Archive for the ‘Law’ Category
Racist Speech — Whose Fault is It, Anyway?
A dude going by the rather charming moniker, Sexy Fragrance Prince, has been charged under s. 298 of the Penal Code. Since I’m presently researching on the topic of hate speech legislation, I thought I should weigh in a little on this debate.
A few good blog posts on this issue:
- Ian on the Red Dot, “Bloggers Should be Allowed to be as Racist as Possible”
- Simply Jean, “Local Blogger Arrested”
- Simply Inconceivable, “Jail the racist blogger. Legal?”
Before commenting on the free speech issues, I would note that the relevant provision used here is s. 298 of the Penal Code (for wounding another person’s racial or religious feelings with deliberate intention), and not the Sedition Act (as in 2005, with Benjamin Koh and his ilk).
The Pedra Branca Denouement: Between a Rock and a Hard Place?
To make up for a long absence, I will post in quick succession on a number of issues: Pedra Branca, racist bloggers, the Yaw Shin Leong mini-scandal, and (just in) the disciplinary fallout from Mas Selamat’s escape. Let me start with a short comment on Pedra Branca.
The Straits Times
May 26, 2008
SM: Accepting outcome shows maturing of ties
By Zakir Hussain
THE world court’s decision on Pedra Branca has untied a ‘tricky knot’ in bilateral ties between Singapore and Malaysia, Senior Minister Goh Chok Tong said yesterday.
Both sides can now ‘look forward instead of being bogged down by this issue’, he told reporters ahead of a charity golf tournament to raise funds for the needy in Yuhua constituency.
… … …
‘Personally, I’m disappointed that we did not get the award for Middle Rocks,’ he added.
‘I thought it would either be all or nothing, a binary solution, because the three rocky outcrops were quite close to one another.’
‘But nevertheless, there is a hint of Solomon in the decision,’ he said, referring to the Biblical king known for his wisdom.
‘And I think perhaps it’s the fair and best outcome for both sides.’
Perhaps the most famed example of King Solomon’s wisdom is chronicled in 1 Kings 3:16-28 of the Bible. Two female prostitutes come before Solomon with an infant boy, each claiming that the child is hers. Aside from the rather unflattering comparison which SM Goh draws between Singapore and Malaysia, and prostitutes, there is yet another difference between the story of Solomon and the Pedra Branca dispute.
In the former, Solomon merely threatened to cut up the child with a sword as a means of determining its true mother. With its ruling on Friday, however, the International Court of Justice (“ICJ”) actually severs in two the group of islands comprising Pedra Branca, Middle Rocks and South Ledge. (The judgment is available here.)
JI Detainee’s Escape: Another Argument Against the ISA?
So the controversy surrounding the Budget 2008 Debate (which I haven’t the time to follow) has been drowned out by this news of the Manhunt. A rifle-totting, able-bodied, combat-trained CPL Dave Teo is apparently small-fry in comparison with the unarmed, partly-crippled former chief of the Jemaah Islamiah.
The Straits Times was notably quick to publish a report assuring readers that security at the Whitley Road detention centre (“WRDC”) is “very tight”. Conveniently, the report cites anonymous “people who have visited detainees there”. Surely the level of security should be gauged (on a technical basis) against those of regular prisons like Changi and Queenstown Remand, rather than on the basis of the opinions of ‘visitors’ to the WRDC.
Already, two differences of the WRDC from regular prisons may be noted from the Straits Times report. The WRDC has no watchtowers, and it is housed within a complex which rather bizarrely includes a “heritage centre” (not exactly what you would expect in a highly-secured facility).
A Non-Citizen’s Constitutional (Non-)Right to Freedom of Speech in Singapore
Let’s talk about the rights to freedom of speech, expression and assembly in Singapore, with regard to non-citizens.
The inspiration behind this is a series of recent incidents involving foreigners attempting to weigh in on local civic discourse, or to express themselves artistically… and curtly rebuffed by the authorities. These include:
Douglas Sanders
A Professor Emeritus from Chulalongkorn University who had wanted to speak on “Sexual orientation in international law: the case of Asia”, but denied a PEMA licence. See Yawning Bread, “Bark and Crumble”.
Human Rights Torch Relay
The Relay, which spanned across 37 countries, arrived in Singapore, only for local police to seize two of the Torches, and question the event participants. See Singabloodypore, “Singapore Police Size Human Rights Torch ‘For Investigation’”.
Complaints Choir
The Choir, having had its lyrics approved by the MDA, sought a PEMA licence to perform publicly. The police said they would grant a licence only if the foreigners stepped out. The Choir then decided to perform only privately. See theonlinecitizen, “TOC Report: Bureacratic muddle leads to canning of International Fringe Festival event”.
Before I go on, let me (rather belatedly) say two things about the Complaints Choir incident.
First, we should note that the complaints in the lyrics were compiled so as to give voice to the grouses of average Singaporeans. The content wasn’t some highly toxic ‘Western’ idea that is anathema to our conservative society; it came from our society.
Even if there were foreigners in the choir, they were merely repeating (call it ‘performing’ if you wish) the habitual complaints of most Singaporeans. It is a dangerous precedent, I think, if merely echoing someone else’s opinion can be censored, even though the opinion itself is unobjectionable (the lyrics, indeed, had gotten the MDA green-light) and notorious.
Second, the police, in stating that they would allow public performances only if the foreign members refrained from singing, offered what was in fact a poisoned olive-branch. Is it reasonable to expect a choir, having practised so laboriously, to then perform without some of its members, and potentially, its conductor?
Anyway, back to what I want to discuss. Feel free to skip this, because it is rather dry. The discussion, though, is so far quite sketchy, and is purely descriptive.
Why blogging is not the antidote to illiberalism.
And so, I’ve again reneged on a promise to blog more frequently. I’ve been working / interning, so much of my day is consumed by the mundane. Some of my time at home is also devoted to editing and proof-reading any number of soon-to-be-published academic articles. Plus, I’ve also been catching up on my reading on legal philosophy, so outside of work, I’m usually in a ruminatory frame of mind, not at all conducive to dolling out trenchant social critiques.
One of the books I’ve been reading is Cass Sunstein’s Republic.com (not the latest edition, Republic.com 2.0, which I must get my hands on). His basic thesis is a provocative and counter-intuitive one: government should regulate the Internet in order to promote freedom of speech. His supporting arguments are too intricate to be set out in full here.
An important cornerstone of his view, however, is that there is a distinction between ‘freedom’ in the sense of consumer sovereignty, and ‘freedom’ in the sense of a true deliberative democracy. Left to their own devices, people will choose based on their pre-existing inclinations, i.e. as mere consumers of information. These inclinations, however, are the very product of the environment we happen to be placed in.
A post that’s NOT “full of vile and obscene invective”
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?
Final Reflections on s 377A – For Now…
Lest I begin sounding like a broken record, this will be my last commentary on s. 377A for some time. It’s not what I envision to be my cause célèbre, unlike a contemporary of mine =)
Section 377A: The Final Bastion?
From the viewpoint of many conservatives, s. 377A is their Alamo — the final bastion for the forces of goodness, decency and propriety, the place where they must valiantly make their last stand. Lose s. 377A, and (if the conservatives are to be believed) the gates of hell will be irreversibly opened, unleashing wickedness and depravity upon our society: sexual licentiousness, bestiality, incest, pedophilia, necrophilia, and other unspeakable abominations.
Very gutsy, very sanctimonious… the only problem is that they have chosen the wrong place to make their stand.
