is far more harmful than viewing at naked bodies.

As mentioned before, I do not see it as liberal versus conservative. The article quoted the concern of a parent. So it is more of liberal versus parents. And as both, I can safely say that as long as tools are given to parents without limiting the rights of liberals, that is fine. Conservatives who are adults and no kids really have no right to limit the freedom of others, since they have the freedom to avoid all the liberal materials.

Not all censorship is political censorship!!

You make excellent sense … in theory. What makes this issue such a problem is that the liberals do have a point about the inability to successfully censor. Even the non-electronic media blocks can be subverted if you know the correct person. A minor cannot buy “adult” material, but a minor can get a friendly adult to purchase that material for him or her.

The “special time” requirement for risque shows is useless when it comes to sleepovers. Even for non-risque shows, people are willing to stay up late. Don’t we know many students who will stay up to 2 o’clock in the morning to watch Man-U versus Arsenal?

In the end, the conservatives – and yes, the real conservatives – still have one question the liberals need to answer: why do we need all these “adult” stuff in the first place? Why should you treat yourself – and your older children – any different from your young children; aren’t the elder people supposed to set an example for the younger ones?

Sloo (#4),

A child’s main mode of learning is emulation, and not all emulation is conscious. Yes, at birth – or rather, at conception – the child is innocent, but that innocence begins to be lost the moment the child makes its first formal interaction with its parents (The initial spanking and crying does not count.)

And because children are subject to several influences, each of these influences have their own responsibilities to the child’s development, so yes they can be blamed, even if we are blaming the parents for their neglect of the child’s development.

Why do we need a credible and constructive Parliament and not a new Government?

Such framing of words always put Opposition political parties in the shadow of PAP.