Come on, Singapore. If you’re going to make tough rules for blogs, enforce them properly
Yesterday, I had the displeasure of reading a blog post that should cause offense to anyone with half a brain.
Now, I’m all for freedom of speech, and one of the reasons I’m based in Hong Kong and not in Singapore is because the press here is relatively free.
But how this post, which was published on the independent news site The Real Singapore, is allowed to exist in the public domain in a country with fiercely strict anti-discrimination laws is a mystery to me.
The post, which goes by the extraordinary headline STOP HUMANIZING THE BANGLAS/ INDIAN FTS!, begins with the words:
Ok so at a very technical/ genetic level, they are humans. But I am not talking technically here. My point is they are not the ‘same kind’ of humans we are. They have different cultural and moral bearings and these differences need to be acknowledged so that we can decide how to deal with this group of people.
It makes for ugly reading, going on to argue – in bewilderingly ignorant fashion – how Indians and Bangladeshis have limited thinking ability, don’t value human life, are corrupt and mistreat women.
If there is an article that is likely to incite racial hatred, at a time when racial tensions between locals and foreigners in Singapore are hardly rosy, just three days after the most violent riots in 40 years, it is this one.
Does this post not breach Singapore’s Sedition Act?
I quote from Wikipedia:
Subsection 3 of the Act describes the types of publication that have seditious tendency and these includes publication that “promote feelings of ill-will and hostility between different races or classes”.
Singapore takes social cohesion and racial harmony in the country seriously because of its multi-cultural makeup.
About 40 percent of the population are foreigners, the sixth-highest percentage in the world. In 2009, 74.2% of residents were of Chinese, 13.4% of Malay, and 9.2% of Indian descent, while Eurasians and other groups form 3.2%.
Also contributing to the nation’s sensitivity on racial harmony is its history of racial riots in the 1960s. More recent events of racial violence in neighboring Indonesia in the late 1990s and early 2000s also serve as reminders of potential inter-racial conflicts in the region.
In the comment thread beneath the piece, many posters give the author – who by the way does not reveal their real name – short thrift.
But many do not.
The issue here is that Singapore’s media regulator, the Media Development Authority, has recently introduced a tough new licensing regime for websites that report on local issues, but no one is really clear what these rules are for, nor what they mean.
I would humbly suggest, MDA, that if you’re going to get tough on those who write about Singapore online, then in this case, you do something about it for good reason.
Is this article not trampling all over Singapore’s famous OB markers – and at the worse time, possibly in the country’s short history?
The disclaimer at the beginning of the post is a cop out.
It reads:
TheRealSingapore.com is a platform for users to submit content and all content remains the property of the individual contributors. The views and opinions expressed by author(s) within the website are solely that of the contributors and in no way reflects the views of TheRealSingapore.com
It may well have been the property of the contributor when he or she wrote it, The Real Singapore. But it is yours now. Because you have published it on your website.
A follow-up post by the same author, which has since been added to the original, is equally vile and misguided.
This week the licensing regime claimed its first victim – the Breakfast Network – which closed on Tuesday because it did not get a licence after it was asked to by the MDA. The MDA has also banned the Breakfast Network from posting any of its content on Facebook or Twitter.
The Independent, which launched in August, was also leant on by the regulator immediately after launching. The MDA claimed that the publisher had foreign backing – which The Independent has denied. But site got a licence anyway, and continues to operate.
MDA, perhaps, in this case, you should be leaning on The Real Singapore too?
Robin Hicks
This is The Real Singapore showing their true colours in my opinion. Most of their Facebook posts are littered with casual to extreme racism. They allow it and actively encourage it.
Utterly appalling stuff. This is 2013. That also applies to many of the people commenting on Twitter on the night of the riot. Pre-empting your tweet “This is not a racist tweet but. . ” by its very nature acknowledges that it IS.
ReplyThe irony is that while the author no doubt believes this ignorant racist rant shows they are a proud Singaporean, they are actually causing more harm to their country both locally & internationally.
It’s a sickening piece, I’m just glad most Singaporean’s are not this blind.
ReplyAs ill-written and racist as this article may be, in a free society it still has a right to be here on an opinion forum such as this, and others have a right to respond as they wish. Otherwise, one could be arrested for writing a pro gay piece, a religious article with a different viewpoint, anything that goes against the norm – arrested under the pretext of inciting hatred as happens in Malaysia and other countries. Freedom of speech can’t belong to one and not the other. And in a way, this article has done a lot of good by showing the racism that exists, and the wonderful manner in which “average” Singaporeans have come together against it. Cheers to that! 🙂
ReplyHI,
“In the comment thread beneath the piece, many posters give the author – who by the way does not reveal their real name – short thrift.”
Kinda tricky English here, so not sure if you are referring to the author or the commentators, but the author’s name is posted at the top of the article as a Facebook snapshot [edited by Mumbrella]. This is rather interesting because one would assume such a racist screed would have been written by someone of another ethnic group.
This piece is spot on, though. Great job.
ReplyThe “Real Singapore” is xenophobic racist bigoted crap. But it’s not based in Singapore, it’s in Australia, so there’s nothing the Gahmen here can do.
Replythe real essence of free speech is that one can also say truly hurtful insulting statments. Though I do not necessarily agree with the real singaporean, their point is that not all cultures have the same level, and that is just a fact.
ReplyIt is odd that a man who says he choses HK over singapore to live in because of the free press in singapore, criticizes singapore for not enforcing censorship on a publication that HE doesnt like. In fact, he could have applauded singapore for apparently being sensible enough to allow points of view, even if they are not ‘politically correct’
For the author free press seems to be a great thing, as long as it is his opinion that is not curbed but other peopels opinions
I like to add that the author is quite offensive himself by using the ‘argumentatio ad baculum’ everyone that does not agree with him must have less than half a brain. Isnt that at least just as bad as saying some people have a different culture?
correction: “It is odd that a man who says he choses HK over singapore to live in because of the free press in singapore” ofcourse shld be: “…. free press in HK”
ReplyI’m so glad you decided to post this article despite the impact it could potentially have on Mumbrella’s future business interests in Singapore, if the article’s sentiment is misunderstood – or indeed misused.
What struck me as ‘odd’ (since this seems to be the dominant phraseology of this topic) was that Singapore’s press chose to dwell on the fact that ‘swift action had been taken to quell the riots’ and that ‘4 police cars had been overturned with several officers having been injured.’
Never once, did the press acknowledge or cover the real tragedy – ‘a man had been lost under the wheels of a bus, and in the process, a family’s dreams and livelihood had been to.’
The event has forced Singapore to stop, and examine, what is always difficult to. Conscience.
This is a process that may well cause the country to question its progress, scrutinising whether it is real or contrived.
ReplyThey’re not xenophobic and they’re not racist. Right. Got it. And PRs are welcome. . . oh, hang on. No, they’re not either. They’re just on the take too –
http://therealsingapore.com/content/xenophobia-favourite-pap-accusation
ReplyHave your say