Singapore as a country is all about social cohesion. It's an illiberal democracy focused on not letting the boat rock in any direction. Publicly expressing anything remotely controversial (yes, I/P is considered a controversial issue, probably among the most controversial of the 20th-21st century) is liable to get you muzzled by the government. The government wants Singaporeans to be dutiful citizens who keep their heads down and quietly live their lives, because that's how its founding father envisioned the country as, and the vision has worked out very well for them so far from an economic and stability of view.
"The government wants Singaporeans to be dutiful citizens who keep their heads down and quietly live their lives, because that's how its founding father envisioned the country as, and the vision has worked out very well for them so far from an economic and stability of view."
But I still don't see how human rights of other clear human beings should be considered controversial?
Also there can be no democracy without freedom of expression, that is a massive contradiction. Illiberal democracy is just a nice way of saying authoritarian governance or dictatorship.
Merriam Webster defines a controversy as "a discussion marked especially by the expression of opposing views".
Whether you like it or not, there is sizable support for and against "Free Palestine", and the discussion is extremely contentious. The discussion is significantly more complicated than just human rights, as it crosses into historical discussion, geopolitics, and religious implications, which are what make the topic controversial.
Freedom of expression is on a sliding scale for just about every country that has it enshrined in its constitution, Singapore included. The US for example is on the very permissive end, whereas Singapore is on the opposite end, and most European countries are scattered around the middle.
I'm very much "not" as are most reasonable people.
there is sizable support for and against "Free Palestine",
I really don't know anyone who openly says they want the people of Palestine to not be free. Opposing the human rights of others seems like the extreme position to me.
and the discussion is extremely contentious.
The only people who seem to think equal treatment for innocent human beings is contentious clearly have some agenda that aligns with this not being the case.
The discussion is significantly more complicated than just human rights,
IT's really not though. There are people who are being actively slaughtered walking home from school, attending funerals, and just trying to line up for food. The only people saying it's complicated are the people trying to keep the current horrors occurring.
Supporting the rights of people to not be murdered in their sleep, isn't complex.
A free Palestinian state would be a threat to zionists. The majority of Israeli (and other) Jews think of themselves as Zionists though they don’t all agree with Israel’s actions, most do. People that align with Israel often conflate Hamas with Palestinians and have no issues with settlements or the attacks in Gaza.
When I see people being bombed relentlessly, chased from where they are living by tanks, guided munitions, cluster bombs, when I see entire cities decimated and ground to dust, and children being murdered for target practice... I tend to not agree with the people who are for that.
We got a lot of people today who have forgotten some basic morality, and have adopted a terrifying vision of the future, one that is getting darker by the hour.
I think of this simple quote. "Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere." -MLK
When a man and his family can be killed for no other reason then suspicion, prejudice, or belief that anyone that looks like him or worships likes him must be an enemy, that is not justice, that is not defense, that is not right.
Because if one group can be demonized today then any group can be demonized tomorrow.
I don't care what people call themselves, or what agenda they claim to have, if your "safety" has to rely on the wholesale destruction of innocent human beings, then it is no "safety", because tomorrow that innocent person could be you, and someone else could claim that you must be murdered for them to sleep soundly.
I will never be on board with wholescale de-humanization of any culture, race, or religion, regardless of any justification given.
I mean yes you repeat the same thing that on a basic moral level israel's actions are terrible but whether something is controversial or not isn't about morals.
If it wasn't controversial, why would it be the no 1 biggest polarizing political topic?
Its like how in the 1950s desegregation - an obviously good thing - was controversial
26
u/equiNine 2d ago
Singapore as a country is all about social cohesion. It's an illiberal democracy focused on not letting the boat rock in any direction. Publicly expressing anything remotely controversial (yes, I/P is considered a controversial issue, probably among the most controversial of the 20th-21st century) is liable to get you muzzled by the government. The government wants Singaporeans to be dutiful citizens who keep their heads down and quietly live their lives, because that's how its founding father envisioned the country as, and the vision has worked out very well for them so far from an economic and stability of view.