Last Sept they extended it to race

So things are getting worse, not better

Matilah Singapura!

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!

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.

- Jolene (http://www.glass-castle.org/)

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.