Comments, opinions and an occasional ramble
Of race and religion laws
Reading the Singapore Statutes Online, I find that our Penal Code Cap 224, Article 298, is very interesting. It says that:
“Whoever, with deliberate intention of wounding the religious or racial feelings of any person, utters any word or makes any sound in the hearing of that person, or makes any gesture in the sight of that person, or places any object in the sight of that person, or causes any matter however represented to be seen or heard by that person, shall be punished with imprisonment for a term which may extend to 3 years, or with fine, or with both.”
I absolutely understand that lawmakers mean well when drafting and approving this particular law in the Penal Code. Unfortunately, it is my belief that things can get really messy should someone decide to challenge the law the meaning of “wounding religious or racial feelings” is highly ambiguous. There are probably many more scenarios other than the following ones that I can think of which illustrate the complexities of “wounding religious or racial feelings” but I think the following hypothetical scenarios will sufficiently illustrate the degree of complexity involved with this law.
Scenario 1
A person of Chinese race and Singaporean nationality hurls some verbal racial abuse at a person of Chinese race and China nationality. Under this particular article in the Penal Code, is the Singaporean guilty of wounding the racial feelings of the Chinese person from China? Similarly, if a Singaporean Malay hurls verbal racial abuse at a Malaysian Malay, is the Singaporean Malay considered to have wounded the racial feelings of the Malaysian Malay?
Scenario 2
If a Christian, in proselytizing his/her religion to a Taoist, deliberately says that the Taoist acts of idol worship is wrong and a major sin, and the Taoist is offended by the remark, is the Christian considered to have wounded the religious feelings of the Taoist?
In scenario 1, the big question is whether can people have their racial feelings wounded by someone of their own race. In scenario 2, the question is, how do we determine intention? To one party, there is no feeling of any intention to wound the religious feelings of the other person. However, the other person feels that there is an intention to wound his/her racial feelings.
Of course, as a lay person, I could be misinformed. Perhaps to the lawyers, the law is crystal clear. I don’t know. I just think that issues such as race and religion are hard to regulate and such a broad law has too many grey areas, even though the law is well-intentioned.
| Print article | This entry was posted by Aaron Ng on 11/07/2008 at 10:24 am, and is filed under Perspective. Follow any responses to this post through RSS 2.0. You can leave a response or trackback from your own site. |
about 2 years ago
These are interesting scenarios with regards to a law that is too broadly defined.
My own opinion for scenario 1 is that the insult may be directed at the nationality rather than the race, although it may depend on the actual words transpired. I guess the issue here is the use of the noun Chinese, by which I can be referring to the race of a person, or a China national. This is the problem with using high-level abstraction when communicating.
For scenario 2, I feel that the case to prove here will be that of the intention. It’s arguable that the intention of the proselytizers is simply to spread Christianity and not to insult the other religion. It’s like a teacher teaching a student; the teacher may deliberately say nasty things to the student in hope of getting him/her to buck up (i.e. the intention) or the teacher may deliberately say nasty things to bring the student down.
In both cases, the possibility of breaking the law is arguable. That’s why we need substantial evidence and good lawyers to prove their side of the case. And I believe that’s also why the law can’t be too narrowly defined to allow for rooms of contention. The society is never just black and white and there are countless different shades of grey in between.
about 2 years ago
There was a discussion on The Online Citizen recently on this law.
My personal view is that “wounding religious feelings” is too vague a term and can be used as a tool by people of religion to suppress criticism against their beliefs or practices. The range of what can be considered to cause offence – any word, any sound within hearing, any gesture or object within sight, “any matter however represented to be seen or heard” – means that it is not that difficult to get yourself into trouble with this piece of law.
A letter to the ST Forum (IIRC) recently argued the opposite: that the term “with deliberate intention” loads the situation in the favour of the offender/critic, since the plaintiff or wounded party must then proof intent, which is notoriously difficult (as I understand).
Notwithstanding that, I think the injustice in the law is that truth is no defence in a case involving this law.
Here’s my scenario:
Religion X holds as its core belief that historical event Y occurred.
Person A is a public place, having a conversation with his friend. He makes the factual statements that event Y is impossible with what we know about modern science, and that there is no historical or archaeological evidence that event Y or the events surrounding event Y had occurred, and that the sacred texts of religion X in fact contain contradictory accounts of event Y.
Person B, of religion X, overhears the conversation and his “religious feelings” are “wounded”. He brings the case against person A, caliming that:
1. His religious feelings are wounded by what A had said.
2. That A made those statements within his hearing.
3. That A, knowing that event Y is the core belief of religion X and that challenging the historicity can reasonably be taken as something that will “wound the religious feelings” of people of religion X, nevertheless chose to make those statements within hearing of person B, which demonstrates his “intention to wound the religious feelings” of person B.
As I mentioned, the fact that A may be stating facts is no defence in this case, at least according to the wording of the law.
Of course whether this scenraio will transpire will depend on whether and how religiously (pun intended) this law is enforced, but in the worst case scenario we can have a situation where it is not safe for anyone to criticise any religion in public, regardless of how factual or valid those criticisms are.
about 2 years ago
Hi Angry Doc,
I am somewhat inclined to agree with the forum contributor that the difficulty in proving the intent kind of neutralizes (to a certain degree) the broad effect of the ambiguity of the law.
Even in the scenario you’ve given, the intent of person A is still arguable despite the choice to make those statements within the hearing of person B. In fact, this scenario reminded me of the published thesis my Sociology lecturer wrote during his honours year. His article on “Rethinking Resurgent Christianity in Singapore” argues that Protestant Charismatic fundamentalism may not be as rational a religion as most Christians claim to be. The fact that he submitted this article for publication despite knowing that Christians will have access to it does not mean that he has the intention of wounding their feelings; his intention could simply be that of getting recognition for his work, scoring an A, or simply in the spirit of academic freedom.
The questions to ask then are whose responsibility will be it to prove the intent (or non-intent), and whether the judiciary will see the plaintiff as guilty (or innocent) until proven otherwise.
P/s: I do agree, however, with the article on TOC that people should be able to criticize religions or religious practices since these may be warped or socially detrimental; just as I have issues with Buddhists/ Taoists burning incense papers indiscriminately.
Ref: “Rethinking Resurgent Christianity in Singapore,” Southeast Asian Journal of Social Science, 1999:27:1:89-112.
about 2 years ago
Weiye,
First off all I must admit that my view of the law is skewed by my looking at it from the standpoint of someone not belonging to a religious organisation.
Secondly, to my knowledge the law has not been invoked (unless it was in that Chick tract case?), so my worries may be unfounded.
The law may be there to “signpost” the government’s stand on preserving religious and racial harmony at all costs, but as S377A to gays, S298 worries me.
Your lecturer may not have been charged for his paper, but this law allows him to be charged if there are people who claim their religious feelings have been wounded by his written words.
As with the Sedition Act, there is no need for the plaintiff to prove any physical harm (or psychiatric for that matter, it seems – and who decides if religious feelings have been “wounded”? A doctor, a psychiatrist, a judge, a layperson, or a religious leader?) or public disturbance; anything that threatens to rock the boat can get you into trouble.
A person cannot change his race, but people choose their religions, and if they are born into one, have the choice to remain in one or choose another. So why should the “feelings” of people who choose to believe in religions be protected, but those of atheists not?
You can tell an atheists that he is a sinner and will burn in hell, and his “feelings” are not protected by any law. Tell the reverse to a religious person, and the law to punish you is already in place.
I suspect the reason behind this is because of our country’s history of religious and racial riots. But there are dangers with such a law.
First of all, as you mentioned, practices which impact all of us, believers or not, are protected by the law, regardless of their effects.
Secondly, it breeds the “let the wookie win” mentality, when people are afraid to say what is true and necessary because of the threat of violence, either by the people being criticised, or applied through the instrument of the state. Under this law, you do not have to be right – you just have to give the impression that you are willing to start a riot to get the government to silent your critics. That cannot be a good thing.
about 2 years ago
For those who are not familiar with the “Let the Wookie win”* reference (if there are any), here is the full exchange from Star Wars:
C3P0: He made a fair move. Screaming about it won’t help you.
Han Solo: Let him have it. It’s not wise to upset a Wookiee.
C-3PO: But sir, nobody worries about upsetting a droid.
Han Solo: That’s ’cause a droid don’t pull people’s arms out of their sockets when they lose. Wookiees have been known to do that.
C-3PO: I see your point, sir. I suggest a new strategy, R2: Let the Wookiee win.
* – Not to be confused with the Chewbacca Defence.
about 2 years ago
Hi Angry Doc,
I agree with you that this law seems to be biased against atheist.
But what I’m trying to say is that the law does present sufficient areas (IMO) of contention for my lecturer to counter the prosecution even if some overzealous Christians so decide to invoke it. In this case, it depends highly on how the judiciary may interpret the law, and possibly set precedence to allow for a clearer understanding of its meaning.
Even in the case of atheism, it is plausible for the judiciary to recognize it as a religion (like Confucianism perhaps?) to maintain the justice. Or does the court simply relies on the list (if any) of recognized religions by the state?
Unfortunately, we may never know the effect of the law until a clear precedence has been set. And before that happens, instead of debating on the possible biasness of the law, perhaps it might be useful to debate on the presence of it, bearing in mind that the biasness may not be so bias after all. But then again, this might be more reactive in measure. *ponder*
On another note, I was thinking of a scenario whereby a Jew argues with a Christian on the fulfilment of Jesus as the Messiah; the religious feelings of both are wounded. Again, these are grey areas in which the law allows for contention. Hence, I’m inclined to think that the court will judge on a case-by-case basis. Have faith.
about 2 years ago
Hi Aaron,
IMHO, The key phrase to answer your questions is “deliberate intention of wounding religious and racial feelings”.
It does not matter if both are from the same race or religion.
It must be deliberate- ie if someone else is eave-dropping from another table and is offended by what you are saying to your companion, then there is no crime. But if you know he is eave-dropping and intentionally say something so that he is insensed about it ( and he can prove that you knew he was eave-dropping) then you have a case to answer.
But I still feel that the law is still too broadly framed. Even if the prosecution has a difficult time to prove intention, it is still very troublesome and time-consuming to have to go to court to prove your innocence to the judge and to the MSM.
about 2 years ago
Angry Doc,
You pointed out the possibility of this law stifling proper debate and I agree that this is perhaps the biggest problem. I really think that they should reframe the law to restrict scope to words that are untrue. Facts should be allowed to be openly stated, even though the facts may ‘wound’ the feelings of some people.
about 2 years ago
Dr Huang,
I would disagree that the race and religion of the person making the remarks that ‘wound racial and religious feelings’ of another person does not matter. The reason is because isn’t it illogical for someone of a certain race or religion to make disparaging statements against his own race/religion? We’ve never seen racial or religious riots in Singapore where the same race/religion face off against each other, right?
I agree with you that the law is too broadly framed and there’s potential for abuse but fundamentally, I think the law is somewhat odd because based on the currently wording, I cannot even say something negative about fellow Chinese Singaporeans, even though I am a Chinese Singaporean myself.
about 2 years ago
Hi Aaron, this is off-topic, but I just wanted to draw your attention to a new webzine, Glass Castle, which focuses on women’s welfare and gender relations in Singapore and the region. The first issue contains an interview with NCMP Sylvia Lim, and we recently blogged about AWARE’s recent report on sexual harassment in Singapore. Please do take a look and consider dropping by in the future if you find the content interesting.
- Jolene (http://www.glass-castle.org/)
about 2 years ago
Just a general point.
One of the thing I notice about the way the law as practiced in Singapore is that everything seemed to flow from the wordings in the statute and how the judge of the day interprets the law.
In general terms, there are in fact several components of law that one needs to consider when determining if someone is contravening the law.
(a) The constitutions, ought to set out whether a law made by legislation (i.e. the Statute) contravenes general principles, for example, free speech.
(b) Case laws, i.e. precedence set by previous rulings.
(c) Interpretation by the judge (e.g. determine if a wording in statute is as intended by legislature or simply to use his/her common sense to determine definition of wording).
In Singapore terms, the constitutions as it stands is virtually pointless as such as it does not safeguard rights — i.e. prevent the legislature from coming up with “unjust” laws. The constitution has so many holes (open ended exceptions) that the legislature can pass any law they like (just or otherwise). So in the scenarios as cited by Aaron, the wording and case laws as embodied in the Singapore Constitution is no help even as a guide.
Case laws, are there any precedence that have been ruled in previous cases that could apply in Aaron’s context? Technically, as Singapore practice common law in the Commonwealth sense, it could also apply judgement from other sister jurisdiction. Or if Singapore is a signatory to International Law it could apply judgement from countries that have similarly signed up to any International Law such as the UN Charter for human rights. Given the nature of Singapore politics it is doubtful such defence would work.
As for the interpretation for the judge on the meaning of the written law (i.e. Statutue) than really it is a case of “pray that the judge will come in your favour”. Especially if the scenario is the first of its kind (i.e. test case), it is anybody’s guess as to how the judge (and the appeal courts) will rule.
about 2 years ago
Hi Michael,
Your post provided me with a better understanding of the legal system. Thank you.
I have one question though (generally addressed to all). Do we really need/ want hard and fast rules and laws to govern our way of life?
There are pros and cons to having clearly defined laws and I personally feel that the cons outweigh the pros. And it seems like Singaporeans really like to rely on the authorities for things to be done. This is something another Sociology professor of mine noticed with the number of forum letters seeking government/ relevant authorities’ intervention (e.g. imposing fines or clearer regulations etc.) for whatever went wrong. Do we not have a mind of our own to tell what’s right or wrong? Are we so robotic that we require the law to demarcate everything we can or cannot do? Are we so conservative that we do not allow for the possibility of boundaries being pushed? It seems that we are. Perhaps it’s better that we do not practice freedom of expression after all?
The law may seem ambiguous but it’s this ambiguity that allows us to function as individual human beings with the mental capacity to process, for ourselves, what is contextually right. Have faith!
Lots of it!
about 2 years ago
This law used to apply to religion only
Last Sept they extended it to race
So things are getting worse, not better
Matilah Singapura!