atans1

Why MLC has to talk about Calvin

In Internet on 29/11/2015 at 1:28 pm
(or “Yet Another good reason to beat-up the MLC and Calvin”)
Calvin Cheng (“kill children” he said), I was told, said on radio recently that he only deletes and blocks abusive trolls, and accepts criticism.
So it’s really strange that the following piece from one Renson Seow, a leading member of a pretty conservative Facebook group (Examples: Their general consensus was that Amos Yee got what he deserved, and the PAP deserves 70%  of the vote but public tpt and FTs suck) went missing (AWOL? MIA?), hours, after it was posted as a comment on Calvin Cheng’s wall. It was in response to Cheng’s “apology” after he got a ticking off from Professor Tan Cheng Han, the chairman of the Media Literacy Council.
Read it and decide if Renson Seow is trolling Calvin Cheng. And if he isn’t, think about complaining to Professor Tan Cheng Han the chairman of the Media Literacy Council about Calvin Cheng setting yet another bad example on how to behave on the internet and on his talking the talk( only deletes and blocks abusive trolls, and accepts criticism). but not walking the talk (removing reasoned criticism). http://www.medialiteracycouncil.sg/Pages/contact-us.aspx
Renson Seow writes
The recent attempts to reframe Calvin’s comments as “meant to be intended to refer to children of terrorists *who are terrorists as well*” are misconceived, as his initial words were unambiguous.

===

The terrorists are not common criminals, it’s not about crime punishment and deterrence. They are a mortal enemy intent on killing and destroying. So you kill them before they kill you. And their children too in case they grow up to take revenge. It’s as simple as that. Please don’t complicate matters.
===

Within the sentence “And their children too in case they grow up to take revenge” are the key two words: *in case*

This clearly means that the proposed killings of the children of terrorists are precautionary in nature, and that he is *clearly aware* that there will be a proportion of those killed, who will not “grow up to take revenge”. (I.e. innocent personnel).

By his own admission, he also states that he was not going for general deterrence value – meaning that he did not also intend to intimidate future terrorists into submission – a stance which would leave room for mercy, for those children of terrorists who are so intimidated by the killing of kin now, that in future they are too cowed to take up the sword.

No, he was going for *precautionary killing*, in *full knowledge* that those killed will include a significant portion of innocent personnel.

The gulf between general deterrence and this is stark – equivalent to the comparison of passing of a deterrent death sentence on a single murderer’s kid to *dissuade* future children of other murderers from following their fathers’ footsteps, against that of setting a policy of killing all these other children too as a utilitarian precaution *in full knowledge* that *not all will turn*, with no room or thought given for the restraining effect of general deterrence.

This callousness and failure to err on the side of innocence is further compounded by the fact that these personnel are children, which have been clearly recognized both in the court and science as deserving of a more rehabilitative, rather than retributive or deterrence-focused sentencing.

The overreach of killing, in Calvin Cheng’s full recognition that there will be risk of killing of innocent underaged personnel, goes directly against the principle that “”It is better that ten guilty persons escape than that one innocent suffer” (the well-known Blackstone Formulation).

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blackstone%27s_formulation

Needless to say, this view of his also puts up a dangerously extreme view that can be easily be mistaken for an officially espoused viewpoint, given the great efforts in which Calvin Cheng has poured into advertising that he had once been appointed as a NMP, which although without a vote, does come with a voice of influence in Parliament and the policies of Singapore.

If left without censure now, it is too easy for the common man to make the logical leap that perhaps Cheng’s view is not opposed by the powers here, and from that, it is only too easy for the next radical here to justify his extreme ways with the battlecry of “They will kill our kids as a precaution, nevermind whether they turn out ultimately innocent or not”

What remains now is the question, of how a member of the Media Literacy Council (MLC), with the higher burden of responsibility placed on his online commentary, could behave like this (and have a noted history of other uncivil comments), and yet continue undisciplined in the same role.

Thus ends Renson’s piece.

Calvin the wannabe baby-killer has by apparently deleting RS’s comments shows us the kind of guy that the MLC thinks is representative of the internet community.
As a member of the conservative group says: Nothing else need be said: For here is clearly demonstrated the sort of merit expected of someone who had once been an ex-NMP, and current member of the Media Literacy Council (MLC)… and more interestingly, the sort of acceptable standard his supporters (many of whom have identified themselves in the course of the affair) deem acceptable.
  1. anyone knows what is the position of “i believe in second chances” on this subject ?

  2. You can add Calvin to your list of gravedancers, lol. There are cybernuts on both sides.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

%d bloggers like this: