Originally posted by Elfred:
I have left a comment on Redbean's blog, Robert.
Publication educates the society just as online textbooks influence
elementary kids during the use of internet for teaching. I must
admit with thinkers sustaintially missing behind the fundamentals
in the past, we have come to such stage where people are so
relentless and reckless in [b]their own rights. But what
about others?
Even states have their rights, collectively described as
sovereignty in layman's term.
I have no choice but stand by that people online will have to be
equally good as they are
offline, which means to say, there must be a certain guide or limit
that the explosion of information doesn't go astray and blow up
every single facet in common sense. This is pure simple
logic.
A person has such rights or freedom to acess internet publishing
his/her (sincere) views without malice and such adverse
consequence. Read what Goh MS is complaining against the YPForum
for his post removal. He can't even differentiate well enough
between social openess and political openess, and I kinda told him
he should go after Michael Cheng who is a speaker for WP forum
since Micheng can be either Michael Cheng (micheng) or Michael Heng
(micheng).
It's against good governance if people can't even properly
differentiate and think properly.
Besides, I have, as usual, denounced any such corporate governance
with regards to national governance, and hence politics. It's
precisely such incorporating of what should be a nation that the
entire fundamental is messed up in the first place.
Read 'This is for Lai' in YPForum, and observe how forumers
including him suggest what their thinking would be like and were to
spread without control and
regulation. The fundmental issue is still the thinking. No matter
how many bloggers are sued and got liable for online messed-up
(including sedition), the only way to uproot the problem is
injecting (good) thinkers into the society. But any existing
thinkers would probably be thinking of running for cover to save
their skins in such environment... It becomes a problem only the
most powerful, and hence the ones with such responsibility, to
resolve.
If we cannot successfully turn the direction of Singapore to that
of a nationhood, without that required proper thinking, people may
be sued, but they will become hostile even more.
Forgive should be matched with repent. And I am telling you tons of
kids, no least, are going to insist their ways after these three
bloggers, who could end up matyrs of cyberspace... See how damaging
has the past decades' education been to the thinking... 
Discussing upon controls (eg. laws and such) is that with laws
alone and lacking in thinkers' powering up behind in the core,
where the society cannot self-regulate without (eg) a nation and a
national culture setting, controls themselves will begin to rust
into redundancy.
Just as what you posted here, it's an example that it's just a
convenient finger pointing at (eg) controls based on the feeling of
dangers, but people may not be aware that over-control and no
control are equally hazardous to good governance. And no-control is
usually a result of over-control, vice versa.
In this world, there is only one which satisfy good governance:
proper controls.[/b]
Elfred,
*sigh* here we go again...
2) I think your observation is only true in the United States of
America.
3) ermmm... actually, the rights of states and sovereignty are
different. The former incldues the latter and the right of States
to have power over their citizens i.e. the Public Mandate. The
latter merely refers to a state's independence.
4) the word "certain" is very vague. Please clarify the details of
what you would like to have as guidelines, and I mean *fully*
clarify here, not clarify as in what the ST does.
5) I'm not familiar with the post GMS has put up, which you claim
"fails to differentiate between social openness and political
openness"; perhaps you could paste it on this thread? And tt guy's
UID is miccheng, and his name is Michael; that's what he signs off
with for every of his posts. Unfortunately, I have to say that
Mikey is rather a political conservative i.e. he believes in PAP to
the letter, which makes him kinda close-minded. Hmm... the only
issue I could think of that could have a double-relationship with
both social and political openness is the homosexual issue. Hmm...
is that what GMS's post was about? But I still think GMS is quite
well-informed though.
6) blame education and the govt's warping of the media for this.
It's a vicious circle.
7) What is the "fundamental" of a nation in your opinion?
8 ) I think I agree wih your basic point in this paragraph. Did you
read Yadav's commentary in TODAY? He sort of said the same thing.
Lai CF is a nonsense spouter anyway, so dun listen to him. The main
problem down here is that Good Thinkers usually get burnt up with
the bad, so u end up with a bare wheatfield (w/o
kokocrunch
) , instead of one with the
wheat only. The Sedition Act is just extremely vague. Using the
Act, the government could simply arrest anyone here, even harmless
ones like earthlings73, or you or me. Because by engaging in these
discussions and inviting others to join in, we break the part of
Clause 3 which talks about "inciting political disaffection toward
the government". The Sedition Act clearly needs to be
refined.
9) Everything comes both ways. If you have a good environment, you
will have good thinking i.e. if you have a real environment that
actively promotes racial harmony and where people believe in that
concept, we will have it. The problem is that Singaporeans'
legalistic mindsets and pragmatism override that. Our pragmatism
teaches us (quite wrongly) that ideals are impossible to achieve,
and our legalistic mindsets immediately revel in the most violent
punnishments possible for the crimes - some people on this forum
actually suggested the racist bloggers be hanged, in the
newspapers, a letter contributor suggested to cane the bloggers,
and so on, and Yadav's commentary was met with a quick and
emotional rebuke. It's very clear that all these people don't
believe in racial harmony at all, especially the one who maintained
overtly that racial harmony is "an ideal that is unrealistic". So,
what have we here???
10) If the forgiveness is sincere i.e. not a court's "forgiveness",
then repentance will come. In truth, I realized that the racist
bloggers are not really repentant. "I did not know it would cause
my being captured, I will not do it again" is more a conviction of
pragmatism, than an expression of regret. Neither do I think the
A-Star Blogger was really repentant either, even if Philip Yeo
chooses to delude himself into thinking so.
11) Agree. Laws, especially the most punitive ones, are only
short-term solutions.
12) Your line of reasoning here makes me dizzy.
13) An over-simplification, I'm afraid.
the (skeptical) pikamaster
