Two bloggers charged under Sedition Act for racist remarks

"For the first time in Singapore, two bloggers have been charged under the Sedition Act for making racist remarks.

They are 25-year-old Nicholas Lim Yew and 27-year-old Benjamin Koh Song Huat.

A subordinate court was told that both their blogs had content that cast aspersions on the Malay community."


Die liao. This does not augur well. The Sword of Damocles has fallen, and though it has only struck the twain, it might as well have struck us all.

I suspect that these were the people who did the Second and Third Holocaust blogs, which were extreme even by Singaporean online standards (even on the Sammyboy forums, the most people call for is for racial discrimination, not for them to be racially cleansed).

Even so, this is not going to do anything to calm the nerves of our (justifiably?) paranoid populace. If these 2 could be (and were) tracked down despite their almost-certain attempts to conceal their identities, no one is going to harbour any more illusions.

No climate of fear in Singapore? The jury has just come closer to reaching a conclusion, and it is not the same as the one which we have been told to accept.

The consequences of saying something that is challenged may not be to be locked up in jail, disappearing in the middle of the night and not coming back, but to risk-averse Singaporeans substantial jailtime and a hefty fine isn't much better. Nobody wants to be a chicken, so everyone becomes a monkey ("杀鸡警猴").

Of course, the majority of responsible Singaporean bloggers have nothing to fear, being righteous Party-fearing people, but then as Tym points out: "A seditious tendency is defined under the Act as one to raise discontent or disaffection among the citizens or residents and to promote feelings of ill-will and hostility between different races or classes of the population of Singapore.”

Am I the only one who still doesn’t really get what a “seditious tendency” is? If it’s anything that raises discontent or disaffection, or promotes feelings of ill-will and hostility, how does that differ from any number of casual remarks made by a person—- whether it’s Joe HDB or an esteemed Minister—- in the course of a given day?" Indeed, Malay children not having to pay primary school fees and not being allowed to wear tudungs to school would qualify under this definition, as would the raising of the prices of HDB flats (since the upper classes don't live in them). Or any discussion of said issues, even in Parliament.

But then, we supposedly need flexibility to be able to deal with all kinds of situations, so I guess it's good that the law be so vaguely phrased in the first place. Might as well just abolish the law and institute rule by fiat - then they'd have ultimate discretionary power, and wouldn't be prevented from doing what was best by such pesky things as a Constitution.

Better by far to stick to infantility, I say.