Red Card on race issues at Speakers' Corner

[one2unite]

Police will shut him down asap.

What else can one expect from a fascist state?

 

[Porfirio Rubirosa]

With due respect, I think you disregard the perils of dealing with sensitive and emotional issues like race, religion,langauge and culture in a multi-racial society like Singapore too easily. These are dangerous and explosive issues regardless of the fact that we are living in 2008. You cannot ignore the fault lines, they exist and neither can you ignore miscreants and mischievous characters who have the potential to hijack such demos and wreck havoc and chaos for their own nasty dark agendas.

However I am not in favour of these issues being swept under the carpet either allowing it to fester and foment, in the worst case scenario turning into a Hindraff situation. Like the recent honest heartfelt insightful article by ST malay journalist Dianah on her feelings about being treated as a second class citizen in Singapore which I gather resonated in some quarters in the malay community, I believe what Thamilselvan wishes to ventilate may well have some traction in the Tamil community as well regardless fo whether he stands on solid ground. Other issues are like why Thaipusam is not a public holiday as Tamils/Hindus do not celebrate Vesak day which is a buddhist celebration although accorded as the second public holiday for Indians (or so I am led to believe I stand corrected on this one).

I think it is perhaps high time for the government to handle these sensitive and emotional issues that appear to be persistent bugbear issues in the minority communities in a more transparent and open manner albeit still in controlled manner for obvious reasons. Perhaps publicised parliamentary debate followed by open meet the people sessions with high level cabinet members in attendance including the PM?

I agree with you Ramseth. The ruling government has all these past decades treated us grown up adults who have the abilities to discern, judge and assess as small little toddlers who do not know how to judge nor take care of themselves. Maybe there are still some singaporeans who perfer to be treated like little children with food on a spoon placed in their mouths. We are adults with certain level of maturity and have the liberty to discuss, debate or even challenge over issues openly. Generally and safely to speak, we do not fight nor take things personally at a public platform. What is the PAP government concern over? Or rather the police? That such a language topic will lead to the spectators at Speakers' Corner getting into a fight? There is not fight leh, why is the police making it seem that they are banning a fight? Please lah...stop treating us like a kid who has not grown in maturity to be able to make independent judgement. Also, not everyone is like clinton whatever. It is a mistake to quote the extreme and use it to generalise.

 

[Porfirio Rubirosa]

With due respect I think you are being quite naive on this one Bro. Speakers Corner is definitely not the appropriate venue to publicly ventilate such issues.
I 100% support the police on this one. Miscreants and mischievous characters are just waiting for such an opportunity.

Exactly. It's supposed to be Speakers' Corner. Any topics will do. If someone's immature enough to start a physical fight, then arrest that someone. If someone makes an erroneous statement, correct it. If someone asks a question, reply to it. If someone's malicious enough to slander, then sue. All these should be part and parcel of a vibrant society. To try to achieve "perfect tranquility" by banning this or that, will only lead to false calm at surface ripples but turbulence beneath the surface.

 

[Porfirio Rubirosa]

Yes, but under more controlled avenues.

I support the bringing up of this issue, as mentioned in my previous post. The authorities shouldn't avoid answering by banning questioning.

 

[Ramseth]

Yes, but under more controlled avenues.

Your opinion sounds reasonable and is surely noted. However, how controlled? Hong Lim Park is less than 1 sq. km. Not controlled enough?

 

[Porfirio Rubirosa]

The problem I have with Hong Lim is not so much the venue but the appropriateness of the forum at this stage considering the sensitive emotional issues. Why not let the government come out clearly and transparently in the open to start the ball rolling in a constructive rational calm manner first and then take it from there? Meanwhile forum letters in the mainstream media on such issues should be encouraged provided they are not just irrational racists bigot rants.

Your opinion sounds reasonable and is surely noted. However, how controlled? Hong Lim Park is less than 1 sq. km. Not controlled enough?

 

[char_jig_kar]

The problem I have with Hong Lim is not so much the venue but the appropriateness of the forum at this stage considering the sensitive emotional issues. Why not let the government come out clearly and transparently in the open to start the ball rolling in a constructive rational calm manner first and then take it from there? Meanwhile forum letters in the mainstream media on such issues should be encouraged provided they are not just irrational racists bigot rants.

So u think PAP govt is more mature than the rest of the Singaporeans?

 

[chinkangkor]

So u think PAP govt is more mature than the rest of the Singaporeans?

It has nothing to do with maturity. It has more to do with the political advantages PAP enjoys currently.

 

[one2unite]

So u think PAP govt is more mature than the rest of the Singaporeans?

It's like asking the murder to decide on his punishment!

The fascist PAP says race and religion are sensitive, emotive issues not for open discussion. But the PAP, especially Lee Kuan Yew and his son Lee Hsien Loong, have been violating this "restriction" through their racist remarks over the years. It's only when others respond, the fascist PAP invokes the bogey of racial riots to sweep the issue under the carpet.

 

[one2unite]

The problem I have with Hong Lim is not so much the venue but the appropriateness of the forum at this stage considering the sensitive emotional issues.

Then, when will it be appropriate? Well, Lee Kuan Yew raised it when Singapore was part of Malaysia.

 

[captainxerox]

i think they should put up a sign in speakers corner,

"no speeches on race, religion or language (except singlish) allowed"

 

[tiulehloumoh]

There should included "No Dogs of parties supporter allowed" too.....

 

[one2unite]

i think they should put up a sign in speakers corner,

"no speeches on race, religion or language (except singlish) allowed"

The sign now only disallows race and religion. It's time the fascist regime included language, art, sport, etc, etc.

It's clear that the "deregulated Speakers Corner" is a farce. It still remains a place for only PAP-sanctioned speeches and demonstrations.

 

[Ramseth]

Speakers' Corner or speakers cornered?

 

[Porfirio Rubirosa]

You misuderstood what I was saying. Not about the PAP govt being more mature but that this sort of sensitive emotional and delicate issue should be brought out in the open by the govt first, the govt should take a clear lead and encourage a genuine sincere responsible rational dialogue with the public.

So u think PAP govt is more mature than the rest of the Singaporeans?

 

[Porfirio Rubirosa]

Let us try other more appropriate avenues first. Govt leads and encourages a genuine sincere responsible rational dialogue with the public.

Then, when will it be appropriate? Well, Lee Kuan Yew raised it when Singapore was part of Malaysia.

 

[char_jig_kar]

You misuderstood what I was saying. Not about the PAP govt being more mature but that this sort of sensitive emotional and delicate issue should be brought out in the open by the govt first, the govt should take a clear lead and encourage a genuine sincere responsible rational dialogue with the public.

why have gotta wait for PAP govt to take the lead? why cant singaporeans, civic group to bring it up?

i didn't misunderstood u. u had given the PAP govt too much credit.

 

[Porfirio Rubirosa]

Race is linked to language and culture. That is why in a multi-ethnic society, ethnic issues are particularly delicate and sensitive. This encompasses anything to do with ethnicity from race, language, religion, culture etc.

The sign now only disallows race and religion. It's time the fascist regime included language, art, sport, etc, etc.

It's clear that the "deregulated Speakers Corner" is a farce. It still remains a place for only PAP-sanctioned speeches and demonstrations.

 

[Porfirio Rubirosa]

Agree to disagree

why have gotta wait for PAP govt to take the lead? why cant singaporeans, civic group to bring it up?

i didn't misunderstood u. u had given the PAP govt too much credit.

 

[Porfirio Rubirosa]

OB markers, not apathy, deter interfaith dialogue

I REFER to Miss Peta Yang's letter last Tuesday 'Tough to persuade undergrads to participate in interfaith dialogue'. I am an undergraduate from the National University of Singapore (NUS) and while I agree that real dialogue should be encouraged, it is not lack of interest or apathy that deters the materialisation of such dialogues.
Over the summer break, I participated in an inter-civilisational dialogue conducted by my faculty at NUS. For me as a Protestant Christian, it was an enlightening experience to engage religious, youth and community leaders, to clear up misunderstandings and misconceptions and discuss events around the world today. But for this to happen, there had to be an atmosphere of openness, honesty and respect. Even though some students had sensitive questions to ask, they were never asked in a disrespectful way. We also saw how inter-faith conflicts an be manifested as real, tangible issues, in part because of how religion and culture are so intrinsically interwoven around each other, hence the term 'inter-civilisational'.

I feel that the problem with Singaporeans and interfaith dialogue is due to the inculcation of the mindset that religion is a strict out-of-bounds (OB) marker. As a result, even when misunderstandings and misconceptions abound, people are afraid to ask. Such misconceptions continue to be perpetuated until people begin to accept it as truth. Such a climate of fear is detrimental and, although I recognise the Government's fear of religious tension and conflict, especially in multi-religious Singapore, I think Singaporeans are mature enough to engage in open and respectful dialogue. If we are so afraid of offending people's sensibilities, we may end up propagating even more stereotypes and misconceptions. And these sentiments will eventually fester and result in an even greater loss for Singapore as a multi-religious society.

While there will always be people who are 'apathetic, clannish and afraid', I believe most of our student population are open to interfaith dialogue. Perhaps it is just a matter of changing perceptions and mindsets that religion is not an OB marker if approached with respect and openness.

Isabel Chew (Ms)