Amos Yee was prosecuted for making vicious statements about Christians and Muslim. Claiming trial, he served four weeks.
Bryan Lim, 37, likewise was charged for making this statement against the LGBT community: “I am a Singaporean citizen. I am an NSman. I am a father. And I swore to protect my nation. Give me permission to open fire. I would like to see these (people) die for their causes.” He was remorseful and paid a fine of $3,500.
A 19-year-old Poly student recently did similar acts claiming that he “had dreamt about shooting and killing Muslims.” He said he derived great satisfaction “gunning down anyone that’s relatively brown and non-Chinese looking.”
And who can forget Anton Casey, then 39, who five years ago, posted this on his FB: “Daddy where is your car (apparently a silver Porsche) and who are all these poor people (in the MRT)?” This was followed by this comment in other post: “Normal service can resume, once I have washed the stench of public transport of me...”
Anton had apologised. He said: “I wish for nothing more than to be forgiven for my poor judgment and given a second chance to rebuild the trust people have had in me as a resident of this wonderful country.”
Now, we have Ms Raeesah Khan, 26, WP candidate for Sengkang GRC. She too apologised.
“My remarks were insensitive, and I regret making them. I feel really passionate about minority issues regardless of race, and in my passion I made improper remarks, and I have to be accountable for them. I will fully cooperate in any police investigation.”
What did she do or write?
Well, in Feb 2018, she wrote this in her FB: “Singapore jails minorities mercilessly, harasses mosque leaders but lets corrupt church leaders who stole $50 million walk free. Who did they pay?”
That is hate speech at three inflammatory levels: race, religion and the administration of justice.
Well, that was two years ago. She was 24. She was not a WP candidate. She was young, unthinking, immature, right?
But there is another incident, more up to date. In another post on May 17 this year, she commented about 7 foreigners who were “caught on camera ignoring safe distancing rules during circuit breaker period.”
This was her post: “Do you see police officers here? Imagine if this was a neighbourhood hawker centre. There would be policemen swarming the area and enforcing the law within minutes.”
She added: “Why is the law different for these people? Is it because they’re rich Chinese or white people? Do you think expats will be treated with the same disdain as migrant workers who broke the law?”
Similarly, that is hate speech at three inflammatory levels: race, discrimination by socioeconomic status and the administration of justice.
Yes, Raeesah has apologised, though not entirely on point, but yes, she said sorry and would render her fullest cooperation to the police investigation.
It is therefore unfortunate, (or maybe fortunate?) that she is singled out during such time, when she is not just a keyboard warrior, commenting from the comfort of her home or office, but one who is running as a candidate for the opposition party, apologising to the public at large.
To me, Pritam’s stand/defence was rather curious. At first, he said he had not known about the FB posts beforehand. Not even her May FB post. He then said this in her defence: -
“And for me, I would be actually a bit disappointed if our candidates try to sanitise their past. And I think they should be upfront and authentic to the public. This is who they are. And in the event there are certain posts or certain comments that they may have made which are untoward, then I would expect them to explain themselves.”
Mm...”sanitise their past”? Be upfront and authentic to the public?
I think this is a case that goes beyond sanitisation. She was caught in the open when two police reports lodged yesterday, and she was called to explain herself, and she did.
However, it should be noted that her posts were apparently put out there to rile readers up. And mind you, her most recent post was only less than 2 months ago. What was she thinking? Is this who she was or, god forbid, is or has always been?
The issue here is that Raeesah was not being “not authentic”. She was in fact quite upfront or authentic about how she felt about certain status quo in our country, including race, religion and justice administration, at the time of the posts.
So, the question is, did she really feel that way when she wrote those posts at that time, or was it just to garner some attention, “Likes” and followers?
Mind you, the former is about authenticity (which is problematic) and the other is about being disingenuous about it, unthinking, immature (which is understandable to some extent).
In other words, it is not her pretenses, if any, that concern me. It is her authenticity or forthrightness (without filter) that gives me cause for pause.
And another related question is whether she is a rebel with a cause or one without a cause. I can sympathise with the MLK kind, but not the Amos Yee kind (and I put on record that I am not comparing her to Yee, just stretching examples for illustration).
So, Pritam’s concern ought to be directed more at how strongly she felt the so-called injustice and discrimination when she made those posts, notwithstanding how problematic and inappropriate they are, and not so much that she was trying to sanitise her past, which, if she was not uncovered, her constituency, should she be elected, would not be fully aware of her stand.
Now, to be fair, I know she had apologised, and made a 20-sec public statement about it that went some way to clarify her stand and intention. But apart from accountability and cooperation with the police, I truly hope that she will receive the proper counselling and advice because she is no keyboard warrior like me, but may just be voted in as an MP for her constituency, and thereby wield considerable social and political influence.
At times, it is not how you feel about an issue that is wrong per se. I believe Raeesah has her heart in the right place, and her standing up for public office is what is most redeeming about her intention and passion for the people. Alas, we all make mistakes, and acknowledging it is the first step - paying for it is the second.
However, in the long run in politics, it is about how you represent the issue and fight for it that counts. And as she said, she has a heart for the minority, the disenfranchised, and the left behind, so to speak. And that is admirable.
But that is just half the narrative. The other half that brings you home is to win hearts over, even that of your opponents’, with a heart that is responsible, accountable and humble. All the best this Friday.
No comments:
Post a Comment