By Edwin S Anthony

“Under the Sedition Act, anyone found guilty of promoting feelings of ill-will and hostility between different races or classes of the population of Singapore can be fined up to $5,000 or jailed up to three years, or both, if convicted.”

Let me ask this. If someone cries “racism!” would that person be guilty of ‘promoting feelings of ill-will and hostility between different races’? It is a slippery slope indeed when we do nothing about racism and allow everyone to get used to the status quo of racial hierarchy that thus results; when we allow time to turn the characteristics that are thus engendered to become ‘identity’ and ‘culture’; when we then go after those whom highlight it for ‘promoting feelings of ill-will and hostility between different races.’

In such a case, what such a person is actually guilty of is creating hostility between those whom have gotten used to their respective positions within a discriminatory status quo and those whom haven’t.

Racism ought to be dismantled the moment the slightest vestige of its debilitating infrastructure is erected. Over time, various races would become accustomed to their relatively advantaged and disadvantaged position and began to exhibit respective traits.

In other words, in a society where various races are ‘preferred’ vs. ‘less preferred’, the former will over time began to exhibit traits that are distinguishable from the latter. Then it becomes ‘culture’. At this point, due to identification of a particular set of people with said culture (i.e. Americans with capitalism or the Chinese with Confucianism), the critique of the culture becomes the critique of the race.

For instance, if a particular set of people are identified with a particular culture, and then thereafter are discriminated as a consequence, to criticise the latter becomes synonymous with taking issue with the former. That is when it can come across as racism where, in truth, one is taking issue with a culture or policies that promote discriminatory tendencies.

The Sedition Act can be a dangerous stumbling block in the progression towards egalitarian harmony. It can keep people quiet whilst one culture and associated ‘race’ is allowed to gain prominence and dominance over all others. If used irresponsibly, it can see those who attempt to attack discrimination being hauled up for promoting hostility, when in truth the person is not guilty of anything but challenging a seemingly harmonious yet inequitable status quo.

In this case, the people who establish and maintain the discriminatory conditions get away with it.

There is a world of difference between the existence of ‘social harmony’ and the realisation of ‘egalitarian harmony’. Maintaining the former can only be justified if egalitarianism is true.

There is no need for such an Act if people know how to exercise empathy in the face of others’ suffering discrimination. However, where this is absent, as is the case in Singapore, the law steps in and both racists and those who attempt to address systemic inequality are lumped together. It is a lose-lose situation for anti-racists.

Let us imagine that the British National Party came into power in Britain by appealing to the economic interests of the people. Over time, there are efforts to ensure that the ‘whites’ are advantaged over all others – provision of special education; favourable media portrayals; fragmentation of minority communities; celebration of the culture of ‘whites’ with great pomp whilst those of others are kept low-key.

The ‘whites’, over time, would likely get used to such a status quo and expect things their way always whilst discounting all difference as inconsequential. All other cultures would then be relegated to the periphery. The privileged group would likely exhibit an arrogance that goes well in tandem with ignorance or passive ‘tolerance’ of other cultures.

Over time, aspects of ‘white’ culture that do not augur well for the continuation of such a status quo also disappears as the elements of any culture either conflict with the status quo or are redefined or disappear with time unless the people are resilient from the outset. That is why we ought to forward the skeptical eye in the face of ‘ancient cultures’ with relatively continuous histories as they are perfected in delivering the conditions that created them.

Thereafter, if one was to stand up and criticise the ‘whites’ for their arrogance, and the culture they practice for promoting discrimination and self-absorption, would that person be guilty of ‘promoting feelings of ill-will and hostility between different races or classes of the population’? Would the critique of the ‘whites’ not be an accurate one given that they would inevitably have acquired those traits that distinguish them from other minorities?

How about speaking about the class divide, like the growing income gap between the rich and poor? Would that mean that the person speaking about such issues is guilty of ‘promoting hostility between different races or classes of the population’?

How about the anti-colonial movements of the past that sought independence? Were they similarly guilty? Or were they, like all of the above, simply attempting to address an unjust situation before everyone got accustomed to it and perceived the unjust social framework as ‘culture’?

How about the feminist movement? Were they guilty of ‘promoting feelings of ill-will’ between men and women? Were they not right to criticise men for traits that would necessarily become a part of the culture of the relatively advantaged? Were they ‘racists’ for critiquing men as a class or sector of society?

Whom are to be indicted here? Those who seek to privilege one group over others, promote a system that necessarily leads to class divisions, or speak out against it even though most have formulated a culture of doing one’s best within such an iniquitous status quo? Bringing up any issue can ‘promote ill will’ between the advantaged and disadvantaged. But if we just allow the ‘promotion of ill will’ to identify the errantry, then we do so at the price of getting rid of a possibly overarching and extremely iniquitous status quo.

If the Sedition Act was in place since the days of yore, the slaves may well still be in chains, the ‘Son of Heaven’ reigning in China whilst the colonialists pillage the land, women would still be stoking the hearth and remain socially disadvantaged, and everyone whom had sought to address these inequalities would have been guilty of promoting ‘ill-will’.

Before we haul anyone away for doing so, if we cannot at the same time prove beyond any reasonable doubt that we are not simultaneously maintaining non-egalitarian conditions by doing so, it is we whom ought to be hauled away.

Just last week, three youngsters were arrested for making overtly insensible racist remarks online. Perhaps we should refrain from arresting and prosecuting such people unless we can prove that we ourselves did not contribute to the societal framework that engenders such behaviour – by keeping quiet about an overarching racist status quo, which produces people whom might harbour racist inclinations.

If we maintain the said overarching non-egalitarian milieu, we ought not to be surprised that whilst there are some of the advantaged group who would reap the material benefits and apparently vindicate our policies, there would be others who would be inclined to cast slurs. It is not their fault – rather it is that of those who maintain the overarching framework that inclines people to view others in a superficial and reductionist manner. By taking these overt racists to task, we would actually be taking away the more visibly abrasive manifestations of our own policies. Till we can dismantle such a framework or show that this relationship is false, those who cast such racial slurs are as much victims as those whom bear the brunt of their diatribes.

Just imagine a scenario where a ‘white’ gets arrested for calling a black a ‘nigger’, or a black retorts with ‘you white bastard!’ Should either the white or black person be arrested here, or those who maintain the conditions that engender the social and political disenfranchisement of the blacks?

The Sedition Act needs revision, lest it confuses the progressives with the regressives due to the contradistinction of both from the majority whom have gotten used to it all.