Singapore Bloggers Charged Under Sedition Act

ChannelNewsAsia is reporting that for the first time in at least 10 years Singapore has invoked the sedition act and charged two local bloggers for posting racist comments on an online forum. From the article: 'Said Singaporean blogger Benjamin Lee (Mr Miyagi):" A lot of them will be looking at their blogs and wondering if they made any legally seditious remarks. I think because of the way this will be played up, it's negative publicity for the Singapore blogging community."'

Comments

Link?

[Saiyine]

Is this the link?

--
Superb hosting 4800MB Storage, 120GB bandwidth, $7,95.
Kunowalls!!! Random sexy wallpapers (NSFW!).

Re:Link?

[Tackhead]

> Is this the link?

Perhaps the original author was afraid that the Slashdot effect would put a chink in the armor of the hosting company's intrusion detection system, and was just trying to help keep the log files spic and span of extraneous hits. In any case, thanks for not being niggardly with the links.

/gets dragged away screaming

Arrrrgh...

[Stanistani]

Conflict in my central processor...
Racism...
Freedom of speech...
Freedom of speech overrides natural desire to slowly boil racists...

*back to sleep*

Re:Arrrrgh...

[Skye16]

In my experience, it's the opposite.

"Racism doesn't exist in America anymore!" followed quickly by "Fucking niggers stealing hubcaps!" (Rural Western PA, about 2 months ago)

Re:Arrrrgh...

[TheFlyingGoat]

Funny, and very true. A lot of people complain about the US suppressing free speech, but it's very rare for the government to charge people for making racist remarks. The only time they do is when they're making an effort to promote violence.

I think racism is awful, but I'm glad I live in a country that allows people to speak their mind. I do, however, tire of people "playing the race card", which IMHO is just as bad as the racism itself. It detracts from the situations where the complaints are real.

Partially OT, so feel free to mod me down. :)

Re:Arrrrgh...

[Stanistani]

Three points...

1) I seldom actually boil people. Usually I set them on a low simmer.

2) I freely admit to being fallible. There's a speck of the racist (or more) in all of us.

3) People I feel like boiling are the sort you would recognize as not just racist, but proudly so.

Comment removed

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

Is racist speech every ok?

[FreshFunk510]

And does racist speech = hate speech?

This is an honest question. As much as I hate racism and hate speech, I have to admit that Dave Chapelle, whose comedy many times has to do with race, is one of the best/original comedians out there today.

Of course his is meant for comedy rather than hate, but where does one draw the line?

Re:Is racist speech every ok?

[Anonymous Coward]

Oh that's easy. If you have political power, or possibly politically derived law enforcement power, you draw the line where ever you want to.

For instance, if you don't like someone, someone (lobbiest who 'contributed' to your 'fund') you know doesn't like someone, or you in general don't like what they are saying, you can at any point decide they are espousing 'hate speech|sedition|slander' and have them thrown into the dungeon.

This also applies to 'politically incorrect' speech, of course.

Only by allowing politicials and judges to decide where the 'line is drawn' can we be truly be safe and have 'free speech'.

Re:Is racist speech every ok?

[putko]

Well, is this racist?

I suspect a lot of egalitarians would say yes.

They'd like to think that everything having to do with intellectual abilities is equally distributed -- men/women blacks/jews/asians/whites/arabs. So I guess to them it is racist.

That's what's wrong with the concept of "hate speech" -- one man's gathering of facts and stastistics bees racist to another.

Re:Is racist speech every ok?

[Alex P Keaton in da]

How do you define racist speech? Believe me, there would be as many definitions as there are people.
For example, if I say "White men are violent" is that racist?
What if I say "Black males comprise 6% of the population in the US, but perpetrate 40% of the murders" Is that racist, if a statement of fact, because I didn't qualify it by saying that the high rate is due to 200+ years of oppression?
If I say "everyone but Asians are dumb" is that racist? What If I show test scores that show that Asians are more intelligent?
Believe me- just about anything you say can be construed as racist. "The sky is blue" "Why it gotta be blue? Why can't it be black, you racist..."

Re:Is racist speech every ok?

[mrchaotica]

In the examples you gave, it seems to me that the difference is that the non-racist statement is supported with empirical evidence, whereas the racist statement is an unqualified assertion, phrased in a belligerant way.

It's the difference between the statement "the sky is blue because the gases in the atmosphere block the other wavelengths" and "the sky is blue because God loves only blue-eyed, blond-haired anglo-saxons, which are the Master Race (heil Hitler!)." It should be obvious which of those statements is racist, and which one isn't.

Re:Is racist speech every ok?

[kwerle]

How do you define racist speech?
Believe me, there would be as many definitions as there are people.
For example, if I say "White men are violent" is that racist?

Yes. Try "Many white men are violent".

What if I say "Black males comprise 6% of the population in the US, but perpetrate 40% of the murders" Is that racist, if a statement of fact, because I didn't qualify it by saying that the high rate is due to 200+ years of oppression?

Not racist. Try "Blacks are murderers."

If I say "everyone but Asians are dumb" is that racist? What If I show test scores that show that Asians are more intelligent?

Racist. Try "on average, Asians tested better than other races".

Believe me- just about anything you say can be construed as racist. "The sky is blue" "Why it gotta be blue? Why can't it be black, you racist..."

How about this: applying a term uniformly across a mixed [ethnic/religious/whatever] group is [rac]ist.

Did I miss anything?

Re:Is racist speech every ok?

[Nasarius]

How about this: applying a term uniformly across a mixed [ethnic/religious/whatever] group is [rac]ist.

In the language of people who study such things, this is called essentialism. It is very important to understand that the model minority myth about Asians can be just as pernicious as saying "All Negroes are savages."

Not racist. Try "Blacks are murderers."

It really depends. At its face, it's a misleading statement, and his "qualification" is too vague. Control for economic status and other factors, and race doesn't play much of a role in crime rates. You twist facts and "science", and you get junk research like The Bell Curve, which is clearly racist crap.

Re:Is racist speech every ok?

[soft_guy]

There are 13 year old black people who wear ties? Other than Eurkle?

how have they defined "racism"?

[ChipMonk]

Without that much information, am I supposed to just believe the charges? (Yeah, right!)

Comment removed

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

Caning . . .

[Dausha]

Look, this is a city-state who canes graphiti painters. You know they'll not be looking too kindly on seditious postings.

Wonder if that could happen here?

Re:Caning . . .

[Anonymous Coward]

>>Look, this is a city-state who canes graphiti painters.

First of all, caning as a principal only applies to violent crimes. In the situation regarding Michael Fay, the dumb American kid who vandalized cars, the story was that Fay _and_ a group of expatriots were valdalizing cars. At the time, it cost $13,000 to _buy the right_ to purchase a car (known as making a bid). And after you pay your $13,000 you can buy your car, which are all foreign cars by the way. There are no Singapore auto makers.

So the fact that cars are hella expensive in Singapore, and the government saw this as "gang activity" (yes, stupid, bored expatriots vandalizing cars as gang activity) thay quickly clamped down and made Michael Fay an example...all six strokes of the bamboo cane of an example.

Re:Caning . . .

[brazilofmux]

Your point is well taken, but the cost of the Certificate of Entitlement (CoE) is not a fixed $13,000.

The CoE system (and its effects on car buying market) are not a constant, but essentially, the government restricts car ownership by restricting these certificates.

My in-laws have called the way these are distributed a 'lottery', and I took that literally. Wikipedia indicates that they are distributed via auction.

Whether via lottery or auction, thost of the CoE can be as much as the cost of the car. Also, Singapore imports all cars, and there is a 1:1 import duty. Also, the exchange rate is 1.67 to the US dollar.

Because of the CoE system and also perhaps some degree of brand awareness, most of the cars purchased are higher end models.

They are buying expensive cars, and they are paying 4x the price.

Oh, and it doesn't end there. Parking is paid everywhere (at work and at home). Furthermore, there is a tax/coupon system for using certain roads during certain hours of the day.

Oh, and there is also forced obsolence, the car retired, and another CoE much be obtained.

Michael Fay and his friends scratched the paint off more than one car. There was graphitti involved, but that isn't all that was involved. You would also be hard pressed to call the damage in any way 'speech'.

All these damned accronyms on Slashdot.

[CyberLord Seven]

What does NSFW mean?
(click)
HOLY SHIT! Not Safe For Work!
Good thing it's lunch time and nobody's here. :)

Speaking as an Irishman

[$RANDOMLUSER]

Remember: It's only sedition/rebellion if you lose.

What they couldnt say it in the article.

[Anonymous Coward]

I didn't know stating racial divisiveness equated sedition anywhere! Methinks this is negative publicity for Singapore as a country (by those with a Bill of Rights). This will have a chilling effect on the Singapore blogging community and cause a permament subtle change (as the establishment of limits tends to do) in Singapore society, but it won't be looked down upon. Why would you look down upon a community for limits unwillingly placed upon it?

Ew. Article is getting pounded (yes, I actually READ them)...here it is in its entirety.

---

Two bloggers charged under Sedition Act over racist remarks
By Pearl Forss, Channel NewsAsia

SINGAPORE : Two bloggers have been charged with sedition for posting racist comments online.

This is the first time bloggers are being charged in Singapore and it is sending shockwaves through the local blogging community.

Lawyers say the last time the sedition act was invoked in Singapore was at least 10 years ago.

Twenty-five-year-old Nicholas Lim Yew and 27-year-old Benjamin Koh Song Huat are being accused of posting racist comments on an online forum and on their blog site.

They are both being charged with committing a seditious act, by promoting feelings of ill-will and hostility between races in Singapore.

They were not represented by defence lawyers and were granted bail of S$10,000 each.

This charge came as a shock to many in the blogging community.

Said Singaporean blogger Benjamin Lee (Mr Miyagi):" A lot of them will be looking at their blogs and wondering if they made any legally seditious remarks. I think because of the way this will be played up, it's negative publicity for the Singapore blogging community."

"Currently if you surf the net you will come across a lot of bloggers making such comments. You will probably see a drop in such cases henceforth. At the moment I am not aware of any cases except of a case in Iran where bloggers are charged. But Iran has a different legal system from Singapore," said Leonard Loo, managing partner of Leonard Loo & Co Advocates & Solicitors.

Channel NewsAsia understands that the Media Development Authority had asked host servers to remove a racist blog from the web.

Police are now investigating this matter.

While many racist blogs by Singaporeans can be found online, the blogging community is also quick to criticize any racist comments.

Channel NewsAsia has received many emails from viewers informing us about a few racist sites.

Viewers said they were "appalled as well as disappointed that a Singaporean could condemn" other fellow Singaporeans of a different race.

Lawyers warn that anybody who forwards seditious remarks to others via email can also be charged with abetment.

The case is expected to be heard in court again on September 21.

A person is deemed to have committed an offence under the Sedition Act if he performs any act which has a seditious tendency, or conspires with any person to do so.

It is also an offence to utter any seditious words or to print, publish, sell, distribute, reproduce or import any seditious publication.

First time offenders can be fined up to S$5,000, or jailed up to three years, or both.

For subsequent offences, they can be jailed up to five years and have their seditious publications forfeited and destroyed. - CNA /ct/ls

Copyright © 2005 MCN International Pte Ltd

Re:What they couldnt say it in the article.

[kotku]

This is the first time bloggers are being charged in Singapore and it is sending shockwaves through the local blogging community.

Confused! Not sure why everyone refers to bloggers as a community. It doesn't seem to be anymore a community than people who use public toilets, read Harry Potter or speak English. So I write a bit of nonsense on a website about a topic I barely understand and which nobody else is likely to be interested in and is only likely to be seen by some government web spider looking for sedicious content. Am I now part of a community?

Surprised? Not. It's Singapore

[tacokill]

I am not surprised in the slightest. Having been to Singapore many times, it is a VERY "tight" country. If you break the rules, the punishment is quite severe.

Drug dealers = death penalty. Vandalism = caning (remember that?). No selling gum. No chewing gum (at least in public). No joke.


While I don't think the totalitarianism is required, I will say that Singapore is VERY clear about the rules. Everybody knows them and everybody knows that if you break them, you do so at your own risk. They don't seem to have as many ambiguous laws as here in the US so it seems to work pretty well. The fact that some bloggers would post "maybe it will get me in trouble" stuff, is very ballsy.

some background

[circletimessquare]

for non-southeast asian slashdotters:

singapore is an outpost of chinese in a malay region

it is a country independent of malaysia simply because the chinese there feared dilution of their power by malays

there is a history of friction between the chinese merchant class and the local malay population throughout the region, actually very similar to the resentment europeans had for the jewish merchant class that led to so much racially motivated nastiness there for centuries

malays and filipinos to this day complain of how they are treated by the chinese in singapore, who they say view them as little more than domestic servants or coolies

in the 1960s, under the guise of fighting communism, indonesians slaughtered thousands simply for having chinese ancestry... and confiscated their businesses

so maybe some of you who are very idealistically attached to the concept of free speech, without any mitigating conditions, perhaps you can at least understand why singapore would be so interested on clamping down on hate speech in its territory: it's not a big country, and it must remain at peace with its huge malay neighbors, at whom this hate speech is directed by some really stupid chinese bigotted bloggers

Re:some background

[cswiii]

True enough, based on some singaporean college classmates of mine from back in the day, I knew what this would be about w/o reading the article.

Not just Malaysians either - my friend told me that even up to a couple of years ago, you would see signs outside construction sites that said "Indians need not apply".

Why does this have to be negative?

[RentonSentinel]

I think its respectable for a country to punish people for seditious behavior, if done appropriately.

Re:Why does this have to be negative?

[Bogtha]

I think its respectable for a country to punish people for seditious behavior, if done appropriately.

Sedition is an act of rebellion against the state. How is classifying racist comments as sedition appropriate?

The logic seems to be that "promoting feelings of ill-will and hostility between races in Singapore" is inherently seditious. You could redefine theft to be sedition using that logic (hey, it "promotes suspicion amongst neighbours in Singapore").

If racist comments are not tolerable in Singapore, then they should pass a law about that instead of leaving it up to an official to twist the meaning of an existing law out of all proportion to punish somebody for something he doesn't like.

This doesn't appear to be somebody breaking the law and getting caught, it appears to be somebody doing something legal but distasteful, and having somebody in the government abuse the law to pursue a vendetta because they don't like it.

Re:Why does this have to be negative?

[dkhoo]

In Singapore, racial harmony is considered nothing less than a matter of national survival. We are a tiny city state that is home to many races. We used to have racial riots in the 60's and 70's, where hundreds died in brutal street warfare. My father used to patrol his Chinese neighbourhood with a parang (machete) to keep out Malays. Race is not a laughing matter in Singapore.

There is now harmony between the races, achieved by force, reeducation and enforced mixing in housing, education and military service. In formulating policy, the Singaporean government considers people to be basically selfish and untrustworthy. People only respond to threats and incentives, brutally and unfailingly enforced. Their better natures are not appealed to, since they have none. These rules are enforced on the rulemakers themselves, since they recognize that they too are human. In my contact with people around the world, I find that this cynical view of human nature is basically correct. The few saints and heroes that exist are the exceptions that prove the rule.

Singapore considers itself to be continually under immediate threat of destruction, whether by economic decline, military invasion, social disintegration, racial or religious disharmony, crime, terrorism or simple governmental incompetence. As a tiny nation with no natural resources, we have no right to survive, and every day that we continue to exist is a miracle.

To survive, discipline is enforced and continual sacrifice expected. This sacrifice takes many forms. We sacrifice our civil rights, and our time and youth in conscripted military service. We expend tremendous effort to secure even the water that we drink and the food we eat. In return for this sacrifice, we have order, fair laws and good government. We walk our streets in safety and live in prosperity. We deserve none of these things, and they are dearly bought. There is no room for error with regards to anything that threatens Singapore's survival. We are too small to take any hits or make any mistakes. Hence the conservatism, harshness and hardheadedness of our laws and policies. We can afford no illusions.

Hence the classification of hate speech as sedition. It is a direct threat to national security and national survival. It threatens the lives of fellow citizens. We do not want to repeat the past.

I hope this also helps you to understand why we are the way we are -- why Singapore has such harsh laws, a disproportionately large military, and strictly enforced social order -- and why Singaporeans support it.

One of these things is not like the other

[$RANDOMLUSER]

sedition
n : an illegal action inciting resistance to lawful authority and tending to cause the disruption or overthrow of the government.

racism
n : discriminatory or abusive behavior towards members of another race.

Re:[NT] No Title

[Anonymous Coward]

www.hrw.org/reports/2001/prison/

Singapore Canes 1000 people per year. About 22% of all use inmates are raped at some point in their stays in prison. Which is really the less humane society?

Singapore cultural values are different....

[postbigbang]

Although another poster claimed friction by the 'Chinese' class, this is a country that claims four official languages, and is a melting pot on the order of Hong Kong, or Bangkok.

Holding this contentious group together is a miracle given the tensions in the region. The economic success of Singapore is legendary in a region where its neighbors routinely slaughter each other- Indonesians with rebels, Malaysians with sectarian strife, Thai with sectarian strife, and so on. Singapore has to hold together ethnic Chinese, Malay, Tamils, as well as expats from all over the region, Euros, and so on. They take racial prejudice very seriously, and if they didn't they'd have bedlam.

Yes, Singapore is draconian in other ways, and is also known as the "Fine City" where every offense is a S$500 fine. They execute drug smugglers. So, don't smuggle drugs there. It's a follow-the-rules place. Not much crap is put up with. But it's not a police state, it just lacks a lot of democracy and free speech. This seems to suit the population, who are the envy of all of their neighbors. I've traveled the region many times; Singapore is the 52nd US State (after British Columbia)

Re:Singapore cultural values are different....

[bani]

don't forget that chewing gum is a controlled substance.

jehovah's witnesses are considered a dangerous cult and their members are jailed and their literature destroyed.

fellatio without vaginal sex (consensual or not) is a crime, for which you can be imprisoned for life. this law is still actively used for prosecutions to this day.

saying "fuck you" or making an obscene gesture to a woman is a criminal offense under section 509 of the singapore penal code.

nice place.

Re:Kettle calling.

[tacokill]

Wrong! Nobody, that I have EVER heard of, has ever been prosecuted in the US for denying the holocaust. In fact, there are plenty of people who deny the holocaust and they are allowed to continue on and print/publish/say whatever they want. While you can certainly point to some flaws in the Hate Speech legislation, we are nowhere near the state of Singapore. And for good reason.

Don't make a mountain out of molehill. It's not even a close comparison.

I guess they have bigger problems

[ShatteredDream]

If a few Chinese moonbats ranting about the Malays' alleged racial inferiority is enough to spark a conflict, the people of Singapore should just go ahead and prepare for war because clearly their neighbors are itching for a fight. Besides, the only way to get an honest dialog going is to let people speak their minds. If people are forced to censor themselves so as to not offend the people they already consider inferior then guess what you've done? You've just made them even more convicted in their racism!

Yes, that's right. If you take a group of people who already view themselves as racially, not culturally, superior to another and force them to limit their liberties so as to not offend the group they condescend to, their natural reaction will be to condescend even more because "clearly, those people are so weak that they can't even handle a bad attitude."

Conflicts like this usually have very, very deep roots and it never ceases to amaze me how American left-liberals can never fail to suggest to change a group's natural reaction instead of accepting it. Hate to break it to you people, but the reality is that the strong do not typically respect those that are weaker than they are. That is life. You do not expect a lion to respect a terrier, so why expect a group that is very economically and militarily powerful in their region to respect a group that is by comparison very weak? Are we not animals as well, and do not both religion and science agree that the strong does not respect the weak?

Yes, let's encourage them to reevaluate their attitudes and seek to become better people by accepting others' weakness. Do as the Bible idealizes, and encourage the lion to have the strength of will and character to lay down with the sheep. But do not think that it is natural, and do not think that a weekly class on "tolerance" is going to make them like those they tend to look down on. Besides, technically they already show tolerance toward them because tolerance simply means live-and-let live. It doesn't imply you like them or want anything to do with them. It means you tolerate them, which is basically what most people do to small children who behave like brats or yappy little dogs. What they need is brotherly/sisterly reconciliation between their groups, not some half-assed bullshit called tolerance.

As opposed to the upstanding Republicans?

[benhocking]

Because the Republicans would never stifle free-speech.

Before you point out that the Dems did more or less the same thing, I'm not even attempting to exonerate them. It's actually possible to see the flaws in both parties.

However, from my perception, the Republican track record does seem worse than the Democratic one. Many right-wingers like to talk about the shackles of political correctness, but have no problem with calling you anti-American if you point out that Saddam had nothing to do with 9/11.

No conflict at all in here...

[Spy der Mann]

screw them BOTH! The bloggers for their idiotic racist comments, _AND_ the govt for controlling freedom of speech.

Ta-da, problem solved.

NEXT!

Mr Miyagi

[epiphany_man]

The blogger quoted in the post, Mr Miyagi (aka Benjamin Lee), is one of the most popular bloggers in Singapore. He helped organize the first Blogger-con in Singapore and has given numerous public talks on how to blog to the uninitiated.

His blog can be found here and the post where he talks about the charges can be found here.

*Sigh* look at it like this.

[mcc]

Ignorance is the natural breeding ground of racism.

This means that you cannot combat racism by limiting information or expression. The only effective way you can combat racism is by countering it with good information-- demonstrating the racists wrong, rather than silencing them.

If you try to fight racism by silencing it, you are only hurting yourself in the long run. Even aside from the slippery slope problem, you inevitably wind up with a situation where the fact you are trying to silence these people brands them with a false stamp of legitimacy. The old "help help I'm being oppressed" thing is a powerful tool, even to those whose message is itself in favor of oppression; the racists can easily twist the fact the government is trying to silence them into an argument in their favor.

In the long run this just isn't helpful; it's like trying to put out a grease fire by pouring oil on it. No good will come of what Singapore is trying to do here, only collateral damage.

Re:*Sigh* look at it like this.

[mc6809e]

This means that you cannot combat racism by limiting information or expression. The only effective way you can combat racism is by countering it with good information-- demonstrating the racists wrong, rather than silencing them.

I hope you will help by contributing to Wikipedia's page on Race and Intelligence.

It's a bit one-sided at the moment.

Not surprised

[coinreturn]

Not so surprising that those slant-eyed rice-pickers would stoop to such levels.

Here's what happened

[Henry V .009]

I found some info on the contents of the racist remarks from this blog.

The backstory according to the report is that on June 14, ST Forum Page published a letter asking if "cab companies allowed uncaged pets to be transported in taxis, after she saw a dog standing on a taxi seat next to its owner." The concern is that the animals pay "drool on the seats or dirty them with their paws"--and for most of the Muslims in Singapore (which subscribe to the Syafie school of thought on the issue), they are prohibited by religion "to touch dogs which are wet, which would include a dog's saliva".
Enter the duo Nicholas Lim Yew, 25, and Benjamin Koh Song Huat, 27. The first "allegedly responded [to the Forum Page letter] by twice posting anti-Muslim remarks on an online forum for dog lovers, www.doggiesite.com," allegedly criticising "certain aspects of Islamic law." The latter "was said to have made similar racist comments on his blog, Phoenyx Chronicles, on www.upsaid.com on three occasions."

Re:Jesus Fscking Christ

[glomph]

That is because he IS the stupidest irrelevant shit.
For example:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/katrina/story/0,16441,15 67841,00.html

"George W Bush has decreed that, five days later, on the 16th, there is to be a further day of solemnities on which the nation will pray for the unnumbered victims of Hurricane Katrina. Prayers (like vacations) are the default mode for this president who knows how to chuckle and bow the head in the midst of disaster but not, when it counts, how to govern or to command. If you feel the prickly heat of politics, summon a hymn to make it go away; make accountability seem a blasphemy."

Or for myopic xenophobic Murricans:
Even the lapdog domestic press can't hold back the truth:
http://msnbc.msn.com/id/9287434/

"President George W. Bush has always trusted his gut. He prides himself in ignoring the distracting chatter, the caterwauling of the media elites, the Washington political buzz machine. He has boasted that he doesn't read the papers. His doggedness is often admirable. It is easy for presidents to overreact to the noise around them. But it is not clear what President Bush does read or watch, aside from the occasional biography and an hour or two of ESPN here and there. Bush can be petulant about dissent; he equates disagreement with disloyalty. After five years in office, he is surrounded largely by people who agree with him."

What the HELL does it take? Clinton ran a reasonably competent government, and the hypocritical neo-con PseudoChristian fuckers lambasted him for a girl under the desk! The US starts wars based on a pile of transparent lies, and all that matters is "loyalty", and any questioning of authority and their version of 'Truth' is seditious treason! Hello? Mr Orwell? You can stop spinning now!

Re:The Price of Being Chinese

[MightyMartian]

Ah my, but it isn't just darling to see governments that are so cowardly that they fear their own citizens. Of course, such vile oppressive governments will always defend themselves via that pathetic "society must be protected" defense, but they are vile and wicked never the less.

Of course, what is more pathetic is that the West should stand up to such governments, but the West has been taken over by corporate lackeys who are only interested in bottom lines.

"We don't like what you do, but we like what you pay."

Re:"soon to follow"

[nitehawk214]

The world has been aghast at how the Pennsylvania ADL hate laws could arrest and imprison eleven Christians for simply preaching the gospel at a "gay-pride" event...
 
Althought I hate this kind of law, it serves them right, because the Christian Right are the ones who are pushing these laws into effect. I suppose if they want to curtail the Bill of Rights, they had better damn well live with the concequences.

The Article

[FreshFunk510]

Didn't see it posted anywhere. In case it gets /.ed:

Two bloggers charged under Sedition Act over racist remarks
By Pearl Forss, Channel NewsAsia

SINGAPORE : Two bloggers have been charged with sedition for posting racist comments online.

This is the first time bloggers are being charged in Singapore and it is sending shockwaves through the local blogging community.

Lawyers say the last time the sedition act was invoked in Singapore was at least 10 years ago.

Twenty-five-year-old Nicholas Lim Yew and 27-year-old Benjamin Koh Song Huat are being accused of posting racist comments on an online forum and on their blog site.

They are both being charged with committing a seditious act, by promoting feelings of ill-will and hostility between races in Singapore.

They were not represented by defence lawyers and were granted bail of S$10,000 each.

This charge came as a shock to many in the blogging community.

Said Singaporean blogger Benjamin Lee (Mr Miyagi):" A lot of them will be looking at their blogs and wondering if they made any legally seditious remarks. I think because of the way this will be played up, it's negative publicity for the Singapore blogging community."

"Currently if you surf the net you will come across a lot of bloggers making such comments. You will probably see a drop in such cases henceforth. At the moment I am not aware of any cases except of a case in Iran where bloggers are charged. But Iran has a different legal system from Singapore," said Leonard Loo, managing partner of Leonard Loo & Co Advocates & Solicitors.

Channel NewsAsia understands that the Media Development Authority had asked host servers to remove a racist blog from the web.

Police are now investigating this matter.

While many racist blogs by Singaporeans can be found online, the blogging community is also quick to criticize any racist comments.

Channel NewsAsia has received many emails from viewers informing us about a few racist sites.

Viewers said they were "appalled as well as disappointed that a Singaporean could condemn" other fellow Singaporeans of a different race.

Lawyers warn that anybody who forwards seditious remarks to others via email can also be charged with abetment.

The case is expected to be heard in court again on September 21.

A person is deemed to have committed an offence under the Sedition Act if he performs any act which has a seditious tendency, or conspires with any person to do so.

It is also an offence to utter any seditious words or to print, publish, sell, distribute, reproduce or import any seditious publication.

First time offenders can be fined up to S$5,000, or jailed up to three years, or both.

For subsequent offences, they can be jailed up to five years and have their seditious publications forfeited and destroyed. - CNA /ct/ls

Re:Always want to sell a t-shirt....

[plover]

Here, you can print this beneath it (or on the back) and I won't even sue you for the idea:

DEATH TO ALL INTOLERANT PEOPLE!!!

I'm not crying for Saddam

[benhocking]

I agree he supported terrorists in other parts of the world, used gas on his own (Kurdish) people, and deserved no better treatment than we gave him. In short, he was a very, very bad man.

However, it would behoove us to remember what has happened in the past when we've taken it upon ourselves to "encourage" regime change.

Short version:

• In 1953, the CIA ousted Iranian President Mohammad Mossadegh. This resulted in the US-friendly Shah (Mohammed Reza Pahlavi), followed by the not-so-friendly Ayatollah Khomeini.
• In 1954, the CIA ousted Guatemalan President Jacobo Arbenz. Result: civil war lasting until 1996.
• In 1960, the US and Belgium organized a coup resulting in the assassination of a democratically elected prime minister (backed by the USSR), who was replaced by the oh-so-lovable Joseph Sese Seko Mobuto.
• In 1973, we helped bring Pinochet to power.

Ignoring our history, it seems like things can only get better in Iraq with Saddam out of the way, and I sincerely hope that in 5-10 years you can tell me that you told me so.

Of course, I can't finish this comment without pointing out this gem. By your logic, it would seem that those who supported Saddam can also be blamed for 9/11.

Re:"soon to follow"

[SlayerofGods]

This massive Orwellian bill is the most dangerous legislation since the Federal Reserve Act of 1913; probably even more dangerous, since it will lead directly to establishment of a vast federal anti-hate bureaucracy like Canada's ending free speech.
wth??
Yes! Damn you President Wilson for taking away my right to.... ummm... set up a national bank?

Re:"soon to follow"

[man_ls]

There's some irony in the Christian Right pushing laws which would imprison and fine them, while at the same time actively engaging in the behaviors they are seeking to eliminate.

Good show, really.

NOT cowardly -- quite reasonable

[TonalSpeller]

In this case, the Singapore gov't is NOT showing fear of being criticized by its own citizens. They're just trying to keep people in line because Singapore's prosperity depends on it. Singapore is a tiny country whose economy depends (partly) on the goodwill of its Muslim neighbors, Malaysia and Indonesia (the largest Muslim country in the world -- 200 million people). Where do you think the city-state's water comes from? Background on Chinese in SE Asia: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/asia-pacific/1514 916.stm In 1965, HUNDREDS of THOUSANDS of ethnic Chinese were killed in Indonesia during "anti-communist rioting" http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/events/indonesia/specia l_report/51981.stm In 1998 there were more riots and ethnic Chinese were scapegoats as usual. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/events/indonesia/your_c omments_so_far/93837.stm When you have touchy neighbors, keeping a low profile is a smart thing to do.

Re:Surprised? Not. It's Singapore

[citog]

Has he bought you the 'fine' t-shirt yet? (you can get them at most tourist shops)