NOTE (added 24th November): It has been brought to my attention that the offensive posts made recently were comments on religion, not race, and are therefore technically not racist. Race and religion are two different issues that should not be conflated, and I agree. It was a mistake on my part to have overlooked that while first writing this post. However, the discussion that sparked from the three posts have also somewhat expanded to include issues of racism, and I feel that public discourse on race is in a rather similar situation to discourse on religion. Also, the Sedition Act as discussed here applies to both comments on race and religion, so I think the points made here still stand.
I was born Chinese in a majority-Chinese country. Obviously, I didn’t ask for it to happen this way; it just did. Apart from three-and-a-half years overseas I’ve never actually had much experience of being part of a minority group, and even in New Zealand I was lucky enough to never have experienced racism*. Because of this (I guess you could call it) privileged position, I’ve always felt like I shouldn’t comment too much on issues of racism or discrimination, for fear of speaking out of ignorance.
But the recent spate of racist and insensitive postings that have surfaced online – and the subsequent outcry – has led me to begin thinking about my attitudes to race and religion in Singapore, and the Sedition Act.
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. It gets trotted out by the establishment at any opportunity – I even heard it at Alan Shadrake’s trial, which was completely unrelated to race or religion. I could recite this line in my sleep.
But as I look around, there is this sneaking suspicion that we might not actually be a real multi-cultural society. I’ve always had some inkling of this; I tried – quite inarticulately, I have to admit – to make this point in a Social Studies class when I was about 13 or 14, saying that Singaporeans seemed to be getting by in this multi-racial, multi-religious society by ignoring each other rather than truly understanding and embracing our different cultures, customs and practices. I didn’t mean “ignore” in that our society is segregated by race, with neither group acknowledging the existence of the other, but that we co-exist in a superficial way: smiling and nodding at each other, but without really going any deeper apart from costume-swapping on Racial Harmony Day. And below all this superficiality there simmers ignorance, misconceptions and bigotry.
I don’t think the sentiments** expressed by people like Jason Neo or Christian Eliab Ratnam are surprising. They’ve always been there, it’s just that now there are social media platforms for people like them to make their opinions known. And there are many more than just the two of them – just listen to how some Singaporeans speak about Bangladeshi workers, or their domestic helpers. (Oh yes, such talk is just as racist, insensitive and bigoted as racist comments against fellow citizens; xenophobia itself has roots in racism.)
Of course, this doesn’t mean that it becomes natural or the norm for people to make such comments – I’m just saying that we should be aware of their existence, and work as a society to try to solve this problem. And the solution certainly does not come in the form of police reports and investigations.
Subsection 3 of the Sedition Act of Singapore defines a seditious tendency as a tendency “to promote feelings of ill-will and hostility between different races or classes of the population of Singapore.” This Act has been used over the years, resulting in fines and jail terms for those convicted. But does this really curb racism?
I don’t believe that arrests, convictions and jail time combat racism – it just teaches racists not to get caught. They are then left to brood over their hatred and prejudices privately. This actually makes things worse, because there is then no way for us to identify those in need of counselling and education.
Furthermore, these cries for the Sedition Act to be used on the likes of Jason Neo and Christian Ratnam – some have even gone as far as suggesting the Internal Security Act – seriously undermine the fight for free speech and expression in Singapore. If we want free speech, we’re going to have to accept that there will be comments such as these from time to time, and that using the law to censor and muzzle them is just as wrong as the law being used to censor or muzzle any one else.
If we want to have the right to share our opinions in the marketplace of ideas, then we’re going to have to accept that people like Neo and Ratnam (and most recently Donaldson Tan, whose conduct has been argued to have been even more odious than the previous two) have the right to be jerks and idiots. We can engage them, educate them and counsel them, but we can’t gag them. And gagging people is exactly what the Sedition Act is doing.
Perhaps this gagging too has been a contributing factor towards the situation we find ourselves in today with regard to these racist comments. Intimidated by the possibility of being arrested, fined or jailed, it becomes much safer and easier to just shut up and keep our heads down. This doesn’t make us more accepting or tolerant; it just means that instead of facing issues head-on and tackling them, we look away and pretend they aren’t there. Thus, a whole society of Singaporeans unable to cope with race/religion controversies is formed. All that is left for us to do is to cry foul and run to the police.
Racism, bigotry and prejudice is present everywhere, in every society in every country in the world. No matter where we go we cannot escape the fact that there will be people whose minds are closed, people who leap to conclusions or people who are just plain mean. Locking them up is not the answer. Society would be far better served if we were to direct our efforts towards tackling the root of racist beliefs instead, be it ignorance or misinformation.
* There have been accounts of widespread racism in New Zealand, which have always puzzled me because I had never encountered any of it. I finally had to account for it as a combination between luck and spending most of my time hanging out with artsy types who don’t really care whether you’re white, black, yellow, green or purple.
** This used to read “racist sentiments”, but I’ve edited it out since it was rightly pointed out to me that I’ve made the mistake of conflating race and religion by calling the postings made by Neo and Ratnam “racist”. I can’t quite think of a word along the lines of “racist”, but referring to religion, though. (“Religionist”?) If you can think of this word, please let me know so I can make the necessary amendments! Thank you!
Miss Ho
November 22, 2011
Great article. Thank you for this. I recently spoke to a friend about the Jason Neo comment, and he rightly said that this is nothing out of the norm; he merely articulated what thousands of other people are thinking. By crucifying him and him alone, we are not solving the problem of racism. There needs to be a more nuanced, honest and *sincere* approach to creating a “harmonious multi-racial and multi-religious society”.
JB
November 22, 2011
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.
Kirsten
November 22, 2011
Honestly I believe that Singaporean society is more mature and discerning. The fact that there hasn’t already been violence, and that in fact people are rejecting these racist statements, are encouraging signs that we have progressed to a stage where this statements are now censured, as opposed to being inflammatory. Of course, there is a lot more work to do.
Sadly for all of us, Donaldson makes lewd comments about many more men/women than just Dr Balakrishnan’s wife and daughter.
Kirsten
November 22, 2011
I sometimes wonder if the rush to crucify Jason Neo is just a way to allow us to feel superior, without actually acknowledging a deeper problem.
Mohammad Nizam Abdul Kadir
November 22, 2011
Good article. Are we matured enough a society to remain peaceful without such an act? My answer no. In many years to come, probably. Look at London’s riots. Aren’t they already a more matured and open society than ours? Extremists will always be there, and before they ruin the peace, we have to prevent disorders.
a2edd
November 22, 2011
“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]
Elizabeth
November 22, 2011
Racism has always been here, but the facade covering it is slowly slipping off. I have to say you made a great point about the “gagging” bit. But I think such reactions (particularly with Jason Neo) are too often tied to politics.
The other concern is how racism is present in all segments of our multi-racial society, but I feel that the Chinese majority are often targeted as the propagators of racism. While there are valid reasons for this (being the majority we probably also have the largest pool of assholes – seems irrelevant but it is true – and the fact that many aspects of Singapore cater unfairly to the Chinese), those reasons are often not even looked at and things become “personal” instead, as if the Chinese are the only ones with stereotypical misconceptions of others. I do not deny that the Chinese majority need to educate themselves but I fear that the rather self-victimizing attitude minorities (obviously not everyone, but this is to put things broadly) may have seems to suggest that they think as minorities, and more distinct recipients of racism they automatically have a better understanding of racism and/or are more enlightened about racial equality than the Chinese majority. In a simplistic manner, “I am a minority therefore I can’t possibly be a racist”.
I think we all agree that education is the only solution to rooting out prejudice, but what kind of education and how?
Kirsten
November 22, 2011
London’s riots weren’t sparked off by objectionable comments online. I certainly didn’t mean that Singaporeans would *never* be incited to riot, or that riots are an impossibility in Singapore, but what I meant was that I find it quite unlikely that racist comments online would spark off a riot in Singapore like the ones we had in the 60s.
Preventing such violent events is of course important, but I don’t think that it warrants or justifies overreactions, which arresting and jailing people who make racist comments undoubtedly is.
Kirsten
November 22, 2011
Part of the calls for Jason Neo to get arrested is because of the perceived unfairness of others being charged with sedition when a YPAP member (or former YPAP member) gets just a slap on the wrist. I understand that sense of injustice but ultimately feel that calling for his arrest is a little counter-productive in terms of trying to get more freedom of expression in Singapore.
You do bring up a good point about all the other issues of race/religion. It’s never straightforward. There’s also reverse racism and all those other aspects that need to be looked at. Rooting out this problem is not going to be easy, and I don’t think this is really something that can be government-initiated. It needs to be owned by the people and by Singaporean society to have credibility. This is going to be something we need to try to figure out.
hana
November 23, 2011
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.
del
November 23, 2011
kirsten – re: your claim about not having encountered racism in NZ, seriously, i think you just need to rewire your mindset to see it; there are some people who live in the UK but can claim the same thing – i think it’s either a mental handicap and/or the ability of NZers to put on a front – for every 10 persons whom you pass on the street and who do not harass you, there are 9 who are thinking “go home chink” in their breasts.
Ian Wern
November 23, 2011
(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.
Shafiie
November 23, 2011
I agree with your points.
However, I want to make a clarification. Actually, to label a Malay automatically as Muslim, is discrimination in itself. Race is not religion and religion is not race.
Kirsten
November 23, 2011
You’re absolutely right! I was just thinking about that this morning too – I have lapses from time to time. X_x Just shows how much more I have to learn! Thanks Shafiie!
Kirsten
November 23, 2011
That is highly possible – I’m not saying that there is 0 racism in NZ because there definitely is. I was just saying that I was lucky enough not to have been on the receiving end of racist words/actions. Luckily for all of us (especially me) I can’t actually experience goes through people’s minds.
But you have a point, it might just be my mindset. It can be quite difficult to offend me because I can be pretty oblivious sometimes.
Lucian
November 23, 2011
Really enjoyed reading your insights.
Esther
November 23, 2011
Hi
I would just like to share about an unpleasant incident.
I was working part-time for a marketing company Z at a 7-11 store which was beside a mosque. This job was about promoting SXX beer. So naturally, it would be logical to expect low sales as beer is non-halal.
There was this AXX rep who posed as a customer to check on me. He later revealed himself to be from AXX company and chided me for my lousy sales tactics. So he went on to talk about how such I have done this and that…(Should not ask Yes/No questions) He also mentioned that he observeded me standing around,waiting and waiting…
AXX rep: What are you waiting for?
AXX rep: How many bottles have you sold?
Me: Zero.
AXX rep: Why?
Me: Oh, because this 7-11 is like beside a mosque and 80% of the customers who walk in are Muslims. I can’t approach them.
AXX rep: Why? As long as they are not small kids, you can approach them. You are a promoter and we employ you to promote, not standing around.
At this point of time, I was pretty fustrated but still kept my temper and tried to reason it out to him that beer is non-halal which I thought he dint know. He then went on to demostrate how to promote more agreesively by pushing the free gift into customer’s hand and explaining how to let the pick-and-go customers of 7-11 stay longer in the store.
AXX: So you understand?
Me: Not really, you mean I should approach Malays? I don’t think it’s right to do that at all.
He got pretty mad and spoke louder.
AXX: Do you have Malay friends who drink?
Me: Not many friends to begin with (This reply was out of respect for him.)
AXX: Does that mean that 1 black sheep never buy beer from you means that no other Malays will buy beer from you?
I was stunned by this comment and decided that he was really screwed. This issue surfaced at least 3 times and I was tired of listening to him. I merely agreed to everything he said so that he could leave me alone soon. After ending work, I told the marketing company Z that I wish to quit the job.
A week later, I sms the AXX rep and told him that he was very insensitive and ought to feel apologetic. His reply was “It’s ok we don’t need promoters who are not flexible” and when asked about his logic behind promoting to Muslims, he said: “it is a service as a promoter to promote beer. we may not know whether they are Muslims or Islam.. By the way, did not ask you to force them to buy. it is coutesy way to promote beers to customers, be it they are any religion or races. As a promoter, this is a way of service. They will be courteous to reply you, sorry I cannot buy or I am not interested.” (Bad English from him)
I cannot deny that what he said was politically correct. However, placed in a situation where it is obvious that the walk-in customers are Muslims (from their clothes) or I personally saw them stepping out from the mosque and wearing their shoes. His screwed logic does not apply anymore.
I was told that the AXX company higer management has placed this of high importance however, I was very disappointed when I send in my email to attempt to aid in the investigation. The person took weeks to reply and seems to be rather reluctant or ignoring me. I believe he got scot-free.
JayF
November 23, 2011
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.
Kirsten
November 23, 2011
Correct me if I’m wrong, Shafiie, but I believe that what you meant is that even though it is very often the case that a Malay is a Muslim, one shouldn’t begin to start automatically linking race with religion. For example, if we take Donaldson Tan’s case, it is incorrect to say that he posted something that was racially offensive, because it actually touched on a religious issue rather than a racial one. “Malay” and “Muslim”, although often overlapping, cannot be seen as one and the same, and used interchangeably.
Shafiie
November 24, 2011
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
Shafiie
November 24, 2011
Yes, Kirsten, that is what I meant
Shafiie
November 24, 2011
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.
Kirsten
November 24, 2011
Just wondering… is there a word like ‘racist’, except for religion? I’m sure there should be one, but I can’t think of it and so I’ve been asking around. So far the best answer has been ‘fundamentalist’ but that doesn’t quite cover the same concept/nuance. Do you know?
The
November 24, 2011
Try religious bigot.
Kirsten
November 24, 2011
Ooh that’s true. Thank you!
Guest
November 27, 2011
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.
Kirsten
November 27, 2011
Thanks for this clarification!
Regarding TOC’s actions that would have to be something to be taken up with them. My inclusion of Donaldson in this post was simply because it was yet another incident that had popped up, and I was discussing the use of police reports/investigations/Sedition Act. My stance is that arresting someone for offensive postings doesn’t help anything and only undermines calls for free speech, so regardless of what I personally think of Donaldson’s – or anyone else’s – behaviour, I do not believe that there this need for a police investigation in the first place.
yavneh
December 1, 2011
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.