YoungPAP deleted posts
-
When the Feedback Unit first got started, it was full of rules and regulations as if the forumers are ignorant how to post and keep to relevance of the topic.
So many forumers' posts were deleted because they were afraid of abuses by the forumers.
I strongly disagreed with such an immature stand of the Feedback Unit and stopped posting. Many fellow forumers felt the same way with Feedback Unit complaining to the Straits Times and Newpaper that some forumers were rude or a certain police report was lodged against a certain forumer.
So at the end there was no posting to Feedback Unit and what happened today? Feedback Unit no longer deleted posts except may be for very exceptional situation where a post is totally out of the line.
Channel News Asia has unfortunately adopted the same old policy of the Feedback Unit. Soon, it may lose people's support. Without people, no organization or leader will be able to claim credit of leadership or trying to be arrogant that they are righteous.
Today hopefully the YPAP website will realise that if it wants to communicate with all Singaporeans, it should not be so paranoid about people. There will be people who are out of line or for some reason difficult to please and air frustration. YPAP should not just because of some smaller percentage of such individuals use the sledge hammer of deleting posts to control the minority.
Governing a country and encouraging people to come forward to serve is a much bigger objective than the need to control a few miscreants if there indeed are such indviduals.
Be more open and inclusive and everything will change as people become more inclusive. Have some confidence in your leadership abilities and do not keep harking back to control freaks for inspirations for the control freaks can achieve only limited succcess not totally involvement in building a greater country. -
I disagree with a free-for-all approach. Precisely because internet forums have the power to reach many people quickly, irresponsible and insensitive remarks have the potential to incite social unrest along racial and religious lines. We must not allow opportunists to destroy the basis of our social cohesion. One must also remember that anyone who publishes defamatory remarks or allows such to be published are equally liable under the law.
-
bull sh$t.
u actually think a few fcking comments can incite some fcking riots?
u think we still live in the 60s or what? we live in agfhanishtan or paki-watever-stans?
u typical educated SG peseant. i pity you. -
freedom of speech freedom of speech freedom of speech freedom of speech freedom of speech freedom of speech freedom of speech freedom of speech freedom of speech freedom of speech freedom of speech freedom of speech freedom of speech freedom of speech freedom of speech freedom of speech freedom of speech freedom of speech freedom of speech freedom of speech freedom of speech freedom of speech freedom of speech freedom of speech freedom of speech freedom of speech freedom of speech freedom of speech freedom of speech freedom of speech freedom of speech freedom of speech freedom of speech freedom of speech freedom of speech freedom of speech freedom of speech freedom of speech freedom of speech freedom of speech freedom of speech freedom of speech freedom of speech freedom of speech freedom of speech freedom of speech freedom of speech freedom of speech freedom of speech freedom of speech freedom of speech freedom of speech freedom of speech freedom of speech freedom of speech freedom of speech freedom of speech freedom of speech freedom of speech freedom of speech freedom of speech freedom of speech freedom of speech freedom of speech freedom of speech freedom of speech freedom of speech freedom of speech freedom of speech freedom of speech freedom of speech freedom of speech freedom of speech freedom of speech freedom of speech freedom of speech freedom of speech freedom of speech freedom of speech freedom of speech freedom of speech freedom of speech freedom of speech freedom of speech freedom of speech freedom of speech freedom of speech freedom of speech freedom of speech freedom of speech freedom of speech freedom of speech freedom of speech freedom of speech freedom of speech freedom of speech freedom of speech freedom of speech freedom of speech freedom of speech freedom of speech freedom of speech freedom of speech freedom of speech freedom of speech freedom of speech freedom of speech freedom of speech freedom of speech freedom of speech freedom of speech freedom of speech freedom of speech freedom of speech freedom of speech freedom of speech freedom of speech freedom of speech freedom of speech freedom of speech freedom of speech freedom of speech freedom of speech freedom of speech freedom of speech freedom of speech freedom of speech freedom of speech freedom of speech freedom of speech freedom of speech freedom of speech
-
This is what the PAP told us. U r not gonna jump off the building if they tell u to right?Originally posted by oxford mushroom:I disagree with a free-for-all approach. Precisely because internet forums have the power to reach many people quickly, irresponsible and insensitive remarks have the potential to incite social unrest along racial and religious lines. We must not allow opportunists to destroy the basis of our social cohesion. One must also remember that anyone who publishes defamatory remarks or allows such to be published are equally liable under the law.
Typical of brainwash since our PAP kindergarten days. -
The danger with Singapore society is not disorder or breakdown of laws and order, but over-control and over-restriction of citizens' rights and freedom and lack of accountability and transparency of governance which will lead to instability and chaos one day.Originally posted by oxford mushroom:I disagree with a free-for-all approach. Precisely because internet forums have the power to reach many people quickly, irresponsible and insensitive remarks have the potential to incite social unrest along racial and religious lines. We must not allow opportunists to destroy the basis of our social cohesion. One must also remember that anyone who publishes defamatory remarks or allows such to be published are equally liable under the law.
So there is no need to keep increasing the controls over the populations. If citizens who are now left with only one medium of communication (press and media totally under the control of government) are also prevented from freedoms in discussing problems and issues, there will be real danger of boil over of dissatisfaction and problems from the masses.
I don't see your logic that forumers or cyberspace need some more control. If controls are required there are the general laws anyway to stop anyone from defamation.
They are not kids to be forever told to obey the autocracy just to make their jobs easier, give them more powers to sue and increase their own salaries and make citizens' lives more difficult. -
Judging from the irresponsible posts and comments I have seen in this forum, some of which dealing with race and religious issues, I do not share such a sanguine view. Social harmony and security underpin the prosperity of our society and that must not be threatened at all costs.
If forumners are not even able to accept a difference of opinion without hurling base vulgarities in this forum, I cannot accept that Singaporeans can venture beyond OB markers without adverse consequences for our society. -
i got go youngpap forums for period of time..
actually hor..
they oso quite rubbish one.
-
Compared to xinyi, which one more rubbish?Originally posted by Ito_^:i got go youngpap forums for period of time..
actually hor..
they oso quite rubbish one. -
The danger posed by flaming in forum is relatively a minor issue when compared with larger clamp-down on freedoms of the press and threatening of oppositions with defamation suits. There is no danger of anyone losing his freedom here for not agreeing with someone posts but the danger of going to jail and being made a bankrupt for political dissent is very real indeed as can be seen in James Gomez saga.Originally posted by oxford mushroom:Judging from the irresponsible posts and comments I have seen in this forum, some of which dealing with race and religious issues, I do not share such a sanguine view. Social harmony and security underpin the prosperity of our society and that must not be threatened at all costs.
If forumners are not even able to accept a difference of opinion without hurling base vulgarities in this forum, I cannot accept that Singaporeans can venture beyond OB markers without adverse consequences for our society.
There is a need for citizens to look at overall perspective of which poses the bigger danger - some disagreements among citizens in postings or loss of basic freedoms. -
actually i prefer xinyi.Originally posted by ditzy:Compared to xinyi, which one more rubbish? 
-
Race and religion are very emotive issues that can spark a great deal of social unrest. It only takes a small vocal minority to trigger a racial riot. Prior to the Rwanda genocide, newspapers and radio broadcasts were used to incite hatred against the Tutsis. The media is a powerful tool that can be abused by anarchists.Originally posted by robertteh:The danger posed by flaming in forum is relatively a minor issue when compared with larger clamp-down on freedoms of the press and threatening of oppositions with defamation suits. There is no danger of anyone losing his freedom here for not agreeing with someone posts but the danger of going to jail and being made a bankrupt for political dissent is very real indeed as can be seen in James Gomez saga.
There is a need for citizens to look at overall perspective of which poses the bigger danger - some disagreements among citizens in postings or loss of basic freedoms.
The immaturity and the lack of sensitivity demonstrated by those in the forums who make malicious and slanderous remarks against individuals and religions will provide the fuel for such a disaster.
Express your opposing views by all means within the law. But surely there must be redress for anyone who becomes the victim of malicious and baseless allegations? Opposition party members should learn from British politicians how to criticize the government without defaming anyone. -
Yes I agreed that there is a danger in any multi-racial society with people uttering racist remarks in public and newspapers.
But hasn't our government passed enough laws to deal with such dangers. Havn't we already licensed press and prevented it from publishing any such racist remarks, and in the process controlling citizens' freedom to criticise government for wrongs without discrimination.
Haven't we tinkered with the one-man-one-vote election system to one-man-one-GRC system in the name of preserving racial harmony but in the process depriving citizens of their right to choose the best candidates they want being prevented to do so with walkovers created by many GRCs.
Haven't we heard all the strident scare tactics about the danger of defamation ending up with ruling party using defamation laws liberally to stop political oppositions from criticising the ruling party for NKF mistakes and lack of accountability in governing the country. Where is the line drawn between defamation and remarks holding the government accountable for NKF mistakes. Is not the ruling party getting unnecessarily sensitive about racist remarks and defamation so as increase their power to govern as they like and to interpret meanings and innuendos of racist and defamatory remarks as they like?
If we still cannot see the current practice of politicians using the presumptuous danger of racism and breakdown of law and order as scare tactics just to allow them to pass more draconian laws to deal with criticism of wrong doings and to serve one-party rule agenda, then we have no one to blame but our own naivety as citizens.
May I ask : have we lately come across increased cases of defamation and racism that we must keep hyping on the over-sold law and order scare tactic again and again. Can we not grow up and talk about other bigger problem facing our society and not be tied to the old bags of tricks in justifying high-handed government and support the wrongs in governance.
Will any citizens with common sense not seen that the government has been passing laws to suit themselves and their narrow agenda and this tendency is now the greatest danger facing Singapore society which needs to be addressed.
If government now want to tell citizens about the need for law and order in the internet and the needs to prevent disorders or racism, do we citizens trust them again that indeed there are so much racists in the net and the politicians will not use new laws of the net to stop citizens from checking on their NKF mistakes which up to now they have refused to admit as their own.
What is forum and internet anyway ? Is it not now the only venue for expressing citizens unhappiness about wrong government policies what government is afraid it will happen and will now want to control?
Can it control internet when internet is world-wide and everywhere? Do you want to listen to such propaganda as a citizen and believe in anything ending in instability of society caused by clamp-downs of freedom for politicians' own ease of dealing with dissent. -
To : Oxford MushroomOriginally posted by robertteh:The danger posed by flaming in forum is relatively a minor issue when compared with larger clamp-down on freedoms of the press and threatening of oppositions with defamation suits. There is no danger of anyone losing his freedom here for not agreeing with someone posts but the danger of going to jail and being made a bankrupt for political dissent is very real indeed as can be seen in James Gomez saga.
There is a need for citizens to look at overall perspective of which poses the bigger danger - some disagreements among citizens in postings or loss of basic freedoms.
I believe people in here have a decent and gd head on their shoulders. Look beyond the vulgarities.
I see your point of view and where u r coming from, can u visualise mine? -
Originally posted by oxford mushroom:Race and religion are very emotive issues that can spark a great deal of social unrest. It only takes a small vocal minority to trigger a racial riot. Prior to the Rwanda genocide, newspapers and radio broadcasts were used to incite hatred against the Tutsis. The media is a powerful tool that can be abused by anarchists.
I would have rather u compared us against another developed nation with diverse races. The picture of comparison may be clearer.
The immaturity and the lack of sensitivity demonstrated by those in the forums who make malicious and slanderous remarks against individuals and religions will provide the fuel for such a disaster.
Express your opposing views by all means within the law. But surely there must be redress for anyone who becomes the victim of malicious and baseless allegations? Opposition party members should learn from British politicians how to criticize the government without defaming anyone.
Do u really believe that the real purpose of LHL and LKY is redress? That's a mask. The underlying motive is to strangle the opposition at any chance and eventually still hold onto power. Nothing wrong with this, it's just politics. But it's too strong for my liking. -
Do u really believe that the real purpose of LHL and LKY is redress? That's a mask. The underlying motive is to strangle the opposition at any chance and eventually still hold onto power. Nothing wrong with this, it's just politics. But it's too strong for my liking.
Just politics? It is reprehensible. They control all the media, there is no excuse for them to say they cannot defend themselves and point out the truth without bankrupting the opposition. -
OK gd point. Has anyone ever wondered why our courts assign absolute power to the judge instead of having a jury? Also, ever discovered that our courts were once with jury, similar to the UK?Originally posted by casino_king:Do u really believe that the real purpose of LHL and LKY is redress? That's a mask. The underlying motive is to strangle the opposition at any chance and eventually still hold onto power. Nothing wrong with this, it's just politics. But it's too strong for my liking.
Just politics? It is reprehensible. They control all the media, there is no excuse for them to say they cannot defend themselves and point out the truth without bankrupting the opposition.
Robertteh, care to explain?
-
i believe pple should be allowed freedom of speech...Originally posted by oxford mushroom:Race and religion are very emotive issues that can spark a great deal of social unrest. It only takes a small vocal minority to trigger a racial riot. Prior to the Rwanda genocide, newspapers and radio broadcasts were used to incite hatred against the Tutsis. The media is a powerful tool that can be abused by anarchists.
The immaturity and the lack of sensitivity demonstrated by those in the forums who make malicious and slanderous remarks against individuals and religions will provide the fuel for such a disaster.
Express your opposing views by all means within the law. But surely there must be redress for anyone who becomes the victim of malicious and baseless allegations? Opposition party members should learn from British politicians how to criticize the government without defaming anyone.
keeping those insensitive individuals censored prevents dissent,but only temporarily. if we really want a mature and stable society,we need to look to the root of our problems, not just prevent their spread.
Instead of having a frail peace under a superficial veneer, why now allow everybody to come out and air their views .This will ensure that all our problems will come to light and hopefully be resolved.
Freedom of speech is only dangerous if pple are uneducated or if true enmity exists between them.I believe most Singaporeans are ready for freedom of speech.
And about the problem of national security, dont you think that restricting freedom of speech is too simple a solution? -
A government normally refers to the executive branch of the government. All over the world, parliamentary democracy has defined government as (1) Executive (2) Legislature (3) Judiciary with each having its own role and responsibility for the larger purpose of government the whole country with equity, fairness, justice and equality of citizens before the law.Originally posted by Rock^Star:OK gd point. Has anyone ever wondered why our courts assign absolute power to the judge instead of having a jury? Also, ever discovered that our courts were once with jury, similar to the UK?
Robertteh, care to explain?
There is a common practice to separate the role of executive, legislature and judiciary in order to be fair, just as to law and fact not to allow any executive to govern all in one.
Owing to a loophole in our Constitution, in Singapore, our government has been given certain discretionary power to pass laws to restrict the rights of citizens as to what is moral, what is public order and what is interest of the public as posted in "Definition of True Democracy".
So our government has indirectly over time restricted citizens' constitutional rights including their rights to be heard as to law and facts in a trial with equity, fairness in our court.
Our government by abolishing the jury trials in serious cases is leaving every issue of laws and fact to the judge who in turn is appointed by or with the sanction of the executive who is in control of the prosecution.
The judge is supposed to have fair and is now given a free hand to decide on the laws and fact. But the judge also knows full well that his career path and remuneration is determined by and with recommendation of the executive.
So when a judge is hearing a political defamation suit who will he pay attention to in hearing of law and facts.
The reason for abolishing of jury system as we have heard from our politicians is that sometimes the jury might be swayed or tempted by good defence argument to free criminals based on emotive presentation by smart defence lawyers.
But is it not equally true that the judge may well listen to over-assertiveness of the prosecution directly or indirectly influenced by the executive thereby blurring our executive, judiciary to the greater detriment of government and justice.
By abolishing the jury system we are removing a critical element in the justice system - right of the accused to be heard as to his fact by a more neutral or independent jury best able to grant him justice - paving the way for the judge to listen to wishes of the ruling party given in pre-announced policies and other politically motivated pronouncements.
In our autocratic system, our leaders are already acting as judge and jury so what will be the greater dangers to society? Will the greater danger be lawlessness and disorders caused by politically defamatory or inflamatory speeches, when the executive has abolished jury trial of facts. In any cases of political defamation against the opposition politicians, in the absence of any fact-hearing panel, could we expect the trials to be fair, equitable as to laws and facts.
Who will have influence the facts - the judge who has to worry about his career after what has happened to past judges who got transferred after their giving of verdict the other way.
In Singapore with the last bastion of fair hearing of fact or defence - the judge is the only person who can be relied upon to be fair but how fair can he be when he has to worry what will happen to his career which is determined by the executive.