Sarong Party Girl Izzy
Everyone knows the Singapore government has almost absolute control of all media in the country, but bloggers have until recently been allowed a certain amount of unique freedom to talk about political issues and other controversial elements of the city state.
Until yesterday, when two young bloggers were arrested for allowing anti-Malay comments on their blogs. Looks like the blogging community is going down, along with the political documentarian, groups of four protestors, and almost ever political opponent who has surfaced in Singapore in the last four decades. While nobody supports racist commentary, there is also the issue of free speech, which has taken another serious blow in Singapore
Two Singapore bloggers charged for racist remarks
Sept 12, 2005
Singapore
Reuters
Two men were charged in a Singapore court on Monday with violating the city-state's sedition laws by posting anti-Muslim comments on their Internet homepages, police said.
The two ethnic Chinese men, aged 25 and 27, face charges for promoting ill-will and hostility between ethnic communities on their personal websites, or "blogs," in June.
The police said both men were accused of posting racist remarks aimed at Singapore's mostly-Muslim ethnic Malay community. If convicted, they may be jailed for up to three years or fined up to S$5,000, or both.
Singapore has one of the highest Internet penetration rates in the world, but also some of the toughest media laws.
Singapore police have wide powers to intercept online messages, and Internet service providers are required to block websites containing material that may be a threat to public security, national defense, racial and religious harmony and public morality.
Political and religious websites must also be registered with the authorities.
The government has defended these controls as necessary to maintain ethnic harmony among its 4.2 million people.
About three-quarters of Singapore's population is ethnic Chinese. Ethnic Malays account for 14 percent and ethnic Indians for another eight percent.
Link**********************
Mr. Brown has some thoughts on the subject, followed by over 50 comments.
Update: They were charge for their content on blogs and forums. Mr Miyagi has a view on this. And here is the CNA report: Two bloggers charged under Sedition Act over racist remarks.
"The charges read that Lim had, on 16 and 17 June 2005, posted anti-Muslim remarks on the general discussion forum of [deleted because matter is at issue at court].
Koh was alleged to have done the same on 12, 15 and 17 June on another website, [deleted because matter is at issue at court].
In doing so, they are alleged to have committed an act which had a seditious tendency. This is defined as promoting feelings of ill-will and hostility between different races of the population of Singapore."
About the act itself, Sammyboy himself says: "Based on the the list, just about every mother's son and daughter who has ever posted any messages here will soon be in jail."
If anyone has more details, post in the comments here. I will update this post when I have more info.
Publishing race hate in any medium, be it blogs, email, print, tv, radio, or a piece of paper you put on people's car, is a criminal offence in Singapore, and I believe in many countries, like the UK.
Something to bear in mind, whether you are a blogger or not.
Mr. Brown Link with Comments*************************
And finally, Steven McDermott at Singabloodypore has more links, comments, and a look at what exactly is the Sedition Act.
Channel News Asia
Pearl Forss
Sept 12, 2005
SINGAPORE : For the first time in Singapore, two bloggers have been charged under the Sedition Act with making racist remarks. Twenty-five-year-old Nicholas Lim Yew faces two charges and 27-year-old Benjamin Koh Song Huat faces three.
A subordinate court was told that both their blogs had racist content, which sparked off a heated discussion online. The charges read that Lim had, on 16 and 17 June 2005, posted racist remarks on the general discussion forum of www.doggiesite.com. Koh was alleged to have done the same on 12, 15 and 17 June on another website, www.upsaid.com.
In doing so, they are alleged to have committed an act which had a seditious tendency. This is defined as promoting feelings of ill-will and hostility between different races of the population of Singapore. Both men are out on bail of S$10,000 each. The case is expected be heard again on September 21.
A person is deemed to have committed an offence under the Sedition Act if he performs any act which has a seditious tendency, or conspires with any person to do so. It is also an offence to utter any seditious words or to print, publish, sell, distribute, reproduce or import any seditious publication.
First time offenders can be fined up to S$5,000, or jailed up to three years, or both. For subsequent offences, they can be jailed up to five years and have their seditious publications forfeited and destroyed. - CNA /ct
Singabloodypore Link******************
First, they came to take away the homosexuals, but I wasn't worried as I was straight and had no fond feelings for gay people. Then they returned to take away the Bulgarians, but I had no sympathy as I had lighter skin and the Bulgarians had bad odor. Then they arrived at my door to seize my cat. Then the Malays were taken away, and nobody cared. Then they arrived to take away my family, and I cried, but nobody noticed.
This is modern day Singapore. Sorta like George Orwell 1984, but better.
First they came for the dog lovers, and I did not speak out because I am a cat owner.
The Singapore blogosphere is reacting strongly to the sedition charges against the two Singaporeans who made racist comments on bulletin boards and blogs. There are good roundups at From a Singapore Angle, commentary and trackbacks at Tomorrow.sg, a truly awe-inspiring list of links from Elia Diodati. Outside of the Lion City, former Singapore resident A.M. Mora y Leon muses at Publius Pundit and the story has hit Slashdot.
Regardless of whether or not racism is punishable under the terms of the Singapore sedition act (and it does seem to be) it is disturbing that the government has chosen this particular rule to punish someone for posting messages on a dog-lovers forum. That's especially so given that the law hasn't been used in a decade.
Those jailed under the Internal Security Act for plotting to blow up a Singaporean mass-transit station were seeking maximum fatalities and, in the long run, to bring the island into an extended caliphate. Still, the PAP decided to save the sedition charge for the ignorant potty-mouth poster at doggielover.com.
If the government thinks a few posts at a dog-lovers forum will "upset racial harmony" more than an Islamist terrorist bomb plot, I fear the PAP is more paranoid and out of touch than I had thought.
Double Yellow notes:
Not Everyone needs be Charged: Arguing that other people at various forums made worse racist comments is no defence. The Attorney General I guess has the power to choose who he wants to haul into court and on what charge.
AsiaPundit counters:
Laws that are enforced arbitrarily are not just laws. If the state does not prosecute those who've similarly violated the law, then the judicial system in the state is arbitrary and possibly corrupt. This happens everywhere for small crimes (such as drug possession in the US or Canada), and should be corrected. But for the big ones like sedition, sticking to precedent is especially important. Laws that are not enforced should be scrapped or adjusted. Else, it is arbitrary justice. . . and arbitrary justice is injustice.
Usually I'm a defender of Singapore and, believe it or not, the PAP. The latter has, again, embarrassed me.
Asia Pundit on the Day They Arrive***********************
Singapore Commentary, now known as Mr. Wang Says So, has some more comments from his background as an attorney in Singapore.
13 September 2005
Seditious, Seditious
It is midnight as Mr Wang begins typing this. He really should be in bed. Or working on his book project. But here he is, composing yet another post on the Case of the Seditious Bloggers. Mr Wang is feeling ... a bit frustrated. He has just poked around the blogosphere. His general impression is that many bloggers out there just do not understand the situation properly.
So Mr Wang feels duty-bound to forgo his sleep again, and help to cast a little light into the Collective Darkness of the Blogospheric Superconscious. Well, God bless Mr Wang's noble heart.
Where to begin? First, the name of the relevant statute - the Sedition Act. Woah, soooooo scary. Don't be silly, children. The name in itself tells you nothing. What's important is the substance of the law in it. The word sedition has all kinds of nasty connotations but if you really want to know whether the law is scary, you have to look at the actual provisions.
Under the Sedition Act, first-time offenders can be fined up to S$5,000, or jailed up to three years, or both. As maximum sentences go, this is not particularly scary. The maximum sentence here is roughly the same as that for simple theft (the least serious form of theft), which is punishable with up to three year's imprisonment and fine (no limit specified).
Also note that in practice, maximum sentences are rarely imposed. For example, although the maximum sentence for simple theft is three years and a fine, the reality is that first-time thieves usually get a fine and no jail time at all (if they do get a jail term, it is typically for a day or two).
Maximum sentences are reserved for the most severe kind of cases that you would be able to imagine, for each type of offence. Most of the time, maximum sentences are just theoretical, something that SPH journalists always bother to tell you about, but which hardly happen in real life.
Also Mr Wang wishes to point out that it is not as if the Sedition Act suppresses all speech about race and religion. Mr Wang does not think that any blogger who wishes to engage in serious, sincere debate and discussion about social issues has any real reason to fear the Sedition Act. The Act itself says:
"Any act, speech, words, publication or other thing shall not be deemed to
be seditious by reason only that it has a tendency:
(a) to show that the Government has been misled or mistaken in any of its
measures;
(b) to point out errors or defects in the Government or the Constitution as
by law established or in legislation or in the administration of justice with a
view to the remedying of such errors or defects; [or]
(c) to persuade the citizens of Singapore or the residents in Singapore to
attempt to procure by lawful means the alteration of any matter in Singapore
..
if such act, speech, words, publication or other thing has not otherwise in
fact a seditious tendency."
Mr Wang is aware, of course, that bloggers may respond, "But Mr Wang, all this is pretty subjective, isn't it? Who is to say what constitutes serious, sincere discussion, and who is to say when such discussion will cross over into sedition?"
Well, of course there is an element of subjectivity, but are you unnecessarily frightening yourself? Do the facts of the present case, as we currently know them to be, warrant alarm on your own part? We already know that the two bloggers had advocated ethnic cleansing. One posted a doctored picture clearly designed to insult the Muslim religion. This is really extreme. Were YOU planning to go that far, in your "serious, sincere" discussion? If so, then be afraid, be very afraid. And when you too are charged under the Sedition Act, Mr Wang will clap his hands in glee. You deserve it.
On a separate note, Randy Kluver, NTU's well-known Internet expert, wonders why the Maintenance of Religious Harmony Act was not used. I am too lazy to poke around and refresh my memory of how the MRHA works. But from what I can recall, I think it is much more preferable to proceed under the Sedition Act.
If I recall correctly, the MHRA has provisions whereby the Minister can directly order action to be taken against the offending persons. As in the Internal Security Act, the MHRA excludes the courts (and the prosecution) from the process. From a civil rights perspective, this is not ideal. It is far better to have the bloggers charged under the Sedition Act, and brought to trial in open court. There is more fairness and transparency.
Also, the MHRA deals with religion, not race. Whereas the bloggers' posts were offensive not just on religious grounds, but also on racial grounds. Thus the MHRA is just not completely right to deal with these bloggers. Whereas the Sedition Act, designed to deal with the promotion of hostility between "different races or classes of the population of Singapore", comes a lot closer to the heart of the matter.
Mr. Wang at Commentary Singapore Talks about the Seditions Act
Since we recently got to know the 
Executed Bloggers to Date
Bring on the Saws!
Hong Kong Disneyland Wanchai-LKF
