Fap nmp calvin cheng: People who speak up for anonymous are also extremists

[Sammyboy RSS Feed]

An honorable member of the Coffee Shop Has Just Posted the Following:

http://therealsingapore.com/content/...lso-extremists

PAP NMP CALVIN CHENG: PEOPLE WHO SPEAK UP FOR ANONYMOUS ARE ALSO EXTREMISTS





.node-article .field-name-ad-box-in-article {float: left;margin: 15px 15px 10px 0;}.node-article .field-tags{clear: both;}
Post date:
3 Nov 2013 - 7:01pm












TRS reader Melanie alerted us to an interesting facebook status update posted by "PAP" NMP Calvin Cheng. This is what Calvin Cheng had to say:
Alex Au has written a repulsive article that seems to be encouraging acts of violence and criminality when protesting against governments.
He says:
"That said, some tactics cause a lot more collateral damage than others. Terrorist bombings or bus hijacks have a tendency to kill and maim innocent people, for example. If we have to draw a line somewhere, it should be on the basis of how well-targeted that choice of tactic is"
- So he is saying that it is ok to kill and main politicians, if the target is well chosen? Is he inciting murder and political assassinations?
- He says it's about fear. No it is not. There are 'acts of resistance' beyond the pale. This includes murder, vandalism or private or public property, and arguably suicide ('self immolation as Alex Au so blithely puts it').
This repugnant blogger then asks "That even if you are victimised by a brutish government, you should go no further than respectful and polite conversation?"
My answer to this is yes. Because this is what being a civilised society is about.
Nothing justifies violence and acts of criminality.
I am glad that moderates have spoken up against the Anonymous threat and extremists like Alex Au are in the minority.

Below is Alex Au's article taken from his blog yawningbread.wordpress.com for context purposes:
Maybe the Stompers best represent our beating heart. There was a passing mention in a Facebook post that 87% were happy with the hacking of Straits Times’ blog website. Schadenfreude is a totally legitimate emotion.
“Stompers” is the name we give to mostly anonymous readers and contributors to the Straits Times wild wild west site Stomp where digital natives can post anything they think newsworthy — mostly pictures and videos of bad behaviour, overflowing drains and women with cleavages.

[Addendum, 3 Nov 2013] Thanks to reader Paul Ananth Tambyah, here is the link to the Stomp article. At left is a screen capture of it taken on 3 Nov 2013, Sunday, at 01:30h. If you scroll down to the bottom of the article, there is a “mood meter” which I assume is dynamic, and at the date/time of screen capture, 85% felt “shiok”(colloquial term for thrilled, happy) with another 3% who felt it was “cute”. [End addendum]
There were a few bloggers who were quick to address the issue, though what may be more remark-worthy is how rapidly the excitement of the incident dissipated. After a brief flurry of news reports and online sharing, it’s largely gone from at least my end of social media. In that brief burst of chatter, however, the thing that caught my eye was how many bloggers and social media participants took pains to distance themselves from the hacking: We don’t approve of such tactics, they kind-of say.
Then what are you saying? That even if you are victimised by a brutish government, you should go no further than respectful and polite conversation?
Is that fear speaking?
Get a grip. Hacking is not sui generis. It is one among a vast continuum of acts of resistance. At one extreme end, there are suicide bombers or roadside explosive devices. Occasionally, we hear of self-immolation. But everyday, there are, around the world, protests, demonstrations and strikes. Angry farmers blockade country highways or dump rotting pig carcasses in front of agriculture ministries. Anti-pollution residents occupy and shut down the factory in their neighbourhood that poisons their groundwater. Workers hearing of their pension fund being raided to pay company debts go on strike.
Perhaps every minute of every day, somebody somewhere is spray-painting politically-inspired graffiti.

Turkish Airlines staff in a protest to safeguard their labour rights, June 2013

All these acts cause disruption or impose costs, either on the public or on private property. If you’re going to take the position that once an act of resistance causes disruption or imposes costs, then it is illegitimate (and we can’t possibly “approve” of that), you are basically ruling out all acts of resistance and condemning humankind to perpetual subjugation. You will in effect be saying that preserving your in-group comfort and convenience is more important than a victimised, dispossessed or neglected group’s cry for attention and redress.
That said, some tactics cause a lot more collateral damage than others. Terrorist bombings or bus hijacks have a tendency to kill and maim innocent people, for example. If we have to draw a line somewhere, it should be on the basis of how well-targeted that choice of tactic is. Causing some inconvenience is one thing; injuring innocent bystanders is quite another. Nearly all people will say bombings and taking hostages are just not on. But by this measure, the hacking of the Straits Times blogsite is pretty well targetted and not more than the tiniest of gestures. How much inconvenience, let alone injury, has it caused innocent persons?
If we are so queasy about even that, quick to distance ourselves from what is a pretty mild act of resistance, then we’re a hopeless lot.
* * * * *

Millions of protesters demonstrated across Brazil in June 2013 over poor transport and social services. This pic is of a demonstration in Belem.

As an aside, why are we so quick to register our approval or non-approval of this hacking? I wonder if the anxious need to register our stand is itself another indicator of the fear that has deformed us. We don’t go around taking clear stances on demonstrations, strikes, even the occasional riot. We may understand some causes better than others, but generally we respect the fact that on certain issues, some people are more affected than others. We recognise that there are times when people get really angry and feel they have few other ways to express themselves with effect. Their taking such action (protests, strikes, etc) is not something that we must instantly pass judgement on.
So why are we doing so in this case?
* * * * *

Brazilians in Sao Jose dos Campos, protesting poor public services, police violence and government. Photo: Roosevelt Cassio/Reuters

There is some speculation that the hacker is Singaporean. People have noted the way the video threat, posted onto Youtube (now since taken down) on either 30 or 31 October 2013, was unusually specific about something our government did — imposing new regulations on news websites earlier this year. There were also slightly derogatory comments about language quality. The video message opened thus:Greetings Government of Singapore,
We are Anonymous and we believe that we have your undivided attention.
We also believe that you have had the pleasure of meeting our comrade The Messiah, who demonstrated what a single Anon could do to your so call technologically advanced island.
Now allow us to explain the objective of our recent invasions.
The secondary objective was to welcome you to the new rule where ignoring the issues of your citizens will not go ignored by Anonymous. We advise you to stop feigning ignorance and serve the people.
Any form of arrogant and ignorant statement from a person of position towards the people will not go ignored by Anonymous.
Have you forgotten who you work for? Traditionally the workers respect the boss. Let us stick to tradition.
But the primary objective of our invasion was to protest the implementation of the internet licensing framework by giving you a sneak peak of the state of your cyberspace if the ridiculous, communistic, oppressive and offensive framework gets implemented.
I thought it interesting that the question of whether he was Singaporean seemed as important as it did. So what if he’s Singaporean? Are we starting from the presumption that the group Anonymous can’t possibly comprise one or more Singaporeans? Is there subtle racial profiling at work? And that if the person behind this attack was Singaporean, he must be some kind of imposter?
In this day and age, resistance networks, e.g. Al Qaeda or Wikileaks, draw adherents and partners (or more accurately, combatants in Al Qaeda’s case) from any number of countries. More crucially, they don’t have defined boundaries; countless smaller, independent or semi-independent groups or individuals are affiliated at the margins.
Curiosity about whether the hacker in this case is Singaporean is understandable, but I think we should be careful not to let his nationality colour our assessment of the depth of his grievance and the seriousness of his mission.
In the same vein, there were belittling comments about how the bombast of the threat was out of all proportion to the demand; see image at left which I think originated from Fabrications About The PAP — the ruling party’s corps of internet “warriors”.
We should see the above reactions for what they are — attempts to:

• cast the hacker as not the genuine article (because he might be Singaporean);
• paint him as a sort of dimwit.

These are attempts to make it easier for others to disassociate themselves from what he’s done, and by extension disassociate themselves from his aims — the dismantling of censorship.
But wait a minute — isn’t the dismantling of censorship what we want?

Editor's Note: In response to critics who say that we should not listen to someone who hides behind a mask:
Just because someone hides their identity, it does not automatically mean that their ideas have no credibility. People hide because they might be scared. Sometimes this is because they are up to no good, but other times, this is because what is 'right' may not necessarily be what is 'lawful'.
One thing you can be sure of is that someone who hides their identity does what they do only for their cause and has no ulterior motive of becoming famous.
"PAP" NMP Calvin Cheng took a single quote from an article written by Alex Au to paint the picture that all those who speak up for anonymous are violent extremists. Who is the one being extreme here?
The view of change is a subjective thing. For the underclass, change is hope; hope for a better life. For the well off such as Calvin Cheng and the Ministers, change is instability because they will see a stronger opposition and will be forced to work harder.
Always remember this, people should not fear the government, the government should fear the people.



Click here to view the whole thread at www.sammyboy.com.