Our Self-policed Democracy

Disclaimer: 
This post may contain insensitive and inappropriate remarks. This is due to the author's propensity for sarcasm. He harbours no ill will or ill intention. As such, he is not liable for any emotional relapses and pettifogging outrage you might experience, nor could he care less. 

He also does not speak for any of the writers he quotes and he acknowledges that his sources may not be completely trustworthy. He does, nonetheless, promise information and honesty. 

This post is mildly long. If you can bear with the author 'till the end, he probably owes you a drink.

This blog post may be modified and/or updated whenever the author deems fit.

Read at your own risk.

 I choose to start from the latest news to its preceding events, and may interweave them when necessary. 

Updates 2

Amos Yee has been released from his remand. Just take a look at his forlorn expression. I have no idea why some people are so satisfied about having gagged a boy and probably traumatised him for life -- just for making a fool out of himself. Let's be honest. We know not to take sh!t like this seriously, yet we are so damn adamant about flaunting justice to feed our shallow hunger for control.

Source: http://spuddings.net/?p=8519

This is the best example of the worst kind of marginalization in Singapore. More than maintaining freedom, tolerance and forgiveness, it's important to put down anything in the way of a transparently f**ked up peace. 

Here's some food for thought to chew on: If he had posted something of the same nature about LGBTs, would he have had to undergo the same thing?
Why is the grassroots leader who threatened to castrate him and feed his own appendage to him not apprehended or sued? It's not about what Amos did, it seems it's about whom he did it to. It's unfair to call us "supporters" of Amos when what we're advocating for is fair and equal rights. 

Source Channel New Asia

Source: Strait Times

Before/After

                                                                       

It also seems many locals and non-locals have apparently failed to do their own independent, self-sustaining research and are just barking the same thing everyone else is saying. It's a sort of uncivilised and primitive angst that moves the masses and the packs, who unfortunately, don't act on logic, but emotions. 

This is also the very reason why Amos was put down and his person practically demolished in the first place by consenting citizens. You can call bluff as many times as you want, but what Amos was made to undergo is unacceptable. It's as simple as that.

Well done, Singapore. I'm ever so proud.

Meanwhile, in other news, the highest paid SMRT CEO, Mr Desmond Kuek, whose yearly paycheck totals to 2 and a half million per annum, has not yet been sent to the IMH. This is still happening after the major breakdown of the North-South and East-West lines. 

Source: Straits Times

The only things he's done are getting into the spotlight and having a photograph of himself taken in a relatively empty train. Nope. No mention of digging into his repertoire of wealth to fund more buses, trains and polish transportation technology here in Singapore. Nothing about reimbursing those who had to cab around Singapore for their families, for their jobs, and maybe for a party fling or two. Or you know, Mr Kuek could transmogrify our sweltering weathers with a million-dollar weather machine. Nadda. 

Updates 1

Long have there been deap-seated and long-standing political inequality and bias in Singapore. Aside from the Anton Casey, Amy Cheong and Roy Ngerng debacles, there are other precedents of defamation and decrying of traditions that far surpass a teenage gag.

Except, of course, when the UN human rights groups decide to intervene in our legal system, because of our servile efforts to be control freaks. This is an international binding law in the name of civil liberty that forbids child abuse and abuse of power.

Where is Amos now? The 16-year-old ballsy, well-read and verbally astute critic has been locked away and strapped down in a mental penitentiary like a psychopathic murderer, as vividly described by TOC. 

A suffocating environment whose dead-end walls muffle the distraught screams within: the IMH. As someone with friends who have visited or been detained in the asylum, I've heard enough to know that the quality of treatment and care preys on any solid mental state. The cells don't even have basic necessities I'd provide my dog with. It's a no man's land for hysteria to breed, not to flush down talented juveniles into the bowels of society.

The difference between these news reports is palpable. See how orthodox news is harshly aloof and sanctions this in comparison to TOC:

1) http://www.channelnewsasia.com/news/singapore/amos-yee-remanded-at-imh/1934264.html

2) http://www.theonlinecitizen.com/2015/06/a-mother-visits-her-son-at-imh/

In all fairness, news, alternate and mainstream, should be taken with a grain of salt, especially if information is gleaned from partial interests. More so if it's from the mother and lawyer of the defendant, and an independent news firm. That said, ST isn't known for keeping innocently within the original context either. 

Nevertheless, this kind of treatment is inhumane. This isn't corrective rehab; it's corrosive torture - designed to break someone. It is precisely what others like me have recommended NOT to do to Amos.

This proves how 'normal' we are compared to the rest of the world. In this small microscopic city, we are a close-knit community. But it also means our beliefs are isolated and easily whitewashed, like melted butter over bread. They continue to echo in the small enclosure of our national borders and to the preservation of this dictating system, deviants like Amos are bugs. 

What about the Wear White campaigns that antagonistically oppose the annual gatherings and celebrations of Pink Dot? The way LGBT books are tossed into a pile of rotting ideals because Singapore doesn't have the guts to stomach a wider cuisine of lifestyles? The severity of this crime is way more damaging, if you don't consider how butthurt Singaporeans get when a public political figure like LKY is censured. 

Why should Amos's actions be considered any more malignant than that? Because our system wants people smart enough to enforce orders, stupid enough not to question them: the perfect military droids.

And FYI, there have been worse crimes committed in Singapore that have seen better days. Amos just seems to be treated as the scapegoat of an underlying dispute here.

It's atrocious. It's obnoxious. It's nauseating. It's ideological genocide.

Preface

"The secret of freedom lies in educating people, whereas the secret of tyranny lies in keeping them ignorant."

The scariest thing, in my opinion, is how tyranny is both self-imposed and socially vindicated. It's also alarmingly unthinkable that there are youths in this generation of education and logic, who would be so ignorant to the extent of surrendering their individuality. 

Those who comply with the system are left intact and further discouraged from dissenting. But anyone adept at critically challenging the system challenges, too, the crowd which goes along with it. Angst and uncertainty are stirred up because unconventional thinking contests common sense, across generations and across a tamed social construct.

At this point, you must have noticed this is different from my usual posts. You're right. I don't write politics, normally. With due respect, I write not in defence of Amos Yee, nor to defend his actions, nor to mourn for Mr Lee Kuan Yew. I write this blog post because I take issue with how Singaporeans have generally responded to the situation – confusing national egotism for patriotism, and allowing this confusion to fester in internal discord.

I had thought about it previously and resisted posting before loose ends of this entire episode could be tied up, but its degree of absurdity got on my nerves. Before my opinion of my esteemed fellow citizens gets dragged down any further, I hope to contribute to a more civilised and prudent perspective. 

My post encapsulates the whole saga and splits it into two: its inception when Mr Lee Kuan Yew passed and the controversy surrounding Amos Yee.

1)    Responses to Amos Yee

To set the record straight, I vehemently criticise Amos for not only purporting that Vincent Law molested him, but stooping to ad hominem attacks on social media. On account of how Vincent had bailed him out, taken him in and offered to counsel him, I think it is inexcusable how Amos publicly humiliated Vincent.

Whatever Vincent had been to Amos, the latter isn't helping his own case by resorting to the devious manipulation he admits to having cooked up against Vincent. Simply because it crucifies his own integrity and it adds to his charges. It isn’t a victory; it just brings down everyone involved.

Amos professes that he champions free speech and scorns those who stifle it. But free speech is the responsibility to express a justifiable truth, not a right to take a free swing in verbal abuse and mockery. By shutting down and taunting someone else's opinions, Amos is as guilty of suffocating free speech as the hypocrites he’s denounced. I think this is his chief misconception. Practise free speech in its rightest sense before you challenge people for garbling it. 

However, blame, like liquid, takes the shape of any circumstance you can fit it into. Rather than being devoted to pinning Amos as the incontrovertible villain, I have looked into both sides of the squabble. Under the assumption that Amos has been honest, I don't think he is wrong for resenting Vincent. That would mean that the latter had been mistreating Amos and initiated enmity between the two, thereby provoking Amos to act the way he did.

Then again, these are just words no one has bore witness to. If someone can vouch for Amos' accounts, or the texts Vincent sent him (maybe his mum), or if there's a recording of the calls between him and Vincent, it ought to be tangible enough for a fair ruling.

Prior to this, Amos encountered other types of altercations as well. The 'beat down' Amos received on April 30 2015, by Neo Gim Huah, was what really shook me.

Considering the 20 over police reports about Amos’ videos, one can say we're well-trained to the point of voluntary, automatic obedience. So much so that this 'policing' effect is now reinforced by citizens. Yet, those who have posted equally demeaning content of Amos have remained unscathed. 

On that note, I am disappointed and appalled that no one had been able to identify the perpetrator for a while. Neo had remained anonymous for legal reasons, only being "suspected" on certain ambiguous grounds that the news had, once again, failed to report.

Hell, not one of the active cameramen on ground who were so diligent to snap a picture of Amos' scrunched up face actually bothered pursuing the assailant. Even when he was practically bouncing in the limelight with his so subtle hand gestures.

In two online articles posted by the Straits Times and Today, Neo had confessed to striking Amos in the presence of the media, because he believes he was disciplining Amos in "the ways of the world".

Since when did "the world" promote child abuse? Just because you're trapped in an insular community doesn't mean the world’s like that. Making a holier-than-thou claim like this, despite yourself, shows a lack of knowledge and acceptance of a broader culture outside Singapore.

I think Neo, and possibly many others, have a misconception about the world – that it's okay to manhandle children whenever they break the law. Teaching someone through the use of force isn't discipline; it's duress. Just like how captive elephants are taught parlour tricks and kept in line. There’s a difference between well-trained and well educated. To curb subversion with parochialism isn’t educative; it’s tyranny.

For someone who claimed to be an expert in "the ways of the world", Neo could only succumb to pleading for clemency after daring someone to sue him. The hypocrisy of his actions shows a remarkable disregard for intellectual reasoning, and his mechanical obedience to the law.

As feminine as Amos looks though, I guess he has heavier balls than you. Besides, if a 16-year-old recognises the virtues of words over violence, what's your excuse? You lose in both courage and civility.

Furthermore, intending to cause bodily harm through individual definitions of justice is a very strong-arm characteristic of anarchy. The paradox is that this intent to inflict bodily harm was meant as justice for proponents of LKY – who, if you knew him at all, abhorred anarchy. The second paradox lies in the barbarity of enforcing discipline in a nation noted for its peaceful environment, civility and diplomacy. So, if you're truly a supporter of LKY and “how the world works”, school yourself before schooling others.

This goes for the hackneyed nonsense that sparing the rod is spoiling the child, or that physical assault in broad daylight is the best way of disciplining smart mouths.

Then I decided to randomly Ctrl+F "slap". It harvested over 6 results, all with negative connotations.

Let's see. A first-world nation in its democratic prime, ruled by internal fear and visceral hostility – by its citizens, no less! Sounds legit. Let's remember LKY by the nutcases who worship him then? No.

Amos may have been a cyber-renegade, but if the world feels the need to be appeased through the public humiliation and obloquy of a child, it’s practically no different from what Amos did to Vincent.

Fortunately, many like-minded netizens, recognising the importance of fairness and civil liberties, have also taken to reproaching Neo after his self-righteous curtain call.

Even Mr Shanmugam, the Minister for Foreign Affairs, spared no expense in admonishing Neo and correcting the public priority:

If Singapore is truly a lawful democracy, no one should be under the law, even the lawmakers. If you cussed and mauled someone because they disobeyed or disrespected your ideals, wouldn't that mean you deserve to be mauled too? Hypothetically speaking. 

When fairness and balance take a backseat to pretentious ego, everybody will just end up slapping and suing everybody else. Considering how this issue exploded overnight, the tension has always been dormant. That or we suck at handling criticism without our pitchforks. If Amos or Roy did not spark it, someone else would have anyway, from either direction.

Unfortunately, many Singaporeans appear to be compliant masses who are content being so, staying true to our renowned kiasi (scared of repercussions) and kiasu (scared of losing out) attitude. Scared of being the scapegoat of polemics and scared of being left out of the most popular show of piety. These are the same people who have probably grown up in a dogmatic culture in which the government has always proclaimed to be self-righteous. Naturally, they are quick to vilify an aberrant viewpoint, regardless of how substantiated it is. Like in the case of Amos’ profane productions or Jeraldine Phneah’s Middle Ground Perspective article (discussed in the second part).

Looking at the lynch mobs on social media, there have been a deluge of vitriol blasting Amos as an "ingrate” and taking the liberty to threaten him. This includes but isn’t limited to: "castrate" and "cut off his tongue", poisoning him and having him "skewered".

You did what??

I see you're very experienced in the ways of the underworld.

We're resorting to name-calling? Who's the teenager? 

Is this guy saying what I think he's saying?

Let's not forget the criminals all over the world who still have parents running free.

 I almost laughed when I read comments that were the literal definition of brainwashing and propaganda. Some people are too far gone.

Then you have those who think exile is the God-given solution.

I strongly lambaste these cruel sentiments. I’ve never heard of norm or a national policy that wrecks 16-year-old teenagers for being at odds with everyone else. Even if you don’t have kids, you’ve been one. They are programmed to do that.

Exceptionally unsettling is the 'castration' comment made by a Grassroots leader, Jason Neo, under the People's Association. 

At some point in time, one would have thought he'd have fitted the mould of a role model. Intriguingly, he does not appear to have been apprehended, nor have the more staple newspapers penned a single reference at all to the graphic intimidation. 

Factoring these into account, I’m hardly surprised that someone would consider slapping Amos a favour to the mass public. National gratitude seems to have been overtaken by an explosive haste to administer redress for a lack of it. If Singaporean unity has become a license for violence and hate, the future is bleak.

What is not programmed into a lot of adults, regrettably, is logic. Throughout social media are oversensitive prudes – with the small minds and hunger of piranhas – ready to swarm around in a flash to pick the bones of any irregularity. People often forget that unity isn’t undermined by diversity. Unity doesn’t work without diversity – that’s what makes us integrally Singapore in the first place.

The Singapore Pledge states:

"We, the citizens of Singapore, pledge ourselves as one united people, regardless of race, language or religion, to build a democratic society based on justice and equality, so as to achieve happiness, prosperity and progress for our nation."

But this does not entitle anyone to "flog" Amos. 

What I see is the unsightly unity in the enthused castration of a teenager, which betrays a society founded on equal rights and freedom of speech. I see a community of conservatives regressing from cognitive civil capabilities. I see a lot of violations of the national pledge here. 

Unlike Anton Casey and Amy Cheong (the nature of their stupidity was comparable), who are full grown adults and not mentally underdeveloped, we have a 16-year-old boy at the forefront of a nationwide debate. He quite single-handedly disrupted the accepted national ideology and triggered an eruption of tension within Singapore.

That said, the fact that a premeditated physical assault on a child by a full grown man, practically at the front doors of the courts and media, can be rounded all the way down to a three-week jail-term from a two-year incarceration speaks volumes of our legal fairness. Especially if Amos, who had merely acted on impulse and humour in bad taste, has had to undertake bail conditions and court sentences/rehabilitative counsel. The same can be said of Jason Neo. 

As a young adult, I question our national stability, if it's vulnerable enough to be spooked by teenage banter and shallow enough to be sustained by myopic nationalism. What of a real, analytically sound critique of Mr Lee? One doesn’t have to look past the inflamed reactions to Mr Low Thia Khiang’s speech to predict how that will go.

The uproar is the inevitable result of being hardwired to one-sided extremities: a rigid intolerance for anything lower than being wholeheartedly smitten with LKY and an insensitive goading riddled with vulgar celebrations of his passing. Both factions are incredibly inconsiderate and denote brittle respect, since they have not been flexible enough to accommodate a compromise. At least on social media, everyone’s a potential target.

Obviously, this is why so many people are afraid to speak up, right or wrong. We are so docile because any forthright friction against the crowd is treated like an uprising. Though Amos literally asked for it, both Mr Low and Jeraldine Phneah, who only supplied a balanced point of view, have been reprimanded for being insubordinate in their critiques on LKY. Is it because of the self-policing community which has voted for the incumbent for so many years? Are people using repression to absolve their ignorance and preserve their conscience?

How vulnerably mistaken are our community and our beliefs? 

How quick are we to jump the gun and condone child abuse, just because some minor offended the society at large for fun? 

Which part of our nation state and image of our leaders does this represent?

This brings me to my disagreement with Mr Shanmugam on these points:

- "Whether one is guilty, not guilty; what are the defences available, whether the fact of background or youth - these are all factors for the courts to consider. People have said to me: 'Amos is young, why was he charged?' I have refrained from commenting because those matters can be brought up in court and we have amended the law quite substantially now, to let the Court take into account these factors."

- According to Channel News Asia, "he added that it is for society to decide the age where criminal responsibility starts".

- "Once you have accepted that, then there is criminal responsibility for conduct. Whether a person is or is not guilty is for the courts and what the punishment should be, is also for the courts. But we have amended the law quite substantially to allow the courts a range of options in these matters."

In other words, Amos is too precocious and notorious to be judged under ordinary circumstances. Does that entitle a condescending society that's not liberal and not critically informed to judge its offenders -- precisely because they do not observe a socially accepted benchmark of freedom? A democracy is when the government exercises transparent accountability. But when people are so trusting, doesn’t this accountability become obscure and unaudited? 

To me, democracy is when everyone gets the right to a fair trial and equal treatment. Going by the rules, everyone threatening and insulting Amos should be tried for flagrant slander, defamation and threats. And also because the gahment says so. Yes, Amos uploaded obscene and immoral content, and should be disciplined. But therein lies the confusion.

Of course, matters like these are for the courts to decide, unless someone higher up has "amended the law". Let it be known that here a minor's charges are subject to the opinion of pretty much everyone else who is on the same side as the big G up there.

Pertaining to his Amos’ bail terms, I personally support Amos for the slew of criticisms he lashed out against them. 

Firstly, why is such an exorbitant fee imposed on someone who was freely publicising his views? Sure, he stereotyped, framed and insulted some of the greatest minds that ever lived, but there isn't any logical and quantifiable basis for which his indictment, remand and bail conditions accounted. I cannot see how the legal and justice system computed his crimes into such inordinate penalties.

Secondly, following his libelous (but colourful) publications against LKY and Christianity, his post on his bail terms are completely valid and articulated, and carefully thought out.

Unlike his earlier repugnant posts, pray do tell, where you detect slander here? Why are the court and the government so uptight about restraining Amos if he isn't doing any harm anymore? I’d be inclined to breach the law myself, if my punishment was pointless.

Not surprisingly, Amos has been reluctant in abiding by the court's stipulations. Four days after a court order had prohibited him from publishing online content, he blatantly and dauntlessly republished material attacking Christianity and the late Lee Kuan Yew. This was part of an appeal Amos had set up to source for legal funds, which constituted S$30,000. Easily, this direct defiance could be branded as 'contempt of court'.

Is that a banana or are you just happy to see me?

So, why does he have such unfaltering confidence? The same reason he has been smiling outside the courts and in all of his candid photo shoots. No, not because he's "mentally disabled" or "clinically insane". It's likely that Amos has a clear conscience and conviction. As much as I disagree on how he conveyed his perspectives, he did bring up some thought-provoking issues. The hostile reactions he's received only serve to prove his point(s) and furnish his publicity stunts. The more he is attacked, the stronger he feels. This indignation strengthens his justifications. Naturally, Amos feels his actions are dignified and, owing to his still raging hormones, yearns to glorify them further. Considering his age, it’d be a little more than fun and games to him. 

Amos’ lawyer has also been emphatic about his aplomb, a word that has been used to characterise LKY’s demeanour.

Simply stated, Amos, as a defendant or otherwise, isn't repentant. After all this time, he sees no wrong in his actions and defends them by his belief in freedom of speech. It’s no surprise he refuses to remove his online track records. Amos’ persistence in speaking out against anyone and his being unafraid to smile – this is the statement he’s making. 

From the above hyperlinked article, we can see two things. Firstly, Amos has managed to set a crusade in motion, reinforced by some of the most revered professions. Why else pro bono? Next, the fact that he's preparing another script to tackle his haters means he's not going down without a fight. The real problem is how spectacularly he's succeeded in getting a lot of uptight panties in a knot. 

What many people have mangled LKY and his achievements into is something more warped than Amos' rendition. Amos' problem, however, is that the word "discretion" does not appear to exist in his dictionary. His attitude, tone and inability to read the mood rubbed many the wrong way, regardless of his words or his intentions. 

I'm all for disciplining Amos. But using aggression in any form against Amos is injudicious. The best way to handle people who have a deep-seated sense of self-righteousness is reasoning and counselling. By implementing such a strict and punitive measure as fining, detaining or even slapping him, you don't only not show him what is right, but you're no role model yourself. At best, you're gonna make the kid crap his neon pink khakis, not help him understand his mistakes.  

I doubt that’s how we want to bring up our next generation. Not with blind faith and dictatorial control. If you're a parent/teacher and you resort to forceful methods to take them in hand, no wonder they're rebellious la. 

If Amos listens to facts, why the need for the rod? Stubbornly shunning traditional habits and being responsive to validity is a double-edged sword. I feel that Amos will only atone willingly if he's convinced of the cogent repercussions of his actions. See how Alfian Sa'at actually conversed with Amos as a human being on the same level, reasoned with and advised him, without discounting his opinions and disdaining him as a depraved psychotic. We could all take a pointer or two from this. 

We're a developed democracy that LKY has helped immensely to build, not an elitist one seeking some sort of deranged conquest over adolescents and heretics. We're a first-world nation after all; we SHOULD have liberal and open-minded values, and feel obliged to compare our national infrastructure and norms with global superpowers. It's such a shame people actually engaged in social media civil war, after LKY left us. Many ought to feel ashamed of themselves, not just Amos.

This extends to mainstream news as well. 

It has been asserted by alternative news sites (e.g. Asian Correspondent and The Online Citizen) that Amos' mother, Mary, didn’t file a police report against her son or proclaimed him beyond parental control. This is not without substantial evidence. 

Source: TOC

Contrary to the initial news, these lesser known papers subsequently managed to get their hands on factual information attributed directly to Mary. It turns out that she was only trying to mitigate the problems her son caused by apologising to the police, before they found out about his postings. It is true that Mary's actions could be understood as a "report to the police", but there is a world of difference between reporting your child for the purpose of incarceration and protecting his interests. 

Furthermore, it does not take a rocket scientist to figure that Amos wasn't a problem child or a "psychopath" that Mary had to discharge from their household; he simply would not give in to specific issues, like ANY other teenager.

TOC also cites that Mary was not satisfied with how the mainstream articles were worded and composed to twist reality. 

Considering how ethical and open journalism should be, you'd think the accused journalist would stage an aboveboard riposte in black and white. But nope, he wanted to deal with things privately. The source of the mountain is the mole himself.

Where is the "reliable source" that mainstream news has credited its information to? How does this remotely translate into Mary wanting to admit her son into police custody? She merely wanted to seek proper, professional counsel to help Amos cope with his social situation. It wasn't even insinuated that Amos was out of her control. To perversely fabricate a story to manipulate controversy within an already heated affair is exemplary of sensationalism and media bias. As Carlton Tan of Asian Correspondent puts it, "To twist a plea for help that her son is beyond control is a blatant misrepresentation and indicative of sensationalism." 

And, needless to say, this is how some of our dear citizens are responding to the news. No critical analysis, no scepticism, no sitting back and thinking, "Hey, something's wrong here. The news could be vague and skewed. No one else testified to Mrs Yee's reporting of her son, besides a conveniently materialised anonymous source."

Rather than being thoughtful citizens, some bought into the cluster-fed fad that Amos was just beyond domestic hope, being the hardened teenage criminal he must be. 

Standing to this reason, I suppose, Amos was removed from his residence and escorted to a police station by eight police officers. EIGHT freaking able-bodied, fully-trained, adults. They must have seen something in Amos' terribly gung-ho stature that I'm not. Talk about animalistic persecution.

Although the media clearly resorted to unscrupulous means and the authorities are none the better, I find it more disturbing that certain Singaporeans would sooner satiate their own formulaic impressions than verify unfavourable possibilities. Pointblank logic down the hole. It's downright selfish, petty and, frankly, quite a little over eager to persecute anything suggestively opposing. This goes for the consumption of the press coverage of LKY's passing.

2)    Responses to Lee Kuan Yew’s passing

It’s been about two months since LKY’s death. The buzz has quelled. Yet, there are Singaporeans still retaining false perceptions of LKY. The next part of this post will highlight these misconceptions. 

We ain't sheep which graze on what we are given. Research and opinions should be based on the acknowledgement of facts -- even if it means eroding dominant beliefs. For example, being ignorant of Singapore's history and crediting LKY for things he did NOT do is, to me, on the same level of criminality as Amos' publications. Or even the hoax that announced LKY's passing a little too prematurely.

Traits they have in common:

- untrue

- biased

- stupid

- ignorant

Some have even claimed LKY is a god or demi-god (though the next comment sorted that out).

I've lost count of how many times I've done this while perusing comments. 

It's intensely reminiscent of a superstitious, backward mindset (think pitchforks and burning witches at the stake).

Just to remind potential flamers that I'm not a hater or some kind of antithesis of LKY greatness, I'll admit that I respect the man a lot.

I'll concede that Mr Lee was undeniably one of the best men our nation's ever conceived, as several others had/have been. A soldier through and through.

Regardless of agenda, he commanded respect.

Irrespective of methods, I believe he only wanted the best for the nation.

Now, I refuse to be obedient to the Singaporean pack mentality. I rebuke the biased historical fallacies so many people have carelessly and ignorantly buried a dead person underneath. I reject the notion of lying through my teeth and wanting to be part of this event as if it was a festival.

And I will not disrespect him by pretending I’m more anguished or mortified than I feel I should.

However, I admire his forward-thinking and sharp precision in governance. He was determined to reflect that Singapore could hold its own against the world -- that the size of our country does not reflect our mettle. 

So, does not joining the queues or seeing him off make me less respectful or less Singaporean? No. On the contrary, LKY wouldn’t want us to stop working to mourn for him, because it would make us less productive. That’s probably why we don’t have a public holiday commemorating him. Taking time off from work would be disrespectfully going against his wishes.

Evidently, I can't see LKY as a fatherly figure, but I know enough to know he recognised the potential and essence of Singapore, and founded it to a larger extent than anyone else. Having said that, I won't discredit his co-founders. He was no god; even Mr Lee needed help to establish merger, and then independence. Whatever he was, whoever he was, he went down a fighter, a general that had always been ahead of his time.

Unlike many people hoisting him onto pedestals of fantasy, this is how I choose to remember and respect him.

At the very least, he deserves due commemoration and remembrance.

RIP, LKY. You've done more than your fair share for Singapore. Thank you for your work. Between you and many Singaporeans, there were many discrepancies in ideologies. But we shared one common philosophy: to make the best of our nation. If anything, you deserve to rest now. People will continue striving here; that much you can be assured of.

Thank you, sir, and goodbye.

Sadly, we couldn’t leave it at that – we couldn’t bid a heartfelt adieu to a benefactor without chiding one another. Why?

People are saying things like, "Such an ingrate. Without Lee Kuan Yew, your English and education will be so good meh? Can live in such luxury and peace? Should send you go work in the fields without a computer". 

What does that have to do with anything? In their overzealous rush to leave an indelible mark on the hype, many online comments are unintelligible, poorly conceptualised and fanatically bigoted.

Firstly, if you want to nitpick about education, what's disgraceful is using bad English, despite knowing it. Where's the pride in carrying on a routine of punctured languages? If LKY had toiled so much to raise an empire of educated Singaporeans, is being a linguistic buffoon a token of gratitude? Then again, that isn't the point, is it?

Secondly, it isn't like we're not crediting LKY for his part in building Singapore. We're just not brainwashed drones that subscribe to peer-induced propaganda. In this era, we're uncontrollably educated; we have culturally matured; we have developed a discerning sense of criticism; and the Internet makes it impossible to snuff out individuality.

Thankfully, there are bloggers who have started leveraging on the liberal and wide outreach of the modern-day Internet to voice their dissatisfaction toward their peers. Hopefully, their dynamism has been able to shed more light and stimulate respectful, open discussion. So, without further ado:

Limpeh's take on our "herd mentality": http://limpehft.blogspot.sg/2015/03/the-herd-mentality-of-singaporeans.html

If you're too lazy to read, he berates those who avow their allegiance to LKY, but have no knowledge to actually show for it. Limpeh also expands on how foolhardy it is to abide by the norms without knowing their significance, and how conceited it is to judge others who don't. Is it to curry favour or a robotic reflex of morals? Ironically, those who have made a fair assessment in the matter are the ones under heavy flak.

Competent and level-headed bloggers are far and few between, especially if they identify and examine the really important issues of the world. Another is Jeraldine Phneah.

She attempts to use facts and objectivity to mediate between people who have been utterly devastated by LKY's demise and those who are ungratefully overjoyed by it. For instance, she has written that Singapore evolved from a fishing village to a bustling port, not because of LKY's efforts. Verily, its urbanisation was due to the collective endeavour of our forefathers and a pool of people from other countries, some of whom I'll elaborate on and others you can find in the posts of other bloggers. Jeraldine's point? Give merit when it's deserved, not in meagre ignorance and not in superfluous extravagance. Learning from the past, not wallowing in it, is crucial in order for Singapore to sustain its foothold in a rapidly developing century.

As Limpeh, in support of Jeraldine, said, "This leads me to a rather disturbing conclusion...How can you be a fan of LKY if you do not understand Singaporean history? How can you admire and respect the man for what he has achieved if you have no idea what he actually did and how he achieved all that? What kind of respect is this, if you don't even know whom or what you are respecting? Is this a result of the education system or Singaporean culture?"

Perhaps LKY had made tremendous contributions to the success of Singapore as a first-world nation, but I personally do not think majority of Singapore's advancement should be credited to him. To put it in perspective, a simplistic illustration to help you understand better: On a scale of 100%, LKY's accomplishments probably constitute 30%, while the others make up 5 to 10% each. This way, it's easy to see how LKY is indeed second to none, though unequivocally not the sole breadwinner of everything we should be thankful for. 

That's why it’s unacceptable how mainstream news has been churning out an overwhelmingly disproportionate onslaught of LKY's memoirs and commentaries, by and on him. It is bad enough that they failed to provide a balanced and neutral review of LKY's legacy, but it's a whole new low to sink down to when false write-ups (i.e. Amos' mother's police report) are played on to marginalise alternative views.

chint0n is another blogger who is more than worthy of mention here. He shares the same sentiments as me and the previous bloggers. He suggests that Singapore is experiencing a severe shortage of liberal equity, allowing little to no leeway to welcome individuality. With LKY's demise, he argues that glorifying LKY is tied to doing the same for the PAP. Even if it means being subservient to them and blind to the very democracy Singapore advocates.

Like me, he’s disappointed in the reactions Mr Low’s tribute received. Mr Low did nothing short of being candid, yet, it seems to me some Singaporeans would rather respect LKY than be honest. Mr Low's tribute is on a whole league from Amos' tirade, and already people are on the brink of suing him for defamation.

Braceface Ballerina Dives, a personal close friend of mine, has been sceptical about both the reliability of the news we're exposed to and the drastic reactions they elicited. She approached the subject matter from a more day-to-day-experience kind of view, which maybe more of us can relate to. For those who were stuck indoors, we were not spared. The Internet, radio and television programmes drummed up LKY's memorial service to a smothering customary mourning week. It was an obtrusive multimedia blanket reeking of sheer melancholy. There was this sweeping assumption that everyone had to grieve without reservation, when some of us didn't see the need to prolong it. 

To be fair, none of our other forefather's deaths came close to this level of attention and grandiose, where we were suddenly were all subjected to their undisputed greatness. On the Internet, social media became policed by die-hard and staunch citizens, who knew next to nothing about LKY, but were determined to exalt him and sentence critics to the guillotine. It was disgusting how everyone wanted a piece of the action. Braceface Ballerina also noted that citizens had made their own calls to wear black to mourn and embellish their automobiles with black ribbons, to pay tribute to LKY.

On the other hand, she acknowledges LKY as a figure who went to great lengths to procure only the best for Singapore. He refined our education, housing, financial and social policies, sculpting them into the luxury of safety and leisure we enjoy today. Nevertheless, as Braceface Ballerina contends, the facts of history impugn and outweigh pretentious claims at every turn. Every Singaporean knows LKY's a national icon and the most revered man who ever led Singapore, but many do it at the expense of our other forefathers whose backbones we slap-happily trod on.

Adorning LKY with a godly status (which looks to be the case) without any knowledge of him or those who contributed to the nation, simply because we are compelled by social influences, depicts a cultural penchant to be simple-minded and the immediate need to be placated. To fill in the void with convenient ignorance and denial, in place of uncomfortable facts.

If we go on like that as a society, in a cosmopolitan first-world era, we run the risk of taking what we're told for granted. There's a likelihood that we'll only believe in the fantasies we want. The deterrence to progress would stem from a refusal to open our minds. We would dwell in a past we imagine to be true and a present hung up on maintaining the only way of life we care for. 

It's already very much manifested in Singapore: kids being told how to behave, to conform to a system of uniformity and academic excellence; ITE's and vocational institutions being derided; employers recognising only what someone is, rather than what someone can become (i.e. to qualify for experience, you need experience, which you then need to qualify for); family-oriented values so trite on local television, and the fact that about every youth character in our shows are delinquents or have to struggle with some adolescent issue; a glaring lack of proper, modern youth culture of open-mindedness and lifestyle, where the focus is on an adventurous and flamboyant passion or romance, or an effervescent indulgence in the grandeur of faraway cultures, or a story line pivoting on entrepreneurship and affluent business ventures. I personally miss the medieval Chinese martial arts fables that always kept me on the edge of my seat.

In light of not taking things for granted, no one seemed to know or questioned the significance of the black ribbon with LKY's face emblazoned on it. Braceface Ballerina is the only person I know so far who noticed that the black ribbon was initially a symbol that signified the oppression of opposition, which recently has become an underrated irony.

Not saying it was a deliberate ruse, but good political mileage was gained from the icon: disassociating it from opposition and winning it over, under the pretext of a historical milestone. Maybe it was collateral, but either way, it appears to be effective.

chint0n suspects that the accusation of insensitivity will still happen twenty years down the road. I'm inclined to concur. "Is there ever a right time to be critical of Mr Lee?" This conundrum is more fixated in our culture than LKY himself, which is why I'm taking a confrontational approach. The Amos outcry, along with many others, should already have already taught us that Singapore's civil harmony is on tenterhooks. Instead of prolonging the inevitable, better we address it now and set a pace of civility, before it snowballs into another overarching conflict. If we aren't even able to iron our internal laundry, who are we to call ourselves a democracy? Much less deal with more pressing worldly dialogues.   

The feelings of animosity in this discussion are mutual between the arguing parties. It takes two hands to clap. We each believe we're right, like different religions. There easily will never be another leader like LKY. We're not presumptuous. Don't assume we're trying to mock anyone. We're not even disputing LKY's policies. We're just expressing beliefs and correcting wrong perceptions. It's no argument that Amos worded himself wrongly somewhere, but weren't most of us idiots at that age? Give him some credit for being more politically intellectual than most of us could ever be at his age.

The problem isn't what LKY did. It's not LKY we are demeaning nor are we saying we are better than him. We are NOT imposing our opinions on anyone, rather, we're insisting on educated awareness and fair homage. 

To reinforce my point, my whole quibble lies with the wrong perceptions so many people have of LKY, and how they incessantly and ignorantly rush to his defense when we are not condemning Mr Lee. Anything that sounds remotely critical, objective or factual, is muffled and wrestled off by nationalist egomaniacs. Contrary to belief, partisan ideas are imposed instead. 

For example: http://www.ibtimes.com/lee-kuan-yews-other-legacy-why... 

"When Lee Kuan Yew died Monday at age 91, the founding father of Singapore did not leave just his legacy as the prime minister whose authoritarian policies shaped a backwater British colony into the world’s fourth-wealthiest nation. He also left Singaporeans with one of the most formidable armies in the world."

This is the first paragraph of that article. Two things I voraciously disagree with. One, LKY wasn't "the founding father of Singapore"; he was one of them. Two, I think Doctor Goh Keng Swee would have a few words to say about that, were he still alive. After reading that, I couldn't deal with finishing the article, because it seemed more of a eulogy and less like news.

History books and the media have been known to be skewed. Power decides justice and its etymology. What would it be like had Japan or Germany won the World War? What if we were living in North Korea? We say we're a democracy, yet people act like sentinels of the politically correct, as if the state's words were the gospel. But you are only as credible as your sources.

How many people can say they recognise Doctor Goh Keng Swee's accomplishments as much as they do LKY's? Mr Ong Teng Cheong did not have a state funeral even though LKY's wife did. And the list goes on. The rest of our forefathers somehow faded behind the glamour of immortalising LKY's life, through the radio, television, and various other homogeneous media content. Not to mention our own self-policed citizens who evangelise social media.

Amos and other critics of LKY have been accused of not being educated in our national history, on the premise that we don't realise how much LKY had done. I don't know who's uneducated, but I think there's been a mix-up between education and gratitude. To give a deeper insight of the big picture, I haven’t just been nodding to what other bloggers have had to say. Yours truly has done his homework and consolidated my findings. The list below documents numerous deeds by a band of founding figures.

For starters, Sang Nila Utama isn't a mere legend. It's just been taken out of context and exaggerated for dramatic effect. But what he'd done is real.

Details here: https://books.google.com.sg/books?id=tQCw_taMRnIC&dq=sang+nila+utama+reframing+singapore&source=gbs_navlinks_s

Asianism and the Politics of Regional Consciousness in Singapore chronicles three historical and momentous actors in the creation of Singapore:

"... Sang Nila Utama, who landed in Temasek and renamed it Singapura circa 1392... Sir Thomas Stamford Raffles, who arrived in Singapore in 1819 and subsequently acquired it for the British; and Lee Kuan Yew, the British-trained but local born lawyer who led Singapore to self-government in 1959 and navigated Singapore out of its tumultuous eviction from Malaysia in 1965 and onto political stability and economic success as a sovereign nation." 

The book explicitly posits that Utama and Raffles transformed Singapore into a trading port within Southeast Asia, drawing in merchants and businesses from around the world and brewing Singapore into a melting pot of cultures. LKY and his party then leveraged on the then prevailing governing conditions, and localised the policies. Hence, without the prior building blocks, LKY might never have been able to capitalise on whatever Singapore had.

Leong Yew, the author, goes on to explain that presentism is a troubling phenomenon in local contexts. For the sake of the modern public and academies, the subjects of 'history' and 'social studies' interpret the arrival of Stamford Raffles as the beginning of Singapore. This has neglected a lot of the aforementioned history, and at the same time, stereotyped and framed LKY's exploits as the main stronghold of national history.

Yours Truly Singapore, yet another blog aggrieved with the misrepresentation of Singapore's political and organic history, sieved out from scholarly literature the raw origins of our nation state. This includes what Lee Kuan Yew did, did not and couldn't do, which I won't use to discredit him, but provide a chronologically accurate foundation of his triumphs, without saturating and diluting them with untruths. 

For instance, it is suggested that the processes which LKY devised to merge Singapore and Malaysia lacked foresight and analysis, which resulted in racial skirmishes. YTS also postulates that Lim Chin Siong, a public speaker who captivated the Chinese community with his mesmerising presence, was employed by LKY and highly regarded for his influential poise in rallying the Chinese. Consequently, the PAP, without being drowned out by Lim, secured the initial elections with the impetus of the Chinese votes.

As have some of the listed bloggers, YTS goes on to deduce that Singapore had already been founded and industrialised by the British. Colonialism and imperialism, in fact, provided the recipe for independence and other national aspirations. Thus, to not acknowledge all these is to be predisposed to the belief that Mr Lee was omnipotent, in effect, equating him to a god.

Further, according to YTS, the eventual power struggles between LKY and Lim was unscrupulous and one-sided. If Lim and co. had won, a leftist Singapore, immersed in entrepreneurial principles with an alternative set of liberal and democratic values, would have flourished just as much. Perhaps more. 

History was written inasmuch as the victors narrated it and purged their political opponents from its pages. The fashion of his methods aside, LKY only orchestrated them for the same end – the prosperity of Singapore. The same salient credit could have been otherwise ascribed differently. Therefore, what I think people should bear in mind is that someone else could have well taken up the challenge just as competently. Without LKY, Singapore would still have become a metropolitan Southeast Asian paragon.

Conclusion

As a young fledgling who hasn’t experienced the fullness of life and harnessed a seasoned mentality, I have but laid down an imperfect observation of the situation. However, even if every tactile event and account were presented in an objective manner, I feel it’d only be rebutted by absolutist generalisations. I have also been told that I'm going out of my way to patronise Singaporeans, but if I don't have evidence to buttress my claims, what will be said to me instead? 

We are no less right in our mindset than anyone else is. We've said everything that could be said. If people choose to turn a blind eye to facts, let them. It is after all a democracy, not a majoritocracy, where it looks like the free will of the minority is being siphoned from them. Yes, I do think this grieving has been over-the-top, but I don't go around policing comments to impose my own ideologies of what a deity is, which is getting really irksome. 

Alas, a lot of people (locals and foreigners) are not open to constructive criticism. I've never really understood the preference for denial and falsehood, when there's everything to gain from learning from our past. That's the point of learning history. The philosophy of "if you're not happy, migrate lor" or "don't argue, just appreciate what you have" is exasperatingly facile. The best form of appreciation we can give Mr Lee is to understand and surpass the legacy we have been left with, not take it for granted.

Incidentally, the 2015 World Press Freedom Index places Singapore in the 153rd position out of 180 countries. 

Source: Straits Times

I should mention we fare worse than Russia and we’re just one rank from becoming a second Libya, and a few hiccups away from being as paranoid about free media as Egypt. Even Bangladesh is more liberal. The bottom line, as I have been reiterating throughout this post, is the fact that some people proactively espouse and barricade themselves with the idea that localised media is omniscient. Their arguments, beliefs and way of life are monosyllabic and insular. Neo is a prime example of that.

Maybe this intolerance is due to the political mechanisms of Singapore's governing systems, which correspond to authoritarian nations. While one connection is insinuated here, the dilemma posed is that Singapore is still classified as a highly developed country, in spite of its low press freedom. Although authoritarian/monarchy-based regimes, like that of North Korea, operate on low freedom, they are also generally under-developed.

Presently, I still see people whose social media profile pictures indicate ongoing grief, but there’s nothing wrong in that. What’s unpardonable is the reckless desecration and abasement of LKY, and anyone who has done such great work. Of course, grieving for the wrong reasons is ultimately disrespectful to Mr Lee Kuan Yew and neglects the hardships of the rest of our forefathers as well. I feel these circumstances have illuminated the mass, callous ignorance of the country – of our own history. 

So, the best thing we can do is not give up our individual freedom of self-expression and still have the courtesy to take heed of respect. For now, let those grieving grieve. Let those who have grieved enough have their space.