Racist bloggers charged with sedition
-
Hello Lotus999,
What you have said is now reproduced below:-Lotus999: You seem so concerned about the governmental control that you've become exceedingly paranoid. This paranoia has caused you to loose your rationality and your reasoning to become confusing and sometimes conflicting. Here are some examples:
As for my remark "have'nt we locked up enough people for the slightest faults" that remark was in reply to a forumer who suggested to lock up people for racism over the blogs. It was to express my point that before government takes any actions on perceived racism over blog, it should prove its case.
You have obvioulsy quoted me out of context and insisted that I should prove my statement - "have we not locked up enough people for the slightest fault."
In view of your convoluted view of my remark, I am now obliged to enlighten you on the examples of people locked up for the slightest faults. These include people who were sued and detained for defamations over speeches made during election, for none other than political speeches made in the heat and in the nature conduct of electoral process. What faults have they committed?
There are those who were detained under ISA till these days without their faults being conducted with proper hearing in open court, so what offences have been committed? Have alleged offences been proven?
If laws and orders are to be extended to the sphere of blogs, sad to say, I don't see why authority cannot first prove the rationale that posting of views in blogs are indeed as pervasive as mass circulation newspapers.(irrespective of average readership of 20 daily per topic over popular site like CNA)
Can we say that it is fair to insist on conventional interpretations of publications of printed words when racist remarks in blogs and internets are matter of personal communications.
Obviously internet is today one fo the greatest commuication invention permitting people to communicate on different plain - private as well as public irrespective of borders or nationalities. Has government really understood the nature of internet and blogs. If government really wants to open up the pandora box but extending sedition laws to blogs then it should study how consistently resolve how it will take further actions for similar remarks in blogs and internets posted by foreigners on foreign blogs.
It will be ironical for PM Lee to say he wants people to have views and independent thinking or to build an inclusive society if he does not first produce sufficient facts and figures to prove that blogs are indeed pervasive mass circulation and not personal communication devices, a view I have consistently posted.
I hope his announced intention to build an inclusve society is not an empty promise.
I am only asking for more open and accountable corporate governance before extending greater control over citizens' last freedoms of expressing their political views or beliefs or government policies. Citizens should play a part in asking to be heard on the rationale for draconian controls.
Blogs can be private in nature as well as public just like YP website. It is the responsibility of government to differentiate those which are private in nature even though under conventional meaning, the views may be accessible to public. Severity of punishment does have to take such factor into account.
I have made relevant replies to various pertinent points and I do not think I have strayed off the issues. As of debates I am not debating for the sake of debating or semantics but am giving my views on an important issue - actions of government for perceived seditions in blogs. -
How come these ppl are charged under sedition act and not religious harmony act ?
-
robertteh
if this:
<
What you have said is now reproduced below:-
quote:Lotus999: You seem so concerned about the governmental control that you've become exceedingly paranoid. This paranoia has caused you to loose your rationality and your reasoning to become confusing and sometimes conflicting. Here are some examples:>>
is your reply to my posting:
<
However since you have now clarified your meaning of paranoid, I would consider it settled. As regards inconsistency of my views on what is public or private views, in postings over the blogs, my view is that there may exist different opinions.
Did I say those things? Confused Confused Confused Confused Confused>>
then, I'm really confused.
I didn't clarify my meaning of paranoid but merely told you that it wasn't a "name". Neither had I ever disputed with you over what was private or public views.
Those people who were sued "for defamations over speeches made during election" were never detained. Pls get your facts right before enlightening others.
Care to give more details on "those who were detained under ISA till these days"? If you are unable to do so, then I couldn't help but suspect you could be out to create mischief!
May be I can give you some details on "those who were detained under ISA till these days". They are few members of the Jemaah Islamiyah and, to me, their offence is pretty obvious.
To sharpen our debating skills means to put forth our views and rebuttals in a clearer, more logical and convincing way. How would others understand your views if whatever you write is inconsistent and irrelevant?
An example of irrelevance in your latest reply:
What has "facts and figures to prove that blogs are indeed pervasive mass circulation and not personal communication devices" got to do with PM Lee's wish "to build an inclusive society"?
You could be trying to say sth but I really couldn't get it., sorry. -
Lotus999,Originally posted by lotus999:robertteh
if this:
<
What you have said is now reproduced below:-
quote:Lotus999: You seem so concerned about the governmental control that you've become exceedingly paranoid. This paranoia has caused you to loose your rationality and your reasoning to become confusing and sometimes conflicting. Here are some examples:>>
is your reply to my posting:
<
However since you have now clarified your meaning of paranoid, I would consider it settled. As regards inconsistency of my views on what is public or private views, in postings over the blogs, my view is that there may exist different opinions.
Did I say those things? Confused Confused Confused Confused Confused>>
then, I'm really confused.
I didn't clarify my meaning of paranoid but merely told you that it wasn't a "name". Neither had I ever disputed with you over what was private or public views.
Those people who were sued "for defamations over speeches made during election" were never detained. Pls get your facts right before enlightening others.
Care to give more details on "those who were detained under ISA till these days"? If you are unable to do so, then I couldn't help but suspect you could be out to create mischief!
May be I can give you some details on "those who were detained under ISA till these days". They are few members of the Jemaah Islamiyah and, to me, their offence is pretty obvious.
To sharpen our debating skills means to put forth our views and rebuttals in a clearer, more logical and convincing way. How would others understand your views if whatever you write is inconsistent and irrelevant?
An example of irrelevance in your latest reply:
What has "facts and figures to prove that blogs are indeed pervasive mass circulation and not personal communication devices" got to do with PM Lee's wish "to build an inclusive society"?
You could be trying to say sth but I really couldn't get it., sorry.
You have chosen a different path to discuss the issue posted here: "government action on racism in blogs"
I believe I have consistently given my view on two points: that government has not justified its extention of control over the blogs and internet.
Secondly, I have given my view that blogs may be private posting of views although they are accessible to public . I disagree with the view that becaus they are accessible to public they are therefore automatically regarded as public based on conventional meaning of publication.
Apparently despite by clarifications on the above-stated two points, you still cannot see the logic of my views and chose to carry on in debating on terminlogy or semantics.
I am not here to represent any one but am here to give my own views or versions of truths or untruths. I cannot see your allegation that I am up to mischiefs as I am not an eminent public figure or preaching from any pulpit so please do not give me that honor of possessing power over any body to believe me.
I am just like you giving your views here. Am I not entitled to rebut your own versions of "paranod" or "mischiefs" I believe I have not described your actions as trying to suppress my views. Please note that there is not truth in your describing my posting as mischiefs. It is my two cents' worth anyway and who would believe me even if I have said more than as stated above.
I do not think you should use the word "paranoid" in the manner you did. I do not think that I have wrongly described blogs as private in nature. So I do not see how you could continue to use semantic to fault my two views.
Please do read the substance of my posting and not be so pedantic with particular words taken by you out of context. If politicians sued for defamations did not go to jail or be made bankrupt as a result of the defamation suit then I agree with you that they were not detained or locked up.
Please correct me on this point if you have more facts. I still cannot understand why you are here as a prosecutor of sorts over this kind of semantics.
I believe in what I have posted and I believe these are my views. You do not have to believe my views and switch off your machine. So please decide whether or not to accept my meanings or words and not be misled by me or engage in the semantics like you seem to be doing.
I have not criticised nor intend to characterize your manner of flaming but let the moderator be the judge. Please carry on your own independent posting and do not worry about my two centrs unless you are serving any other intentions which I am not aware of. -
Don't mind me poking in my nose at this stage...Originally posted by robertteh:I believe I have consistently given my view on two points: that government has not justified its extention of control over the blogs and internet.
Secondly, I have given my view that blogs may be private posting of views although they are accessible to public . I disagree with the view that because they are accessible to public they are therefore automatically regarded as public based on conventional meaning of publication.
I wish to bring you to your first point - That government has not justified its extention of control over the blogs and internet.
What do you mean by justified here? -
Hello Toofree,
The minister himself has realised (though his view was not backed by the judges who try seditions in court in recent years) the old Sedition Act may be inadequate to be extended to blogs or internet. So why not have the whole issue in our mature Singapore today be debated in parliament and let there be proper accountable governance before taking actions on racism over the blogs or internet. Morever publication of words or expression in blogs might not necessarily have the same intent or impact as those published purposefully in mass circulation newspapers or televisions. The minister owes a duty to the public to introduce proper legislation amendment before extending laws or punishments over publications in the private blogs or semi-public websites like youngPAP.
As a matter of fact many views and words in YoungPAP were found to be very vulgar and foul but they have up to this time been tolerated. This fact only confirms my view that publication on blogs or internet might be private or semi-public without the same intent as those in the mass circulation papers.
There is also the question of fitting of punishment to the crime. Has the minister considered this fact. Many materials from outside the country also appear in cyberspace and the governmnet might not be able to take them to tasks even if the sedition is amended to cover blogs and internet.
Let the minister enlighten the more educated people of today that he will treat all seditions published on blogs and newspapers as of the same severity without differentiation even though the blogs might be of different nature and intent.
Only then will I as a citizen accept the laws and not hastily extended by some extrapolation in his mind that blogs are the same in intent or impact as mass circulation newspapers the original the media over which seditions normally apply. -
wow, this is an interesting exchange of views man!Originally posted by robertteh:Please do read the substance of my posting and not be so pedantic with particular words taken by you out of context. If politicians sued for defamations did not go to jail or be made bankrupt as a result of the defamation suit then I agree with you that they were not detained or locked up.
I have not criticised nor intend to characterize your manner of flaming but let the moderator be the judge. Please carry on your own independent posting and do not worry about my two centrs unless you are serving any other intentions which I am not aware of.
robert, really got politician went to go jail after being sued for defamation har? wah very scary leh! kena sued already still went to jail! Do you know the name of the jail bird politician or not?
don't think lotus is flaming lah. mod, what do you think? -
No pearlie this is not flaming. If our laws are uncertain and too sweeping like the sedition laws, they have to be changed. It will be good to all citizens to have a government which is willing to justify extention of control into blogs and internets by proper amendments to existing unclear legislation. This is my point.Originally posted by pearlie27:wow, this is an interesting exchange of views man!
robert, really got politician went to go jail after being sued for defamation har? wah very scary leh! kena sued already still went to jail! Do you know the name of the jail bird politician or not?
don't think lotus is flaming lah. mod, what do you think?
Let's look forward. I have given a certain off-the-cuff reply in an earlier post "have we locked up enough people already for the slightest fault" to some forumer who suggested locking up more people for racism not to lock up people without jusf process and laws. In the context of that forumer's over-bold remark I do not think I am being frivolous. I still maintain this view. -
I am all for freedom of speech in cyberspace, especially since we have few avenues left to speak freely without fear of recrimination. However, blogs which are freely available to perusal by all and sundry can become the vehicle for sowing social unrest.
I presume robertteh is old enough to remember the racial riots of the 60s. We live in 'interesting times' and in a volatile region where extremists are waiting to exploit any opportunity to destroy the racial harmony we currently enjoy. I have full confidence that our Malays and Muslims are religious but not fanatical, proud of their cultural heritage but not segregationists. However, they are not immune to spoilers who would cast the non-Muslim, Chinese hegemony that exists as a diabolical plot to contain the minority in the midst of an overwhelmingly Muslim region.
Both in this forum and in Singaporean society I have encountered young people with misguided views that are frankly racist. We must not allow such a window of opportunity to let in extremists who would turn Singapore into Afghanistan. If we have to curtail civil liberties to ensure our continued stability and prosperity, I am for it. -
Hello Oxford Mushroom,
Yes, I witnessed the racial riot and I had to keep vigil at night to avoid being attacked.
I am aware of the danger of racism and that is why I have said racists need to be punished.
My only concern here is the manner racism is being dealt with - sedition over the blogs or internet. Is this action taken as a prelude to intended clamp down on our last freedom of speech. Citizens should be mature and discerning enough not to be sold any new policies which as was done with GRC - double edged and also intended to serve political purpose i.e. to suppress political views or expressions in the guise of racism harmony. Singapore may be in greater danger of losing the rights of political participation more so than the racial disharmony.
A better way to build an inclusive cosmopolitan society will be to be open and accountable with candid explanation of policies and controls minus all the gerrymandering of the past. Citizens are not stupid and can see through attempts to introduce more controls of political views or expressions.
If firmer actions must be taken against racism, this time let there be proper amendment to the sedition act to make it more certain without any gerrymandering to curb citizens' freedom of views and expressions over the net. -
Originally posted by robertteh:
There is only rights of political participation in proper sense, Robert. It is more dangerous if every single online publisher/author can anyohow shoot personal or rubbish lies and attacks at his/her wimps and fancy, without check. (Read Lai vs Elfred in YPforum to obtain more understanding).
Hello Oxford Mushroom,
Yes, I witnessed the racial riot and I had to keep vigil at night to avoid being attacked.
I am aware of the danger of racism and that is why I have said racists need to be punished.
My only concern here is the manner racism is being dealt with - sedition over the blogs or internet. Is this action taken as a prelude to intended clamp down on our last freedom of speech. Citizens should be mature and discerning enough not to be sold any new policies which as was done with GRC - double edged and also intended to serve political purpose i.e. to suppress political views or expressions in the guise of racism harmony. Singapore may be in greater danger of losing the rights of political participation more so than the racial disharmony.
A better way to build an inclusive cosmopolitan society will be to be open and accountable with candid explanation of policies and controls minus all the gerrymandering of the past. Citizens are not stupid and can see through attempts to introduce more controls of political views or expressions.
If firmer actions must be taken against racism, this time let there be proper amendment to the sedition act to make it more certain without any gerrymandering to curb citizens' freedom of views and expressions over the net.
Such unrestrained nosense usually brings about more trash and such and causing the environment to be hijacked by a few low quality groups. -
Short title.
1. This Act may be cited as the Sedition Act.
Interpretation.
2. In this Act —
"publication" includes all written or printed matter and everything whether of a nature similar to written or printed matter or not containing any visible representation or by its form, shape or in any other manner capable of suggesting words or ideas, and every copy and reproduction or substantial reproduction of any publication;
"seditious" when applied to or used in respect of any act, speech, words, publication or other thing qualifies such act, speech, words, publication or other thing as one having a seditious tendency;
"words" includes any phrase, sentence or other consecutive number or combination of words, oral or written.
Seditious tendency.
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.
(2) Notwithstanding subsection (1), any act, speech, words, publication or other thing shall not be deemed to be seditious by reason only that it has a tendency —
(a) to show that the Government has been misled or mistaken in any of its measures;
(b) to point out errors or defects in the Government or the Constitution as by law established or in legislation or in the administration of justice with a view to the remedying of such errors or defects;
(c) to persuade the citizens of Singapore or the residents in Singapore to attempt to procure by lawful means the alteration of any matter in Singapore; or
(d) to point out, with a view to their removal, any matters producing or having a tendency to produce feelings of ill-will and enmity between different races or classes of the population of Singapore,
if such act, speech, words, publication or other thing has not otherwise in fact a seditious tendency.
(3) For the purpose of proving the commission of any offence under this Act, the intention of the person charged at the time he did or attempted to do or made any preparation to do or conspired with any person to do any act or uttered any seditious words or printed, published, sold, offered for sale, distributed, reproduced or imported any publication or did any other thing shall be deemed to be irrelevant if in fact such act had, or would, if done, have had, or such words, publication or thing had a seditious tendency.
Offences.
4. —(1) Any person who —
(a) does or attempts to do, or makes any preparation to do, or conspires with any person to do, any act which has or which would, if done, have a seditious tendency;
(b) utters any seditious words;
(c) prints, publishes, sells, offers for sale, distributes or reproduces any seditious publication; or
(d) imports any seditious publication,
shall be guilty of an offence and shall be liable on conviction for a first offence to a fine not exceeding $5,000 or to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 3 years or to both, and, for a subsequent offence, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 5 years; and any seditious publication found in the possession of that person or used in evidence at his trial shall be forfeited and may be destroyed or otherwise disposed of as the court directs.
(2) Any person who without lawful excuse has in his possession any seditious publication shall be guilty of an offence and shall be liable on conviction for a first offence to a fine not exceeding $2,000 or to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 18 months or to both, and, for a subsequent offence, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 3 years, and such publication shall be forfeited and may be destroyed or otherwise disposed of as the court directs.
Legal proceedings.
5. —(1) No prosecution for an offence under section 4 shall be begun except within 6 months after the offence is committed:
Provided that for the purposes of this subsection a prosecution shall be deemed to be begun against any person when a warrant or summons has been issued in respect of any charge made against that person and based on the facts or incident in respect of which the prosecution afterwards proceeds.
(2) No person shall be prosecuted for an offence under section 4 without the written consent of the Public Prosecutor. In such written consent the Public Prosecutor may designate any court to be the court of trial. -
Evidence.
6. —(1) Notwithstanding anything to the contrary in the Evidence Act, no person shall be convicted of an offence under section 4 on the uncorroborated testimony of one witness.
Cap. 97.
(2) No person shall be convicted of any offence referred to in section 4 (1) (c) or (d) if such person proves that the publication in respect of which he is charged was printed, published, sold, offered for sale, distributed, reproduced or imported (as the case may be) without his authority, consent and knowledge and without any want of due care or caution on his part or that he did not know and had no reason to believe that the publication had a seditious tendency.
Innocent receiver of seditious publication.
7. Any person to whom any seditious publication is sent without his knowledge or privity shall forthwith as soon as the nature of its contents has become known to him deliver the publication to the officer in charge of a police division and any person who complies with this section shall not be liable to be convicted for having in his possession that publication:
Provided that in any proceedings against such person the court shall presume until the contrary is shown that that person knew the contents of the publication at the time it first came into his possession.
Issue of search warrant.
8. —(1) A Magistrate may issue a warrant empowering any police officer, not below the rank of sergeant, to enter upon any premises where any seditious publication is known or is reasonably suspected to be and to search therein for any seditious publication.
21/73.
(2) Whenever it appears to any police officer, not below the rank of sergeant, that there is reasonable cause to believe that in any premises there is concealed or deposited any seditious publication, and he has reasonable grounds for believing that, by reason of the delay which would be entailed by obtaining a search warrant, the object of the search is likely to be frustrated, he may enter and search the premises as if he were empowered to do so by a warrant issued under subsection (1).
21/73.
Suspension of newspaper containing seditious matter.
9. —(1) Whenever any person is convicted of publishing in any newspaper matter having a seditious tendency, the court may, if it thinks fit, either in lieu of or in addition to any other punishment, make orders as to all or any of the following matters:
(a) prohibiting, either absolutely or except on conditions to be specified in the order, for any period not exceeding one year from the date of the order, the future publication of that newspaper;
(b) prohibiting, either absolutely or except on conditions to be specified in the order, for the period aforesaid, the publisher, proprietor or editor of that newspaper from publishing, editing or writing for any newspaper or from assisting, whether with money or moneyÂ’s worth, material, personal service or otherwise in the publication, editing or production of any newspaper;
(c) that for the period aforesaid any printing press used in the production of the newspaper be used only on conditions to be specified in the order or that it be seized by the police and detained by them for the period aforesaid.
(2) Any person who contravenes an order made under this section shall be guilty of an offence and shall be liable on conviction to a fine not exceeding $5,000 or to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 3 years or to both.
(3) Nothing in this Act shall affect the power of the court to punish any person contravening an order made under this section for contempt of court:
Provided that no person shall be punished twice for the same offence.
Power of Court to prohibit circulation of seditious publications.
10.—(1) Whenever on the application of the Public Prosecutor it is shown to the satisfaction of the Court that the issue or circulation of a seditious publication is or if commenced or continued would be likely to lead to unlawful violence or appears to have the object of promoting feelings of hostility between different classes or races of the community, the Court shall make an order (referred to in this section as a prohibition order) prohibiting the issuing and circulation of that publication (referred to in this section as a prohibited publication) and requiring every person having any copy of the prohibited publication in his possession, power or control forthwith to deliver every such copy into the custody of the police.
(2) An order under this section may be made ex parte on the application of the Public Prosecutor in chambers.
(3) It shall be sufficient if the order so describes the prohibited publication that it can be identified by a reasonable person who compares the prohibited publication with the description in the prohibition order.
(4) Every person on whom a copy of a prohibition order is served by any police officer shall forthwith deliver to that police officer every prohibited publication in his possession, power or control, and, if he fails to do so, he shall be guilty of an offence and shall be liable on conviction to a fine not exceeding $1,000 or to imprisonment for a term not exceeding one year or to both.
(5) Every person to whose knowledge it comes that a prohibited publication is in his possession, power or control shall forthwith deliver every such publication into the custody of the police, and, if he fails to do so, he shall be guilty of an offence and shall be liable on conviction to a fine not exceeding $1,000 or to imprisonment for a term not exceeding one year or to both.
(6) The Court may, if it thinks fit, either before or after or without service of the prohibition order on any person, issue a warrant authorising any police officer not below the rank of sergeant to enter and search any premises specified in the order, and to seize and carry away every prohibited publication there found, and to use such force as may be necessary for the purpose. A copy of the prohibition order and of the search warrant shall be left in a conspicuous position at every building or place so entered.
21/73.
(7) The owner of any prohibited publication delivered or seized under this section may, at any time within 14 days after the delivery or seizure, petition the Court for the discharge of the prohibition order, and the Court, if on the hearing of the petition it decides that the prohibition order ought not to have been made, shall discharge the order and shall order the prohibited publication delivered by or seized from the petitioner to be returned to him.
(
Every prohibited publication delivered or seized under this section with respect to which a petition is not filed within the time aforesaid or which is not ordered to be returned to the owner shall be deemed to be forfeited to the Government.
(9) For the purposes of this section, “Court” means the High Court.
21/73.
Arrest without warrant.
11. Any police officer may arrest without warrant any person found committing or reasonably suspected of committing or of having committed or of attempting to commit or of procuring or abetting any person to commit any offence under this Act or reasonably suspected of the unlawful possession of any thing liable to forfeiture thereunder.
21/73. -
Seems like one of teh guys didn't like the way one Malay fellow commented about dogs riding on taxis. Hence he made those inflammatory comments on his blog. Apparently, he works in an animal shelter.
-
yes, that's right.Originally posted by iveco:Seems like one of teh guys didn't like the way one Malay fellow commented about dogs riding on taxis. Hence he made those inflammatory comments on his blog. Apparently, he works in an animal shelter.
abt a few mths ago, a malay woman commented abt a taxi she saw... the dog was in the taxi and it wasnt in a carrier. thus, the dog's saliva could just drip onto the seats. she was worried wad would happen if a muslim boards the taxi later on. to muslims, dogs saliva is considered unclean and should be prevented frm contact with one's body.
thus, the racist blogger, the one who works in the animal shelter got furious and decided to post a string of rude comments abt muslims in general.
u see, a bit of understanding abt why muslims cant go near dogs could have saved him a jail term, sadly.
personally, when i go down to ECP or any parks in my neighbourhood, it's not unusual to see a dog unleashed! me being a man would be so scared and yes, one can even spot me running away frm a dog, even a small one. and the owner wud b smiling at me! it's so not funny!
hope that there could be more understanding between races. -
Well, I myself don't quite like dogs either, especially large ones that look like they could gobble me down.Originally posted by sinicker:personally, when i go down to ECP or any parks in my neighbourhood, it's not unusual to see a dog unleashed! me being a man would be so scared and yes, one can even spot me running away frm a dog, even a small one. and the owner wud b smiling at me! it's so not funny!
hope that there could be more understanding between races.
But if my girlfriend wants to get one, I won't stop her. It could help me get over my phobia of dogs. I have even thought up names for them should that day arise. -
many races own dogs.
from chinese to caucasions, to indians and many foreigns and expatriates.
well you have to educate all of them.
including very evry rich and famous people and powerful civil servants.
well it can be a national program just like speak mandarin or courtey campaign,
The gov could give $50 million for this campaign for a start.
it will best for all.
haha ha in my dreams. -
this is between the dogs lovers and those who don't, not between races. I can handle nappies soaked with baby's urine and not bothered, but I don't touch anything wet with dog's saliva. Who knows what the dog has been licking.Originally posted by sinicker:.... thus, the dog's saliva could just drip onto the seats. she was worried wad would happen if a muslim boards the taxi later on. to muslims, dogs saliva is considered unclean and should be prevented frm contact with one's body.
u see, a bit of understanding abt why muslims cant go near dogs could have saved him a jail term, sadly.
personally, when i go down to ECP or any parks in my neighbourhood, it's not unusual to see a dog unleashed! me being a man would be so scared and yes, one can even spot me running away frm a dog, even a small one. and the owner wud b smiling at me! it's so not funny!
hope that there could be more understanding between races.
dogs are not human and they get agitated for no reason, or reasons beyong human understanding. This is something those dogs lovers need to understand. -
some breeds get fierce and damn dangerous for no reasons. my friendliest is the golden retrieval. Any dog big or small or cute or cuddly they still bite hard.Originally posted by sgdiehard:this is between the dogs lovers and those who don't, not between races. I can handle nappies soaked with baby's urine and not bothered, but I don't touch anything wet with dog's saliva. Who knows what the dog has been licking.
dogs are not human and they get agitated for no reason, or reasons beyong human understanding. This is something those dogs lovers need to understand.
thats why dog owners must ensure their dogs do not chase anyone or bite. leashed them if possible. it can be quite frightenened and shocking for kids being chase or bitten by dogs. -
Seems to me that a bit harsh to jail them. We live in a multi-racial country where different cultures and religions co-exist. Definitely, there will be friction as we grapple with each other's beliefs. Many times I also have come across Muslims saying nasty things about Chinese. But that doesn't make me go about reporting to the authorities every single thing. The solution is tolerance. If one party feel offended in any way and wants to exercise its right to stamp on the other one then this is unhealthy.What one individual say is not representative of how the whole community feels toward the other race or religion.
-
well someone have to take a step back or be a scapegoat to ensure racial harmony.
-
Hi Robert,Originally posted by robertteh:Hello Oxford Mushroom,
...My only concern here is the manner racism is being dealt with - sedition over the blogs or internet. Is this action taken as a prelude to intended clamp down on our last freedom of speech. Citizens should be mature and discerning enough not to be sold any new policies which as was done with GRC - double edged and also intended to serve political purpose i.e. to suppress political views or expressions in the guise of racism harmony. Singapore may be in greater danger of losing the rights of political participation more so than the racial disharmony..
I agree with your concerns in general, although I believe there are enough racists in Singapore to pose a genuine threat to our security. Nothing fires up emotions as much as race and religion and we already have enough young people with loose tongues to start a flame war in cyberspace. Just go to EH and read the threads attacking Christianity. I shudder to think if someone does the same with Islam, which may well happen.
Nevertheless, I share your concern about the wording of the Sedition Act. There are some safeguards in the legislation but the definitions were kept rather vague. For example, Sect 3(1) states,
"Seditious tendency.
3. —(1) A seditious tendency is a tendency —......
(e) to promote feelings of ill-will and hostility between different races or classes of the population of Singapore."
A debate in the forum about the elites and non-elites in society can be construed to satisfy the criteria set forth in subsection (1)e, since it can certainly arouse a great deal of disaffection against the ruling elite class. What is more worrying is (what I consider to be) rather irresponsible calls by some to start nationwide strikes and demonstrations, which are clearly illegal and may well spur the government to clamp down online forums such as this. Whilst we criticise the government over the lack of transparency and autocratic policies, we must be careful not to give them a reason to remove whatever space for free speech we currently enjoy. And that will be a sad day indeed... -
aiya robert!Originally posted by robertteh:No pearlie this is not flaming. If our laws are uncertain and too sweeping like the sedition laws, they have to be changed. It will be good to all citizens to have a government which is willing to justify extention of control into blogs and internets by proper amendments to existing unclear legislation. This is my point.
Let's look forward. I have given a certain off-the-cuff reply in an earlier post "have we locked up enough people already for the slightest fault" to some forumer who suggested locking up more people for racism not to lock up people without jusf process and laws. In the context of that forumer's over-bold remark I do not think I am being frivolous. I still maintain this view.
why you keep me in suspense one? i wanted to know the name of the politician who went to jail after being sued for defamation and you are not telling me. Don't be so stingy, share your info lah! -
We don't name names here. It is not politic to be personal. Please do see the main issues being discussed in my post that before any control is extended to blogging or internet like the GRC, such action should be substantiated by proper accountable debates in parliaments with proper laws passed to consider views posted in blogs as actionable. For now it seems to be only uncertain based on extrapolation of existing laws which is not that accountable.Originally posted by pearlie27:aiya robert!
why you keep me in suspense one? i wanted to know the name of the politician who went to jail after being sued for defamation and you are not telling me. Don't be so stingy, share your info lah!
It will then be fair exchange and you don't owe me nor I owe you. If you agree the main issues that the actions taken on blogs should be substantiated by proper debates in parliament then I might quote you the particular instance where politicians were sued for defamation and was made bankrupt. Of course in bankruptcy if one does not pay up he goes to jail and was locked up. -
enough said about the Sedition Act, i will try to share my knowlegde on Maintenance of Religious Harmony Act (MRHA).Originally posted by crazy monkey:How come these ppl are charged under sedition act and not religious harmony act ?
MRHA is like ISA where the Minister can directly order action to be taken against the offending persons. It excludes the courts (and the prosecution) from the process. From a civil rights perspective, this is not ideal. It is far better to have the bloggers charged under the Sedition Act, and brought to trial in open court. There is more fairness and transparency.
Also, the MHRA deals with religion, not race. As the bloggers' posts were offensive not just on religious grounds, but also on racial grounds, MHRA is thus not sufficient to deal with these bloggers. Whereas the Sedition Act, designed to deal with the promotion of hostility between "different races or classes of the population of Singapore", comes a lot closer to the heart of the matter.