Follow Slashdot stories on Twitter

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
The Internet Your Rights Online

Singapore Bloggers Charged Under Sedition Act 347

Posted by ScuttleMonkey from the what-happened-to-anonymous-posts dept.
ChannelNewsAsia is reporting that for the first time in at least 10 years Singapore has invoked the sedition act and charged two local bloggers for posting racist comments on an online forum. From the article: 'Said Singaporean blogger Benjamin Lee (Mr Miyagi):" A lot of them will be looking at their blogs and wondering if they made any legally seditious remarks. I think because of the way this will be played up, it's negative publicity for the Singapore blogging community."'
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Singapore Bloggers Charged Under Sedition Act More

Singapore Bloggers Charged Under Sedition Act

Comments Filter:

  • Link? (Score:3, Informative)

    by Saiyine ( 689367 ) on Monday September 12, 2005 @02:13PM (#13540016) Homepage

    Is this the link [channelnewsasia.com]?

    --
    Superb hosting [dreamhost.com] 4800MB Storage, 120GB bandwidth, $7,95.
    Kunowalls!!! [kunowalls.host.sk] Random sexy wallpapers (NSFW!).

    • Re:Link? (Score:5, Funny)

      by Tackhead ( 54550 ) on Monday September 12, 2005 @02:19PM (#13540074)
      > Is this the link [channelnewsasia.com]?

      Perhaps the original author was afraid that the Slashdot effect would put a chink in the armor of the hosting company's intrusion detection system, and was just trying to help keep the log files spic and span of extraneous hits. In any case, thanks for not being niggardly with the links.

      /gets dragged away screaming

    • What does NSFW mean?
      (click)
      HOLY SHIT! Not Safe For Work!
      Good thing it's lunch time and nobody's here. :)

  • Arrrrgh... (Score:5, Funny)

    by Stanistani ( 808333 ) on Monday September 12, 2005 @02:14PM (#13540018) Homepage Journal
    Conflict in my central processor...
    Racism...
    Freedom of speech...
    Freedom of speech overrides natural desire to slowly boil racists...

    *back to sleep*

    • Re:Arrrrgh... (Score:4, Interesting)

      by TheFlyingGoat ( 161967 ) on Monday September 12, 2005 @02:30PM (#13540171) Homepage Journal
      Funny, and very true. A lot of people complain about the US suppressing free speech, but it's very rare for the government to charge people for making racist remarks. The only time they do is when they're making an effort to promote violence.

      I think racism is awful, but I'm glad I live in a country that allows people to speak their mind. I do, however, tire of people "playing the race card", which IMHO is just as bad as the racism itself. It detracts from the situations where the complaints are real.

      Partially OT, so feel free to mod me down. :)
    • screw them BOTH! The bloggers for their idiotic racist comments, _AND_ the govt for controlling freedom of speech.

      Ta-da, problem solved.

      NEXT!
    • "Kiff, we have a conundrum!" -- Zapp Brannigan

    • *Sigh* look at it like this. (Score:5, Insightful)

      by mcc ( 14761 ) <amcclure@purdue.edu> on Monday September 12, 2005 @03:17PM (#13540601) Homepage
      Ignorance is the natural breeding ground of racism.

      This means that you cannot combat racism by limiting information or expression. The only effective way you can combat racism is by countering it with good information-- demonstrating the racists wrong, rather than silencing them.

      If you try to fight racism by silencing it, you are only hurting yourself in the long run. Even aside from the slippery slope problem, you inevitably wind up with a situation where the fact you are trying to silence these people brands them with a false stamp of legitimacy. The old "help help I'm being oppressed" thing is a powerful tool, even to those whose message is itself in favor of oppression; the racists can easily twist the fact the government is trying to silence them into an argument in their favor.

      In the long run this just isn't helpful; it's like trying to put out a grease fire by pouring oil on it. No good will come of what Singapore is trying to do here, only collateral damage.
      • I was a member on an online forum that was infested with Nazi-types, who kept opening topics that denied the Holocaust - when pressed, their fallback position was "Well, it happened, but wasn't as bad as they say."

        So I set up a similar topic denying the US Civil War, with the same fallback position.

        The Nazis were laughed at until they stopped coming back.

        Laughter is an effective tool.

      • Re:*Sigh* look at it like this. (Score:5, Interesting)

        by mc6809e ( 214243 ) on Monday September 12, 2005 @03:42PM (#13540855)

        This means that you cannot combat racism by limiting information or expression. The only effective way you can combat racism is by countering it with good information-- demonstrating the racists wrong, rather than silencing them.

        I hope you will help by contributing to Wikipedia's page on Race and Intelligence [wikipedia.org].

        It's a bit one-sided at the moment.

    • that reads:
      I HATE RACISTS

      Now you promise you won't steal my idea. Right?

  • Re: (Score:2, Informative)

    by account_deleted ( 4530225 )
    Comment removed based on user account deletion
    • They are both being charged with committing a seditious act, by promoting feelings of ill-will and hostility between races in Singapore.
      If this law were ever passed in the US, there would be more people in jail than out of it. Most News commentators gone, a lot of music illegal, etc.
      I know this sounds trite, but I would rather have racists and other vermin allowed to be out in the open so at least we know who they are and can keep tabs on them. Once you force them underground, they become more dangerou

  • Is racist speech every ok? (Score:5, Interesting)

    by FreshFunk510 ( 526493 ) on Monday September 12, 2005 @02:18PM (#13540064)
    And does racist speech = hate speech?

    This is an honest question. As much as I hate racism and hate speech, I have to admit that Dave Chapelle, whose comedy many times has to do with race, is one of the best/original comedians out there today.

    Of course his is meant for comedy rather than hate, but where does one draw the line?

    • Re:Is racist speech every ok? (Score:2, Insightful)

      by Anonymous Coward
      Oh that's easy. If you have political power, or possibly politically derived law enforcement power, you draw the line where ever you want to.

      For instance, if you don't like someone, someone (lobbiest who 'contributed' to your 'fund') you know doesn't like someone, or you in general don't like what they are saying, you can at any point decide they are espousing 'hate speech|sedition|slander' and have them thrown into the dungeon.

      This also applies to 'politically incorrect' speech, of course.

      Only by all

    • Well, is this racist? [commentarymagazine.com]

      I suspect a lot of egalitarians would say yes.

      They'd like to think that everything having to do with intellectual abilities is equally distributed -- men/women blacks/jews/asians/whites/arabs. So I guess to them it is racist.

      That's what's wrong with the concept of "hate speech" -- one man's gathering of facts and stastistics bees racist to another.
      • It is funny. Academians NEED and want the freedom to say such things. Yet, when publishing something none-PC, ppl come unglued. And it is not just the liberal side. Look at Churchhill. Personally, I do now agree with him, but I can understand partially why he says the things that he does. But we have our local colorado gov. trying to get rid of a tenured prof. based on what he said. Summers made a mild comment, and it has drawn the wrath of the liberals. To the point where he has also stepped down. It is
    • I have to admit that Dave Chapelle, whose comedy many times has to do with race, is one of the best/original comedians out there today.
      Of course his is meant for comedy rather than hate, but where does one draw the line?

      FTFA: "They are both being charged with committing a seditious act, by promoting feelings of ill-will and hostility between races in Singapore."

      I think the difference is that laughing about, say, people's noses is ok.
      Stating that their funny noses is a reason not to employ them, lodge them,
      • FTFA: "They are both being charged with committing a seditious act, by promoting feelings of ill-will and hostility between races in Singapore."


        Apparently you've never seen the Chapelle Show. Many of the skits he does where race is involved could be deemed as "promoting feelings of ill-will and hostility between races."

        Noses???
    • How do you define racist speech? Believe me, there would be as many definitions as there are people.
      For example, if I say "White men are violent" is that racist?
      What if I say "Black males comprise 6% of the population in the US, but perpetrate 40% of the murders" Is that racist, if a statement of fact, because I didn't qualify it by saying that the high rate is due to 200+ years of oppression?
      If I say "everyone but Asians are dumb" is that racist? What If I show test scores that show that Asians are more
      • In the examples you gave, it seems to me that the difference is that the non-racist statement is supported with empirical evidence, whereas the racist statement is an unqualified assertion, phrased in a belligerant way.

        It's the difference between the statement "the sky is blue because the gases in the atmosphere block the other wavelengths" and "the sky is blue because God loves only blue-eyed, blond-haired anglo-saxons, which are the Master Race (heil Hitler!)." It should be obvious which of those stateme
      • How do you define racist speech?
        Believe me, there would be as many definitions as there are people.
        For example, if I say "White men are violent" is that racist?

        Yes. Try "Many white men are violent".

        What if I say "Black males comprise 6% of the population in the US, but perpetrate 40% of the murders" Is that racist, if a statement of fact, because I didn't qualify it by saying that the high rate is due to 200+ years of oppression?

        Not racist. Try "Blacks are murderers."

        If I say "everyone but Asians are dum
        • How about this: applying a term uniformly across a mixed [ethnic/religious/whatever] group is [rac]ist.

          In the language of people who study such things, this is called essentialism. It is very important to understand that the model minority myth about Asians can be just as pernicious as saying "All Negroes are savages."

          Not racist. Try "Blacks are murderers."

          It really depends. At its face, it's a misleading statement, and his "qualification" is too vague. Control for economic status and other factors, a

      • Q: What do you call a black man who flies an airplane?

        A: A pilot, you stupid racist!

    • That's not racist; that's ethnic. At least, that's how I always thought of it: racist speech == hate speech because "racist" is defined do have a negative connotation. All racist speech is bad, simply because any speech that isn't bad also shouldn't be described as "racist."

  • how have they defined "racism"? (Score:4, Insightful)

    by ChipMonk ( 711367 ) on Monday September 12, 2005 @02:19PM (#13540075) Journal
    Without that much information, am I supposed to just believe the charges? (Yeah, right!)

  • Comment removed (Score:4, Funny)

    by account_deleted ( 4530225 ) on Monday September 12, 2005 @02:19PM (#13540078)
    Comment removed based on user account deletion

  • Caning . . . (Score:4, Interesting)

    by Dausha ( 546002 ) on Monday September 12, 2005 @02:21PM (#13540091) Homepage
    Look, this is a city-state who canes graphiti painters. You know they'll not be looking too kindly on seditious postings.

    Wonder if that could happen here?
    • I'd rather be caned and spend 4 months in jail than spend 8 years in federal pound-me-in-the-ass prison and have 3 million dollars in restitution to pay [wikipedia.org].

      I guess I'd just rather have my ass wounding all up front, than spread out over an 8 year period.
      • I think if you were to confuse "graffiti" with "firebombing SUVs for the ELF" in Singapore you would receive much more than 8 years. You'd be lucky to live.

        I dunno, go to Singapore and give it a try and see.
        • Well, it's destruction of property. I didn't confuse it with anything. The point you make is a matter of degree - and one I don't deny.

          With that said, I would still rather be caned than fucked in the ass nightly for 8-15-25-40 years. Hence the comment. I guess being raped seems a bit worse than having my ass cheeks scarred and disfigured for the rest of my life.

          And I'm not saying 8 years for firebombing SUVs is a-okay, either. I'm just pointing out that destruction of property - complete with vanda

    • Re:Caning . . . (Score:2, Informative)

      by Anonymous Coward
      >>Look, this is a city-state who canes graphiti painters.

      First of all, caning as a principal only applies to violent crimes. In the situation regarding Michael Fay, the dumb American kid who vandalized cars, the story was that Fay _and_ a group of expatriots were valdalizing cars. At the time, it cost $13,000 to _buy the right_ to purchase a car (known as making a bid). And after you pay your $13,000 you can buy your car, which are all foreign cars by the way. There are no Singapore auto makers.

      So
      • $13K just to be allowed to buy a car?

        And I though Nevada's vehicle registration was exorbinant - guess I should quit my whining!

      • Re:Caning . . . (Score:3, Informative)

        by brazilofmux ( 905505 )
        Your point is well taken, but the cost of the Certificate of Entitlement (CoE) is not a fixed $13,000.

        The CoE system (and its effects on car buying market) are not a constant, but essentially, the government restricts car ownership by restricting these certificates.

        My in-laws have called the way these are distributed a 'lottery', and I took that literally. Wikipedia indicates that they are distributed via auction.

        Whether via lottery or auction, thost of the CoE can be as much as the cost of the car. Also, S

  • Speaking as an Irishman (Score:5, Insightful)

    by $RANDOMLUSER ( 804576 ) on Monday September 12, 2005 @02:24PM (#13540120)
    Remember: It's only sedition/rebellion if you lose.

  • What they couldnt say it in the article. (Score:2, Informative)

    by Anonymous Coward
    I didn't know stating racial divisiveness equated sedition anywhere! Methinks this is negative publicity for Singapore as a country (by those with a Bill of Rights). This will have a chilling effect on the Singapore blogging community and cause a permament subtle change (as the establishment of limits tends to do) in Singapore society, but it won't be looked down upon. Why would you look down upon a community for limits unwillingly placed upon it?

    Ew. Article is getting pounded (yes, I actually READ them)...
    • This is the first time bloggers are being charged in Singapore and it is sending shockwaves through the local blogging community.

      Confused! Not sure why everyone refers to bloggers as a community. It doesn't seem to be anymore a community than people who use public toilets, read Harry Potter or speak English. So I write a bit of nonsense on a website about a topic I barely understand and which nobody else is likely to be interested in and is only likely to be seen by some government web spider looking for s

  • Surprised? Not. It's Singapore (Score:5, Interesting)

    by tacokill ( 531275 ) on Monday September 12, 2005 @02:24PM (#13540124)
    I am not surprised in the slightest. Having been to Singapore many times, it is a VERY "tight" country. If you break the rules, the punishment is quite severe.

    Drug dealers = death penalty. Vandalism = caning (remember that?). No selling gum. No chewing gum (at least in public). No joke.


    While I don't think the totalitarianism is required, I will say that Singapore is VERY clear about the rules. Everybody knows them and everybody knows that if you break them, you do so at your own risk. They don't seem to have as many ambiguous laws as here in the US so it seems to work pretty well. The fact that some bloggers would post "maybe it will get me in trouble" stuff, is very ballsy.

    • I am not surprised in the slightest. Having been to Singapore many times, it is a VERY "tight" country. If you break the rules, the punishment is quite severe.

      Well this is the first time the sedition act has been invoked in the past decade, and I can't believe nobody's made racist comments in that time, so I don't believe this is as common as you are making out.

      They don't seem to have as many ambiguous laws as here in the US so it seems to work pretty well.

      From the article:

      A person is deem

      • They have so many laws it takes them a while to get around to arresting people for all of them.

        Importing anything with Chinese writing on it is illegal in Singapore. Importing chewing gum is illegal. Lots and lots of stuff is illegal in Singapore.

        This is the country that jailed a Jehova's Witness missionary (little old lady, none the less) for holding classes. JW is a "banned" religion in Singapore. I believe the rationale was the conflict between Singapore's mandatory military service and the resusal to


    • Having been to Singapore many times, it is a VERY "tight" country. If you break the rules, the punishment is quite severe.

      Back in 1993 William Gibson wrote an interesting piece on Singapore for Wired magazine: Disneyland With The Death Penalty [wired.com]

    • My dad travels there for work quite frequently, and he calls it a fine city. Do this, get a fine. Do that, get a fine. :)

  • some background (Score:5, Informative)

    by circletimessquare ( 444983 ) <circletimessquare@@@gmail...com> on Monday September 12, 2005 @02:26PM (#13540138) Homepage Journal
    for non-southeast asian slashdotters:

    singapore is an outpost of chinese in a malay region

    it is a country independent of malaysia simply because the chinese there feared dilution of their power by malays

    there is a history of friction between the chinese merchant class and the local malay population throughout the region, actually very similar to the resentment europeans had for the jewish merchant class that led to so much racially motivated nastiness there for centuries

    malays and filipinos to this day complain of how they are treated by the chinese in singapore, who they say view them as little more than domestic servants or coolies

    in the 1960s, under the guise of fighting communism, indonesians slaughtered thousands simply for having chinese ancestry... and confiscated their businesses

    so maybe some of you who are very idealistically attached to the concept of free speech, without any mitigating conditions, perhaps you can at least understand why singapore would be so interested on clamping down on hate speech in its territory: it's not a big country, and it must remain at peace with its huge malay neighbors, at whom this hate speech is directed by some really stupid chinese bigotted bloggers

    • Re:some background (Score:4, Informative)

      by cswiii ( 11061 ) on Monday September 12, 2005 @02:39PM (#13540244)
      True enough, based on some singaporean college classmates of mine from back in the day, I knew what this would be about w/o reading the article.

      Not just Malaysians either - my friend told me that even up to a couple of years ago, you would see signs outside construction sites that said "Indians need not apply".

    • I guess they have bigger problems (Score:5, Interesting)

      by ShatteredDream ( 636520 ) on Monday September 12, 2005 @02:44PM (#13540287) Homepage
      If a few Chinese moonbats ranting about the Malays' alleged racial inferiority is enough to spark a conflict, the people of Singapore should just go ahead and prepare for war because clearly their neighbors are itching for a fight. Besides, the only way to get an honest dialog going is to let people speak their minds. If people are forced to censor themselves so as to not offend the people they already consider inferior then guess what you've done? You've just made them even more convicted in their racism!

      Yes, that's right. If you take a group of people who already view themselves as racially, not culturally, superior to another and force them to limit their liberties so as to not offend the group they condescend to, their natural reaction will be to condescend even more because "clearly, those people are so weak that they can't even handle a bad attitude."

      Conflicts like this usually have very, very deep roots and it never ceases to amaze me how American left-liberals can never fail to suggest to change a group's natural reaction instead of accepting it. Hate to break it to you people, but the reality is that the strong do not typically respect those that are weaker than they are. That is life. You do not expect a lion to respect a terrier, so why expect a group that is very economically and militarily powerful in their region to respect a group that is by comparison very weak? Are we not animals as well, and do not both religion and science agree that the strong does not respect the weak?

      Yes, let's encourage them to reevaluate their attitudes and seek to become better people by accepting others' weakness. Do as the Bible idealizes, and encourage the lion to have the strength of will and character to lay down with the sheep. But do not think that it is natural, and do not think that a weekly class on "tolerance" is going to make them like those they tend to look down on. Besides, technically they already show tolerance toward them because tolerance simply means live-and-let live. It doesn't imply you like them or want anything to do with them. It means you tolerate them, which is basically what most people do to small children who behave like brats or yappy little dogs. What they need is brotherly/sisterly reconciliation between their groups, not some half-assed bullshit called tolerance.
      • Conflicts like this usually have very, very deep roots and it never ceases to amaze me how American left-liberals can never fail to suggest to change a group's natural reaction instead of accepting it.

        left-liberals: are those people who believe in a world free of racism?

        "a group's natural reaction": what is this group? people of a certain ethnic background? what is their "natural reaction": to see as inferior another ethnic group?

        "instead of accepting it": accepting what, exactly?

        you sound like a racist

        so
    • It's mostly independent because of the British, not the Chinese. It was the UK in the early 1800's that made it a trading outpost and secured colonial rights to the island. It remained a crown colony until 1941, when it was conquered by the Japanese. It had limited self-government after WWII, and was merged with Malaysia for two years (1963-65). It was during this time that racial tensions escalated dramatically. Malaysia then voted to expel Singapore from the country (Singapore, it seems, is the only
    • How does this account for other ridiculously strict singapore laws? This was the place that had the thousand dollar fine for chewing bubble gum in a public place, and regularly canes people to the point of bleeding for a wide variety of infractions.
    • I visited Singapore about eight years ago. My impression was that the government put a lot of effort into keeping the ethnic tensions under control -- signs printed in three or four languages, pushes to make the population more "polite", I think that if the authoritarian government there let up, there would be some serious ethnic violence. Sad but true. I only hope that they can find a solution that allows them to live together peacefully without being under such a repressive regime.

  • Why does this have to be negative? (Score:3, Insightful)

    by RentonSentinel ( 906700 ) on Monday September 12, 2005 @02:29PM (#13540166) Journal
    I think its respectable for a country to punish people for seditious behavior, if done appropriately.

    • Most countries are only independent because they seceded at some point. If people want to split from their country it's generally because their government has been really bad, in which case they should be able to do so.
    • I think its respectable for a country to punish people for seditious behavior, if done appropriately.

      Please tell me you're not American.

    • Re:Why does this have to be negative? (Score:4, Insightful)

      by Bogtha ( 906264 ) on Monday September 12, 2005 @03:01PM (#13540437)

      I think its respectable for a country to punish people for seditious behavior, if done appropriately.

      Sedition is an act of rebellion against the state. How is classifying racist comments as sedition appropriate?

      The logic seems to be that "promoting feelings of ill-will and hostility between races in Singapore" is inherently seditious. You could redefine theft to be sedition using that logic (hey, it "promotes suspicion amongst neighbours in Singapore").

      If racist comments are not tolerable in Singapore, then they should pass a law about that instead of leaving it up to an official to twist the meaning of an existing law out of all proportion to punish somebody for something he doesn't like.

      This doesn't appear to be somebody breaking the law and getting caught, it appears to be somebody doing something legal but distasteful, and having somebody in the government abuse the law to pursue a vendetta because they don't like it.

      • In Singapore, racial harmony is considered nothing less than a matter of national survival. We are a tiny city state that is home to many races. We used to have racial riots in the 60's and 70's, where hundreds died in brutal street warfare. My father used to patrol his Chinese neighbourhood with a parang (machete) to keep out Malays. Race is not a laughing matter in Singapore.

        There is now harmony between the races, achieved by force, reeducation and enforced mixing in housing, education and military serv

  • One of these things is not like the other (Score:4, Insightful)

    by $RANDOMLUSER ( 804576 ) on Monday September 12, 2005 @02:33PM (#13540192)
    sedition
    n : an illegal action inciting resistance to lawful authority and tending to cause the disruption or overthrow of the government.

    racism
    n : discriminatory or abusive behavior towards members of another race.

    • Consider how true that is in a country where one 'race' rules over another.
  • In an article [channelnewsasia.com] about this Singapore sedition story, they report "Lawyers warn that anybody who forwards seditious remarks to others via email can also be charged with abetment". Maybe that's why the submitter didn't include a link to such an article (probably not). Maybe that's why the CNA article doesn't link to, or quote, the allegedly seditious/racist published remarks.

    Whatever the reason, the thousands of people across the Web hearing about this story are doubtless feeling "disconnection anxiety" without
  • They could have been caught chewing gum in Singapore, then they would have really been in trouble...

  • Singapore cultural values are different.... (Score:4, Insightful)

    by postbigbang ( 761081 ) on Monday September 12, 2005 @02:41PM (#13540269)
    Although another poster claimed friction by the 'Chinese' class, this is a country that claims four official languages, and is a melting pot on the order of Hong Kong, or Bangkok.

    Holding this contentious group together is a miracle given the tensions in the region. The economic success of Singapore is legendary in a region where its neighbors routinely slaughter each other- Indonesians with rebels, Malaysians with sectarian strife, Thai with sectarian strife, and so on. Singapore has to hold together ethnic Chinese, Malay, Tamils, as well as expats from all over the region, Euros, and so on. They take racial prejudice very seriously, and if they didn't they'd have bedlam.

    Yes, Singapore is draconian in other ways, and is also known as the "Fine City" where every offense is a S$500 fine. They execute drug smugglers. So, don't smuggle drugs there. It's a follow-the-rules place. Not much crap is put up with. But it's not a police state, it just lacks a lot of democracy and free speech. This seems to suit the population, who are the envy of all of their neighbors. I've traveled the region many times; Singapore is the 52nd US State (after British Columbia)
    • don't forget that chewing gum is a controlled substance.

      jehovah's witnesses are considered a dangerous cult and their members are jailed and their literature destroyed.

      fellatio without vaginal sex (consensual or not) is a crime, for which you can be imprisoned for life. this law is still actively used for prosecutions to this day.

      saying "fuck you" or making an obscene gesture to a woman is a criminal offense under section 509 of the singapore penal code.

      nice place.
  • If what these bloggers wrote was a comment or two taken out of context, then I could see this as a "Your Rights Online" article. However, if they wrote comments to insite hatred, then how is there arrest different from arresting people for hate crimes here? In Canada, we have laws that prevent hate related crimes, even if it's written. It's also been shown judicially (in Canada anyway) that any restrictions on hate speech is constitutional becuase "freedom of expression" has it's limits. I don't know if

  • Mr Miyagi (Score:4, Informative)

    by epiphany_man ( 576339 ) on Monday September 12, 2005 @02:50PM (#13540332) Journal
    The blogger quoted in the post, Mr Miyagi (aka Benjamin Lee), is one of the most popular bloggers in Singapore. He helped organize the first Blogger-con in Singapore and has given numerous public talks on how to blog to the uninitiated.

    His blog can be found here [miyagi.sg] and the post where he talks about the charges can be found here [miyagi.sg].

  • If you're worried about offending someone, say nothing at all.

    Even then you'll be accused of excluding someone from your conversation because of race.

    Welcome to the Tyranny of the Easily Offended.

  • ...it's negative publicity[?] for the Singapore blogging community.

    I know I certainly won't be buying any more of their jams and jellies...

  • Sedition laws are almost as reprehensible as racism, so I see little reason to choose sides here.

    But, bloggers should expect no free pass compared with other means of publication. The laws that apply to publishing -- sanctions and protecions -- ought to apply to every blogger just as they do to the major commericial players.
  • Well, if Singapore doesn't allow free speech, eventually, everyone worthy of it will leave, leaving Singapore an empty hunk devoid of any significance.

    Their loss, really...

  • Not so surprising that those slant-eyed rice-pickers would stoop to such levels.

  • Here's what happened (Score:4, Informative)

    by Henry V .009 ( 518000 ) on Monday September 12, 2005 @03:25PM (#13540680) Journal
    I found some info on the contents of the racist remarks from this blog [blogspot.com].
    The backstory according to the report is that on June 14, ST Forum Page published a letter asking if "cab companies allowed uncaged pets to be transported in taxis, after she saw a dog standing on a taxi seat next to its owner." The concern is that the animals pay "drool on the seats or dirty them with their paws"--and for most of the Muslims in Singapore (which subscribe to the Syafie school of thought on the issue), they are prohibited by religion "to touch dogs which are wet, which would include a dog's saliva".

    Enter the duo Nicholas Lim Yew, 25, and Benjamin Koh Song Huat, 27. The first "allegedly responded [to the Forum Page letter] by twice posting anti-Muslim remarks on an online forum for dog lovers, www.doggiesite.com," allegedly criticising "certain aspects of Islamic law." The latter "was said to have made similar racist comments on his blog, Phoenyx Chronicles, on www.upsaid.com on three occasions."
  • They were not represented by defence lawyers and were granted bail of S$10,000 each.

    First time offenders can be fined up to S$5,000, or jailed up to three years, or both.

    So the bail is twice the fine. Interesting. Guess they really want to ensure that the fine gets paid.

  • The Article (Score:3, Informative)

    by FreshFunk510 ( 526493 ) on Monday September 12, 2005 @03:58PM (#13540996)
    Didn't see it posted anywhere. In case it gets /.ed:
    Two bloggers charged under Sedition Act over racist remarks
    By Pearl Forss, Channel NewsAsia

    SINGAPORE : Two bloggers have been charged with sedition for posting racist comments online.

    This is the first time bloggers are being charged in Singapore and it is sending shockwaves through the local blogging community.

    Lawyers say the last time the sedition act was invoked in Singapore was at least 10 years ago.

    Twenty-five-year-old Nicholas Lim Yew and 27-year-old Benjamin Koh Song Huat are being accused of posting racist comments on an online forum and on their blog site.

    They are both being charged with committing a seditious act, by promoting feelings of ill-will and hostility between races in Singapore.

    They were not represented by defence lawyers and were granted bail of S$10,000 each.

    This charge came as a shock to many in the blogging community.

    Said Singaporean blogger Benjamin Lee (Mr Miyagi):" A lot of them will be looking at their blogs and wondering if they made any legally seditious remarks. I think because of the way this will be played up, it's negative publicity for the Singapore blogging community."

    "Currently if you surf the net you will come across a lot of bloggers making such comments. You will probably see a drop in such cases henceforth. At the moment I am not aware of any cases except of a case in Iran where bloggers are charged. But Iran has a different legal system from Singapore," said Leonard Loo, managing partner of Leonard Loo & Co Advocates & Solicitors.

    Channel NewsAsia understands that the Media Development Authority had asked host servers to remove a racist blog from the web.

    Police are now investigating this matter.

    While many racist blogs by Singaporeans can be found online, the blogging community is also quick to criticize any racist comments.

    Channel NewsAsia has received many emails from viewers informing us about a few racist sites.

    Viewers said they were "appalled as well as disappointed that a Singaporean could condemn" other fellow Singaporeans of a different race.

    Lawyers warn that anybody who forwards seditious remarks to others via email can also be charged with abetment.

    The case is expected to be heard in court 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/ls

Slashdot Top Deals

Real Programmers think better when playing Adventure or Rogue.

Close