Singaporeans' response to freedom of speech criticism

[Fingolfin_Noldor]

The law just came out last year November.What ruckus was involved?or are you referring to Xiaxue use of the law against the satirist SMRT Limited?
Anyway, I hardly call a law six months old to be way back.

Well, then my memory is faulty. I seriously stopped following Singapore news for a long while.

As for not independent, citations needed.
Edit: that's the standard required for political debate,nothing more,nothing less.

You do recall this incident right?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Judicial_i ... _Singapore

District judges and magistrates of the Subordinate Courts are appointed to their positions by the Legal Service Commission (LSC) on a term basis, and do not enjoy security of tenure. These judges can be transferred by the LSC from the courts to other government departments to serve as legal officers, and vice versa. This may be said to create a risk of executive interference. The transfer of Senior District Judge Michael Khoo is often cited as an illustration of this. Opposition Member of Parliament J.B. Jeyaretnam and a co-accused had each been charged with three charges of having fraudulently transferred cheques to prevent the distribution of money to the creditors of the Workers' Party of Singapore, and one charge of making a false declaration.[35] In January 1981, Khoo acquitted the defendants of all charges except a single charge of fraud involving a cheque for S$400. He sentenced Jeyaretnam to a $1,000 fine, which was below the amount of $2,000 that would have caused him to lose his seat in Parliament.[36] Upon the Public Prosecutor's appeal to the High Court, Chief Justice Wee Chong Jin ordered retrials on the two charges of cheque fraud that the defendants had been acquitted of.[37] In August 1981, before the retrials, Khoo was transferred to the Attorney General's Chambers to take up appointment as a deputy public prosecutor.[38][39] The defendants were convicted of the charges by a different senior district judge and sentenced to three months' imprisonment each. Jeyaretnam and his co-accused then appealed to the High Court, which confirmed their convictions but reduced the sentences to a fine of $5,000 each.[40] However, a commission of inquiry convened in 1986[41] to examine Khoo's transfer determined that no evidence of executive interference in the Subordinate Courts had been presented, and that the transfer had been decided by the Chief Justice in consultation with the Attorney-General. It did not investigate why the transfer was made.[42] In Parliamentary debates before and after the inquiry it was suggested on the one hand that the transfer had been routine and the timing coincidental, and on the other that it was related to Khoo's competence in handling the case. The reason for the transfer was never clearly established.[38][43]

Granted it was a long time ago, but like many past issues, they were never satisfactorily redressed.

And personally, I have always regarded that the need to use "Contempt of Court" to defend the integrity of the Court as a ridiculous misuse of the law borderline Lèse-majesté.

[PainRack]

Or it was really a routine transfer. It's not as if the courts haven't found in favour for the opposition before or damaged the governmenent reputation and policies . For example, attacking the NKF charges of corruption and the assault on corrupt civil servants linked to the PAP. It's not as if former judges attacked the evangelist Anne grasp of constitutional law and found the government acceptance of her arguments ignorant or how the workers party won a court case of defamation against the PAP.

[ray245]

except that it's wholly appropriate. Look, critics of books and films don't distort stuff ,nor do they use vulgar language and other taboos as high culture . Nathan got called on this and how his view was ethnocentric. Just what the fuck is wrong with this?

It's a way better rebuttal than Timothy idiot I can walk around the streets safely, which deserves all the mockery it can and should get.

The point is there should not be an "asian" or "Singapore" way of understanding freedom of speech. It's fine to construct laws differently regarding freedom of speech depending on the circumstances, but it becomes problematic if you assume that there is an ethnocentric approach in defining human rights.

Hmmm, I forgot to actually post why I found the State intervention to be initially positive.

Because a Malay poet, stating politely that Singapore society was not discussing the criticism of his rule and glorifying his life and death received death threats online, prompting him to withdraw that comment.

THAT....is a way more alarmist event than Amos necrophilia and Come Sue Me motherfucker. Because that guy made a cogent point that wasn't disrespectful to anyone and received death threats for it.

If the law ISNT bought down upon Amos, he was well on the way to receiving such threats n etc given the furore and if the law didn't punish him, there's going to be awkward questions asked because of his enthicity and social class....

Bringing the matter to the State prevented more online bullying and staunched the fire.It's just that Amos,despite my desire for leniency because trolling and stupidity is part of being young and foolish...Will probably be sacrificed and punished.

We.... Do badly need a review and etc, but I do have sympathy for why the government acts the way it does, even if I do think that ultimately, it's defeatist....

That is the key problem I am raising here. It's not about whether the state is right to step in, but the problem of the state being necessary to step in. This simply shows the problem with Singapore's society in general, and how much the society itself is hindering further democratic discussion within society.

I am saying that the Singapore community/society itself is being overtly aggressive in censoring what people can or cannot say, and their desire to jail/send death threats to someone who disagree with them is simply frightening.

The aim is that we should try and ensure the society does not require active state intervention in the first place.

[madd0ct0r]

except that it's wholly appropriate. Look, critics of books and films don't distort stuff ,nor do they use vulgar language and other taboos as high culture . Nathan got called on this and how his view was ethnocentric. Just what the fuck is wrong with this?

It's a way better rebuttal than Timothy idiot I can walk around the streets safely, which deserves all the mockery it can and should get.

The point is there should not be an "asian" or "Singapore" way of understanding freedom of speech. It's fine to construct laws differently regarding freedom of speech depending on the circumstances, but it becomes problematic if you assume that there is an ethnocentric approach in defining human rights.

Hmmm, I forgot to actually post why I found the State intervention to be initially positive.

Because a Malay poet, stating politely that Singapore society was not discussing the criticism of his rule and glorifying his life and death received death threats online, prompting him to withdraw that comment.

THAT....is a way more alarmist event than Amos necrophilia and Come Sue Me motherfucker. Because that guy made a cogent point that wasn't disrespectful to anyone and received death threats for it.

If the law ISNT bought down upon Amos, he was well on the way to receiving such threats n etc given the furore and if the law didn't punish him, there's going to be awkward questions asked because of his enthicity and social class....

Bringing the matter to the State prevented more online bullying and staunched the fire.It's just that Amos,despite my desire for leniency because trolling and stupidity is part of being young and foolish...Will probably be sacrificed and punished.

We.... Do badly need a review and etc, but I do have sympathy for why the government acts the way it does, even if I do think that ultimately, it's defeatist....

That is the key problem I am raising here. It's not about whether the state is right to step in, but the problem of the state being necessary to step in. This simply shows the problem with Singapore's society in general, and how much the society itself is hindering further democratic discussion within society.

I am saying that the Singapore community/society itself is being overtly aggressive in censoring what people can or cannot say, and their desire to jail/send death threats to someone who disagree with them is simply frightening.

The aim is that we should try and ensure the society does not require active state intervention in the first place.

Historically at least, Singapore was an unusual circumstance - a small society of 3-4 equal sized blocks of very different ethnicities, and populist politicians seeking to build their power base by driving wedges between them. It was a classic prisoner dilemma - a politician became more powerful individually (more certain of his voting bloc) the more antagonistic relations between the blocs were, but overall society would suffer.
The Lee solution was to lock up the rabble rousers, make english mandatory and concentrate on building a 'Singaporean' identity to undermine race politics. It worked well enough that we now do talk about "an "asian" or "Singapore" way of understanding freedom of speech" (instead of a chinese, indian or malay one). It included suppression of talk deemed destabailising from the very start.

[PainRack]

]

The point is there should not be an "asian" or "Singapore" way of understanding freedom of speech. It's fine to construct laws differently regarding freedom of speech depending on the circumstances, but it becomes problematic if you assume that there is an ethnocentric approach in defining human rights.

nd there's no American version of freedom of speech EITHER.
read his article. His argument is that the government 'owns' all 7 domestic tv channels and most of the media,hence no freedom of speech. That's an American enthocentric view because it deems non government press higher than government owned press,ignoring examples like the BBC vs Sky Tv.
Furthermore,in this context, it's not government owned anymore. It's a company where the major stockowner is under the government owned investment arm.

The Straits Time is the voicepiece of the PAP only because they reflect their conservative editorial views . Note how they were criticized for raising articles criticizing the large government reserves and CPF as being economically detrimental, for the government to rebuttal them using secret,government data. Ditto to the whole oral sex saga, where the AGC had to clarify that the persecution was because the child was underage at the time of the offence.


He viewed the charges as absurd...ignoring the historical background for the religious hate speech laws and etc. It's a lousy piece of reporting...save it wasn't that, it's an ediotial and op ed .


Again, if the article refused to address why our hate speech bar is set at instigating hatred instead of instigating specific violence, and ignores why the State has to act because of the legal system and why it's made that way.....

]

That is the key problem I am raising here. It's not about whether the state is right to step in, but the problem of the state being necessary to step in. This simply shows the problem with Singapore's society in general, and how much the society itself is hindering further democratic discussion within society.

I am saying that the Singapore community/society itself is being overtly aggressive in censoring what people can or cannot say, and their desire to jail/send death threats to someone who disagree with them is simply frightening.

The aim is that we should try and ensure the society does not require active state intervention in the first place.

that is NOT what you said. You just said that you disturbed that people are using scarasm and a two different views of freedom of speech to attack criticism , which to be fair IS a valid complaint. But the article you quoted isn't one of them.

Again. Timothy walk streets safely is THAT argument. Not the White Imperialist with no context speech.

As for your new point, just how do you propose to resolve this...