Vigilante & mob attack is a double edged sword

Netizens might get into trouble for harassing Sim Lim’s Jover Chew: reports (Yahoo News; 8 Nov 2014). Although it's FUN and (spiritually) LIBERATING to see Jover Chew suffered and got what he deserved (I felt GOOD too knowing that he got harassed, shamed, among others), but what "SMRT Ltd (Feedback)" did was illegal and wrong. 

Awww.... what the hell am I talking about??? I guess most of readers will shout out, "SHADUPPPP.....BRAINLESS".

Well, I am still right. The authorities are still right. It is illegal, wrong, and preventive action should be taken to discourage recurrence (before someone gets hurt).

SMRT Ltd (Feedback): From Troll Group To Internet Vigilantes. From this news (or interview), SMRT Ltd (Feedback) felt that their action was PROPER (if not RIGHT), and the victims DESERVING. They felt that when the authority is not doing its job, it's alright to fill the VOID. SMRT Ltd (Feedback) felt no wrong to initiate "Operation Airkangkang" to promote online vigilante and online mob attack. The attack on Jover Chew is not the first. Anton Casey was another victim that got attacked. I don't think both of them will be the last victims. Will online vigilante be the trend now?

The reason I don't feel comfortable about online or offline vigilante...

1. What if certain groups target individuals who went against their beliefs, e.g. transgender, homosexuals, act of close-proximity (e.g. public kissing/hugging), etc? 
2. How about the case involving a Malaysian teen who received death threats after 'Liking' Israel on Facebook (where a screen-shot was taken and published by his teacher. 
3. How about having a SOCIAL JUSTICE LEAGUE sites targeting individuals deemed to be socially despicable, obnoxious, and irresponsible? E.g. those walking smokers, reserve-seats "sleepers", litter bugs, etc.
4. Edited.... I guess whatever vigilante movement is possible here. 

I don't think any vigilante movement will have the ability to self-regulate. What they deemed right (sometimes) might be wrong. Vigilante is not right and will never be alright in any learned/civilized society (not in Singapore). History told us vigilante movement is flawed (because innocent can fall victim).


Cheongsam lady and Anton Casey.

About Anton Casey (my previous blog; 29 Jan 2014), My take on Anton Casey case is that, someone could have disliked him. That person was Anton's Facebook friend. That person exposed Anton with his "dry-joke" that easily offended many Singaporeans (especially those not rich as him). As predicted, Anton got into BIG trouble, loss (or quit) his job, and moved out of Singapore. To me, Anton is a bad joker and politically incorrect... I don't think he deserved attack because he it was a bad joke not meant for others (but his peers).


In Jover's case, how his particulars were acquired was scary. His friends, workers, acquaintances, neighbours and other people who knows him EXPOSED him. This included information about his family, Facebook photos, addresses, and phones. SMRT Ltd (Feedback) was the "contact center" to acquire such information from the public. I guess such method was used on Anton Casey and Cheongsam lady too? Or am I wrong and was there another way?


Fortunately, no one got hurt. However, if the trend persist, I worry that someone might get hurt.

Just a thought.

References

• Rise Of The Vigilantes (the singapore beacon)
• SMRT Ltd (Feedback): From Troll Group to Internet Vigilantes (Yahoo News; 10 Nov 2014) 
• Anton Casey case: Where has all our empathy gone? (Straits Times, 24 Jan 2014)

Edited several times to get to the point.