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.

Subscribe
Notify of
0 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
You May Also Like

要小贩营业超过12小时? 读者批社企“现代奴隶制”

从2015年开始,国内至少有七座小贩中心,以社会企业模式经营。 本地有114做小贩中心,在2027年前,还会增减13座小贩中心。不过根据卫生部兼环境及水源部高级政务部长许连碹博士,日前在拜访淡滨尼综合站小贩中心时,曾对媒体表示,未来是否会继续沿用社企模式,还有待评估。 早前有小贩反映,他们在这些社企经营的摊位,被征收附加费用,例如高达1千200元的中央清洗碗盘费。而一般社企小贩中心,管理层所征收的中央洗碗盘费用,约介于600-800元。 淡滨尼综合站小贩中心,也被誉为首个24小时营业的小贩中心。 事实上,就有读者在两年前,在咖啡店集团旗下子公司OTMH,于2016年11月正式接管淡滨尼小贩中心前,致函本社申诉,有关社企管理层对小贩们的要求,形同要落实“现代版的奴隶制”。 当时,有关读者有意申请该小贩中心摊位,于是联系社企OTMH公司,被告知业者需至少营业12个小时,最长24小时。 鼓励小贩经营超过12小时 这意味着,要实施现代咖啡店24小时不打烊概念,管理层可以要求摊主们拉长经营时间,也更倾向于把摊位租给愿意长时间工作的小贩,最好是能24小时、每周七天都营业。 读者认为,小贩和其他辛勤工作的新加坡人一样,也需要休息和休假,他们也要陪家人子女。压榨小贩们的劳动和时间,剥夺他们应有的休息,藉此最大化小贩中心的盈利。 该读者也质疑,为何审核小贩申请资格的不再是环境局,而全权交给有关社企公司。 他认为,完全由该公司自行决定而不是公开招标,有欠公平。这是因为小贩中心是用公款建设,政府才是拥有者,社会企业只是管理小贩中心的代理人。 “为何他们(指社企)可以被赋予如此多自由,在不公布遴选过程的情况下,来自行选择小贩?”…

二ERP收费站于5月6日起提高收费

自5月6日起,位于中央高速公路(CTE)南行前往布莱德路(Braddell road),与德福天橋(Defu flyover)前往加冷–巴耶利峇高速公路(KPE)两条路段的收费站,将需支付更高费用。 该公告在陆路交通管理局(LTA)对道路和高速公路交通状況进行季度审查之后,于4月29日的新闻发布会上说明。 从早上8点30分至9点,,摩托驾驶者在中央高速公路南行前往布莱德路需支付二新元。 而在早上8点至9点,由德福天桥前往加冷–巴耶利峇高速公路的驾驶者则需支四元。 该局表示,ERP费率的下一次审查将于5月举行,用于6月的学校假期。

外交部:92新加坡人撤离武汉今早搭机返国

外交部今日(30日)发文告,透露92名人在中国武汉的新加坡国民,将撤离该地,今早乘坐酷航TR121班机返回狮城。 文告表示,我国外交部长维文,昨日与中国国务委员兼外交部长王毅通话,代表我国政府向中国政府、湖北省、武汉市政府、中国驻新加坡大使馆等各造的协调致谢,让人在当地的新加坡国民安全返回国门。 外交部也强调返国的新加坡人在抵达樟宜机场时,仍需进行经过健康检测,如出现呼吸道症状将立即送入医院进行进一步体检。 其余返国乘客、包括在武汉协调国人撤离事宜的外交部领事官员等,都必须进行14天隔离。 而第二班从武汉离开的酷航班机将在今日傍晚起飞。 此前,不少国家包括美国、法国、日本、韩国等国家,都已安排从武汉撤离相关国家国民。  

应在人流量较高路线建人行道 徐顺全再促穆仁理了解居民实际需求

由于担忧被高空抛物砸伤,加之走组屋底层连道路线曲折,因此武吉巴督187座一带居民若从190座外的巴士站下车,都习惯沿着组屋旁道路徒步回家。 民主党秘书长徐顺全,在本月初反映这种现象,他发现居民沿着组屋旁道路走,有车辆往来,并不安全。为此他建议,可在路旁增设行人道。不过,对此现任武吉巴督议员穆仁理则指出,组屋底层已有现有的走道和连道,希望居民善用。 徐顺全昨午(9月23日)在脸书帖文重申,当局是否应该真正咨询居民意见,该建造的设施有什么,什么设施是必要和有用的? 除了之前帖文中曾提到,居民鲜少使用的圆形露天广场;现在邻里更新计划(Neighbourhood Renewal Programme)正考虑在没有车辆通行的游乐场旁人行道上,设立一个有盖人行道。 “而居民所要求的,是根据人流量大的路线,修建人行道,尤其是在有交通工具往来的道路上增设有关设施。” 因此徐顺全质问穆仁理,若增设和维修有盖人行道的费用过于昂贵,为什么要在非必要的地点考虑增设有盖人行道,却拒绝在人民诉求且有真实需要的地点建设人行道。 “不应该让居民做选择。但是若有这需要,难道不应该优先考虑为了确保行人安全,而建设人行道吗?” 他促请穆仁理和裕廊-金文泰市镇会,应该真正开始听取民声和意见。 穆仁理在本月17日,曾针对增建行人道一事在脸书上发帖,言明从第187栋到第194B栋组屋,已经有了相连的有盖人行道,也有一条衔接第185栋组屋的有盖人行道在建设中。 此外,他指出,若要增建人行连道,武吉巴督居民就要承担10巴仙的建设成本和百分百的维修成本。…