The email, titled “Message on Exercising Freedom of Expression Responsibility“, warned students in particular not to ‘make comments that cause hatred or dissatisfaction with the Singapore justice system’ and not to create ‘web pages/blogs containing information on religion or politics’ unless the student has ‘acquired proper licences from the Media Development Authority AND the written approval of the University.’

Judging by the wide net of regulations it has casted, many blogs and webpages created by its students would have easily ran afoul of what the university claims is ‘exercising freedom of expression responsibly.’

While the list of regulations has a few sound guidelines on exercising exercising free speech on the internet, it makes no case to explain why dissatisfaction with the Singapore Justice system, if there was ever one, could not be freely expressed by its students. At the same time, the insistence on a complete blanket ban on blogs that discuss politics or religion without acquiring ‘proper licenses’ from MDA and the school contravenes the very tenets of freedom of speech.

Interestingly, judging from the contents posted, the blog TheLiberatingTruth, which was responsible for the e-mail reminder, would not have contravened any of the guidelines stated by NTU. Firstly, the blog is neither a site that discusses politics or religion, and neither is it a complete fabrication of allegations against the international students. The testimonials posted on TheLiberatingTruth, which has since shut down, are based on real-life experiences and encounters by classmates of these international students.

The guidelines for exercising freedom of speech responsibly on the internet seemed to have confused responsible commentary on the internet with ‘positive’ commentary — insofar as you only limit your opinions about another organization, person or entity to positive or nice-sounding words, you are deemed to have commented ‘responsibly.’

This is surely a travesty to the term ‘responsibility’ — it is not simply a matter of toeing the safe-line and to have only praises on a subject-matter when criticism is also due. If a good friend of yours asked for your opinion on an essay that is due for submission, would you only mention the good parts of the essay while neglecting the fact that there are some critical loopholes in her argument? Should this be considered as ‘responsible’ commenting?

Surely, one would rather be forthright in one’s comments to help our friends score a better essay result — rather than just saying the nice things, all the time.

In the recruitment talks of banking companies, in particular, foreign students currently studying in NUS from China and India inundate the auditoriums and lecture halls where these hiring drives are held in the evening.

In the recent drive organized by The Royal Bank of Scotland (RBS) for example, some Chinese students were seen rushing to collect more extra freebies — of which included a 2GB RBS Thumbdrive — upon registration for the talk. Some of them were turned away by the receptionist from RBS at the talk, who insisted that each registrant may only collect 1 thumbdrive each.

These pro-active foreign students came relatively much more prepared for these recruitment talks than local Singaporeans, some who arrived as late as half an hour into the talk. Other than expressing a go-getter attitude, whether it’s a rush to grab the best seats in the auditorium or to prepare enough research to field questions during the Q&A segment, the foreign students were at least manifestly much more eager to grab places in the graduate program than the Singaporean students.

At the recruitment drive of Swiss investment bank UBS for example, some 8 out of 9 students who fielded questions during the Q&A segment were either students from China or India. Impressing the select panel of executives from the company with their deeply researched and pertinent questions, one Chinese student who is certain that he will be a “rich fund manager in 5 years time” even impressed UBS equities executive Joseph Chia so much that Mr. Chia suggested that he might be his client in the years to come.

At the networking session occurring after these recruitment talks, where students and executives from these companies freely mingle around a catered buffet spread, more Singaporean students were seen leaving early and did not socialize as much with the executives as did the foreign students.

For J, a former classmate of mine who recently graduated from the Faculty of Arts and Social Sciences, the disproportionate ratio of foreign and local students at these talks not only meant a stronger competition for select and limited places at these graduate programs, but also a stern wake-up call.

“I’ve graduated with what you can call a toilet paper degree.”

“The chances of me getting into these graduate programs are already low from the start. Together with competition with these Chinese and Indian foreign students with first or second-upper class honors, how do you think I will fare?”

Still, it may not be a bad thing.

“Haiyah, Singapore is a meritocracy. I should stop whining about the large influx of foreign students in the recruitment talks, and maybe think of ways to fight or outwit them at the interviews.”

Why does he think that the recruitment talks are inundated with foreign students?

“It’s because if they don’t secure a job here when their student visas expire, it will be much harder for them to look for a job and stay in Singapore.”

“It’s either they find a job here or face the prospect of a much lower paying job back home.”

What sort of advantages does a Singaporean student have over these foreign students?

“It’s surely our English. We speak without their accent and are much more fluent in it.”

Already, fangs and claws are showing in a dog-eat-dog battle to enter into the corporate world, where ‘better’  only functions as a relative word — I can only be better if you perform poorer than me.

In this world whereby merit and performance is the only true barometer of success, perhaps the Singaporean student has much to benefit from the foreign student.

In an alternate perspective, rather than arguing that they provide extra competition for places, perhaps there is much to thank for this learning experience.

Should more to be done? Must protectionism be ensured to give Singaporeans the priority in job placements?

Such a question definitely remains open.

Despite a presentation of some of the most engaging films from the Latin American region — from Venezuela to Peru — some of these films were shown directly off a DVD in the cinema.

For instance, Esteban Ramirez’s Caribea, set in the Coasta Rican town of Limon off the Carribeans, was played at Cinema Europa from a DVD last weekend.

Many movie-goers were surprised to see the main menu of a DVD being displayed on the screens of the cinema, before the play button was selected to begin the film.

No efforts were made to conceal the medium of the film, despite most movie-goers paying some $10 to watch a film in the Cinema Europa under the Latin American Film Festival.

Other movies such as Andrés Wood’s Machuca, a Chilean film set during the time of socialist rule when the principle of a school attempted an integration of school children from different classes, also caused movie-goers to suffer the same fate.

The Latin American Film Festival boasts some of the best productions from the region. The strong plots and great acting on most films, however, are derailed from an over-stretched resolution on the cinema screen and poor sound quality.

Expect to be able to see even the fine pixels of the DVD-screening if you are sitting any where from the fourth row onwards.

In hindsight, Golden Village should have specified that the screening would be of a DVD-quality, especially when most of its patrons are paying some $10 for every ticket. The gesture would surely help prevent the unpleasant surprise suffered by movie-goers before even a second of the film is shown.

On this, Singaporeans have a real cause to worry.

Already, Singapore has the highest proportion of foreign immigrants in the whole of Asia. As of today, these foreign immigrants make up some one third of our total workforce of approximately 3 million. This is an almost astounding increase from a mere 3% composition in 1970.

Citizens have made their feelings clear on the issue. Foreigners who enter the country filling highly-qualified or shunned jobs by and large are widely accepted by Singaporeans.Those who enter to compete at the mid-level with Singaporeans in a highly saturated job market, however, are the source of worry.

Other than the economic front, Singaporeans have to also face stiff competition from foreigners in areas such as entrance into a local university.

The National University of Singapore, for instance, offers some of the most attractive scholarships in its bid to become a global university in Asia. As a result, a considerable amount of foreigners have taken up these scholarships and snatched away potential places in the university away from Singaporeans. Even without receiving the award of a scholarship, a vast proportion of students in the science and engineering faculty are composed of students from China or India.

Many also rue the equal benefits given to these foreigners without them having to bear the extra burden of serving a compulsory 2 years of National Service in the army.

Calls for them to serve National Service — or even a modified, less strenuous version for new immigrants who are much older — have been declined, as it is argued to be a huge natural disincentive for anyone entering our shores.

With a small and ageing population, the high and sudden influx of immigrants into Singapore have also worried a large proportion of citizens socially.

Although Singapore is a country originally composed of immigrants, reasoning should not be taken that the country ought to be more acceptive of the influx of foreigners into the country because of this historical background.

This is simply because when the ancestoral immigrants of present-day Singaporeans enter the country in the early part of the 19th and 20th century, no nation-state, a “Singapore” existed at that point of time. Singapore was merely an extension of Malaya and part of a bustling trade route along the Straits of Malacca.

Despite the fact that the ancestors of present day Singaporeans also from China and India, the cultural gap between them and foreign immigrants still remains large. To this point, there are several distinguishing traits between the both that suggest that integration has not been exactly seamless.

During the National Day Rally, PM Lee has made his stand unequivocally clear. Citizens first, then PR, then foreign immigrants. This simple formula should indeed be the backbone and thrust of all governmental policies. Much, however, remains to be seen how it eventually translates into concrete objectivity.

With the elections approaching on the horizon, the issue of immigrants, with its ramification on all fronts, looks set to be a hotly contested topic.

If the government is able to convince Singaporeans that it has tightened its immigration policies and that the high influx of foreigners is a necessary component of the country’s economic growth, chances are that it will win a high number of swing or undecided votes.

Be unable to do that, the opposition will surely seize the day, and possibly a GRC constituency pie as well.

The Kent Ridge Common’s editorial review happens every weekend, on an issue that has grabbed Singapore’s headlines in the past week.

Singaporeans flooded The Straits Times forum page with positive letters praising the ‘moving, inclusive’ speech delivered by PM Lee during the National Day Rally this year.

A self-titled critic of the government who was won over by PM Lee’s maiden speech six years ago, Patrick Low, wrote in this time again to describe his being moved by a speech delivered with ‘panache, pride and a touch of humour.’

“His inclusive approach has been fined-tuned to an art over the years,” said Patrick, arguing that PM Lee has tried to give as comprehensive a coverage as possible to the numerous issues confronting Singaporeans today.

“He never fails to highlight the efforts of the disadvantaged in overcoming their disabilities and the remarkable successes they achieve.”

PM Lee spent the bulk of his National Day Rally, described as being optimistic by some, discussing topics ranging from the quick recovery of the Singapore economy after the recession, to how Singaporeans are prized above non-citizens and the need to embrace the influx of immigrants.

In tackling them during the National Day Rally, some have praised PM Lee for not shying away from the sensitive topics and for his attempt to give answers to the some of pressing questions facing the everyday Singaporean today.

PM Lee also undertook pro-active measures to thank Singaporeans for their various contributions to the well-being of the country, among them the introduction of a $9,000 monetary award spread over various stages of a National Service Men’s career, to be debited into his CPF account.

Despite this, netizens and Opposition Parties alike have provided constructive criticisms of PM Lee’s National Day Rally, prompting serious and engaging discussions online.

The Reform Party was the one of the first to respond to PM Lee’s National Day message. Calling the message as a real ‘failure’ to concretely address some of the problems in Singapore today, The Reform Party suggests that PM Lee has relied on isolated anecdotes to calm the rising sentiments against the large presence of foreign workers in Singapore today, among others. In particular, it is argued that PM Lee did not manage explicitly detail how the government’s open-door policies towards foreigners have benefited the ordinary Singaporeans or older workers.

Certain netizens concur with this point. Arguing that the case of Ms. Zhao Xiaodong — a SBS Bus Captain who apparently received ‘fan mail’ when she went on leave — was an isolated one, some have pointed out that there are numerous ‘horror’ stories surrounding Chinese immigrants not only in the service industry, but also in the their day to day interactions with ordinary Singaporeans.

Furthermore, the citation of architect Khoo Peng Beng as a recent new immigrant who helped developed Singapore’s premier HDB estate The Pinnacle was criticized by some, particularly as former classmates of Khoo wrote in to claim that they have attended class at St. Patrick’s School in Singapore since 1983. According to them, Khoo ‘is as Singaporean’ as anyone can possibly be.

The economic recovery of Singapore following the downturn has also been pointed out to be a ‘leveraged version’ of what other Asian economies are experiencing, hinging on the back of a strong US recovery, which is fading fast.

The National Day Rally 2010 was held at the University Cultural Center, and NUS President Tan Chor Chuan was among some of its notable attendees.

Not surprisingly, many graduands leave school with debts that can amount to as high as our entire first year annual income( approximately $30,000 or more). What a dismal graduation gift. Even before earning our 1^st paychecks, we are riddled with liabilities that could last us a significant portion of our lives.

Who’s to blame?
Playing the blame game is never productive, but in this case, it could shed some light onto why so many young Singaporean graduates are in debt even before they start earning a proper income.

When parents bear children, they are considered ‘dependents’ not because they are young, cute and cuddly, but because they are simply economically unproductive. This means that they don’t(and can’t) earn an income to support themselves and would have to depend on the adults to provide food,shelter,clothing and yes, education.

When these children grow up into university-going young adults, despite the capacity to engage in some degree of labour, they remain largely dependent. Dependency does not end with an age, but with the ability to be financially self-sufficient. Just as parents are expected to pay our negligible fees for kindergarden, primary school, secondary school or junior college, they are similarly responsible for that $7,000-a-year university tuition. So why aren’t parents footing the bill in Singapore(or elsewhere for that matter)?

Intergenerational Debt Transfer – Passing The Buck
The phenomenon of debt-ridden university graduates is not uncommon in a lot of countries. In the United States, some graduates have student loans that they continue repaying right up till the day they retire! Of course, college tuition in the US can get tremendously high. But in Singapore’s heavily-subsidized tertiary education system, we experience similar debt issues. These avoidable issues arise because of parents’ tendency to transfer their “debt” to their children.

When parents are unable(or unwilling?) to pay for their child’s university fees, they inadvertently pass the responsibility of providing an education for the child, to the child himself. They system of student loans has been structured in such a way that instead of parents taking up loans for their children, the children themselves( by now, 18 or 21 years old) have to bear the burden of a debt that rightfully belongs to the generation before them. Just as some governments can borrow too much in one generation and force the next to face insurmountable levels of fiscal debt,  many parents save too little and force their children to take on debts even before they start working.

Are Student Loan Debts Entirely Avoidable in Singapore?
It’s easy to avoid student loan debts. Get parents to fulfill their responsibilities and save for their children’s university education. Some graduates are lucky enough to have parents who have done just that – in Singapore, this is commonly done through endowment or savings plans.

But we don’t choose our parents at birth, nor can we determine their earning capacity. We may adamantly refuse to take up student loans, and insist that our parents fulfill their duty of paying for our education, but that would be a tad unfilial, wouldn’t it?

Even when parents agree to fund university fees through their CPF accounts, students are still required to repay the CPF money used. Alas, there is very little choice for the average Singaporean university student but to take up their “parents’ debt”. The transfering of intergenerational debts can exist in a vicious cycle – because of our own indebtedness, we may fail to save for our children’s future education expenses and thus force them down the road to indebtedness that we once travelled. And they then do the same to their children, and on and on.

Of course, we can choose to stop this dismal cycle and decide to spend less, and save more for our children. Perhaps, if we can’t partake in eradicating student loan debts today, we may be  far-sighted enough to do so for our children’s generation.

The Kent Ridge Common’s financial correspondent Azfar recently graduated with honors in Economics and Politics.

In truth, Malik surely did not mean the literal term of the word ‘burn’ when he wrote it on Facebook. Netizens who sprung to his defense cited several dictionaries that defined the term as ‘to chastise or denounce someone severely or excessively’, and this is what Malik meant surely with his usage of the word ‘burn’ as he further qualified it with a call to ‘rally together’ to vote the government out at the next elections.

Furthermore, his usage of the term was directed at a political party — a non-physical entity that is not capable of being literally ‘burnt’. If he meant the literal term of the word ‘burn’, how is it possible to ‘rally together’ against something that has been physically torched?

As prominent local blogger Mr. Brown pointed out in his CNNGo blog, the authorities sensitivities have been heightened with the term ‘torch’ especially since a politician was burnt with acid in a tragic attack some time ago. But if a comment like Malik’s, so obviously innocuous and careless if anything, could be taken to ‘incite violence’ and be deemed worthy of a crime, how safe are the things we write on the Internet?

Despite the strong denouncements of Malik’s arrest on the Internet, Singapore is not the first country to have arrested someone over comments written in Facebook. A while ago, three Lebanese students in their early 20s were arrested for posting defamatory comments on the Lebanese President Michel Suleiman on his official Facebook page. Closer to home, a 37-year old Thai man was arrested for insulting the Thai Royal Family on Facebook, a charge of Lese Majeste, nonetheless.

Although Singapore has ranked extremely poorly in the worldwide Freedom of the Press 2010 rankings — scoring the worst possible grade of ‘Not Free’ and ranking in 151th place next to Niger, the Internet has by and large remained unfiltered, becoming a crucial if not the only medium by which most Singaporeans express their discontent. A visit to any local socio-political blogsites quickly reveals a plethora of comments which could be easily taken to have an incendiary intent, putting one in the regions of a criminal charge.

Malik would most likely be ‘let off with a stern warning’ after he clarifies the usage of his words and corrects possible skewed interpretations. But the bigger question remains. How safe are our comments made on the Internet, on Facebook and various blogs that we may come to visit? Going beyond the ambit of Malik’s case, can someone — anyone at all — allege that our comments incite hatred, racial/religious tension, or violence, thus putting the liability of a criminal charge upon us?

If anything, one thing becomes really clear. The quick, unthinking status update you place on your Facebook just before you leave your office after a long day at work might potentially land you a criminal charge. Already, technology exists to unearth the identity beyond anonymous comments placed on the Internet, just as a Columbia University student sued anonymous commentators on YouTube. There is nothing anonymous about the Internet — just the illusion of it. And this strikes fear in a sizable amount of Internet users who have been posting irascible or irresponsible comments on various sites and forums.

The fear is further accentuated due to the nature of our language with which we use in expressing ourselves. Where the usage of metaphors blur the boundaries of literal definitions, who should decide which is the proper definition of the metaphor? Indeed, who should determine whether a word is to be taken as a metaphor, or not?

This is, however, most certainly a false question to begin in arguing why Malik should be innocent of his charges. The question is not whether Malik intended his word to be a metaphor or not, but that really, Malik did not ‘incite’ any form of violence whatsoever with his statement. Surely, nobody felt like literally burning anyone after reading a spontaneous comment posted on Facebook.

Singaporeans need a place to vent, whether it’s about the massive floods, the Youth Olympic Games or Mas Selamat’s escape from prison. These vents may take the form of an ironical, humorous or even fictional story. Nobody should assert that these spontaneous rants mean anything more than a venting of frustration and expression of a general opinion or stand.

For this reason, my Facebook status update of “I’ll kill you!!” sent to my friend after a party gone mad last night should definitely not cause me to be liable to any criminal charges, now or in the future.

The Kent Ridge Common’s editorial review happens every weekend, on one issue that has grappled headlines in Singapore in the week.

According to the reports, the family was not allowed to pass a simple message of a few words prepared for the President.

Netizens were split on whether the pleas — which included an emotional kneeling down outside the gates of the Istana — had helped Vui Kong’s case.

Many have claimed that if the government grants Vui Kong a pardon, it may appear as being soft and weak on its stance on drug traffickers.

Others begged to differ, arguing that the family is not pleading for the government to absolve Vui Kong for his crime, but merely to spare his life from the gallows.

“I hope they have a heart of gold,” one wrote. “(The government) need not to let him totally (off).. (they can) put him in prison for more than 30 years or even life sentence.”

“That itself already speak great volumes to those drug trafficking people that by carrying drugs.”

Vui Kong was 18 years of age when he was charged with trafficking 47g of drugs into Singapore. Many hold that he has a very high chance of rehabilitation and may serve as a good role model for potential drug abusers.

Netizens are contributing in many ways possible to potentially help save Vui Kong’s life. Other than spreading the news and facts of the case through various mediums such as Facebook and Twitter, many have taken more affirmative action such as signing the official online petition.

Some are persuading others to do more. “You may have a safe job,” one wrote. “A university degree, comfortable and living well off in Singapore.”

“But if this does not move you to do something other than sitting down on your armchair and saying ‘oh well, what a sad story’ and moving on to the next news site… then (everything you had) might be in vain.”

The death by hanging of former drug convicts in Singapore did not stop Vui Kong from committing his crime.

But a Vui Kong teaching other under-privileged and disadvantaged children or youths the hard lessons he learnt with his life just might.

Over a round of beer with my friends during our usual get together in the weekend, my friend quipped that she managed to catch a glimpse of the Youth Olympic Games (YOG) in the morning, particularly the men’s table tennis event featuring 14 year old Clarence Chew.

“Clarence Chew,” she said. “Don’t you think that name is any special?”

I was confused for a moment. Clarence is not a common name but I sure had a few friends named Clarence in my all-boys primary and secondary school days.

“Huh, what’s so special about the name Clarence?”

“It’s not the name, name. It’s the fact that it isn’t a Cai Guoqin or Su Dongpoh!”

At that I finally realized what she meant.

For my friend, it was the first time in a long while that she was actually glued on the television because of a local sports event. And mind you, she is not exactly your sports fanatic.

But it was that one special reason in a long, long time that was what that caused her to be glued to the television that very morning.

It was a Singaporean, born and bred within this country, who grew up within the educational and social system that we all did, facing the need for a comeback having lost the first set to his Swedish opponent.

“What the hell,” she raised her voice suddenly. “I admit I wanted to him to win. Pretty badly.”

Don’t get me wrong. I am not going to start a debate here on whether the adult sportsmen who became Singaporeans for the sake of winning tournaments under the banner of our country flag should be considered true Singaporeans, or if they should be congratulated for their efforts at all.

Give a pat on their back if you must, and consider them part of the colorful social fabric of Singapore if you will.

But in 14 year old Clarence Chew I saw a glimpse of myself playing ping pong under that old, broken table tennis shed near the garden of my primary school compound, sweating under the sweltering Singapore heat, completely engrossed in the game despite having just finished the tuck-shop’s 50 cent nasi-lemak.

And I kind of suspect that it is the exact reason why so many Singaporeans flocked to support the Cubs against Haiti in the semi-finals over the weekend.

If anything, this sends a strong signal to whoever is responsible for managing the national sports teams out there.

It is not that Singaporeans are apathetic when it comes to being patriotic or supportive of their national teams.

It is because there is a lack of connection to the teams representing us.

It is this connection that cannot be settled by a mere debate of whether these sports persons should be considered true Singaporeans.

For all we want to do is to support a team that really rose through the ranks in our country’s system, who pursued his dreams in football, table tennis, badminton despite his/her parents urges to pursue a more monetarily viable career.

It is athletes such as 14-year Clarence Chew and our young YOG Football team, the Cubs, that must be nurtured and brought to the very next level.

Their talents must not be denied by the system, and they should not be replaced by another foreign athlete who became a Singaporean, even if they are necessarily better/more skilled.

For when 14-year old Clarence Chew fought back from one set down and defeated his Swedish opponent in the next three sets, he had the true blood of Singapore in his eyes. The passion of the Majulah Singapura was in him.

The YOG taught me so much more than a series of lessons learnt from the food-poisoning and lackluster ticket sales.

And I have a young athlete with the heart of a lion to thank for.

The Good: The crowd, the crowd, the crowd. Baybeats 2010 should be remembered for the amazing people in the audience that gave a rousing reception to the musicians adorning our shores the very weekend. From the kids in the mosh pits at Powerhouse to the veteran indierockers by the Esplanade bay near Arena, the crowd was energetic, responsive and highly charged up at the Baybeats festival. Of worthy mention should also be the free packets of drinks given out by the event organizers, drinks that had to be drunk straight from a cut in the packet rather than from a straw because of the efforts of the festival to go green. Little details like the friendly staff at the info/help booths explaining the green efforts made it even better. Overall, everyone contributed in their ways to make the festival a smashing one.

Music-wise, local band Lunarin certainly did not disappoint. The hard work that they did to prepare for their 30 minute set at the Powerhouse at the festival was obvious in their tight and powerful rendition of singles such as Midas and Zero Point Red from their new album, Duae. The trio fronted by Linda Ong helmed the stage well and delivered an impressive array of heavy rock riffs in their music reminiscent of their stylistic influences such as A Perfect Circle and Mastodon. The band will be formally launching their album on October 1st with “Duae: Show Number II” at the Art House, promising to belt out certain tracks such as ‘The Sky (Algiers)’ that they have not managed to squeeze in their half an hour set at the festival.

The Bad: Without a doubt, the fireworks across the Marina Bay that happened in the middle of several sets both on the first and second day of the festival. Given that most of these musicians have put in effort in their preparations for a great gig at the festival, it is badly planned at best and downright rude at worse that their music ended up being drowned out by noise of the fireworks across the bay. The subsequent smoke from the fireworks breezed into the festival that made a fun night turn into a potentially choking experience for some. There should be one allowable act to dominate the beauty of the bay that weekend, and without a doubt it should have been BayBeats.

The Ugly: King Ly Chee, a hardcore metal band from Hong Kong, had an excellent stage presence and bantered with the crowd, showing off their local knowledge of dishes such as laksa as the closing act at Powerhouse on the second night. But the organizers had explicitly warned them not to swear on stage, and as anyone can predict, telling a hardcore band that is an instant recipe for disaster. The crowd quickly picked on the band’s innuendos during their break in between sets and descended into a mindless chant of a four-lettered explicitive.

And of course, whoever can forget the entire police fiasco during Basement in My Loft’s set, when a videographer who supposedly had permission to film the event got into a misunderstanding with the police and ended up being chased by the men in blue. Adrian Jones, the frontman, was at least mildly disturbed by the police chase incident and dedicated the band’s next song to the videographer, who’s believed to have escaped.