"Editor of sociopolitical website The Real Singapore under investigation over Thaipusam article - The Straits Times 18 February 2015
SINGAPORE - An editor from The Real Singapore (TRS) is being investigated by the police for sedition, the sociopolitical website said on Wednesday. The investigation concerns "an article about the Thaipusam Incident", the site said in a statement.
A 26-year-old Singaporean man and a 22-year-old Australian woman were arrested on Feb 6 under the Sedition Act, police said in a statement. They are believed to be the Japanese-Australian administrator of the site Ai Takagi, and her Singaporean boyfriend Robin Yang Kai Heng, The New Paper reported.
The police had received reports on Feb 5 about an insensitive article that was posted online. The two were nabbed for posting remarks online that could cause ill will and hostility between different races and communities in Singapore, police said. The police will investigate and take firm action against those who incite enmity with rumours over the Thaipusam procession, the Ministry of Home Affairs had said on Feb 13.
TRS said that only one editor was being investigated “along with about four others”, and that she was co-operating with the police. TRS published an article on Feb 4 about the Thaipusam procession that said a Filipino family told the police “to make the people stop playing the urumi”. The urumi is an Indian drum.
The article, contributed by a TRS reader, linked this incident to a scuffle that broke out during the procession on Feb 3. Three men have been arrested for disorderly behaviour and assaulting a police officer at the event.
“Some time in the future, we will be publishing a full story and explain clearly everything that we can share. This may also include how we work and who is behind the website but currently, as investigations are ongoing, such a full response would be inappropriate,” TRS said in the statement published online at 12.50am.
Under the Sedition Act, anyone found guilty of promoting feelings of ill will and hostility between different races or classes of the population of Singapore shall be liable, on conviction for a first offence, to a fine of up to $5,000 or to imprisonment for a term of up to three years, or to both."
My take on this case are:
1. There is ALWAYs the fear that such a law will be misused or abused by the authorities in power to shut up reasoned dissenting voices from any folks of different perspectives - be it from opposition political parties or the ordinary citizens.
So, whenever it is USED, the people will 'decide' if it was used properly. If the verdict is: it was an abuse, then the voters will have to decide in the next GE to elect MPs that will campaign to change this law. IF the verdict is: it is prudently and properly used to protect Singapore and Singaporeans from harms, the voters will decide to keep the MPs that protect this law back to power.
So, ULTIMATELY it is for the voters to decide what kind of law they want.
2. On this PARTICULAR case and based on the information learned thus far, it is a dangerous practice to 'fabricate' a story that is LIKELY or WILL fan feelings of ill will and hostility between different races or classes of the population of Singapore.
I said as much when commenting on the 'Thaipusam procession' incident on this forum and others cyberspace.
Some contributors to the ST-online forum on that thread went off tangent and talked about: 'one race being favoured over the others with playing of musical instruments' and my comments were: 'We don't want to go there. Let's focused on the facts of the matters like: someone broken the laws that had been in existence for almost 50 years! Someone verbally and physically abused a uniformed police office on duties AFTER being summoned by the organizers of the Thaipusam procession to stop the playing of musical instruments, etc'.
3. So, let cyberspace be continued to have diverging and dissenting voices and views being expressed AS LONG AS people KNOW CLEARLY the law on 'sedition'.
Self-censorship is better than NO censorship as it is what I called: Responsible Free Speech!!
p/s: As the fact that 2 out of 3 persons responsible for a fairly popular website on Singapore show that Singaporeans don't really care about who are behind a particular website as long as they are able to 'download' their opinions on it! Is this 'manipulation' or 'willing biters of the bait' or 'attraction to a place where like-minded people congregate'?
SINGAPORE - An editor from The Real Singapore (TRS) is being investigated by the police for sedition, the sociopolitical website said on Wednesday. The investigation concerns "an article about the Thaipusam Incident", the site said in a statement.
A 26-year-old Singaporean man and a 22-year-old Australian woman were arrested on Feb 6 under the Sedition Act, police said in a statement. They are believed to be the Japanese-Australian administrator of the site Ai Takagi, and her Singaporean boyfriend Robin Yang Kai Heng, The New Paper reported.
The police had received reports on Feb 5 about an insensitive article that was posted online. The two were nabbed for posting remarks online that could cause ill will and hostility between different races and communities in Singapore, police said. The police will investigate and take firm action against those who incite enmity with rumours over the Thaipusam procession, the Ministry of Home Affairs had said on Feb 13.
TRS said that only one editor was being investigated “along with about four others”, and that she was co-operating with the police. TRS published an article on Feb 4 about the Thaipusam procession that said a Filipino family told the police “to make the people stop playing the urumi”. The urumi is an Indian drum.
The article, contributed by a TRS reader, linked this incident to a scuffle that broke out during the procession on Feb 3. Three men have been arrested for disorderly behaviour and assaulting a police officer at the event.
“Some time in the future, we will be publishing a full story and explain clearly everything that we can share. This may also include how we work and who is behind the website but currently, as investigations are ongoing, such a full response would be inappropriate,” TRS said in the statement published online at 12.50am.
Under the Sedition Act, anyone found guilty of promoting feelings of ill will and hostility between different races or classes of the population of Singapore shall be liable, on conviction for a first offence, to a fine of up to $5,000 or to imprisonment for a term of up to three years, or to both."
My take on this case are:
1. There is ALWAYs the fear that such a law will be misused or abused by the authorities in power to shut up reasoned dissenting voices from any folks of different perspectives - be it from opposition political parties or the ordinary citizens.
So, whenever it is USED, the people will 'decide' if it was used properly. If the verdict is: it was an abuse, then the voters will have to decide in the next GE to elect MPs that will campaign to change this law. IF the verdict is: it is prudently and properly used to protect Singapore and Singaporeans from harms, the voters will decide to keep the MPs that protect this law back to power.
So, ULTIMATELY it is for the voters to decide what kind of law they want.
2. On this PARTICULAR case and based on the information learned thus far, it is a dangerous practice to 'fabricate' a story that is LIKELY or WILL fan feelings of ill will and hostility between different races or classes of the population of Singapore.
I said as much when commenting on the 'Thaipusam procession' incident on this forum and others cyberspace.
Some contributors to the ST-online forum on that thread went off tangent and talked about: 'one race being favoured over the others with playing of musical instruments' and my comments were: 'We don't want to go there. Let's focused on the facts of the matters like: someone broken the laws that had been in existence for almost 50 years! Someone verbally and physically abused a uniformed police office on duties AFTER being summoned by the organizers of the Thaipusam procession to stop the playing of musical instruments, etc'.
3. So, let cyberspace be continued to have diverging and dissenting voices and views being expressed AS LONG AS people KNOW CLEARLY the law on 'sedition'.
Self-censorship is better than NO censorship as it is what I called: Responsible Free Speech!!
p/s: As the fact that 2 out of 3 persons responsible for a fairly popular website on Singapore show that Singaporeans don't really care about who are behind a particular website as long as they are able to 'download' their opinions on it! Is this 'manipulation' or 'willing biters of the bait' or 'attraction to a place where like-minded people congregate'?
No comments:
Post a Comment