News Alert: Operation Spectrum forum cancelled due to venue problems.

Current Affairs Desk

The invoking of the Sedition Act in the prosecution of the Christian couple for distributing offensive tracts may seem overly harsh – setting a dangerous precedent for the future.

EIGHT WEEKS in jail– that was the sentence dished out under the Sedition Act to Christian couple Mr Ong Kian Cheong and Dorothy Chan for distributing offensive tracts to Muslims.

(Photo from The Straits Times)

Even so, as ill-judged as the couple’s actions were, it was still a leap to argue that they had committed sedition. The fallout seemed localised; the defendants appeared motivated by religious fervour rather than malice.

Nevertheless, the sentencing should have come as little surprise, since a pair of bloggers were similarly jailed under the Act for posting “racist remarks on the Internet in 2005.

There is also no surprise that the Muslims who received the tracts were offended and chose to take action. A pair of booklets that were highlighted by the prosecution aimed at advocating conversion away from Islam by grossly misrepresenting the religion.

Understandably the recipients –- having received such tracts anonymously in the mail, and with little information about how many had been sent out or the intent of the sender –- were not out of place in fearing that it could be an attempt to undermine their religion.

Why Sedition Act and not Penal Code?

One curious aspect of the case is that the government chose to prosecute the couple under the portentous Sedition Act, rather than Sections 298 and 298A of the Penal Code which address acts that deliberately injure racial or religious feelings.

Furthermore, Sections 298 and 298A were added by the government in 2007 in response to the blogger case of 2005 so as to provide a lower-signature alternative to the Sedition Act to deal with such offenders.

In this context, the use of the Sedition Act against Mr Ong and Ms Chan suggests that the government intended to attach a high signature to the case, perhaps for a deterrence effect.

Or it could be for the more practical reason that the Sedition Act specifically legislates against the “distribution” of “seditious” material, while the Penal Code is more vague on this point. Invoking the Sedition Act would also allow the government to take action against stores that imported the booklets.

Legalities aside, the case is unfortunately timed. National attention on religious matters has been unusually intense of late, particularly since the high-profile ouster of a Christian faction from the Association of Women for Action and Research (AWARE), a local woman’s rights group.

The sentences passed on Mr Ong and Ms Chan, who had expressed contrition for their actions, might appear harsh to elements in the Christian community already chaffing at the fallout from the AWARE takeover, perhaps even reinforcing their perceptions that their religion is being unjustly singled out.

The government’s decision to invoke the Sedition Act could therefore prove to be a double-edged sword. The Act seems to have become the government’s favoured weapon for tackling racial- and religious-related offences.

Interestingly, prior to the 2005 cases involving the bloggers, the last time the Act was invoked was in 1966.

The problem is that the present case might have set a relatively low bar for invoking the Act, causing the government to rely more rather than less on it in future.

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

Police helpless against rampant renovation scams

The Online Citizen noted in an earlier report that over 13 families were cheated…

【选举】淡马亚陈清木挑战辩论抗疫方针 易华仁称“应先清楚表明观点”

民主党主席淡马亚教授和前进党党魁陈清木医生,回应原总理李显龙言论。淡马亚指出,如果李显龙不是太脱节的话,理应能发现过去数月在野党都已针对疫情表达看法,甚至警告疫情下选举很鲁莽和危险。 再者在野党对于疫情危机都有清楚的计划,淡马亚自身还写了学术文章、而陈清木则谈讨经济和社会议题。 他再度邀请李显龙和陈振声等人一起公开辩论,好让群众可以明辨是非。 陈清木则指出,行动党认为在野党无法处理疫情,但他表示自己甚至曾与淡马亚已故的医生父亲共事,那时候也曾应对过疫情,倒不如让民众来决定在野党是否合格。 不过,据了解此次再西海岸集选区对垒陈清木的易华仁,则表示“有意辩论者有义务清楚说明观点。”他认为在野党有必要提出防疫方案的细节,并和政府政策对比。 “若要进行辩论,那提出辩论的人,应先清楚表明他们的观点,这样你才能有个对比,才有理由展开辩论。否则就是一个现行的方案,另一边却要求我们辩论但没提出具体方案。”

Migrant workers at Blue Stars Dormitory express appreciation after three days of swab test

Last Saturday (16 May), migrant workers at Blue Stars Dormitory expressed their…