Singapore Blogger Spared Jail

afaik_ianal writes "A Singaporean blogger, who pled guilty to sedition charges last month for posting anti-Muslim remarks in his blog, has avoided a custodial sentence, and has been placed on 2 years probation instead. According to the article, the 17 year old student is the third person to be convicted under Singapore's sedition laws in October. Singapore, which is unconcerned by wide criticism of its record of press freedom, appears to have been stepping up efforts against bloggers in recent months."

Comments

Educate Yourself Before Commenting

[Anonymous Coward]

Oh the Slashdotters will just love the restricted press and restricted freedom angle of this but, a little education may help you understand that this is not all bad. In Singapore, it is not just bad to slam Islam, it is illegal to speak ill or provacatively of any religion. So it is illegal for Christians to flame Muslims and it is illegal for Muslims to flame Christian or Jews. The law requires that everyone "just get along" or STFU! This twat posted flames and the law nabbed him.

Call it oppression if you like but, you must acknowledge the fact that it makes for a more peaceful society.

Re:Educate Yourself Before Commenting

[CRCulver]

Take for example Contenscious Objector status, you aren't allowed to object on a rational framework that killing is immoral, only a deeply held religious belief

Speaking as one who asked for and received honourable discharge as a conscientious objector while serving in the United States Navy, and became very familiar with the regulations, you are simply wrong. Since a 1968 Supreme Court case, the military has not required that the objector present any religious beliefs, just a deeply held moral belief that killing is wrong. Nowadays due to stop-loss policies it's hard for anyone to leave the military as a CO, but several years ago when I left there were always successful COs who were atheists or agnostics. Look at MILPERSMAN (NAVPERS 15560 D).

Re:Educate Yourself Before Commenting

[Tiro]

The truth is that while there is not bribery or the kind of corruption you would find in a place like Sierra Leone or Russia, but there is a lot of corruption that keeps the elite 1% in control.

If someone speaks out against the government and runs for parliament, the party that has run the place for the last 50 years sues for slander/libel and takes everything he owns. The person is also banned for running for office for a few years. Opposing the ruling party is like a peasant challenging a king, even if you are rich.

The judges are not exactly bribed, but they know how they are "expected" to rule in these cases, and the ruling party is all-powerful.

Re:Educate Yourself Before Commenting

[Anonymous Coward]

Censorship is not the focus of the Singapore "experiment." It is only part of the whole picture of a tightly-controlled system led by an "authoritarian" (I prefer the term "paternalistic") government.

It is difficult for most people in more "liberal" countries to imagine living under such heavy-handed rule. When you grow up with it, though, it really doesn't feel like much. Growing up in Singapore is like growing up in a large, crowded family in, say, the US. The government/parents make laws/rules that may seem strict to outsiders but really make for better living when faced with such diversity in a confined area. It's like enforcing a "lights out" time at night, a maximum time in the bathroom in the morning, assigning chores, etc. The laws are there to ensure the overall quality of life improves and there are not there for the benefit of the government or some corrupt officials. They are sensible laws that, while limiting, aren't really unreasonable to follow (mostly) and apply to most stuff that most regular people will encounter. I mean, how hard is it to understand and realize that vandalism and littering is bad, regardless of the country you are in?

There are certain restrictions which foreigners tend to point out, but most normal citizens will not actually encounter, freedom of speech being the main one. However, the laws governing freedom of speech are there for those who don't think before making comments with potentially wide-ranging effects. Comments that are critical for the purpose of inciting riotous and violent behavior are generally not the best way to open a discussion to any situation. I speak my mind and have never felt threatened by the law. There are several online forums for social discourse about Singapore and, despite the awareness that the government is monitoring such sites, no one there feels threatened to voice well-intentioned, well-written criticism. Sure, we do joke about being arrested, but nothing really happens. In Singapore, talk to any taxi driver or sit in any coffeeshop and one would hear complaints about laws, taxes, and general governmental stupidity. One would then realize that most citizens are not the least bit directly affected by this "lack" of freedom of speech. Yeah, the laws are kind of broad, but it really is hard to come up with something better. Many "democratic" countries have tried, too. As for us, we place our faith in a government that, thus far, has a good track record in fairness (justification for the track record follows).

It is admittedly hard to determine the direct effectiveness of such strict laws and whether they have been abused. The media is indeed very friendly towards government propaganda and agenda. One can only go by anecdotal evidence to determine how many people were imprisoned for opposing government rule and how much crime there is. Personally, I know of no one who was even arrested for voicing any opinion. Crime-wise personally, my 20+ years in Singapore is about as crime free as my 5 years in the US. In Singapore, I do not know any one who has been assaulted by a stranger, but here in the US, I can count a handful. For crime, I'd take Singapore.

And to the parent: there are other aspects to consider other than laws. I also value education and healthcare. I think even most Americans would agree that the education and healthcare system here in the US sucks. While Singapore's systems aren't the best in the world, they are definitely among the best in Asia. If I had to choose where to raise a family, these are things which are important to me, and Singapore would be among the short list of candidate countries.

No one can say for sure whether the laws in Singapore made it this good or that Singapore could have been better without these laws, not without a time machine. However, it is pretty nevertheless a good place to stay (even for a foreigner considering of migrating) and definitely a good place for business and research (The latter being supported by independent surveys.)

Someone considering on mi

Re:Those commie bastards!

[radicalskeptic]

Actually Singapore is a market economy. It's one of the reasons they've been able to turn their economy around since they had a recession in 2001. The government is very business-friendly.

More about the blogger

[tcak]

The Sydney Morning Herald is a little light on details. Gan Huai Shi's community service will be performed among the Malay-Muslims, the community he once expressed his racist sentiments. The Straits Times wrote: "His 180 hours of community work should also take place at Malay welfare organisations such as the Jamiyah Home for the Aged, Pertapis Children's Home and Muhammadiyah Health and Day Care Centre for the Aged."

There is also a story behind his anti-Malay/Muslim remarks.

"Mr Pereira told the court the youth's animosity towards Malays stemmed from the traumatic death of his baby brother 10 years ago.

Gan, then seven, was with his mother trying to get a cab to rush his one-month-old brother to hospital. They failed to persuade a Malay couple to give up a taxi which had stopped for them. It took another 20 minutes before they flagged down another taxi. The baby was pronounced dead on arrival."

Let me give you the context

[hoshino]

For those of you who are wondering why our government considers such remarks as "sedition", no it's NOT because our government is controlled by religious zealots or anything.

The reason is simple, racial riots broke out in Singapore in the 1960s. The government realized that being the muilti-racial country that we are, such conflicts between the communities cannot be allowed to happen again. We are a small country and if internal disputes between the races and religions breaks us up, there won't be anything left for anyone.

Thanks to 40 years of government policies, including the racial quotas in government housing such that racial groups will not be segregated into different areas/buidlings, Singapore has enjoyed racial and religious harmony, even after Islamic extremists were arrested post-911 for plotting to blow up American targets in Singapore (under the same Interal Security Act that Singapore is always receiving criticisms for).

So yes, maybe some of you prefer to chase after an abstract concept of "freedom", but to Singaporeans, it's a good thing that that idiot got arrested for his racist comments.