The Thio Li-Ann vs. Alfian Sa’at spat has left a sour aftertaste to the s. 377A controversy. Suffice to say, my estimation of a person falls dramatically when:
- You’re a highly-educated Singaporean who professes to be a ‘liberal’, and yet have “never heard of” Alfian Sa’at.
- You construe one silly, juvenile e-mail with choice epithets like “you are fucked up” and “I’ll piss on your grave”, as ‘harassment’.
- You make a police report about it.
(I still have a heck lot of respect for her as an academic, though.)
I think the main reason why people are so wary of lawyers in general is the suspicion that, given our better grasp of the law, we can always invoke, say, s.1958B(32)(iv) of the I Hate Your Guts (Amendment) Act, to screw someone over that we don’t like. So, when we talk legalese, you take our word for it, while cursing silently behind our backs. You know that there’s probably a catch somewhere, that the law can’t really be that much of an ass — but why take the chance?
Insisting on one’s strict legal rights (whatever they be) is like training a bazooka on a cockroach… it smacks of overkill, and comes across as rather uncivil indeed. Worse, it is something arguably worse than breaking the law: using the law to strong-arm one’s opponents into submission.
Anyway, you might be curious to know, what comprises the crime of ‘harassment’?
Miscellaneous Offences (Public Order and Nuisance) Act
Intentional harassment, alarm or distress
13A. —(1) Any person who in a public place or in a private place, with intent to cause harassment, alarm or distress to another person —(a) uses threatening, abusive or insulting words or behaviour…
thereby causing that person or any other person harassment, alarm or distress, shall be guilty of an offence and shall be liable on conviction to a fine not exceeding $5,000.
Can the law be so absurd, though, that just one e-mail comprising 4 lines amounts to ‘harassment’?
Of course not.
“The essence of harassment is not just repetitive conduct but includes prolonged or persistent or sustained conduct.” (Chee Siok Chin v. Minister for Home Affairs [2006] 1 Sing. L.R. 582 at para. 124, per V.K. Rajah J.).
And obviously, this statement accords with common-sense.
On the other hand, there also happens to be this provision in the Penal Code:
False charge of offence made with intent to injure.
211. Whoever, with intent to cause injury to any person, institutes or causes to be instituted any criminal proceeding against that person, or falsely charges any person with having committed an offence, knowing that there is no just or lawful ground for such proceeding or charge against that person, shall be punished with imprisonment for a term which may extend to 2 years, or with fine, or with both… [emphasis added]
In short: please, don’t abuse the legal process.
*** *** ***
A little now by way of response to Prof Thio’s article, “Secularism, the Singapore Way“, which ran in the Insight section of the Straits Times about 2 days ago. She makes a point that she has made several times before in the public sphere: that religion should not be excluded from public policy debates, and that to do so would be undemocratic.
First, Prof Thio makes an odd distinction, arguing that religion should be separated from ‘politics’, but not from ‘public policy’. I don’t quite comprehend this argument, but what I understand her to be saying is that the ‘authorities’, i.e. the Cabinet, government ministries, statutory boards, etc., should not espouse religious views, whereas ordinary citizens and their representatives in Parliament should be free to do so. Moreover, while religious views can be taken in account while debating policies, they should be excluded when making policies.
This is a pretty odd stand. Effectively, it concedes that the Government will allow you to ventilate your religious views as much as you want, but it won’t listen to them at all. Or what is Prof Thio saying?
The second point is this. An open, democratic society assumes that all views are treated with equal regard, that every opinion may be attacked and thoroughly dissected. Just as everyone is entitled to express an opinion, everyone is entitled to express disagreement with someone else’s opinion.
The difficulty, though, is that religion is usually treated with kid-gloves (to paraphrase Richard Dawkins). While we don’t have a crime of heresy, s. 298 of the Penal Code makes it a crime to “utter words… with deliberate intent to wound the religious feelings of any person”. Quite apart from our legislation, our culture is one that exhibits an uncommon deference towards religious views. You don’t see the same degree of caution when people are talking about the economy, or gastronomic tastes, or careers, or any other subject, do you? You can question my belief that the law is an honourable profession, but you can’t question my religious beliefs (not that I have any).
Consider the effect of this sentence: “I believe that Marxism is built on several false premises, that it is morally bankrupt, and that no reasonable person should build his world-view on such a questionable philosophy.”
Now substitute ‘Marxism’ with ‘Christianity’, ‘Buddhism’, ‘Islam’, ‘Judaism’ and so on, and consider the effect.
The reality is that there is no equal treatment between non-religious and religious views. The latter are already handled more favourably, since criticism of religious views is heavily censored and censured, whether by law or by custom.
The logical stand is this: if you wish to allow religious views to be aired freely in public policy debates, then you must also allow such religious views to come under scrutiny and criticism, with no less intensity than that which may be directed at other, non-religious views. Free expression implies free expression of disagreement.
If, however, the religious cannot accept this, then religious views should, as a working rule of thumb, be excluded from public policy debates.
I like this post.
I wonder what she’ll say at her talk tmr. I’d attend had I not already promised to have tea with Bell. haha.
I think many sound minded people like you have missed the point completely.
All the talks about equality, about right to disgreement, about logic cuts no ice with deeply religious people.
One has to remind himself that in every religion lies a sacred cow, so deeply enmeshed that even the argumentatively skilled,tactical, persuasive, and charismatic are unable to alter or convince them of otherwise.
Really, many of these people had subject the most personal details of their life under the scrutiny of their religion. Every matter, from the most significant to the negligible, is circumscribed by the dictions of their religious text.
A famous philosopher, Pierre Bayle, once claimed that, ” It’s sometimes a disadvantage to reason with People of shallow Understandings; for be their Intention ever so honest, they shall wrangle about a thousand things solidly prov’d, for want of comprehending the Force of an Argument.”
A logical argument presented to a pious individual would be equivalent to the idea of true democracy presented to the Singapore goverment.
I do not wish to spill cold water, but this remains true, however dampening it might sound.
Hi yonanz,
Thanks for leaving a comment.
I have no hope that religion will ever cease to be a sacred cow — too much to ask. Nor do I seek to persuade the pious to yield to the force of logical argument.
I simply address Prof Thio’s argument that we should treat religious views and non-religious views equally, and that we should allow both to be freely expressed in the public square. After all, here is a pious individual offering a purportedly logical argument about the place of religion in a deliberative democracy. So I deal solely with her argument; my rebuttal is not contingent on the validity of religious views.
My point is, ‘equal treatment’ cuts both ways. If we permit the unrestrained airing of religious views in public policy debates, then we ought also to permit the unrestrained criticism of such religious views.
Given that the pious probably cannot accept such head-on criticisms of their views, ‘equal treatment’ entails that the airing of religious views in public policy debates must be circumscribed to some extent. Otherwise, it would imply that certain groups in society may freely express views without other people being allowed to freely criticize their views.
Such an outcome would be undemocratic (because unequal), contrary to what Prof Thio suggests.
Hi host,
I perfectly concur with your point that “My point is, ‘equal treatment’ cuts both ways”.
However, my concern is still this. “then we ought also to permit the unrestrained criticism of such religious views.”
Even though we ought to do so, do you think this is ever achievable? In the normative sense, yes we ought to promote “equal treatment’. in the positive sense, not going to happen in singapore.
Why? I refer back to the aforesaid sacred cow. This cow is so sacred that no one can/ought to criticize it. And what steps did Singapore government put in place to affirm the alleged sanctity of religion in our society?
“Uttering words, etc., with deliberate intent to wound the religious feelings of any person.
298. Whoever, with deliberate intention of wounding the religious or racial feelings of any person, utters any word or makes any sound in the hearing of that person, or makes any gesture in the sight of that person, or places any object in the sight of that person, or causes any matter however represented to be seen or heard by that person, shall be punished with imprisonment for a term which may extend to one year, or with fine, or with both.
Promoting enmity between different groups on ground of religion or race, and doing acts prejudicial to maintenance of harmony
298A. Whoever ––
(a) by words, either spoken or written, or by signs or by visible representations or otherwise, promotes or attempts to promote, on grounds of religion or race, disharmony or feelings of enmity, hatred or ill-will between different religious or racial groups or communities; or
(b) commits any act which is prejudicial to the maintenance of harmony between different religious or racial groups or communities, and which disturbs or is likely to disturb the public tranquility,
shall be punished with imprisonment which may extend to 3 years, or with fine, or with both.”
These enacted laws make it all the more difficult for people to alter the status quo i.e proposing “fair treatment” both ways.
So, as much as I agree with you wholeheartedly that in the normative sense, we ought to promulgate such democratic practice, sadly the reality indicates otherwise.
Cheers.
Rather interesting post i must say. Indeed one way to get away with saying anything at all is to invoke the sacred cow called religion.
However I do wonder, what if a Catholic criticises one of the mega churches…would the law intervene in that instance?
la nausée,
You write well. Perhaps the KTM can share his views about the separation religion and politics (and no – the KTM is not try to second-guess what the learned Dr Thio is trying to say even if he might sound like it).
It is important to separate religion from politics because if we run a parliamentary democracy where the churches and mosques tell their followers to vote for certain politicians, then we are in trouble. :-(
On the other hand, it is important to recognize that there are no right answers in public policy. It’s all about making trade-offs — and in making these tradeo-ffs, more often than not, it’s about values and not necessary about logic. We have to recognize the influence that religion has on the values of the people and because we like to think that the decisions in public policy are somehow aligned with what the people want, the influence of religion on public policy is something that cannot be avoided.
Perhaps the confusion here arises over the definitions of politics and public policy. Politics is about winning votes. Public policy is about improving lives. Unfortunately, they are not always the same thing. :-(
erm!… I must said that this is one of the finest blog I ever see!
I blogroll your blog, darling; Hopefully you shall allow it!
Thank for the interesting article!
I like the blog. Will be back.
I’m pretty certain Thio didn’t actually feel harrassed, BTW. If you’re intimidated, you don’t generally announce that fact in a national Parliamentary debate, as that tends to give the alleged perpetrator encouragement to continue. Clearly, as far as I’m concerned, she was just playing a political card.
I really enjoy reading your blog entries. They exude wisdon, wit and rational thinking. Please keep them coming. Can’t have enough of them.
Hi la nausée,
An impressive article, crystal clear and well-argued. Would you be interested in joining Clearthought Singapore? We are a loose association of skeptical blogs, currently four-strong.
If you don’t like joining blog rings, then it’s ok. I’ll definitely come back often as a regular reader.
Thanks for the great post, and best regards!