Singapore bans play for negative portrayal of Muslims

It "could create unhappiness and disaffection amongst Muslims" --
I thought the koran had already done that?

Singapore is a small but prosperous, mostly ethnically Chinese, country surrounding by large, much poorer per-capita, Muslim majority nations --- Malaysia and Indonesia. My suspicion is that in making this decision, the government may have had as much an eye on its neighbors as on its domestic Muslim population.

During the 1800s, many of the subjugated Dhimmi peoples within the Ottoman Empire obtained a measure of protection from European powers that exerted influence over the internal affairs of the Empire through a series of "capitulation" treaties.

It is tempting to wonder if something of this kind may be at work in reverse today --- governments bend to the expectations of powerful Muslim neighbors in their internal affairs in order to avoid antagonizing those neighbors. Given the propensity of Muslims worldwide to get angry and violent in response to any perceived offense against the "dignity" of Islam perpetrated by any Infidel anywhere, it may be an increasing temptation of infidel governments worldwide to pro-actively shape policies in ways that accomodate Islamist expectations. Perhaps the "free" world will end up Dhimmified without the need of a global jihadi conquest.

I hope not, but it is conceivable.

The governments of Australia, and Thailand, and the United States, should meet to discuss, with representatives of the governments of China and India, the defense of Singapore, and military guarantees that they would be willing collectively to make, to permit the Singaporeans to exist free from worry about attacks either from Malaysia, or from Indonesia.

And if such guarantees were to be obtained, it would be a useful step in creating, here and there, Infidel awareness of how Muslim unity, Muslim sense of the umma, must be countered by some growing, similar, counteractive sense of such unity, a unity of the intended victims of Jiahd among Infidels.

Start thinking about how to prevent, in Singapore, the development of appeasement. Surely Lee Kuan Yew, still alive and still articulate, or his son, can think about this matter -- and attempt to interest the countries named above: Australia, the United States, China (which should take more interest in the wellbeing of those Overseas Chinese threatened by Muslims, or even mass-murdered, as they were in Indonesia in the 1960s), India, and even Thailand.

There is an Organization of Islamic Countries, but no organization consisting of the countries not part of the O.I.C. and threatened by Islam and the impulse, and varied instruments, of Jihad. And there is unlikely ever to be such an organization. But thining in such terms is a different matter, and acting upon such thoughts, also a different matter.

Get cracking.

Singapore has long since left it's islamic neighbour, malaysia, behind when it comes to per capita income. And that from a small country with no natural resources.

It does however, have to be mindful of it's much larger neighbour and also the significant islamic presence in its own population.

Damn, the TITLE is offensive by itself!

Dfobare--

Hmm. Maybe it's all the more telling a display of dhimmitude that the stodgy Singaporean authorities are more concerned with the negative portrayal of Muslims than, well, that.

My suspicion is the Muslim angle is just a cover. Singapore's moralistic Confucian political system is not exactly a beacon of freedom of speech when it comes to criticizing the government.

The ad for "Smegma" from the website of the Agni Kootthu (Theatre of Fire) where it was to be performed reads:

"Truth Is The Enemy Of The State

SMEGMA interrogates the 'moral, cultural, religious, political, economical legitimacy world' from many different perspectives of the underdogs and their masters. This plastic society's hidden hierarchies are brought to the surface by the experiences of its outsiders; a schizophrenic transsexual, pregnant female suicide bomber, irate non-smokers and defiant smokers.

When the comfort-zone is shattered ugliness rears its head like cheesy SMEGMA."

You can check out the Agni Kootthu's website at:
http://www.substation.org/substation/now/06/0608/Smegma.html

The real problem may be Smegma's avant garde nature and anti-state sub-plot and not any potential Muslim complaints.

"The governments of Australia, and Thailand, and the United States, should meet to discuss, with representatives of the governments of China and India, the defense of Singapore,"

- posted by Hugh above

Singapore is quite capable of looking after itself and running her country in its uniquely totalitarian and capitalist way. For its protection it is a party to the "treaty of amity and co operation" which prevents attack by other treaty participants (eg Indonesia and Malaysia, et al)as part of its economic and social integration with ASEAN. Surprised Hugh suggests that the above governments should meet to discuss, AND with China and Singapore (both of whom have not been very good friends of Singapore during the 19th and 20th centuries), without suggesting Singapore should attend such discussion as well. Not the best suggestion I have seen on here I must say.

Further, I notice that the Singaporean flag bears the crescent moon of the stone moon god. Doesnt that suggest that its already well along its path to "integration" with its neighbours?

For more details on this story check out:
http://www.todayonline.com/articles/134742.asp

which reveals the script is "filled with Hokkien and English expletives" ... including a scene that "depicted Singaporeans' sexual escapades with underaged girls overseas and a class of kindergarten children calling their Member of Parliament a 'pig'" ... and another scene which "has three men in a prison cell making fun of the Singapore flag."

This makes me think even more that the Muslim angle is only an excuse.

I was not suggesting the participation of Malaysia and Indonesia, as you may have understood. I was suggesting that Australia and the United States certainly, and possibly then China and India and Thailand, all have a stake in preventing Singapore from succumbing to pressures from Malaysia and Indonesia. Of course I didn't mean that Singapore would be left out --Singapore would have to welcome, even if obliquely, such a meeting.

The careful monitoring of attempts at Da'wa, the recording, by law, of every case of someone changing religion, suggests that in Singapore there is no intention of being "integrated" in the Muslim sense. But something more is needed - an assurance that a direct attack on Singapore would be met by assistance from powerful Infidel states. That is not beyond the wit of Singapore's government to arrange.

Hugh,

Neither did I suggest you were were contemplating Indonesia or Malaysia to attend such a conference. I did make an error when I referred to "China and Singapore" I should have written "China and India".

The comment that Singapore records changes in religious affiliations of individuals is news to me and I will try to obtain more information on that comment as I find it very interesting.

But to confirm, I think putting the crescent moon on a country's flag does suggest a muslim affiliation.

Paying attention,

You might be interested in this explanation of the Singapore Flag by Jan Oskar Engene and the response from Thomas W. Koh at:
http://fotw.vexillum.com/flags/sg.html

"The colours of the Singapore flag represent red for brotherhood and equality; white for purity and virtue. The crescent moon originally served as a symbol of assurance to the Malays in 1959 —the year the flag was designed— that Singapore was not a Chinese state. Today it is generally said that the moon signified a young nation rising. The flag was designed initially to have three stars, until leaders such as then Deputy Prime Minister Toh Chin Chye expressed concern that Singapore might be perceived to have associations with the Malayan Communist Party, the flag of which also had three stars. The flag was originally meant to be red as red is a very traditional Chinese color. But because of the fear of Communism in those days, a completely red flag was abandoned.
Jan Oskar Engene, 26 January 1998

Remember that Singapore with its 80% Chinese majority has always been aware of its sensitive positioning with the 15 million Muslims of Malaysia just a few kilometres North and with the 170(?) million of Muslim Indonesians just South. It has always been necessary to soothe and placate. For the home crowd, the crescent was a little bit uneasy and it has always been emphasised that this was not representation of Islam but represent a country on the ascent. These days, the sensitivities and touchiness of the past can be examined more honestly and it is politically correct to say that the crescent was put in to placate the Malays.
Thomas W. Koh, 27 January 1998"

Provo: Hi.

You know if a muslim described what you just said about the flag, that would be labelled as "taqiyya" (sp) by some here. Others would say that it is evidence of previous islamic presence therefore putting it on the short list of countries to be islamised.

The Australian flag has the Union flag in its corner. Some would try to deny that it doesnt represent previous colonisation by UK, but its really obvious that's why its there. And others say we cannot be indepenent of UK while its flag is on ours.

So, keeping the Malays of 1959 happy? Hard stretch for me I am afraid.

But thanks for the info.

Slightly OT, but this conversation aroused my curiousity and I did a google search for Singapore Flag to see what it looked like, in the process I ran into the flag of Azerbaijan which is an Islamic country, and it's flag clearly shows it.

Significance? Well your VP Dick Cheney was, until he ran with Dubya for VP, the Chairman and CEO of the Azerbaijan Chamber of Commerce.

Just Like he and Dumbya are friends of the Saudis and the Emirs of the Gulf and champions of turning our ports over to the Arabs.. a fact which has met with much distaste from Lou Dobbs on CNN and other liberal,leftist "democrats". But supported by self righteous and smug right wingers like Oreilly.

Of all the countries that exist as monuments to dhimmutude, surely Singapore can be made an exception. In other words, in this story, if a group of Muslims had put on a drama on the 'Protocols of the Elders of Zion', it's safe to assume that the Singapore government would have cracked down on that as well.

On Hugh's suggestion above, not a bad one, except that Singapore had been specifically expelled from Malaysia so that the country didn't have a majority Chinese population. However, in Singapore, Malay happens to be a common connecting language, since the Tamils in that country aren't likely to know Chinese. Knowing Singapore, it's likely that they'd endorse the Malay identity, but keep it separate from Islamic domination.

As for Singapore's flag, I too find the crescent disturbing. Given that Singapore was expelled from Malaysia, why would they have to do anything to convince Malaysia that they aren't another Chinese country on the Malacca straits?

Also, China doesn't see itself having the same interests as the US. They'd probably have no problems selling the ethnic Chinese up the Johor River rather than do anything that would be perceived as in US interests. Other than Xinxiang, their contribution in the jihad on jihad is negative.

It would be a good thing to get hold of this play and stage our own re-enactment of it.

I think that it would be a good thing if we started putting on plays such as this one, or Mahoment by Voltaire or Tamurlaine or any others that are anti-muslim.

A good day for doing this would be October 10th, which is the day that Charles Martel defeated the muslims at Tours.

We should really celebrate this day. Lots of ham, alcohol, and readings of anti-muslim plays.

Nariz,

Re: "Lou Dobbs on CNN and other liberal,leftist "democrats".

It is inaccurate to label Lou Dobbs as liberal, left, or democrat. He is, in fact, very close to being a "paleo-conservative". His public and oft-stated position on immigration is similar to that of Tancredo. He is an open supporter of the Minutemen and has written for Pat Buchanan's "American Conservative" magazine on trade issues.

Infidel Pride,

No need to find the Singapore Flag disturbing. The Muslims have no monopoly on the crescent moon.

The Singapore flag predates their secession from Malaysia and was rightfully retained as their national emblem. It was first used on 3 December 1959, together with the state crest and the national anthem, at the installation of the new Head of State, the Yang di-Pertuan Negara. It was created by a Committee led by then Deputy Prime Minister, Dr Toh Chin Chye. It replaced the Union Jack, which had flown over Singapore for 140 years (1819-1959). Upon Singapore's independence in 1965, it was retained as Singapore's national flag. http://www.sg/explore/symbols_flag.htm

The crescent has been used on many flags that have not even the slightest connection with any Muslim. The state flag of South Carolina is one.

Check out also:
http://www.confederateflags.org/army/FOTCmissela.htm
and look at the Van Dorn Confederate Battle Flag. This flag with a crescent and thirteen stars was the primary flag used by Southron forces in the western theatre during the Confederate War for Independence. It, of course, had no more relation to Islam than swastikas on Hindu or Buddhists Mandirs have to Nazi Germany.

The Muslims have stolen so much and claimed it as their own, I'm happy to see Singapore use its crescent flag in a different way.

Provoslavni and Infidel Pride, thank you so much for your comments, which show a great depth of understanding of Singaporean issues, even more so than a great deal of Singaporeans themselves.

This incident is hardly an example of dhimmitude. In the past, plays have been censored or banned for being racist or disrespectful of state-recognised religions (i.e. non-cults like Falungong). It is true what Infidel Pride wrote: a play or movie based on the Protocols of Zion will most definitely get banned. Singapore is perhaps one of the only South East Asian countries where yarmulke-wearing Jews can move about in complete safety.

Hugh wrote:

"I was not suggesting the participation of Malaysia and Indonesia, as you may have understood. I was suggesting that Australia and the United States certainly, and possibly then China and India and Thailand, all have a stake in preventing Singapore from succumbing to pressures from Malaysia and Indonesia........

......... But something more is needed - an assurance that a direct attack on Singapore would be met by assistance from powerful Infidel states. That is not beyond the wit of Singapore's government to arrange."

Please, Hugh. Any attempts at this would only serve as overt provocation. We can take care of ourselves well enough, thank you very much, against any of them jihad-monkeys. True, Singapore has yet to prove herself in military action but given that we can mobilise a quarter of a million troops in 6 hours, we can put up a hell of a fight.

No wait just a minute.

If this "no negativity towards Moslems" thing goes through, then the Moslems win in the short term, and will win big-time over the long haul.

This is so because Islam at its essence is a negative force that can only be adequately described in negative terms.

This is not so with the Buddhists, Taoists, Hindus, and Christians there; they are positive forces, like 'em or not.

610 * 623 * 732* 1066* 1215 * 1504 * 1526 * 1683 * 1928 * 1938 * 1948 * 1996 * 2001

Moslems are about 15% there, about the same as the Christians. But, as I’ve written before, if a Fictive Reality is constructed in Singapore (and it sounds like it’s well into the construction phase already), then the accepted scriptures and practices of Islam will let the Moslems constantly attack non-Moslems in the public discourse of Singapore, while the others are muzzled.

We’ve seen Moslem demographics explode in other nations before; the only question is what percentage-of-total will be required in Singapore before full Jihad can be triggered to result in first partial Sharia, the Islamization of political institutions, and ultimately implementation full Sharia there to make the Islamic Republic of Singapore.

This will be a slower process there, cuz, unlike white folk, Buddhists and Hindus still procreate.

APF,

There is legislation against that - the Maintenance of Religious Harmony Act. Besides, the vast majority of Singaporean Muslims are thoroughly secularized and have no intention of living under sharia. In fact, the conduct of Singaporean Muslims seems worlds removed from that of their brethren elsewhere.

Browse through the Friday sermons, which are used in all mosques in Singapore, at this link:

http://www.muis.gov.sg/cms/downloads/khutbahs.aspx

In response to the Lebanese conflict, here's the official stand of the Islamic Religious Council of Singapore:

http://www.muis.gov.sg/cms/uploadedFiles/PortalSG/Community/Khutbah/KhutbahKedua4ogos06_Eng.doc

"It is sad to hear bombs blasting and see relatives dying in a developing country like Lebanon. We sincerely hope that these transgressions by all the parties involved will end as fast as possible. May Allah grant His guidance to all parties involved, to choose to seek peaceful solution to this crisis. May the weak and oppressed be given strength and triumph by Allah the almighty.

As concerned Muslims, we must strive to show the compassion as taught to us by God and His messenger. It is our duty to show the beauty of Islam in our peaceful and harmonious society."

Isn't something like this what we would like to see preached in mosques? True, individual opinions may differ but no authority is given to any Muslim who does not toe the official line, under threat of being charged with promoting false doctrine.

A quarter-of-a-million men in six hours? If that is true, one is relieved. But still, what would this mean if there were serious attacks from Malaysia, or Indonesia, or both? How would a guarantee made to Singapore be explained as an "overt provocation" when it would strictly be a guarantee against attack from outside? Perhaps I am wrong and Singapore would be safer without any such guarantee, but I can't comprehend why. Obviously if this were to be considered an "overt provocation" by its Muslim neighbors, then apparently those neighbors are already worrisome, which is why such guarantees might be needed. Or have I missed something? Or are you suggesting that there is no guarantee needed now, that it might do more harm than good, but that such should be contemplated as a possiblity if those Muslim states become ever more islamized and threatening to Infidels both within, and in nieghboring states?

Hugh,

The initiative you suggested would violate several ASEAN treaties and would even be seen as a rejection of the Zone of Peace, Freedom and Neutrality Declaration, especially since any threat at the moment is purely conjectural. No, if such conflicts emerge, ASEAN must work it out themselves.

"But still, what would this mean if there were serious attacks from Malaysia, or Indonesia, or both?"

http://www.littlespeck.com/content/security/CTrendsSecurity-030114.htm