You can’t arrest the racist out of someone.

Inviting the police in to control speech you consider offensive is opening a wide door. Better to let the community learn to debate and educate. Saying that, I appreciate the authorities sensitivities and fears about social unrest. Open debate on such matters won’t happen any time soon.

BTW, Donaldson Tan has a record of being offensive and creepy. During the elections he took an interesting in photographing Vivian Balakrishnan’s wife and making lewd comment about her. It was totally out of line. He clearly likes to offend.

“I have no problem with racist nonsense like the ones in question – the Gods know that i’ve had to ‘tolerate’ with chinese racism all my life – which makes singapore’s ‘racial tolerance’ interchangeable with ‘tolerance of chinese racism’.

But i do have a problem with people of the advantaged race not taking issue with their ill-gotten advantage and not taking issue with racists, overt or otherwise, amongst their number. You say,

“Singapore is a multi-racial, multi-religious society. That much we know; it’s been relentlessly drummed into our heads since we were kids in school….But as I look around, there is this sneaking suspicion that we might not actually be a real multi-cultural society.”

You don’t need to look far mate. Just take a look at your sidebar. You obviously don’t seem to have a problem proudly displaying the ‘singapore blog awards’ logo awarding your site in your side bar whilst failing to notice how it presents singapore as a chinese state. You ought to go do some soul-searching Kirsten old boy. I think you’re too used to seeing things through sinical eyes to notice this problem, and, unwittingly, have profitted from it as well through the additional motivational/occupational/social/political resources all chinese would be able to access in greater degree than ‘others’.

The fact that there isn’t violence or any such nonsense in response to this situation is not because singapore is ‘mature and discerning’, unless ‘mature and discerning’ is taken to mean, ‘i’m used to being first/second-class citizen so it’s like that one lorr’. It is highly self-serving to view people as ‘mature and discerning’ when they are accustomed to taking racism as the norm mate.

[an unabridged version of this comment will be published at a2ed*com]

i disagree with kirsten. there is widespread resentment of the minority groups of the majority groups. honestly, no offense to anyone, this land does belong to the Malays but we have been sidelined due to policies. and to add salt to the wound, these children of children of children of migrants who have not only taken our land, are also posting insensitive remarks. if singaporeans continue being complacent about racial harmony and are confident that they wont be racial riots, they are really asking for trouble. while the older generation malays may be less vocal, the younger generation is more vocal… and with social networking etc etc, whatever resentment that is brewing now may just boil over eventually.

(Edit: A prior version of the following comment was written on FB in a discussion with some friends on these “anti-Islam” incidents; I’ve redacted some details and edited others for re-posting here)

THE POINT OF CENSORSHIP

A society that properly prioritises the liberty of the individual can only attempt to limit the right to free speech by demonstrating how its unlimited form is actually more inimical to freedom. Some fall back on the popular Harm Principle and interpret insults as a way of inflicting “harm”. I find that such approaches raise more problems than they solve. I prefer reasoning from the simple idea that freedom requires protecting individuals and groups from domination by others. This implies that equal status – as Singaporean citizens – takes priority over other secondary forms of liberty.

Thus a free and open society does not condone the wilful and irresponsible denigration of its members. This is the limit to free speech. Much intolerant speech is distasteful, but some forms are much more than just that; status in not merely a matter of taste. In a free and therefore equal society such intolerance can be morally criminal. Some would charge that all intolerance is equally bad. But democratic censorship is distinguished from other forms of intolerance by the rightness of the principles on which it is based. Among these principles are those that sanctify equal respect for different ways of life. With all due respect, it would be sloppy to elide this distinction.

[It isn't just psychological offense that we're preventing (and we need to be beware the behaviouralist impulse to reducing everything to psychological pleasure and pain); it's attempts to deny certain groups, in this case minorities, the status and respect they deserve - because we want and ought to be a free society, which entails parity of status.]

Moreover, the act of censorship is made public, just as the speech crimes committed here, along with their content, are to be tried in public. This must be so because it is necessary for social education. No doubt this will silence future expression by bigots. But we have good reason to doubt if allowing more bigoted views to be aired actually helps us to tackle the underlying problems, as free-speechers like to claim. I’m not convinced that freer countries have seen a clear decline in racist sentiment, even countries that have lived with diversity for more than a century, and Western Europe offers several examples. Deterrence isn’t 100%, and has surely never been (otherwise we wouldn’t even be talking about the issue in question), so the comparison isn’t between zilch bad-speech and much bad-speech, but between a little bad-speech and much bad-speech. I’m saying a little is bad enough for social equality (and thus liberty from domination by the majority), and good enough for us to get around to solving the underlying problems, which we thankfully have been working hard at in Singapore.

TARGETED EDUCATION AND SOCIAL NORMS

Kirsten, you reason that education and counseling are more effective than criminal punishment. I don’t disagree, but the devil is in the details, as numerous commenters have pointed out. Let’s run through a brief list of the options:
A. There is the most public form of education that censorship is an integral part of, complemented by the flurry of newspaper editorials and blog posts and social commentary that (1) condemn racist speech and (2) discuss the limits of criminal punishment and the right to free speech. That’s what we’re spilling pixels over here.
B. Then there is formal education and the informal socialisation that goes on in schools, which educators can keep an eye on and help guide. To the extent that the family is an educational institution (we call its product “upbringing”), the same roles apply to parents.
C. Targeted, professional counselling – something we probably ought to invest more in.
D. Tinkering with features of public policy in various areas might also help in an indirect way by sending the message that all the relevant groups are to be treated as equal. Of course, policy does much more than sending messages. Some of the more hardcore approaches are equivalent to social engineering. I reserve my opinion on them.

Each one of these methods are complementary, and I see no reason why we shouldn’t utilise them all at once. What you correctly emphasise is that they aren’t all consistent with each other. Censorship undermines targeted (as opposed to general) forms of education like counselling. But the way I see it, the matter of choosing what means to use to achieve the end of education is only a matter of calculation using the best of our social-scientific and economic knowledge: how can we educate as many people as possible at the lowest cost possible? The cost involved here includes the hurt and denigration that minorities and other potential victims of verbal abuse (etc.) suffer, as well as economic cost. It would be nice and inspiring to throw starfish back into the sea one at a time, but I don’t know if this is the most sensible way to educate.

A far more effective way to go about this is to inculcate the great majority of members of society with a deep and strong sense of political correctness, just as the liberal intelligensia has very successfully done for so many people worldwide, not least in Singapore. At the individual level, those who know better can persuade and chastise those who do not. At the social level, norms deter bigotry and psychologically condition individuals into liberal tolerance. Unpatterned enforcement of social norms is a very powerful force, so much so that J.S. Mill feared it as a greater threat to liberty than anything else. (I think his fear’s mostly well-founded, but it shouldn’t apply to the present case.)

Are we seriously suggesting that we don’t know that Muslims and Islam (for example) are already stereotyped and insulted by many anyway? We shouldn’t pretend that public proclamations, like Donaldson Tan’s, are the only kind of speech we hear. We have friends and family and colleagues, and we hear things all the time. So I think we have good reason to believe that as a society, we aren’t that befuddled about the issue of race, at least not as much as some of us might like to think. Besides, it seems quite obvious that legal repercussions haven’t made a difference to the offenders’ decisions to say what they said, though this is more true of Jason Neo than Donaldson Tan. So while Jason Neo needs to be learn, Donaldson Tan needs to be taught a lesson.

THE ‘CHILLING EFFECT’

On this issue, I think it’s helpful to consider the situation in which would-be bigots and would-be non-bigots both check their speech for fear of legal and moral reprisal. This is the free-speecher’s dystopia.

It’s true that this is repressive, in at least the sense that our pre-emptive checking of our desires to shirk duties or lie or overeat or fight is repressive. One could ruminate over the ostensibly sad implications for “liberty”. But from the viewpoint of moral learning – learning to respect our equals – isn’t this in fact the kind of outcome we want? People are learning to recognise what counts as an insult and what doesn’t (I’m sure Jason Neo now can). And at this stage, they already know what _could_ possibly count – the boundaries are vague but there. And as long as we are willing to make room for the possibility of honest mistakes and judge each alleged transgression fairly and transparently, we can sharpen the definition of these boundaries over time, thereby negotiating a social consensus.

So it is with issues of taste (humour, fashion, etiquette), morality (must I keep this promise? When is lying permissible? Should homosexual marriage be prohibited?) and other general but important issues (what should I do with my life? What is our collective identity? Is 42 really the answer?).

*****

The unlimited right to free speech has become a bland liberal trope at best. There is only so much punishment that innocent members of a diverse society can and should be allowed to take. Insults and hate-speech affect status, group self-esteem, social engagement, and given time, economic and political opportunities. Now, we should beware alarmism about its effects as much as blase optimism. But having done so, I think we will find that these sorts of speech possess a large enough threat to social equality that we would want to prohibit them through (democratic) state coercion. What we should be seeking to do here is alleviate the inequality by turning around to punish those responsible, like we would for any other crime.

None of this is to deny that there are far bigger problem to solve than simple hate speech. There are systematic global and local forces leading up to the discrimination embodied in insults and hate-speech. But we don’t have to choose; we should try to tackle both the short-term problem of speech and the long-term problem of unfair discrimination and stereotyping, in something like the way that combating civil insurgencies requires tackling both short-term problems of violence through police measures and the long-term problem of economic development, etc. through other coordinated efforts (I recognise the limits of this analogy, but it is only an analogy).

The recent spate of bigoted comments should hence be treated with heavy doses of coercive threats by the state, if not heavy fines or short, punitive jail terms. But it’s not up to me; I’m a pundit, not a judge.

Really enjoyed reading your insights.

Hi Shafie,

Except in both Singapore and Malaysia, particularly in the latter a Malay IS a Muslim unless otherwise stated. Islam is the only religion in Singapore where there is a specific Ministry and laws to cater to them. MUIS is a semi official body and the Minister for Muslim Affairs is also the Minister for Malay Affairs.

The link between Islam and the Malay identity is almost airtight, much like that of a European during the reign of Christiandom. A European is either a Chrisitan (of whatever denomination) or he s a burnt heretic. While Singapore Malays do not face legal trouble for apostasy, he does face social backlash from family and friends if he is openly a non-Muslim

Unlike Malaysia of course, our Consitution doesn’t state that a Malay is a Muslim. Considering the ostracisation that a Malay will face from his own community if he is openly an apostate of the Islamic faith however, it is expected if you ask a Malay if he’s a Muslim, the answer is almost always yes.

Is there such a thing as Chinese-Taoist or Indian-Hindu race? Just because such discrimination exist, does not mean we ought to condone it. Doing so will only propagate ignorance further. Which is what is happening in Singapore

Sorry for the multiple replies, I just have to make another important clarification and I couldn’t find the edit button.

Donaldson shared the photo on his Facebook, with the intention of drawing to attention that it was a flame-bait. It was a matter of another person not understanding what a flame-bait meant and that it was a re-posted material from another source.

I see no offense in that. It is akin to say,for example, somebody sharing a KKK video and saying that this is how they recruit people. And the person sharing it,is accused of being KKK.

Try religious bigot.

Hi Kirsten:

New Asia Republic has produced a response to the part about Donaldson Tan.

http://newasiarepublic.com/?p=34837

“The reason behind Tan’s actions as he explains was to act as a whistle-blower to warn the community that such a provocative picture exists. This was why he placed a disclaimer on the picture,”This is a flame bait. YOU ARE WARNED”. When told to take down the posting, Tan did not it take down, but what was not reported by the media both mainstream and alternative was that he actually gave a tip to the others on how the picture can be taken down via Facebook. The picture together with its postings was subsequently taken down by the Facebook administrators.”

It appears that TOC was sensationalist on its part.

“It is plausible that Tan had the intentions to whistle blow because firstly, he warned that the picture was a flame bait and secondly, he also gave a tip on how the picture can be taken down. However, what Tan could have done better is to better communicate the whistle blowing part, and avoid posting his personal views of Islam not being sacrosanct. He is entitled to his personal views, but from the communications perspective, such is not an appropriate thing to say at this instant.”

“Usually, when someone like Amran makes a police report and the matter is under investigation, proper editorial judgement will tell us that Amran should be advised to wait for the conclusion of the investigation by the police before publicising the matter. This is what an editor worth his weight in gold should do. A police report may or may not be a serious matter, non-serious ones are domestic disputes, while serious ones are real crimes.

However, of course, a sensational tabloid would have just blown up the matter, when someone like Amran approached them with a police report like such regardless of whether investigations have concluded.”

And Amran may perhaps have his agenda.

The logic is really simple – why break the news before police investigations are over. This applies to Amran and to TOC.

If police investigations shows up Donaldson to be not guilty of religious provocation, then should Ravi and Jewel apologise to Donaldson and the affected individuals and groups for sensationalising the issue? Should Amran apologise?

The whole issue is moot, including this post which includes Donaldson, if police conclude that he is not guilty of religious provocation.

many of the so-called malays of singapore are also descendants of migrants from malaysia and indonesia, clearly areas outside the territorial sovereignty of the present-day state of singapore. whether they deserve the term ‘indigenous’ is thus certainly open to debate, based on this line of thought alone. i am not trying to delegitimise anyone but just pointing out that for each simplistic claim to truth, a dozen parallel, tangential or countervailing perspectives exist. the truth isn’t black and white so don’t paint it as if it is. i don’t want to wade into the complex terrain of post-colonial politics, social memory or historiography so i’ll just leave it there. while you bring up a very pertinent point about ethnic identity, marginalisation and disenfranchisement, i don’t think wielding a long stick or making implied threats about potential ‘trouble’ i(to justify the aforementioned stick) is really the way forward for an open, plural, inclusive, tolerant and democratic society where fundamental human liberties (including the freedom of expression) are always vigorously upheld and defended. two wrongs do not make a right.