Racist bloggers charged with sedition
-
I think you have under-estimated the power of internet. The internet is an epoch breaking tool for communication because it is borderless, relatively cheap and accessible. Its readership could well surpass the traditional mass media as it is not confined to any physical borders.Originally posted by robertteh:I believe that there is a misunderstanding somewhere by the government about the role of internet and blogs in its current actions on bloggers.
Internet today is a first a fast-paced communication device which allows people to share and exchange opinions across national borders. It is only secondarily a mass communication media.
In most cases, bloggers for example are treating what they post as personal diaries. Large audiences are exceptions rather than the rule.
It does not enjoy the same audiences as national newspapers or televisions which are truly the traditional media of mass communication and public.
So posting on blogs or websites should not be regarded as public or mass circulation media as newspapers or TVs. I am not encouraging anyone to post defamatory or racists stuff in internets but I feel that given our tight media controls and lack of freedoms of poltical participation, one more move to penalise people for expressions of views or opinions may be counter-productive to further progress and opening up of our society.
There may be a misunderstanding about the role of websites or internets as compared with other mass media. Penalty for racist remarks should therefore be moderated accordingly and not be more as heavy as those meted out to defamations or racisms published in mass circulations newspapers or TVs.
As internet is a tool for communication, online users should observe the same standard of moral conduct that govern human behaviour in general for communication to make sense.
Though readership for blogs is limited, the very fact that they are made public means that they should also follow the gamut of ethical rules.
Racist views not the same as dissenting views. They would not lead to any progress but only throw the community into chaos. -
I believe your view is based on assumptions about borders being infinitimally large in the case of electronic communication.Originally posted by lotus999:I think you have under-estimated the power of internet. The internet is an epoch breaking tool for communication because it is borderless, relatively cheap and accessible. Its readership could well surpass the traditional mass media as it is not confined to any physical borders.
As internet is a tool for communication, online users should observe the same standard of moral conduct that govern human behaviour in general for communication to make sense.
Though readership for blogs is limited, the very fact that they are made public means that they should also follow the gamut of ethical rules.
Racist views not the same as dissenting views. They would not lead to any progress but only throw the community into chaos.
Let us examine whether this assumption is true. Look at all the broadcast channel websites like channel news asia. How many people really bother about any posts on that site. I have counted posts at "Business" and "Community" threads as not more than "20" for any topic daily.
This volume is by far miniscule as compared with readership of national daily like the Straits Times. So on factual evidence, government will be seen as overreacting to blogs as viewers of such site are very small.
If channel news asia website viewers say increase to 500,000 daily, may be there is a case for concern.
As for posts across borders, it will be assumption to say that the impact is even greater. Check the fact again. How many foreigners really bother to read any of the post in sgforums, channel news asia or feedback unit. -
(as posted to Feedback Unit on 20.9.2005)
Which is the greater evil ? Continuation of more clamp down and control of the whole intellectual and business vibrancy or a bit of policy adjustment or interpretation issues over nature and role of internet and blogging.
If the actual role (private nature and usually read by less than 20 persons per day) of blog or internet website is properly understood then it will be found that there is no problem with a minority of errant racists whose private ranting nobody really care to read, least incensed into enraging themselves into communal riots.
Perceptions are just as important in the way we solve problems. Do our leaders have the correct and objective perceptions. If they are always afraid of loss of control, then don't blame Singaporeans for not listening or migrating.
There will be less problems and less nannying of Singaporeans if the perception of leaders are put right. -
roberteh,
could you honestly tell us how you feel about the racist messages if you were the victim? Would you want the govt to take action? And if the govt is not taking any action after police reports were made what would you think of the govt? I seriously think the govt has a social obligation to maintain racial and religious harmony.
Blogs, whether they have small or large following, are open to public and their postings, good or bad, would be there indefinitely.
Racist comments, hate speeches, insults and all forms of verbal abuses are all garbage with zero intellectual or commercial value.
For critical and creative thinking to emerge, we need diversified viewpoints that are reasonable, civil and meaningful. If we let our discussions sink into the quagmire of verbal vormit , then we might be stuck in the cesspool forever. -
Hi Lotus999
Whether a law is necessary or not depends not just on the act itself but on the particular circumstance in which the act or presumed offence is committed.
If the act is very serious, it should be punished more severely. Murder is punished with death penalty so is drug trafficking involving certain quantity of heroin.
I agree with you that racial hates may be serious. But hs the government fully and objectively taken into consideration the circumstance as well.
If the act is made in highly publcized media like the national newspapers or televisions, I agree that the racists should face severe penalty.
In the case of private blogs, and internets even if they are accessible to public which are mostly scantily read by not more than 20 per day, are they so serious as presumed by the government.
What I am pleading is not racism is not serious or should be condone. What I am pleading is for the government before introducing any more draconian controls like ISD-type presumptuous laws, be more objective and consider the rationality and circumstances as well.
Has the government so far given any facts or figures to show that the particular offending blogs were widely read with high traffic.
Is it government's duty to consider each case according to merits, circumstances and reality of the situation before jumping to conclusions of any kind like in this particular case.
There is no need to jump to the conclusion that any racist words uttered are racist and will cause immediate harm or damage. Why leave so much presumptions for the government to use big axe on citizens based on presumptions as in this case. Government should be more objective and not go back to the old days of passing all kinds of laws on presumptions.
If an old woman let out her flat carelessly to a foreigner without work permit, should she go to jail on presumption that harbouring illegal immigrant is seriouis.
If one or two high-rise window drop off its hinge because HDB failed to introduce proper workmanship or standards in construction of flats should government be so rash as to conclude that all the flat owners deserve to be punished by heavy fines for not maintaining windowns. This kind of presumptuous laws are being passed by our government making everyone liable for acts they did not commit to be guilty of draconian punishments to suits government convenience.
Our society is not facing big racism problems because of one or three racists. Our country does not become a poor country because of one family sleeping in HDB car park or void deck as published in the newspaper today.
Which is a greater evil - over-control until citizens are punished or liable to punishments for all kinds of presumptuous acts not well established on facts.
We are fast losing creativity and vibrancy due to all kinds of control freaks taking charge of presumed problems when they are not even established as such by proper facts and figures.
There is a need to be objective in taking actions on people. Let the new leaders be different from the old and not make the same mistakes of overreacting to presumed problems and refusing to listen to good views of the people like in the NKF case. Let the government prove its case if it wants to take more actions against people for slightest offensive posts in internet or blog. Apart from this caution, I am in support of certain level of action against racism. -
It's just a few comments from some kids, not the firebombing of Malay eating houses. Why get so wroked up. Chill guys, have a glass or rum.
-
Honestly, I am in favor of giving these 2 blokes a chance too. Perhaps slap them with a fine, and compulsory national education etc.
Racism is a serious issue that must be dealt with, but not with imprisonment. Does imprisonment change the way how the racists feels? -
robertteh,
I don't know if I get you right, but you seem to think that the govt has just passed a law to deal with the 3 racists. The laws are already there and they provide for a maximum sentence of $5,000 fine or 3 months jail or both. It is the judges who decide on the sentence. Before the cases are heard, it is too early to allege that no due considerations were given to the cases.
You may think that there is no cause for concern as blogs readership is small. But that is because you are not the victim. Have you ever consider for the victims? Didn't you claim that the govt is not objective? Are you not just as subjective?
regards
lotus999 -
Hi Lotus999,Originally posted by lotus999:robertteh,
I don't know if I get you right, but you seem to think that the govt has just passed a law to deal with the 3 racists. The laws are already there and they provide for a maximum sentence of $5,000 fine or 3 months jail or both. It is the judges who decide on the sentence. Before the cases are heard, it is too early to allege that no due considerations were given to the cases.
You may think that there is no cause for concern as blogs readership is small. But that is because you are not the victim. Have you ever consider for the victims? Didn't you claim that the govt is not objective? Are you not just as subjective?
regards
lotus999
It seems that the existing sedition law was being used for the first time on bloggers so the government has a duty to convince the people that it in fact understands all the issues involved in doing so.
I have already given my views on the need for the government to be objective in regard to whether posting on little-read personal blogs or internet would amount to the same degree of seriousness as published on the mass circulation national newspapers, radios or televisions.
I feel that many of our laws and regulations have been passed based on presumptions about threats rather than factually proven threats, and I ask our new leaders to think out of the box and not follow blindly what our past leaders have been doing all these years. The major problem here may be perceptions. Our new leaders have been asking young people to come forward to serve the people. Are they indeed sincere judging by the last clamp down on blogging and internets.
In my view, our leaders claiming to be more open and inclusive should be more pro-people and willing to change otherwise more narrow-minded interpretations of blogs and internets might lead to worsening of our social and cultural climate so essential to progress. -
robertteh
Every country has its laws and regulations to maintain order and to govern its people's interaction with one another.
The very purpose of using laws to maintain order means that laws need to be there before chaos break out.
Unlike what you seemed to imply, the laws are not the only component in our juridical system. There is the trial where the accused or his/her lawyer can defend himself/herself or for him/her, and the judge to take into consideration all factors/circumstances leading and related to the offence and the accused. Any member of the public can also attend the trial. If convicted, there are the minimum and maximum sentences to meet the severity of the offence.
I honestly do not think anyone serious and sincere in contributing towards the country should be put off by these clamp-down of racists. If they can't see the difference between racist views and dissenting views, then, I don't think they have much to offer the country.
regards
lotus999 -
Rule of law is an ideal of democracy. A system that is accountable and transparent will be better able to win over the hearts and minds of people. Implementation of the "rule of law" holds the key to success.Originally posted by lotus999:robertteh
Every country has its laws and regulations to maintain order and to govern its people's interaction with one another.
The very purpose of using laws to maintain order means that laws need to be there before chaos break out.Unlike what you seemed to imply, the laws are not the only component in our juridical system. There is the trial where the accused or his/her lawyer can defend himself/herself or for him/her, and the judge to take into consideration all factors/circumstances leading and related to the offence and the accused. Any member of the public can also attend the trial. If convicted, there are the minimum and maximum sentences to meet the severity of the offence.
Human beings are the cause of system success or failure. Accountability of human implementation to the people again is crucial. Do we have a good record of accountable and transparent implementation ?I honestly do not think anyone serious and sincere in contributing towards the country should be put off by these clamp-down of racists. If they can't see the difference between racist views and dissenting views, then, I don't think they have much to offer the country.
I am very happy with your observation that a country has to tell the difference between racism and dissenting views. At least if we have citizens to continue to uphold such value system, there will be greater future for all. If the fine line of distinction is blurred and leaders are not willing to draw the line then there will be disasters for all.
regards
lotus999 -
(posted at cna by "centroservo")
Reply by Robertteh:
It is one thing to post a remark about Singapore. It is totally another thing if you post a remark about one's Skin. And skin, of course is a highly sensitive issue.
I had the chance to read what was written on the blog. If you were me, you too would demand a severe punishment. It's horrible, really..
It is the duty of any good government to prove its case in trying to extend any presumptuous or seditions laws to the presumed mass meda like the privately hosted blogspace or internet.
Before coming up with facts and figures on mass effect of bloggers' private diary posting it will set a dangerous trend for future government to presume threats to society for their remarks or views not seen as conforming to society no matter how private are their nature.
In our already overly controlled society where freedoms of speech or exprssions are controlled by press licensing, it will exacerbate the situation by our new administration making the move to regard unproven privately posted remarks in private blogs as extremely harmful and severely punishable.
Such hazy and hasty extension of sedition laws to the blogs is difficult for citizens to accept them. Government should not blame the citizens who think differently as there is a clear case of using of sledge hammer to swat the fly. A small penalty on any seditious private blog posting is more than sufficient. This is especially so if the offender is a young person hardly more than 17 of age. What is presumptuous or subjective and unconvincing needs to be fully justified to the citizens.
I hope all future laws and enforcements will be more accountable and transparent. A more educated populations definitely need better arguments. -
It is not easy to get a government who has always ruled by a majority mandate to suddenly explain to the people,who have for the majority of the PAP's rule, remained pretty silent or cowed on such issues.
-
{posted by one forumer at CNA on 23.9.2005)
(Reply by Robertteh):
"anon"]robertteh,
Please stop overgeneralizing the whole issue.
1. Charges are against racism not against different points of view
There are many sites on the net against singapore government and its policies, but the government has not banned them, or prosecuted the owners. It's only racist sites that are being brought down. This can not be seen as an all out war against freedom of expression.
You are free to express your opinions, but that does not mean you can say anything you like. You are still responsible for your comments. Insults, false accusations, etc. will get you in trouble.
Note that we all have a duty to our fellow beings under the law of torts. People seem to forget this very often. This duty takes precedence over your right to free expression in cases where you cause emotional distress to people through your expressions.
2. Blogs are not private!!!
As long as you are open to the 'worldwide web', a blog is not private, and serves as a stage to promote your views to an audience. It becomes a virtual public assembly. Please note that for a real public assembly in Singapore you need to get police permission. Yet to make a virtual public assembly you don't need police permission. So one could argue that Singapore has become more lenient after the advent of the internet. (There were at least a 100 visitors to the some of the racist blogs by very conservative estimates.)
Please read my posts again. I am not saying that racism should be tolerated and not be punished. What I am saying is that before punishing racism do consider blogs or websites are not as prevalent as national newspapers or televisions.
So in coming down on racism posted in blogs, do consider this fact that blogs are both private and accessible to public. This fact has to be considered objectively and let the government not go overboard or overreact.
I wonder if the government has considered this point. If it has not, I suggest that it should. I suggest that in an internet age any foreign blogs can have just as much effect on our local conduct and behavior.
Practically any citizens may access the blogs and say something, and is the government going to apply a big broad brush of sedition laws or publication on everyone for many stupid things said, many of which may be said in jest or humour as well.
Do we have a government who understand the global nature of internet and blogs. I urge the government to relook at the old precepts that anything published or aired anywhere is liable to seditions without taking into account the private albert publicly accessible nature of blogs.
If government insists that blogs are public and not private then why allow ypap website to limit access. I happened to read some YP posting and saw that they are full of defamatory remarks but so far no action has been taken. I suppose the lack of similar action on rantings in YP is not due to practice of double standard but some form of tolerance of new forms of communication that is both private and accessible to public. -
Over CNA tonght, Foreign Minster Mr. George Yeo has criticised muslims for seeking to return to their past idealistic ideology. I wonder if such comments amount to racism.
If racism is still unclear or undefined, then such remarks may rise give to concern too by any one. Before government tries to apply sedition laws to postings on blogs or internets, there should be a panel vested with certain fairness of interpretations to prevent use of racism as a means to control or clamp down on personal freedom. -
criticizing muslims amount to racism?? i thought there are also indian, chinese, arabic....muslim besides malay?Originally posted by robertteh:Over CNA tonght, Foreign Minster Mr. George Yeo has criticised muslims for seeking to return to their past idealistic ideology. I wonder if such comments amount to racism.
If racism is still unclear or undefined, then such remarks may rise give to concern too by any one. Before government tries to apply sedition laws to postings on blogs or internets, there should be a panel vested with certain fairness of interpretations to prevent use of racism as a means to control or clamp down on personal freedom.
-
More like religious bigotry to me. Anyway, Many Muslims themselves hold bigoted views, especially those from the Middle East.Originally posted by sgdiehard:criticizing muslims amount to racism?? i thought there are also indian, chinese, arabic....muslim besides malay? -
It is in the context of our government actions against racist remarks posted in private blogs for sedition that I am referring to. If we want to stop racism posted in blog, or internets, there should be some forms of objective and transparent standards like what constitute racist outrage and publishing before taking of actions. After all seditions are not minor offences and fines or jail sentences at this moment can be heavy.Originally posted by sgdiehard:criticizing muslims amount to racism?? i thought there are also indian, chinese, arabic....muslim besides malay? -
hey pp...
do you pp realise that the 2 jokers that was charge in court, had a similar case as that bloody PSC scholar who also made a racist remark in his blog? and he scholar could get away by retracting his statement and saying sorry..
and these 2 poor souls have to suffer the law....so is this fair? shld the scholar be brought to justice too? i forgot his damn name... -
That Chua guy? He disparaged those whose skin was darker than his, didn't he?Originally posted by darknessfall:hey pp...
do you pp realise that the 2 jokers that was charge in court, had a similar case as that bloody PSC scholar who also made a racist remark in his blog? and he scholar could get away by retracting his statement and saying sorry.. -
At that time sedition laws were the same. Under the same laws, two were charged with sedition but one was not.Originally posted by darknessfall:hey pp...
do you pp realise that the 2 jokers that was charge in court, had a similar case as that bloody PSC scholar who also made a racist remark in his blog? and he scholar could get away by retracting his statement and saying sorry..
and these 2 poor souls have to suffer the law....so is this fair? shld the scholar be brought to justice too? i forgot his damn name... -
because he is govt scholar ...Originally posted by darknessfall:hey pp...
do you pp realise that the 2 jokers that was charge in court, had a similar case as that bloody PSC scholar who also made a racist remark in his blog? and he scholar could get away by retracting his statement and saying sorry..
and these 2 poor souls have to suffer the law....so is this fair? shld the scholar be brought to justice too? i forgot his damn name... -
Government scholar big fark right? Does that mean he can get away with murder?Originally posted by crazy monkey:because he is govt scholar ... -
No, it means he can get away without paying for studies.
-
I was told that the scholar apologised and retracted his postings voluntarily while the other 3 were unrepentant.