I refer to the report “Varsity students to launch independent LGBT network” (May 8), in which the ambassadors for this year’s Pink Dot event were announced.
Some activists and individuals from certain religious communities have since reacted harshly, to the extent of attacking the ambassadors’ personal character, calling them heretics and questioning their religious values.
The outburst and name-calling are uncalled for. While religion plays a role in shaping the public’s opinion on morality issues, it should not be the only determinant.
This is especially important in Singapore’s context of a secular and diverse society, where the views of all faiths and belief systems should be given fair consideration, even if some of these are in the minority.
For comparison, a Muslim lawmaker in Australia, Mr Ed Husic, recently supported the legislation of same-sex marriages in the country, despite his religious convictions, because he understands the importance of the issue to the lives of some.
The Pink Dot ambassadors speak on behalf of LGBT people and their families, transcending race, religion and social class. It is a brave effort that should be lauded, not condemned.
It is important to not let religious-driven emotions cloud our judgment when it comes to contentious issues such as this. Otherwise, we will not be able to have discussions in a mature and civil manner.
*This article was written by Hairol Salim and first appeared on Voices, Today, on 13 May 2015.
Dressed in a black T-shirt and khaki shorts, Amos Yee cut an unassuming figure when he showed up at the Singapore State Courts on 17 April.
The 16-year-old was facing serious criminal charges – some of which he would be convicted of on 12 May. They were of wounding religious feelings, harassment and posting obscenities. But the teenager breezed past reporters, munching a banana.
This is Amos, the enfant terrible who has fascinated and infuriated Singaporeans ever since he was arrested in March over a Youtube video.
To his mother, he is just “different”, a child born in the wrong place. But to many others he is seen as the boy who dared to insult Lee Kuan Yew.
Jeers and cheers
On 23 March Singapore lost Lee Kuan Yew, the deeply respected former prime minister seen as the country’s founding father.
Days later, Yee posted his video, titled Lee Kuan Yew is Finally Dead! – becoming one of the few Singaporean voices openly criticising Lee’s legacy.
He likened Lee to Jesus Christ, and criticised Christians in general, a serious crime in a country which has seen race riots in the past and takes a zero-tolerance approach towards insults of race and religion.
Later, he posted a crude cartoon depicting Lee having sex with Margaret Thatcher, a personal and political ally of Lee’s.
At least 30 people lodged police reports; he was swiftly arrested and charged.
Since then, Yee has attracted insults and death threats.
But he has also earned praise and support from those who see him as a free speech advocate.
Several strangers stepped up to act as his defence lawyers and post bail. A local humorist started a campaign calling for leniency with a blog post titled Je Suis Amos.
Another blog detailing his quirky outfits went viral, as did jokes about “Famous Amos”, referencing the US cookie brand. Dozens held a vigil on the eve of the verdict.
Sociologist Tan Ern Ser said some may have agreed with him but disapproved of his “show of disrespect”, while others marginalised by Lee’s policies were “inclined to see someone who dares to openly speak up against the system as a kind of folk hero, and worthy of praise”.
‘So different’
Yee’s mother, Mary, told the BBC that her son was “a fantastic child, perhaps born in the wrong country”.
She described him as a precocious boy who loved reading and making videos. He won awards in a short film contest and acted in a local movie.
But he cut short his studies, and in a blog described how he struggled to fit in at school, where he had few friends.
The media has seized upon the fact that Mrs Yee took her son to see a psychiatrist after he posted his video. But his mother insisted that it was just a health check, and that the test results were “fine”.
Generational anxiety
Perhaps one reason Yee has become the object of deep fascination is his utter lack of remorse.
In recent years, Singapore has seen several people torn apart online for offensive posts. Faced with public fury, these people without exception have apologised,gone into hiding, or even left the country.
In contrast Yee broke bail spectacularly by not only reposting his material but also unleashing a torrent of Facebook and blog posts criticising his bail conditions. He pleaded not guilty to his charges during his trial.
Such unrepentant insouciance, and the fact that he insulted a founding father, may have tapped into a recurrent anxiety among Singaporeans that a younger generation, having known only prosperity, takes the country’s stability for granted.
This may be why the slapping of Yee on 30 April by a stranger, as he arrived at court, drew not just shock but also approval in some quarters.
Many denounced it as vigilantism, and the attacker jailed for three weeks, also being publicly condemned by the law minister.
But Singapore remains a place where corporal punishment is still seen by some – including the state itself, which sentences people to caning – as an acceptable form of discipline.
The 49-year-old attacker argued in court that he only slapped Yee because as an elder, he wanted to teach him a lesson.
There were those who thought “it’s about time the boy got his comeuppance”, while some did not condone the violence “but they’re still gleeful that [the attacker] did what they have an urge to do themselves if they could or had the guts to”, noted one blogger.
Wave of emotion
The state made it clear that it was prosecuting Yee for his remarks about Christians, not his criticism of Lee – a harassment charge for his anti-Lee comments was dropped.
But it was those Lee comments which sparked the most public anger.
Many Singaporeans accept Lee was a controversial figure, and comments criticising him are not new. At any other time, an anti-Lee rant by a teenager may have at most caused weary eye-rolling or jokes.
But when Lee died, the city state saw an unprecedented wave of emotion overcome its normally stoic citizens, as they lost the man seen as their anchor.
“Sensitivities were high after Mr Lee’s passing and also, I don’t think the vast majority of Singaporeans have a nuanced grasp of the discourse of free speech… or about the proportionality of criminal sentencing,” said Colin Goh, the humorist behind the campaign for Yee’s release.
‘Lack of boundaries’
Youth counsellor Vincent Law, who treated Yee and posted bail for him, said he did so because he wanted to show that as a Christian he was not offended by the video.
He said Yee was “like any 16-year-old rebellious kid”, who is “challenging authority, feeling he has to fit in a mould and conform to society’s norms”.
“He’s very intelligent, bright, pleasant and courteous… But he lacks a sense of boundaries and empathy for other people. He says he has to be honest and cannot compromise.”
Mr Goh sees Amos Yee as “a true litmus test for Singapore’s maturity in a post-Lee Kuan Yew world”.
“During [Lee’s] funeral, I thought Singaporeans behaved in a very mature fashion – calm, reflective, thoughtful, forgiving. There is some irony that Amos’s case has perhaps revealed quite the opposite.”
Still others believe it is a sign of a changing Singapore, whose strict hate speech laws have been criticised for muting critical discussion on such topics.
“We have a new generation that needs the space to be themselves, to express divergent views,” said Mr Law. “As a society, we need to give them that space and not stifle them.”
THIS IS A HIGHLY IRRESPONSIBLE ARTICLE THAT APPEARED IN TODAY ONLINE EARLY THIS MORNING AND REPUBLISHED ON THE CHANNEL NEWS ASIA WEBSITE. THE CHILD AT THE CENTRE OF THIS CASE CONTINUES TO BE THREATENED WITHOUT NUMBER WITH BODILY HARM OF A MOST GRAPHIC NATURE AND WAS THE VICTIM OF AN ASSAULT OUTSIDE THE STATE COURTS ON 30 APRIL, THE TRIAL OF WHICH WAS ITSELF ONLY ON MONDAY CONCLUDED . QUITE APART FROM DRIVING A WEDGE BETWEEN GRANDMOTHER AND GRANDSON, ITSELF A REPREHENSIBLE ATTITUDE FOR A RESPONSIBLE TABLOID, THE ARTICLE BREACHED CONFIDENTIALITY IN A CASE THAT HAS ATTRACTED VIRULENT SEXUAL AND PHYSICAL THREATS BY PUBLISHING THE GRANDMOTHER’S NAME AND HER HOME ADDRESS. IT IS IN NOTABLE CONTRAST TO THE MAN WHO WAS CONVICTED OF ASSAULTING THE CHILD, ONLY WHOSE NAME AND OCCUPATION WERE PUBLISHED. I REPRODUCE THE ARTICLE HERE WITH THE GRANDMOTHERS NAME AND ADDRESS DELETED.
Grandson ‘antisocial after getting addicted to Internet’
PUBLISHED: 4:16 AM, MAY 13, 2015
UPDATED: 4:17 AM, MAY 13, 2015
SINGAPORE — Teen blogger Amos Yee was a “normal” child who became antisocial after getting hooked to the Internet, his paternal grandmother said yesterday.
“He is a very smart boy, learns taekwondo,” Madam XXXXX, 76, said in Mandarin.
She said Amos started to devote much time to his computer when he entered his teens. “He rarely goes out with his friends … When I asked why he spends so much time on the computer, he told me that there are a lot of things to learn on the computer,” she said at the family’s flat in XXXXX Road in XXXXX.
Mdm XXXXX spoke to TODAY before she was made aware of the court’s verdict. The court yesterday found Amos guilty of two charges, one for making offensive or wounding remarks against Christianity, and another for circulating obscene images.
In court last week, defence lawyer Alfred Dodwell said Amos has been on social media since he was eight, and engaging online is “equivalent to drinking water” for the blogger, who has stopped schooling despite getting good results in the O-Levels.
Mdm XXXXX, who has been living with Amos and his parents since he was in Primary 1, said: “I am very sad. I hope he will change for the better.”
Asked about Amos’ relationship with his parents, Mdm XXXXX described it as “normal”. When approached outside the courthouse, Amos’ father, Mr Alphonsus Yee, said he had no comment on the verdict. The teen’s mother, Madam Mary Toh, declined to speak to reporters.
Amos Yee has just clarified on his facebook fanpage that his allegation of molest by his former bailor today was to manipulate the press into waiting for him at the Pasir Panjang MRT.
16-year old blogger, Amos Yee, who was found guilty of two charges brought against him by the Attorney General’s Chambers on Tuesday, 12 May, made an allegation of molest against his former bailor, Mr Vincent Low.
Amos was found guilty of the charge of obscenity and wounding the feelings of Christians in a YouTube video criticising former prime minister, Lee Kuan Yew.
Amos had said earlier in his facebook page status that reporters have been gathering at his doorstep, seeking exclusive interviews and some photos of him.
He went on to say that he should entertain the reporters despite being given advice not to do so and that he would be giving information to reporters on how he was molested by his former bailor.
Mr Vincent Law, a family counselor, has since clarified to TOC that Amos’ allegation against him is false and has no truth whatsoever.
Mr Law had bailed Amos Yee out from police remand on 21 April and subsequently discharged himself as bailor on 30 April, Wednesday.
After 7 hours from his initial posting, Amos wrote another facebook post to clarify that his allegation against his former bailor was his way to troll the media.
Amos wrote,
Yeah… I think some people found out by now… I did, in fact, make use of the voracious desire of the reporters, to xxxx with the mainstream media.
I think it’s pretty obvious when I have arranged a meeting with a person named ‘Dick Ow’, and there is no video game store in Red Hill, at least one that I’m aware of.
I manipulated the press to indulge in the thoroughly exhausting experience of waiting in Pasir Panjang fruitlessly for several hours, which they did with their quote unquote ‘diligence’. They are all quite obscure and hard places to reach in Singapore aren’t they?
And Vincent Law didn’t really molest me, haha. Though he is immensely creepy. I’ll save the specific details for another time.
Yeah it was all a troll, a troll that can only be possible by the inherent stupidity of the media. Have fun!
TOC understands that Mr Vincent Law is still being hounded by reporters from the mainstream media and declined to give a response to Amos’ clarification.
Over the past few hours, many individuals have voiced their disappointment on social media over the allegation made by Amos about Mr Law.
Ravi Philemon, director of a NGO wrote,
“Vincent Law is a youth and family counsellor. Besides the stigma that comes with allegations of sexual misconduct, any such allegation could potentially end his career, and the loss of income as a result of that may adversely affect his family and children. But all these are beyond some inconsiderate 16-year-olds, who think allegations like that are just pranks – never mind the potential harm it may cause the person who tried to help you.”
Damien Chng, legal student and anti-death penalty activist wrote,
“All this nonsense only shows that Amos Yee has issues. I think the false allegation against Vincent deserves to be condemned to the fullest extent. No I still don’t think he deserves to be thrown in jail, because thats not the way to deal with this. The way to deal with this was to have just ignored Amos right from the start.”
Basil Lee, former volunteer at Healthserv who had worked with Mr Law, wrote,
“And even if it is a joke, the distress you caused to the person who has been with alongside you cannot be justified by the fact you claim to ‘manipulate’ the media. In my opnion, this is the highest level of dick-ness.
I can vouch for Vincent Law, and his love for people. Not many people I know will willingly wake up every monday at 5 in the morning every just to have breakfast with someone at the other end of the island. Yet he does it because he cares and loves people.
You never alienate your support system. That is just suicidal.”
Did Law Minister K. Shanmugam make an illegal party political film?
Dear K. Shanmugam,
On the 10th of May 2015, you uploaded a video entitled “A Day in the Life of a Minister”, which features a camera crew tracking your activity of the day. It was an unscripted video shot and edited in the style of a reality-TV programme.
You stated that the 12-minute long video was made by “volunteers”. By that, one would assume that this is not a government-sponsored production. As such, may I inform you that this video is not exempted under section 40 of the Films Act and therefore in possible violation of section 33 which criminalises “party political films”, the penalties of which are a fine not exceeding $100,000 or to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 2 years.
I cite the following clauses of the Films Act relevant to “A Day in the Life of a Minister”.
“Party political film” means a film —
(a) which is an advertisement made by or on behalf of any political party in Singapore or any body whose objects relate wholly or mainly to politics in Singapore, or any branch of such party or body; or
(b) which is made by any person and directed towards any political end in Singapore;
For the purposes of this Act, a film is directed towards a political end in Singapore if the film —
(a) contains wholly or partly any matter which, in the opinion of the Board, is intended or likely to affect voting in any election or national referendum in Singapore; or
(b) contains wholly or partly references to or comments on any political matter which, in the opinion of the Board, are either partisan or biased; and “political matter” includes but is not limited to any of the following:
(i) an election or a national referendum in Singapore;
(ii) a candidate or group of candidates in an election;
(iii) an issue submitted or otherwise before electors in an election or a national referendum in Singapore;
(iv) the Government or a previous Government or the opposition to the Government or previous Government;
(v) a Member of Parliament;
(vi) a current policy of the Government or an issue of public controversy in Singapore; or
(vii) a political party in Singapore or any body whose objects relate wholly or mainly to politics in Singapore, or any branch of such party or body.
None of the following films shall be regarded for the purposes of this Act as a party political film:
(e) a documentary film without any animation and composed wholly of an accurate account depicting actual events, persons (deceased or otherwise) or situations, but not a film —
(i) wholly or substantially based on unscripted or “reality” type programmes; or
(ii) that depicts those events, persons or situations in a dramatic way;
Exemptions
40. —(1) This Act shall not apply to —
(a) any film sponsored by the Government;
(b) any film, not being an obscene film or a party political film or any feature, commercial, documentary or overseas television serial film, which is made by an individual and is not intended for distribution or public exhibition; and
(c) any film reproduced from local television programmes and is not intended for distribution or public exhibition.
(2) The Minister may, subject to such conditions as he thinks fit, exempt any person or class of persons or any film or class of films from all or any of the provisions of this Act.
(3) An exemption granted under this section may be withdrawn at any time.
I put it to you that the video “A Day in the Life of a Minister” may constitute an illegal ‘party political film’ under section 33 of the Films Act because :
1. It is an advertisement made by or on behalf of a political party in Singapore whose objects relate wholly or mainly to politics in Singapore.
2. It is made by a person and directed towards a political end in Singapore – by featuring a Member of Parliament.
3. It is a film that is substantially based on unscripted and “reality” type programmes, and it also contains dramatic elements.
4. It is not a government-sponsored film.
Of course, the Minister may opt to exercise section 40 of the Films Act to exempt your film from the Act.
In the interest of upholding transparency in the application of the Rule of Law in Singapore, this letter will be made public. I look forward to your reply on this matter.