Letters to TOC
Tuesday, 15 July 2008, 9:28 am | 1,491 views
Freedom of expression
Letter to The Economist by K. Bhavani, Press Secretary to the Minister for Information, Communications and the Arts (Mica).
SIR – Contrary to your article about politics on the web, no bloggers have been jailed in Singapore for “posting materials that those in power dislike” (”Blog standard“, June 28th). There is no such offence under Singaporean law and many websites post highly critical views of the government. However, two bloggers have been jailed and another put on probation for posting virulently racist remarks that could damage racial harmony. Singapore is a multiracial, multireligious society, yet its threshold as to what is objectionable in such matters is higher than in some European countries, which make it an offence to deny the Holocaust.
Another blogger currently faces charges for writing that a female High Court judge had “prostituted” herself in a case that she was trying. Unless we uphold the standing and reputation of the judiciary, there is no basis for the freedoms that citizens expect, either on the internet or in the real world.
K. Bhavani
Press secretary to the minister for information, communications and the arts
Singapore
————–
I actually agree with most of what Ms Bhavani (a key player in the MrBrown saga for all of you with long enough memories) said. There are plenty of blogs and websites containing much that is critical of the government, TOC included.
Now, some of you out there might side with the American view on the freedom to paint judges as scum with little basis for that conclusion - there are discussion boards out there calling Justice Antonin Scalia a “corrupt lying mafia shill”. I would have to side with Ms Bhavani on this one. I don’t think judges should be accused of being corrupt unless there is either sufficient evidence to justify such an accusation, or if they’ve broken some existing rule on judicial bias.
That is because it is all too easy for the general public to believe that legal judgments are essentially political statements. That just isn’t the case, even in all those defamation cases. From a legal point of view, I disagree with the essential reasoning running through all those notorious political defamation and freedom of speech cases - basically the judiciary thinks that allowing the powers-that-be to be slammed with little or no evidence backing up such a claim is going to lead to a loss of confidence in the government and the non-functioning of government services.
I think we Singaporeans are a slightly more politically sophisticated bunch than either the judiciary or the ruling party give us credit for. But you can’t really say that the judiciary’s thinking on why we do not allow for judges to be called whores if they haven’t actually whored themselves is completely out of line, to be fair.
Whereas Ms Bhavani (and her boss, the MICA minister) are just plain wrong on our supposedly tolerant standards on racial and religious offence as compared to “some European countries”. This is a country where the police will come knocking if you’re a Christian evangelist trying to preach the Gospel to a Muslim. That is not a restriction you would find in most European countries - not even Germany.
Do we then seriously believe that nothing will happen if some preacher goes around telling his flock that the Holocaust was a fraud? The answer is no. There are after all, some Jewish Singaporeans, even if there are not many of them.
We are just not that liberal when it comes to matters of race and religion - and unlike Ms Bhavani and Dr Lee Boon Yang, I don’t see why the government needs to be defensive or apologetic on this point in front of an international audience.
Koh Jie Kai
—————–
Life jackets
Levin Angsana was a 22-year old SMU undergraduate who passed away on the 4th of July 2008. I did not know him personally but it is never easy when you read about lives lost, let alone that of someone from the same school.
Quite a fair bit has been said in the press that the sailors should have put on life jackets, and then there are those who feel it was unnecessary. Member of Parliament Dr Teo Ho Pin, chairman of the National Water Safety Council said anyone taking part in water sports, especially in the open sea, should put on a life jacket. In addition, Mr Andrew Tan, senior manager of the Singapore Management University’s office of student life, said the students training out at sea were not told to put on life jackets “because the life jackets are bulky and it will be dangerous if they get caught in the boat’s boom (a pole which controls the sail) and hooks”.
Safety is definitely of paramount importance. A person may quickly draw parallels between this incident and that of the dragon boat tragedy in Cambodia, seeing as to how they were all not wearing life jackets. However, it must be noted that the dragon boat crew were not wearing life jackets as it impeded their performance.
On the other hand, sailors do not wear life jackets because the jackets may get caught in the boat’s boom and hooks, which is more of a safety issue. In both cases the athletes chose not to wear life jackets in spite of guidelines that suggested that they did so in adverse weather.
Hence while one can conclude that they should have worn life jackets and that everyone taking part in water sports should now wear life jackets, I feel each sport is unique in its own way. In some sports where the wearing of a life jacket merely affects performance, I think we can all agree that sometimes we just have to sacrifice some performance to ensure safety. However, if wearing a life jacket itself causes a safety issue as mentioned by Mr Andrew Tan, then we will have to tread carefully. It doesn’t make any sense to increase risk in one area just to reduce risk in another, for ultimately our common goal is to ensure that those who engage in sea sports do not compromise on any aspect of safety.
Bearing in mind that hardly any studies have been done to show the risk incurred by donning or not donning life jackets, we will be jumping the gun if we were to now “decree” in the aftermath of these two tragic accidents that everyone doing sea sports should wear life jackets regardless of the weather. Certain comments may have been made in the heat of the moment and we should take this opportunity to take a step back to look at the full picture before making any further conclusions.
Tan Jian Wei
Read also: Dragon boat tragedy: Victims’ families seek apology. (Straits Times)
———————
Email this to a Friend
Bookmark this
“… sailors do not wear life jackets because the jackets may get caught in the boat’s boom and hooks…”
Perhaps we can design a life-vest that fits under the sailors’ outer garment rather than over?
Koh Jie Kai wrote:
Now, some of you out there might side with the American view on the freedom to paint judges as scum with little basis for that conclusion - there are discussion boards out there calling Justice Antonin Scalia a “corrupt lying mafia shill”. I would have to side with Ms Bhavani on this one. I don’t think judges should be accused of being corrupt unless there is either sufficient evidence to justify such an accusation, or if they’ve broken some existing rule on judicial bias.
Why should a judge, a public figure, be shielded from accusation, however founded or unfounded?
If a judge made a ruling that someone disagree, founded or unfounded, why should no one be allowed to comment on it. Since, such comments does not impede the work of the judge, the judge should just ignore such comments. If the judge cannot stand by his/her judgement in the face of criticism than one has to question whether a judge can stand the heat of being an arbiter of justice.
I have to agree with your own comments, except that I did not know one could be apprehended elsewhere for denying that the Holocaust did happen. Nor have I heard of cases where the police in Singapore were called in to investigate into complaints of what you have brought across as “religious harassment”. Everyone in Singapore is quite free to “evangelise” his or her beliefs, although this must be done with tact and without denunciating other religions in any way; all in all, without damaging religious harmony. It also depends on whether the person evangelised to wishes to take offence. You might have someone Muslim taking offence at Christian or Jewish teachings (although traditionally Jews do not instruct outside their faith), you might have someone Jewish taking offence at Muslim or Christian teachings, you might have someone Christian taking offence at Jewish or Muslim teachings, and so on and so forth, the same extended to persons of different religions. You may even one day have an atheist offended enough by theistic instruction to report the matter to the authorities (after all, he holds secular beliefs) and vice versa, that is, a ‘religionist’ offended enough by secular instruction to report the matter. It really is all about whether offence is wished taken, but more important than that, one has to understand the message one makes when one takes offence.
“You may even one day have an atheist offended enough by theistic instruction to report the matter to the authorities…”
While the “religious feelings” of theists are protected from being “wounded” by the law (specifically Penal Code S298), no law exists to protect the “secular beliefs”* of atheists.
* - One might argue that atheists do not “hold secular beliefs”, but that would be digressing from the discussion.
To be fair to the government - the comments made by the racist bloggers were vile and I’m glad they were flung into jail. I was actually embarrassed that my Muslim Friends had to read those comments.
As for Europe - well in some European nations being a “Holocaust” denier is a criminal offense - so it you suggest that only 5,999,999 were gased instead of 6 million, you could be jailed.
Tang Li, you comment is a bit spurious here:
“As for Europe - well in some European nations being a “Holocaust” denier is a criminal offense - so it you suggest that only 5,999,999 were gased instead of 6 million, you could be jailed.”
Things are not as simple as you like to make it out. I am assuming that you have deliberately set up with such a spurious argument to make the case for the PAP government.
In the Europe you should be aware that there is a human right charter to which virtually all EU and some non-EU country subscribed. The charter does provide for very so called “fair comment” in Law. Unlike say in Singapore. So it is not a simply as you make it out that someone can be branded a holocaust denier by the state and you go to jail. It probably can in Singapore.
After all Singapore is pretty selective in its enforcement. What about a PAP MP making a racist remark about how Little India was getting darker? Why was he not prosecuted.
Freedom of speech comes with responsibility and accountability. Irresponsible remarks that are not backed by truth & facts more often than not create misleading impressions and generates misunderstandings.
Hence, whilst there should be sufficient space for individuals to express their views & vent their emotions, such platforms should be well guarded to ensure that they are not abused.
7) Kevyn, many things in life do come with responsibility and accountability. That is the basis of maturity and the rule of law. There being some who are not responsible about their comments does not rule out the right to speech. To use an analogy, while there are some drivers who are irresponsible, causing accidents and death, it does not necessary rule out the right to drive for everyone else.
The approach should be to allow self expression (driving) but drawing the boundaries (traffic rules) instead of demonising it. Prosecute those who abuse it instead of using the fear of abuse as a reason not to allow it.
Funny that despite the dragon boat incident in Cambodia, there seem to be a reluctance by certain people to learn the lessons that will avoid loss of human life.
It was clearly stated that the ability to swim should be a pre-requisite in sport where falling into the water is an almost guaranteed. Raised this during the db incident.
Even if life jackets are used, isn’t there a risk of malfunction of life jackets?
Yet despite what is apparent common sense, we have yet another tragedy involving a non-swimmer in a water sport. Sigh… That’s life. Ultimately, the responsibility lies with the self. If one can’t think, too bad.
angry doc, if an atheist finds persons of religion on to him and he can’t shake them off, he can always report them for harassment. I’m sure there’s some law protecting any person from being hounded, unless he’s some debtor*.
*One might argue that self-made saints see sinners as having a debt of sin, but doing that would render the discussion irrelevant and irreverent.
One Friday morning before 8.30 a.m. I took a taxis outside Simei MRT Station to Changi General Hopsital which is a very nearby destination. To my horror, I was charged nearly five dollars (cannot remember the exact amount as I shocked and up to now have not recovered.)
The taxis driver said, “Peak hour charge !” What shit ? Peak Hour is okay for Central or Business District !!
There is no traffic jammed at Sime Area anytime ! What Peak hour ?
Osma Tak Boleh Tahan