Sedition Elimination

Of course this one couldn't go unmentioned.

3 Singaporean bloggers have been charged with making racist remarks online, under our Sedition Act.

The 57-year-old Act was passed in colonial times - I actually mean this literally - and is being applied this month for the first time in our nation's independence.

What I found disconcerting is the way the term 'sedition' has been used in the legislation, and the way the Act itself is being wielded in this case:

i) Sedition, by definition of the English language, does not include the promotion of "feelings of ill-will and hostility between different races or classes..." [Sec. 3(1)(e)]. It is the state, not its populous, that are targets of sedition.

ii) This extended scope in the use of the term bears implications of a correspondingly extended scope in the state's 'discretion' in applying the Act.

Thing is, isn't it interesting that the authorities used the Sedition Act instead of, say, our constitutional provisions for anti-discrimination between races? Or indeed, as Mykel argues, other instruments such as the Undesirable Publications Act and MDA content regulations such as the Internet Code of Practice, among others.

I am compelled to infer that this use of the Sedition Act is, beyond an effort to regulate harmonious race relations, a symbolic message to the broader public on the state's power to quash dissenting - or, as I like to say, politically alternative - views, "where it may disrupt public order or national security" (and the like). Xenoboy has also alluded to this.

This bit on sedition in Wikipedia caught my eye:

..in societies where sedition laws exist the acts and behaviours which qualify are highly subjective, and typically left to the whims of state agents.

In an interesting twist, forum-ers in Singapore's GLBT internet community have tossed about the idea that this very Sedition Act could be used to "stop online homophobia in its tracks". By applying it against homophobic acts or speech that could "promote feelings of ill-will and hostility between different races or classes of the population of Singapore", the hypothesis is that various expressions of homophobia could then be chargeable offenses.

It's a creative way (of trying) to put the police on our side, for once. The immediate question that arises, though, is the plausibility of classifying individuals of certain sexual orientation as a, well, class. Yawning Bread thinks this is possible.

I have concerns, however.

In trying to apply this Act to stop online homophobia, the implicit message of the state's omnipresent power to decide what can or cannot be said would be, by virtue, reinforced. In our well-learnt worldview of obedience to authority. This could bring about even more problems for free expression among the queer community than already need to be contended with.

Because of this, I think - in my humble, legally-uninformed opinion - it may actually be more useful to look at legislative anti-discrimination provisions rather than Acts like this one. It's not the first time I'm saying this either. (Can you believe there isn't even any anti-discrimination protection for gender! The shame.) Perhaps the law-trained among us may have more to say on all this.

[Ed: On gender discrimination protection, our accension to CEDAW¹ really needs to have bearing here. Ms Anamah Tan, are you reading this?]

***
In another case of extreme surveillance in our free and democratic police city state, Singaporean blogger Jacob George has been called - again, literally - regarding Singapore Rebel investigations. Because, apparently, individuals who have been in contact with Martyn via SMS should also become suspect - and therefore subject to investigations. Note that ASP Chan refused to disclose to Jacob George his means of obtaining his mobile number.

I close off with a beautiful summary of the state of affairs in the Singapore political climate:

Singapore's prime minister has acknowledged tensions over the country's tight controls on public speech and political activity, but defended the regulations as necessary to maintain order, a newspaper said yesterday.

- AP 20 Sept


We are an orderly, high-security society, aren't we.

CNA 16 Sept: Third person charged with sedition for racist remarks on blog site

Taipei Times 18 Sept: Singapore, Malaysia warn bloggers

CNA 21 Sept: Lawyers for two bloggers to try for reduced charges

Technorati: internet freedom, Singapore, media, sedition

¹The UN Convention on the Elimination of all forms of Discrimination Against Women