| September
2005
Hate speech and seditious white elephants
|
|
|||||
|
|
||||||
|
Although the ordinary meaning of the word "sedition" is "conduct or language inciting rebellion against the authority of a state; resistance to and overthrow of a government; insurrection", our particular law uses a broader definition of the term. Firstly, it defines "seditious" as something, e.g. an "act, speech, words, publication" that has a "seditious tendency". And then it explains "seditious tendency" as: Seditious tendency. It appears that the last item (e) is the relevant clause here. On hearing the news, Singapore bloggers reacted with consternation. The reaction came in three general kinds: (1) who would know about this law? (2) blogs are private diaries, and (3) this is a violation of free speech! (1) and (2) are related and easily disposed of. The law has long existed and almost all countries have something similar that criminalises sedition, in the ordinary sense of the word. However, what is more pertinent is that many countries in the West also have laws that regulate hate speech, especially slurs and incitements directed at racial, religious and sexual groups. For more information, take a look at the entry on Hate Speech in Wikipedia So, it's a little too naive to say that such a law is unknowably obscure. I think one should expect the existence of such a law even if one couldn't cite the specific Act. In any case, our cabinet ministers have repeatedly warned against incitement to racial and religious intolerance in their speeches, and unless you're born yesterday, you'd know that our government likes to wield the big stick. If they're speaking repeatedly about something, you can bet that somewhere they have a law or bylaw to enforce their wishes. It is even more naive to claim that blogs are private. Surely we all know by now that the internet is a public domain, and the very act of uploading something onto the internet quite assuredly makes the private public. Why would you put something up on a weblog, unless you want at least some others to read what you've written? This is even less of a defence in the case of putting comments onto an online forum such as doggiesite. The third reaction, that the law and the action being taken against Lim and Koh is a violation of free speech, is more debatable. The problem is that unkind words span a range. At one end, there are views that can be quite critical, but still founded on evidence or reason. Others may not agree, in fact, some might even take offence to being so criticised, but if the words constitute fair comment, in that the speaker is able to substantiate his views to some degree, and makes a contribution to public debate, it would be unreasonable to restrain such speech. At the other end, the speech has a completely different quality. Such speech tends to be unsupported by the facts, oversimplified or overgeneralised. It tends to be reliant on words that belittle the target group or make them the butt of jokes, or it has a vehement, repetitive, hectoring and intimidating quality. Far from representing considered opinion, such speech is more akin to issuing threats or rousing other people to join in a verbal lynching. Although the action is primarily in the form of words spoken or written, this is still action more than opinion and therefore the civilised protection of diverse opinion and peaceful persuasion of fellow citizens, which is the intent behind the right to free speech, cannot be extended to exempt such action from regulation. Between these two extremes are a whole variety of speech with varying degrees of persuasion or incitement. The tough call lies in deciding where to draw the line. Since I have not seen the actual words used, nor even the context in Koh's blog or the doggiesite forum, I cannot give any opinion whether the prosecution of Lim and Koh is justified or not. In any case, the matter is currently sub judice, and it is not appropriate to comment. Sub judice - now that's another concept that I will bet, has yet to reach the blogging community. Someone somewhere, I am sure, is busy cursing the government and prejudging the case. * * * * * Here is an interesting question: would the same Sedition Act be applicable in cases of hate speech targeting gay people? I think yes. Clause 3(1)(e), after all says, "feelings of ill-will and hostility between different races or classes of the population of Singapore." Note the word "classes". It could be argued before a judge that gay people constitute a class. Firstly, gays and lesbians do see themselves as a distinct group. Secondly, there are plenty of examples of journalists, academics, even cabinet ministers who refer to gays and lesbians as a distinct group of people. Thirdly, if there is any hate speech that targets gay people, then the very targetting of gay people is evidence that gay people are conceived of as a group, identifiable enough conceptually to constitute a class, otherwise how would people understand the object of the hate speech? Is merely saying words that lead to feelings of ill-will and hostility enough to be seditious? Or must some degree of public disorder appear likely to be consequent upon such words, to make them seditious? Clause 4 of the Sedition Act keeps it very simple. It says, 4. (1) Any person who -- So uttering any hate words, importing any material containing hate words, distributing flyers, etc, is enough. The targetted group does not have to threaten public disorder in response to the inflammatory speech to get due protection. One only needs to demonstrate that gay people constitute a class and that hostility and ill-will has been generated. * * * * *
|
|
|||||
|
Coming back to cursing the government, at the time of writing, the white elephants of Buangkok are still being investigated. Many residents of the area, and many more Singaporeans who stop short of adoring the PAP government are watching the unfolding of this incident with a suspicious eye. First, a bit of background. The northeastern metro line, locally referred to as the 'NEL', opened in 2003, but Buangkok station, although built, was not opened. Trains continued to run at speed through it, without stopping. The reason given for suspending this station was that there was insufficient residential population in the area to justify the cost of operating that station. When the plans for the NEL were first made in the 1990s, the idea was to develop the Buangkok precinct in tandem with the building of the metro line, so that by the time the line was ready, there would be a reasonable catchment of residents around the station. Following the Asian financial crisis of 1997, and the dotcom bust of 2001, the property market in Singapore imploded. The Housing and Development Board found itself with record numbers of unsold flats in other parts of Singapore and had to scale back new construction till the excess had been taken up. It didn't make any sense to continue building new flats at Buangkok when the market was so soft. Thus, when the NEL line was ready, Buangkok was still largely empty. In the last two years, some blocks have come up and a trickle of residents have moved in. However, the government-controlled operator of the NEL has still not opened the station, citing still insufficient numbers, causing considerable inconvenience to those living there. People have taken to calling the ready but unused station a white elephant. On 28 August, during a visit to the district by Community Development, Youth and Sports Minister Vivian Balakrishnan, eight placards in the form of smiling white elephants were spotted at the Buangkok station, apparently to remind the minister of the frustration the residents felt.
Within days, news spread that the police had launched an investigation. They were trying to ferret out who had set the placards up, thus breaking the law against putting up public signs without police permission. Many Singaporeans, enjoying the rare spectacle of some political spunk in this tightly-controlled state, privately booed and hissed the police for launching the investigation, seeing this as yet another example of political intimidation of the government's critics. The police had to explain to the media that they had received a '999' phone call about it and following procedure, every complaint "from the public" had to be investigated. They were only doing their jobs, they pleaded. But no, they would not reveal who had made that phone call. This is another, and better, example of the difficult calls necessary when it comes to enforcing laws. Clearly, there is a need for some kind of law regulating signs put up in public places, otherwise there would be a forest of billboards, banners, stickers and lean-to placards advertising car-wash services, home-cooked meals delivered to your door-step, movie premieres, cheap mortgages and more. Our shared environment would be messy and ugly, and more importantly, essential information, such as traffic signs and danger warnings, might be obscured or lost in the clutter. But you can't investigate everything and prosecute everyone. A reasonable balance must be struck.
In real life, there will never be any unanimity as to whether a decision is reasonable or not, but it will help a great deal if people have a high degree of trust that the authorities always act impartially. And this is where Buangkok presents a lesson. There is nothing wrong with the law, but there is something wrong with the level of trust between the citizenry and the government. There is a lot of suspicion about the motives behind the police investigation of the white elephants, and the non-disclosure of who it was who made the initial complaint fuels it further. This suspicion is not irrational. Singapore's PAP government has a long history of using legal and police powers to the hilt, sometimes stretching the scope of law to unprecedented extremes, in order to intimidate and box in their political opponents. Too often in our history, the most minor issues are blown out of all proportion to character-assassinate the PAP's critics. This has created a widespread fear of government retribution. It has often been said that the recent calls by the government for people to speak up and be politically engaged is met with great skepticism because of this history. Whoever planted the elephant placards, they either didn't realise that a police permit was needed, or if they did, they must have judged it very unlikely to be given one. Most Singaporeans would concur with that assessment. And so the elephants were planted without
a permit, which led to a complaint to the police, which led to an
investigation (witchhunt?), which reinforces everybody's view that at the
end of the day, all these calls for openness mean little, the government
will always want to "get you" for speaking out of turn.... It is
depressing that shortsighted PAP politicians and obsequious bureaucrats
are perpetuating a vicious cycle here. © Yawning Bread
|
|
|||||
|
Footnotes None Addenda
|
|
The virtual world has just collided with reality. Two men were charged on
12 September 2005 with violating the Sedition Act for remarks they made on
an online forum and a weblog.
