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.

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”.

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.

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”.

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.

//Curious @145) – yes, 298 and 298A of the Penal Code will be more relevant.// /

Thank you. Since the purpose of a law is to stop a “mischief”, in this particular case, “religious disharmony” rather than “racial disharmony” should be the reculcitrants’ mischief, therefore you are right, 298 & 298A are more relevant.

//Many ways to skin a cat..//

It had better be, since a cat is supposed to have nine lives! :)

Thanks for your contributions.

Ok, for argument sake, what if the distributor and the recipient are of the same race and economic class, would Section 3 (1) (e) be still relevant? Would not 298A of the Penal Code be more appropriate?

298A says “Whoever (a) by words, either spoken or written, or by signs or by visible representations or otherwise, knowingly promotes or attempts to promote, on grounds of religion or race, disharmony or feelings of enmity, hatred or ill-will between different religious or racial groups; or (b) commits any act which he knows is prejudicial to the maintenance of harmony between different religious or racial groups and which disturbs or is likely to disturb the public tranquility, shall be punished with imprisonment for a term which may extend to 3 years, or with fine, or with both.”

Curious, as smallvice has stated, the population of Singapore can be classified by race, sex, religion, language, and what have you. Heck, you can even have economic classes, but that is harder to demarcate. You can pit stayers against quitters, heartlanders againsts metropolitans, etc. etc. (No, don’t try to sue on these grounds… ;) So, Section 3(1)(e) still applies.

Let me clarify first – I am not a lawyer, but based on just what is written, it would appear to me that 3(1)(b) is also pau-swa-pau-hai (cover the mountain, cover the sea) – a catch-all phrase as well.

(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;

It covers all Singapore citizens and residents. Procure the altercation – that means anything or any act that can cause argument or disagreements. Clearly, the recipients of those tracts disagreed. Of any matter – now, that is what I call all-inclusive.

Luckily the COOS (Josie Lau & gang)’s sneak takeover of AWARE was done by lawful means, otherwise they can also be hauled up by this section.

Religious groups would fall under the description “classes of the population of Singapore”, so the Sedition Act is still applicable as long as the case involves different religious groups even if all of them fall under the same race.

//In case you haven’t notice, most Acts have a catch-all section just to tie up the loose ends//

So what is your answer to “Will the act still violate Section 3 (1) (e) of the Sedition Act, Chapter 290 , when both the distributor and the recipient are of the same race?”

Obviously Gerald was using the layman term for sedition. But what is this article all about? What is the subject here? We are talking of 2 persons being charged under the Sedition Act. And he uses the dictionary definition? More than that, somehow, he is insinuating that the couple did no wrong.

Why lump together – the better able to “catch” people like the couple above. In case you haven’t notice, most Acts have a catch-all section just to tie up the loose ends. Even in the army, Section 24 (?) – any act which is prejudicial to the SAF or words to that effect – which means they can get you if they want to.

In the last sub-heading, the activity causes discord among various groups. Why is racial and religious hate speech put on the same footing as these other ‘seditious’ activities? The question becomes even stronger when you consider (1) that s. 298A of the Penal Code is an almost exact duplicate of s. 3(1)(e) of the Sedition Act; and (2) that one main concern with hate speech is that it injures a specific victim, but that this is entirely ignored by s. 3(1)(e) (compare s. 298 of the Penal Code).

Maybe your are right, it sometimes does…..

Of course it does. Why do you think he was so sloppy? Sometimes religions do muddle one’s head.

Yes, you are right that Section 3 (1) (e) of the Seditious Act says “A seditious tendency is a tendency — to promote feelings of ill-will and hostility between different races or classes of the population of Singapore.

Do note it’s more appropriate to refer to the Singapore Statutes online link below under the alphabet “S” rather than refer to wikipedia :

http://statutes.agc.gov.sg/non_version/html/homepage.html

BUT what if the offensive materials were distributed to another Chinese who is a Muslim?

Will the act still violate Section 3 (1) (e) of the Sedition Act, Chapter 290 , when both the distributor and the recipient are of the same race?

Is it not more appropriate for the persons to be charged under “Sections 298 and 298A of the Penal Code which address acts that deliberately injure racial or religious feelings.” which the writer of this thread strives to point out?

You must differentiate between the legal and the English definition of Sedition. They are not necessary the same. The same can be said for factual innocence and legal innocence too.