mardi, septembre 13, 2005 SEDITION ACT (CHAPTER 290) An Act for the punishment of sedition. Base Version { M Ordinance 14 of 1948 > Reprint 3 of 1966 > 1970 Ed. Cap. 106 > REVISED EDITION 1985 } Amended By { 21 of 1973 > LNs > 332/58 > 149/64 > S15/66 } [28th May 1964] 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. (blogger-note: I cannot believe this whole, long sentence is a grammatically-correct one.) 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. (blogger-note: Oh dear. Looks like they really are in trouble.) (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. (blogger-note: So this means that any one of us who has accessed the blogs or the forums with these "seditious" material are also liable to the fine and imprisonment, I suppose.) [snip] 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. (blogger-note: So we bring all our computers to the nearest NPP and dump it at the station. "I confess, I confess, officer! I ... I... I visited that forum!") [snip] [Taken from Singapore Statutes Online; accessed 13 Sept 2005 0204hrs] Amendment I: Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances. [Taken from USINFO.state.gov; accessed 13 Sept 2005 0214hrs] And finally, the point: 1. Two bloggers charged under Sedition Act over racist remarks [Taken from channelnewsasia.com; accessed 13 Sept 2005 0210hrs] 2. Net closes in on blogs of hate [Taken from todayonline.com; accessed 13 Sept 2005 1350hrs] I think it's good that the promotion of racist remarks has been stopped by the police, but I'm rather disappointed that the normally self-policing internet did not manage to do its job before the Singapore authorities jumped in like some kancheong spider. I'm wondering whether it is our penchant/tendency toward tolerance that caused this online policy failure - perhaps racial and ethnic tolerance has been drilled into our heads for so long that our psyches have extended its reach to other facets of life too. Or maybe it's a confluence of two factors: the unofficial Singapore "Tolerance Act" and our Americanis(z)ed media. Too much Law and Order, NYPD Blue and The Practice in our diet - we're so familiar with the USA's First Amendment that perhaps we automatically assume that we're living in a society where these rules apply. This is especially true when we speak of the online sphere, which originated from the land of the free - so although we physically reside in Singapore, perhaps mentally, we live in the USA. A "live and let live" philosophy developed as a result, leading to a sort of apathy-fear combination - live and let live (tolerance), and don't criticise people for having an extreme opinion since they're entitled to it (free speech.) The trouble is, we do have a constitution which guarantees free speech. Well, kind of - but the miscellaneous Acts (look at the Singapore Statues Online for more) are clauses for the usual yada-yada. Look! Part IV of the Constitution of the Republic of Singapore: Freedom of speech, assembly and associationSo we sorta have free speech - but kinda not really. This is not a new debate; I will not continue to belabo(u)r the point. To recap this convoluted crap that I've just typed: (1) two bloggers got charged under the Seditious Act; (2) I'm disappointed that the self-policing internet did not do its work; and (3) I posit that its a mixture of US-Singapore rights/legalities which has led us/these two bloggers into hot soup. Now, my question: can these two bloggers be charged under Singapore law? They MAY be Singapore citizens, but perhaps their comments resided in an offshore server. Does the long arm of Singapore law reach all the way to say, Bahrain? A quick check with uwhois.com showed that the domain name "Doggiesite.com" is registered under a Singaporean Toa Payoh P.O. Box address. Upsaid.com is registered to someone in Beersel, Belgium. While this is no indication of server location, it gives you a pretty good idea of the internationality of the internet (like you needed any more indication that the 'net is global.) I'm not a law student, and I'm not studying internet law in any form, but I hope that the MSM (mainstream media) follows this story closely so we can see how the Singaporean courts and lawyers handle the case. (Another caveat - the geography of the internet is also not a new topic; I'm not that smart. However, I think I can safely predict that there will be an increasing number of similar disputes occurring throughout the world - just recently, Yahoo! co-founder Jerry Yang admitted that Yahoo HK had given supposedly private email account information of Shi Tao, a journalist, to the Chinese authorities. This would be unthinkable (and unconstitutional) in the USA - but because Yahoo HK has to adhere to Chinese law, the regular Yahoo! TOS and privacy policy are more malleable - to the point where it broke, I suppose.) [Bloggers and the Sedition Act] |
1 Comments:http://www.djmal.net/thaspot/members/viagrakaufend
By |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
