I would have a nice rambling post here about, among other things:

1) The parallels between suppressing racist sentiments and suppressing the political aspirations of the Arab street, and how the latter has led to Islamic terrorism

2) How Singapore is uniquely easy to manage/engineer, so it should be taken as an exception rather than proving a rule

3) The difference and relationship between thought, words and action

4) How just as infant industries never grow up, infant populaces don't either and no one can be blamed but those protecting them

5) Thoughtcrime and why we should not fear evidently erroneous ideas

6) How and why the police and judiciary seem to be too free, and why they should ignore frivolous complaints

7) The fallacy of conflating the entire governmental edifice into a single-minded entity


However, I have been, am and anticipate that I will still be, struggling with among other things:

1) Robinson Crusoe, coconuts and a schizophrenic producer/consumer

2) The microeconomic foundations of macroeconomic models

3) Multiple variables flying all over the place (Yes, kids, you've been conned. Economics in University is full of maths. Run away while you still can!)

4) Rescuing my sister from her folly (again)

5) A spot of Planescape: Torment


As such, I shall just dump my scribbled notes here for perusal. As a bonus, this may give readers an insight into my thought processes as I come up with my polemics: no, they do not spring fully-formed from my mind, contrary to what some seem to believe.

I also draw on Tym's encyclopedic knowledge of US Prime Time shows to bring this tidbit from The West Wing, in response to a gay teenager being beaten to death in a hate crime:

C.J.
They made him say “Hail Mary’s” as they beat him to death. This was a crime of entertainment.

LEO
C.J....

C.J.
Beyond the crime itself is a manifestation of racism, or sexism, or anti Semitism or
homophobia that are only a tip of the iceberg of the pathology troubling this country.

LEO
I’m aware of all that. I’m just not sure it’s right to legislate against how someone thinks.

And later: C.J.
Don’t you think imposing additional penalties for hate-motivated crimes is a powerful
statement by society against tolerance?

DANNY
No. A crime is a crime. One murder isn’t any better or worse than another.

C.J.
Boy, was that the wrong answer.

DANNY
Punishing people for their beliefs is, the beginning of the end. Once more you agree
with me.


Scribbled notes:

Suppress dangerous thoughts and ideas never work
in mid east, political discussion considered sensitive, suppressed. In end, what we have - islamic terrorism

political vs racist? Though some see former as legitimate expression of political hunger, latter abhorrent. Both expression of sincerely held opinions. Both opposed to existing paradigm (idealised in latter case). Both continue even if suppressed.

spore unique - small, fully urbanised. Easy project power on complaisant populace. In this sense dream country to rule. Like simcity, all care about city. No hinterland to care about w/diff, varying concerns. No pesky local governments work countervailing direction

uk strict anti racism law. Check since when, how vigorous prosecute. Yet still - racism, riots. Most britons believe racism wrong. So not because not vigilant.

thoughts lead to words lead to actions. [Addendum: But what we really fear - actions] Since not (yet) possible to control/monitor thoughts, target words. So which words lead to undesirable actions? Fiery rhetoric, cursing & swearing, irrationality.
One guy allegedly criticise islamic law? what's wrong with that (check details of 2 buggers' offences). Islamic scholars also analyse islamic law and look at it critically.
unless the quicksand that is our OB markers is drained, many will be running around like headless chickens

What's happening now - any mention race religion, savages take out parangs hack each other to bits. 40 years of education and development, bringing us from a Third World Country to First, has not changed anything. Except the pol correct, govt approved line.
Refusal to discuss issues means that we will always NOT be ready to discuss these issues. infant industries never grow up - look at Proton. If Singaporeans are not allowed to think and care for themselves, they will never be able to, and no one to blame except those "protecting" us.

some groups and some topics more sensitive than others. Good for those with thicker skin

at the end of the day, Han observes: "the irony of this whole situation is that there will probably be more singaporeans who are racist... I know of many racists who openly condemn racism but possess subtle prejudices"


punishing people for their beliefs is controlling thought; create concept of thoughtcrime.

some say speech is an action. incitement to violence, unpleasant matters. but if speech is action, then "grumbling" on the populace's part instead of entering the political arena is acceptable

if you disagree with someone, you refute him, not silence him. if nothing else, it's intellectually dishonest, and drives the objectionable idea out of the public arena and public consciousness. why fear something that is obviously bad and false?


only because someone filed a police report. too free. just like person who complained MHA about the racist blog on tomorrow. complain, have to do something about it. we police ourselves.
you think the authorities don't monitor the net? if sporeans have nothing better to do but complain about everything it's no wonder the police look so free (investigating white elephants).
why not ignore all this rubbish
spore being as big as it is, there'll always be one idiot who'll complain. pander to them all?


is a clear signal is being sent out
The gahmen is not a cohesive, monolithic entity. Not everything takes place with the knowledge and consent of everyone in the cabinet. What this case qualifies as is left as an exercise for the reader, since I have no answer
though from outside appear to act as one entity