5 ms·

Why is everyone focusing on the fact that someone spoke via Skype? The fact is that 1. Jolovan Wham did organise a physical gathering of people 2. The gatheri

Why is everyone focusing on the fact that someone spoke via Skype? The fact is that 1. Jolovan Wham did organise a physical gathering of people 2. The gathering/assembly meets the definition as in the Public Order Act[1] 3. The venue, The Agora, meets the definition of a public place as in the Public Order Act [1]: https://sso.agc.gov.sg/Act/POA2009 https://sso.agc.gov.sg/Act/POA2009 They could have been watching a recorded video and it would have been the same.

lolc 8y ago
Ah, I was wondering how Skype played a role. So there's no reason it shows up in the title.
brianpgordon 8y ago
I'm not sure that a recorded video would have been the same. The source for the techcrunch article says: > The Singapore Police Force in an earlier statement, said that Wham had organised an indoor public assembly featuring a foreign speaker, which required a Police permit. Although given that political films are also banned, maybe a prerecorded video would have been illegal under a different law.
- angelsl 8y ago
  The problem is the intent of the gathering, not that it had a foreign speaker. (Not that I agree with the law, but that's what it says.)
mempko 8y ago
And? Some laws are stupid and must be broken.
- angelsl 8y ago
  If you don't like a law, change it, don't break it and get yourself in trouble. This is basically the difference between East Asian cultures and Western/American culture. We value a balance of order and individual rights, you guys value individual rights over all.
  - tdeck 8y ago
    How does that work when the law forbids you from assembling to effect political change?
  - tempest473 8y ago
    It is funny how in these kinds of discusions it is always "you guys have excesive amount of A and not enought of B, whilst we have a perfect balace of A and B" instead of "you value A more than we do, but we like B more".
  - natechols 8y ago
    For a bit of historical perspective, this was the same criticism made of the civil rights movement in the 1960s. Good thing MLK didn't try to follow your advice.
  - tomjen3 8y ago
    Individual rights are just that -- not rights, not privileges and thus not subject to debate, thought they are of course frequently violated by totalitarian states to a greater or a somewhat lesser degree. I know this is controversial, because the current rule is that you are not supposed to say that your moral system is right and the other guys system is wrong, but A is A and Freedom is not slavery, no matter how much that is yelled from the tops of mountains.

lolc 8y ago

Ah, I was wondering how Skype played a role. So there's no reason it shows up in the title.

brianpgordon 8y ago

I'm not sure that a recorded video would have been the same. The source for the techcrunch article says: > The Singapore Police Force in an earlier statement, said that Wham had organised an indoor public assembly featuring a foreign speaker, which required a Police permit. Although given that political films are also banned, maybe a prerecorded video would have been illegal under a different law.

angelsl 8y ago
The problem is the intent of the gathering, not that it had a foreign speaker. (Not that I agree with the law, but that's what it says.)

mempko 8y ago

And? Some laws are stupid and must be broken.

angelsl 8y ago
If you don't like a law, change it, don't break it and get yourself in trouble. This is basically the difference between East Asian cultures and Western/American culture. We value a balance of order and individual rights, you guys value individual rights over all.
- tdeck 8y ago
  How does that work when the law forbids you from assembling to effect political change?
- tempest473 8y ago
  It is funny how in these kinds of discusions it is always "you guys have excesive amount of A and not enought of B, whilst we have a perfect balace of A and B" instead of "you value A more than we do, but we like B more".
- natechols 8y ago
  For a bit of historical perspective, this was the same criticism made of the civil rights movement in the 1960s. Good thing MLK didn't try to follow your advice.
- tomjen3 8y ago
  Individual rights are just that -- not rights, not privileges and thus not subject to debate, thought they are of course frequently violated by totalitarian states to a greater or a somewhat lesser degree. I know this is controversial, because the current rule is that you are not supposed to say that your moral system is right and the other guys system is wrong, but A is A and Freedom is not slavery, no matter how much that is yelled from the tops of mountains.