Comments, opinions and an occasional ramble
Archive for June, 2008
How to avoid being convicted of sedition
Jun 5th
It seems that Gopalan Nair is now being charged for sedition.
According to the Sedition Act (available here), it seems that Nair has only four possible defenses against the charge of sedition.
(2) Notwithstanding subsection (1), 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;
(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; or
(d) to point out, with a view to their removal, any matters producing or having a tendency to produce feelings of ill-will and enmity between different races or classes of the population of Singapore.
I think point C is quite interesting. Let’s have some hypothetical scenarios:
Person A thinks the government is corrupt. He then goes on to publish and distribute a publication to other people accusing the government of corruption. Does it mean Person A can get away with it by adding in a line somewhere that encourages people to vote the existing government that is corrupt in his eyes out of office? Afterall, voting out an existing government is a lawful way of resolving the matter.
Person B is a racist. He publishes all sorts of racist remarks and distributes them widely. In each of his racist publication, he encourages people of his race to lobby their representatives in the legislature to pass a law that marginalise other races. Can Person B get away with publishing the racist comments? After all, he is not asking people to riot and create unrest but rather, he is encouraging the use lawful procedures to enforce his racist beliefs.
I don’t have the answers. It’s just interesting to read that “any act, speech, words, publication or other thing shall not be deemed to be seditious” if there is an “attempt to procure by lawful means the alteration of any matter in Singapore”.
If anyone reading this entry thinks that this entry has a seditious tendency, please note I’m writing this in the spirit of point B. 
Lax editorial standards at Today?
Jun 3rd
Uncle Yap took two snapshots of two different versions of the Today newspaper on the arrest of Gopalan Nair. The story essentially remained unchanged but the headline changed.
Of course, Uncle Yap has his own theory about why the headline was changed but I don’t think his conspiracy theory analysis is correct. It seems more likely to me that the night editor was sleeping when he approved the headline for print. The problem with the first headline wasn’t exactly the issue of Gopalan Nair being an American citizen but rather, the problem was the original headline was factually wrong.
Gopalan Nair hasn’t been convicted and jailed. He is merely in police custody as the police conduct their investigations. It just seems to me that whoever wrote the story did not do a proper fact check or confused being in police custody with jailing. Maybe in Singapore, many lines are blurred and people both assume and conflate many things. I remember some time back, a police officer got confused between a political party and a government, saying that both are the same.
I don’t have the physical copy of the second version, though. I would like to see if the later edition had an erratum somewhere in the paper. I can accept honest mistakes but if Today sneakily changed the headline without an erratum, that’s highly unprofessional. The PDF version of the later version is available on the website of the Today newspaper but I did not see the erratum in that version and that is seriously disturbing.
Also, I think Gopalan Nair can sue Today for defamation. He has not been convicted and jailed but the headline stated that he has been jailed. I think the editors at Today should issue an erratum to mitigate the possibility of a defamation lawsuit.
Barking up the wrong tree on FDW legislation?
Jun 2nd
This entry was first published in Singapore Angle Perspectives last week and I’m reproducing it on my own blog for future reference.
Barking up the wrong tree on FDW legislation?
The Ministry of Manpower has once again refused calls for a law making it mandatory for employers to give their foreign domestic workers (FDWs) a day off every month and the refusal has led to some fairly negative reports and commentaries (see here and here).
According to a Channel News Asia report, acting Minister of Manpower Gan Kim Yong said accredited employment agencies are required to use a standard contract and that the contract already stipulates the number of rest days the employer is obliged to give every month (note: the range is 1 to 4 days), and if the employer wishes to engage the service of the domestic worker on their rest days, the employer has to compensate the domestic worker.
Curious about the terms of contract between an employer and a foreign domestic worker, I went to Case Trust website and dug up the employment contract and the explanatory notes (all are in MS-Word format). After reading the contract, I must say Gan does have a good point.
The standard contract drafted up by CASE is actually pretty comprehensive and detailed. It even specifies the nature and scope of jobs that the domestic worker should perform. If the domestic worker is not agreeable to the scope and nature of the job required by a potential employer, she can refuse to sign the contract, assuming there is no undue pressure from the agency.
And the contract, when signed, makes it compulsory for the employer to provide for the upkeep of the domestic worker at all times. Even if the employer decides to terminate the contract prematurely, upkeep has to be maintained until the worker either goes home or finds another employer. And, in the agreement between employer and agency, the employer has to agree not to obstruct the re-employment of the domestic worker in the event of termination.
The only reason as far as I can see for support of legislation mandating a rest day for foreign domestic workers is that such a law, if passed, will apply across the board, whether it’s a Case Trust accredited or non-accredited employment agency. The only concern is that foreign domestic workers working under non-Case Trust accredited agencies might be shortchanged by both agency and employer.
If that is the case, then proponents of legislating mandatory rest day for foreign domestic workers are barking up the wrong tree. They should really be calling for legislation making accreditation compulsory, i.e. licensing. The problem would be solved if only licensed employment agencies that adhere to the kind of standards set by Case are allowed to operate. Accreditation in itself is voluntary and has little bite unless either majority of employment agencies are accredited or employers mostly shun non-accredited agencies.
However, one can still argue that even though there is a legal contract, the domestic worker can still receive the short end of the stick because some of them are not well-versed enough in the English language to understand their rights under the contract. A translated equivalent of the contract in the worker’s native language in the same signed contract will resolve this issue.
I think the Case Trust accreditation scheme for employment agencies is certainly the right way to go. The only chink in the armour is that accreditation is not compulsory. If there is a way to make accreditation compulsory, then it might be unnecessary for a legislation mandating compulsory rest days for FDWs.
Recent Comments