It's official now: blogs are worse than porn

I'm neither a die hard fan nor critic of the Straits Times. But now and then, one of their columnists will manage to produce something that makes me wonder if my subscription to STI is really worth it. I'm talking about the piece: "Porn? No, blogs bug me more" by Carl Skadian (Sept 28, 2005). It's supposed to be about the worries that parents have concerning "children and the Internet", but quickly descends into a rather unconcealed diatribe about--you guessed it--blogs:

As far as I'm concerned, blogs are possibly the worst things about the Internet. Sure, pornography and other stuff rightly furrow the brows of parents, but the things some bloggers say go far beyond the pale.

Blogs are worse than porn. I don't even know where to begin... Anyway, Many of the concerns raised were mentioned earlier by Sumiko Tan; but without her restraint, or class. Since I'm turning in now, I will have to get back to this tomorrow. In the meantime, see reactions from Jeff Yen and Mr. Wang.

reactions coming in fast:

I wake up in the morning to see that--as expected--reactions to the ST piece are mushrooming everywhere in the local blogosphere. There is also a tomorrow.sg entry. Some of the more colorful ones:

- Xenoboy steps out of his post-structuralist mantle to write an Op-Ed: "PAP? No, ST Bugs Me More--with morally righteous and pro-establishment articles on the ST, how do we keep kids from believing everything they read?". As one of the commenters said: "Awesome!"

- Molly Meek died a second time: "If you condition them to believe everything in their National Education classes, in the ST, in Channel NewsAsia, etc, then they will inevitably tend to believe everything an inflammatory, venomous, seditious, subversive blogger has to say since you have effaced their critical abilities. On the other hand, if you want them to critically receive blogs, then you have to be prepared to let them receive their National Education classes, the ST, the CAN etc with trucks and trucks of salt. Find a way out of this catch-22 and you will create your utopia!"

- Singapore Classics sacrificed his "nice warm Grande Mocha" over lunch to respond: "Basically he is declaring war. Throwing one big splat of red paintball on all bloggers. Bad choice." He has quite a bit to say taking Skadian's piece apart, but this one part jumped out. He was talking about the existence of less than objective and in fact openly virulent blogs--"I am sometimes surprised, me being quite silly, that Singaporean enjoy such blogs (my explanation is because there are no mainstream tabloids)." I have to say the explanation has the ring of truth to it.

- lzydata of Singapore Ink also has quite a bit to say but the opening captured my sentiments exactly: "You know, some things are just beyond reason and beyond parody."

On a different note, I have followed with some interest the rather uneven coverage of blogs by ST, ranging from the objective and at least not hostile, to just plain bad. From the archives of this blog:

- "The Mainstream Media does not get blogs" (Apr 24); title self explanatory.
- "Factchecking ST" (Apr 29); about a detail in ST's coverage of the CZ affair.
- "Mainstream media, blogs and other matters" (May 13); on the accusation of bull----.
- "Reading the ST (May 15)"; where I coined the term "xiaxue doctrine", referring to ST's misquoting of Mr. Brown and Mr. Miyagi.
- "ST on the blogosphere (May 24)"; on three ST articles about blogs that are neither here nor there.
- "ST gets serious about blogs", Part 2, Part 3 (May 27-28); probably the most objective coverage of the blogs ever attained by ST to date, and it is revealing that they were penned by comparatively younger journalists (my age and younger).
- "ST on Bloggers.sg 2005" (July 17); on the less than stellar coverage of the convention.
- "Sumiko Tan on cyberspace's "bile and vile"" (Aug 1); on hindsight, a tamer and more classy precursor to Skadian's piece.
add: - lzydata commented that Andy Ho's "Blogging’s catching on, but beware of the pitfalls" (Sep 19) should count as "plain bad" (Tym disagrees: she thinks that Andy Ho's writing in general should count as "plain bad"). Strangely enough, I don't recall that piece--probably missed it (or only took a quick glance) because I was busy at that time. But it was the piece that Jonathan Au was responding to. I have no particular reason to disagree with either lzydata or Tym.

How will this saga continue?

add: Tym has more on the ST headlines: "Since the results of the interschool blogging competition were announced to polite applause on September 9, the headlines have taken a far more tumultuous turn." Indeed. There's a lot more, but you should read it for yourself.

latest: Elia Diodati has a detailed--and very cool--response in an "open letter to Skadian":

Pointing an accusing finger can be easy to do, but one seldom remembers that there are three finger pointing back at oneself. Hopefully your exhortation to "better start putting the brain before the mouse" can also be applied to journalists and bloggers alike.

I'll say amen to that.

cool: 《海峽時報》這場風波竟然受到某台灣博客關注，而本blog也因此有了個中文譯名﹕『新加坡視角』。有意思。(也學到blog在台灣叫『部落格』而blogosphere譯為『部落格圈』。)

update: (Sep 29 2130 -0400)

More reactions from Kevin Lim (something about a chickenpox outbreak) and Wowbagger (something about giant sotongs). Elsewhere, Simon and Global Voices Online take notice.

Quickstops (Sep 27, 2005)

- Continuing on a theme previously blogged (here and here), William Easterly takes utopian thinking to task in the realm of development and aid in his article, "The Utopian Nightmare" (Foreign Policy, Sep/Oct 2005):

Indeed, we have seen the failure of what was already a “big push” of foreign aid to Africa. After 43 years and $568 billion (in 2003 dollars) in foreign aid to the continent, Africa remains trapped in economic stagnation. Moreover, after $568 billion, donor officials apparently still have not gotten around to furnishing those 12-cent medicines to children to prevent half of all malaria deaths.

With all the political and popular support for such ambitious programs, why then do comprehensive packages almost always fail to accomplish much good, much less attain Utopia? They get the political and economic incentives all wrong. The biggest problem is that the rich people paying the bills do not share the same goals as the poor people they are trying to help. The wealthy have weak incentives to get the right amount of the right thing to those who need it; the poor are in no position to complain if they don’t. A more subtle problem is that if all of us are collectively responsible for a big world goal, then no single agency or politician is held accountable if the goal is not met. Collective responsibility for world goals works about as well as collective farms in agriculture, and for the same reason.

When everyone is responsible for X, no one is responsible for X (someone tell Peter Singer).

- A "must read" according to Simon, with Eaglespeak concurring--"China must wait for democracy", by Spengler (Asia Times, Sep 27):

Democracy requires an act of faith, or rather a whole set of acts of faith. The individual citizen must believe that a representative sitting far away in the capital will listen to his views, and know how to band together with other citizens to make their views known. That is why so-called civil society, the capillary network of associations that manage the ordinary affairs of life, is so essential to democracy. Americans elect their local school boards, create volunteer fire brigades and raise and spend tax dollars at the local level to provide parks or sewers. But the most important sort of faith required for democracy to succeed is the willingness to lose. Governments decide upon issues that affect the lives and livelihoods of their citizens - wars, taxation, health care and so forth. A majority of Americans appears to believe that the Bush Administration has bungled the Iraq War, but only a handful of fanatics question the president's authority to conduct the war according to his best judgment. Even when the American government does things that most citizens oppose, the sanctity of elected authority outweighs the particular issue at hand. That is, Americans have faith that good sense will prevail over time and that a majority of their fellow citizens eventually will come to the right conclusion and elect better leaders.

The faith that underlies constitutional politics as it originated in the Anglo-Saxon world stemmed from a religious faith. America did not assign democratic rights to its citizens because it aspired for a more efficient market for public goods, but rather because Americans believed in a God who championed the poor and downtrodden, who could not help but hear the cry of the widowed and fatherless. It is possible that an enlightened but non-religious view of the rights of man, on the French model, might produce the same political result, but no sane person would want to repeat the political experience of France.

I do not propose that the Chinese must become Congregationalists before they can practice democracy. But political faith presumes a deeper sort of faith in the inherent worth of the humblest of one's fellow-citizens.

See also these earlier posts on related themes.

Both to plead guilty to making racist remarks

Just read this on STI "Latest News". But for heaven's sake, one of them is not a blogger. Anyway, they are not going to claim trial, and one of the defense lawyers is reported as saying "The prosecutors are probably going to press for jail for the two of them". (Background)

Chastened for blogging...about one's teachers

Freshly selected by the ST Editor, I assume. This one is called "Schools need balanced view on student blogs" by Jonathan Au Yong Kok Kong. It's supposed to be a reaction to Andy Ho's earlier piece "Blogging's catching on, but beware of the pitfalls" (ST, Sept 19) which was itself a commentary on l'affair sedition. But Mr. Au Yong's letter goes in a related but different direction. Let me begin with a minor contradiction that mars the page (emphasis mine):

I agree with many bloggers out there that blogs are private space, like a personal diary, where one is free to express one's innermost emotions. I, for one, am an avid blogger and find blogging a cathartic and near-spiritual experience, an activity that grants me the opportunity to rewind and reflect. However, like any publication made available to the public, there are certain parameters the published content must stay within. I believe this should apply to published content on weblogs. While I do not advocate a curtailing of bloggers' freedom of expression, I must admit each blogger has to assume a certain sense of responsibility for his published work. The recent arrests are thus a wake-up call to bloggers to be more responsible about what they publish.

There is a reason why "publish" is cognate with "public", you know. "Studying in a prestigious all-boys school in the Bishan-Ang Mo Kio area", one would expect the writer to be a tad more careful--and the editor to be more discerning with his scalpel. Anyway, the next bit is quite interesting actually:

...I have witnessed on many occasions the school administration root out pupils who criticised teachers on their weblog and extract a public apology from them (posted in cyberspace, nonetheless). I believe such measures are necessary, especially when certain comments border on promotion of ill will or hostility. However, comments made about teachers in jest, and on some occasions perfectly harmless, should not be dealt with so harshly. Even students who unknowingly quoted certain paragraphs from a peer's blog were chastised and given a sound lecture.

It is only to be expected that teachers will take an interest in the students' feedback of any kind. Student blogs are extremely useful in this regard because of their more permanent nature--compared to to old fashioned grousing behind the teachers' backs. If tracked down, they can be saved as evidence. I'm sure many people will have opinions about the fitness of the teachers' reactions reported above so I shan't add to them. The next part, however, is amazing, if true (or truly amazing, if you will):

To my knowledge, this phenomenon does not transpire within the boundaries of our fine institution alone. Teachers in many schools in Singapore have started to take an interest in student blogs. Some have even publicly announced to their students their decision to practise favouritism according to what they find written about themselves in students' online diaries.

No kidding...

update: (Sep 26, 1930 -0400)

Today's ST has more in the article, "Schools act against students for 'flaming' teachers on blogs" by Sandra Davie and Liaw Wy-Cin. Some highlights:

FREE speech may be the buzzword on the Internet - but libel is unacceptable everywhere. The message has been sent out loud and clear, with five junior college students being punished for posting offensive remarks about two teachers and a vice-principal online. The students, all girls, were made to remove the remarks from their Internet diaries, or blogs, and suspended for three days last month. Their parents were also informed.

[Scroll way down to see the newsflash.] Some of the more colorful details:

Seven secondary schools and two JCs have asked bloggers who criticise or insult their teachers online - 'flaming' in Internet jargon - to remove the offending remarks. One such remark referred to a secondary school teacher as a 'prude' for disciplining a student for wearing a too-short skirt. 'Frustrated old spinster. Can't stand to see attractive girls,' the blog read. Tanglin Secondary science and PE teacher Tham Kin Loong said: 'I've had vulgarities hurled against me, my parents and my whole family in some students' blogs.'

With as many as 18 secondary schools and junior colleges (out of 31 contacted) reporting an increase in "such incidents", it's only a matter of time before somebody raises that most Singaporean instrument of response--the lawsuit:

The 33-year-old [Tham] added: 'Most of them do not realise the legal implications of what they are writing in such a public domain.' If teachers wish to prosecute, they may have legal grounds to do so.

Singapore Teachers' Union general secretary Swithun Lowe said the union is ready to back any teacher who wants to take legal action. It has offered legal help to a few members, but they did 'not want to affect the prospects of their young students'.

Lawyers say students can be sued for defamation, even if a teacher is not named. 'As long as someone is able to identify the teacher, and it is an untrue statement that affects his reputation or livelihood, then the student is liable,' said Ms Doris Chia of Harry Elias and Partners.

An injunction can be taken to get the student to remove the blog and issue an apology, she added.

Since the increasing in the incidence of blogging partly came about as a result of English and GP teachers encouraging their students to do so so as to improve their writing (not to mention the school blogging competition), don't expect any schools to actually ban blogging. And unless any school has excess budget to burn, don't expect them to be snooping around cyberspace looking for problems. That's not optimism, just common sense...well, not counting any teacher with any...complexes.

Schools also said they do not police blogs. They say they only check them after complaints are made. 'And if we feel that the remark is untrue or unfair, then we expect the student to apologise,' said Raffles Institution vice-principal S. Magendiran.

On a different note: actually, I would be quite interested to see if blogging has improved the writing of our students.

latest: more from Mr. Wang (who does not suffer fools lightly) and Mr. Brown (who thinks that the natural solution is simple: "Maybe teachers should start their own blogs and flame their students back. Better yet, have a yearly Interschool Teacher-Student Flamewar Blogging Championship. Like a WWE of blogging.")

more: Tomorrow.sg has other links, so I shan't repeat them. But they seem to have missed the Void Deck, and this related piece from Singapore Ink. On a slightly different note, I am a little puzzled as to why the link on the Tomorrow.sg entry to me is under "trackback" (and not just a regular link) since I wasn't the one who left it. As I understand it, the who point of a trackback is so that, for example, if A notices something interesting on B's blog, blogs about it and links to it, and A wants B to know that he has done that, he leaves a trackback on B's site. I'm not complaining, just puzzled; anyone knows anything about their procedures?

newsflash: The ones suspended for blogging nasty about their teacher, that is, "because 1 withdraw from school and has already left for Australia." And this is from le blog célébré itself (discovery courtesy of sitemeter referral) (link removed).

Quickstops (Sep 24, 2005)

- NGO Mercy Relief has completed some 50 classroom structures in 19 schools on the island of Nias to replace buildings lost in the March 28 earthquake (CNA, Sep 24). Earlier, it is also reported that the group will be rebuilding two boarding schools in Meulaboh (CNA, Sep 15).

- Singapore may be on its way to getting two more submarines from Sweden (The Local; hat tip Military Nuts). These are Västergötland class boats; but the likelihood is that they will be upgraded to the Södermanland Class.

- Now for the weather: the link--or lack thereof--between hurricans and global warming (BBC, Sep 23). Another not unrelated article (Reason.com).

New US Ambassador to Singapore nominated

And her name is Patricia Herbold; her testimony (Sep 22) to Congress is available. She will have big shoes to fill. Frank Lavin, the current ambassador, has over twenty years of experience with Asia issues, a Lt Commander in the U.S. Naval Reserves, and not to mention a B.Sc.F.S. from the School of Foreign Service at Georgetown University, an M.Sc. in Chinese Language and History from Georgetown, an M.A. in International Relations and International Economics from the School of Advanced International Relations at the Johns Hopkins University and an M.B.A. in Finance at the Wharton School at the University of Pennsylvania. Herbold, on the other hand, has lots of experience with GOP activism, among other virtues. From Seattle Times (July 13):

There always has been a small collection of "plum" ambassadorships that U.S. presidents of both parties save for their closest friends and reliable contributors: Paris, London, Tokyo, Buenos Aires and Singapore...Herbold, of Bellevue, has earned recognition by the Republican National Committee and the White House for her political successes in the Seattle area, and the more than $100,000 she has contributed to the GOP in recent years.

Let's hope Mrs. Herbold likes the weather in Singapore. (Also relevant: the wiki on Pamela Harriman, former US ambassador to France appointed by Clinton.)

Machiavelli: From world politics to grading

From "They're Not Going To Like Us", by David Ignatius (WaPo, Sep 22, 2005):

Realists are always quoting Machiavelli's admonition that it is better to be feared than loved, but that advice never seems to resonate very well with American presidents. They want to be feared and loved. Perhaps under our system, politicians become addicted to love. But in a world where we are the only superpower, the reality is that we will be unpopular. Nobody is going to root for Goliath -- even a nice, democratic Goliath.

An uncharitable world expects America to act in its own interests, and so we should. We promote democracy and anti-terrorism not because these are universal ideals, but because they serve America's need for a more stable world. We will never convince the rest of the world that we aren't acting selfishly, no matter what we say.

From "Loved or Feared?" by Christopher C. Hull (techcentraldaily.com, Apr 22, 2003):

Feared or loved, which is better? As Prof. Harvey C. (minus) Mansfield of Harvard teaches, the challenge is that if a professor gives out A's, then students will love him - but if he then gives a student a C, that student will hate him. If, however, the professor gives out C's, then students will fear him, and if he gives out more C's, students will simply continue to fear him. But any A's he scatters about will cause those students to fear AND love him. (Note: He wasn't kidding.)

(Footnote: Professor Mansfield, William R. Kenan, Jr., Professor of Government, teaches political philosophy at Harvard. He is a translator and scholar of Machiavelli.)

Quickstops (Sep 21, 2005)

Been busy with work, hence the relatively sparse blogging. Come to think of it, I expect to be out of action a lot more for the next six months...but we'll see.

- The thing that's raging right now, if you have not heard, is about how the continued investigations concerning "Singapore Rebel" has spill into the blogosphere, with the blogger of Omeka Na Huria being invited for an interview. Mr. Wang and Singapore Classics appear to be on top of the matter. add: Molly Meek adds an "undead" perspective the whole thing.

- "Singapore: "A magnet for Asian education" but also of fraud--The education boom in this city state cloaks inefficiency and deception" (asianews.com). Nevertheless, a seminar is being held in Nepal on studying in Singapore (kantipuronline.com).

- More philosophically: cognitive science and the moral instinct (Boston review).

update:

- I'm rather disappointed with how the exchange at the Committee to Protect Bloggers's post on the "sedition act" affair went. (I have no quarrel with the latest--the blog owners are certainly free to do as they please with their blog.) Caveat: I am not the one who left those anonymous comments (I would have left a name) and I am not in full agreement with the arguments left by the anonymous commentor, but I certainly do not think they are completely wacko either. The legitimate core of the issue raised by anonymous is not that freedom of speech is not a good thing, but that it could be limited by other concerns. After all, freedom of speech has never been understood to be absolute--even in the most liberal of democracies. At minimum, it is always limited by the need to prevent harm, and perhaps more controversially, to prevent offense. And it's not about whether one happens to agree with or disagree with the thing said, or whether the views expressed are minority or majority opinions; rather, the question is whether the speech genuinely poses an immediate danger (shouting "fire" in a crowded cinema) or the prospect of harm. Obviously, there is controversy about whether the views expressed by our trio being charged really do have a "tendency to promote feelings of ill-will and hostility between different races or classes of the population of Singapore"--and beyond that, whether they could cause serious inter-racial hostility and conflict; and secondly, whether the specific means of dealing with them are indeed the most effective for the purpose. And my readers know that I am at least half-minded about whether the bar has been reached in the case of the trio. But we can't really get down to this discussion if one party has already assumed in advance that the government has been "unjust".

Strengthening the Sedition Act, or new legislation to deal with those who incite racial or religious hatred

Saw it on the Sunday Times (ST, Sep 18). It was DPM Wong Kan Seng who said that when eaking to reporters at a Mid-Autumn Lantern Festival event in Bishan. The main points: the penalty provided for by the present Sedition Act may be out of date--read, "not adequate"--because it was last reviewed 20 years ago. Then there is the usual exhortation on racial harmony:

Mr Wong also took the opportunity to remind Singaporean youths not to take racial harmony for granted... 'We had racial riots in 1964, just barely 41 years ago,' he said. 'So we have many young people who have grown up in a period of peace and racial harmony, without knowing that it requires great effort to maintain the harmony we have built up over the years.'

He then sounded a warning to those who might make racist remarks. 'When some people feel that they can say anything they want - not just on the Net but anywhere - that will stir racial and religious hatred. 'We have to take it very seriously and that is why the police have to act,' he said. 'We hope that after this, people will learn not to say or write such things, because all we need is some foolhardy people who will act on what they say and we will have a racial or religious riot on our hands.'

Elsewhere, the New Paper appear to have access to the as-yet-to-be-written update of the Sedition Act as it reports that "Gan [Huai Shi] faces seven counts of promoting ill-will in Singapore under Chapter 29 of the Sedition Act" (hat tip: Jeff Yen). The present Act has 11 chapters sections, the last I checked. (Mr. Wang: "The Sedition Act has eleven SECTIONS. The entire Sedition Act is ONE chapter in the statutes of Republic of Singapore. The Sedition Act's chapter number is 290, not 29.")

update: more in the same vein from PM Lee (CNA):

[PM] told reporters that Singapore takes multi-racial and multi-religious harmony very seriously, as it is the basis for Singapore to hold together as a nation. Mr Lee said the government would send the wrong signals if it does not take action against the three Singaporeans who allegedly made the racist remarks.

Mr Lee said: "So whether you do it on the internet, whether you do it in the newspapers or whether you said it in the public or even in the Speakers' Corner, it does not matter where you say it. This is the message, it is not acceptable. It is against the law and the Sedition Act specifically puts it down that you are creating distrust and animosity between the races, and we will act according to the law."

A third one charged with sedition

Just read this in Straits Times Interactive under "latest news", with the "full story" promised to follow in Saturday's paper. The plantiff, a seventeen-year-old private school student Gan Huai Shi, faces no less than seven charges under the same Sedition Act under which Nicholas Lim Yew and Benjamin Koh Song Huat were charged. What is known so far is that he "made four inflammatory comments about Malays and Muslims on the Internet within days of starting his blog". And in one entry, he "allegedly made it clear that he was "extremely racist"." Gan was released on bail of $15,000 and is due back in court on Sept 20. update: hypothesis disconfirmed (thanks: Xenoboy).

Prediction: there will be continued talk about local weather in the Singapore blogosphere.

update: Mr. Wang has picked up the story as well--his comment: "Racists, be afraid. Be very afraid." So has the forum over at hardwarezone.com. Elsewhere, CNA has a more abbreviated version of the same story out.

more details from ST in addition to the bits already posted above:

From May to July 16, he is accused of making racist comments once a month on his blog, spouting his hatred for the Malay community. In one posting, he also allegedly wrote of his violent tendencies in an entry he described as having 'explicit and candid content'. He allegedly wrote how much he wanted to 'assassinate some important person with a sniper rifle'.

Xenoboy has comments. According to him, this is the owner of the notorious "Holocaust" blog at one point featured in Tomorrow.

Elsewhere, Mollymeek returns from the dead to comment about l'Affair Sedition.

about that name: Caleb points out that Gan Huai Shi sounds like "do bad things" in Mandarin, prompting lzydata to wonder if this is an alias. I think this is quite possible, though it would be nice if there is independent confirmation. Notice that there is no photo of this one on ST either; and considering his age (17, compared to 25 and 27 for the other two) and the nature of the charge, there may well be a good reason to hold back on his true identity.

there is now a wiki on the Sedition Act, with a section on "Cases in 2005".

even more details now available at TODAYonline (hat tip: Singab'pore):

The target of his ire were Malays and Muslims. In some astonishing rants, he compared them to "rodents". He claimed he wanted to blow up Muslim holy sites and wrote that "the Malays must be eliminated before it is too late". He made insulting remarks about the community, most of which are not fit for publication. In his first entry Gan claimed that he was "extremely racist".

I hate to say this but the worst of my fears are being confirmed.

Over at Mr. Wang's a back and forth over the rights and wrongs of the case is taking place in the comments section; while Singapore Classics continues with a long post on the same subject, but from the other court. The reasoning is complicated, so I shan't rehearse their respective arguments here (you are encouraged to read them for yourselves). In any case, I am quite torn...

I have always subscribed to the doctrine that, in order for even the most liberal of democracies to function, it is necessary for there to be legally enforced boundaries to people's freedom of action.

But that's action. On the other hand, it is tyranny to think that a society can or should legislate on what can be thought. The point is not that thought does not lead to action, or that action does not exemplify thought; rather, the point is that any attempt to do so is inevitably little more than men pretending to be God--pretending to be able to see to the hearts of men when their thoughts have not yet become action. The bone of contention, however, is the middle of speech: neither thought simply, nor action yet.

On the one hand, to argue that--for example--racist speech ought not to be proscribed because doing so will not attack the root of the evil that is racist thought, misses the whole point. One might as well say the same for racist action. The point is not whether the constraints on action or speech will make people morally better, more virtuous--the law cannot do such things. Rather, the point is whether such constraints are necessary to prevent harm.

On the other hand, if we are going to be talking about harm, then it had better be the prospect of real harm that should justify any curtailing of the freedom of speech. It can't be just a matter of people subjectively feeling insulted, but, in the words of the Act itself, "a tendency to promote feelings of ill-will and hostility between different races or classes of the population of Singapore"--and beyond that, the prospect of inter-racial hostility and conflict.

Can any form of speech do that? Certainly; nothing rules out the possibility especially given our history. Has this bar been met in the specific cases of the three charged? This is possible but I don't know. I should wait and see.

the discussion continues at The Void Deck. And since they mentioned it, I should link this for those who are interested in J.S. Mill and his "harm principle". The doctrine is spelt out in his essay, On Liberty.

Quickstops (Sep 15, 2005)

Two blogs to watch:

- Singapore Classics, kicked off with a substantial post on the recent "Sedition Act" affair, and looking very promising. Check out his latest about the open Letter to PM Lee by a Mr See Leong Kit.

- The Anti-Neo-Democracy Theorist by Wayne Soon (brother of Sze Meng). Started in March and still going strong. Like his brother, Wayne as a number of pieces published in the papers before.

Elsewhere:

- A series of articles about the SAF relief operations following the boxing day tsunami in the August 2005 issue of Pointer (the quarterly journal of the Singapore Armed Forces).

- There is now wiki for Singapore contribution to Katrina relief (hat tip: Elia Diodati).

- Katrina as an argument for "strong government"? Anne Applebaum (WaPo) is not so sure:

...consider the effectiveness of the relief strategies so far. With great fanfare, the federal government announced it would distribute debit cards to Katrina victims. The result was chaos, anger and expectations of fraud. Quietly, the Red Cross has been paying evacuees' hotel bills. The result is that 57,000 people have time to plan what to do next. Massive government efforts to get people into massive shelters have led to dissatisfaction, delays, long lines and frustration. But private initiatives -- ranging across the political spectrum from MoveOn.org's Hurricanehousing.org, which is advertising space in thousands of private homes, to First Baptist Church in Athens, Tex., which has just installed six new showers -- are helping people find better housing faster. Over the longer term, it's also pretty safe to bet that people who relocate thanks to a church, find a job thanks to a charitable Web site, and get by thanks to their extended families are going to do a lot better, economically and psychologically, than the people who hang around waiting to be helped by a government jobs program and a government trauma counselor.

- On a similar theme, Thomas Sowell thinks that Wal-Mart, FedEx, State Farm all did better than the Federal Emergency Management Agency.

- Jeff Yen confesses to loving the local Op-Eds--"They keep my mind occupied throughout the day with such interesting brain teasers..."

Katrina and Singapore

Two articles.

- I first read it via yjblog--"Singapore and Katrina" by Thomas Friedman, in the New York Times (alt: here). The Singapore parts seem right (though Friedman reports the high pay of our government officials without any hint of any ambivalence whatsoever), but really, Friedman was using us as a convenient launchpad for his own rants about American politics. And I am definitely very underwhelmed by the parts about the US quoted from the ST writers.

- "Ports in a Storm" by Sallie Baliunas, in Techcentralstation. It's supposed to be about New Orleans, but it's really a history lesson on the Japanese invasion and occupation of Singapore in WW2. Though the conclusion is most salutary--Singapore's greatest greatest natural resource is its people; so likewise it will be New Orleans' greatest resource, its people, who will rebuild the city--it does jar a little with the reports of social breakdown that shocked us so much.

afterthought:

The last link (under "social breakdown") points to an article in the American Thinker, "Asia looks at Katrina coverage and draws conclusions" by N.S. Rajaram, about Asian perceptions of America in the Katrina aftermath. What is interesting is that though the state--i.e., government--is also pretty much non-existent (or very far away) in the parts of Sri Lanka and India hit on Boxing Day by the Tsunami, there was no breakdown of the social order in the manner as happened in New Orleans. The article quoted an Indian commentator S. Gurumurthy:

...even though the state had absconded in Mumbai as much as in New Orleans, not a single case of rape or molestation was reported. Not a single case of theft. Not a single case of lawlessness. Not just when the killer rains hit Mumbai, even when the killer tsunami hit the east coast of India and thousands died, and hundreds of thousands had to be fed, the story was no different. Every one was fed. No one went hungry...

The reason is not difficult to find. India is essentially a tradition and community-run--and not a system or state-run--nation. State...is too a distant a mechanism for instant intervention, particularly in a crisis. It is...the family, neighborhood and community, which act as social safety net normally and in emergency. The West has undermined this social safety net in the name of unbridled individualism. With the result the West has become state-dependent...

The point is not about whether Gurumurthy is right, but that his analysis is diametrically opposite to that of Friedman. The latter thinks that it is somehow the lack of government that led to the chaos in New Orleans; but on Gurumurthy's account, the presence or lack of government may well be irrelevant (as evidenced by what happened in India and Sri Lanka during the Tsunami aftermath). Though both explanations are probably simplistic, somehow, Gurumurthy's one seems more plausible. (add: this article is also relevant.)

In any case, Rajaram points out that the impression has been made, the damage in perception done, even if all this is rather undeserved:

It is no use pointing out that New Orleans is not America, or that the city is known for sleazy corruption. Also, there was no social breakdown in times of other disasters. I was myself caught in Hurricane Alicia when it struck the Texas coast in August 1983. There were 21 deaths, quite large considering that the area is sparsely populated, and extensive damage, but there was no anarchy. People and businesses helped each other until normalcy returned.

On a different note, looks like the body count for Katrina may be much lower (in the hundreds) than originally anticipated (in the ten thousands).

update:

Perhaps he didn't mean it that way but Gerard Baker's latest piece is a riposte to Friedman:

...The world has indicted America once again on charges of ineptitude and racism and has moved on to more important matters such as Britney Spears’s baby. For a variety of reasons this good news about the response of ordinary Americans is of little interest to the media. First, no self-respecting reporter wants to waste his time with insights into the better angels of human nature. No one ever won a Pulitzer or a Bafta recounting banal tales of man’s humanity to man.

Secondly, it really doesn’t fit too well into the stereotype that entrances most of the world these days. Anything that doesn’t show Americans as stupid, selfish, warmongering, religious bigots, half of them living in pampered luxury in garish purpose-built Italianate mansions, the other half downtrodden in the ghetto by Halliburton stock-owning fat-cats, isn’t going to make it to the front pages or the Ten O’Clock News.

But the main reason I think these recovery efforts by millions of people attract insufficient attention is that most people have become conditioned to thinking solely in terms of government’s responsibility. Of course, the bulk of the recovery effort must be paid from public funds as President Bush announced yesterday but most Europeans and — despite decades of a so-called conservative revolution — a large number of Americans, can’t think beyond the government.

Something bad happens: it’s government’s fault for not preventing it. It’s government’s responsibility for cleaning up the mess. And if the mess gets bigger, that’s government’s fault too...

Lou Dolinar on a similar theme:

With body recovery teams in New Orleans finding far fewer than the expected 10,000 to 25,000 dead, despite the flooding of 80 percent of the city, it is time to ask: What went right?

Largely invisible to the media's radar, a broad-based rescue effort by federal, state and local first responders pulled 25,000 to 50,000 people from harm's way in floodwaters in the city. Ironically, FEMA's role, for good or ill, was essentially non-existent, as was the Governor's and the Mayor's. An ad-hoc distributed network responded on its own. Big Government didn't work. Odds and ends of little government did.

She has a makeshift list of the "odds and ends" too.

Two charged with sedition for racist remarks online 3

Part 1|2|3

He [the King of BROBDINGNAG] laughed at my odd Kind of Arithmetick (as he was pleased to call it) in reckoning the Numbers of our People by a Computation drawn from the several Sects among us in Religion and Politicks. He said, he knew no Reason, why those who entertain Opinions prejudicial to the Publick, should be obliged to change, or should not be obliged to conceal them. And as it was Tyranny in any Government to require the first, so it was Weakness not to enforce the second: For a Man may be allowed to keep poisons in his Closet, but not to vend them about for Cordials. - Jonathan Swift, Gulliver's Travels, III, vi

For the mother of all collation of links, see Elia's wiki. With that thing, I see no need to continue scouring the net for links to collate. Most of the important new additions had been, in any case, added to the previous two posts at the points where they are helpful (e.g., Singsingapore and Mr. Wang on the "Sedition Act", etc.) To round off the coverage of l'affair on this blog, here are more stuff that caught my eye, or thoughts that come to me (such as the one from Swift above, transferred from the other post)--in no particular order.

- One blog link: this one, because it links here, and because it is Dutch cool.

- Elsewhere in the the mainstream media, Mr. Miyagi has a Today column out, quoting various bloggers. The other ones I found using news.google.com don't seem to go beyond what is already in the initial CNA, ST, Today, AP and Reuters reports. But the ST report is now available from Asia Pacific Media Network (legit, I suppose), in case you do not have a subscription. But for the photos, you have to go to the hardwarezone forum instead, where the discussion continues apace.

- add: Likewise over at the SPUG forum, which, if you remember, was where much of the action of the CZ Affair took place. It is thus unsurprising that forumners there are asking the question (also on many other people's mind--e.g., in this cartoon): how come the scholar got off easy compared to these two? (I do think that there are important differences between the two cases...)

- Talking about forums, the one at www.doggiesite.com has its share of the more recent action, some of which not exactly serious, others are just tasteless, much to the unhappiness of the enthusiasts frequenting the site. add: Another two. What's going on? Does someone have a beef against the good folks of www.doggiesite.com or what?! The site admin is getting fed up. He's locked all the relevant threads, announces that the IP email addresses of the troublemakers will be reported to the relevant authorities, and advises the members not to respond to such posts.

- I see that my previous two posts had been picked up by the Global Voices Online under their Global Roundups. Mr. Brown also has a piece there. Elsewhere, the furor in the comments section of the Slashdot entry did not seem to abate. But I did see more comments by people who are either from or have actually been to or lived in Singapore, and injecting a healthy dose of, you know--facts--about our little country. No, chewing gum is not a "controlled substance" in Singapore, and HDB apartments are not assigned or allotted by the government. (I'm too tired to dig out the exact threads again, but believe you me they are there.)

- All in all, I suspect that the bulk of good (and bad) information on the backstory has more or less been exhausted, for the moment. Unless anyone has caches of the original forum threads or the blog in question, we'll probably just have to wait until more is known about the case. As Mr. Wang assures us, It is the time will eventually come for all the details to be made public. Except that until then, as I said earlier, people will continue to do the easy thing and draw the worse conclusions about the morals of "bloggers" and netizens in general, or about the "climate of fear" in Singapore.

update: - Mr. Wang has a nice post detailing how the case likely proceeded (from someone making a police report to the DPP deciding to charge) which indirectly collaborate my earlier "gut feeling" that someone must have complained--that it wasn't like there is some internet police snooping around the forums. On a related note, I am particularly impressed by the fact that everyone's (from the police to the DPP to the AG) got a "job" to do and exactly that: a picture of the rule of law rather than men.

breaking news: A third one just got charged under the same Sedition Act.

Two shots recently taken in Toronto

1. Abbreviated. Taken near Chinatown. Something seems missing from the English.



The Chinese reads "Vietnamese-, Cambodian- and Laotian-Chinese Association".


2. The conjunction (or confusion) of charity and self-interest. Taken on the subway.



It reads: "When you donate to Horizons for Youth, you help homeless kids get shelter and learn the life skills they need to stay off the street. Which makes you feel good. Which makes you smile more. Which makes an attractive someone ask you out for a date. Which leads to another date. Which leads to another date. Which leads to this attractive someone asking, "Would you (insert-your-name-here-you-lucky-thing-you), marry me?" Which leads to eloping in Vegas. Which leads to winning big at the casino. Which leads to visiting www.horizonsforyouth.org and donating your jackport to Horizons for Youth."

Two charged with sedition for racist remarks online 2

Part 1|2|3

Again, if you are wondering about "sedition" and what the word means and all that, I would recommend reading Singasingapore on the "Sedition Act" rather than, say, dictionary.com on the word "sedition". (add: see also this comment by Ivan, left at Ink. again: The full text of the Act itself is available here; section 3 should be the important one. [update (Sep 13 1840 -0400) Mr. Wang has a new post that should be read if you are still worried about the "sedition" in the "Sedition Act". He (and Ivan and Anthony) also nicely answered the question: Why this rather than the "Maintanence of Religious Harmony Act"? A must read.]

The main ST story on the affair is up, though it doesn't say a lot more than the previous version. There is this extra bit on the blogger though, and it gets quite specific. He apparently posted racist comments on his blog (Phoenyx Chronicles) on June 12, 15 and 17. "On June 12, he allegedly blasted Muslims for 'spoiling my day' in an expletive-laden entry." On June 15, he "referred to the forum discussion on www.doggiesite.com and, in another entry filled with vulgarities, allegedly insulted Malays and their religion."

More details are also available from TODAYonline:

According to court documents, Lim's forum message began with: "The masses are idiots. 'Nuff said". He went on to make disparaging remarks about Muslims. Then, turning his attention to the Chinese and Indians, he wrote that listening to the complaints of "Chinese and Indians ... was no less irritating".

Koh was more pointed. Peppering his blog entry with vulgarities, he directed his tirade at Malays and Muslims. His blog had a picture of a roasted pig's head with "a Halal look-alike logo", according to court documents.

This is beginning to sound like they were basically asking for it... There's more in the report about the expected "chilling effect" on the Internet community, etc. This bit from a lawyer is interesting:

"Everyone will definitely become more careful about what they say," lawyer Siew Kum Hong, himself a former blogger, told Today. "Blogging is no different from other forms of speech in everyday life."

The same rules that apply to newspaper writers and at the Speakers' Corner also apply to bloggers, he said...

"But they (the police) won't set aside resources to deal with that sort of situation, unless there are special circumstances, or if it was a high-impact case involving public Internet postings," said [lawyer Siew Kum Hong].

You can read the rest for yourself.

More blogospheric reactions: Elia Diodati has started a wiki to track the affair.

IZ Reloaded - "...I'm not sure what they said towards the Malay-Muslim community but it must have been disturbing enough for the government to act on them, should not be condoned. Punishment should be carried out. They should be made an example for others not to be racists. Should they be sent to prison or fine heavily? I do not think so. I think racist people should be educated. They should be taught more about the particular race or religion that they hate so much. Only through education can these racists learn and understand. And they should be made to write a public apology to the whole nation about their racist remarks."

From north of the causeway: Suanie - "today we learnt 5 things: #1: There is something called 'freedom of speech'. #2: It is probably not what you imagined. #3: Because it comes with social responsibility #4: So #5: Don't f-- your rights up." And Mark My Words - "Freedom of speech has its limits, and with it comes responsibilities. That speech must not be inflammatory towards any race, religion, and/or against the interest of national security and public order, e.g.. hate-speeches." Another one: Kamigoroshi - "...if everyone had the sense to control what they say or even how they should say it, I don't think there would be laws against this sort of thing. I mean…laws…no matter how ridiculous and mundane they might seem are there to maintain order and protect the public from itself. The fact two people got arrested from writing racial hate speech…is a testiment to a law that actually works."

Singapore Classics - "...this case raises important constitutional questions whether Singapore is a society which can survive views expressed contrary to our more civilised expectations. Those who describe this as a legal overkill or as an effective legal bulwark againt such views stand on the same side of the fence: they prescribe the dealing of such issues with Law. And if such issues are to be dealt with [using the] Law, then any criticism that this has been a legal overkill is at its heart void of its content. The issue...is whether Singapore is ready for dissenting views, even dissenting-virulent views.

update:

Lzydata of Singapore Ink has posted the letter from Madam Zuraimah Mohammed that started it all. As I sort of guessed, it was a rather innocuous request for information (even if, behind the scenes, motivated by religious considerations). No proposal for a ban, or even a suggestion to that effect. But now the problem is: how is it that it got Nicholas Lim Yew so worked up as to post whatever he posted on www.doggiesite.com? My guess is that there's a lot more that happened in the forum thread, now no longer available. (add: some seem to think that Madam Zuraimah "exaggerated" the requirements of Islam, which is extremely puzzling (just read her letter for yourself). What might be an "exaggeration" would be this bit from the ST report:

Ustaz Ali Haji Mohamed, chairman of Khadijah mosque, pointed out: 'There are various Islamic schools of thought which differ in views. But most Muslims in Singapore are from the Syafie school of thought. This means they are not allowed to touch dogs which are wet, which would include a dog's saliva. This is a religious requirement.'

But not being learned in such matters, I have no idea.)

latest:

The Void Deck joins the fray - "Pwoaah racists in Internet who act smart think they cannot get caught..think again! Gahment hoot 2 racists with Sedition Act. SMLJ? Aiyah care for wat right? As long as racists tio mao jialat jialat can oredi hor? hehe wink wink." (What can I say? This is the Void Deck we are talking about, after all...)

Elia Diodati offers insightful comments in his "Issues surrounding the racists’ arrests" that are too extensive to really quote here. He lists some of the more secure facts and lays out the questions and issues that remain to be resolved. A must read.

Elsewhere, The Committee to Protect Bloggers takes note - "CPB believes that if these men did make racist comments, they should be run to earth by their fellow bloggers, especially those in Singapore, a process which is already in this short time well advanced...However, to charge them with "sedition," especially as the law seems so purposefully vague so as to allow maximum political utility for those in power, may be overkill."

Maybe, but do note that their agreement with IZ Reloaded ("...they should be made to write a public apology to the whole nation about their racist remarks") itself suggests two possible readings. Question: is such an apology meant to be compelled by legal action of some sort? If the answer is "yes", then any dispute seems academic. It seems to all boil down to the connotations of the word "sedition", which is, frankly, not all that relevant. What is relevant is the specific statutes of the "Sedition Act" (which, for all I care, could have been called "Act #1701"). In any case, as the ST report points out, "Offences under the Act carry a maximum jail term of three years and a $5,000 fine"--as the Void Deck characteristically puts it--"while sibeh sianzzz is not as jialat as rotan etc. If you give illegal immigrant whether he wan to tio charged under Sedition Act, he take it man. At least he wont kena caned." (add: on the other hand, as this report so helpfully points out, if the duo go to jail, "they won't be allowed chewing gum in clink and smoking is forbidden in gaol.")

If the answer is "no", on the other hand, we are in the ball park of Elia's suggestion (read his post; linked above) that the issue should have been "resolved" by the "court of public opinion" rather than the "court of law". This is a comparatively more "freaky" suggestion, one with which I am not unsympathetic--at least in the specific case. But it's hard to say without all the relevant facts on hand.

another thing:

Some--including Randy Kluver--questioned why it is the Sedition Act that was used rather than the Maintenance of Religious Harmony Act. I am no lawyer so comments from those out there with legal training would be most welcome. Nevertheless, speaking purely as a layperson, a glance at the relevant Acts does reveal something. The MRHA does seem to be a much more complicated piece of legislation. There is a "Presidential Council for Religious Harmony", 2/3 of the members of which are "representatives of the major religions in Singapore", etc. It also seems aimed primarily at regulating the actions of people in authority in the various religious groups or institutions (see section 8(1); though there is also a provision for "other persons" under section (9)), especially with regards to inciting enmity between different religious groups or using religion as a cover for political activities. It's main weapon is the restraining order (i.e., restraining the person charged from speaking to his congregation, say) and the penalty for breaking it is "a fine not exceeding $10,000 or to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 2 years or to both" (for the first offense).

I really doubt that our dynamic duo rises to this level. To begin with, it's not as if they are leaders of groups; and even their (supposed) rants seem rather broad in their targets. (The Sedition Act, on the other hand, already has the nifty bit about in which a "seditious tendency" is partly defined as "to promote feelings of ill-will and hostility between different races or classes of the population of Singapore".)

But as I said, unless more information is forthcoming, there's going to be a lot of speculation and second-guessing. (note: Mr. Wang helpfully points out that the details "will only emerge in court at the time the accused pleads guilty or, if he chooses to go to trial, at the time of the trial itself. In either scenario, the proceedings will be conducted in open court, which means that any member of the public can walk in and witness the proceedings.")

the wonders of google:

Turns out that the blog Phoenyx Chronicles was already making splashed way back in June (around the time of the ST Forum Page letter). Someone left a comment at Mr. Brown (scroll down) hoping that he would check out the blog. And there was also a thread at SPUG forum.

in Chinese --there is a Zaobao report about this as well, and it contains more details about what the two posted (my translations follow):

许松发面对的三项控状指他在今年6月12日、15日及17日晚上，在www.upsaid.com网站上一个名为“Phoenyx Chronicles”的个人网络日记上，发表反马来人和反回教徒的言论。控状的附录显示，许松发用污辱性字眼来称呼或形容马来人，讽刺他们的民俗习惯及宗教忌讳，也用不尊敬的口吻开回教真主阿拉的玩笑。

林友面对的两项控状指他在6月16日上午及17日凌晨，在爱狗者网站www.doggiesite.com上的网络论坛里，针对一名马来妇女写给《海峡时报》的“读者之声”，发表反回教徒的言论。控状的附录显示，林友批评回教徒以宗教为借口，提出诸多不合理要求。他也表示对回教徒不屑一顾。

The three charges Koh Song Huat is facing state that he made anti-Malay and anti-Muslim remarks on a blog named "Phoenyx Chronicles" hosted on www.upsaid.com on the evening of June 6, 15 and 17 this year. The appendix to the charges shows that Koh used insulting words to refer to and describe Malays, mocking their customs and religious prohibitions; and also make jokes about Allah in a disrespectful manner.

The two charges Lim Yew is facing state that he make anti-Muslim remarks in posts left on the forum at the dog enthusiast site www.doggiesite, in response to a Straits Times Forum Page letter from a Malay woman on the morning of June 16 and 17. The appendix to the charges shows that Lim criticized the Muslims for using religion as an excuse to raise all sorts of unreasonable demands. He also said that he does not care much for the Muslims.

add: looks like Singapore Ink got to this already; scroll down to "Addendum (13 Sep 2005)".

finally--because I am turning in after this, another couple of blogosphere reactions, from WhiteOut and DoubleYellow. Knock yourself out.

Two charged with sedition for racist remarks online

Part 1|2|3

Covered by CNA, AP and Reuters. Interestingly, the CNA report avoided mentioning their specific targets. From the Reuters report:

The two ethnic Chinese men, aged 25 and 27, face charges for promoting ill-will and hostility between ethnic communities on their personal websites [CNA also adds: and on an online forum], or "blogs", in June. The police said both men were accused of posting racist remarks aimed at Singapore's mostly-Muslim ethnic Malay community. If convicted, they may be jailed for up to three years or fined up to S$5,000, or both.

My gut feeling is that the unhappiness that is bound to be generated will be driven by the lack of transparency. People are going to ask: "Just what did the two post that make them deserving of such a serious charge?" And if the details are not forthcoming--as they usually are not--non-netizens will simply do the easy thing and draw the worse conclusions--about the morals of "bloggers" and netizens in general, or about the "climate of fear" in Singapore. As Jeff Yen nicely puts it: "...we all know how ambiguous these sorts of things can be (remember the scholar?), especially in the context of online content like forum posts and blog entries. I wonder what the real story is." (update: ST has more details; scroll down)

More background - Singabloodypore has an earlier version of the CNA story in which the names of the forums/sites involved are listed. Singasingapore brings you up to speed with the relevant laws; follow-up (strongly recommended).

Other (more substantial) blogosphere reactions range from those who are unhappy, to those who say "I told you so...":

Xenoboy - "There is a softer regulating mechanism to enact against the bloggers. The infamous SBA and now MDA content regulations guidelines policy, which was based on some paragraphs of the Sedition Act, was not used. Instead, the Full Force of the Law was applied. This is a signal. An indication of intent. No cheeky white elephants...The target is at the medium of the cyberspace. Nothing more. Nothing less."

shuan - "I seriously hope the judges realise how chilling the effects on free discussion, expression and speech it would be if the decision is not crafted properly. We still generally don't throw people into jail for being stupid and irresponsible unless they actually kill, hurt someone or are in a state highly conducive towards hurting someone e.g. criminal negligence, drunk driving etc. Let's hope they keep it that way."

Mr Wang - "This is rare. I don't think I ever came across a single case under the Sedition Act when I was working as a Deputy Public Prosecutor. I don't even recall ever looking into the Sedition Act."

coup de grâce - "A very disturbing turn of events. If anybody deserves to be charged and arrested for speaking their minds, it would be these two. Posting on forums, Koh and Lim went beyond simple racist remarks, instead advocating widespread ethnic cleansing. The problem is, under the circumstances, nobody deserves to."

Agagooga - "I suspect that these were the people who did the Second and Third Holocaust blogs, which were extreme even by Singaporean online standards (even on the Sammyboy forums, the most people call for is for racial discrimination, not for them to be racially cleansed). Even so, this is not going to do anything to calm the nerves of our (justifiably?) paranoid populace. If these 2 could be (and were) tracked down despite their almost-certain attempts to conceal their identities, no one is going to harbour any more illusions."

Mr. Brown - "Publishing race hate in any medium, be it blogs, email, print, tv, radio, or a piece of paper you put on people's car, is a criminal offence in Singapore, and I believe in many countries, like the UK. Something to bear in mind, whether you are a blogger or not."

Mr. Miyagi - "For mine, the issue is a public relations related one. We have laws to protect against racism, and while these laws ain't broke, they sure could do with a little polishing. Enact an anti-racial vilification law, fellas. Leave the Sedition Act for specific seditious acts against the State."

Caleb - "I say, Jolly Good Show! We should not let racists get away lightly. The Intarweb is a public place, and as such if you have nothing nice to say then shut the hell up."

Singapore Ink - "Why are the two accused labelled as "bloggers" when one used a discussion forum and the other a website/blog (Upsaid describes itself as a "web journaling service", so we can probably consider it a blog)? Was "forumite" too clumsy and quirky a word? What about "internauts," those who like to propagate their opinions through various online media? Is this the intuitive prejudice against bloggers kicking in? Forgive me for being sensitive (oversensitive?) to this, as we as bloggers have seen no end of mockery or silliness about blogs and blogging directed at us from the media. If CNA persists in this usage, and if other big outlets i.e. the ST get into this game, guess which people or what medium will be maligned for racism?"

Shades of Sepia - "At the heart of the debate lies a somewhat simpler issue: which is more correct, the ability to speak freely about any manner of issues, even if they are largely incorrect, or the ability to live in a society that is free from such abuse? I choose the latter."

There should be more from Tomorrow.sg.

Asiapundit - "While I haven't read the offensive comments, AsiaPundit is has a very narrow view on free speech issues. While boundaries on libel and slander can be acceptable if damages can be proven, sedition seems a harsh sentence for what were likely ill-advised and ignorant comments. This doesn't solve the problem of racism, it forces it underground to fester."

update:

The Straits Times Interactive picks up the story under "latest news"--complete with photos of both plantiffs--promising "the full story". The backstory according to the report is that on June 14, ST Forum Page published a letter asking if "cab companies allowed uncaged pets to be transported in taxis, after she saw a dog standing on a taxi seat next to its owner." The concern is that the animals pay "drool on the seats or dirty them with their paws"--and for most of the Muslims in Singapore (which subscribe to the Syafie school of thought on the issue), they are prohibited by religion "to touch dogs which are wet, which would include a dog's saliva".

Enter the duo Nicholas Lim Yew, 25, and Benjamin Koh Song Huat, 27. The first "allegedly responded [to the Forum Page letter] by twice posting anti-Muslim remarks on an online forum for dog lovers, www.doggiesite.com," allegedly criticising "certain aspects of Islamic law." The latter "was said to have made similar racist comments on his blog, Phoenyx Chronicles, on www.upsaid.com on three occasions."

The original thread on www.doggiesite.com is now gone, but the aftermath can be seen in this and this thread. The blog, too, now draws a blank.

My guess is that somebody complained to the authorities (exactly what happened in the CZ Affair), rather than that an internet police is lurking around (as Chem Gen seems to think so). As reported in the ST article, "according to the charges, these postings 'had a seditious tendency to promote feelings of ill-will and hostility between different classes of the population in Singapore'."--which is exactly the part of the Act that Singasingapore focused on in his most illuminating post." (That is, Section 3 of the Act.) (further note: Singasingapore now has a new post "Anonymity and your IP address" which is also very useful.)

hat tip: Elia Diodati (who left a comment), the whole thing has made the pages of Slashdot. The comments there are piling fast and furious, most of it very...American. (But I'm not complaining, since it's been sending visitors here since a commentor left the URL to this post there. So: Welcome! If you stumbled here from Slashdot.)

Earlier coverage on the Electric New Paper.

Updates on a new post (more details now available about what is it the two posted).

"Chinese Culture", or just Culture?

Interesting exchange over at Mr. Wang's about embracing [or not] "the Chinese culture". Lot's of stuff in the comments. I shall not be adding much to it (busy) directly. But I do want to highlight the following two definitions of the term "culture" (emphases mine):

(1) "...culture being a pursuit of our total perfection by means of getting to know, on all the matters which most concern us, the best which has been thought and said in the world..." - Matthew Arnold, Culture and Anarchy (1882)

(2) "...the term culture...refer[s] collectively to a society and its way of life..." - John H. Bodley, An Anthropological Perspective From Cultural Anthropology: Tribes, States, and the Global System (1994).

Even in ordinary speech, the term "culture" can take senses that range between these two. The point is not: which definition is somehow better? I have no special attachment to the term itself. Rather, the point is that different things are referred to by what is apparently the same term, and that might be a cause of confusion if we are not careful.

Consider: in talking about "culture" in the context of "Chinese culture", the object of our discussion appears closer to the second definition--viz., "the way of life of the Chinese". But if this is the case, there is something vaguely odd about the question whether a Singaporean Chinese person should "embrace Chinese culture". Everybody is already embedded in some way of life or other: the question of "should" does not readily arise. But let me leave aside my discomfort, ill articulated as it is to consider the first definition. At first blush, the first definition might seem to exclude the possiblity of talking about "Chinese"--or for that matter "French" culture. On this definition. Culture is just culture; the qualifying adjective is out of place. But perhaps a way to interpret the issue in terms of the first definition would be this:

(3) "Chinese culture" = "the best which has been thought and said" in the Chinese tradition.

The second definition is strictly descriptive: Chinese culture is whatever the the Chinese do, their way of life. The third, however, contains a normative dimension--"the best which has been thought and said". It implies ranking: that there is such a thing as better and worse. It implies that not everything that is in "Chinese culture--the Chinese way of life" is "culture--the best which has been thought and said." It thus implies criticism and even rejection--including the criticism and rejection of things Chinese.

Since we are talking about embracing (or not embracing) Chinese culture, which "Chinese culture" are we talking about--on (2) or (3)? And either way, why exactly should anyone bother?

I think (3) is in fact an unstable compromise. If the concern is with "the best which has been thought and said"--then is the Chineseness of it really of first importance? Granted that the Four Books and Five Classics (四書五經), or the works of the hundred schools (諸子百家), or the poetry of the Tang and Song, or the great novels of the Ming and Qing, and much else are indeed worthy of our attention, are indeed among "the best which has been thought and said" period, could it be that their "Chineseness" is in a sense only of secondary importance?

This question can be pushed further: did a Confucius, or Mencius, or Zhuangzi think of himself as "Chinese", that is, as belonging to one race (or culture) among many? Or did they think of themselves as civilised people, period. And even in the later times when "Chineseness" in the more modern sense becomes part of the common stock of ideas (mostly because of all the self-consciously 'barbarian' dynasties), was the fundamental concern (of the aspiring young intellectual, the only people who would think consciously about such things) to be Chinese, to maintain 'Chinese culture', etc., or was it, once again, virtue, order, civilisation? The question can still be asked even if "civilisation" is seen through the prism of their own prejudices--the question is whether they thought of their concern as being with "our way of life/our identity" or "the way of life most in accordance with truth" or "the best way of life"?

I take my leave with this quote from the African American "civil rights activist, sociologist, historian, writer, editor, poet, freemason, and scholar" W.E.B. DuBois (1868-1963):

"I sit with Shakespeare, and he winces not. Across the color line I move arm and arm with Balzac and Dumas, where smiling men and welcoming women glide in gilded halls. From out of the caves of evening that swing between the strong-limbed Earth and the tracery of stars, I summon Aristotle and Aurelius and what soul I will, and they come all graciously with no scorn nor condescension. So, wed with Truth, I dwell above the veil."

Incidentally, I have nothing against "embracing Chinese culture" so as to be better able to, say, do business with the PRC, HK or Taiwan. The instrumentalist argument I understand any time. It is the more "non-instrumentalist" stance that I find intriguing.

Four years ago today

Four years ago today. I was just over one month in the United States (in Berkeley, California), and just getting out of bed when the phone rang. It was my landlord. "Turn on the TV"--that was all he said. So I made my way to the living room and turned on the TV. CNN, to be precise. The first tower had already been hit. I will soon witness a plane smashing through the second tower on screen. And sometime after that, the unbelievable collaspe of the towers. I remember the phone calls coming in thick and fast from home: parents, fiancée, friends...and I remember reassuring them by reminding them that New York and Washington D.C. are exactly the width of one continent away from where I was. I remember the solemn look on the faces I saw on campus and in town that day--yes, even in Berkeley, California.

I remember thinking to myself: I live in interesting but tragic times.

Quickstops (Sep 10, 2005)

My throat is still on the sore side--an aftermath of the flu. From previous experience, it should transit to a bit of a cough soon enough. Looks like it's going to be a busy week ahead making up for lost time. In the meantime, some "quick" and "not so quick" stops that caught my eye over the last few days. (Yes, I am still working on and off on the follow up to this, and the translation to this.)

- 16 years after reunification, the report card for East Germany does not look good (das spiegel)

- How the New Orleans tragedy might lead to changes in the US political landscape (Orlando Sentinel). more: Katrina cover up? (NYTimes) Related (WaPo).

- Sharia law in Ontario, Canada, anyone? (Globeandmail.com)

- "Just because the UN says something is a good thing does not make it so. It probably just means a number of countries have been bribed into taking that position. Keep that in mind next time you hear the UN described as the repository of international legitimacy." (The Australian)

- Closer to home, Xinhua and the People's Daily report on Singapore's First national inter-school blogging competition.

- The really long one: F. Scott Fitzgerald once told his friend Ernest Hemingway that the very rich "are different from you and me." The latter's response: "Yes, they have more money." That, in a nutshell, is the theme animating what is possibly "The Most Popular Forum Post Ever In China" (news article nicely translated into English by EastSouthWestNorth). A condensed version of the original exchange is here (in Chinese). As far as I know, my forebears have been peasants for at least the past 10+ generations, so I would have no idea as to whether there are bottles of French wine worth US$13,000, or whether it takes 10 million US dollars (per year) to maintain a race horse, or whether the "real upper class" would never call San Francisco sanfanshi but always shengfulangxishike, or that they never go there anyway. (Afterthought: not unconnected with this.)

Down with flu...

...or something flu-like anyway. Hope to be back soon.

It's going to be the F-15T after all

From MINDEF:

In response to media queries on the status of the SAF's Next Fighter Replacement Programme (NFRP), a spokesperson said that MINDEF is now in the process of seeking final clarifications and contract negotiation with Boeing.

Longer press release from Dassault Aviation:

Rafale edged out in Singapore

Saint-Cloud, September 6, 2005 - At the end of a long selection and evaluation process in which the elimination of the Eurofighter-Typhoon led to a face-off between Dassault Aviation's Rafale and Boeing's F-15, the American vendor prevailed in Singapore.

The Southeast Asian city-state has so far had a single source - American - for its air defense. Given the quality of the Rafale bid and its suitability to the technical and operational criteria of the call for tender, dual sourcing seemed to be a possibility. This hope failed to materialize.

There seem to be two main reasons for this decision:

- the dollar's current weakness is a definite handicap for the economic competitiveness of the French offer;

- America's power might once again bore out the old Chinese proverb: Bamboo always leans the way it's pushed the hardest .

The Rafale is a technical and industrial success, as the operational commissioning of the first planes delivered to the French Armed Forces has shown. Its status of finalist at Singapore proves that it has every chance of becoming an export success.

More from AFX. Previous post.

The origins of Operation Starlight

First, there was the revelations about our "Mexican Friends"--how the military of one small embattled country in the Middle East helped Singapore set up its armed forces.

But as indicated in the LKY autobiography, there was another small country--in the Far East this time--who helped us in the early days of independence: Taiwan.

From here:

1973年4月17日時，當時傅純顯還是空軍四九九聯隊的少校中隊長，空軍官校三十四期畢業的傅純顯，飛的是F-100，當天突然被總部人員叫到台北中華路附近的大同之家去吃飯，他到了一看，都是空軍司令、參謀長、副參謀長職務的人。

在這項餐會中有位新加坡人，是位姓葉的新加坡軍方官員，跟著星國國防部長吳慶瑞來此，主要的目的是希望我國提供星國一些空軍上的幫助。

在這次的餐會中，軍方高層同意了新加坡所提出的建議方案。兩國這項軍事合作計劃，被稱為「聯星計劃」，後來更有後續的「星光計劃」。

(Hat tip: Military Nuts Forum)

Read the whole thing. I'm working on and off on a translation, but it will take time.

Katrina links

- The wiki.

- List of charities accepting donations and contributions (Instapundit).

- Hurricane Katrina Relief Information by the US Department of Defense (DefenseLink.com).

- Bug-Out Kits and Other Emergency Prep (windsofchange.net).

- Major Disasters and the Good Samaritan Problem (Gary Becker).

- Another "Mr. Loy" makes it to the NYT--and Instapundit--for Katrina blogging (NYT.com). Apart from being a Hainanese surname, "Loy" is apparently an European one as well (French, German, Irish).

...

Africa, development, corruption, email scams

Interesting article about development in Africa (hat tip: ALDaily)--a book review of a new book: Matthew Lockwood, The State They're In in Prospect (No. 113, Aug 2005). On the author:

Matthew Lockwood worked in the development aid business for 20 years and wants to know why it is not working in Africa. For decades, aid donors have tried carrots, sticks and a host of measures in between to try to get development moving in Africa. They failed. Have aid donors done something wrong? Is there something that works in every other developing country but not-apparently-in Africa?

His main thesis:

Lockwood has come up with the missing piece of the jigsaw. It is African politics. The reason that-South Africa apart-sub-Saharan Africa has not developed is that it has not been in the interests of the controlling elites to develop it. In contrast to the "developmental states" of Asia-such as South Korea and Taiwan-which grew rich in the 1970s and 1980s by educating their populations and investing in export industries, Lockwood calls Africa's states anti-developmental, arguing that they actively discourage business, trade and innovation. In Asia, the rulers, often military men or one-party-state dictators just as in Africa, had a sense of national purpose, and the state broadly functioned for the public good. In Africa, the rulers captured the state, its institutions and sources of wealth, and kept it for themselves. They used it not to generate national wealth, but as sources of patronage to reward followers. Where reforms urged by western donors have threatened their interests, they "have resisted them until they have found ways to secure those interests in other ways," says Lockwood.

The whole article is interesting (i.e., you are encouraged to read the whole thing for yourselves) and dovetails with a few other articles I mentioned not too long ago. This particular bit, however, caught my eye:

The problem is not an inefficient civil service or lack of local government. Nor is it just about corruption. The governing class in Asia was often corrupt too. But they ploughed back their money into their own countries. In Africa, an estimated 40 per cent of privately owned wealth-about half the value of Africa's debt stock-is held outside the continent. How can Africa ask for more foreign investment when its own wealthy do not invest in their own countries? African rulers strain every muscle to prevent anyone else developing a wealth or power base, even at the price of famine, war and national economic ruin. As they say in Kenya, it doesn't matter how thin the cow gets if you are the only one on the teat.

This is just my layperson's observation, but the above seems highly consistent with many of the email scams one often gets in the inbox--you know, the ones involving some large sum of money locked up in a foreign (usually European, American or Canadian) that belonged to some now deceased minister of some African country, whose widow/children/etc. is trying to recover with your help, with a nice cut of the action promised... Now how is it that the minister had been able to accumulate his twenty million USD in his time in office, I wonder.

In some of them, corruption is practically admitted, as for example in the case of this one I received not too long ago (my emphasis):

First I must solicit your confidence in this transaction. I am a highly placed official working with the ministry of state for finance and economic planning here in Banjul, Gambia, west Africa. My department, the treasury, does transactions that run into several hundresds of millions of dollars quaterly. Myself and two other colleagues in this department are currently in need of a silent foreign partner, whose influence and bank account we can use, to transfer the sum of twelve Million Five Hundred Thousand US Dollars (US$12,500,000.00). This funds accrued legitimately but discretely to us as commission from foreign contracts through our private connections...

Legitimately but discretely? Good one.

What can I say? Life imitates fiction, fiction imitates life.

RSAF Chinooks to help with hurricane relief

From CNA (Sep 2), "RSAF Chinook helicopters help in US hurricane relief operations":

...The US Federal Emergency Management Agency had requested help from Singapore's helicopter detachment in the US. Three RSAF Chinook helicopters, based in Grand Prairie, Texas, have already flown to Fort Polk, Louisiana to aid rescue operations mainly in resupply and airlifting missions. Thirty eight RSAF personnel, comprising pilots, aircrew and technicians have also been deployed. The Singapore team will work with the Texas Army National Guard in their relief efforts.

American Ambassador to Singapore Frank Lavin said the American people were deeply grateful for Singapore's help. Ambassador Lavin added that RSAF personnel were saving lives in Louisiana and the other Gulf Coast States and Americans would long remember this.

Also from ReliefWeb.

ST opens online forum

Well, well, well...From ST (Sep 2), "Your letter not published? Check out Online Forum":

FROM tomorrow, Straits Times readers will have another avenue to air their views with the introduction of the ST Online Forum.

Readers who write to The Straits Times Forum Editor and do not see their letters in print could well see them in the Online Forum instead.

ST Online Forum Editor Lee Kim Chew said: 'The criteria for selection of letters in Online Forum remain as vigorous as the printed version's. Though editorial space is not a constraint on the Internet, readers are encouraged to be clear and concise in their letters.

'Lengthy essays are not encouraged as readers' letters ideally should be short, sharp and interesting to read.'

This is very interesting.

I forgot to add: access to the online forum will be free.

Arguments in Bad Faith

Suppose someone, say, a certain A, tries to convince you of the truth of some proposition or the desirability of some proposal or persuade you to take up some course of action--let's say that he is trying to sell you: P. And he is trying to do so by rational arguments--he offers reasons of the appropriate kind why you should believe that P. By reasons of the appropriate kind, I mean he is not offering reasons of, for instance, the sort that says: "do this or else..."; but genuinely rational considerations in favor of P. So A says, "P because XYZ, and you do believe that XYZ, don't you?"

Now let's say that you have good reason to believe that A himself does not believe that XYZ. In fact, he believes in no such thing. Though he does believe that P, he believes that P for reasons that you don't agree with, say, QRS. You deny QRS; but you do agree that XYZ. And A knows that you do not believe that QRS, but also understands that you do believe that XYZ.

There is thus a sense in which A offered his argument "in bad faith".

(slightly edited for sense)

1. Should you even consider A's argument "P because XYZ"? --as in, pay attention to it, attempt to check if the conclusion follows from the premises, etc.
2. Suppose XYZ does entail P, should you accept P? Or, more weakly, suppose XYZ does give a good consideration for P (which is the best that can be done for most practical issues), should you accept P?
3. Why and why not?

(Interesting tangential Bible reference: Luke 4:1-13.)

(Other references that sort of gave me the impetus for penning these thoughts: this and this.)

...to be continued.