News Alert: Operation Spectrum forum cancelled due to venue problems.
Current Affairs Desk
The invoking of the Sedition Act in the prosecution of the Christian couple for distributing offensive tracts may seem overly harsh – setting a dangerous precedent for the future.
EIGHT WEEKS in jail– that was the sentence dished out under the Sedition Act to Christian couple Mr Ong Kian Cheong and Dorothy Chan for distributing offensive tracts to Muslims.
(Photo from The Straits Times)
Even so, as ill-judged as the couple’s actions were, it was still a leap to argue that they had committed sedition. The fallout seemed localised; the defendants appeared motivated by religious fervour rather than malice.
Nevertheless, the sentencing should have come as little surprise, since a pair of bloggers were similarly jailed under the Act for posting “racist remarks on the Internet in 2005.
There is also no surprise that the Muslims who received the tracts were offended and chose to take action. A pair of booklets that were highlighted by the prosecution aimed at advocating conversion away from Islam by grossly misrepresenting the religion.
Understandably the recipients –- having received such tracts anonymously in the mail, and with little information about how many had been sent out or the intent of the sender –- were not out of place in fearing that it could be an attempt to undermine their religion.
Why Sedition Act and not Penal Code?
One curious aspect of the case is that the government chose to prosecute the couple under the portentous Sedition Act, rather than Sections 298 and 298A of the Penal Code which address acts that deliberately injure racial or religious feelings.
Furthermore, Sections 298 and 298A were added by the government in 2007 in response to the blogger case of 2005 so as to provide a lower-signature alternative to the Sedition Act to deal with such offenders.
In this context, the use of the Sedition Act against Mr Ong and Ms Chan suggests that the government intended to attach a high signature to the case, perhaps for a deterrence effect.
Or it could be for the more practical reason that the Sedition Act specifically legislates against the “distribution” of “seditious” material, while the Penal Code is more vague on this point. Invoking the Sedition Act would also allow the government to take action against stores that imported the booklets.
Legalities aside, the case is unfortunately timed. National attention on religious matters has been unusually intense of late, particularly since the high-profile ouster of a Christian faction from the Association of Women for Action and Research (AWARE), a local woman’s rights group.
The sentences passed on Mr Ong and Ms Chan, who had expressed contrition for their actions, might appear harsh to elements in the Christian community already chaffing at the fallout from the AWARE takeover, perhaps even reinforcing their perceptions that their religion is being unjustly singled out.
The government’s decision to invoke the Sedition Act could therefore prove to be a double-edged sword. The Act seems to have become the government’s favoured weapon for tackling racial- and religious-related offences.
Interestingly, prior to the 2005 cases involving the bloggers, the last time the Act was invoked was in 1966.
The problem is that the present case might have set a relatively low bar for invoking the Act, causing the government to rely more rather than less on it in future.
HELP keep the voice of TOC alive!
If you like this article, please consider a small donation to help theonlinecitizen.com stay alive. Please note that we can only accept donations from Singaporeans. Thank you for your assistance.Do you have a flair for writing? Volunteer with us. Email us your full name and contact details to theonlinecitizen@gmail.com
137) T on June 17th, 2009 10.01 am,
I’m going to ignore your ad hominem attacks on me and my affiliations, and address just your substantive objection to my opinion:
You quoted the definition of ‘sedition’ from the Sedition Act:
3. —(1) A seditious tendency is a tendency —
(a) to bring into hatred or contempt or to excite disaffection against the Government;
(b) to excite the citizens of Singapore or the residents in Singapore to attempt to procure in Singapore, the alteration, otherwise than by lawful means, of any matter as by law established;
(c) to bring into hatred or contempt or to excite disaffection against the administration of justice in Singapore;
(d) to raise discontent or disaffection amongst the citizens of Singapore or the residents in Singapore;
(e) to promote feelings of ill-will and hostility between different races or classes of the population of Singapore.
This only strengthens my view that what this couple did should not be classified as sedition. (a) is definitely not the case, because they were not doing anything against the Govt. (b) is not either, because they were acting alone and never got anyone else involved. (c) not either.
For (e), it could be argued that their actions promoted hostility between religions, but not races or classes, since there was nothing in the pamphlets that insulted any race or class.
That leaves (d) as the only one that the govt could nail them with. But even this one is quite flimsy. “amongst the citizens of Singapore” implies that a large number of Singaporeans were “disaffected” by this act. In fact, I believe it has been proven that only the two people who reported the couple to the police were upset by them, and even then not to the point of being ‘disaffected’.
My main point is that ‘sedition’ should not be levelled against someone for unintentionally offending someone else. The spirit and purpose of the law is to punish people who go on the radio and broadcast things like “Tutsi people are cockroaches that must be killed”, which could really promote ill-will and hostility. This is a case of two people who attempted to spread their faith in a dumb and insensitive manner. It has not been proven that this couple deliberately wanted to offend other races (or religions, for that matter), because it would not have achieved their purpose of converting them.
I concur with 5) Stranger on June 12th, 2009 11.25 am – I really question what the AG was trying to prove by prosecuting this case.
Hi Gerald Giam,
I would argue that 3(1)(e) of the Sedition Act applies because:
On grounds of race,
(1) Ong Kian Cheong and Dorothy Chan are Chinese while the people who lodged the police report against them are Malay.
(2) Islam is tied to the Malay Identity
On grounds of religion,
(1) religious segregation would count as a “class of the population”. Class means “a collection of things sharing a common attribute”.
Does it mean then that 3(1)(e) of the Sedition Act could apply to any dispute between two parties, one of which happens to be Chinese, and another Malay? This is stretching it too far and could have dangerous implications on simple disputes in future.
As for Islam being tied to the Malay identity, according to the 2000 Census, 0.4% of Malays in Singapore subscribe to religions other than Islam. I guess you’re 99.6% correct.
I believe “class” refers to socio-economic class. Your definition of class is way too broad as it could be used very liberally to describe any group of people in Singapore.
Hi Gerald Giam,
In PP v Koh Song Huat Benjamin and Anor (2005), Senior District Judge Richard Magnus ruled : The accused Lim Yew Nicholas, aged 25, stands convicted for a similar offence. The charge avers that he did an act which had a seditious tendency to promote feelings of ill-will and hostility between different classes of the population of Singapore by posting anti-Muslim remarks on the General Discussion Forum of http://www.doggiesite.com. In another words, religious persuasion qualifies as a “class of the population”.
#127
Better late than never…..
You have refuted Anakin’s point about usage of the word Allah by going around quoting:
You implied that ALL Churches in Indonesia has “Allah” in their name. I was just trying to say that that is incorrect. There are Churches without “Allah” in their names. That’s why I picked those with “Tuhan” and “Kristus” (= Christ, I believe) in their names. If I misread your intended meaning, then it can’t be helped.
Also, read my first post @106 carefully: I said that none of my Christian Indonesian friends refer to the Christian God as Allah (not the other way round). Anecdotal evidence. Take it as you will. There is no inconsistency in me picking out the examples I did.
Before that you have mentioned that
Sorry, got the point about Christians in Indonesia mixed up with la nausee’s. I am not sure which part of Indonesia you’re working in, but your experience is not uniform throughout Indonesia. A simple Google check could have told you that there are names such as “Gereja Sidang Tuhan” or “Gereja Kristus Di Indonesia”. I don’t see any “Allah” in these names. (But I can’t tell if they are Catholics or Protestants, or whether it makes any difference.)
It is indeed strange though, about the insistence of Christians in Malaysia to want to use the word “Allah” instead.
but in post #127 you now say this has got to do with Language. This is clearly changing goal post as what Anakin has correctly mentioned. Make up your mind my dear. First, you refute Anakin remark that Allah is using for God (claiming it is Tuhan), then you claim that it is not wide spread ( giving examples of your friends???), now you say this is English and not Bahasa. Well, news flash for you pal, Allah is Arabic. I wonder what twists will you come out with now to skirt this.
very nice post, i certainly love this website, keep on it