I thought it was a really smart move to try the Park. Well at least we now know the effects of speaking there, which is STiLL really just inviting curious looks and bored yawns from the majority.

But i would think our foreign media counterparts appreciated.

Maybe it’s reflection time on inadequacy of such: “The Hong Lim that has little effect” ?

But then again, only the truly concerned folks will have recognised the effect, and still it in their hearts, for however long a term they would like to.

Effect, in whichever light, but a constructive one, definitely.

Am amazed at the lengths of comment threads here.. Because i don’t hear a breath about it at all among my schmates, so i’m glad there’s still discussion, to voice and be heard, be understood, or misunderstood.

to care, basically.

-non-cs student-

Also, the more I look at the picture, the more I think it is a poor editorial selection. We learn in photojourn to select the pictures that best represent/recreate the actual situation. Surely The Enquirer’s photographers took better shots than this?

Jinyong: I suspect there might have been a misunderstanding when you said “name calling… all emotional”. I think nowhere in any of our (me, yanwen or clarence) or even the other writers here have resorted to name calling.

And indeed we have pointed out certain points of contention such as masquerading a personal attack on the speakers as a perspective. A perspective could be, by way of example: as the Executive Producer, I feel that this issue of censorship is alright, it happens everywhere, so why bother. That is a perspective, what is not a perspective is: Don’t come and pretend to know what is going on in Spectrum because you don’t know and you guys are shouting for your personal glory. That is not a perspective but an attack on our motives.

So interestingly, Jinyong, you have turned our comments into what you claim to be a personal attack on Chee Harn when indeed we have only pointed that there was no perspective on his side. This probably does not qualify as a personal attack.

Also I don’t think any of us here has called his comment stupid aside from Mavis who said that we are pointing out the stupidity of his comments. Also non of us have ever said that he does not have a right, really that is not the issue here. Nobody mentioned official sanctioned free speech in anyplace. There’s a right to speech, and there’s a right to reply.

Chee Harn,I suppose you mistook the protestors. Their arguments were really out of concern for the school and free media.Their speeches were well-written and very thought-provoking. If we didnt a get free media, at least we’ve started stimulating discourse about it:)

But I understand your position,though I would never ever feel the weight of what you guys at Spectrum/Chronicle really feel. Things have been dragging long and taking a toll on all involved and I understand the thin line Spectrum/Chronicle is treading here:)Perhaps to see things in another light the protestors were also ex-Chronicle writers that feel for the paper and hope for its freedom, we want to fight for the news values we’ve internalised in the school all these years as well.

Sorry if it got in the way of Spectrum and Chronicle’s runnings in anyway. Everyone had the best intentions I assure you!

We argue passionately at times,especially the times when we have the best intentions—but they are questioned.That passion is a beautiful thing that assures us that we’re not detached from life or just a passive spectator.But I suppose if we forget empathy, or thought experiments like putting ourselves in each other’s shoes, then what would ALL the change in the world really mean?

“If all mankind minus one were of one opinion, mankind would be no more justified in silencing that one person than he, if her had the power, would be justified in silencing mankind… If the opinion is right, they (mankind) are deprived of the opportunity of exchanging error for truth; if wrong, they lose, what is almost as great a benefit, the clearer perception and the livelier impression of the truth produced by its collision with error.”

-John Stuart Mill

Are you silencing him by calling his comments “stupid”?

Chee Harn (not Cher Harn), is not part of the news team by the way, but the executive producer for SPECTRUM TV, which produces the entertain segment.

Point out his mistake (or your perception of what in your opinion, is deemed a mistake) by all means. But do it in a civilised way that promotes dialogue, not name calling or being all emotional.

:)

You talk of the pain of censorship, but you, my dear boy, are affirming the strength of those who would keep the student body divided by turning your fire on those who cared enough about the issue to raise it in public.

You also forget that you don’t speak for all the censored. Kash, the girl who got her piece cut, had a speech read at the Speaker’s Corner. So who, really, are you speaking for Cher Han? The establishment?

And Jin Yong, free speech is about the competition of ideas. If Cher Han’s sucks, as many in this comment section have highlighted, we should vigorously point out its stupidity. No one is questioning his fundamental right to speech so don’t lose sight of the issue.

In my opinion, he did not question nor put down the rationale or ideals that was officially recognised as the motivation behind “the big hong lim show”. Rather, he asked if there was a secondary motivating factor.

At the end of the day, if what we are fighting for is free speech, then there is not reason to put chee harn down for he, like you, wrote down what he believes in (though he might not have expressed it as appropriate as he would have liked like some of your here with the blessed gift of mastery of the language). In fact, he did more than most of us would ever do, by putting his name on his belief. Unless you recognise that there is an “officially sanctioned form of free speech”, in which case, you will be mimicking the university stand on this whole CSJ incident, and possibly, attacking the very cause you have been fighting for.

On a side note, it would be interesting to hear more from those who were not directly involved in the big hong lim show and the CJC report. Sometimes, the loudest voice might not be the truest voice. :)

Complete opposites from what we really felt and achieved though! Hurrah guys!