Amos leaving court with his mother [Photo: Terry Xu, TOC]

awareAWARE has grave concerns about the negative implications of the recent prosecution of Amos Yee. This statement focuses on harassment and hate speech as these areas are closest to our work, although we also share concerns that others have raised about the importance of upholding freedom of expression, children’s rights, and the integrity of people with autism and mental health issues.

1. Protection from Harassment Act (POHA)

It is well-known that we support POHA. Harassment can make victims’ ordinary activities and daily lives – at school, at work, around home, online and in other social spaces – a source of torment. POHA is aimed at addressing this harm.

As such, we were troubled by the initial move to charge Yee under POHA. While we are relieved that the charge did not proceed, we are concerned that its invocation has sent the wrong message regarding the intent of POHA, as well as the very real threats of harassment that many individuals – and women in particular – face.

It is critical to this concept of harassment that it is directed at specific victims who could suffer the harm described above. However, an examination of Yee’s posts does not disclose any possible victims of harassment.

  • Broad classes: Yee speaks about “parents” and discusses Christianity. This cannot be said to be harassment of parents or Christians in general as harassment must be directed at identifiable individuals, not broadly defined groups. An abusive statement about “AWARE members” or “AWARE”, for example, cannot reasonably be said to harass any specific AWARE member. A statement about a religion likewise should not be treated as harassment of all its adherents, as it is not possible to identify the individuals harassed.
  • Politicians: Yee refers to current Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong, former Prime Minister Lee Kuan Yew and Margaret Thatcher, and expresses disagreement with their conduct. In our view, POHA should never be used against individuals discussing the conduct of public officials in positions of power, even if such discussions are heated or strongly-worded.
  • Deceased people / religious figures: As well as Lee Kuan Yew and Margaret Thatcher, Yee discusses Jesus Christ. Neither deceased individuals nor religious figures can experience harassment.

Amos Yee LKY fingersThere were no other people referred to by Yee who might be said to be victims of harassment. We urge the Attorney-General’s Chambers to ensure that POHA is not extended beyond its intended remit – the protection of individuals who would otherwise be vulnerable to harm.

2. Criticism of religion

The state is right to promote respect for diverse religious beliefs. However, in a multi-faith society, all of us encounter views on religion that conflict with our own. We should not be quick to apply the criminal law in response to our own discomfort. A plural society must allow conflicting views to co-exist. Only dialogue can create deeper mutual understanding and genuine harmony.

Amos Yee’s case sets a very low threshold for involving the criminal justice process and could open the floodgates to charges criminalising numerous harmless casual or everyday discussions of religion. As has been often noted, many Christians had spoken up publicly against the charges, demonstrating how people of faith do not necessarily perceive conflicting views and attitudes as threats requiring suppression by the law. On whose behalf, then, did the state bring the charges regarding religious feeling?

Moreover, Yee was formerly in the Catholic Church. Our relationships to our own faith traditions can be complex. Many people need space to grapple – even in strong terms – with their own religious feelings. This is a key part of religious freedom and should not be mistaken for fomenting hatred between groups.

We urge the Attorney-General’s Chambers to prosecute only in extreme cases, such as those involving clear threat of violence or harm to personal safety.

3. Hate speech

Singapore’s High Commissioner to the UK defended the state’s actions against Yee by saying that “Protection from hate speech is also a basic human right.”

Protection from hate speech is indeed important. However, hate speech cannot be detached from specific contexts of power and inequality. As sexual violence disproportionately affects women and girls, rape threats create a gendered hostile environment. Homophobic slurs gain force from the threats to safety and well-being that queer people often face. Other marginalised groups such as racial minorities and disabled people may also be excluded from social participation by hate speech.

A society that aspires toward inclusiveness must act against hate speech, as hate speech exacerbates existing forms of exclusion and inequality. But there is no evidence that Yee’s speech was indeed hate speech of this kind.

Even in cases of obvious hate speech, prosecution is an extreme measure. It may be satisfyingly punitive, but it does not promote a better understanding of the relevant issues. Much can be done without using the criminal law, such as applying more conscious editorial standards on public platforms, or public officials speaking out against inequality and discrimination in explicit terms.

The clearest hate speech in the case was against young people, a disempowered group given little autonomy or respect. Many people called for violence against Yee, and one man made his way to the courts to oblige them. Far from stamping out hate speech, the prosecution seems to have stirred a public frenzy, including the use of violence, against an outspoken young person. We urge the state to be mindful of the stigmatising effect of such prosecutions in the future.

Subscribe
Notify of
0 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
You May Also Like

Unconvinced by PM Lee’s arguments

Andrew Loh / Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong addressed about 1,200 tertiary…

泰国今年起禁塑料袋 泰民祭出各种法宝购物

泰国今年1月2日起,开始禁止大型零售商向顾客派发塑料袋,但没有塑料袋的他们又该怎么办呢?虽然没有了购物袋,但他們似乎不沮丧,甚至开始慢慢地习惯了… 自禁止塑料袋那天起,各大泰国网友纷纷将自己的购物照上传到网络上,引起网民的关注。 除了善用行李箱,他们使用推车、水桶、大米袋等物当作塑料袋使用,在拍照上传到网络上,让人啼笑皆非。 泰国今年起禁止大型零售商向顾客派发塑料袋,最终目标是在2021年全面禁止使用塑料袋。 泰国政府去年11月已发布限塑令,从2020年1月1日起,全泰所有大型商场、超市及便利店停止为顾客提供塑胶袋。 泰国自然资源与环境部长沃拉戊说,希望能在2021年达到“全泰无塑”的目标,因此在2020年到来前,环境与自然资源部已向43家大型商场及超市便利店协商,不再向顾客出售或赠送塑料袋。 当局去年展开首阶段计划,鼓励消费者自发停止向商家索取塑料袋后,当地去年使用的塑料袋减少了20亿个。 他说,接下来最困难的工作,是减少菜市场和农村地区的塑料袋使用率。这些地方的塑料袋使用率,占了全国的40%。

Changi Airport as World's Best Airport for fifth consecutive year at 2017 Skytrax World Airport Awards

Singapore Changi Airport has been named as the World’s Best Airport by air…

Attack by mobsters clad in white leave protestors and passengers injured in Hong Kong, police allegedly turn a blind eye to assailants

On the fringes of the chaos resulting from clashes between police and…