by Howard Lee/
The saga of the recent spate of three incidents of perceived racism online, of which two were made into police reports, seems to have drawn to a close.
As reported in Today, the Sunday Times and Yahoo! News, Minister for Information, Communication and the Arts Yaccob Ibrahim praised the Malay-Muslim community for “level-headed response” to the posting, but decided that Singapore would be better of with an online code of conduct to “moderate online opinions ad discussions in a ‘rational and sensible manner that will not offend other groups, other communities.’”
Following Yaccob’s speech at the opening of Parliament, some would view this position as a confirmation that the People’s Action Party-led government intends to increase regulation on Singapore’s cyberspace. But should it, and could it?
The alleged online racist remarks were posted on the personal Facebook pages of three individuals. These were followed by responses by their friends, followers and anyone who happened to pop by, either chastising them for their posts or supporting their right to make the remarks. The final result was two offended members of our Malay-Muslim community making police reports on two of the cases.
Given that the representative Islamic Religious Council of Singapore, MUIS, did not utter a word about the postings, is that the level-headed response Yaacob described?
For a start, it would be erroneous for Yaacob to generalise on the response of the Malay-Muslim community. What he meant to say was that the community did not take the response to heart and start a riot.
Would they do so over a few Facebook postings? Have we underestimated our countrymen’s ability to reason?
A moderate response basically means that what goes on online stays online, and not spill into the streets. Those offended would have engaged their offenders, and sought to change their views. Failing that, they would have made clear that such remarks are not well-received by Singaporeans, their own social circles or at least themselves. If the offender should delete their posts, they could have gone to other channels to make their voices heard.
For the recent spate, that happened mostly so. But a few took the ultimate recourse, according to the limits of our law, because making a police report means public resources have to be invoked and dedicated to investigate the cases, and the outcome could mean a ruling of sedition. Such actions should not have been taken lightly.
Least you think I am chastising the two individuals for making the police reports, I am not. On the contrary, I totally understand why they responded that way. The editorial by TOC about the state of open dialogue in our country (or more accurately, the lack of it) basically sums up my sentiments, and I need not elaborate further. As such, I empathise with them, although I would not have agreed with their actions in getting the police involved.
Even so, the online response was by and large moderate, albeit passionate. For all three cases, people were willing to voice their sentiments, have an open debate and vouch for their own religious or non-religious standpoints. Nothing wrong with that, though some eventually spilled out of a mostly civil cyberspace and into the nasty realm of the police station.
Even Yaacob himself said that “there were calls by Malay-Muslims to try and engage (the alleged offenders) so they have a better understanding of our religion and culture”. So what necessitates the drafting of a code of conduct is anybody’s guess.
Indeed, such a regulatory framework – a code of conduct by any other name – might risk limiting the honest and open discussion of perceived bigotry. If anything, such a framework will only serve to provide a clearer yardstick for even more police action.
If anything, our communication policies are guided by an unproven fear that online sentiment, expressed freely, would lead to social unrest. What we fail to realise is that discrimination, kept in check and bottled, in reality makes us more tolerant, but less accepting.
It is the festering resentment which we cannot see that pose the greatest danger. Jemaah Islamiah did not have a Facebook page.
My view is that we have passed that critical point where we hide behind policies, rules, laws and yes, even codes of conduct to express our differences. Talking about more regulation will bring us no nearer to the information society that MICA aims to advance. We will only grow narrower as a society.
HELP keep the voice of TOC alive!
If you like this article, please consider a small donation to help theonlinecitizen.com stay alive. Please note that we can only accept donations from Singaporeans. Thank you for your assistance.Do you have a flair for writing? Volunteer with us. Email us your full name and contact details to theonlinecitizen@gmail.com
@HL,
Rightfully, your article should be addressed to all these online people. You should tell them in their face.
Tell them to stop being a prissy prick who jump at the first sight of these un-newsworthy nonsense.
Hayat Shah 30 November 2011
wrote::
What in the world do you mean by “are you being deceitful or trying to be clever by half”? Perhaps you could look at improving your command of the language in your free time? Would greatly help us communicate better. Thanks.
With regards to apostasy (I’m assuming that’s what you’re trying to highlight), I believe the execution penalty only applies to Muslim states where the Sharia is practiced (such as Saudi Arabia and Iran). It’s not an absolute that being Muslim means one agrees with it given that even the scholars are in disagreement with regards to it. In any case, I don’t see you in protest against Singapore’s treason laws.
@Titiana Ann Xavier
Everyone knows except probably the Singaporean netizens those THREE CASES ARE FIXED MATCHES PLAYED BY YOUR REGIME!!
There is no reason to react on those twisted efforts on one hand to project the liberal image that these sort of sensitive topics are being dealt by Singaporeans (at the expense of poor muslims) in a matured manner which actually justifies Singapore is DEMOCRACY(which in reality is not!!) on the other hand the same thing could be used by the regime to regulate the cyberspace in the name of code of conduct. So what they call a WIN-WIN situation.
So the most rational approach to such distasteful efforts are to maintain the present status quo which is nothing but what exactly people would have done 20 years ago in Singapore if someone would have posted such hate speeches in your letter box instead of posting it to cyberspace. Basically, what we mean is nothing has changed and don’t let the regime make people feel that something has changed.
Instead ask for the basic rights what a citizen should have:
Ask for can we have a peaceful protest or demonstration without intimidation if someone actually breached the space like something to do with race or religion?
If the answer to above question is NO from the government then I’m afraid nothing has changed and no one should be involved in such debate and let the law takes it’s course and things like this are better to go unnoticed.
Freedom The Singapore Way,
Maybe a peaceful protest at Speakers Corner in Hong Lim Park would be acceptable to the regime.
PS: I assume you are not a Singaporean.
@Titiana Ann Xavier
Well, if I’m not not wrong to even protest peacefully in Speakers corner comes with lots of baggage like permits and then followed by defamation and/or even jail terms. So not exactly that free isn’t it?
The point is we can’t get an admission into university without going to high school.
Singaporean or not isn’t relevant when we talk about certain universal things like sensitivity towards a global religion which goes way beyond any country’s political boundary.
Well, such practices are perfectly understandable where there is level playing ground otherwise sorry it’s not advisable to engage or encourage such discussions. That was my point.
Freedom the Singapore way, 30 November 2011
lots of times asking either gets you nowhere, gets you on a wild goose chase or a robust dressing down in the most condescending tone.
the answer to more avenues to speak one’s voice has largely been a big “NO”. & i’m afraid that your fear that nothing much has change is the reality.
going to high school is the pre-requisite to admission to University but in S’pore there is a through-train program for the acadamically gifted.
being S’porean may not matter, but when you speak like you know the situation when you dun, you make yourself appear either ignorant or self-righteous. context, in regards to reality in S’pore (hence Titiana asks if you are a S’porean) matters. one cannot present a point based purely on textbook examples. if not, you’re missing the point.
Mice Is Nice,
I like your comment. Thanks for your most illuminating explanation to Freedom The Singapore Way. :)
@mice is nice
Well actually Singaporean or not really doesn’t matter in the context of this discussion when we are talking about sensitivity towards someone’s religious belief and crossing the line in big way in the name of freedom of speech. It doesn’t matter because both religious belief and freedom of speech are basically global and universally applicable to anybody in this world. These are hardly anyone’s domestic issue.
So my points are in case such sensitivity has been breached, the 1st thing netizens who are discussing these issues through public forums need to DEMAND for the level playing ground first before even talking about such sensitive topics.
The minimum level playing ground is:
1) A robust balanced view and head start of debate in main stream media with political participation from various organizations.
2) Existing pluralism in the society to accept peaceful public demonstrations when such sensitivities has been breached.
Without the presence of above two this might result into misunderstanding, spread of half truth from horses mouth and even worst could be perceived as tool to discriminate against a particular community.
Freedom the Singapore way, 30 November 2011
each country has its own laws, each country decides for itself how to go about forming laws & enforcing them. everything on paper is universal, but reality speaks otherwise. & in S’pore public protest which is universal in many developed countries, is largely curtailed.
for someone who speaks about sensitivity, its strange to know your indifference (or insensitivity?) to the context of the subject.
okie, you go demand those 2 criteria for the level playing field. when you get it, then we continue our little textbook discussion okie? i cannot make such demand, cos i am small fry, wish you best of luck! :)
……………………………………..
hi Titiana Ann Xavier,
you are welcome.
:)
mice is mice
Nope..if I’m a Hindu from India I’m hurt or if I’m a Muslim from Pakistan I’m hurt or if I’m a christian from US still I’m hurt if religious sensitivity towards my religion is breached and I can’t do a thing about it.
The point I’m making is if you consider discussing about it SO FREELY as if everything is in place that’s hypocrisy and you aren’t different from the people in the regime and you aren’t contributing anything to the society rather than supporting the vested interest of the regime..think about it!!
By the way, I’m tax paying, CPF contributing, election participating Singaporean and contributed one of the most important public transport network since it was 1st built in Singapore..can you believe it!! lol..
alamak, have code for online behaviour lah. just follow instuction.
@ Freedom the Singapore Way,
I believed Mice is Nice and Titiana have been trying to explain to you about how things in Singapore is run. Although there are universal values, each country has unique approach in reaching these global values.
Since you’re talking about global matter, let me bring you around the world and show you how freedom of speech has its limits in the global context, even within liberal developed countries in the European Union.
The European Human Rights Court limited the right to freedom of expression in order to protect the sensitivities of Christian and Jewish interest. In 1997, the European Human Rights Court ruled that PRE-EMPTIVE BANNING of films protraying Jesus and Christianity in an offensive manner was not in violation of the protection of free speech as stated in Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights reasoning that it was
necessary and legitimate for the state to protect the rights of others not to be
offended. Therefore even the Western states recognised there there is no such thing as absolute Freedom of Speech, which Howard’s article has failed to address.
By the way, I do agree with you about the need for mainstream media to be more critical and open. It will allow a healthy discussion on sensitive issues and topic in a responsible and healthy manner. As for peaceful demonstrations, sorry dude I disagree with that as there will always be the anarchists hijacking peaceful protest, leading to riots and damages to properties.
By the way, thank you for highlighting that you are paying taxes, contributing to CPF and voting, which one way or another is irrelevant to the topic being discussed.
@ Mice is Nice, @ Titiana
I really appreciate your patience in trying to explain your points to this chap.
@observer – You would need to ask TOC who/what they really are, but I have always viewed TOC as “pro- a lot of things”, which allows voices, both yours and mine, to be heard. If you do not feel that any of the articles are right, please right it by writing in, or even commenting here. I guarantee you that you will get a fairer hearing than ST. :) But I have to say I think you missed something in saying a whole group of online people tried to curtail online discourse. “Online people” can only add to online discourse, not hinder it. Regulation, or fear of its consequences, can.
@Ray – Not my intention to go into a long one about rights and freedom. But I have always believed that the right that allows someone to make discriminatory views public is also the same right that allows another person to defend the discriminated publicly. So my answer to what your hypothetical Person X should do: Forget about the rioting. Go to the same platform, exercise his right of free speech to engage the offender, and when that has been exhausted, exercise legal options as a last resort. His engagement is much better than a police report any day, because it assures those who have been offended, reading the same platform, that there are still voices out there that care for their right to practice religion freely.
I agree with you that our world is not ideal, but do you exercise your right to make it so, when it matters, where the unfair conversation is? The problem I have with regulation is that it presupposes the wrong, and does not allow such conversations to happen. In the worst case, it drives discrimination underground and allows it to fester, maybe even explode.
Did we have Facebook in the 1960s? Then how did the racial riots come about? My starting point is that, even without Facebook, discrimination exists. It only needs a spark to ignite. A spark is lighted when discrimination is first made public. The beauty with interactive media, which is something that few seem to have grasped, is that it gives each and everyone of us a chance, and responsibility, to put out that spark. You report it to the police, they stop the offender, but the riot could have already begun. The police can only represent the state, but individuals represent society. Sometimes, riots happen because police did the wrong thing. But they also happen because the discriminated feel society did nothing.
And in case anyone thinks I am trying to defend myself or TOC by responding to comments, the answer is no. One reason why I like writing for TOC is that I get responses, which challenges my own views, which I then get a chance to engage further, which is always healthy. The best part, it is all documented and for future readers to read and decide for themselves… :)
@Ray: “Therefore even the Western states recognised there there is no such thing as absolute Freedom of Speech, which Howard’s article has failed to address.”
Actually, I don’t believe there is anything as absolute freedom of speech. I only question if we have bothered to exercise the rights that we have been given.
You will also be conversant in the fact that no country, I dare say, completely follows UN’s Declaration, for what ever reasons they might have. Not even USA, the land of the free, since the Patriot’s Act. I do not pretend that we need to guard our rights vehemently, but if we do not exercise it fully, we risk someone in power simply taking it away from us. Because “no one uses it, right?”
Are citizens being discriminated in hiring given many non-rocket science jobs like IT are occupied mainly and in huge proportions by foreigners like PRs?
One should only be considered FT if there is shortage of skills not found from the citizen population. Australia is a good example. European countries too. How come our FT pay can be as low as 2.5k or less?
If u can enter europe or other 1st worlds like japan, australia or usa or even saudi countries , their pay would be more. Even netting the tax.
This is because they only select the rarer , more valuable talents. This helps their citizens hold on to their jobs and can learn from real talents.
Sg, as i see it , is like a blackhole for lower skilled talents. I suspect else sg would not be able to keep mnc from exodus.
Sg must buck up and not rely on cheaper labor to retain mncs.
Numerous citizens are unhappy.
Please let in more new citizens . Else 2016 would be pai2 tan3 for you.
Dear Howard,
I agree we should exercise our rights but with responsibilities. However like what I’ve stated before, we are not in a perfect world because there are always the bigotted minorities who would steer the discourse towards extreme view, which may cause hurt towards others. Therefore certain legislations and laws are necessary to ensure such extreme view does not perpetuate, leading to social instability.
Many liberal states have recognised this point and have imposed restrictions on freedom of speech.
In Europe, there are laws to protect the Christians and Jewish interests. As I have highlighted before, the European European Human Rights Court has limited the right of freedom of speech in order to protect the sensitivities of Christian and Jewish interest. In 1997, the European Human Rights Court ruled that PRE-EMPTIVE BANNING of films protraying Jesus and Christianity in an offensive manner was not in violation of the protection of free speech as stated in Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights reasoning that it was
necessary and legitimate for the state to protect the rights of others not to be
offended. In 2006, Austria had convicted a man for just merely expressing his view on the Holocaust. Such legislations reinforce the point that there is no such thing as absolute Freedom of Speech.
However the tone of your article seems that it is not alright for judicial method be taken to address racist/extremist’s articles as stated below.
“If anything, our communication policies are guided by an unproven fear that online sentiment, expressed freely, would lead to social unrest.”
“Indeed, such a regulatory framework – a code of conduct by any other name – might risk limiting the honest and open discussion of perceived bigotry. If anything, such a framework will only serve to provide a clearer yardstick for even more police action.”
You see Howard, even advance developing countries that have more experiences in freedom of speech recognised the need to have some form of legislations to ensure social stability.
What I have in common with you is that we should be able to express our opinions and provide alternative solutions. There should not be only one voice on how to solve national problem. We should also discuss openly sensitive issues. But when the discussion or points have crossed the line of human decency, then the state should come in and intervene.
There is a different between freedom of speech and Hate speech, and many bigots use the cover of freedom of speech to spread their bigotary minds, and that is when we need legislations.
Last point, legislations in Europe controlling Freedom of Speech or Expressions has not curtailed innovations or exchange of ideas, nor has it led to their citizens’ rightsbeing taken away from them.
Ray,
You and Mice Is Nice did more of the explanation. I was more of a bystander. Both of you are real gentlemen… :)
@Ray
I wasn’t talking about the global matter neither did I talked about absolute freedom of speech representing EU or any other specific country.
All I was saying it’s not fair to discuss freely about religious intolerance when there is no proper platform to reach out to the mass population with robust views and counter views.
To make things simple probably an example will be handy. My aunt doesn’t browse internet and she doesn’t have a facebook account but she is a religious devotee and she watches TV and read the news paper regularly. My sister-in-law told her that someone with liberal view from the recently formed democratic environment actually said something too bad..too blasphemous about her religion..or told her that no one now a days care about when someone says something bad about her religion. Do you get where I’m coming from??
You need a platform to touch such sensitive area and religious belief or hurting someone’s religious belief isn’t confined to Singapore’s political boundary.
So what I was suggesting is more to these social medias that nothing much has changed unless majority of the people have access to information and right to protest these topics shouldn’t be debated so freely. Anyway choice is yours.
One more thing, talking about differences between peaceful demonstrations and riots well as far as I know, no democratic movement has ever taken place in this world without protests and demonstrations from public. You might try out one with 100% online movement that will definitely set a precedence..who knows??
Lastly, it’s not me who actually wanted to talk about citizenship, I felt it’s good to say when asked repeatedly, I’ve no idea did it changed anything to the context of discussion!
Have a great debate..cheers.
Freedom the Singapore way,
You did more of the explanation than Ray and Mice Is Nice addon. I am definately 100% bystander. You are real gentlemen and I love you :)
Ray, 30 November 2011
you are welcome. but unfortunately, my quite lengthy post in response to “Freedom the Singapore way” is under moderation.
i hope it gets a green light. :)
Freedom the Singapore way, 30 November 2011
from the way you presented yourself, your perspective that does not reflect the reality in S’pore’s context does not aid a meaningful discussion. you seem so, erm, distant.
unfortunately you din get this point…
con’t…
okie, so now with the connectivity of the world through the internet, you could be hurt everyday without a day you do not stumble upon hurtful comments. was far as online content goes, you make the choice to seek what you find. & its online that has a longer “memory” than words spoken in person.
will you let those comments deny your freedom to live your life or will you choose to fill your live with hate, frustration & a sense of helplessness?
okie, tell us what the point? Tanslate into action and walk naked in the street till it is a common sight. Nothing unusual?
what’s the point? NOT what the point?
Translate NOT Tanslate
@ Rooster
Hahaha and copycat too. Tsk tsk tsk.
@HL,
The online blogs and forums and posters are making a big hooha over nothing. They obviously want to blow this hardly known virtual nonsense into real-life public incidents.
If that’s what they want, what do you expect the government to do? Sit down and do nothing? Or take notice and do something?
The first case was obviously targeted with political agenda and sinister motives. The second case is somewhat a legitimate case of freedom of expression.
The third case is pure wacko. If religion is not sacrosanct, so is freedom of speech. There must be a limit. If you cross the line, you’ll be liable. Nothing is sacrosanct, isn’t it? If you think someone is too sensitive, just say so rationally. You shouldn’t go around hitting at the person to find the trigger point. That’s pure stupidity.
freedom of speech,what’s that?
sgporeans don’t even have ‘fredom of work’;they get displaced and replaced unfairly and not even the ‘union’ cares.
first things,first.
Everyone can agree with TITIANA ANN XAVIER that most netizens are responsible people and the Government should not exploit the 3 incidents by imposing regulations and restrictions. I absolutely agree with PUTHUCHEARY AVOIDED NS that we should instead concentrate on the important issues of cronyism, corruption and change on the internet and not fall into a trap and get distracted.
Howard Lee has written a timely article. TOC has apparently decided not to start the OWS thread on the 19 Nov 2011 forum “What’s the fuss? Why occupy Wall Street?” and I believe it has acted quite responsibly for reason of caution. But I like to borrow the space here for my response to its write-up posted inconspicuously on the Maruah website on 26 Nov 2011. Indeed, I believe the implications of the worldwide OWS movement are far more important an issue for Singaporeans to ponder right now. There should be no restrictions or self-censorship on the OWS debate.
Karma Inc.
On “What’s next”, Tan Jee Say apparently did not say much. Did he revel in events vindication of his S$60 billion National Regeneration Plan (NRP)?
Looking back, it was ironic. The PAP on its last day of campaigning in GE2011 issued an alarming if distorted statement saying 500,000 jobs would be lost from the NRP despite repeated denials by Tan Jee Say that he ever recommended closing down factories but suggested only the phasing out of costly land subsidy to labor-intensive industries that favored cheap unskilled labor imports. The PAP may now have to eat its own words. Singapore without the NRP is now faced with a massive ‘real’ loss of more than a million jobs should the 2008-2009 Great Recession dip into a Great Depression and Singapore slumber towards a major SE Asian military conflict over South China Sea and WW3. 500,000 of the real job loss would be the erstwhile ‘phantom’ loss figure hallucinated by the scare-mongering PAP GE2011 tactics.
Fighting Greed and Income Inequality
But the NRP would on the contrary strengthen our manufacturing sector by phasing out land subsidy for its volatile labor-intensive subsector that disadvantaged local employment. In the process, it would also reinforce the resilience of our Singaporean middle-class workforce. This would deny the CEOs their fabulous pay which would otherwise have gone to benchmarking the obscene ministerial salary. Indeed, can we call these cronies the equivalent of ‘0.1% white collar mafia’ alluded to by Braema Mathi?
Concurrently, the NRP would help expand the much-neglected service sector in education, medical, healthcare and new creative enterprises and create more satisfying stable jobs for more better-pay Singaporeans. This would militate against the loss of any local employment from the affected industries while relieving also the economy of its high volatility going forward.
In a nutshell, the NRP would help to self-correct and reduce the gap in income inequality in Singapore. The existing rewards system, however, would still be fundamentally flawed as it incorporates the drawdown of past reserves to save mostly and unashamedly the top elites of their structured fairy-tale multi-million $ salaried positions. Indeed, the NRP would facilitate a multi-prong policy head start to actually deal with what the OWS movement was fed-up with but still helplessly championing the confused if aggrieved 99% of the population against its 1% corporate greed. TJS was prescient and spot on!
The OWS Correlations to Armageddon in SE Asia
Now that the US is starting a new military base in Darwin Australia, the prospect of a major US-China military clash over South China Sea has become a certainty. The Straits of Malacca, where 80% of China oil imports move through, would be blocked by the US 5th (Middle East) and 7th Fleet (Asia-Pacific) and the South China Sea would become an intense battle zone. With prevailing US air and sea superiority, one would assume that Uncle Sam would win the war hands down. But the guerrillas in Afghanistan wearing sandals and armed only with considerably-less firepower had proven the Pentagon wrong.
No, Sir. China would fight a protracted war. PLA troops would move south to occupy the landscape of SE Asia, with the local ethnic-Chinese population as their 5th column. They would come by land from the north to Singapore. We would be “Blakang Mati” again!
Back to the Drawing Board
Then, what’s next? I suppose TJS has already given his answer. The NRP would not only provide a rational progression for national regeneration in peace time but also offer a pre-emptive directional move for sovereign safeguard in defensive war preparation.
Leong Sze Hean has just informed us that contrary to the glowing presentation by MOM (Ministry of Manpower) the real median income growth for Singapore’s full-time resident employee for the last three years from 2008 to 2010 had been negative and 2011 would likely be negative as well given the QE2-induced high inflation rate this year. In fact, OECD has just warned that the ASEAN 6 including Singapore must henceforth look for new growth drivers away from export-led strategy. How timely! But it is up to the Government to follow-up. For now, TJS is probably as ‘fed up’ as Leong Sze Hian.
The Big Deal
Anyway, what’s the big deal! The ever cunning if collusive Lee Kuan Yew was very clever at talking to the Japanese Kempetai for a little good-life in WW2; to MCP Chin Peng for help to found the PAP in 1954; to the British MI5 and PM-designate ambitious Goh Chok Tong for shouldering the burden of fixing political opponents in 1963 and 1987; to Tungku Abdul Rahman for kicking out Singapore into independence in 1965 that the British denied us in 1959; and, to Uncle Sam for taking over our regional security after the Philippines told the Americans to get out of Subic Bay naval base and Clark Air Base in 1992. Well, will Singapore again be in steady hand the LKY-way should the PLA troops arrive at the Istana gate? Or, will we invite LKY back from the nether world without his own rising as he had wanted?
From Surrender to Singapore SAR
Singaporeans, do not panic! Independent Observer on 8 Nov 2011 in the TOC thread “Occupy demands: Let’s radicalize our analysis” has already outlined a ‘surrender’ strategy for our interim survival.
So what if the PLA troops were to start their Long March south. They are likely to be here for a short period – to enforce the stalemate peace for regional stability just like what they did with the US for the Korean War armistice signed in 1953? With abundance of national financial and gold reserves in hand and the NRP projects in the region as bargaining chips, Singapore will return amicably to 1Malaysia (as in 1China) on the ‘one country, two systems’ Deng-style formula for the next 50 years. English as official language and the common-law justice system would be retained as with much of Singapore’s status quo, just like what Deng had promised for dynamic and prosperous Hong Kong under HK Basic Law post-1997.
Unwarranted Fear
Fear of superimposed Marxist ideology? No need to fear! Chairman Mao, the rebel extraordinaire who decreed his ‘permanent revolution’ theory for China to cover the next 10,000 years journey, had ironically given blessing to his antithesis Deng Xiaoping when he sacked him in April 1976 with the admonishing remark “this capitalist roader is still roading 走资派还在走” – meaning Deng and CCP successors can go on and on with capitalist practices but periodic cultural revolutions would be needed to checkmate them from straying too far away the Socialist path.
Socialism with Asian Characteristics
‘Socialism with Asian characteristics’, which is a euphemism for Capitalism, is still in its initial stage of dynamic growth in East Asia. It still has a long way to go as compared to its human-rights based counterpart in the West – now that fixed investment capital is looking East as the West reflects on its damnable austerity fate and moves into historical decline of its debt-laden Capitalism. But in the meantime, Singapore needs bold political and economic reforms for our defensive ‘surrender’ strategy to usher in our 唐代盛世 Renaissance。
The sun will still rise in the East and set in the West. Never mind the pun! Singapore will survive.
@ Freedom the Singapore way
Different people would have different opinions, and it is ok. If everyone has the same opinion, we will cease to be humans. At least in your argument you do not use obsceneties and overt racist remarks as some others do….
Have a good debate to you too Dude.
@ Mice is Nice,
Is your reply too harsh, therefore causing it to be censored right now?
Americans used statistics to prove that they won the wars in Korea, Vietnam, Iraq and Afhganistan.
Stalin once said a single death is a tragedy but many deaths become statistics.
Zhu Rongji said he does not trust statistics as Chinese companies are clever at cooking figures.
Ray, 1 December 2011
my reply to “Freedom the Singapore way” was partially reproduced in my 3rd post, of which 3 was posted consecutively.
harsh or not, i wish you can read it whole to see for yourself. but i find many of my post that’s over certain length automatically goes into moderation.
:(
@ Mice is Nice,
Oh TOC prefers to the point response then. Anyway no worry I am not criticisng your reply. Was just wondering if TOC is busy censoring your reply because it might be too harsh.
Ray, 5 December 2011
there will be times when to-the-point response can be interpreted as harsh. a website that is often critical can also be interprted as harsh.
from this perspective maybe harsh is just about accurate, haa…
:D
Dear moderator,
The “Keep quiet, you stupid!” remark in the last paragraph of my earlier message was a rhetorical one but directed at me from supposedly anti-PAP forces as a continuation of the preceding paragraph. But when I re-looked the comment a second time a concern did dawn on me that you might interpret, as some readers would, that the remark was meant for you from the unwitting me due to it being a separate paragraph. So if you had taken it out of context, please accept my sincere apology. Cheers!
On second thoughts, could the remark be sarcastically read as a pun? We just can’t beat the imagination, can we? Such is the Platonic wondering mind!
TOC is great! End of story. Best wishes.
compatriot