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.

Jimmy - I understand the quote, but it doesn't add any points to the discussion. Seem you don't seem to want to engage my questions, I assume you have nothing new to add to the discussion.

Sze Meng,

if you really want to engage in a useful discussion, tell me again how is it that you can keep quiet about outright slander like The Da Vinci Code, but want to kick up a fuss over this silly "No Pork" podcast, even though the Muslim community here doesnt seem too bothered about it, yet.

When you were in the theatres, watching "V for Vendetta", were you filled with moral indignation when the movie depicted a respected bishop having his concerns that Natalie Portman may be a little too "old" for his liking? Were you concerned that the local Catholic, or maybe Anglican community may feel offended? Did you stand up and walked out of the cinema? Did you feel like organising a boycott, a protest?

Somehow, watching a Catholic priest behaving like a sex fiend seem more acceptable than ordering pork from a Muslim.

The Catholic community had been complaining loudly about The Da Vinci Code, so there is no need to add your voice. Well, then how about the movies the Catholic community had not been complaining of, like V for Vendetta? The truth is that you guys were never going to act, because all the hooha about the podcast was never about religious sensitivities. It is about Muslim sensitivity. You hold special opinions about the Muslim community. It is a subtle form of negative discrimination, even though your intentions are not malicious.

If the Muslim community is furious about the podcast, it is not too late to join in the condemnation, after the Muslims have taken the lead in protesting. But, if they couldnt care less or they want it to pass quietly, you guys are doing them a disservice by keeping the issue hot. If it werent for this article, I wouldnt have even known the podcast existed, let alone viewed the podcast. And if you insist on having "data" on Muslim reaction, I may have to forward it to my Muslims friends and then ask them how they feel. I'm sure it will be fun.

Lastly, all the examples on the movies are red herrings. I may be upset for a few seconds when I see it, but I get over it. I believe in free speech, and sometimes, that means defending the rights of other people to offend me.

I think Jimmy Mun and I are trying to explain that we should not unknowingly allow ourselves to be used as the medium and workers of harmful propaganda because sometimes the inciters of harmful propaganda have this in mind as part of their strategy, they want people to spread their propaganda for them. We should not unknowingly allow ourselves to become the forest that spreads the wildfire, and relaying puppets of harmful propaganda.

Jimmy -

If you feel so strongly that writing an article on this issue and talking about is really a form of negative discrimination, then I don't agree with you.

I have already tell you in a previous comment why I don't see much of a point of protesting the Da Vinci Code. If you are not satisfied with the answer, then that's fine. But please don't tell me what to do and what not to do.

You accused me of kicking up a fuss...hmmm...How am I kicking up a fuss over this podcast given I am not even the author of the article - i am just trying to have a conversation with you, maybe a more data-driven one =). Let's be realistic, how many people actually follow this thread of conversation - maybe 20-50 people at the most - and i think most like the NUSlecturer will give up halfway because of the lack of structure =)

More importantly, the incident HAS already been reported in the Straits Time when there are 1000x more readers than SA, and the article is someone expressing his opinion of the issue, rather than telling the whole world of this issue and to show everyone the podcast. Maybe you know of this issue through SA, but many many more people than you know of this issue through ST forum already. Maybe the person writing the forum letter is more qualified to take your assertion of subtle discrimination. I sure hope the writer does not have malicious intent to write the ST forum too.

I was trying to have a data-driven conversation with you, especially since your statement " The typical Malay/Muslim in Singapore is already numb about pork jokes." really intrigue me that you feel so comfortable making such an assertion. I want to find out if this is true, and how many data points you have to say this is true.

But then you say you are sending the podcast to your Muslim friends "if you insist on having "data" on Muslim reaction, I may have to forward it to my Muslims friends and then ask them how they feel. I'm sure it will be fun", so it may be just your opinion when you say that " The typical Malay/Muslim in Singapore is already numb about pork jokes." If this statement is just your personal opinion (and not a survey/study), then I do not agree with you, because I am sure some Malay/Muslim are numb, but I am sure some Malay/Muslims are still affected. Once again, a spectrum of individuals within an ethnic/religious group. BTW, why will it be fun to send them the video anyways?

Also, you state that " But, if they couldnt care less or they want it to pass quietly, you guys are doing them a disservice by keeping the issue hot." You also assume in this statement that the Malay/Muslim in general don't care about this podcast. I am sure some Malay/Muslim individuals care deeply about the podcase, and some do not care (i.e. bo- chap) about it at all - it is a varied spectrum of people. I am not convinced it is helpful to make such assertion speaking for the whole community. I am really curious why you feel so comfortable making assertions about the Malay/Muslim community perceived reactions to the podcast that they are numb to pork jokes and they don't care about the podcast at all.

whybegay - it seem that SN by writing the article is now committing a greater disservice than the individuals coming out with the podcast. I don't want to speak for SN, but I am sure he has thought deeply (i.e. SN did NOT unknowingly was USED by the makers of the podcast) about the implication of writing this article and decided to write the article BECAUSE it is already widely reported in MSM and popular blogs. Hmmm..that is actually in his first two paragraphs.....so he actually thought about the pros and cons of writing this article....

"The "No Pork" podcast URL was forwarded to me some days back. At the time, I refrained from blogging on the matter, because I did not want to confer publicity upon such material.

Events have since overtaken this resolution. Xiaxue posted the podcast on her blog. Her mention of it, in turn, was cited in a Forum letter to the Straits Times. Other bloggers have also weighed in.

I will not dignify the recording by providing a URL link. But allow me to mention its contents briefly."

I agree with SN on only writing about this article after all the publicity has already been done.

I see your point about never ever write anything about the podcast so we will not be used by the makers of the podcast. I disagree with your point given the nature of this article and the timing the article was written, so you don't have to waste your time repeating your point again.

Jimmy - you say that " If the Muslim community is furious about the podcast, it is not too late to join in the condemnation, after the Muslims have taken the lead in protesting. But, if they couldnt care less or they want it to pass quietly, you guys are doing them a disservice by keeping the issue hot."

So you are curtailing the right of individuals to talk about this issue (because you accused people who does that of doing a disservice regardless if their good intentions - as the road to hell is paved with good intention - another quote by you) unless until the people in the affected group speak up? How does that jell with "I believe in free speech, and sometimes, that means defending the rights of other people to offend me." Obviously SN by writing the article has clearly offend you.

Maybe you can better elaborate yourself? Just curious.

Jimmy - I am also really curious know what is line you have that have to be crossed? Obviously the video in its current form doesn't even begin to cross the line for you - how will the video change to have cross the line? Thanks.

Sze Meng,

I clarify Jimmy Mun's points so that people can understand them, it was a coincidence that his points and mine coincide. I think I can repeat and clarify myself further as many times I wish, since you are not the sole reader of my comments, I don't write comments just for one reader but also for many else.

You said,
"I don't want to speak for SN, but I am sure he has thought deeply (i.e. SN did NOT unknowingly was USED by the makers of the podcast) about the implication of writing this article and decided to write the article BECAUSE it is already widely reported in MSM and popular blogs. Hmmm..that is actually in his first two paragraphs.....so he actually thought about the pros and cons of writing this article...."

No, I am not accusing SN of being an accomplice of sedition.

Not everyone subscribes to the newspapers, nor have time to read them. For instance, I have not known of the video until I read about it here. However it was people who reacted impulsively to the video who wrote to the newspapers to inform them in the first place. But if other popular political or non-political blogs and the newspapers have already blogged or commented about the video, does it give SA any more right to contribute more damage of harmful propaganda?

Yes, it is good to get people thinking of how to react to such videos, however I also suggested removing any references to the video. People can talk about such awareness all they want, but it is not necessary to spread the messages of harmful propaganda video along with such awareness.

So next time another similar event like this happens, the newspapers and blogs including SA will repeat its own actions again, and become a convenient medium of propaganda? No, contributing to harmful propaganda is a bad mistake. It only makes the relevent commentators as a network to be used again and again by makers of harmful propaganda. I am speaking from the video's motive of propaganda point of view.

You can refer this event to what TODAY newspaper did a few years back. TODAY newspaper chose not to publish any further gruesome pictures of the hostages of terrorists. They do not wish to be further used as convenient medium for the propaganda of terrorists, so that their terror could spread to as many people as possible. This is the point I have been driving at, that propaganda of harmful media should not be continued nor condoned at all.

whybegay -

You say" But if other popular political or non-political blogs and the newspapers have already blogged or commented about the video, does it give SA any more right to contribute more damage of harmful propaganda?"

It doesn't give SN/SA more right or less right. The reality is that the actual impact of popularizing the video is already much smaller when this article is published (fact). I am sure you agree that if the issue has NOT been in ST forum or popular blog, then SA definitely play a much bigger role in publicising the video. The converse is true then which is that SA role is small in publicizing the video, but hopefully, slighty larger in attempting to have a discussion about it.

Once again, how many people really read SA (

The negative cost of talking about the video in terms of popularizing the video is much smaller because it has already been publicized widely vs. the potential benefits from writing about the implication of the video. Without referring to the video, IHMO the implications in this specific article do not drive home the same way.

That say, is it possible to write a good article with the same points without reference to the video as you suggested? I am sure it is possible, but alas, you turn down my request to ask you to write one since it is your suggestion to rewrite the article.

If your argument is absolute which is you must never ever write about the video regardless even if the issue is well known etc, then I don't agree with you. I think it is important to be acutely aware of what has happened in the environment and act accordingly. I am sure you will not agree with my assertion because your point of view is absolute - regardless even if many people has read about the video, we shouldn't write about the video in any form or shape even though the intention is good (as defined by the writer I guesses because the road to hell is paved with good intention). It is hard to argue against an absolute view - at least I cannot.

I am not sure comparing terrorist videos beheading innocent victims (I assume this is what you are talking about) is equal to this video - a bit of a stretch for comparison. In drawing analogies and comparison, it is important to compare equivalent incidents.

Moreover, the article does not link to the video.

Using your example, someone who really want to watch the terrorist video after reading Today article can go to the internet to look for the hostages video. How is it different from someone who want to watch the video after reading the article go to google and search for the video. Therefore, your example actually support the article. I am sure Today wrote about how terroists are beheading victims and broadcasting the acts in communicating their demand and points of view BUT without showing the videos/pictures. So how is that different from this article?

Really, realistically, living in the real world, with Youtube and the internet, is it realistic to ask and expect everyone not to write about these "harmful" videos? Unless you have a magical program that can zap all these videos away from the internet and any article related to the video , I don't think this is possible. Sound like 1984 if you can do that. Isn't the better option than to engage the issue in a matured manner than to think it is possible that everyone will not talk about the issue with the offending videos/pictures? In the age of Youtube, everyone can broadcast what they want. It is an unstoppable trend. Let's learn to deal with it, rather than hoping this will not happen.

Just a quick one before the discussion becomes even less structured. I don't think WBG and Jimmy are saying the same thing at all.

On the offensiveness of the podcast:

Jimmy: The podcast is only mildly amusing but not particularly offensive. The typical Malay/Muslim in Singapore is already numb about pork jokes.

WBG: The podcast is dangerous and can provoke communal emotions, possibly seditious. ("This is not just a political video, this is a deliberate attempt to threaten the social cohesion of Singapore.")

On whether SA should have this article:

Jimmy: SA ought to be careful not to over-react to relatively minor transgressions as you could be selling the image that the putatively offended party is intolerant and hypersensitive and thus promote a more insidious form of racial discrimination under the guise of "racial harmony". Writers on SA ought not to protest the podcast unless they are willing to protest other like material, e.g., practically every movie involving the Church (Sin City/Primal Fear/The Magdalene Sisters, Da Vinci Code, etc.)

WBG: SA ought not even talk about it as that will be to play into the hands of the provocateurs; in fact, the editors should take the whole article down. "We should not unknowingly allow ourselves to be used as the medium and workers of harmful propaganda because sometimes the inciters of harmful propaganda have this in mind as part of their strategy, they want people to spread their propaganda for them. We should not unknowingly allow ourselves to become the forest that spreads the wildfire, and relaying puppets of harmful propaganda."

In other words, while both Jimmy and WBG are unhappy about SN's article, they are so for rather different reasons, and it is not helpful to lump them together as if they are speaking with the same voice (sorry WBG, but I don't think Jimmy is really on the same side as you are, beyond the surface).

Incidentally, I am flattered (and I think other SA writers might say the same too) to hear that some people seem to take us as an important news source. While that speaks some of our perceived credibility, I should point out that it's not really a good idea. What is posted here reflects the interests of the individual writers and is thus unrepresentative of the whole range of what's available out there. Furthermore, what is posted at least sometimes assume that the reader share some relevant background information that is not explicitly provided by us. Conclusion: our aspiration is to provide the readers with one good data point, not to relieve them of the need to balance us against other sources out there, to take us as one data point among others.

Jimmy,

Looking through your (multiple) posts, the key issue seems to be one of standing (or what is called locus standi).

To summarise the Wikipedia article, locus standi says that you cannot bring a lawsuit unless you can demonstrate harm done to yourself -- otherwise you would be ruled as "lacking standing" to bring a lawsuit.

What is the relevance of this? Well, it links to your view that third parties may not speak out against a media content maker / publisher, since they were not the subject of the content.

This viewpoint is something that reasonable men and women may agree upon -- and it is also one that can be reasonably disagreed upon. e.g. Some might say that it is not the place of men to speak out on content they feel is offensive to women, unless a group of women has already made that point. (While not an actual legal action, the idea of "lacks / does not lack standing" still is relevant to the example and the present discussion.)

Perhaps we can agree to disagree on this matter -- I am unsure if further debate will change our positions on this.

[In any case I am very surprised that some readers have deemed SA an important source of news. I must agree with Huichieh that Singapore Angle is about trying to provide one more good data point in the galaxy of information sources -- but that any reader should look around for other sources before coming to an opinion. We don't claim to be an authoritative newspaper, and we don't claim to have all the answers.]

I totally respect SN's right to speak his mind. I am just thinking out loud if he is helping or hindering the party he intends to protect. "Kicking up a fuss" is just poor use of language from me.

I make it a point to read STForum online daily, but I missed that particular article because the headline wasnt interesting and assumed it was just another parent/teacher-type warning about the dangers of the internet/youtube (again). SA has much better quality control than the STForum, and SA writers shouldnt underestimate your own credibility and impact on your audience, no matter how niche it may seem.

As to the limit of tolerance, I guess it has to be the equivalent of shouting "Fire!" in a crowded theatre perhaps? It is my humble opinion that for free speech to flourish, we all should grow a thick skin, and not assume others to be excessively thin skinned.

Jimmy, thanks for responding to my other questions - I appreciate that. So you seem to be a strong liberal in terms of free speech, because the fire example is often use by individuals with high tolerance to free speech, even if the speeches of others offend them .

Do you mind helping me to understand why you are comfortable making assertions about the Malay/Muslim community perceived reactions to the podcast that they are numb to pork jokes and "they couldnt care less or they want it to pass quietly".

Does it mean if we don't hear a strong vocal response from Malay/Muslims means that "they couldn't care less or they want it to pass quietly"? Maybe they are constrained by the environment they are in even if some want to speak out? Unlike you, I don't have such access to the community to even know what the answer may be? Maybe you have insights to the answer so that you did assert that the lack of a response from Malay/Muslims is because "they couldn't care less or they want it to pass quietly" and not because of any other possible reasons.

I am curious to know based on what data points / expertise that you have such that you are comfortable asserting Singapore's Malay/Muslim community reactions toward this podcast in a public forum such as the comment thread of a publicly accessed blog. I am sure your intention of these assertion is good, but I will really like to better understand whre do these assertions come from. I honesty think some Malay/Muslim will be offended, and some will not be affected by it.

Huichieh said,
(sorry WBG, but I don't think Jimmy is really on the same side as you are, beyond the surface).

I never said Jimmy Mun was on the same side as me, and that all his points are identical to mine, but he shares some of my points.

I said,
"I think Jimmy Mun and I are trying to explain that we should not unknowingly allow ourselves to be used as the medium and workers of harmful propaganda because sometimes the inciters of harmful propaganda have this in mind as part of their strategy, they want people to spread their propaganda for them. We should not unknowingly allow ourselves to become the forest that spreads the wildfire, and relaying puppets of harmful propaganda."

I made the reference to what Jimmy Mun said,

"But, if they couldnt care less or they want it to pass quietly, you guys are doing them a disservice by keeping the issue hot. If it werent for this article, I wouldnt have even known the podcast existed, let alone viewed the podcast."

So my original point that Jimmy Mun and I share some points is based on SA being an unknowing medium for the propaganda of the video.

WBG, I think maybe your continual reactions to this article is because you read about the podcast on SA. I think you are really in the very small minority to actually first know about this podcast from SA. Really, go google and see how many more blogs are showing this video. As I say, 100x (times more than SA) more people have ALREADY read it on the ST and 10x more people have read in other blogs.

Sze Meng,

you said,
"It doesn't give SN/SA more right or less right. The reality is that the actual impact of popularizing the video is already much smaller when this article is published (fact). I am sure you agree that if the issue has NOT been in ST forum or popular blog, then SA definitely play a much bigger role in publicising the video. The converse is true then which is that SA role is small in publicizing the video, but hopefully, slighty larger in attempting to have a discussion about it.

Once again, how many people really read SA ("

You cannot make assumptions based on what you think SA's impact is small or large, nor how many readers read SA. Since it only takes one citizen blog reader to over-react and file a sedition charge.

Sze Meng said,
"Moreover, the article does not link to the video."

My point was that the article's references to the video is the link to it.

You also said,
"Using your example, someone who really want to watch the terrorist video after reading Today article can go to the internet to look for the hostages video. How is it different from someone who want to watch the video after reading the article go to google and search for the video. Therefore, your example actually support the article. I am sure Today wrote about how terroists are beheading victims and broadcasting the acts in communicating their demand and points of view BUT without showing the videos/pictures. So how is that different from this article?"

My point was that TODAY was making its point in not further being a supporting medium for terrorists. It said that it would not further publish propaganda material of terrorists. But has SA made this similar point yet? Has SA made this declaration?

"Isn't the better option than to engage the issue in a matured manner than to think it is possible that everyone will not talk about the issue with the offending videos/pictures?"

Issues related to religion and culture is subjective, it is not logical to discuss them in order to try to suit everyone's liking for them. What is the point in being objective about subjective views?

People making fun of religious faiths are denigrating their respectibility. They should not be further encouraged nor assisted. This is also why mocking religious cartoons should not be published.

You said,
"In the age of Youtube, everyone can broadcast what they want. It is an unstoppable trend. Let's learn to deal with it, rather than hoping this will not happen."

However Youtube has already removed the video because it has recognised that the video has violated its terms of usage. People can write and post anything they want, but it does not people people should condone everything and not remove them from the public eye. Any media that mocks, makes fun of, or denigrates a religion's subjectivity nature should not be further promoted.

(not sure why, my earlier comment was lost...)

As an aside, perhaps

Should it not proceed first from the issue who should decide whether this speech is offensive, and then the democratic question whether this offensive speech be criminalised?

On the first, there are basically two alternatives. The minority coummunity or the state (the test of the reasonable man). WBG seems to suggest 'religious' groups in particular should determine it, although why exactly I am not sure. Besides MP George Yeo did mention, regarding Da Vinci Code, that it was not banned because there was little? or no likilihood of violence. This was in contrast to a book ban on Rushdie. Of course bans (prevention) are different from punishment (deterrence) but I think this might be a fair analogy that in Singapore, the state looks at the minority group in question for the guidance on whether the particular speech is offensive. My personal opinion is that the state should only consider the reasonable man, and not the potential sensitivities of minority group but I here I know I depart from the prevailing practice.

Hence, perhaps that is why there are such many imputations on the minority groups and their sense? Why are there imputations that Catholics, for example, are 'less sensitive' by the state? This is problem one of the first alternative (the standard of the minority reasonable person).

We are not sure in this case what the minority reasonable person truly thinks of feel. The trick in Singapore is often, I believe, to err on the side of caution, considering our history. That I admit, will be proper if you already chose to adopt the first alternative. But in this, lets say, we err on the side of caution, even so, should we impute to the minority reasonable person that such speech is offensive to them?

The thing is, practically, there is not going to be a jury made of minority reasonable people but there is a sense of it across the board, across the internet. My sense is that even if the test is a err on the side of caution subjective to minority community test, it will probably not suceed in this case. I would said that like Char, a slap on the wrist might be considered the 'appropriate' response but I won't know.

Besides, what happened to the Sedition Cases? Who went to Jail? Compared it to mooching wireless technology. My sense is that while we recognises the need to protect our minorities from lameness and racism esp. in this age and time, there is no need to overreact. There is no end of the world, no destruction of the community.

Hey guys. Not really going to contribute to the arguments in this discussion, but I thought I could just point out some differences between the Catholic and Muslim communities, and why something can be considered an act of prejudice against one but not the other.

1. Composition of Catholics in Singapore - most Singaporean Catholics (and Christians) tend to be Chinese (or Caucasian) and middle-class/upper-middle class. Hence, but virtue of this class status we do not form the minority in Singapore, and we are not actually prejudiced against.

Notably, Catholics do not face discrimination in the world. Yes, there may be certain so-called offensive elements such as The Da Vinci Code, but considering the make-up of the international community of Catholics (a number of whom are also not subject to discrimination based on race or class), hence Catholics do not feel as threatened, or the see the need to react so strongly to potential acts of prejudice.

2. Composition of Muslims in Singapore - most Singaporean Muslims are either Malay or Indian. Only a very small number are Chinese or other races. Malays and Indians are already minority races in Singapore, and are already subject to much racial and class prejudice, especially as statistics have shown that they do not perform as well as do the majority Chinese.

In the world as well, the international community of Muslims are on the defensive because a lot of them feel as though their religion has been threatened by the richer (and normally Christian) majority. For this reason, they tend to be more sensitive and more defensive against anything that could potentiall be prejudicial to them, whether it really is or not. Most of the times, as we can see from the reactions to the Pope's references to Prophet Mohammed, or to the Danish cartoons, that the nature of the reaction is more violent in comparison.

Like Ben implies, the reason why the law tends to be more protective of Muslims, is because of policy reasons. It recognises that there already exists disparities based on race and class, and thus this may compound reactions against perceived prejudice. Dan Song in the article above this one says that the prejudice extends beyond religion and race to class, and I have to completely agree on that point.

Cheers.

WBG - "Issues related to religion and culture is subjective, it is not logical to discuss them in order to try to suit everyone's liking for them. What is the point in being objective about subjective views?"

So we are not able to learn about subjective matters in an objective manner? Wow - strong statement. Isn't the learning of humanities (political science, philosophy etc) trying to understand subjective matters in an objective manner? I think Hui Chieh / Dan Song etc professors in the social science departments can just quit their job then =).

Also, isn't it obvious to you that the discussion on this issue (i.e. the article) does not suit your liking, so why did you say "it is not logical to discuss them in order to try to suit everyone's liking for them."

"You cannot make assumptions based on what you think SA's impact is small or large, nor how many readers read SA. Since it only takes one citizen blog reader to over-react and file a sedition charge."

I am NOT making assumption. I am asserting my hypothesis based on real data. I can perfectly feel comfortable telling you how many people read the SA, so there is real data points. Just click on sitemeter on the main site if you are not familiar with the function. Observe the numbers of visitor is around 300 a day consistently, which will support my hypothesis that most of our readers are repeat readers given the niche content of the blog, so the unique number of readers for the blog is not large. There is also circulation number for Straits Times. I think the circulation number is in hundred of thousands. Hundred of thousands vs 300 - the impact is significantly less for SA =) Once again, I think I have a healthy perspective how impactful SA really is to the Singapore massess (which is not that much) - as my friends (Hui Chieh, SN) have said - SA is just one of the many data point in the discourse on Singapore issues.

Once again, the article is written AFTER the ST forum letter. If someone want to file a charge, isn't the probability higher from the significant higher number of readers on ST than the small number in SA? Let's use data to discuss rather than just assuming that I am assuming that I do not know how many readers read SA. Of course one person like you who only read about this in SA can file a charge- but we are talking about probability and reality what will actually happen.

"Any media that mocks, makes fun of, or denigrates a religion's subjectivity nature should not be further promoted."

I think you need to discern if someone is writing about an issue with the intention to educate, learn and understand vs the intention to use the offending item to make fun of others. Then again, with your absolute opinion that any articles written using the video is wrong regardless of the intention, then this argument once again will cut no ice with you. But then, I want to make it explicit that to me and any remaining readers of this highly unstructured comment thread, the intention rather than just the act to promote the incident is very critical. Of course the road to hell is paved with good intentions = )

I think your focus is that these articles should never be written, regardless if the intention is good to engage helpful discussion on this topic, then again, any discussion on this topic is unhelpful to you ...trying to understand your logical flow....so I have a plan with 2 options:

Option A: In this internet and video broadcasting age (btw, there are many other video sites that does not have strict broadcasting rules than Youtube so "bad" videos are always available on the internet - check out the video vs Jimmy post where jimmy actually view the video - the video is NOT hosted on Youtube), and there is no magical program to zap everything away, and you feel so strongly that no articles promoting such "bad" videos should be available and you repeatedly state very clearly that engaging these "bad" videos is not useful or "what's the point" , then the only natural conclusion (to me at least) is to not surf the net and obtain your news from media channels that effectively remove these offending videos etc so you will never know they ever exist. =)

Option B: In China, there are 50,000+++ internet police surfing and "cleaning" up the net, it is possible for you to still surf the net assuming they also remove any controversial articles . Maybe you can try to surf the net within the chinese firewall, so you also will not see these articles..not sure how to do that exactly from Singapore (assuming you are in Singapore)

By the way, sorry for misinterpreting your Today article example. I don't think SA has promoted any terrorist related messages yet...and I don't think SA does any declaration of anything, except to have measured, balanced and hopefully helpful discussion on topics related to Singapore. =) Opps, that means we cannot declare what specific subject topic not to discuss, because if we think it is helpful to discuss, then we will...cheers

Ben - i really like your thoughts on how to assess the reaction of the minority representative person. It is a really very hard thing to do, and I think it really set me thinking how you can actually do that in a fair, measured and equitable manner. Cheers

To Sze Meng,

I don't think anyone can answer that question on their, not the state definitely but the community at large.

Upon the release of the book 'Da Vinci Code' by Dan Brown to start, yes it became a bestseller, yes it was controversial and many christian groups had written in response to it. Yet, the general attitude at large of it was the fact that there was no violence involved after its release. I guess in retrospect, it had prompted alot of intellectuals within and out of the christian community to actually pick up investigative work and studies to determine the authenticity of the book's contents and possible factual errors.

Personal note -
To me, I feel that its a form of positive reaction from any form of community in response to any form of criticism.

In comparison if we were to compare that to the work of Salman Rushdie's Satanic Verses. The aftermath of the release of the book had resulted in anti-rushdie protests in Pakistan and India which people got injured, deaths and injury to translators of the book resulted indirectly from the fatwa issued by Iran, book burnings and firebombings of bookshops.

While no one is able to put a quantifiable manner in which how discriminatory the books are in the context of the groups of people that they criticize or appear to criticize. But yet, in view of possible backlash from the local community, drawing conclusions from the critical response from the international community at large is a good scale to determine if a certain content from any media had stepped on sensitive toes.

This recording may be staged, but I have witnessed something similar. I was having lunch one day (this was in China), and a Chinese man came into the Xinjiang (Muslim) stall I was patronising, and ordered his noodles with pork. When told they did not serve pork, he expressed complete and utter disbelief and tried again, only to be rebuffed quite gently a second time.

Stupidity lives.

Azmodeus: Thanks for your input. In many discussions on this matter, it is common to bring up the BIG event like Da Vinci code, Salman Rushdie's Satanic Verses, Prophet Muhammad's cartoons.

However, I think when these "small" incidents are close to home and we can relate to them much more, then it is important to observe our own reactions (internal thoughts, outward actions) to these incidents, and more importantly, examined why we have these reactions, and why we are pleased/unhappy/proud/disgusted (a whole range of option) with our own reactions. Being reflective on issues that are closer to home can be beneficial at times, and we don't have to let people know if we choose not to. I find these reflections helpful, but i am sure some agree it is a waste of time =)

Another angle?

Compare Da Vinci Code and The Satanic Verses. Compare a thriller with a writer who writes metaphorically page after page of mind numbing madness? When did it matter to these folks of quality or literary merit? None. Nobody cares. Europe will defend both on freedom of speech reasonings.

But I will like to see from another angle. About who we end up benefiting/supporting within the community by 'banning' certain things? Or at least suggesting that those have been and should be considerations.

Example

1) The Satanic Verses

Violence is not Rushdie provocation. As Aaron recongized, Ayatollah Khomeini played a very large role, calling it ironically one of satan's verses, and issued the fatwa. And Rushdie post modern novel (you read the book, you will know that is fair comment) is equally provocative to the west as to the east. A English 'moderate' Muslim have called Khomeini a bigot, and most English Muslim leaders think the book should not be banned, US 'moderate' muslims strongly dissuaded violence (because it is unlikely banning it is possible in the US). Many think that banning the book is 'worse' for the image of Muslims than not banning it because Islam is one of the more tolerant religions in the world. So I guess its what one wants to see. So the question is in the UK, there is an idea that moderate Muslims are actually saying 'Ayatollah is not being nice' while in US, they did not want violence. There are some who wants Rushdie head and the ban. State action should, as a matter of practicality, consider which groups to promote. In the UK, unlike in Singapore, it was then clear they cannot ban the book. I speculate that it will just play in the hands of the far right who will gain support. In Singapore, I don't think we have this dynamic.

2) Da Vinci Code

Most Catholics/Christians (esp. in the west) have long ago stopped this obstacle against freedom of speech save in isolated parts of the world. With the second Vatican council, Catholics have sort of move on a few serious topics - a general liberalization over the years in the sense. While officially still an option, there is a large frown over capital punishment from the Vatican. This is a long departure from previous darker days. A betterment of relationship with Jews and the Protestant help. Less doctrinal meant happier people (*winks)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Vatican_Council
but see
http://www.catholicapologetics.info/modernproblems/vatican2/vatican.htm
(so things can still change)

There are people who oppose the more liberal movements of the Church. Even when the ex-Pope says that death penalty is bad, people says thats not correct etc. In Singapore, regarding the Da Vinci Code, I sense there is a greater divide of opinion within the Christian regarding the movie (unlike the Satanic verses) and many Christians think that despite its obvious factual errors, its overreaction to ban it. I think that the non-ban might be seen as a quasi-support for a more 'moderate' voice.

-

To extrapolate in this case, I am not sure what a more moderate voice will say. Then we are back to the first problem. But if there are disagreement within the said minority community, I think we should attempt to give in to the moderate opinion.

Why do we place religion on a pedestal and try our best not to poke fun or incite reactions stemming from adherence to religious codes.

Granted that Islam is mainstream, however to an atheist it's as creditworthy as the Scientology. Why then can't we question mindless adherence to it's rules?

Instead of asking ourselves if it's openly racist, abusive or manipulative; could be instead ask ourselves if it's conscious raising, searching within to ask ourselves if religion indeed does deserve it's esteemed place in our society. Would you be offended if it's a clip about one person telling the other that w/o religion he would be condemned to hell. Or if it was a clip where one is poking fun of another's views on a scientific opinions (the sun rotates around the earth).

Whilst i agree that in Sg, religious sensitivities are important. The flip side however is us being to sensitive to religion, taking offence where none exist, or exist only in small sectors. Could we not envision having a society that is liberal and accepting of criticisms, jokes and satire; instead of a society that is self censoring, politically correct, and muted.

Ivan,

I echo your sentiments but it will take a brave soul like you to push this view into the public space. Tradition, and well cherished beliefs, often have a tendency to assert special privileges by its reason of its numbers or its internal wisdom. In the marketplace of ideas, it is logical to think that there should be no elevation of discourse except the discourse of peace.

After all, if one man's meat is another poison, it is as poisonous for jokers as for the religious. Hearing out either should be no big deal. It should not be that an individual cannot sincerely believe that his right to make religious jokes is an important one, and that it is offensive that the sensitivities of a certain group should alter that.

But if the majority do not care so much for freethinkers, and theology have often considered non-believers somewhat dangerous (re the Pope address, which placed in the context, was an attack on reason as some understand appreciate it rather than Islam); there is very little support one gets.

And the question comes.

Faced with numbers and deeply held beliefs, and the prospects of disorder, and say you are a democratically elect atheist-agnostic leader, what will you really do?

But I share your esteem vision but that to me will take at least 2000 years, and its not very practical

Ivan & Ben - it's a great question to ask why religion (amongst other competing interests etc) places such an important role in each of us and society at a whole. Looking back at thousands of years of history, too much blood has been shed (rather unnecessarily)in the name of religion.....alas. Thanks for the insightful comments...

It's fictional. it's really obvious that it's acted out. u guys r obviously over reacting. and frankly, no matter how racist the vid is, u can't argue against the fact that the content IS funny. the only reason y pple don't laugh at it is because they blanket their sense of humour with their moral maturity (aka. smart aleckness) while watching the video, thus refraining from expressing their immediate involuntary reaction.

My Verdict - The video is:

humourous
but
racist

OR

racist
but
humourous

Relax Lah - which part of the discussion do you think anyone of us believe that the video is real that you have to inform everyone that people are acting? Just curious.

My response to your posting will be mainly my response to mecc on February 3, 2007 11:18 PM which incidentally I have not receive a reply from mecc yet.

Wow, after reading most of the postings, I have a small confession to make. When I first heard my fourteen year old son listening to the "no pork at all" podcast, (together with my 8 and 10 year olds) I was upset because the show mentioned the word "pork". I thought that it was very mean of the two Chinese guys to keep on goading the poor Indian waiter (which seems to be their purpose). Anyway, I decided to thoroughly hear it for myself before reprimanding my son. When I heard the Chinese man ordering "Nasi Babi" and the Indian man launched himself into a frenzy of yelling and shouting, I could hardly breathe as I was laughing so hard.

I think if we can see things through the eyes and innocence of children (who knows nothing of racism), the video is relatively harmless. Two guys (in this case, Chinese) "with nothing better to do" are having fun at the expense of the waiter (in this case, an Indian ... why do people assume that he is an Indian Muslim?). The video only appears funny because of the waiter's colourful persona and dramatic vocalizations. If the waiter is an insipid person who talks in a monotonous voice, there would be no fun at all. There was no indication at all that the Indian man is a Muslim. He is only working in a restaurant or "mamak shop" (Are we all assuming that it is an Indian Muslim shop because it is still open at 3 am? If there was an indication in the video, I must have missed it). He is just an Indian man who is driven nuts by two seemingly "stupid" people who cannot seem to comprehend that the shop does not serve pork. (For that matter, a shop or hotel that sells "halal" food need not necessarily mean that the shop is a Muslim shop and that all its workers are Muslims). I think anyone (Malay, Chinese, Indian, Caucasian, man, lady) will go bonkers and start frothing at the mouth if after repeatedly telling and explaining something, they get asked the same question again and again and again ...

In their innocence, Adam and Eve walked around stark naked. God knew they were naked but did not reprimand them for not wearing clothes. It was not a sin to be naked. Only after eating the fruit of knowledge, did Adam and Eve realize that they were naked and they hid themselves from God. (In our present day society, some countries allow their citizens to walk around in the nude, albeit in limited areas. In some other countries, people are fully covered from top to toe. So who is right and who is wrong?)

In the above context, I am of the opinion that some "viewers" have overreacted. Although their intentions were noble, they have let us see phantoms where there were none. The video is only "bad" when someone says it is "bad". If someone were to say that the drinking water in Singapore is recycled water from God-knows-where, the general public would shudder and think that the pure H2O that they are drinking is contaminated, although it is pure H2O as all chemists and scientists know. What is said by "seemingly wise people" has cast doubts in the minds of others (when it was entirely innocent) and takes the joy out of what should have been enjoyed fully. What has happened to the children that we were when we used to enjoy jokes with such joyful abandon? Do we see everything tainted by racism and religion as we become more worldly-wise?

WildOrchid - the reality is the the majority of the adults do not "see things through the eyes and innocence of children". This is the fact of life. Is it ideal? Most probably not. Is this a fact. Yes. So given that we are face with reality, then the video is really not that harmless? (because you argue if we look at it via the eye of children, it is harmless, but conversely, if we do not, then it is not harmless) - will you like to elaborate why exactly is it not harmless if it is NOT view through the eyes of children.

A video or story rely on the context of where the audience is from.

A reasonable Singapore adult will assume that if a stall does not serve pork, and other meat, the probability (> 95-%) is that it is a halal stall in Singapore. Of course "a shop or hotel that sells "halal" food need not necessarily mean that the shop is a Muslim shop and that all its workers are Muslims". I will argue that a shop that sells "halal" food has a statistically significant higher probability than a shop that does not sell "halal" food will have Muslim owners and some Muslim workers. For big chains and hotel, it is not relevant in the discussions because the video setting is in a small stall / coffeeshop.

You do raise a valid point that the assistant is not stated explicit as an Indian Muslim, but out of every 10 Singaporean, will more than 5 assume the Indian assistant in the video is NOT a Muslim? I will argue more than 5 Singaporeans will ASSUME that the assistant in the video is most probably an Indian Muslim given that he works in a store that serve all meats except pork. My reasoning is based on the context of Singapore and the video, but with no data, I may be wrong. Maybe you are right that the majority of Singaporean assume that the the stall is NOT halal and the store assistant is NOT a Muslim.

More importantly, does it matter significantly if the store assistant is a Muslim or a non-Muslim? I will like to hear your point of view on that.

If the outcome was to have a good laugh, will the same results be achieved if the same two person went to a vegetarian restaurant and keep harassing the waiter for meat assuming everything else is the same (accent, number of times asking for meat, the same "colourful persona and dramatic vocalizations" of the waiter)? Will it be still just as funny and why and why not? If it is just as funny, then why this setting was not used? If it is not as funny, then why not? It will be interesting to hear what you have to say about this?

And honestly, this discussion is one of the data point amongst many on this issue - it can influence, but I don't think it can in any shape or form dictate how someone should think about the video. Look at how many people are unconvinced by the thrust of the article in this discussion thread! Do you mind sharing with me who are the seemingly wise people you are talking about too?

I do not think that the video is extremely offensive or blatantly racist. I just find it offensive and unnecessary especially since the same outcome (having a good laugh) can be achieved in many other ways - I think I talked about that in earlier comments.

WildOrchid - can you defined how viewers overreact to the video? What is the level of reaction do you think is NOT overreacting? Does keeping quiet and keeping our thoughts to ourselves fall within not overreacting? Does writing an article with a regular audience of 300 fall within the overreacting zone?

I am also not sure if I understand why "The video is only "bad" when someone says it is "bad". Everyone has an opinion on the video. Some think it is damm funny and ok, some think it is "bad". The video is the way it is, it is each individual decision to attribute a value to the video. If I think it is bad, and you think it is funny and ok, then is the video bad to you and is the video funny and ok to me? The answer is no on both counts.

Can I force you to say that the video is bad if you do not think so? Of course not. So is the video still "bad"? Maybe I can influence you to think about the offensiveness of the video, just as you are influencing me to think the video is just funny and ok. That's really all we can do. The video is not inherently bad or good because someone (who is the someone anyway? ) say it is bad.

My dear, dear, dear Sze Meng. I felt so sad and forlorn when I read your comments. It seems to me that in your haste to grow up and evolve into an emotionally mature and intelligent person, you have let your funny bone degenerate (Sorry, no offence meant). It was not my intention to spark off another round of debate. Neither did I mean to belittle the mental and emotional maturity of others. (Maybe I am severely lacking in such areas myself. See, I'm making fun of myself and what is the harm with that?) I was merely trying to let others see "the other side of the coin" ... the innocent fun that the video makers wanted to have and share with others. Maybe the video makers were being juvenile but I think it was done with no malice intended. (As such, it doesn't count as a crime.)

Do you think the Three Stooges are funny? What about The Simpsons? Tom and Jerry? If one were to view the shows, (without even calling upon some esteemed psychologist for their officially sanctioned opinions) one would find an infinite number of negative elements e.g. physically harmful (hitting each other with objects that can maim and kill; brute force triumphs over common sense), verbally abusive (Mr. Burns' scathing comments), racially distorted etc ... (In the Simpsons show, the Jewish clown was shown smoking like a chimney and consuming beer. There was no public outcry over that from the Jewish quarter. I have a strong feeling that many would loudly protest if the producers had shown a Muslim man drinking beer. Since when must we tip toe around things that are Islamic and trample upon the feelings and sensitivities of others?).

I watched the Three Stooges when I was little despite knowing that the show is silly. We shared the jokes with each other and laughed at the whole idiocy of it all. My children and maid laughed at Tom and Jerry's antics although they know that hitting each other on the head can be fatal. That's what the show was for ... for us to laugh until our eyes tear and our sides ache. (Laughter, along with an active sense of humour, may help protect you against a heart attack, according to a recent study by cardiologists at the University of Maryland Medical Center in Baltimore.) From the Simpsons, I've picked up some good words e.g. egregious, inebriate, inefficacious etc ... So how bad are the shows? Is there no saving grace at all?

The world around us smacks of racism, bullying and injustice. Some comments and situations are purposeful, others unintentional. I know that we cannot make them go away but on the other hand, we can try to make the best out of a "bad" situation. Instead of telling others of the "hidden, potential dangers" lurking in videos, I think we should instead tell others to "chill" should they overreact to such contents and try to let them see the other "harmless, flippant side" that was meant to be. We cannot stop a similar video from being filmed and viewed as God gave us free will to decide on what we want to do, what we want to see, what we want to eat, etc ... etc ... etc ... Its akin to robbing a child of his or her joy in splashing around in the pool just because some other child had drowned. (I agree that it's dangerous for children to swim in the pool or sea and a number of children have drowned. But what's the probability of that happening? Just because it MIGHT be harmful we stop doing whatever we enjoy?). If we are ever so vigilant that we go on a crusade to sniff out and snuff out "hidden evil", we are stifling creativity and causing the creative juices to run dry. Society will not have anything to laugh about, laugh at or laugh with. I know that you are entitled to your opinion, but dear Sze Meng, please forgive me. I would rather die laughing as happy as an idiot than to go to my grave a seemingly serious and wise righteous citizen.

You can brand me a fool but I do not wish to be embroiled further in this "mountain out of a molehill" discussion.

Happy Chinese New Year, Sze Meng!
And GOD Bless!

[Siteowner: Writer is advised that his comments are deleted for being irrelevant. If he would like to make a point cogent to the present discussion, by all means do so. Attempts at humour could be directed to other, more suitable, humor sites.]

...Chill please! Don't delete my last comment, it was an attempt to be funny! Chill!...

[Siteowner: Writer is advised that his comments are deleted for being irrelevant. If he would like to make a point cogent to the present discussion, by all means do so. Attempts at humour could be directed to other, more suitable, humor sites.]

[Siteowner: Writer is advised that his comments are deleted for being irrelevant. If he would like to make a point cogent to the present discussion, by all means do so. Attempts at humour could be directed to other, more suitable, humor sites.]

I have one final thing to say before ending the discussion. (I do not wish to be dragged further into this quagmire of senseless dispute.) Danger or perceived danger lies not in the actual object, article or incident per se (in this case, the video). The real danger is human error in misjudging or assuming the worst of the situation. What is even more perilous is when human emotions and sentiments are drummed up by irresponsible people and using it for mischievous purposes.

What are the facts behind the whole video?
1. Two Chinese man kept on ordering pork to irritate the waiter.
2. The waiter is an Indian
3. The shop serves halal food (There are even Chinese and Thai shops that serve halal food and do not serve pork)
That's all.

The racists amongst us assumed that
a) The waiter is an Indian Muslim.
b) The shop is a Muslim shop

It is not the video makers who are racists. The racists are the ones who try to deceive others into thinking that the Chinese men were forcing an Indian Muslim waiter to serve them pork. The mischievous try to incite the Muslims and trick them into thinking that a Muslim man was potentially being forced to serve pork to non Muslims. (Visions of Abu Ghraib"?)

Although I do not know the true intentions of the video makers, I cannot rely on my "worldly experience" and persecute them just because I wrongly assumed (a) and (b) to be the facts of the case. Is it not true that in most courts of law, a person is not guilty until proven so? I believe that even if there is one small nuance of doubt that the person is innocent, the court cannot sentence or convict the man. (In this case, it seems that a sizeable number of "enlightened and morally upright" people have already assumed that it was indeed the intention of the two Chinese men to have the Muslim waiter serve them pork. Thus, it is the duty of these righteous, civic conscious citizens to berate the video makers.)

So my question is, "Why all this uproar over something innocent?" (There are some who claimed that the whole incident was staged and the Indian man is actually a Chinese ... thus the aim is just for entertainment) Is it because we so desperately want to impress upon others that we are so "worldly wise" that we are able to see "hidden, potential dangers" in almost anything? Is satire and parody sinful? Is laughter a transgression of morality? If we happen to laugh uncontrollably (without meaning to) when a Muslim man (or Jew or Sikh or African) slips on a banana skin, are we deemed as racists? If yes, it is no wonder there are more troubled and depressed people in the world who cannot find the slightest joy in living.

It's one thing to find simple joy in life and another to find joy in the mocking of religious symbolism. It is either innocent and joyful living of simple country bumpkins or constricted and self-centered evil masochism of criminal accomplices. Some singaporeans living in this very small island are indeed really small in their outlook.

WildOrchid -

I understand you are trying to stress it is important to have a sense of humor and not to take things too seriously. However, I am not sure if it is helpful to lump all humorous videos together (this video with three stooges, Simpson, Tom and Jerry etc). Are these videos really that similar in nature that you can lump them together for your argument?

Your argument is that it is better to focus on the humor even though the content that make you laugh may offend someone held belief - humor trumps the possibility of offending another group.In other words, let's just laugh about it and chill.

Let me ask you a question I asked mecc. 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 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). You will then argue that it will be the "bad" viewers who comments that the Malay is most probably a Muslim, and that is bad because the video show that the boy is just a Malay and never explicitly state that the boy is a Muslim. Based on your argument, let's focus on the humor aspect of the video and laugh about it?

I hope you don't mind answering some of my questions from my previous comments? If not, I understand because you did express that "I have one final thing to say before ending the discussion" and this is all a "senseless dispute". That's a pity because I will really like to understand your rationales for some of your statements.

A.Since you argue if we look at it via the eye of children, it is harmless, but conversely, if we do not, then it is not harmless. Will you like to elaborate why exactly is it not harmless if it is NOT view through the eyes of children"

B. If the outcome was to have a good laugh, will the same results be achieved if the same two person went to a vegetarian restaurant and keep harassing the waiter for meat assuming everything else is the same (accent, number of times asking for meat, the same "colourful persona and dramatic vocalizations" of the waiter)? Will it be still just as funny and why and why not? If it is just as funny, then why this setting was not used? If it is not as funny, then why not? It will be interesting to hear what you have to say about this?

New Question:

B. What are your thoughts on Dansong article "Much Ado about Everything Prejudicial"? Do you think Dan also lack a sense of humor to write such a lengthly article on the comment threads of this article? Why so?

Other observation. You state that the people sharing their reactions that this video may be offensive is accused of being bad, while now the video makers are actually innocent and junivile as you said that "innocent fun that the video makers wanted to have and share with others. Maybe the video makers were being juvenile but I think it was done with no malice intended." Therefore, anyone who voice out the opinion that the video may be offensive to some group is now "bad". It is an interesting argument that basically compel people to keep their mouth shut and mind their own business.

Also, is there an uproar about this matter? An article was written to an audience of a couple of hundreds. Dissent to the article were freely raised.debated and discussed in a non-personal and mostly helpful manner. Is this an uproar?

I will like to encourage you not to be personal with your comments (accusing me of not funny, too serious, and a racist because I share my opinion on the issue) unless you feel strongly that stating I am of all these things helps in this discussion moving forward.

I much rather focus the discussion on the content rather than the person. I find being too personal in this type of comment thread is usually less helpful in exploring ideas and point of views, because given that I don't know you, and you don't know me except for the comments, it is not that helpful to make comments about each other. It is better in this forum to debate about the ideas. I think it is quite unrealistic to say you know who I am based on the comments as any person is more multi-dimensioned that a few comments threads. =) I rather joke about you as a person if I know you personally after some interaction rather than through a couple of comment threads.

Also, "dear Sze Meng, please forgive me. I would rather die laughing as happy as an idiot than to go to my grave a seemingly serious and wise righteous citizen." Feel free to do what you wish in this matter. That said, I think we are trying to better understand different people reaction to the matter, and no one has the monopoly to dictate to others who is right or wrong because everyone can have their point of view on this matter. I sense that you are trying to be indecorous in this statement to me, but maybe I lack a sense of humor then...=) opps..that's goes the last bits of my funny bone by being so serious...

Wild Orchid,
You state that " The racists amongst us assumed that
a) The waiter is an Indian Muslim.
b) The shop is a Muslim shop"

As I explained in my comments, if you have lived in Singapore for some time, the probability that the waiter is an Indian Muslim and the shop is a Muslim shop is higher than 50% if the specific stall does not sell pork but other meat. Just do a count of coffee shops that do not sell pork but other meat and maybe even ask the assistant whether they are Muslims. Of course there will definitely be a number of these stores (X) that are non-Muslim stores and hae non-Muslim assistants. There will also be number of these stores (Y) who are Muslim stores and have Muslim Assitants. Without doing an actual count and based on living in Singapore for such a long time, I can say that Y>X by at least 20-30% at a conservative number.

I think it is the fact that you live in Singapore that more people than not think of a and b, rather than just being the people thinking so are racist. Why is it racist anyway in the context of the video? Which race is being discriminated?

Therefore, I argue it is more probability driven than anything else if you are a Singaporean watching a video. Given a country that the citizens do not know about Singapore AND (ARE NOT) familiar with that fact that Muslims do not eat pork, an average citizen from that county will most likely NOT arrived at conclusion a and b from watching the video (and most likely don't understand the accent =) ).It doesn't mean the citizen for that country is not racist....because he or she did not arrived at the conclusion of a and b.

Dear Sze Meng,
" ... what do you think of a staged video showing a bunch of Chinese youths forcing one Malay 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). You will then argue that it will be the "bad" viewers who comments that the Malay is most probably a Muslim, and that is bad because the video show that the boy is just a Malay and never explicitly state that the boy is a Muslim?

If indeed the above scenario had taken place, I would still give the video makers the benefit of the doubt. I would not blindly join the mob and throw stones at "suspects". Words that are uttered by "insightful people" cannot be taken back. The damage done could be irreparable. Mischievous people would seize the opportunity to stir up trouble. By portraying the video as racist, instead of trying to diffuse (or chill) or explain away the situation, is doing the Devil's job of propagating chaos.

Is it explicitly stated in your scenario that two "Non-Muslims forced a Muslim to eat pork'? If it is as clear cut as that, then, of course the video makers are guilty. But let the court decide on how their punishment should be. We are in no position to give free interpretation and look for hidden meanings and agendas.

Have you considered that the fictitious scenario could actually be, "Two Muslim Chinese forced a Malay Christian to eat pork/chicken?"

Are you aware that a person who looks like a Malay, need not be a Malay? He or she could be a Chindian (Chinese + Indian). A Malay need not be a Muslim. There is a sizeable number of Indonesian Malays who are Christians / Catholics. For that matter a sizeable number of Filipino Malays are Christians / Catholics. A sizeable number of Thai Malays are Buddhists. There are Chinese Muslims, Caucasian Muslims etc.

No matter how convincing, I do not place much faith in the science of numbers. A case is baseless if it is just based on probability. It must be explicitly documented and 100% true for it to hold its grounds in any argument. For example, a human shares more than 98% (98.77%) of his genes with a chimpanzee, 50% with his own daughter and 60% with a banana. Does it mean that a human is more identical to a chimpanzee or a banana, than his own daughter?

To answer your question, (I would like to reiterate that I am not All-Knowing as only God has that priviledge)
A. Children and adults see things differently. If we were to ask, "What is more evil than the Devil?", adults who have so much knowledge and personal experience would start giving a whole list of persons e.g. Hitler, Genghis Khan, my ex-wife etc ... Children in all their innocence would give a simplistic answer and say, "Nothing". Yes, nothing is more evil than the Devil.
At that time the disciples came to Jesus, saying 'Who then is greatest in the kingdom of heaven?' Then Jesus called a little child to Him, set him in the midst of them, and said, 'Assuredly I say to you, unless you are converted and become as little children, you will by no means enter the kingdom of heaven. Therefore whoever humbles himself as this little child is the greatest in the kingdom of heaven. Whoever receives on little child like this in My name receives me. But whoever causes one of these little ones who believe in Me to sin, it would be better for him if a millstone were hung around his neck, and he were drowned in the depth of the sea.'" (Matthew 18:1-6)
B. I know that your second scenario of two persons harassing a waiter for meat in a vegetarian shop would also produce the same hilarity. Try listening to "Kopitiam" in Youtube.
C. From the gist of it, Dansong's article runs much in the same vein as SN. These writers have assumed that the Indian man is an Indian Muslim and in doing so have gravely erred. Based on a false premise and supposition, they have discussed at length what was not there in the first place. You can debate until you are blue in the face, but if the facts of the case are not true, any lawyer will tell you that it's baseless.

My apologies, dear Sze Meng if you feel that what I write is personal in nature. I sincerely apologize for hurting your feelings. Maybe I got carried away seeing (or reading) baseless arguments based on assumptions. I was addressing the entire community although I mentioned your name because yours was the latest thread. I would like to point out that, although this "article was written to an audience of a couple of hundreds" the entire international community has access to it and are reading it and having a glimpse of Singaporean sense of humour. I'm sure that some of them are thinking like how I'm thinking and feeling that Singaporeans are being too judgmental. Of course you can argue that some of them are thinking like how you are thinking ... That's why there are two sides to a coin, and always two sides to a debate. I was merely trying to give you the other side. For that matter, I have a strong feeling that some readers had given up trying to let the prejudiced few see the other side of the coin. They have thus abstained from answering the questions posted.

What I'm trying to warn readers of, is the inherent danger of jumping to conclusions, of trying to indoctrinate the impressionable few and whip them into a deadly, bloodthirsty frenzy of mob rule where "seemingly guilty" people are attacked. Is it not better to let a guilty man walk free than to sentence an innocent to death?
.
All said, have a good day Sze Meng and GOD Bless!

(P.S. I hope that has answered your questions without me making an enemy)

Sze Meng, I believe someone's error of perception is based on mistaken bible interpretation.

MT 18:2 He called a little child and had him stand among them. 3 And he said: "I tell you the truth, unless you change and become like little children, you will never enter the kingdom of heaven. 4 Therefore, whoever humbles himself like this child is the greatest in the kingdom of heaven.

It is stated that people who change to be as humble as children, they will never enter the kingdom of heaven, it does not mean people have to be naive and stupid when they perceive the world. I know many children who are smart and see the world as it is, they are as truthful as calling a spade a spade, they would call a stupid joke as a stupid unfunny joke.

The definition of humble from Dictionary.com-

1. not proud or arrogant; modest: to be humble although successful.

2. having a feeling of insignificance, inferiority, subservience, etc.: In the presence of so many world-famous writers I felt very humble.

So the definition of humble means not to be proud nor arrogant, superior to others but being modest and real, not superiorly fake and act like a know-it-all. So interpreting the Bible without respect for its true meanings just makes people seem too full and arrogant of their own selfish views. Therefore such a mentality cannot see truth for what it is, much less enter the kingdom of heaven and truth like modest and humble children.

WildOrchid - Thank you for making the efforts to explain yourself, and no offense taken. I am glad we can have a cordial discussion on this topic. Have a great CNY .

I think the big idea in our discussion is that it is important to check our assumptions when we read or watch anything. I agree with that. However, I think many people naturally gravities to assumption based on the environment they are in in order to make sense of the world they live in. Therefore, if we know that people do use their environment to develop their assumptions and use the assumptions to form conclusion based on what they read or watch, then there are repercussions of showing something that many people will have a natural conclusion based on their formed assumptions.

My point is that SN, Dan, I and others react to the video we did because we believe that many Singaporeans' assumptions are driven by the environment they live in daily, rather than checking their assumptions so throughly like you. Could we be wrong in assuming that- maybe? Could we be right - maybe too. =)

Unless the video explicitly labeled the store as a Muslim store and the Indian waiter as a Muslim and explicitly state that the two Chinese person were being offensive to the other's belief of the importance of halal, the video will be subject to interpretation. Therefore, someone from Singapore and someone from another country NOT familiar with the concept of Halal or Singapore ethnic mix will come to different interpretation of the video. My gut feeling is that fewer Singaporean will interpret the video like you do, but of course there will be some Singaporean who will do that. This is not data-driven, more of my observation in life.

In the spirit of the comment threads in SA, I think we can agree to disagree. For example, I rather see my points as expressing my opinion in a more data-driven fashion and trying to clarify what others are saying rather than being judgmental. Your perception is that some of the stuff said are baseless and judgmental.

Also, if only a few people in this comment thread has a point of view, it doesn't mean that only a few Singaporean feel that way. This comment thread is in no shape or form a representation of Singapore, and people sharing a point of view may choose not to voice their opinions. I will NOT read too much into the comment threads to form an opinion of the general population view on this issue. Honestly, without doing a random sampling survey of Singaporeans, it is hard to determine what is the general perception to this issue. To my knowledge, no one is really talking about this issue much except for maybe both of us now =)

"Is it not better to let a guilty man walk free than to sentence an innocent to death? " - This is a statement that will generate more discussion and is also based on the value system that each individual has. I am sure many will agree with you and many will not agree. My hypothesis is that the statement reflects your value system and why you respond to the reactions of the video they way you did. Forgive me if my hypothesis is incorrect.

Hopefully this article and comment threads have not resulted in "indoctrinate the impressionable few and whip them into a deadly, bloodthirsty frenzy of mob rule where "seemingly guilty" people are attacked." But I take your point in the extreme situation, this will happen. How can a few result in mob rule? You have to indoctrinate the impressionable masses to result in mob rule? No?

That said, I do sincerely appreciate your responses. I am not sure why some people have given up responding. Of course some don't see the value in responding, but I will argue some may not want to back up their seemingly data-driven assertions with data when pressed for it (because they don't feel like or they don't have the data - I have no idea). For assertions based on opinions, I think anyone can persist in answering if they want to do so.

Counterinsurgency - I am not sure if you address the question to me or WildOrchid. Since I have not quoted any Bible verses, I assume your comments may not be directly address to me. I apologized for not responding if it was indeed a question for me. Cheers

Dear Sze Meng,
Thank you for your cordial reply. I will not be logging on to this page anymore as obviously I have gravely offended someone who is frothing at the mouth and making such nasty comments (Sticks & stones, my brother!)Obviously that someone is lacking in communication skills and had to use offensive adjectives to state his points. That someone (mustn't name names) is getting all worked up and cannot think logically (Too much pork? Maybe a multitude of Taenia solium have gravely infected his mind and making him deranged ... ha, ha, ha! Chill it brother!). I think it will be wise for me to bid a hasty retreat . I think you should too before we get bitten by you-know-who!

Bon soir & au revoir, mon ami ... !

WildOrchid - all the best. Thanks again for contributing to the discussion. Hope to see your point of views in other discussion threads. =)

I guess someone just can't handle the calling of spades as spades but instead describe the ugly image of oneself in the mirror as offensive. How very aptly described. Well the mirror of reality doesn't tell lies, it frightens the weak-minded away by their own image and look how fast they run, especially when they lose!

There is a tragedy in each joke,
Over-analyse it and it will emerge.

To Aaron: if you do not know, someone posted the video on youtube again and this time, youtube did not take it down.

apart from what you guys discuss in this forum, I would give out an opinion about what I think about this audio.
I found it funny at first place tho, not because Im racist, but because, the English accent of both participant sucked...
remember, I was not making a joke of the race, not because the 'pork', the 'Indian', or the 'Chinese' category... And I know exactly that some of Singaporean or Malaysian especially Chinese still speak in their own accent of English since the basic language is still Chinese or Mandarin, and they have to speak English to non-Chinese... It happens as well with the Indian and Malay in Singapore and Malaysia, with lack of practice a real accent of English, they tend to speak the way they speak their own language, sometimes they just do a direct translate from their language to English...
such as "you got what murtabak?"

Since the point of view of some people that found it into racist part of joke, I thought, even if those chinese guy did not record the conversation, I might not harm anyone right?

how about thinking that really more into racism, for example just because I am Asian, sometimes in some part of western country would not accept me to become the employee of their company. That you can call RACISM...

cheers,
^_^

Jaysus!!!

What a bunch of politically correct wimps...

Lighten up you whinging cry-babies... it's harmless, yes HARMLESS fun.

We had someone ask something about why no pork on our site and the responses show you the typical range of responses that people have in singapore.. ranging from false and ignorant, opinionated and even preachy to the max.

Here's the question: http://www.nasibriyanilounge.com/question.asp?topic=Food+%26+Restaurants&q_id=58

My first response to the clip was to laugh out loud because I found it extremely funny. I didn't realize or find it racist until people began to talk about it.

Personally, I'd approach this issue the way I would with seemingly harmful/ harmless food. I enjoy laksa with cockles even though it is supposed to be bad for health, but I only eat in moderation. To completely abstain from it is paranoia, but to indulge in it excessively is insane.

So, how to moderate consumption? How much is enough? Well, I know myself and how much my body can take. Sometimes it is as simple as looking at the no. of kilos I have gained or having a mild diarrhoea to realize I have over-indulged and have to exercise discretion.

So what's my point? "Abstaining" from seemingly racist humour is paranoia. But we would know we have approached the boundaries when ripples and waves emerge. No doubt to us it is still alright, a joke is a joke. But do we want to wait until the rage of the tsunami engulfs us before we stop or realize that there is a danger of crossing the boundaries if we proceed further?

No doubt it is difficult to establish whether something is racist or not. But we should be sensitive to the signs and should know when to be careful, such as if what we have done has stirred up uneasiness and ill feelings.

And we will not see why something that is humourous to us can be offensive to others if we do not understand (or attempt to understand) where they are coming from. To do that, we need to be less self-centered.

anyone remember the whole Huang Na saga? how about the little side-note from the New Paper that a local malay girl from the SAME BLOCK also went missing at the same time was largely ignored while the whole country beat their chest about a little mainland chinese girl who was murdered.

how about everytime an MP acts cute in Parliament and spouts something in dialect, what kind of message are they sending to non-chinese singaporeans?