5 ms·

>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 traditiona

>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.
- Fajita_Mane 11y ago
  >As is customary in the country of origin of said partying folks, the crowd got angry and "defended" its own. So the reaction to the accident was motivated at least to some degree by race. I agree that it wasn't an example of race on race violence, and I don't think it was widely interpreted as such. Though I'll admit I'm not informed on the specifics of how it started, it certainly was nothing comparable to the riots that happened before Singapore was undeveloped. The riot isn't important in the context of the Amos Yee story except as an example of an event where Singapore was portrayed in a negative light in int'l press. The first instance of public violence in the nation for over 40 years made a great headline. I wasn't posting that article for the coverage of that event so much as to show how journalism in Sg. The Strait Times will literally never publish anything remotely critical of the dominant political coalition.
  - crdb 11y ago
    No, it was not motivated by race. Around 9% of Singaporean citizen are Singaporean Indian and 58% of those are Tamil (I attended two weddings in the last 3 years where one of the couple was Tamil) - the same as the non-Singaporeans involved in the riot. There have already been two Singaporean Indian presidents (Devan Nair and S. R. Nathan, the latter the longest-serving in Singaporean history). It's hard to find a parallel with any Western country, because no Western country has as free an immigration policy for low income workers as Singapore does (the US has a large illegal immigrant population to meet demand, but the dynamics of that are very different) - around 12% of residents are on Work Permits (i.e. construction workers or domestic help) [1]. The Straits Time did not publish the event as a race-motivated riot because it wasn't - it was more about a bunch of drunk angry people burning a few cars - and that it wasn't was immediately obvious to the readers of the Straits Time (which include many non-Singaporeans; not to mention the ST has had its own feuds with the Singaporean government). [1] http://population.sg/resources/population-composition/ http://population.sg/resources/population-composition/
    - Fajita_Mane 11y ago
      >No, it was not motivated by race. You mentioned in your previous comment that it was a "customary" reaction to the accident. I'm no expert on the culture, but I'd assume that public drinking is a great deal more socially acceptable in South India. Singapore is lucky enough to be close to a tremendous supply of inexpensive human capital - even more so than the US/Mexico. Their immigration policy allows low-paying marine/construction jobs to be filled quickly, but workers' rights are essentially nonexistent. Those 12% of foreign workers are almost all guaranteed to be earning enough to support themselves and their families back home - and that's without the benefit of a minimum wage or membership in an effective union. This sort of public policy may attract foreign investment, but it's unfair to the workers that have made Sg rich and it's unlike anything seen in the rest of the developed world. >not to mention the ST has had its own feuds with the Singaporean government Are you referring to the long-standing tradition of the PAP suing print journalists for libel? I was browsing the front page of their site after I looked up coverage of the riots. The biggest story currently is about a marine trade union leader and MP resigning in disgrace after embezzling funds. Nowhere in the story does it mention his involvement in the PAP. There's a reason they have the worst press freedom rating of developed countries.
cdf 11y ago
You may want to read the link you cited. Also, Little India is not impoverished. It just looks so to a casual tourist. The fact is rent in Singapore is substantially driven by their accessibility to Little India.
- Fajita_Mane 11y ago
  I said it was "relatively impoverished". Singapore has a high GINI coefficient for a country so developed. Despite that, living in the bottom 5% of income in Sg is still much better than most countries because of subsidized public housing.
  - crdb 11y ago
    Little India is only "impoverished" relative to Sentosa Cove. The MRT station has an exit facing the back of the Istana (the Presidential Palace), there are plenty of condos popular with Western expats (City Square especially), high end malls, hipster cocktail and coffee bars and expensive design shops in shophouses. It is one stop away from Dhoby Ghaut, the MRT station with the most connections to anywhere in the island, and three from Orchard, the one with arguably the highest commercial rents.
    - Fajita_Mane 11y ago
      It's not fair to equate its location with income levels or quality life in a place like Sg. It's not organized the way big cities in the US or western Europe are. My point about it being relatively impoverished was that the majority of the Indian immigrant laborers live there. Relative to the average Sg citizen, they are living in poverty.
      - crdb 11y ago
        No, they do not. They live in areas like the West industrial zones where rent is much cheaper, and commute to the sites by bus. HDBs, the government-built social housing towers you might see in photos, are by law racially mixed to population proportions and not available to non-citizen (some are available to permanent residents, which WP holders are not). The lowest class by salary of any society lives, by definition, in poverty compared to the others.

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.

Fajita_Mane 11y ago
>As is customary in the country of origin of said partying folks, the crowd got angry and "defended" its own. So the reaction to the accident was motivated at least to some degree by race. I agree that it wasn't an example of race on race violence, and I don't think it was widely interpreted as such. Though I'll admit I'm not informed on the specifics of how it started, it certainly was nothing comparable to the riots that happened before Singapore was undeveloped. The riot isn't important in the context of the Amos Yee story except as an example of an event where Singapore was portrayed in a negative light in int'l press. The first instance of public violence in the nation for over 40 years made a great headline. I wasn't posting that article for the coverage of that event so much as to show how journalism in Sg. The Strait Times will literally never publish anything remotely critical of the dominant political coalition.
- crdb 11y ago
  No, it was not motivated by race. Around 9% of Singaporean citizen are Singaporean Indian and 58% of those are Tamil (I attended two weddings in the last 3 years where one of the couple was Tamil) - the same as the non-Singaporeans involved in the riot. There have already been two Singaporean Indian presidents (Devan Nair and S. R. Nathan, the latter the longest-serving in Singaporean history). It's hard to find a parallel with any Western country, because no Western country has as free an immigration policy for low income workers as Singapore does (the US has a large illegal immigrant population to meet demand, but the dynamics of that are very different) - around 12% of residents are on Work Permits (i.e. construction workers or domestic help) [1]. The Straits Time did not publish the event as a race-motivated riot because it wasn't - it was more about a bunch of drunk angry people burning a few cars - and that it wasn't was immediately obvious to the readers of the Straits Time (which include many non-Singaporeans; not to mention the ST has had its own feuds with the Singaporean government). [1] http://population.sg/resources/population-composition/ http://population.sg/resources/population-composition/
  - Fajita_Mane 11y ago
    >No, it was not motivated by race. You mentioned in your previous comment that it was a "customary" reaction to the accident. I'm no expert on the culture, but I'd assume that public drinking is a great deal more socially acceptable in South India. Singapore is lucky enough to be close to a tremendous supply of inexpensive human capital - even more so than the US/Mexico. Their immigration policy allows low-paying marine/construction jobs to be filled quickly, but workers' rights are essentially nonexistent. Those 12% of foreign workers are almost all guaranteed to be earning enough to support themselves and their families back home - and that's without the benefit of a minimum wage or membership in an effective union. This sort of public policy may attract foreign investment, but it's unfair to the workers that have made Sg rich and it's unlike anything seen in the rest of the developed world. >not to mention the ST has had its own feuds with the Singaporean government Are you referring to the long-standing tradition of the PAP suing print journalists for libel? I was browsing the front page of their site after I looked up coverage of the riots. The biggest story currently is about a marine trade union leader and MP resigning in disgrace after embezzling funds. Nowhere in the story does it mention his involvement in the PAP. There's a reason they have the worst press freedom rating of developed countries.

cdf 11y ago

You may want to read the link you cited. Also, Little India is not impoverished. It just looks so to a casual tourist. The fact is rent in Singapore is substantially driven by their accessibility to Little India.

Fajita_Mane 11y ago
I said it was "relatively impoverished". Singapore has a high GINI coefficient for a country so developed. Despite that, living in the bottom 5% of income in Sg is still much better than most countries because of subsidized public housing.
- crdb 11y ago
  Little India is only "impoverished" relative to Sentosa Cove. The MRT station has an exit facing the back of the Istana (the Presidential Palace), there are plenty of condos popular with Western expats (City Square especially), high end malls, hipster cocktail and coffee bars and expensive design shops in shophouses. It is one stop away from Dhoby Ghaut, the MRT station with the most connections to anywhere in the island, and three from Orchard, the one with arguably the highest commercial rents.
  - Fajita_Mane 11y ago
    It's not fair to equate its location with income levels or quality life in a place like Sg. It's not organized the way big cities in the US or western Europe are. My point about it being relatively impoverished was that the majority of the Indian immigrant laborers live there. Relative to the average Sg citizen, they are living in poverty.
    - crdb 11y ago
      No, they do not. They live in areas like the West industrial zones where rent is much cheaper, and commute to the sites by bus. HDBs, the government-built social housing towers you might see in photos, are by law racially mixed to population proportions and not available to non-citizen (some are available to permanent residents, which WP holders are not). The lowest class by salary of any society lives, by definition, in poverty compared to the others.