Yahoo News is the balance?

The major alternative news source in Singapore, Yahoo News, will comply with new MDA regulations and apply for accreditation while a group of bloggers continue to make their dissatisfaction known.

Peeling away the layers, it is obvious that the new regulations were enacted to have some sort of control over Yahoo. But it seems Yahoo is not resisting, at least not publicly. It has more than 1 million visitors a day, its news coverage is saucy and different from what is covered by the mainstream media. Readers like their approach (good mix of hard and soft news) and know that they can find alternative viewpoints at Yahoo.

If you want to hear more opposition views during GE or By-E, go to Yahoo. If you want to know what WP say about the town council saga, go to Yahoo. Latest about the Cherian George's tenure rejection, don't bother asking Mr George, go to Yahoo. It's free, it's easily accessible and it's an different read.And it irks the PAP.

Though, Yahoo wouldn't be too pleased to sign away their rights, they're glad that bloggers are making noise on the sidelines and they are happy to feature them. On Yahoo's part, they would just have to abide, appear cooperative to the government and continue to generate advertising revenue.

Sometimes, punters would say TRS, Temasek Times or even the forums are the balance to state-controlled media. But they are not. They are only fringe actors. They represent the constant 15% that would vote for any guy not wearing white on white. Most Singaporeans read them with a high sodium diet. And the government wouldn't shut these down, else they might not know where to look for them.

Still lesser Singaporeans read TOC and Public House. They are a good read with worthy ideas to contemplate, but not many will find them fitting in the materialistic cosmos of Singapore. 

The shifting middle of the road Singaporeans, many of them eventually voting WP, read and analyse mainstream media together with alternative sources like Yahoo and international media. And as long as Yahoo can generate readership, stay profitable, there is not much the government can do except asking them for “registration” and make them remove clearly defamatory comments. Legal action on such a popular website will only stir the hornet's nest.

The search for alternative news, views and politics in Singapore will continue. A gladiator arena is no spectator sport with just one dominant actor. What is unfortunate for Singapore is, the main opposition, WP, does not have a clear online agenda and the main alternative online news portal, Yahoo, is a form of neo-imperialism American corporate power.

Fitna: A Neocon Dutchman's Self-Indulgence

These days, it seems any amount of verbal putrescence can be passed off as individual expression. The recent distasteful production "Fitna" by Dutch right-wing politician Geert Wilders is an excellent case in point.While the right to freedom of speech, as a concept, is easily digestible to all, people oftentimes forget that it is not an absolute right. The right to speak freely without censorship naturally comes with caveats; most relevant here would be restrictions on speech or expressions that are tantamount to hate speech which is defamatory or causes incitement to violence.

“You may hold whatever private opinions you like but you do not enjoy an absolute right to express them in public.”

Syed Shahabuddin, Muslim scholar and former opposition MP in India’s Parliament,
in defence of the censoring of Salmon Rashdie’s Satanic Verses

The Self-Indulgent Dutchman

The intended reading of “Fitna” the movie, as it was framed to achieve, would be that Islam and Terrorism are inextricably intertwined as such that you cant have one without the other. While one would find it hard to argue against the fact that much of what we term as acts of terrorism these days are inspired by a political ideology that has been ‘legitimized’ by Islam, it would be very easy to find fault with Wilders’ ideas and intentions.

I found a video of an Interview conducted with Wilders by Fox News Network (not surprising considering the networks political inclinations to the right). In it, Wilders proclaims that cultures are not equal and that “our culture [European? Dutch?] is far better than the retarded Islamic culture”. Furthermore, although Wilders does not believe that a ‘moderate’ Islam exists, he strangely invites Muslims to assimilate into Dutch society by first renouncing the “intolerant and fascist parts of the Koran….. and take Dutch values as their values”. His olive branch offering is in essence poison oak laced with Islamaphobia, making his stance at best contradictory and at worst ‘fascist’ (to borrow a phrase he often uses to describe Islam).

Fascism?

‘Fascism’ simply put is an authoritarian political ideology, movement, or regime that considers the individual subordinate to the interests of the state, party or society as a whole. In his relentless denunciation and vilification of Islam, Wilders displays symptoms of extreme Christian right-wing nationalism. This is interesting when you consider that a complementary element of fascism, most evident in Nazi fascism, would be ‘extreme nationalism’.

While researching further into the term "Islamic Fascism", I found an interesting article (The Big Lie About 'Islamic Fascism') that referenced a modern definition of fascism from former Columbia University Professor Robert Paxton’s 2004 book, The Anatomy of Fascism.

Paxton defined fascism’s essence as, inter alia, “right of the chosen people to dominate others without legal or moral restraint and a fear of foreign contamination". He further added that:

[…] The Muslim World is replete with brutal dictatorships, feudal monarchies, and corrupt military-run states, but none of these regimes, however deplorable, fits the standard definition of fascism. Most, in fact, are America’s allies.

[…] The real modern fascists are not in the Muslim World, but Washington. The neocons screaming fascist the loudest, are the true fascists themselves.

These descriptions speak volumes don't you think?

Final Thoughts

Dissenters, nonconformists, artists, racists, bigots, proselytizers, politicians, bloggers … etc… all find common sanctuary under the aegis of a perceived universal right to freedom of speech and expression. It is in fact guaranteed under International Law (Universal Declaration of Human Rights) as a human right.

Proponents of this right however, often ignore the next article in the Law which recognizes that everyone has the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion. This demonstrates an Orwellian paradox where all rights to expression are equal, but some rights are more equal than others; while Islam, and its 1.5 billion devotees, are often found grasping the short end of this stick.