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
The more I see Yakult face the more disappointed I have in our ruling gov.
Just Epic Fail
Insulting Islam or any other religion is sedition. In the west they say that that they are the champion of human rights and freedom of speech but they forbid the muslims from wearing the burqa,etc. They are hycoprites.Freedom of speech must be used intelligently with responsibilities.
So when is Yaacob going to renounce his sons’ US citizenship?????
Only he the erroneous “the once in 50 yrs ex-water Resources Minister can be level headed 24/7″?
Since to err is human, is he trying to steer from what his PM just said in parliament about them PAP opening. So used to stereotyping “lesser-mortal” citizens by monotyping themselves yet again. View us all as kids still building castles in the beach sand?
He is not even smart enough to find out the ages and backgrounds before yakity yak yak their usual mindset. Doesn’t he also be one needing to buckup too!
Dear @humble 29 November 2011,
Have you missed an important reality point/
Please note that other religions do not cover their faces. I’ll bet with you that if they do, they will also face the same restriction to remove them so that their unique God given face can be seen. Why God made everyone look different and unique. For recognition ain’t ir.
So, why does a thief or murder put on a mask? Masks or burgas by any other name are still material to hide one’s face from regconition right!
For many years, Singaporeans have enjoyed peace and tranquility. There is a danger that they may been lulled into a sense of complacency and take racial and religious harmony for granted.
Making a police report is a “level-headed response”. Resorting to mob rule is not. Credit must be given to our fellow muslims for acting with restrain despite being ridiculed.
The government should not exploit the 3 incidents and imposed regulations and restrictions. Most online netizens are responsible. Exceptions are few. For these people, let the police flash them a red card.
discrimination on paper means having people related to himself in power controlling state media such as his sister in Straits Times. and flying in Warren Fernandez does not make us forget that the newspaper is still a state mouthpiece.
we remember whose words we are reading when we read that paper.
Anyone can roll out a code of conduct. But whether netizens will see the wisdom of buying into it is a different matter completely. Yacob should try to work with the key figures in the internet, if he is genuine about getting good results and not just spew out edicts from his ivory tower. Otherwise many will simply consider him so detached from the ground swell, no one will ever support him and this whole idea will just die a natural death.
Till today, no one in the internet really understands the why’s or for that matter even how’s. I suspect even Yacob himself may be at a lost, if he asked to account for those reasons.
You know the usual tactic of an incumbent, dear TOC and readers. Keep you busy on the defensive and discussing small things and you won’t have time to focus on the big issues: cronyism, corruption and change. Let’s concentrate on the these issues on the internet and don’t fall into a trap and get distracted.
While I support the principle of freedom of speech, I condemn all three posts. Some leeway must always be given to humour, especially on the occassions when it helps us understand ourselves and our community. However, posting “flamebait” is only for one twisted person’s individual amusement, and does not merit such leeway.
As pointed out by the author, a police report may result in a charge of sedition which carries heavy penalties. No other regulatory framework may be necessary, or even enforceable.
However, I disagree with Howard’s position that such things should stay online and not spill over into the real world. If we applied that standard, then any real world policy proposals put up by TOC’s contributors should also stay online and not spill over into the real world. In the online culture, there is a tendency to treat such incidents lightly, and everyone needs to grow a thicker skin so that they can ignore more of these non-representative far-out comments. However, in Web 2.0, we are increasingly seeing the real world being integrated into cyberspace, and therefore real world concerns need to be addressed.
What is needed is a strong statement by the Chinese Singaporean community, and all Singaporeans in general against such disgusting behavior. It is a statement of our values in this country. We need to protect our Muslim friends and family members, so that they may also protect us.
The more I see Yakult face the more disappointed I have in our ruling gov.
=====
I agree, they are both getting uglier in face and heart.
@ Titiana Ann Xavier,
Good point that most net citizens are responsible. There should be freedom within internet to discuss many social and political issues. But anything that touched on religious and racial harmony should be off limit. And yes there is a minority who is irresponsible and they should be dealt with by the law.
@ rockabyebaby
Hey dude, are you saying that the requirement of one religion of wearing something justify the act of taking pot shot at it? What kind of logic is that? I am not sure what God or religion do you believe in, but your religion being different from mine or other person does not give us the right to take pot shot on you.
On another note, looking at your command of English, I believe you did not graduate from an elite school or have a good educational background. Since that is the case and you being different from the elite, does that mean the elite should take potshot at you? I say yes, and hell don’t blame me cause I am just following your own logic i.e. we can take potshot at anyone different from us.
Chaps like you, who justifies provoking another person based on their religion and race, do not represent most of online citizens. But xenophobics like you indirectly gives the authority the reason they need to clamp down on freedom of internet. Be an adult dude. Greater freedom comes with greater responsiblity. If you can’t be responsible and be an adult, just remain silent.
///Keep you busy on the defensive and discussing small things and you won’t have time to focus on the big issues: cronyism, corruption and change.///
Good one. Let you fight for (by diverting you to the) the small pieces of crumbs while you may be so busy that you may forget that they have all the big fat loaves locked in their own safe.
“Oh Tham Eng
Posted November 28, 2011 at 4:20 PM
I agree with the analysis of the writer of the above article. There is a polical agenda in wanting to blow up the matter via TOC. Agree that TOC is going the way of TRE.”
Above is Oh Thumb Eng’s comment in http://newasiarepublic.com/?p=34837, for TOC’s and readers’ info.
@ Joseph Teo,
I do agree with your point in making sure every Singaporeans felt they are not targetted or discriminated again. However person such as Howard Lee and a few others believed in the absolute Right To Freedom of Expression.
In Howards’ narrow definition of Right, he is looking at only Right to Free Speech, ignoring other rights such as freedom of religion, freedom from fear etc. If I am a believer in one religion, I should have the right to practice it without fear of being targetted and discriminated. At times my right to be free from fear or being hurt will clash against another person right to freedom of expression.
Howard should check the UN website so that his world knowledge is widened. There are many Rights in this world, not only freedom of expression. And yes, Hitler rised up when he is allowed to propagate his racist view freely.
This saga is pre-planned by PAP so they can used this excuse to formalise new laws to control the cyberspace to restrict ppl’s freedom of speech.
This same old tactic has been used over and over again for decades.
Ray,
Your view that freedom of speech should not be allowed to impinge on other freedoms is most praiseworthy.
Make this clear, it is not Yaacob but the PAP leadership that is thinking about limiting our freedom online. The truth is that they are hit left, right and middle by netizens and they intend to silence them. Internet is a god-gift to deprived and suppressed souls in every societies. The beauty of the internet is there is no effective way to control it. Long live, freedom and democracy
Right from the start, the incidents are totally UN-newsworthy even by the slightest bit at all. It’s TOC who thinks the whole world should know about the incidents.
Now again, it’s TOC itself who changes tack here and declares the incidents are nothing much to talk about.
Oh, make up your mind. If the incidents are bad, then tell the authorities to draw the line somewhere. That’s what every one here wants all the time, isn’t it? For the government to work its ass off and do something effective and worthwhile to improve things, isn’t it? Now that the government suggests it should look into it, jaws here start to drop and say no. Huh?? So, should the government work its ass off, or don’t do anything?
If the incidents are really nothing, then please don’t even talk about it in the first place. Don’t slap yourself.
“observer29 November 2011
Right from the start, the incidents are totally UN-newsworthy even by the slightest bit at all. It’s TOC who thinks the whole world should know about the incidents.
Now again, it’s TOC itself who changes tack here and declares the incidents are nothing much to talk about.”:
Steady, dear TOC and readers, don’t fall into the trap. We are being distracted from bigger and real issues. For example, why are we still having such a sycophantic mainstream media out of sync with the changing social landscape? Who’s keeping check on the spending for the Garden By The Bay? Will it become a White Elephant?
@P.A.NS – Actually, TOC has a wider bandwidth than just articles by me. :) My interest has always been media, hence it remains my topic of interest. And yes, I will also be keeping tabs on traditional media.
@Joseph Teo, big fat loaves – Honestly, I am less concerned about whether this article makes it into policy. Quite happy for it to stay within cyberspace, but do spread the word. When this code of conduct is pushed down our throats, make your voice heard. :)
@Ray – Actually, I’m not sure where you read that says I champion freedom of speech over freedom of religion. And I have read my UN Human Rights, tyvm. :) But do ask yourself, can we freely practice religion without free speech? There are both private and public elements to both speech and religion, in evangelising, clarify misunderstanding or curtailing mischief. The point is to be able to distinguish which is which, respond accordingly and when we are called to. I’m not convinced a code of online conduct will help, much as I am unconvinced that going straight to the police without a reasoned debate first will help to reduce discrimination. In both these cases, I do admit that reason has been attempted first.
@observer – I don’t hope to represent all of TOC, and I do not intend to debate about whether this issue is important or not. But it is important to me when a Minister plans to use such incidents, with only a dubious proof point, to try curtailing online discourse. This is what this article is about, in case any part has made you misunderstand.
Thanks Howard for this piece.
You wrote: “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.”
I agree that formal regulation wld only mask the reality, but wouldn’t it be a good thing for civil society (ie. all of us who hv any interest & stake in this) to talk about a code of conduct for mature, responsible discourse?
I am surprised that it has taken so long for the pap to clamp down on free social media. What we are seeing now is the beginning processes that will eventually stop all kinds of free discussions about the politics. After the big losses it is bound to come hard on free media.
Yaccob seems to be in the minority as far as the idea of guidelines is concerned because otherwise he wouldn’t have mentioned it if the AG is seriously considering it. IMO, it is sensible to do other things than falling back on what is basically a gagging order. Things DON’T improve just because people are not allowed openly mentioned or discussed it. Surely, by now we should come to realise this truism? It has been the case here for decades and look where are we now on this? Status quo has remained at SQUARE ONE.
Rational discussion is healthy whereas every now and then putting some one behind bars or cough out a big fine because he said and did something that offended someone or some segment of our population is in reality regressive and ignoring the real progress that have been made in relationship between/among esp. the younger generations.
What I think the govt should be doing is to to set the right examples itself because it is fair to say that it has not been a very enlightened model itself – remember the issue of Malay servicemen in the SAF? It was a fact that for decades past, Malay Singaporeans were only called up to serve in the Vigilante Corp, the police and Civil Defence. It is a fact too that while on the surface, Malay is the so-called ‘National Language’ it is purely cosmetic and we find that in practice much more efforts were put into getting Chinese Singaporeans to learn MANDARIN! In fact, the learning of Malay as a NL receives virtually ZERO emphasis or attention. Yet, the govt has not been able to summon for itself the courage to do the right thing – of admitting that such POLITICAL BAGGAGES from a previous era should be put to rest. Why is govt still continuing with the masquerade and pretense???
Why! Why! Why!
This Mp whose sons are still USA citizens is trying to use this 3 incidents and “twist” it to find a reason to “tie the hands and legs of online users”.
Perhaps, 50 yrs later, my Yakult.
Less Sugar please !
Stay true to your religion & its guiding principles ,please !
The issue here concerns the kind of government PM Lee Hsien Loong wants when he made those apologies to the people for past policy mistakes in GE2011.
Among his thinking would probably include whether he wants to build a truly open and inclusive society.
If he does and is honest about it, then there is no problem with telling his ministers to liberalize and engage citizens including those called netizens in social media.
From the way, his ministers are going about major policies like rising costs of living and housing, internet/social media engagement with netizens, it does not appear like PM Lee meant what he said in those apologies.
We will see more rising costs, more fixing of political oppositions, more controls, more wayang to deny problems which he will package as new PAP and change.
Yaacob has no ideas of his own lah. If he has he should be able to tell PM Lee that in order to engage citizens and build a more inclusive society, he intends to keep an open policy on the internet and social media and will not try to come up with any more excuses using racist remarks of a few nimcompoops as opportunity to control-govern the people again. Surely, if Yaacob presents it this way, he would impress PM Lee more of his real calibre.
Online is Global , what Code of Conduct ?
It is 2012 soon.
Better use your Million dollar brain cell to work harder.
You hve been “sleeping” for 50 yrs !
Not happy I said that rite ?
Last time “nobody” could , now we could ,so “please keep up with times and
move along , infact online comment is a wonderful source of “gauging” your own performace.
Will you be “suggesting” code of conduct if everyday , minute ,seconds, online users were Praising you like nobody business ? I guess not .
“I am surprised that it has taken so long for the pap to clamp down on free social media.” -sunny
What are you trying to say?
Thanks to the internet social media that singaporeans got to know the many hypocrisy and truths about some party.
If they have not done anything wrong,why fear?
It has been announced that Mr Warren Fernandez will take over from Mr Han Fook Kwang as the editor of The Straits Times on Feb 15.
AFTER NINE YEARS>>TO LONG ON THE GRAVY TRAIN MR HAN.
Alas…new broom..same old.
First job of Mr Fernandez is to weed out all the OLD St hangers-on..who are there only because they cant go anywhere else. Second job is to allow Singaporeans to have a voice in the press..and not bin anything the St does not like. So present Forum editor needs to be replaced.
Finally Mr Fernandez says the ST paper will remain the peoples choice foe a long time.
HO HUM. ITS THE ONLY CHOICE.
WE HAVE HOBSONS.
ST and the gahmen..have made it this way.
@Lisa Li – I believe the Bloggers 13 have made their recommendation to the AIMS proposal with something to that effect. Yes, civil society can play a part in deciding its own rules, but the govt must be willing to consult, not bull-doze thru.
I would like to caution, however, that having a code of conduct or anything akin to it necessarily means defining the “right conduct” vs the “wrong conduct”. Such definitions are by no means exclusive or exhaustive, but there will be some who will suggest that they are, and use it to their own ends. And I’m not talking only about citizens who truly want to subdue discrimination…
The truth is that public discourse is often about opinions. They are neither wrong nor right. Open discussion, particularly against extremist views, demands us to first question and understand our own, and so we respond from a position of subjectivity. Set rules connote objective truth. The only objective truth is the error in denying another his right to express his views subjectively.
The act’s by three indiviuals is not sedition,I don’t know what is? It seem all three will walk free,despite making post causing feelings of ill-will.I hope same level handed approach will be adapted when indivial’s start make offensive postings on different race or religion….It is indeed recipe for disaster
HL
No matter what the kiasu government does, it has to know the single most important reason why people are so unhappy with many of its past policies and practices – self-righteousness.
PM Lee has said he wanted a new PAP. If he continues with the same self-righteous attitude as projected in the way the government makes its decisions leaving little or no room for people to have their say even on morality or public interests, he will fail.
He should learn not to be so extreme in his decision making like the way his father did – no leeway for people to have a say.
ISA and over-taxing and profiteering system of government is not the only way to ensure Singapore’s survival. There are other way and en-masse application of knowledge on the part of all citizens will ensure openness and leveling of playing fields which now is favoring only the elite few, the rich and foreign interests.
As a saying goes, extreme justice is bad justice. Extreme decision making to serve one-man’s ego is bad decision and bad government.
PAP has realized as a result of the rise of internet and social media, the general unhappiness of citizens over rising costs of living and housing and influx of cheap non-challant foreign labors that cause many problems that it has no monopoly on truths, and information.
At the recent PAP post-mortem of its poorer showing in GE2011, PM Lee has called for change. He wanted a new PAP. So what is change?
Change according to many authorities is life itself. Aristotle had declared “happiness, is the meaning and purpose of life” Alvin Toffler had said: “change is not merely necessary to life, it is life” Mahatma Gandhi clearly pointed out that “we must be the change we want to see in the world” Benjamin Desraeli had considered “a sense of existence as the greatest happiness” George Bernard Shaw was more specific in saying that: “progress is impossible without change and those who cannot change their minds cannot change anything”
For some, the main reason is fear of unknown. Other reasons include passivity and self-centeredness. St Augustine thought “happiness counts in the attainment of our desires and in our having right desires” Lao Tzu, an ancient Chinese philosopher had advised: “there are many paths to enlighenment; take that with a heart” His central philosophy about life is the avoidance of human desires that lead to manifestations that are in conflict with the Way of Tao or universal order as stated in Tao Te Ching. Aristotle referred to thr right way to live as the doctrine of the mean. Specifically, Confucius had advised how we should behave as stated in aphorisms like: “a gentleman is broadminded, a petty man anxious”, “a gentleman speaks with behavior; petty man with tongue” and “one shall not behave towards others one does not want others to behave towards oneself”, “when the top beam is twisted, the bottom will be bent”
If we are to study PAP’s past policies it invariably view people as a source of problems, liabilities rather than positively who can make their own moral calls for righteous attitudes and behaviors, for the good of nation building and society as a whole.
Hence, under such a negative mindset, PAP is found to be extremely negative in its governing. Laws and regulations like ISA, and extreme assumptions about anti-welfarism has resulted in over-taxing and profiteering use of lands and assets.
Its pro-foreign policies in jobs and public housing and even education really turn off its citizens.
Extreme justice is bad justice. PAP should change its largely negative mindset to pro-people and proactive attitudes towards its own people.
Albert Einstein had described : “the highest duty of an individual is to serve rather than to rule”
Hence, instead of blaming people for all sorts of things and praising itself non-stop taking credit for the sacrifices of so many people’s labor, PAP should change in a more authentic manner with a a sense of service or duty to fellow citizens who pay them millions not to boast but to be humble and serve.
The ancient Chinese philosophers, notably Fuxi, King Wen and Confucius, had noticed a change and order phenomenon in nature (e.g. “I-Ching Management” by Dr. Joseph Wong) regulating the healthy functioning of nature as shown in the rotations of season, changing weather condition etc. There is a Yin (negative) and Yang (positive) causation demonstrating characteristics or properties of being positive and negative, active and supportive, male and female, acidic and alkaline, etc regulating the healthy living and growth of all things. We enjoy healthy living and growth and are able to recover from illness within our bodies and minds as a result of such yin and yang elements in the basic order of nature. The positive-negative yin and yange elements pervading in our thinking and living. Such yin and yang causation is the unexplained powerful universal force working at all levels of change.
Modern states are being run intangible ideas and concepts about leaderships, talent, creativity, democracy, capitalism, freedoms and rights of individuals, laws and regulations. It is a common practice for people to believe in presentations and appearances rather than the substance.
Hence PAP should change in an authentic manner as this is the only way to bring about a win-win situation for all to live lives with purposefulness and fulfillment the ultimate of happiness.
my take is, its easier to regulate surface runoff during heavy rains & prevent flooding than regulating online discourse.
since flood also cannot handle, how to handle online discourse?
then PAP can complain the people are apathic? pure hypocrites!
“brokenideas29 November 2011
It has been announced that Mr Warren Fernandez will take over from Mr Han Fook Kwang as the editor of The Straits Times on Feb 15.
AFTER NINE YEARS>>TO LONG ON THE GRAVY TRAIN MR HAN.
Alas…new broom..same old.
First job of Mr Fernandez is to weed out all the OLD St hangers-on..who are there only because they cant go anywhere else. Second job is to allow Singaporeans to have a voice in the press..and not bin anything the St does not like. So present Forum editor needs to be replaced.
Finally Mr Fernandez says the ST paper will remain the peoples choice foe a long time.
HO HUM. ITS THE ONLY CHOICE.
WE HAVE HOBSONS.
ST and the gahmen..have made it this way.”:
So many hangers-on, especially those with doubtful credentials holding fairly senior positions – Forum, Leader Writer (there’s even a bor lum par ex-Indian new citizen whose knowledge of Singapore started from only the 1990s), news editors who seldom did news in earlier ears, etc
Han FK himself was never ever the best of journalists. The ME does practically nothing, since Patrick Daniel is still Editor-in-Chief of the EMBD. Now, if PD takes over Alan Chan as CEO, Han may have chance to resurrect his career.
But does all this matter? At SPH, it’s business as usual – unadulterated propaganda thinly disguised as journalism.
The Singaporean government has always shown special attention to a particular group, because it is ‘different’.
Developed countries all over the world have this problem of sensitivity necessary for this particular group’s ‘difference’.
Yet there are always protests from this group of ‘discrimination’.
Is this ‘discrimination’ justified, in light of the special ‘sensitivities’ and ‘differences’ of the group?
Is is like the case of the feminists, citing equality when it benefits them, and sexism when it does not?
@ Eat Your Cake and Still Have It?
If you talk about discrimination, someone very high has said in 1989 why people from this group cannot serve in certain places because they are different.
Your reasoning that this discrimination is justified because of “sensitivities” and “differences’. Well I do agree with you that people should be discriminated upon as they are sensitive and different from you and me.
But with your intelligent mind, please enlighten the readers on the followings:
1) Your religion/belief is being different from other Singaporeans, I suppose it is alright for Singapore to discriminate against you.
2) You are a delicate man with sensitive needs. Because you are so delicate and sensitive unlike the majority of Singaporean men, you should then be discriminated against.
3) You sound like a MCP against the women population, unlike most Singaporean men. Being different means you deserve to be discriminated against too.
I pity your wife or girlfriend or maybe daughter, for you are looking down on the female population, which indirectly means you are looking down on someone that has given birth to you too. That is the logic of it. I hope you are not being sensitive here, because if you do, you deserve to be discrimnated against,as what you had said in your own words.
@Ray
Please be polite – no need to be petty.
Just ‘differences in sensitivity’ alone does not justify special treatment or discrimination, but what kind of ‘difference’. In this case, the ‘difference’ is of great importance. To all others, ‘something’ may be only a guiding example, while to some ‘it’ is the supreme all encompaasing political (and even though backward) ideology, to be shown proudly in all aspects of life, above state and law.
You must be a virulent feminist woman to rail so loudly against the overbearing and outrageous demands of some feminists. If you are a man, then be a man and go after the ‘bigshot’, not a nobody like me.
And do not bring my relatives into it – please be civilised.
You must be a virulent feminist woman to rail so loudly AGAINST the overbearing and outrageous demands of some feminists. If you are a man, then be a man and go after the ‘bigshot’, not a nobody like me.
Sorry ‘AGAINST’ should read as ‘FOR’.
@ HL,
Dear Howard Lee,
Everyone within the society has a set of right. Right to free speech, Right to be free from fear and hunger, Right to practise their religion without fear, Right not to be discriminated against. In the perfect world where everyone exercise their right within their parameters, everyone else will be happy because there is an equilibrium.
But we are not living in a perfect world. There is no Invisible Hand to guide everyone to its place, and there are always someone who wants to go beyond his set of rights and infringed upon others.
When a person has gone beyond his parameters, he would naturally takes or impacted on the right of others. To illustrate, if I was to exercise my free speech in condemning person X’s race and demanded he should be harmed because of his race, I have exercised my freedom of speech, at the same time I have infringed on person X’s right not to live in fear. Person X therefore has the right to take action against me to reimpose again his “Right Not To Live In Fear”.
The question is how should Person X take action against me? Should he use extra-judicial method (riots, running amok, burn my house down or kill me and my family) or should he use judicial and legal method?
Dear Howard, a person can be a racist within his own mind because that is his right. But TOC or other online sites is a public domain and once you published your view within a public domain, there is consequences to it and the community is impacted, therefore judicial action has to be taken.
The point is, Freedom of Speech is not absolute. Freedom of Speech means we should have the liberty to express our thoughts and provide suggestions on policies and politics so that you, your family and other Singaporean lives are improved.
That is completely different from the Liberty to instill fear and humiliation onto other Singaporeans, and I view attempts to instill fear/humiliation onto others should be curtailed because only the minority Bigots, not all Singaporeans, will benefit from such Liberty.
Freedom to question and challenge policies should not be confused with Freedom to humiliate and instill fears onto others.
Dear @ Eat Your Cake and Still Have it?
I guess you feel hurt a bit when your relative is being questioned. That is how the “different” group feel when a small minority behaves like a criminal and yet the majority take the hit. Some of them are my friends and I understand how they feel, even though I am in the majority.
I am not being uncivillised. I am just using YOUR OWN logic and reasoning that being different and sensitive means you deserve to be discriminated against. If your own words and logic hurts you, what about others? I leave it to the readers to think about…….
Eat Your Cake And Still Have It? 30 November 2011
The Singaporean government has always shown special attention to a particular group, because it is ‘different’.
Developed countries all over the world have this problem of sensitivity necessary for this particular group’s ‘difference’.
Yet there are always protests from this group of ‘discrimination’.
Is this ‘discrimination’ justified, in light of the special ‘sensitivities’ and ‘differences’ of the group?
Is is like the case of the feminists, citing equality when it benefits them, and sexism when it does not?
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Just say it Lah! what is IT? If we cannot comment on IT, what does that make IT. And IT is something outside of Singapore Singaporeans can comment on and not face some RACISM charges Lah!
@Ray,
do you have anything against someone expressing his new found freedom after rejecting his old religion.
@Ray
There is sensitivity and there is uber-sensitivity. Goodbye.
PS: Even a person in the ‘majority’ thinks so – in this case – Halima Gose from another thread:
“I am a Muslim. I understand why people get pissed over the picture. I guess it is equivalent to juxtaposing a slaughtered cow over the Sri Perumal temple. But, actually ah, besides the vulgarities and not qualifying her remarks with pharses like “not all muslims are” and “but some in the name of Islam” and wtte, what is exactly wrong with Serena Lee’s comments?
Fiz, yah well I do agree with you that’s a stupid thing to do and obviously meant to provoke anger by uncharacteristically defacing a religious symbol. But there has been so many instances media when Jesus was made fun of in so offensive settings, Joseph Smith of the Mormon faith was ridiculed numerous times, heck even Scientology was lampooned and let’s not forget how badly sometimes Jews are potrayed in media and cartoons and pin up posters. My point is, people of these faith don’t necessarily get as violent, as history has shown time again, like Serena Lee says. And after awhile, even moderate Muslims like myself get fed up with such intolerant Muslims who lack a sense of humor and a keen inability to forgive and forget and a huge propensity towards violence as the method of protesting remarks made by “heathens”.
Case in point, look at Amran TheDud’s remarks “be prepared to face the consequences” if the picture is not removed. Why does he need to resort to using threatening words? Did Donaldson engineered a Ponzi scheme that cheated many of their life savings? Did he kill someone in a horrific fashion, premeditated? Did he commit war crimes and jailed a bunch of political activists under some dubious and unproven Marxist conspiracy? No? Why should he go to jail, and why must he be facing any consequences other than a sharp rebuke on why juxtaposing a pig on a holy sybol of Islam is not cool?
On another note, just explain to me is it a conincidence that over the past decade or so, most if not all Sedition Act cases has got to do with Islam and not any other religion? And oh God, I feel quite bad for pointing this out as well, people who got jailed under the ISA act in the past decade or so, any non Muslims in that list? Just some months ago I came across a Singaporean Muslim male facebook page who had been making pro-Nazi and anti-Semitic posts to the tune “Jews deserved the holocaust” and such nonsense over days, causing him to lose many friends, but not one, Jew or not, made a police report against him, how come? I mean come on lah, we’re allhuman beings after all. It gets tiring and frustrating with such level of pandering to one race and one religion. Again I reiterate, I was born and raised a Muslim. Still am what Singapore defines a moderate Muslim to be.”
S2.191 : it is so easy to feel that one is discriminated with such exhortation. persecution is worse than slaughter. what is dr yaacob’s code of conduct.
heads roll, jobs lost, people get scolded when mainstream media does not tow the party line. goodbye former editor. welcome, former Minister of Propaganda, to chair the organisation.
good luck maintaining the illusion of who controls what is said and thought in the newsroom. good luck maintaining staff morale of “real journalism” in singapore.
long live the Internet!
Yacob should not act unilaterally. He should be sensitive to the needs of the various stakeholders who make up the population of the internet. He should adopt a consultative approach and avoid generalizing and simplifying things. We do not ban electricity just because it kills X number of people a year. We do not turn our cars into toasters bc Y number of people die on the road every year. Neither do we turn aircraft hangars into foodcourts bc Z number of passengers die in aircrashes. So why should we overeact when it comes to the internet?
If Yacob fails to engage netizens. Then it is very likely, he will stand alone.
You see, I know something, he doesnt know. A decision has already been made.
http://dotseng.wordpress.com/2011/10/28/why-singapore-has-no-choice-but-to-legislate-against-the-net/
The ball is on his court. His colleagues should reason with him. They should point out the pitfalls.
@ Eat Your Cake And Still Have It?
In some of the Western developed countries, they champion freedom of speech. But then there is also a limit. You cannot challenged any fact on the Holocaust. A mere Questioning of the Holocaust itself may land you in prison.
@ Eat Your Cake And Still Have It?
Btw I do not think we are pandering too much to the minority. If they are out of line, they can be taken to task. Any racist comments be it targetted against the minority or majority, must be challenged and debated so that such deplorable remarks do not perpetuate and establish itself within the society. Post War Germany’s Far Right’s movement operated under the guise of freedom of speech and expression. Their ideas perpetuate within part of German society that there is growing hatred against the minority. A few weeks ago 7 men were gunned down by a Fascist in Germany because of their ethnicity and religious belief. The killer did not wake up one day suddenly to be a killer.
A person does not turn violent against another race/religion suddenly out of the blue. There must be an environment or factors that build up the momentum for him to be a racist, and turn him to violence, and one factor is the existence of ideas that belittled the other person race/religion. Over time as such bigotted ideas take root within a society that it is then become acceptable to kill another human beings because they are different from us. You should read the genocide history in Rwanda, Bosnia and Serbia.
@HL,
By your admission, TOC is then a motley gang with divisive missions.
Some of you want to shame and clamp down on these online racists. Some of you want freedom of speech. Please get your act together. It’s very confusing.
How can advocacy for civil liberties and demand for action to control such liberties co-exist in the same space under the same name? Who are we to believe? Doesn’t this pose a dilemma to people who believe in their causes enough to come here?
It’s not the minister who jumped on this. It’s the people who reported the matter to the police, to TOC, to yahoo, to various blogs. It’s TOC, yahoo, blogs. It’s the writers in TOC and yahoo and the many commenters in some forums. These are the collective group of people who see these incidents as serious and important.
How is the minister involved? Right at the tail end. He wasn’t featured anywhere at the start. So now, who are the people who “use such incidents, with only a dubious proof point, to try curtailing online discourse.”? The answer is clear. A whole group of online people fueled it.