4 ms·

For background on the Amos Yee case and to put things in perspective: - The laws against insulting religions are part of a wider system to allow for smooth int

by crdb 11y ago

For background on the Amos Yee case and to put things in perspective: - The laws against insulting religions are part of a wider system to allow for smooth integration in a region that has known genocide and riots as the traditional means of resolving racial and religious differences. They have been relatively successful in my experience, especially compared to some neighbours who have overtly racist government policies; amongst other things, Singapore has not known a race riot since the 1960s. - The laws against obscenity are a holdover from the British period which (like 377A, which is almost never enforced today - edit, seems Section 377 was repealed in 2007 according to Singapore Law Watch, as per link below! I never heard of this before) will probably gradually disappear as the country becomes a little less socially conservative and people stop putting pressure on their representative not to strike them off (as happened in the USA, where it took until 2015 for gay marriage to become legal). Both were, nevertheless, the law, and he broke both repeatedly, including breaking bail. This is kind of like being a Colorado resident (where weed is legal afaik) and bringing a large bag of legally bought weed over to any number of particularly harsh penalty countries (Singapore included), then complaining when you're put in jail or even on death row due to local law, arguing that weed is a victimless crime and the punishment is disproportionate. Also worth noting that it was his own mother who first brought him to the Institute of Mental Health, not the authorities, but this is of course not mentioned by the Economist which is happy to resume the long standing feud it has with Singaporean authorities by diluting the quality of its usually high journalistic standards. The charge against insulting LKY has been deferred to a later trial once the other two charges have been resolved. I suspect it was put on because the nation was grieving and the insult was particularly badly timed. Remember about a quarter of the population turned up for the funeral (and I lonely expat here for three years also did), because most have seen the country literally go "from third world to first" in the space of a couple generations. It is impossible for foreigners - particularly those whose country's independence and economic success is centuries old, or whose founders did not have quite the same results - to understand the esteem (and frankly, love) in which LKY is held locally. I would reserve judgement until the court decision. Further reading: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amos_Yee https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amos_Yee appears quite detailed and well written. Some background on Section 292: http://www.singaporelawwatch.sg/slw/attachments/64631/Penal%20Code%20s%20292rev.pdf http://www.singaporelawwatch.sg/slw/attachments/64631/Penal%... I'm not taking sides, frankly I couldn't care less about the case. But wanted to add some perspective before the sharks circle. By the way, congratulations on the first HN Singapore thread that does not mention chewing gum!

jessaustin 11y ago
By the way, congratulations on the first HN Singapore thread that does not mention chewing gum! This is why we can't have nice things.
Fajita_Mane 11y ago
>The laws against insulting religions are part of a wider system to allow for smooth integration in a region that has known genocide and riots as the traditional means of resolving racial and religious differences. It has more to do with controlling public discourse than ensuring racial harmony. Despite Singapore's best efforts to forcibly integrate immigrants (i.e. racial quotas on public housing blocks) Sg has a race problem. They had their first race riot since the 60s last year. It was incited by a Chinese truck driver injuring an Indian laborer in the relatively impoverished Indian district of the city. The coverage from the Strait Times might be interesting to you: http://www.straitstimes.com/little-india-riot http://www.straitstimes.com/little-india-riot >Both were, nevertheless, the law, and he broke both repeatedly, including breaking bail. No one is disputing whether Amos broke the law. It's more of a question of whether the laws are intended to keep people safe or control public opinion. Everyone knows about the libel prosecution of political threats, but the PAP's crusade of information control goes far beyond that. Protests are essentially illegal. Dissent is illegal. When I studied at NUS for a semester, I was forced to sign a waiver going through customs that stated, along with many other conditions, that I wouldn't criticize the government in any way, online or off. Singapore is an extremely thoroughly policed country, and riots are just not an acceptable excuse for draconian policy. >By the way, congratulations on the first HN Singapore thread that does not mention chewing gum! inb4 someone excuses the human rights violations by fawning over how excellent their metro system is. weev went into my Twitter mentions to do this once.
- crdb 11y ago
  This is not at all how I understood the riots. Roughly: a bus driver arrived in an area where people were partying in the street, and refused to let in a very intoxicated fellow. This fellow somehow ended up in front of the bus (I think he decided to lie there) and got run over by the driver (I doubt intentionally). As is customary in the country of origin of said partying folks, the crowd got angry and "defended" its own. Within two hours, the police had restored peace. After examining the situation, the government decided to make street drinking illegal in the area during the hours where further flash mobs were likely, and restricted alcohol sales island-wide during night hours (10.30pm - 7.30am). Now, the suspects happened to be one race and the driver another, but people weren't protesting for racial reasons, it was a drunk crowd flashing up after it got sparked that happened to be mostly from a couple countries. This is in stark contrast to, say, the 1964 race riots and similar riots around the region at that time against the Straits Chinese in Indonesia and Malaysia, or more recently, Ferguson in the US, which were explicitly about race. I suspect that the context of the Singapore riots was then lost on journalists who couldn't resist fitting them into their more common narrative of race or class based protest.

by crdb 11y ago

jessaustin 11y ago

By the way, congratulations on the first HN Singapore thread that does not mention chewing gum! This is why we can't have nice things.

Fajita_Mane 11y ago

>The laws against insulting religions are part of a wider system to allow for smooth integration in a region that has known genocide and riots as the traditional means of resolving racial and religious differences. It has more to do with controlling public discourse than ensuring racial harmony. Despite Singapore's best efforts to forcibly integrate immigrants (i.e. racial quotas on public housing blocks) Sg has a race problem. They had their first race riot since the 60s last year. It was incited by a Chinese truck driver injuring an Indian laborer in the relatively impoverished Indian district of the city. The coverage from the Strait Times might be interesting to you: http://www.straitstimes.com/little-india-riot http://www.straitstimes.com/little-india-riot >Both were, nevertheless, the law, and he broke both repeatedly, including breaking bail. No one is disputing whether Amos broke the law. It's more of a question of whether the laws are intended to keep people safe or control public opinion. Everyone knows about the libel prosecution of political threats, but the PAP's crusade of information control goes far beyond that. Protests are essentially illegal. Dissent is illegal. When I studied at NUS for a semester, I was forced to sign a waiver going through customs that stated, along with many other conditions, that I wouldn't criticize the government in any way, online or off. Singapore is an extremely thoroughly policed country, and riots are just not an acceptable excuse for draconian policy. >By the way, congratulations on the first HN Singapore thread that does not mention chewing gum! inb4 someone excuses the human rights violations by fawning over how excellent their metro system is. weev went into my Twitter mentions to do this once.

crdb 11y ago
This is not at all how I understood the riots. Roughly: a bus driver arrived in an area where people were partying in the street, and refused to let in a very intoxicated fellow. This fellow somehow ended up in front of the bus (I think he decided to lie there) and got run over by the driver (I doubt intentionally). As is customary in the country of origin of said partying folks, the crowd got angry and "defended" its own. Within two hours, the police had restored peace. After examining the situation, the government decided to make street drinking illegal in the area during the hours where further flash mobs were likely, and restricted alcohol sales island-wide during night hours (10.30pm - 7.30am). Now, the suspects happened to be one race and the driver another, but people weren't protesting for racial reasons, it was a drunk crowd flashing up after it got sparked that happened to be mostly from a couple countries. This is in stark contrast to, say, the 1964 race riots and similar riots around the region at that time against the Straits Chinese in Indonesia and Malaysia, or more recently, Ferguson in the US, which were explicitly about race. I suspect that the context of the Singapore riots was then lost on journalists who couldn't resist fitting them into their more common narrative of race or class based protest.