Been pondering a little about the right to freedom of movement enshrined in Article 13(2) of the Singapore Constitution – especially in light of the passage in 2009 of the Public Order Act, and more recently, the Casino Control (Amendment) Act. Both these laws hamper, to varying degrees, the spatial mobility of Singaporeans within Singapore’s territory.
Continue reading ‘Freedom of Movement under the Singapore Constitution’
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:
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).
Continue reading ‘Racist Speech — Whose Fault is It, Anyway?’
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.
Continue reading ‘A Non-Citizen’s Constitutional (Non-)Right to Freedom of Speech in Singapore’
I’ve actually got a few issues that I want to blog about, but let me focus on just one: the BBC World Service Poll on press freedom. Some pertinent links here:
Anyway, these are the portions of the BBC Report I wish to address:
GlobeScan President Doug Miller comments, “While people generally support a free media, the Western view of the necessity of a free press to ensure a fair society is not universally shared across all regions of the world.” (p. 3, BBC Report)
*** *** ***
Freedom of the Press vs. Social Stability
People across 14 countries were asked to choose which of two statements on the freedom of the media was closest to their own view:
- Freedom of the press to report the news truthfully is very important to ensure we live in a fair society, even if it sometimes leads to unpleasant debates or social unrest.
- While freedom of the press to report news truthfully is important, social harmony and peace are more important which sometimes means controlling what is reported for the greater good.
In most countries, press freedom is considered more important than stability. The exceptions are India, Singapore and Russia where around 48 percent support controls to ensure peace and stability and around 40 percent feel press freedom supersedes stability. (p. 5, BBC Report)
I will attempt to deal with the normative, rather than the positive: should press freedom or social stability be regarded as more important?
Continue reading ‘Press freedom and social stability — of cake, and half-baked assumptions’
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.
Continue reading ‘Why blogging is not the antidote to illiberalism.’
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:
(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?
Continue reading ‘A post that’s NOT “full of vile and obscene invective”’
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.
