Redacted

[redacted]! #[redacted] #[redacted] #[redacted] #[redacted] #[redacted] #[redacted] DISCLAIMER: This post is intended to be social commentary on [redacted] in any form, by satirically responding to the news of [redacted] that is trending now. It does not condone [redacted] in any form, and it does not condone the practice of [redacted]. If you propagate this post - that is, you quote from it, link to it, repost it or share it with others in any form - please take responsibility for whatever happens if you propagate the post out of context, or if you mismatch the audience and the content.
[redacted]! #[redacted] #[redacted] #[redacted] #[redacted] #[redacted] #[redacted] DISCLAIMER: This post is intended to be social commentary on [redacted] in any form, by satirically responding to the news of [redacted] that is trending now. It does not condone [redacted] in any form, and it does not condone the practice of [redacted]. If you propagate this post – that is, you quote from it, link to it, repost it or share it with others in any form – please take responsibility for whatever happens if you propagate the post out of context, or if you mismatch the audience and the content.
So! I was reading the news yesterday when I came across a story I found absolutely hilarious.

It was a very serious story, but I found the concept it discussed absolutely hilarious, and I made it a point to tell my friends about it.

But because they are stupid – just kidding; they’re not and I love them a lot – no one got it. Which happens quite often, so I was, like, whatever.

But this morning, I suddenly woke up and the visual image of the concept appeared in my mind, and I was like: YES!

So I immediately grabbed my phone, fired up Phoster, and designed a little graphic, which I promptly Whatsapped to my friends.

The reaction: “Hahahaha.” “This is hilarious.” “Where did you get that from?”

But when I proposed to post it online, with a disclaimer, the reaction I received instead:

It’s troublesome to enforce how people share content. It’ll just be taken out of context and someone will report you for sedition. Then you can forget about being NMP.

No. Too sensitive to post.

I disagree with making it public. There will surely be people who will take it the wrong way. If it goes public, there will be people who will over-react. Sharing it with friends is fine.

So I decided to post what you see above instead. You can like it on Instagram too:

BONUS: Responses to this graphic:

Yeah, this is much better. You’ll still be reported, but it’ll be for being dumb.

Haha! But what is the point of posting it if everything is censored?

I know right.

Why the SKL0 incident goes beyond a mere ‘she did the crime, she does the time’.

So kancheong for what

  1. Based on the Vandalism Act, SKL0 has committed an “act of vandalism”.
  2. However, the Vandalism Act was introduced in 1966 and was last revised in the late ’80s.
  3. In the intervening years between then and now, notions of art and what constitutes art have evolved cf. Banksy
  4. The last time there was such an impassioned furore over the Act was when the Michael Fay incident occurred.
  5. But between Banksy and Fay, SKL0 is closer to Banksy than Fay i.e. her work is more artistic than it is damaging.
  6. (5) is not an arbitrary statement; it can be ascertained by any reasonably educated and intelligent woman or man on the street.
  7. For the State to rule that SKL0’s work is an “act of vandalism” because of the limits circumscribed by paragraph 2(a) of the Act will itself be an act of vandalism on Singapore society and culture.
  8. I say this because the ruling will mean that only the State and the State alone can sanction what is and what is not art – which, when extrapolated, means that the State has a monopoly over thoughts, ideas, creativity, etc.
  9. (8) is not acceptable for me. I hope it is not acceptable for anyone else either.

Response to the US Embassy cable published on Wikileaks (Aug 30, 2011)

Lynn Lee.

From my sister’s Facebook Fan Page.

Sept 3, 2011

Hi everyone,

Thanks for reading The Straits Times and for your support of this FB fan page.

I left Jakarta the week before last, after 2.5 years of an extremely exciting and meaningful experience reporting on Indonesia. I have since left The Straits Times to pursue a new career outside journalism.

A few days ago, Wikileaks released a US Embassy cable that quoted my name. This is my response to it. I sent an excerpt of this note to my former editors at the ST. They replied to thank me for making these clarifications.

I met with a political officer of the US Embassy in 2008 for an informal contact meeting, prior to my Jakarta posting.

I am not making excuses – his cable misrepresented what I said and I would like to place on record what actually transpired.

I did not say or suggest that there was a “disconnect” between editors and reporters at the The Straits Times. Neither did I say I would “never write about racially-sensitive issues”. My comments were taken wholly out of context.

The political officer was interested in whether reporters and their supervisors in the ST newsroom ever disagreed on story angles. He suggested that reporters – especially those who had gone to school in a liberal environment such as in the US – would feel constrained for whatever reason in the newsroom.

My response included these points: That reporters and their editors did engage in discussions over how stories should be written – with the ultimate aim being to produce balanced reports – but that the editors would of course have the final word on what went into print.

What I also said was that I believe that the ST is run by smart people who strive to do what’s best for its readers, even as they face pressure from a government seeking to set the tone and form of media coverage.

This is a position I held openly and consistently throughout my eight-year career at The Straits Times.

I also stated that I would not want to write articles containing racially-charged remarks that could incite hatred or create rifts within society. I pointed out an example of how baseless comments could create or aggravate tensions among people. I am surprised that what I still believe to be a responsible position to take was misconstrued as self-censorship.

Neither did I suggest in any way that I was “discouraged” with my life as a Singapore journalist. I expressed my readiness to take on a new challenge and learn about a new country. I said that I would need a year at the very least to assess if the role was right for me.

My recent decision to leave journalism had everything to do with my own personal goals. I wanted to try something new and the right opportunity came up. It was not related to opinions referred to above that I openly held nor to the suggested – and misrepresented – angst the cable indicated I felt.

I have had a fulfilling and rewarding time working with my editors at the paper.