Saturday, October 27, 2007
i love u alfian sa'at!!!
see here
[edit: alfian locked his entry on the issue. alex au's take here]
[edit 2: gabriel managed to save alfian's post before he locked it; see here
i'm also taking the chance to reproduce it for record:
From Alfian:
Exaggeration and Intimidation: On Thio Li-Ann's tactics
In the press, Thio Li-Ann has spoken about one hate mail she has received, regarding someone who wanted to 'defile her grave'.
*********************
From her Parliamentary Speech:
"This August, I had my own experience with this sort of hysterical attack. I received an email from someone I never met, full of vile and obscene invective which I shall not repeat, accusing me of hatemongering. It cursed me and expressed the wish to defile my grave on the day 377A was repealed.
I believe in free debate but this oversteps the line. I was distressed, disgusted, upset enough to file a police report. Does a normal person go up to a stranger to express such irrational hatred?"
From The New Paper:
'I have already been insulted and received hate mail, even harassment.
'But should we be a nation of cowed individuals, subjugated by fear of being called hateful names?
[...]
Since her speech on Monday, she has been called terms like 'homophobic', 'unenlightened' and 'prejudiced' on the Internet. Some called her a 'fundamentalist'.
Many other profanies, vulgarities and four-letter words were hurled at her because of her stand.
Prof Thio said: 'One person expressed the wish to defile my grave on the day 377A was repealed. And I am conveying the sense of it in the most polite way I know how.
'I don't believe in repeating obscenities.'
From TODAY:
Professor Thio herself was "shell-shocked" and made a police report after receiving an abusive email in August from an unnamed stranger who threatened to defile her grave on the day Section 377A was repealed.
"If it was just a rude letter, I'd let it slip. But this really overstepped things," the law lecturer told Today.
*********************
Some of you might be curious to know what was this mail that was "full of vile and obscene invective", with "obscenities" she could not repeat, that she had to censor by "conveying the sense of it in the most polite way I know how".
I reproduce it here for you. I know what that email is because I wrote it. And contrary to the TODAY report that said it was by 'an unnamed stranger', I actually signed off with my name, and sent it from my yahoo email account (the one I'm using here). This is the email. It consists of four lines:
*********************
Date: Sun, 12 Oct 2007 05:03 +0800 (CST)
From: "Alfian Bin Sa'at"
Subject: a valentine
To: lawtla@nus.edu.sg
Sunday, Aug 12, 5.03am
Subject: a valentine
Dear Dr Thio,
This is a personal note to you.
I think you are absolutely fucked up.
As long as you exist, with your hatemongering and your vicious crusades against sexual minorities, I will never leave Singapore. I hope I outlive you long enough to see the repeal of 377A and on that day I will piss on your grave.
With love,
Alfian.
*********************
Thio Li-Ann has filed a police report, accusing me of 'Intentional Harassment'. On 26 October, I sat for a two-hour investigation at the Tanglin Division Police Station at Kampong Java Road. The Invesigating Officer was a very friendly and helpful man. Those of you with uniform fantasies, please restrain from asking me if he was attractive, because I will not entertain that query. Anyway, he wasn't in uniform. In my statement, I reported the following.
1) The mail was shot off one night after clubbing with friends (hence the time). Before that, on the cab ride home, I had been told that Thio was the 'member of the public' who called the police, resulting in the cancellation of the 'Pink Picnic'. The officer asked me how I felt when I wrote that letter and I said 'aggrieved, wounded and helpless'. And then taking a cue from her Parliamentary speech, I added, 'distressed, disgusted and upset'.
2) I had sent only that one email to her, which I did not think satisfies the criteria of repetition and persistence that would constitute 'harassment'.
3) The phrase 'fucked up', to my understanding, meant 'dysfunctional'. I said I did not consider the term abusive.
4) I had not threatened her with bodily harm.
5) In fact I had not made any threats to her at all, unless she thinks being a fellow citizen with me in Singapore constitutes a threat.
6) As for 'cursing' her with death by talking about outliving her, I said I was merely pointing out the obvious fact of her mortality. I also said that since I was younger than her, I would naturally expect her to die earlier, barring any misfortune. The sympathetic policeman offered to change the word 'die' to 'pass on' in my statement.
7) On the part about pissing on her grave, I said that gesture was meant to celebrate the repeal of 377A. I also said that a few lawyers had told me it was not illegal to piss on graves.
As the interview went on, the incredulity of it all I think struck the policeman. I told him that if what I sent her constituted harassment, then it would set an impossible precedent. Anyone who has received any message through whatever form of communication causing 'emotional distress' can file a police report alleging 'intentional harassment'.
I asked the policeman why he was even acting on her complaint, and whether he had more urgent cases to attend to. I told him she was wasting taxpayers' money and state resources. I said this was precisely the kind of 'bully-boy tactics' that she spoke of in her Parliamentary speech. I also said I considered her calling the authorities about the 'Pink Picnic' to be an example of harassment, and that I felt harassed listening to her Parliamentary speech.
I ended the statement by saying that I hoped she was aware that many of her actions have affected and hurt other people. I said I did not discount the possibility of her receiving other hate mail, but acting on me specifically as I was a strategic target, having written plays with gay themes.
I am posting the 'hate mail' here, knowing full well that there will be those who will chide me for my hot-bloodedness and impulsiveness. I apologise to those who think that my 'uncivil' four-liner has somewhat sabotaged the repeal-377A cause. But I think the exposure of this woman's pettiness, tendencies towards exaggeration, as well as her wanton abuse of the legal system, far outweighs the flak I will inevitably receive.
Alfian. : ) ]
[edit: alfian locked his entry on the issue. alex au's take here]
[edit 2: gabriel managed to save alfian's post before he locked it; see here
i'm also taking the chance to reproduce it for record:
From Alfian:
Exaggeration and Intimidation: On Thio Li-Ann's tactics
In the press, Thio Li-Ann has spoken about one hate mail she has received, regarding someone who wanted to 'defile her grave'.
*********************
From her Parliamentary Speech:
"This August, I had my own experience with this sort of hysterical attack. I received an email from someone I never met, full of vile and obscene invective which I shall not repeat, accusing me of hatemongering. It cursed me and expressed the wish to defile my grave on the day 377A was repealed.
I believe in free debate but this oversteps the line. I was distressed, disgusted, upset enough to file a police report. Does a normal person go up to a stranger to express such irrational hatred?"
From The New Paper:
'I have already been insulted and received hate mail, even harassment.
'But should we be a nation of cowed individuals, subjugated by fear of being called hateful names?
[...]
Since her speech on Monday, she has been called terms like 'homophobic', 'unenlightened' and 'prejudiced' on the Internet. Some called her a 'fundamentalist'.
Many other profanies, vulgarities and four-letter words were hurled at her because of her stand.
Prof Thio said: 'One person expressed the wish to defile my grave on the day 377A was repealed. And I am conveying the sense of it in the most polite way I know how.
'I don't believe in repeating obscenities.'
From TODAY:
Professor Thio herself was "shell-shocked" and made a police report after receiving an abusive email in August from an unnamed stranger who threatened to defile her grave on the day Section 377A was repealed.
"If it was just a rude letter, I'd let it slip. But this really overstepped things," the law lecturer told Today.
*********************
Some of you might be curious to know what was this mail that was "full of vile and obscene invective", with "obscenities" she could not repeat, that she had to censor by "conveying the sense of it in the most polite way I know how".
I reproduce it here for you. I know what that email is because I wrote it. And contrary to the TODAY report that said it was by 'an unnamed stranger', I actually signed off with my name, and sent it from my yahoo email account (the one I'm using here). This is the email. It consists of four lines:
*********************
Date: Sun, 12 Oct 2007 05:03 +0800 (CST)
From: "Alfian Bin Sa'at"
Subject: a valentine
To: lawtla@nus.edu.sg
Sunday, Aug 12, 5.03am
Subject: a valentine
Dear Dr Thio,
This is a personal note to you.
I think you are absolutely fucked up.
As long as you exist, with your hatemongering and your vicious crusades against sexual minorities, I will never leave Singapore. I hope I outlive you long enough to see the repeal of 377A and on that day I will piss on your grave.
With love,
Alfian.
*********************
Thio Li-Ann has filed a police report, accusing me of 'Intentional Harassment'. On 26 October, I sat for a two-hour investigation at the Tanglin Division Police Station at Kampong Java Road. The Invesigating Officer was a very friendly and helpful man. Those of you with uniform fantasies, please restrain from asking me if he was attractive, because I will not entertain that query. Anyway, he wasn't in uniform. In my statement, I reported the following.
1) The mail was shot off one night after clubbing with friends (hence the time). Before that, on the cab ride home, I had been told that Thio was the 'member of the public' who called the police, resulting in the cancellation of the 'Pink Picnic'. The officer asked me how I felt when I wrote that letter and I said 'aggrieved, wounded and helpless'. And then taking a cue from her Parliamentary speech, I added, 'distressed, disgusted and upset'.
2) I had sent only that one email to her, which I did not think satisfies the criteria of repetition and persistence that would constitute 'harassment'.
3) The phrase 'fucked up', to my understanding, meant 'dysfunctional'. I said I did not consider the term abusive.
4) I had not threatened her with bodily harm.
5) In fact I had not made any threats to her at all, unless she thinks being a fellow citizen with me in Singapore constitutes a threat.
6) As for 'cursing' her with death by talking about outliving her, I said I was merely pointing out the obvious fact of her mortality. I also said that since I was younger than her, I would naturally expect her to die earlier, barring any misfortune. The sympathetic policeman offered to change the word 'die' to 'pass on' in my statement.
7) On the part about pissing on her grave, I said that gesture was meant to celebrate the repeal of 377A. I also said that a few lawyers had told me it was not illegal to piss on graves.
As the interview went on, the incredulity of it all I think struck the policeman. I told him that if what I sent her constituted harassment, then it would set an impossible precedent. Anyone who has received any message through whatever form of communication causing 'emotional distress' can file a police report alleging 'intentional harassment'.
I asked the policeman why he was even acting on her complaint, and whether he had more urgent cases to attend to. I told him she was wasting taxpayers' money and state resources. I said this was precisely the kind of 'bully-boy tactics' that she spoke of in her Parliamentary speech. I also said I considered her calling the authorities about the 'Pink Picnic' to be an example of harassment, and that I felt harassed listening to her Parliamentary speech.
I ended the statement by saying that I hoped she was aware that many of her actions have affected and hurt other people. I said I did not discount the possibility of her receiving other hate mail, but acting on me specifically as I was a strategic target, having written plays with gay themes.
I am posting the 'hate mail' here, knowing full well that there will be those who will chide me for my hot-bloodedness and impulsiveness. I apologise to those who think that my 'uncivil' four-liner has somewhat sabotaged the repeal-377A cause. But I think the exposure of this woman's pettiness, tendencies towards exaggeration, as well as her wanton abuse of the legal system, far outweighs the flak I will inevitably receive.
Alfian. : ) ]
beAr | 23:06
10 Comments:
You love someone who wants to piss on someone's grave?
more so than someone who seeks to deny my existence...
"This great purity of the French revolution's basis, the very sublimity of its objective, is precisely what causes both our strength and our weakness. Our strength, because it gives to us truth's ascendancy over imposture, and the rights of the public interest over private interests; our weakness, because it rallies all vicious men against us, all those who in their hearts contemplated despoiling the people and all those who intend to let it be despoiled with impunity, both those who have rejected freedom as a personal calamity and those who have embraced the revolution as a career and the Republic as prey. Hence the defection of so many ambitious or greedy men who since the point of departure have abandoned us along the way because they did not begin the journey with the same destination in view. The two opposing spirits that have been represented in a struggle to rule nature might be said to be fighting in this great period of human history to fix irrevocably the world's destinies, and France is the scene of this fearful combat. Without, all the tyrants encircle you; within, all tyranny's friends conspire; they will conspire until hope is wrested from crime. We must smother the internal and external enemies of the Republic or perish with it; now in this situation, the first maxim of your policy ought to be to lead the people by reason and the people's enemies by terror.
If the spring of popular government in time of peace is virtue, the springs of popular government in revolution are at once virtue and terror: virtue, without which terror is fatal; terror, without which virtue is powerless. Terror is nothing other than justice, prompt, severe, inflexible; it is therefore an emanation of virtue; it is not so much a special principle as it is a consequence of the general principle of democracy applied to our country's most urgent needs.
It has been said that terror is the principle of despotic government. Does your government therefore resemble despotism? Yes, as the sword that gleams in the hands of the heroes of liberty resembles that with which the henchmen of tyranny are armed. Let the despot govern by terror his brutalized subjects; he is right, as a despot. Subdue by terror the enemies of liberty, and you will be right, as founders of the Republic. The government of the revolution is liberty's despotism against tyranny. Is force made only to protect crime? And is the thunderbolt not destined to strike the heads of the proud?
. . .
. . . Indulgence for the royalists, cry certain men, mercy for the villains! No! mercy for the innocent, mercy for the weak, mercy for the unfortunate, mercy for humanity.
Society owes protection only to peaceable citizens; the only citizens in the Republic are the republicans. For it, the royalists, the conspirators are only strangers or, rather, enemies. This terrible war waged by liberty against tyranny- is it not indivisible? Are the enemies within not the allies of the enemies without? The assassins who tear our country apart, the intriguers who buy the consciences that hold the people's mandate; the traitors who sell them; the mercenary pamphleteers hired to dishonor the people's cause, to kill public virtue, to stir up the fire of civil discord, and to prepare political counterrevolution by moral counterrevolution-are all those men less guilty or less dangerous than the tyrants whom they serve?"
- Maximilien Robespierre: On the Moral and Political Principles of Domestic Policy
... although i'd question how many of the disenchanted can clearly analyse the promises / follies of the revolutionaries.
sad to say (and i'm fully aware of my contradicting feeling from a rational point of view regarding this issue), that i'm emotionally affected enough by her statements to have thoughts of drawing blood crossing my mind. he has merely put to pen what many people want to say to her, but are too scared to do so.
of course, he did include a justification of his course of action (which i don't quite buy), and one cannot help but feel that he has sabotaged the "movement" (if you could call it that), but i think that in this situation, any kind of action (and inaction) can be interpreted as sabotage to some degree.
besides, we are not ruled by a despot =)
lol
come on vinny, i think you know that i know that you know that it's lameass that alfian's email should/ could be read as a sabotage.
isn't the presence of the S377A an even greater and much more palpable threat to men who wish to engage in homosexual sex? and doesn't that again basically accuse all practising homosexual men as "criminal"?
i think all this hullabaloo over his email and Thio's response is nohing but a distraction from an unresolved matter that warrants what seems to me not an undue display of grief/ anger.
truly despise singaporeans sometimes; when "fuck" or empty threats of pissing on graves can be so much more harassing than calling others "criminal", "sinner", "faggot (i.e. fuel for burning on the stake)", etc. where propriety trumps basic human decency and respect.
of course, i agree that it shouldn't be read as sabotage, but i'm not sure if it couldn't; especially not after manipulation by the queen of the damned. as you noted yourself, she successfully (at least in the minds of the masses) managed to throw the spotlight off her speech to this petty issue. seems to me that certain quarters would qualify this as sabotage; albeit unintentional.
though would i wish that alfian not have written that email? hahaha... i see no reason not calling a spade a spade, let's just put it at that =)
RE: Thio's strategies.
http://mollymeek.livejournal.com/
see the various discussions ongoing at molly's.
Given that there will be no active prosecution under 377A, and case law shows it's used to prosecute non-consensual, underage or public sex, it is hard to see how a purely symbolic law against a group is a greater threat than a (metaphorical) threat directed against a specific individual.
... but what's given can just be as easily taken away, can't it?
anyway, pissing on someone (or someone's grave) is hardly a threat, is it? in fact, watersport is quite a celebrated activity in the sm subset... lol
yah yah i'm a pervert; sue me =)
as vinny points out, the symbol isn't set in stone and can in fact be easily retracted to the whimsy of the social impulse. if pressure from the "majority" can be use as an excuse for the retention of 377A, and religious morality be argued as a fair basis for governance, what's to stop some succeeding over-zealous politician from giving us another speech abt how enforcement of 377A is at once for the betterment of sg's majority and moral fibre?
as for pissing on her grave, so what? gosh, if laws against desceration of graves do not in fact criminalise said act--as is what alfian claims--then what real harm is there? sure it mocks one person, but surely the decency and respect to the living outweighs that of the dead. which if we lend this "metaphorical threat" that much attention, seems to suggest otherwise (i.e. gay people are less deserving of respect than the dead.)
as for golden showers, i'm unfortunately unable to comment, given my dis-proclivity. if a guy asks to piss on me in order for him to get off, there's gonna be hell to pay >(
Post a Comment
<< Home