Dear Speranza,

It might interest you to know that YouTube has taken the video down, apparently because of TOS violations. It is interesting for YouTube to take such an action. I do wonder which part of the TOS was infringed.

Aaron: That's some very quick reporting from you. :-)

The YouTube Community Guidelines state:

We encourage free speech and defend everyone's right to express unpopular points of view. But we don't permit hate speech which contains slurs or the malicious use of stereotypes intended to attack or demean a particular gender, sexual orientation, race, religion, or nationality.

This is probably the clause which the "No Pork" podcast ran afoul of.

You are quick to reply too. :)

The removal of this video doesn't help stop the more widespread problem that you pointed out, that is, disguised discrimation. The job postings example by Gerald is a good example. Maybe I will put a logo on my blog that says "Anti-racists", as per your speak out suggestion.

I'm quite surprised YouTube took it down. I mean, I don't think they took down the video of the Shi'ite "lynch mob" executing Saddam in Iraq, despite the much wider implications of that. Anyway, I first saw the clip on some other website, so I think it has unfortunately spread beyond YouTube already.

Speranza, you are so right to say that the battle is about capturing "the hearts, minds and actions of individual citizens". I first heard about this clip from my wife, who told me that some people she knew were talking about how funny it was. I think if we were to take a poll among all Chinese Singaporeans who have heard this, most would see nothing wrong with it and many would actually find it funny.

Why? I think it's because we haven't been educated since young that racial discrimination is wrong. Yes, we are taught that we should be "tolerant" (because that is the pragmatic way to go), but nothing is said about the moral (or immoral) aspect of racism. Contrast with the US, where all through school, it is drilled into students' heads the injustice that was perpetrated against blacks, Native Americans and Japanese Americans in the past. Yes there are still pockets of racism in the US, but at least everybody *knows* it is wrong, whether they choose to follow the teachings is another thing.

The KTM found the clip utterly distasteful.

i found the clip distasteful too. it's surprised me that anyone ever find it funny.

Wow, SingaporeAngle is turning into an activists' forum.

I viewed the video recently and found it annoying. It probably reflects the immaturity of many sporeans and the lack of understanding of the minority races. Coming from a minority race, I feel that such immaturity and ignorance exists because those who've been offended by such behavior fail to voice their concerns. Up till now, I have not seen anyone from the minority race voice their distaste.
'If you are offended but do not speak out, people may assume that your silence implies approval.': This is very true.

The thing about comic relief is taking things lightly. Apparently Singaporeans have a shallow sense of humour. I'm sorry to be the one that breaks this to you, but deep down inside, everyone of us has a tiny racist gene that makes living with "different" people intolerable, no matter how hard the government has brainwashed you.

Sure the video/audio clip was done in a childish/distasteful manner, but to go as far as that list of things you can do as an "active citizen" is a little bit off the scale.

If you don't like it, don't watch it. Don't enforce your own moral standards onto others just because you think it is right. You are not superior.

Racism will always be around, so will gender discrimination and a million other unfair treatments that people can be subjected to. Accept it.

.. and might as well have a laugh at it.

I think the worst that can be said about the thing was that it was un-funny.

Everyone's a little bit racist
It's true.
But everyone is just about
As racist as you!
If we all could just admit
That we are racist a little bit,
And everyone stopped being
So PC
Maybe we could live in -
Harmony!

Also, how come no one talks about Part 1 of the video, which is about the same jokers disturbing an Ah Beng waiter? It's the same, except that the guy's not Indian (Muslim?) so no one says anything.

If Sacha Baron Cohen pretends to be anti-Semitic, he's a brilliant satirist.
If a non-Jew pretends to be anti-Semitic, he's racist.

This article stats,

"Why the "No Pork" podcast is dangerous

1. It can provoke communal emotions. Whether it was an enactment or a recording of an actual incident, it can stir up strong emotions."

And this is what this article is further doing, enhancing the effects of the video by posting a link to it, and encouraging people to watch and know about its contents. The writer fell for the trap of the video makers.

If people wish to talk about dangerous videos having their undesirable effects on society, they should just talk about them in general without referring to any specific one and helping the video makers to further their agendas.

So I either recommend the editors of Singapore Angle to remove this article, or the article's writer could remove any references made to the video in the article.

If the video has broken any local law , watchers who are unhappy with the video should just take the makers of the video to court, since they are very well eligible to do so.

Manual trackback: http://gssq.blogspot.com/2007/02/so-far-reaction-to-rk-house-no-pork.html

Gerald: My understanding is that the Saddam death videos on YouTube have been classified as "inappropriate for some users", but not removed. The same reclassification happened to the "No Pork" video, although it was later taken down for a "terms of use violation".

I'm not sure how YouTube arbitrates on violations of their Community Guidelines or Terms of Use, but it would be interesting to learn about how they make such decisions.

KTM, Annie and Dreamer: Thank you for your support. :-)

Chung:
"If you don't like it, don't watch it. Don't enforce your own moral standards onto others just because you think it is right. You are not superior."

Do you believe that morality is relative, or that there are some moral beliefs which are non-negotiable? Or to put it differently, are all human rights negotiable? I ask this because it might underpin what we disagree upon. :-)

"Racism will always be around, so will gender discrimination and a million other unfair treatments that people can be subjected to. Accept it."

Do you believe racism should always be accepted, however severe? Or is there a line beyond which you would cease to say "accept it"?

For example, do you think Rosa Parks [Wikipedia entry] should have accepted the racial discrimination she suffered in 1950s America? :-/

Whybegay:

"Wow, SingaporeAngle is turning into an activists' forum."

Well, perhaps better this than being apathetic. :-)

"And this is what this article is further doing, enhancing the effects of the video by posting a link to it, and encouraging people to watch and know about its contents. The writer fell for the trap of the video makers."

I believe at this point the video is already public knowledge, since it has been linked on multiple blogs, and also referenced in the Straits Times Forum.

The ST Forum letter came with mention of the YouTube website, user name and the exact title of the movie -- information which would allow anybody to find the video:

Straits Times Forum - 1st Feb 2007
YouTube post shouldn't trifle with religion
I WAS upset when I was forwarded a hyperlink to a sound file posted on YouTube by 'Ximiwakoz'. The recording, entitled 'RK House - No PORK', featured...

On that basis I concluded that anybody who wanted to see it would already be able to, and so I decided to say my 2 cents worth on it.

My apologies if you felt I was facilitating access to the video.

Agagooga:

"Also, how come no one talks about Part 1 of the video, which is about the same jokers disturbing an Ah Beng waiter? It's the same, except that the guy's not Indian (Muslim?) so no one says anything."

Thanks for pointing this out: I was unaware that a "Part 1" existed. I've since looked it up -- presumably you refer to a combined 2-part recording, where the second half is the "No Pork" podcast.

Assuming we are both looking at the same video website, the combined Part 1 / Part 2 edition only came online on 02 Feb 2007 -- several days after the original "No Pork" podcast was uploaded. I cannot find any other versions of "Part 1" with an older publication date.

Do you happen to have an older link which you could email me? (i.e. for an edition uploaded before the "No Pork" podcast came online?) I am as keen as you are to learn the truth of this situation.

Agagooga:

Hi, I found the link via your trackback, thanks. :-)

You raise an important question. Looking at the two examples, they could be summarised as:

1. Two Chinese men disturbing a Chinese waiter, in an attempt at comedy.

2. Two Chinese men disturbing an Indian Muslim stallholder, asking him to do something against his religion, in an attempt at comedy.

Do you think there is any difference between the two, given the society we live in? Should there be any difference?

Sorry if I very kaypoh ask questions... just that I want to understand where you are coming from.

You guys are being too serious here. Many of my Muslim friends found that funny because they are not anal, and even forwarded it to their friends to have a good laugh.

Get it? The recording was STAGED. And the 'Indian' waiter wasn't even an Indian working at a restaurant. Did you really think that some bo liao person would go and secretly record a conversation at an eating house?

Please lah, just because you're afraid to be labelled as a racist, you all act angelic and proper, wanting to make people think that you are not racist. Every little thing = RACIST!RACIST! YOU ARE RACIST!

Ha.

whybegay

I am trying to better understand your logic of asking the SA editors to remove this article. Do you ask the many other bloggers who wrote about this video to remove their articles? For example, have you leave comments on xiaxue blog (etc) to ask her to remove the entry related to the video? Have you written in to ST to tell them by publishing the ST forum letter about the video that it will incite communal emotions? You seem to suggest that the best way to deal with the video is for everyone not to talk about it, so the impact of video will be diminished. Is that feasible?

If the video is already made known at the ST forum, how does this specific article really encourage more people to go and view the video? I am 100% sure many more people read the ST than SA, and many more online Singaporeans read XiaXue than SA.

I think what SN is doing is talk about the implication of the video, and SN deliberately choose not to show the video in the article.

Do you think taking the videomaker(s) to court is the best action since this your recommendation? Why is taking the videomakers to court better than having measured and balanced discourse on the implication of the video, and the learnings we can take away? Will you take the videomaker to court since you suggest other watchers to do so? Will a court case on this video issue incite more communal emotions?

Look forward to hearing your rationales and thoughts behind these assertions. Thanks.

mecc,

Let me ask you a question. So if there is a trend towards stage videos in Singapore, what do you think of a staged video showing a bunch of Chinese youths forcing one Malay Muslim youth to eat pork against his wish by tricking him that it is actually chicken and all the chinese youths laugh at the dismal reactions from the Malay youth. In real life, the pork is actually chicken and all of them are actually good friends (of course no viewers will know that). Do you personally think this is funny? Will you forward the video to your Muslim friends, and will they find it funny and have a good laugh?

I personally will not find this funny, because there are many other ways to make a funny video and still be sensitive to the society we lived in (i.e. achieve the same outcome given the reality we live in).

I do think there are many individuals who know that we all have a tendency to be racist in some form or another, but deliberately choose and educate themselves not to think, behave and act in a racist manner. Obviously there are also many others who tell others that they are not racist, but exhibit racist thinking and behaviors, especially when no one they know is watching them.

I sense that you are implying the individuals (including SN) who find the video distasteful that they are all hypocrites "because you're afraid to be labeled as a racist, you all act angelic and proper, wanting to make people think that you are not racist." I think this is a sweeping assertion and I leave it to the readers to determine if this is a fair statement level against SN and the individuals who commented on this blog.

I doubt those white Americans who stand by the Black Americans in the 1960s and suffer ridicule and abuse by their fellow white Americans main intention was to make others think they are not racist. Maybe they actually believe what they do? =)

Have you ordered alcoholic drinks from a Malay bartender before? Or do you shy away and order a Shirley Temple when you notice their skin colour? There are a lot of Muslims out there with varying strictness in the interpretation of their religion, and a lot of Muslims here accept that they are minorities in a non-Muslim environment and may tolerate having to conduct "unsavoury" activities like handling non-halal food and beverages as a means of living, as long as they do not end up consuming the non-halal stuff. One has to be careful not to over-react to relatively minor transgressions as you could be selling the image that Muslims are intolerant and hypersensitive - not exactly a positive image, and in effect, promoting a more insidious form of racial discrimination under the guise of "racial harmony".

Disclaimer: I havent seen/heard the podcast, so I may have written the above totally out of context. But from the descriptions used here, it seems like the butt of the joke is on how bodoh the two orang cina are. Halal means what also donno. Relax. Breathe easy. Enjoy a bowl of halal bar kut teh. Really does exists. Pork replaced with halal chicken of course.

chung,

Apparently your statement that "Apparently Singaporeans have a shallow sense of humour." is incorrect because I think many other people in the blogsphere actually find the video funny. For example, mecca send it around to his/her muslim friends and many of them also find the video funny. Maybe only those who does not find the video funny have a shallow sense of humor?

Do you mind defining superior when you accused SN of being superior to write this article?

I totally agree with you that all form of discriminations exist. I guess based on your suggestion, we should just let the discrimination persist, keep quiet and mind our own business (and hopefully the discrimination does not affect us?)Also, laugh about the discrimination that exists?

Jimmy,

"One has to be careful not to over-react to relatively minor transgressions as you could be selling the image that Muslims are intolerant and hypersensitive - not exactly a positive image, and in effect, promoting a more insidious form of racial discrimination under the guise of "racial harmony"

I personally really do not think SN is doing what you said, but you do have a good point here as in the perception the article generates. I do not think publishing an article in SA is overreacting given the small readership we have here (as compared to ST). Overreacting will be to bring these videomakers to court , or write up a full page article on the video on Straits Times and the implications etc.

Sze Meng,
"I am trying to better understand your logic of asking the SA editors to remove this article. Do you ask the many other bloggers who wrote about this video to remove their articles? For example, have you leave comments on xiaxue blog (etc) to ask her to remove the entry related to the video?"

People can talk about it, and even laugh at it. But there are serious points of concern about this specific video that has been overlooked. The makers of this video, being adults, realise the discouragment of previous attempts to incite racial disharmony, yet they wanted to challenge this. They are in fact specifically going against the government with their video.

The video makes fun of "halal", the muslim religion, judaism, and technically christianity, since the Bible mentioned the pig in Book of Leviticus as unclean to be eaten. I don't take pork and I feel offended by the video. Making fun of something is actually denigrating its respectibility. So the video is very, very seditious towards many religious faiths.

My suggestion was only a suggestion to SA since it is the main site I read about local politics. SA is a political site and has one of the most credibility of political sites I know, Xiaxue's blog is not political, her blog is more concerned in showing pictures of her new nose.

Therefore if a political site wishes to touch on potentially seditious videos having their undesirable effects on society, it should discuss about them in general without getting into great detail of any specific one, gathering readers' comments and helping the video makers further their agendas. SA which often deals with politics should fully realise this. If the makers of the pork video is charge in court, which I think could be very likely if they are found, any political site which referred to the video could be noted down in a report and incriminated, but this might be quite harmless. My suggestion to remove the article which serves as propaganda, is to preserve SA's integrity as a serious political blog, I don't think it should go so much into detail of every other potentially seditious video, this would be seen as trivial blogging, which SA does not do.

"Do you think taking the videomaker(s) to court is the best action since this your recommendation?"

No, I only stated that this is a possibility for any citizen to do so, anyone really can do so if they really wanted to.

whybegay - I appreciate your sincere effort to explain yourself more fully even though I do not agree the article should be modified because the video is the catalyst for the discussion, and bring the issue closer to home. Thanks for spending the time to elaborate your points further.

I did mention the other alternative of removing the entire article. A new one with larger scope could thus be written without its inferences. Whether SA and SN would be up for it depends on their willingness for improvement of the local political blogosphere.

Since you seem to be so passionate, why don't you write such an article with a larger scope without its inferences. I will look forward to reading your thoughts on this issue (if it is different from what SN has to say). I personally think SN article is sufficient for the discourse at the moment.

SN and SM,

I apologize if I may have come across as insensitive or rude. And I don't wish to turn this into a debate on who's right and who's wrong. Simply because in issues like racism there's no clear right or wrong. I just felt you may have slightly overreacted on this podcast.

Yes there is a line which crosses over into racism, but this podcast has yet to do that for me personally. Because to me the intentions of the videomaker was not to poke fun at indians as a race, but rather the reaction of the indian waiter if they were to order pork. If it was a video of the two chinese guys causing physical harm to that indian man, then yes it has crossed the line and will not tickle a nerve on my funny bone.

I understand where are you coming from, and I do respect you for that. But to write an article solely based on your moral standards is unfair. I can imagine someone who has seen the video and after reading this article going "I shouldn't have found that amusing because that was wrong". Now imagine that same person after reading a biased article on the Iraq War going "Bush is right to have invaded Iraq".

Race and religion are sensitive issues, as we each have our own standpoints. You have set a bar for others as to what is right and wrong. And I felt the bar was a little high solely based on this issue. Like you have said yourself, freedom of speech, freedom of thought. Why not let others decide for themselves whether or not it was funny?

chung - thanks for spending the time to make clear your point of view.

That said, I am curious to hear why you say that "Simply because in issues like racism there's no clear right or wrong".

When will racism be right? I apologized in advance if I misunderstood your statement.

Also, I doubt this article can force anyone who think the video is funny to determine that it is not funny now (i.e. even if the article decides the video is not funny, can it really change the mind of those who do think it is funny?). Also, I doubt SN expect that most individuals will do most of the things he suggest.

By the way, thanks for being gracious in apologizing.

Perhaps I'm the odd one here, but I didn't find the video "racist" more than it was insensitive to a particular religion.

I may be of any race and still be Muslim, mind you. So I don't think this is a matter of race more than 2 kiddish boys making fun of a Muslim person (he might be chinese for all we know). What's the word for it then - religionism??

Personally, I'm a Christian and I make fun of rigid and non-thinking Christians all the time.

Sze Meng,
"Since you seem to be so passionate, why don't you write such an article with a larger scope without its inferences. I will look forward to reading your thoughts on this issue (if it is different from what SN has to say). I personally think SN article is sufficient for the discourse at the moment. "

I was refering to SN in writing a new article. The correction of the article's rashful triviality and error of propagating the seditious video is on him to ammend, not me.

Chung:

Thanks for elaborating on your point of view. And as Sze Meng has said, it was gracious of you to offer the apology for possibly coming across as rude. :-) I myself took no offence, but your offer is appreciated nonetheless. :-)

'I understand where are you coming from, and I do respect you for that. But to write an article solely based on your moral standards is unfair. I can imagine someone who has seen the video and after reading this article going "I shouldn't have found that amusing because that was wrong". Now imagine that same person after reading a biased article on the Iraq War going "Bush is right to have invaded Iraq".'

You raise an interesting question: Should all content on the Internet abstain from having an opinion?

If people around the world have different viewpoints, then the only way to avoid those viewpoints being influenced, is to have no discussion on the Internet at all -- otherwise there would always be the risk that somebody might read something he didn't already agree with, and change his/her viewpoint as a result.

I also believe that there is no compulsion in the above article. Nobody is being forced by the article to speak out, or to avoid business with certain companies, or to boycott sponsors. Singapore may not be the freest society in the world, but there is still much freedom of choice on how private citizens may act -- and that choice includes not acting.

Now I have seen the podcast, thanks to Agagooga. I personally find it only mildly amusing but far less offensive than I thought it could be. You do realise that, now that you drum up the negative publicity, it is important that the video be widely available. Most people protesting the Prophet Mohammad's cartoons probably didnt see the offending images to get angry; someone already told them they should be offended.

I suspect many of you who took offence do not have a lot of Malay/Muslim friends to start with. The typical Malay/Muslim in Singapore is already numb about pork jokes.

OTOH, did you guys protest on behalf of Catholics when the Da Vinci Code was being screened?

Jimmy

You have already made the video available through your comment linking to Agagooga. A quick google search will also make show you where to access the video. Is it necessary for SN to show the video then? Even at the height of the Prophet Mohammad cartoon issue. the cartoons are available on the internet with a simple Google search.

I am not sure it is that relevant to link the video to the Prophet Mohammad's carton. Are you implying that this video has such a severe
implication? I personally do not think so, and you seem to agree when you say that "I personally find it only mildly amusing but far less offensive than I thought it could be"

Drumming up the publicity? Once again, how many people read the ST Forum letter on the ST about this issue vs this article in SA. I think we need to put things in perspective. Really, the readership in SA is small, maybe 300 unique visitors a day, and many of them are repeat visitors. The focus of the article is to discuss the implication of the reactions to the video, not about the video per se. I doubt thousands of Singaporeans are going to read this article and commend threads and react strongly. If more than 200 Singaporeans are reading this article and comment thread, I will be surprised.

Does it mean that if a certain group is numb with the respective jokes that offend them, it is okay to continue to make the same joke? You seem to imply it is okay when you say "The typical Malay/Muslim in Singapore is already numb about pork jokes."

I have a number of Malay Muslim friends for the record but maybe not as many as you as you as you seem to be a subject expert based on your assertions. I personally find it unnecessary to have a laugh on a sensitive topic assuming even if your assertion that the affected group members are already numb to the joke.

You seem to imply that the typical Malay Muslim are numb with pork jokes in Singapore - do you think this a sweeping assertion unless you know tens of Malay Muslims and ask them whether they are really sick with pork jokes? Maybe you know much more about Malay Muslims and maybe you are actually living in the Malay Muslim community and you know that pork jokes are nothing to them. Unfortunately, I do not have preview to such data as I never ask my Malay Muslim friends if they are numb with pork jokes.

Maybe you are right and many other Singaporeans in the blogsphere also agree with your assertion that "The typical Malay/Muslim in Singapore is already numb about pork jokes." Once again, even if they are numb with pork jokes, is it helpful to continue making them? I think not.

Sze Meng,

What I meant was that each individual has a different perception of racism. For example, just staring at a person of a different skin colour or reglious background may be racist to some, while killing that same person is a righteous crusade for others. So it is difficult to write an article such as this, per se, and suggest which actions are considered racist and which are "righteous".

Speranza,

First I must say you would make a great lecturer teaching journalism/philosophy 'cause you sure got my brainjuices flowing. =)

Should all content on the Internet abstain from having an opinion?

In a perfect world, all forms of media would be delivered with no biasedness and everyone would have the same standpoints and agree on what's right and wrong. But obviously this is not the case, especially on the internet, where anyone can talk about anything however they feel. There is a subtle danger here as people who are less defined in their standpoints/moral standards can be easily influenced by what they have read like you've mentioned. This cannot be prevented, as most writers want you to be influenced and agree with them.

Going back on your article, I'm not saying it was a bad one. On the contrary, I thought it was very well written with strong points. Persuasive, and being capable of influencing many readers. As you might already have figured out, the reason why I left my comment here is because our moral standards clashed, and I felt that what I've always thought of as acceptable behavior, in this case, laughing at the podcast, is deemed "racist" and "dangerous". This article is even more convincing when words like "active citizen" comes in.

If writers like yourself were to write an article for each little racist joke told, saying that it's something negative, then I'm afraid soon there will be no wiggle room for people to decide for themselves.

chung - once again, I appreciate you clarifying your points. Even though I disagree with you on some points, your inputs have definitely make the discussion richer and insightful. Thank you.

Jimmy:

You asked: OTOH, did you guys protest on behalf of Catholics when the Da Vinci Code was being screened?

With regards to the Da Vinci code movie, the Catholic Church and the Christian community has fully articulate and communicate their arguments against some of the assertions in the move/book broadly in almost all major mass media channels. Given that the affected religious entities have already robustly rebuke some of the movie's assertion, I do not see any need to protest.

Did you?

Jimmy Mun:

"You do realise that, now that you drum up the negative publicity, it is important that the video be widely available."

Thank you for your replies. As mentioned in the original article and in my response to Whybegay, I initially refrained from blogging about the video.

Subsequently, in view of the ST Forum article putting the video's existence (and details on how to access it) in the public domain, I concluded that speaking out about the video would not confer any significant additional publicity. You are, of course, free to disagree with me -- for example, some would say that a drop in the ocean still raises the sea level. :-)

"I suspect many of you who took offence do not have a lot of Malay/Muslim friends to start with. The typical Malay/Muslim in Singapore is already numb about pork jokes."

I am not sure how to respond to a comment on how many Malay Muslim friends I have. Why do you feel it matters? Does your judgement of an opinion depend on how many friends from a certain community the writer has, or the writer's ethnic background? :-/

Your comment raises another question, though: Do you feel it is necessary to be a member of (or to have "a lot of" friends from) a community, in order to hold an opinion on a matter which affects that selfsame community?

"OTOH, did you guys protest on behalf of Catholics when the Da Vinci
Code was being screened?"

Many Catholics made their views known about the screening of the The Da Vinci Code, including Archbishop Nicholas Chia. Do you think it was inappropriate for them to express these views?

Looking back at the original article, I am keen to learn your opinions on some of the other issues raised within. What do you think of companies engaging in discriminatory employment practices? And do you think it was wrong for consumers to lobby against Jade Goody, following her comments towards Shilpa Shetty in the UK's Celebrity Big Brother reality TV Show?

* * *

In any case, I believe we are both entitled to differ in our opinions on this. In an open, democratic society, people can hold different views. My article has spoken out against the "No Pork" podcast as well as racial/religious insensitivity and discrimination -- but you are welcome to write an article on your own blog, upholding the right of individuals to produce content like the "No Pork" podcast. Such is the diversity of the blogosphere. :-)

chung - You said, "If writers like yourself were to write an article for each little racist joke told, saying that it's something negative, then I'm afraid soon there will be no wiggle room for people to decide for themselves."

Wow - there a strong backhand compliment to SN's article. I doubt his article will result in no wiggle room for people to decide for themselves. Individuals like you will provide a different point of view, and I really do think that many people (not all) will take this article as one data point amongst many other data points to make up their mind what is racism to them. SN is presenting his point of view, and stating that his article will in the long run with other similar articles resulting in no wiggle room for people to decide for themselves seem to stretch the argument a bit too thin and far. I think we need to give more credit to the readers, and less to our own writings.

Sze Meng,

Can you imagine the kind of society we would live in, if every little racist joke told and racial slur uttered is censored and deemed as uncitizen-like? There is nothing morally wrong with articles as such and the government implementing racial harmony in us from young, but when it gets to a point where the tiniest "inappropriate" behavior towards another race is deemed racist is a little hard to swallow personally.

But hey like you said we're all entitled to our own views. And I think the beautiful thing is that we can all agree to disagree sometimes.

Chung: Thank you for your kind comments. It is a positive sign about Singapore and the Singaporean blogosphere when we can disagree civilly, and respect each other's differing opinions.

Anyway I suspect there will be plenty of wiggle room around. I try hard to write good articles, but I also realise my articles are not that powderful. :-p

Ultimately citizen activism is also a function of prevailing social norms. If people really are bo chap to the core, no amount of article writing will make a difference. :-) But by talking to each other, and thinking about each others' views, we hopefully enrich the spectrum of discourse in Singapore.

I'll cheers to that. =)

Do you think there is any difference between the two, given the society we live in? Should there be any difference?

Suppose I am part of the 369 gang and a geeky bespectacled schoolboy ("A") offends me by staring at me (actually he likes my spikey dyed ah beng hair). I then get offended, interpreting this as a provocative act, and call my gang members up and start a gang riot.

Can A be convicted both for offending me and starting the chain of events that led to the riot? Especially if Secret Societies have historically been a problem.

Now suppose again that I am part of the 369 gang and a geeky bespectacled schoolboy ("A") offends me by staring at me (once again, he likes my spikey dyed ah beng hair). An upright, righteous and civic-minded citizen ("B"), wary of the damage this could do to the fabric of our society, reports him to the police for offending me and A gets convicted for offending me and potentially causing harm.

Recast the scenario. Now suppose I am still part of the 369 gang and a Mohawked Ah Beng ("C") offends me by telling me that he hates my hairstyle, and that I should change it. I then get offended, interpreting this as a provocative act, and call my gang members up and start a gang riot.

Can C be convicted both for offending me and starting the chain of events that led to the riot? Especially if Secret Societies have historically been a problem.

Now suppose still that I am part of the 369 gang and a Mohawked Ah Beng ("C") offends me by telling me that he hates my hairstyle, and that I should change it. An upright, righteous and civic-minded citizen ("D"), wary of the damage this could do to the fabric of our society, reports him to the police for offending me and C gets convicted for offending me and potentially causing harm.

Should A be convicted? How about C? Was B right to report A to the police? What about D?

Agagooga -- Wah, your examples too complicated already... can you help explain what you intend the 4 different hypothetical scenarios to represent? I also don't see how it links to the earlier question.

Also, I do not quite understand how your Secret Society scenarios link to the current discussion on relations between different races and religious groups. Presumably you must feel they are relevant, since you have raised them in this comments thread -- my apologies that I do not quite see how it all fits in. :-(

2. Two Chinese men disturbing an Indian Muslim stallholder, asking him to do something against his religion, in an attempt at comedy.

Strictly speaking they didn't ask him to do anything against his religion. They didn't ask him to eat pork, just to serve them pork. There're plenty of Muslims who work in restaurants or establishments serving not just alcohol but non-Halal food.

We can then reduce case 2 to case 1 - guai lan-ing someone, where in this case they just repeatedly ask for something they've already been told does not exist.

If you want to raise the religious element, well, that's another matter.

Practically every movie involving the Church, like say, Sin City/Primal Fear/The Magdalene Sisters etc. all portray priests as abusive sexual predators. Catholics and non-Catholics alike all watch until numb already. Unless it is big time irritating, like the Da Vinci Code, Catholics dont even bother to protest. But when it comes to Muslim sensitivity, all you heroes rush in to protect them. You do realise this is a form of religious discrimination. Just as the typical Catholic grow up receiving regular abuse first from Protestants, and then from Atheists, so do Muslims.

Do I like it? No! Do I think it is proper? No! But unless a certain line is crossed, we can only grow a thick skin and endure. The last thing I want is a third party to behave more sensitive than me, and "persecute" the offenders on my behalf.

I am not too concerned about this "No Pork" podcast. I'm just concerned that in a future cases, if the offending material is effectively censored, how the word of mouth could turn something relatively harmless into a 9 headed chimera.

gssq,

the video's humour denigrating many religion aside, there is another matter to be concerned about.

The makers of this video, being adults, should realise the discouragment of previous attempts to incite racial disharmony in Singapore, yet they wanted to challenge this with their well publicised video. They are in fact specifically going against the government with their video. This is deliberate sedition.

It does not matter which part of a series this video belongs to, as long as sedition material is present in one part, the makers and actors of the video are all liable for the sedition charge.

Guys, please think critically and question yourselves on what are the agendas of the video makers in making their video, don't be so densed. Out of a million themes for a funny video, the theme of religion(part 2 of video) and different social groups(part 1 of video) had to be chosen? This is not just a political video, this is a deliberate attempt to threaten the social cohesion of Singapore. And Please don't be so simple minded as to further spread such a negative propaganda as a simple "funny video".

Those "funny people" in society are often those who use humour as an outlet to deal with their frustrations in society, they have the habit of using humour to trivialise and lower the integrity and respectibility of other people, religion, politics and groups in society in order to heighten their own sense of superiority, so that they would think they are superior if they make other people look silly, stupid and inferior. They do this while being wilfully ignorant of the effects of their own actions.

whybegay:

The makers of this video, being adults, should realise the discouragment of previous attempts to incite racial disharmony in Singapore, yet they wanted to challenge this with their well publicised video. They are in fact specifically going against the government with their video. This is deliberate sedition.

This is not just a political video, this is a deliberate attempt to threaten the social cohesion of Singapore.

To be honest I am unclear of what your argument is based upon. I personally feel that it was not the intentions of the videomakers to "go against the government" and stir up racial disputes, but rather racism has been brought upon to some from their individual perceptions. To say that it was a political video is far fetched. I highly doubt a video as such would threaten the cohesion of anything.

I am not going to acquiesce to the videomakers, but I think you need to take a chill pill. There are bigger social problems that Singapore faces.

Just curious, what would of make of it if this video was not spread around as a "funny video", but rather a documentary depicting racism in Sinagpore?

Sorry I forgot to quote the second paragraph as well. Me and my n00b html skills. =P

Jimmy

So you are implying that SN by speaking up on this video is actually discriminating against the group's religion. I disagree with you and do not agree that this article is a form of religious discrimination. I think the intention of the article is to be helpful but if you want to interpret that as discriminatory, it is completely your prerogative. I disagree with you on this issue based on the careful reading of this article, so the disagreement is specific to the article. Obviously someone can always spout nonsense and the intention is to use an incident to discriminate the group in the false pretense of defending them, then you are 100% right. Can this happen? Of course! But for this article, I don't think so.

I am sure there are instances where other groups and other non-related individuals to the group have spoken up against jokes that make fun of their beliefs. In other countries where non-Muslim religious groups are in the minority, I believe the same type of discourse takes place for the different group and religion.

You also think that if someone does not belong to the ethnicity and religious groups, there should not speak up for what they think is wrong or right in terms of what had affected the group? Once again, I disagree. yes, it is important to be sensitive when you are not in the ethnicity and religious groups, and to speak up accordingly with wisdom . However, I think respect for each other cut across ethnicity and religions, and maybe we differ on when and how we should be speaking up. However, I disagree that we are should keep quiet because we are not in the group. I think in history, there are many examples where individuals from the outside group have spoken up based on their beliefs of what is right, and many positive things happen (such as the civil right movement) and obviously a few negative things happen (which I do not have an example right now). I think in aggregate, it is net positive.

In addition, I am interested to know why you state that " The typical Malay/Muslim in Singapore is already numb about pork jokes." Based on what data do you feel comfortable stating this assertion. For example, how many Malay Muslims have you spoken to in order to feel comfortable asserting this. Maybe you are an subject expert on Muslim related jokes. I am really curious to know why you are comfortable speaking for the whole Malay/Muslim community on this specific reaction. I will definitely NOT feel comfortable stating assertion such as this for my race/religion because there are so many variation within an ethnic and religion group!

At least I know that you agree that even if a certain group is numb to jokes that offend their beliefs, we should avoid making the jokes and not because the group is numb to it. I 100% agree with this.

So what is the line you have that have to be crossed? Is the Prophet Muhammad cartoons crossing the line since you brought up the example?

chung

I think we are in agreement that is is important to be sensitive to each other belief. It is the spectrum of offensive behaviors that we disagree. You find the video no big deal, and I find the video rather unnecessary and mildly offensive to make others laugh, especially when there are so many other Singaporean related topical issues to humor us. For example, I enjoyed reading talking cock.com once in a while, and there are many Singapore-related jokes that are funny without deliberately offending another group deeply held belief.

We had a good discussion based on different perspective, and I definitely see yours, but I still stand by what I believe is right and wrong, and i can sense you stand by yours. I just want to thank you for making the effort to engage, listen and reply. I hope I did too. Cheers.

Agagooga:
May I ask you a question since you like to ask scenario type questions? Mine is shorter than yours with only two options.

You say, " Strictly speaking they didn't ask him to do anything against his religion. They didn't ask him to eat pork, just to serve them pork. There're plenty of Muslims who work in restaurants or establishments serving not just alcohol but non-Halal food. We can then reduce case 2 to case 1 - guai lan-ing someone, where in this case they just repeatedly ask for something they've already been told does not exist."

If you are saying that the case is really all abou guialaning someone, then which of the below options will be funnier?

A. The two guys going to a vegetarian non-religious related restaurant and ask for meat all the time.
B. The video showing the two guys going to a Halal restaurant and ask for pork all the time

Assuming all else equal (accent of the two guys and the server, same style, same number of times asking etc) Is A and B equally funny? If not, why not? If yes, why doesn't the filmmaker use A then?

Chung, you need to put yourself in the shoes of the minority groups in Singapore to realise how they would feel when people make fun of their beliefs. My comments are based on recognising the video's political agendas through propaganda. And I can recognise seditious material when I see it.

There are indeed bigger social problems that should be dealt with, which was why this article should not be written in reaction in the first place. And this is why the video should not be made, since racist jokes are deemed by some people as old jokes? Not everyone sees racist jokes as old and common. If racist jokes are really old, then why share old jokes?Racist jokes are often deemed the oldest by the people who make them all the time, but they should spare a thought for other people instead of being selfish and insensitive. Not everyone would take attacks towards their religious beliefs so lightly.

If the intentions of the video are indeed innocent, why would the actors even hide their identities in a video? Let us know their names and nationality if they are not afraid of being seen as doing a wrong thing.

The video is boring and childish to me, but the hidden agendas within it are startling. The video may not cause much harm but the intentions before the video was made are present. You really need to see the bigger picture of people's actions and ask yourself what motivates the makers of the video on the need to make fun of people in society.

The road to hell is paved with good intentions. The lack of malicious intent in an action may not be enough to prevent a malicious outcome.

Hello all,

This is definitely a very challenging topic, but a better way to approach it is by having a structure, otherwise most readers will just find it very long winded and confusing.

After reading through the main post and comments, I still cant even grasp the main or any point.

You guys need to get your structure right. Otherwise it lacks focus.

NUSlecturer - do you have a structure you like to propose? It is always easier to ask someone to do something. Also, I think the conversation is between different individuals talking about different points, that's all.