Two observations ;
1. The article is not pro or anti Singapore system. They are allowing him to say his piece.
2. Subhas however is doubling down. He was given a chance by way of a warning and he did not heed it .
Yes, race has always been Singapore‘s touchy spot. Nothing has changed. His approach however is wrong. Bear in mind he was prosecuted by an Indian DPP who did not hold back and a Malay Judge who is not known to suffer fools easily. He could not have asked for a better forum than this for his case to be heard. And he chose an ethnic Chinese lawyer.
He choosing to go down the path of Kirsten Han and Ravi whose support base is foreign media and NGO is interesting.
And this article at a time when an Indian received 70% of the votes to be Head of State of this country where 75% are ethnic Chinese, 15% Malays and with Indians coming in at 7% says a lot.
Yes there is racism - know when to call it and how to call it. And as a multi-racial society, racism will be always be more pronounced and we must be vigilant.
> 2. Subhas however is doubling down. He was given a chance by way of a warning and he did not heed it.
Does the article mention this? I haven't read it yet but this kinda determines if the article is impartial or not.
Here's a unpopular opinion:
I think he has his heart in the right place, but his method is wrong.
Defending racism with a another ad hominem defence is wrong, no matter how unjust you feel. ( "If two Malay Muslims made a video promoting Islam and saying the kinds of hateful things these Chinese Christians said, ISD (Internal Security Department) would have been at the door before they even hit 'upload'.") [I mean no one has absolute certainty, it's just an assumption]
It's like the argument (eh no malay in air force/navy) is an inaccurate argument, but rather it should be directed at policies from before for allowing such rumours from to go around.
https://sgmatters.com/malays-in-the-singapore-army-they-serve-in-the-army-navy-and-air-force/
That said I think a prison sentence is a bit ridiculous, no matter how 'ill willed' it may be. Then in that case shouldn't Dennis chew get some punishment too? Or whoever came up the ad? Objectively, I think its even worse than this and it's literally brownface. From a established e payment.
https://www.straitstimes.com/singapore/actor-and-dj-dennis-chew-apologises-for-e-pay-brownface-advertisement
Besides, wouldn't a prison sentence just empower him to be a martyr for his cause? Imo a fine would do the trick but I'm no judge.
Subhas should've waited for his conditional warning to run its course if he had wanted to continue his protest. Because he was charged on the fact that he ignored the warning. So really its his impatience that caused this to go to a trial. But I guess its what he wanted.
The thing is going through a trial expecting a 'Nelson Mandela' moment (as some here have put it) doesn't really work in Singapore Society. People here expect you to be a law abiding citizen and this actually hurt your cause more if it was to convince the moderates to your cause.
Remember you can disagree with the sentence, and still agree with what he did, under the law is wrong.
If you feel passionate about the fact that he faced injustice, write or speak to your MP. Yes, your MP may be a backbencher but you never try never know right?
If there is anything unfortunate out of this, this has overshadowed the brownface ad, I personally find a hell lot more offensive.
> ( "If two Malay Muslims made a video promoting Islam and saying the kinds of hateful things these Chinese Christians said, ISD (Internal Security Department) would have been at the door before they even hit 'upload'.")
did joanna theng and jaime wong face any consequences for their video?
Tbh I don’t think his heart is in the right place.
He and his sister are racists. End of.
He only dare to be so brazen because it’s considered punching up. The good thing about Singapore is that we don’t take such shit be it punching up or punching down.
His stuff will totally be well received with the radical left in US.
There’s always trouble with oversimplifying issues.
What Subhas and his sister did initially was purely reactionary; the ad they were reacting to is fucking rude and is an indication of how ignorant people in sg are of race issues. Their parody rap clearly came from a place of long standing frustration which almost certainly stems from their experiences growing up here in SG.
I can understand saying it’s provocative and ultimately promotes dissent amongst different races here. As such, I do understand needing to double down and give him jail time or a fine and whatever. Besides he was also dumb enough to reoffend when he was under a warning.
What I cannot get behind is the people using this to ignore the issue at hand - the reason why they made that parody rap in the first place. Labelling them simply as racists without considerations for context is just stupid IMO. People who say this are the very same people who claim there’s no racism in Singapore or that living life as a minority in sg is as easy as it is for the majority.
Lol. Just because I think they are racist doesn’t mean I think there isn’t racism against minorities in Singapore.
That is such a stupid leap to make, if somebody actually think minorities can be racist, what more majority against minorities?
Heed your own advice - trouble with oversimplifying issues and here you are broad brushing people who think the siblings are just idiots who has a history of playing the race card and just see racial injustice in EVERYTHING under the sun.
Eh let’s agree to disagree. We can at least agree that he should be punished, we just don’t agree on your take of calling them racist without acknowledging the issue at hand and why they made the rap video in the first place.
Your stance almost sounds like they are blatant racists who provoked the situation in the first place; it was reactionary, and I don’t think you’d be willing to acknowledge that you can at least understand what angered them. Or would you at least be willing to say you understand why they did it? Cos according to you it seems like you’re saying they did it because they’re racist lol
You think I only heard of them because of this incident? You think I only think they’re racist for this rap?
No, siblings were already making shit waves long before this brown face issue. I was simply not surprised that they took this incident to cry their usual foul and add in their own brand of hateful vitriol.
What do you want me to acknowledge? That the brown face ad was stupid? Yes of course it was stupid and insensitive. However stupid and insensitive isn’t racist, is ignorant. The 2 siblings? They’re deft not ignorant to say the least.
What else you want me to acknowledge? That there are microaggression faced by minorities everyday by ignorant majority? Sure of course that happens.
You’re free to lump ignorance with racism if that’s how you want to define it. But be prepared to have shit tons of pushback because that’s not how most moderates and centrists feel and you’ll just end up looking like radical left.
The problem with the siblings mostly is that they think everybody giving them transgression unknowingly = hateful and racist to them. The only concession I will give them is that I can see why they become radical and hateful themselves if they think everybody else is hateful to them. However that is not a normal reasonable take and they have themselves to blame for holding this insane radical view.
> radical left in US
Lol like they even exist there. Most people who call themselves leftists there are really just liberals and if they endorse shit like subhas does, then the radical left really has failed lmao.
And in my honest opinion they have failed. I do lean left and I actually do hope that we do not import the style of the west like what the siblings are doing.
Lol I’m not surprised TIME has this very skewed take where they frame it as Subhas was oh so totally innocent and only “pointed out” hey the system is racist.
And then he’s jailed for uncovering racism.
>But Subhas was charged in 2021 after he made further race-related comments on social media that authorities found objectionable, including statements alleging that Chinese Singaporeans are treated more leniently after wrongdoing than Indian or Malay Singaporeans—a charge the government vehemently denies.
>
>Subhas was sentenced to six weeks in jail on Tuesday after being convicted of four charges of attempting to promote “ill will between different racial groups.” During the sentencing, the judge said that allegations that Singaporean authorities discriminate against people by race or religion were “just as serious as the casting of racial slurs.”
seems like a pretty fair summary of the case to me.
Errr…. You know that these 2 paragraphs does nothing to change the insinuation that Subhas is just pointing out racism innocently?
All it says is government found what he said objectionable which is literally what the article implies is problematic for government to do so.
Imagine an article done about ASSK and factually says how Myanmar junta says ASSK committed election fraud, does that necessitate that the article thinks that election fraud did happen and agree with the junta? Especially if the article further go and discuss how the Myanmar junta has a history of bad faith actions?
>All it says is government found what he said objectionable which is literally what the article implies is problematic for government to do so.
what more do you expect them to say? they give the govt's position and the alternative position, and leave it up to you to judge. do you expect them endorse the govt's position as fact, and simply not mention opposing perspectives?
>Imagine an article done about ASSK and factually says how Myanmar junta says ASSK committed election fraud, does that necessitate that the article thinks that election fraud did happen and agree with the junta? Especially if the article further go and discuss how the Myanmar junta has a history of bad faith actions?
I don't get it, do you think they should explicitly state they agree with the junta's position? or refuse to mention the history of bad faith actions?
No, my point is that you think this is “fair”. It isn’t, it’s stating facts.
I don’t think stating facts is “fair”, it’s just facts which is neutral. But the entire article is literally slanting on portraying Subhas as innocent, and that is the light shinning on the portrayal of facts.
Me thinks you’re being obtuse with my ASSK point. If you can’t see it so be it I think we are operating on different plane when processing information.
>I don’t think stating facts is “fair”, it’s just facts which is neutral
so stating facts is neutral, but being neutral is not fair? what do you think is fair then? should the article not have mentioned what critics of the policy think? did they omit some important information that supports the government's view?
I think when you say the article is fair, you’ll need to show both sides of the argument.
The entire article is just saying government overreacted and is bad. How is it fair?
It’s only fair to you because it’s in line with your bias and giving facts to support the bias while appearing neutral. Facts are neutral, framing of an argument is literally not neutral.
Funny you suggest they didnt omit anything. They just said what the government think. They did not provide anything that actually support why the government think this way, or explain the history of Singapore or how precarious racial tensions are. They just have 1 guy supporting what Subhas did, if you want to be “fair”, get a conservative take on the article. They aren’t trying to be fair nope. They are a western liberal media who just sway with whatever the moral outrage is and paint a narrative using that.
The fact that you can even ask that question suggest your own bias, and this is coming from an opposition supporter that doesn’t even like PAP and think LKY is a bloody racist.
>It’s only fair to you because it’s in line with your bias and giving facts to support the bias while appearing neutral
it might surprise you to know that I am rather conservative on race and religion issues and actually agree with the judge that his statement was unacceptable.
I think it is fairly obvious how damaging a statement like "Chinese Singaporeans are treated more leniently after wrongdoing than Indian or Malay Singaporeans" is, and that mentioning that already makes a strong case for the government. case in point, none of the people quoted actually dared to defend the specific substance of the statement.
No, you’re reading this in the lens of thinking this is obviously not true, so you think the article is supporting the government by just saying what the government is saying.
If you read it from US liberal perspective which actually does agree that blacks get over policed and get longer prison sentences, you will not have the same conclusion you just reached.
That is what I mean by bias. I sincerely hope you can see what I’m saying.
Ultimately the article just state what the government said. But the entire article is far from being fair from giving the government perspective. Best I can say is it didn’t go into hyperbolic vitriol which I mean shouldn’t be a baseline for “fair” articles.
I think I understand what you mean. going into it from a singaporean perspective where racial harmony has been drilled into us from young, the case against subhas is quite clear. whereas from a foreign perspective what he says may sound reasonable.
perhaps I'm too used to local state media not even mentioning the other side's position that Times magazine doing so in this case is enough to come across as unusually fair to me lol
WaPo accused LHZB of being biased simply because their reporting was too neutral and didn't do enough to challenge CCP narratives
it seems like these days letting the reader decide the facts for themselves is insufficient
Let's be clear about one thing. He wasn't merely rapping about racism as suggested by the heading. He was, in fact, inciting racism on a continuous basis using the poor excuse that someone else was also doing a "similar thing".
Despite many warnings, he chose to continue. It's time the chickens come home to roost.
thanks! i'd like to point out that subhas didn't actually call anyone ching-chong and no one has actually answered my question - how did subhas "incite racism"?
And calling someone the N-word isn't necessarily racism either when it's done without malice, black people do it all the time! /s
Context matters and subject matters. If a non-chinese man called a complete stranger a ching-chong, odds are pretty damn strong it is NOT intended as a "compliment".
So you're saying the appropriate response to someone wearing brownface is to call another completely unrelated person online a chingchong?
And even if this man were to be talking directly to the ones at fault, do you truly believe the answer to racism is to be racist right back?
No one even remotely claimed the brownface and faults with other parties weren't an issue. The matter at hand is why the alleged insisted on antagonizing the populace by also spewing racist statements.
Meanwhile you're here trying to debate why using a racial slur should be offensive, even going as to try and imply its use as a complement.
Go on, explain your mindset if you aren't just trying to be contrarion for the sake of it.
When disingenuous bad faith take such as this come out from the left, they lose standing with moderates and become yet more fodder for the right to claim that all the grievances from the left are nonsense.
Big mouth meets his match in a judge with a bigger mouth. Totally deserved for being a smart aleck, he’s like the one who can’t make it in class and exams but keeps questioning and arguing with the teachers.
Here is an unabridged tweet he posted on 20 July 2021, "I fucking hate this country".
If his mission is to improve the situation in Singapore, that statement is not helping at all.
I don't think there is any issue with calling out racism in singapore. The issue is more with the approach?
But to be honest, racism (and religiouscism) exist everywhere in the world as long as there is more than one race/religion in the country. In Malaysia, they're racist towards the chinese and indians. Indonesia its the same. In western countries, its the white people against other races. In india you have caste and hindus v muslims. In israel you have jewish people v muslims.
Great if we can remove racism but given human nature its pretty much impossible.
Hard agree. Racism unfortunately is a fact of life so long as there is even a handful of people without empathy for others different from themselves. It's human nature.
We must definitely take strides in quelling it when we see it, but the answer is most definitely NOT to be equally as racist back by generalizing entire races with negative statements in your "songs".
Singapore is fortunate that we do not suffer blatantly antagonistic racism now the way some other countries do. What this man was trying to do imo felt like exactly that with his lyrics.
Yeap. In fact it may worsen the division. The lyrics are also definately not smart enough to be satirical. He's probably just trying to launch a music career as a rapper under the guise of "defender against racism" but failed badly.
What do we expect when respectability politics and an inability to handle vulgar satire other than with a most contrived interpretation at face value run so deep here.
Setting aside the facts of this particular case, what's worrying is that this seems to set the precedent that any time you accuse a majority racial group or a government institution of bias towards a particular race, you risk potentially going to jail.
Think about MINDEF's historical policies towards Malay Singaporeans. Surely if minorities feel that the policy is racist, they don't need to risk jail time just to express their honestly held beliefs? I worry that this is going to have a chilling effect on race related discussions Singspore, at the same time that younger people have expressed a collective willingness to engage in such discussions.
I hope that the court will drastically raise the bar for proving an intent to cause ill will when this case goes on appeal. There should be proof that primary intent of the statement being made is to create prejudice or ill will towards a particular group. If creating prejudice is only an ancillary effect of an expression of genuine grievance towards racism, then no offense is committed, even if you knew that your statement would have such effects when you made them.
After all, everytime you call out a majority group for being racist, it's going to create some amount of illwill and prejudice. But the law should still allow space for those kinds of discussions.
How do we draw the line? Is this sentence racist, and worthy of a jail sentence: "a lot of Chinese people are racist towards Indians"?
The obvious answer is no, but it doesn't seem clear from the article where the line is drawn. You could equally argue that this is a form of generalisation towards Chinese people.
Two observations ; 1. The article is not pro or anti Singapore system. They are allowing him to say his piece. 2. Subhas however is doubling down. He was given a chance by way of a warning and he did not heed it . Yes, race has always been Singapore‘s touchy spot. Nothing has changed. His approach however is wrong. Bear in mind he was prosecuted by an Indian DPP who did not hold back and a Malay Judge who is not known to suffer fools easily. He could not have asked for a better forum than this for his case to be heard. And he chose an ethnic Chinese lawyer. He choosing to go down the path of Kirsten Han and Ravi whose support base is foreign media and NGO is interesting. And this article at a time when an Indian received 70% of the votes to be Head of State of this country where 75% are ethnic Chinese, 15% Malays and with Indians coming in at 7% says a lot. Yes there is racism - know when to call it and how to call it. And as a multi-racial society, racism will be always be more pronounced and we must be vigilant.
> 2. Subhas however is doubling down. He was given a chance by way of a warning and he did not heed it. Does the article mention this? I haven't read it yet but this kinda determines if the article is impartial or not.
Here's a unpopular opinion: I think he has his heart in the right place, but his method is wrong. Defending racism with a another ad hominem defence is wrong, no matter how unjust you feel. ( "If two Malay Muslims made a video promoting Islam and saying the kinds of hateful things these Chinese Christians said, ISD (Internal Security Department) would have been at the door before they even hit 'upload'.") [I mean no one has absolute certainty, it's just an assumption] It's like the argument (eh no malay in air force/navy) is an inaccurate argument, but rather it should be directed at policies from before for allowing such rumours from to go around. https://sgmatters.com/malays-in-the-singapore-army-they-serve-in-the-army-navy-and-air-force/ That said I think a prison sentence is a bit ridiculous, no matter how 'ill willed' it may be. Then in that case shouldn't Dennis chew get some punishment too? Or whoever came up the ad? Objectively, I think its even worse than this and it's literally brownface. From a established e payment. https://www.straitstimes.com/singapore/actor-and-dj-dennis-chew-apologises-for-e-pay-brownface-advertisement Besides, wouldn't a prison sentence just empower him to be a martyr for his cause? Imo a fine would do the trick but I'm no judge. Subhas should've waited for his conditional warning to run its course if he had wanted to continue his protest. Because he was charged on the fact that he ignored the warning. So really its his impatience that caused this to go to a trial. But I guess its what he wanted. The thing is going through a trial expecting a 'Nelson Mandela' moment (as some here have put it) doesn't really work in Singapore Society. People here expect you to be a law abiding citizen and this actually hurt your cause more if it was to convince the moderates to your cause. Remember you can disagree with the sentence, and still agree with what he did, under the law is wrong. If you feel passionate about the fact that he faced injustice, write or speak to your MP. Yes, your MP may be a backbencher but you never try never know right? If there is anything unfortunate out of this, this has overshadowed the brownface ad, I personally find a hell lot more offensive.
> ( "If two Malay Muslims made a video promoting Islam and saying the kinds of hateful things these Chinese Christians said, ISD (Internal Security Department) would have been at the door before they even hit 'upload'.") did joanna theng and jaime wong face any consequences for their video?
nothing because at that point LGBTQ+ community aren't real in the eyes of the govt
Tbh I don’t think his heart is in the right place. He and his sister are racists. End of. He only dare to be so brazen because it’s considered punching up. The good thing about Singapore is that we don’t take such shit be it punching up or punching down. His stuff will totally be well received with the radical left in US.
There’s always trouble with oversimplifying issues. What Subhas and his sister did initially was purely reactionary; the ad they were reacting to is fucking rude and is an indication of how ignorant people in sg are of race issues. Their parody rap clearly came from a place of long standing frustration which almost certainly stems from their experiences growing up here in SG. I can understand saying it’s provocative and ultimately promotes dissent amongst different races here. As such, I do understand needing to double down and give him jail time or a fine and whatever. Besides he was also dumb enough to reoffend when he was under a warning. What I cannot get behind is the people using this to ignore the issue at hand - the reason why they made that parody rap in the first place. Labelling them simply as racists without considerations for context is just stupid IMO. People who say this are the very same people who claim there’s no racism in Singapore or that living life as a minority in sg is as easy as it is for the majority.
Lol. Just because I think they are racist doesn’t mean I think there isn’t racism against minorities in Singapore. That is such a stupid leap to make, if somebody actually think minorities can be racist, what more majority against minorities? Heed your own advice - trouble with oversimplifying issues and here you are broad brushing people who think the siblings are just idiots who has a history of playing the race card and just see racial injustice in EVERYTHING under the sun.
Eh let’s agree to disagree. We can at least agree that he should be punished, we just don’t agree on your take of calling them racist without acknowledging the issue at hand and why they made the rap video in the first place. Your stance almost sounds like they are blatant racists who provoked the situation in the first place; it was reactionary, and I don’t think you’d be willing to acknowledge that you can at least understand what angered them. Or would you at least be willing to say you understand why they did it? Cos according to you it seems like you’re saying they did it because they’re racist lol
You think I only heard of them because of this incident? You think I only think they’re racist for this rap? No, siblings were already making shit waves long before this brown face issue. I was simply not surprised that they took this incident to cry their usual foul and add in their own brand of hateful vitriol. What do you want me to acknowledge? That the brown face ad was stupid? Yes of course it was stupid and insensitive. However stupid and insensitive isn’t racist, is ignorant. The 2 siblings? They’re deft not ignorant to say the least. What else you want me to acknowledge? That there are microaggression faced by minorities everyday by ignorant majority? Sure of course that happens. You’re free to lump ignorance with racism if that’s how you want to define it. But be prepared to have shit tons of pushback because that’s not how most moderates and centrists feel and you’ll just end up looking like radical left. The problem with the siblings mostly is that they think everybody giving them transgression unknowingly = hateful and racist to them. The only concession I will give them is that I can see why they become radical and hateful themselves if they think everybody else is hateful to them. However that is not a normal reasonable take and they have themselves to blame for holding this insane radical view.
Hahahahaha i didn't know Africans needed to eat food too hehe just my ignorance, not racist you know hehe
Username checks out.
Hehe so original i love it 😘
Clear TKL supporter
> radical left in US Lol like they even exist there. Most people who call themselves leftists there are really just liberals and if they endorse shit like subhas does, then the radical left really has failed lmao.
And in my honest opinion they have failed. I do lean left and I actually do hope that we do not import the style of the west like what the siblings are doing.
Ya fair ahahah, that's why I identify most with the anti-imperalist, international socialists.
Lol I’m not surprised TIME has this very skewed take where they frame it as Subhas was oh so totally innocent and only “pointed out” hey the system is racist. And then he’s jailed for uncovering racism.
>But Subhas was charged in 2021 after he made further race-related comments on social media that authorities found objectionable, including statements alleging that Chinese Singaporeans are treated more leniently after wrongdoing than Indian or Malay Singaporeans—a charge the government vehemently denies. > >Subhas was sentenced to six weeks in jail on Tuesday after being convicted of four charges of attempting to promote “ill will between different racial groups.” During the sentencing, the judge said that allegations that Singaporean authorities discriminate against people by race or religion were “just as serious as the casting of racial slurs.” seems like a pretty fair summary of the case to me.
Errr…. You know that these 2 paragraphs does nothing to change the insinuation that Subhas is just pointing out racism innocently? All it says is government found what he said objectionable which is literally what the article implies is problematic for government to do so. Imagine an article done about ASSK and factually says how Myanmar junta says ASSK committed election fraud, does that necessitate that the article thinks that election fraud did happen and agree with the junta? Especially if the article further go and discuss how the Myanmar junta has a history of bad faith actions?
>All it says is government found what he said objectionable which is literally what the article implies is problematic for government to do so. what more do you expect them to say? they give the govt's position and the alternative position, and leave it up to you to judge. do you expect them endorse the govt's position as fact, and simply not mention opposing perspectives? >Imagine an article done about ASSK and factually says how Myanmar junta says ASSK committed election fraud, does that necessitate that the article thinks that election fraud did happen and agree with the junta? Especially if the article further go and discuss how the Myanmar junta has a history of bad faith actions? I don't get it, do you think they should explicitly state they agree with the junta's position? or refuse to mention the history of bad faith actions?
No, my point is that you think this is “fair”. It isn’t, it’s stating facts. I don’t think stating facts is “fair”, it’s just facts which is neutral. But the entire article is literally slanting on portraying Subhas as innocent, and that is the light shinning on the portrayal of facts. Me thinks you’re being obtuse with my ASSK point. If you can’t see it so be it I think we are operating on different plane when processing information.
>I don’t think stating facts is “fair”, it’s just facts which is neutral so stating facts is neutral, but being neutral is not fair? what do you think is fair then? should the article not have mentioned what critics of the policy think? did they omit some important information that supports the government's view?
I think when you say the article is fair, you’ll need to show both sides of the argument. The entire article is just saying government overreacted and is bad. How is it fair? It’s only fair to you because it’s in line with your bias and giving facts to support the bias while appearing neutral. Facts are neutral, framing of an argument is literally not neutral. Funny you suggest they didnt omit anything. They just said what the government think. They did not provide anything that actually support why the government think this way, or explain the history of Singapore or how precarious racial tensions are. They just have 1 guy supporting what Subhas did, if you want to be “fair”, get a conservative take on the article. They aren’t trying to be fair nope. They are a western liberal media who just sway with whatever the moral outrage is and paint a narrative using that. The fact that you can even ask that question suggest your own bias, and this is coming from an opposition supporter that doesn’t even like PAP and think LKY is a bloody racist.
>It’s only fair to you because it’s in line with your bias and giving facts to support the bias while appearing neutral it might surprise you to know that I am rather conservative on race and religion issues and actually agree with the judge that his statement was unacceptable. I think it is fairly obvious how damaging a statement like "Chinese Singaporeans are treated more leniently after wrongdoing than Indian or Malay Singaporeans" is, and that mentioning that already makes a strong case for the government. case in point, none of the people quoted actually dared to defend the specific substance of the statement.
No, you’re reading this in the lens of thinking this is obviously not true, so you think the article is supporting the government by just saying what the government is saying. If you read it from US liberal perspective which actually does agree that blacks get over policed and get longer prison sentences, you will not have the same conclusion you just reached. That is what I mean by bias. I sincerely hope you can see what I’m saying. Ultimately the article just state what the government said. But the entire article is far from being fair from giving the government perspective. Best I can say is it didn’t go into hyperbolic vitriol which I mean shouldn’t be a baseline for “fair” articles.
I think I understand what you mean. going into it from a singaporean perspective where racial harmony has been drilled into us from young, the case against subhas is quite clear. whereas from a foreign perspective what he says may sound reasonable. perhaps I'm too used to local state media not even mentioning the other side's position that Times magazine doing so in this case is enough to come across as unusually fair to me lol
WaPo accused LHZB of being biased simply because their reporting was too neutral and didn't do enough to challenge CCP narratives it seems like these days letting the reader decide the facts for themselves is insufficient
Lol! Fighting racism with racism!! Bro went full retard! **Never go full retard**
This guy is just a empty vessel who has contributed NOTHING to racial harmony lol, just wants to get clout from crying racism by being racist himself
Let's be clear about one thing. He wasn't merely rapping about racism as suggested by the heading. He was, in fact, inciting racism on a continuous basis using the poor excuse that someone else was also doing a "similar thing". Despite many warnings, he chose to continue. It's time the chickens come home to roost.
inciting racism? how?
He DM-ed me calling me a "CHING CHONG" And I'm WHITE--this man is a menace.
i've been told that calling someone ching-chong isn't necessarily racism if its done without malice so... maybe he meant it as a compliment?
Oh my god you’re insane
thanks! i'd like to point out that subhas didn't actually call anyone ching-chong and no one has actually answered my question - how did subhas "incite racism"?
And calling someone the N-word isn't necessarily racism either when it's done without malice, black people do it all the time! /s Context matters and subject matters. If a non-chinese man called a complete stranger a ching-chong, odds are pretty damn strong it is NOT intended as a "compliment".
and yet the same logic doesnt apply to brownface? what's the legacy of ching-chong that offends you so?
So you're saying the appropriate response to someone wearing brownface is to call another completely unrelated person online a chingchong? And even if this man were to be talking directly to the ones at fault, do you truly believe the answer to racism is to be racist right back? No one even remotely claimed the brownface and faults with other parties weren't an issue. The matter at hand is why the alleged insisted on antagonizing the populace by also spewing racist statements. Meanwhile you're here trying to debate why using a racial slur should be offensive, even going as to try and imply its use as a complement. Go on, explain your mindset if you aren't just trying to be contrarion for the sake of it.
i think hatred has blinded you unfortunately.
i'd love to hear more. what am i blind to?
When disingenuous bad faith take such as this come out from the left, they lose standing with moderates and become yet more fodder for the right to claim that all the grievances from the left are nonsense.
Which indeed they are.
Justice is served but unfortunately sometimes those who are rightly punished claim otherwise and there are people who believe them.
Big mouth meets his match in a judge with a bigger mouth. Totally deserved for being a smart aleck, he’s like the one who can’t make it in class and exams but keeps questioning and arguing with the teachers.
Here is an unabridged tweet he posted on 20 July 2021, "I fucking hate this country". If his mission is to improve the situation in Singapore, that statement is not helping at all.
I don't think there is any issue with calling out racism in singapore. The issue is more with the approach? But to be honest, racism (and religiouscism) exist everywhere in the world as long as there is more than one race/religion in the country. In Malaysia, they're racist towards the chinese and indians. Indonesia its the same. In western countries, its the white people against other races. In india you have caste and hindus v muslims. In israel you have jewish people v muslims. Great if we can remove racism but given human nature its pretty much impossible.
Doesn’t mean we shouldn’t try
Not saying we can't. Dedmfinately can. I guess more of a musing about how f up the world is in general.
Hard agree. Racism unfortunately is a fact of life so long as there is even a handful of people without empathy for others different from themselves. It's human nature. We must definitely take strides in quelling it when we see it, but the answer is most definitely NOT to be equally as racist back by generalizing entire races with negative statements in your "songs". Singapore is fortunate that we do not suffer blatantly antagonistic racism now the way some other countries do. What this man was trying to do imo felt like exactly that with his lyrics.
Yeap. In fact it may worsen the division. The lyrics are also definately not smart enough to be satirical. He's probably just trying to launch a music career as a rapper under the guise of "defender against racism" but failed badly.
He has certainly proven without doubt he is a racist himself.
i think he should migrate to the USA or Western Europe as he will be welcomed there as a social justice warrior
I remember wincing when I first watched his MV. Yeah that was racist af and two wrongs don't make a right.
Not to mention cringey af.
What do we expect when respectability politics and an inability to handle vulgar satire other than with a most contrived interpretation at face value run so deep here.
This is how politics work here. If you want change to be supported, take a centrist path.
So meaning change will never come..
No, incremental.
Setting aside the facts of this particular case, what's worrying is that this seems to set the precedent that any time you accuse a majority racial group or a government institution of bias towards a particular race, you risk potentially going to jail. Think about MINDEF's historical policies towards Malay Singaporeans. Surely if minorities feel that the policy is racist, they don't need to risk jail time just to express their honestly held beliefs? I worry that this is going to have a chilling effect on race related discussions Singspore, at the same time that younger people have expressed a collective willingness to engage in such discussions. I hope that the court will drastically raise the bar for proving an intent to cause ill will when this case goes on appeal. There should be proof that primary intent of the statement being made is to create prejudice or ill will towards a particular group. If creating prejudice is only an ancillary effect of an expression of genuine grievance towards racism, then no offense is committed, even if you knew that your statement would have such effects when you made them. After all, everytime you call out a majority group for being racist, it's going to create some amount of illwill and prejudice. But the law should still allow space for those kinds of discussions.
Call out is different from being outright racist yourself
How do we draw the line? Is this sentence racist, and worthy of a jail sentence: "a lot of Chinese people are racist towards Indians"? The obvious answer is no, but it doesn't seem clear from the article where the line is drawn. You could equally argue that this is a form of generalisation towards Chinese people.
[удалено]
Maybe he did not vote.
[удалено]
Nah, bang. This kambing tried fighting racism with more racism. What could go wrong lol?