Category: Laws of our land

“This is not what I meant by videoconferencing!” – mr brown on 5 and Mr Miyagi on CNA

mr brown and myself were interviewed by Mediacorp news last week and our segments were screened tonight separately on Ch 5 and CNA respectively. We were asked our views as regards blogging and podcasting about the upcoming General Elections. We spoke at length about the issue. Very at length. Until they had to summarise our views into a 10 – 15 second segment.

I know it’s old news, this blogging and the elections thing, but if you lot are so inclined as to blog about the elections and rallies, please, look up not just the Parliamentary Elections Act, but any other Act of Parliament that may regulate blogging. Fuck lah, go read everything. It’s good for you.

Technorati Tags: blog, channelnewsasia, elections, Mr Miyagi, mrbrown, Singapore

In between having to work, I thought idly about why the prosecutors chose to charge the two bloggers/forummers under the Sedition Act. One of the first thoughts that came to mind was ‘what about the Religious Harmony Act’? (The other thought was, ‘wah lao, now damn crowded, better wait until 2pm to have lunch).

At least one other blogger has asked the same question as well.

So, I searched online for the Religious Harmony Act. And couldn’t find it.

It’s called ‘Maintenance of Religious Harmony Act‘, implying, in my opinion, that there already is religious harmony, and that this Act of Parliament was enacted to maintain this status quo.

Technorati Tags: blog, racism, religious harmony act, sedition, singapore

Continue reading “Laws of our land Part IV: Racism & Maintenance of Religious Harmony Act”

Excerpt:

Bloggers react to news of charge against 2 for ‘racist rants’
TWO bloggers were charged on Monday under the Sedition Act for allegedly racist comments made on an online forum and on a website. Naturally, this has sent ripples through the blogging community.

Read more at TODAYonline. (PDF version here).

Technorati Tags: blog, sedition, singapore, TODAY

Continue reading “TODAY: What’s ‘sedition?’ debate goes online”

The New Paper: Simply electric!

Lordy, this matter has consumed me. But before I go further, there’s one thing that I have to be mindful of when discussing the case.

Channelnews Asia called the other night to tell me that the names of the offending websites had been taken down from their news article. I said, ‘orh, ok, what’s that gotta do wif me?’

Then an ST reporter called to ask me some questions, and said that they had been informed by their management that some of the things they talked about in yesterday’s newspaper report shouldn’t have been talked about because they were subjudeese. I said, ‘har’? He said, ‘subjudeese, you know, when something is part of a court case, you cannot talk about it, in case the judge decides to throw the poor buggers in jail just because he’s been influenced?’

I say, ‘Orh. Yah, I knew that’.

So, folks, don’t talk about the things about the case that are sub judice, ok? Which things? I can’t tell you. Because they are sub judice.

Nabeh, you say! What kind of cockamamie explanation is that? Well, I say what is what, and you take it as is or else I’ll functus your officio and nudum your pactum!

(After the case is over, depending on the situation, we may not be able argue over the merits either, because by then, the matter may have been res judicata, but that’s another story).

iTunes is playing an illegal copy of Lady Madonna from the album “Anthology 2 – Disc 2” by Beatles of which I have the original CD.

Technorati Tags: blog, sedition, Singapore

A lot of us (me included, though I’ve suspected for awhile) found out this morning that if you make a racist comment on a forum or a blog and you can be charged under the Sedition Act.

In fact, there are a variety of things you could do on your blog that might be construed as an act with a seditious tendency (s.3.1), even this blog post, if I’m not careful, and in my stream of consciousness, end up writing things that “raise discontent or disaffection amongst the citizens of Singapore or the residents in Singapore” (s.3.1(d))

So, the fellas charged this morning allegedly made racist remarks on an open forum and on a website/blog, and would have been charged under ss. 4.1(c), 4.2, 3.1(e). (Anyone with detailed information, please leave comments or trackback).

I’ll say now that I’m all against racism and racist remarks online and off, and that regardless of the law, I think it is repulsive and wrongful behaviour.

And as regards the law, outlawing racism is obviously not unique to Singapore. There are the Australian anti-racial vilification laws (e.g. Racial Vilification Act 1996 (South Australia), where you will find that the punishments are quite severe, even when compared with our very own Sedition Act.

Even as I write this post as quickly as I can, newswires around the world have already or are about to pick up on the screaming headline ‘Bloggers Charged With Sedition in Singapore’, (with Steven McDermott probably sharpening his scissors and thickening his glue for a bit of cut and paste action as I write), which as you can see, isn’t really the issue.

For mine, the issue is a public relations related one. We have laws to protect against racism, and while these laws ain’t broke, they sure could do with a little polishing. Enact an anti-racial vilification law, fellas. Leave the Sedition Act for specific seditious acts against the State.

[Series: Laws of our land Part II, Part I]

Surf stop: Tomorrow.sg: Two bloggers charged under Sedition Act over racist remarks

Technorati Tags: blog, racism, sedition, Singapore