Whoa there!

Picture 3

Only when CNA calls, then I know that two bloggers have been charged with sedition.

Update: 10pm: CNA contacted me to tell me the article linked above has been updated so that the websites at issue are no longer mentioned because they are matters at issue in court. As far as I know, you’re not supposed to mention them in any PUBLICATION.

Update, 3.15pm: Just gave CNA a soundbite where I mumbled something to the effect of, ‘the law hasn’t changed, if you’ve said something seditious or something something, then you’re likely to be found guilty under the law, whether if it’s on paper, on email or on blog’.

Technorati Tags: , , ,

Facebook Comments

16 thoughts on “Whoa there!”

  1. I quote from the CNA article: “A person is deemed to have committed an offence under the Sedition Act if he does, or conspires with any person to do, any act which has a seditious tendency.

    It is also an offence to utter any seditious words or to print, publish, sell, distribute, reproduce or import any seditious publication.

    Among others, a seditious tendency is defined under the Act as one to raise discontent or disaffection among the citizens or residents and to promote feelings of ill-will and hostility between different races or classes of the population of Singapore.”

    Am I the only one who still doesn’t really get what a “seditious tendency” is? If it’s anything that raises discontent or disaffection, or promotes feelings of ill-will and hostility, how does that differ from any number of casual remarks made by a person — whether it’s Joe HDB or an esteemed Minister — in the course of a given day?

  2. I quote from the CNA article: “A person is deemed to have committed an offence under the Sedition Act if he does, or conspires with any person to do, any act which has a seditious tendency.

    It is also an offence to utter any seditious words or to print, publish, sell, distribute, reproduce or import any seditious publication.

    Among others, a seditious tendency is defined under the Act as one to raise discontent or disaffection among the citizens or residents and to promote feelings of ill-will and hostility between different races or classes of the population of Singapore.”

    Am I the only one who still doesn’t really get what a “seditious tendency” is? If it’s anything that raises discontent or disaffection, or promotes feelings of ill-will and hostility, how does that differ from any number of casual remarks made by a person — whether it’s Joe HDB or an esteemed Minister — in the course of a given day?

  3. Interesting.

    Like what Tym was saying, how do you categorize seditious tendency?

    And how is the government cracking down on this form on crime (excuse me, I mean offense), especially ones done online? Are every comments made tracked? And more importanty, just to make things fair for everyone, how thorough are the searches for sedition terrorists?

    Of course, they shouldn’t start in the first place…making racist remarks. Silly people

  4. Interesting.

    Like what Tym was saying, how do you categorize seditious tendency?

    And how is the government cracking down on this form on crime (excuse me, I mean offense), especially ones done online? Are every comments made tracked? And more importanty, just to make things fair for everyone, how thorough are the searches for sedition terrorists?

    Of course, they shouldn’t start in the first place…making racist remarks. Silly people

  5. (from a post I made) …

    For my part, I have no idea what the comments were, but I can bring you through the legislation: (irrelevant portions deleted):

    s4 of the Sedition Act (the “Act”) states that any person who to does any act which has a seditious tendency; utters any seditious words; or prints, publishes, sells, offers for sale, distributes or reproduces any seditious publication shall be guilty of an offence and liable on conviction for a first offence to be fined up to S$5,000, or jailed up to three years, or both.

    s3(1) of the Act defines seditious tendency as a tendency to raise discontent or disaffection amongst the citizens of Singapore or the residents in Singapore; or to promote feelings of ill-will and hostility between different races or classes of the population of Singapore.

    The bloggers might be saved by s3(2), which states that (this is set out in full) 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,
    if such act, speech, words, publication or other thing has not otherwise in fact a seditious tendency.

    http://singasingapore.blogspot.com/2005/09/two-bloggers-charged-under-sedition.html

  6. (from a post I made) …

    For my part, I have no idea what the comments were, but I can bring you through the legislation: (irrelevant portions deleted):

    s4 of the Sedition Act (the “Act”) states that any person who to does any act which has a seditious tendency; utters any seditious words; or prints, publishes, sells, offers for sale, distributes or reproduces any seditious publication shall be guilty of an offence and liable on conviction for a first offence to be fined up to S$5,000, or jailed up to three years, or both.

    s3(1) of the Act defines seditious tendency as a tendency to raise discontent or disaffection amongst the citizens of Singapore or the residents in Singapore; or to promote feelings of ill-will and hostility between different races or classes of the population of Singapore.

    The bloggers might be saved by s3(2), which states that (this is set out in full) 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,
    if such act, speech, words, publication or other thing has not otherwise in fact a seditious tendency.

    http://singasingapore.blogspot.com/2005/09/two-bloggers-charged-under-sedition.html

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *