But for now, I shall leave the last word to the TOC guys. I look forward to seeing more of their videos. What are your thoughts of the controversial Melvin Singh article? Did Melvin Singh have a point? Do you agree that he really is fucking idiot? Well I certainly do. Please leave a comment below and let's talk about it. Many thanks for reading.
And just to be clear: Melvin Singh, you're a total fucking idiot. You're a fucking disgrace. #backlash #fuckyou
What Melvin wrote may have been pretty controversial, but isn't it just an opinion piece? Should editors enforce the same guidelines as factual pieces? And TNP is notorious for junk articles like this anyway, so I'm not surprised this went through
The mainstream media in Singapore is arguably pro-foreigner, and anti-local, because it tends to repeat the rhetoric of politicians that Singaporeans are daft, useless, and lacking compared to foreigners. I am not surprised that Melvin Singh barked up the "wrong tree", because he probably has a "responsibility" to answer to via his superiors and the intense atmosphere of censorship in Singapore.
Yes LIFT, I agree with you! It's like saying a woman deserves to be raped because she is wearing provocative clothes.
Melvin Singh quoted this in his commentary: "Section 4 of the Protection from Harassment Act 2014 states that it is an offence to cause harassment, alarm or distress to another person through the use of threatening, abusive or insulting words or make any threatening, abusive or insulting communication."
I think perhaps the word "harassment" is not properly interpreted here. The teenager was wearing a t shirt with a profanity, but he was not actively harassing anyone. If anyone is offended by the profanity on the t shirt, I think the civil reaction is to simply look away. However, as for the ang moh who verbally abused the teenager, I would view that as harassment. Because the teenager could have been physically harmed. But what kind of harm can a profanity ladened t shirt do? Cause mental anguish and endless sleepless nights? I'm surprised Melvin Singh failed to see this irony.
The teenager chose not to respond, which is similar to looking away at someone wearing a provocative t shirt, doing something stupid/offensive etc (which I also agree with you that looking away wasn't the best course of action since he was actively being harassed, looking away might put him in harm's way).
As humans, we can choose how to react to things, whether good or bad. Our reaction shows our maturity level. The ang moh's outburst was totally uncalled for. If he didn't like the t shirt, he should have just looked away.
That was the judge who made that comment about Amos yee's drawing - unreal. Melvin probably thought he was a maverick by trying to be provocative, but he totally misjudged the situation when everyone just turned around and said, "you're a fucking idiot".
What Melvin wrote may have been pretty controversial, but isn't it just an opinion piece? Should editors enforce the same guidelines as factual pieces? And TNP is notorious for junk articles like this anyway, so I'm not surprised this went through
ReplyDeleteThe mainstream media in Singapore is arguably pro-foreigner, and anti-local, because it tends to repeat the rhetoric of politicians that Singaporeans are daft, useless, and lacking compared to foreigners. I am not surprised that Melvin Singh barked up the "wrong tree", because he probably has a "responsibility" to answer to via his superiors and the intense atmosphere of censorship in Singapore.
ReplyDeleteYes LIFT, I agree with you! It's like saying a woman deserves to be raped because she is wearing provocative clothes.
ReplyDeleteMelvin Singh quoted this in his commentary: "Section 4 of the Protection from Harassment Act 2014 states that it is an offence to cause harassment, alarm or distress to another person through the use of threatening, abusive or insulting words or make any threatening, abusive or insulting communication."
I think perhaps the word "harassment" is not properly interpreted here. The teenager was wearing a t shirt with a profanity, but he was not actively harassing anyone. If anyone is offended by the profanity on the t shirt, I think the civil reaction is to simply look away. However, as for the ang moh who verbally abused the teenager, I would view that as harassment. Because the teenager could have been physically harmed. But what kind of harm can a profanity ladened t shirt do? Cause mental anguish and endless sleepless nights? I'm surprised Melvin Singh failed to see this irony.
The teenager chose not to respond, which is similar to looking away at someone wearing a provocative t shirt, doing something stupid/offensive etc (which I also agree with you that looking away wasn't the best course of action since he was actively being harassed, looking away might put him in harm's way).
As humans, we can choose how to react to things, whether good or bad. Our reaction shows our maturity level. The ang moh's outburst was totally uncalled for. If he didn't like the t shirt, he should have just looked away.
I don't know - someone said Amos Yee's drawing might cause some youths to be sexually aroused. Wow...
DeleteBtw, LIFT, couldn't agree more - Melvin's piece is junk!
That was the judge who made that comment about Amos yee's drawing - unreal. Melvin probably thought he was a maverick by trying to be provocative, but he totally misjudged the situation when everyone just turned around and said, "you're a fucking idiot".
Delete