Commenting on Facebook, she called Cheng’s views “dangerous” and a threat to Singapore’s social fabric.
“If Mr Cheng were to be part of a large corporation in the private sector, he would inevitably be silenced and chided for his beliefs. Yet, he remains firmly seated on a national council that encourages the responsible and safe expression on media platforms.”
Seah also expressed her disappointment with the Media Literacy Council, of which Cheng is a member, for not disciplining him.
“The MLC has taken a dismissive tone towards many Singaporeans who have written to them. These Singaporeans have cited rightfully that such a polarizing character has no place determining what “safe” or “unsafe” media the people should be exposed to.”
She has urged the MLC to explain its stance.
The saga started after these comments by Cheng in a discussion thread went viral and incurred the wrath of netizens.
Many found his comments offensive, and even wrote to the MLC to demand answers.
Cheng hit back at his critics, whom he claims have spammed him and his workmates with hate mail.
He accused netizens of a concerted effort to attack him along political lines, saying on Facebook that:
“The moral majority must stand up to these extremists, many who are SDP supporters and activists, who are trying to make me a victim of a hate campaign for saying something about an issue that has nothing to do with Singapore, Singaporeans or hopefully anybody remotely connected to Singapore. (see below)
These tactics must also be fully condemned, and especially traitorous Singaporeans like Kirsten Han and the editors of TOC who would gang up with Western forces to do Singapore in. Kirsten Han especially needs to be stopped as she regularly writes for anti-Singapore publications to run us down, and to suck up to the Western liberals.”
Cheng also expressed his disgust at the reaction to his comments, saying that free speech should be free for all, and that he doesn’t deserve to be cyber-bullied.
This is Nicole Seah’s Facebook post in full:
“Deeply disappointed with the Media Literacy Council’s non-response towards their stand on council member Mr Calvin Cheng.
While Mr Cheng is certainly free to air his views on killing children as a preventative measure before they grow up to be terrorists, or that minority voices should be silenced in favour of national stability – It has to be said that equally discerning Singaporeans should be allowed to have an opinion on whether his views are extremist and polarizing in Singapore’s fragile social fabric.
And these views are dangerous. If Mr Cheng were to be part of a large corporation in the private sector, he would inevitably be silenced and chided for his beliefs.
Yet, he remains firmly seated on a national council that encourages the responsible and safe expression on media platforms.
The MLC has taken a dismissive tone towards many Singaporeans who have written to them. These Singaporeans have cited rightfully that such a polarizing character has no place determining what “safe” or “unsafe” media the people should be exposed to.
Singaporeans who speak up against his views are labelled as bullies. And yet our views are silenced and people like him continue to run scot-free and in esteemed institutions.
The MLC owes a straight-up explanation to concerned Singaporeans on the following:
What is the code of conduct for council members?
What is the criteria for the selection of these members?
What consequences are in place if said members flout this code?
What exactly are the MLC’s guidelines for what they determine to be safe and responsible media, or otherwise?”