It is time for Singapore to review its social harmony law, Section 298 of the Penal Code, says Professor Cherian George.

In a blog post on Tuesday (28 July) titled “Section 298 Is Ripe for Review”, the professor in the Department of Journalism at Hong Kong Baptist University started off by highlighting what makes Section 298 a “bad hate speech law”.

He noted that the law fails to distinguish between subjective harm caused by incitement of hate and works that cause subjective offence and disharmony. The latter, said Prof George, is “an allegation too hard to counter and too easily used to silence socially valuable speech”.

As such, he suggested that it should therefore be regulated by social norms instead of ‘hard law’.

The professor went on to say that this law, which is rooted in British colonial times, does not belong among Singaporeans many defences against chauvinism, communalism, and hate.

“It promotes offence-taking instead of live-and-let-live tolerance. It encourages citizens to demand action from above, instead of talking things through among themselves,” he remarked.

The Government may be ready to rethink Section 298

Prof George went on to say that the Government has signalled its readiness to rethink the issue of Singaporeans being allowed to discuss sensitive matters of race and religion.

He referred to an article which highlighted Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong commenting on the issue of a political candidate, Workers’ Party’s (WP) Raeesah Khan, being thrust in the spotlight over a police report made against remarks she made two years ago. The report alleged that Ms Khan’s comments promoted “enmity” between racial and religious groups.

While there were those who agreed that Ms Khan’s old social media comments were racially charged, there were also many others who felt that she was merely highlighting incidents of racism that minority groups face daily in Singapore.

PM Lee said at an e-rally during the election that older Singaporeans have a “somewhat different take” on the matter than the younger generation.

“The world has changed, attitudes have changed, younger people have a different perspective … which we have to take into account because young people will one day inherit Singapore,” he added.

Another PAP candidate, now-MP Nadia Ahmad, chimed in to note that younger people want to move beyond “this concept of tolerance or racial harmony”.

“They are willing to have uncomfortable conversations, or conversations that may make some segment of the population feel uncomfortable, and they’re brave enough to do so and I think it’s good that this kind of new norm is being forged,” she said.

Prof George also expressed that he had felt before that it was “futile” to bring this up because Singaporeans are “wedded” to the idea of calling the police to solve social frictions. But now, he thinks the time might be right.

Singaporeans are becoming savvier about laws being weaponised for political ends

Moving on, Prof George highlighted the Ethos Books dialogue on Sunday (26 July) during which Mohamed Imran Mohamed Taib made an observation that the Raeesah Khan case shows that people have a greater sensitivity about when race or religion is weaponised for political ends.

“There was a clear backfire over the police report on Raeesah Khan. … With the outpouring of support for Raeesah Khan, does is it mean that people are more accepting of divisive racial or religious remarks? I don’t think so,” said Mr Imran.

“What clearly happened is this – people now have greater sensitivity about when race or religion is weaponised for political ends,” he asserted, adding that it is a healthy development.

Prof George noted Mr Imran’s observation that people have “internalised the Government’s injunction against politicising race and religion” and that the same taboo should also be applied to those who are policing harmony.

Prof George went on to quote Mr Imran who said, “It cuts both ways. Saying something is divisive can itself be a divisive act with an intentional political end. This is something we have not seen before, which clearly speaks to greater civic political awareness.”

The professor then posited that if Mr Imran’s observations hold true, it means Singaporeans are now “savvy enough” to understand that laws made with good intentions can be hijacked for the opposite.

It is a non-partisan issue; requires political education

Prof George proceeded to highlight three things about Section 298 and Ms Khan’s case, firstly that it is not a partisan issue. Both sides of the political aisle have weaponise this particular law against their opponents before.

Secondly, Prof George said that it is “naïve” to think that Ms Khan and her team winning the Sengkang GRC seats despite the police report saga means that “playing the race or religious card” is no longer effective.

He noted that Ms Khan’s popularity remains low based on online sentiment analysis and that her team likely won due to their wildly popular teammate Jamus Lim.

“All we can say with certainty is that the anti-Raeesah smear campaign was not effective enough — not that it didn’t work at all,” added Prof George.

Next, he stated that “most Singaporeans who are rightly protective of racial and religious peace need to be convinced that reforms won’t generate unacceptable risks”.

Sharing an excerpt from his testimony during the Select Committee Hearing in 2018, Prof George suggested that political education is necessary to help people understand that while Section 298 is there to protect religious groups, it can be wielded by irresponsible actors as much as responsible ones.

“The conventional wisdom is that if it ain’t broke, don’t fix it. And indeed if by “broken” we mean prone to communal violence, Singapore is in good shape,” he elaborated.

Nonetheless, Prof George hinted that this would be a long process of “weaning” Singaporeans off their dependence on the police.

On his final point, he said that if political leaders do not consider reviewing the racial harmony law, the status quo would be “vigorously defended by PAP Ultras”.

“They will be back, preying on ordinary Singaporeans’ fears of instability, spreading disinformation about anti-racism activists, and thus trying to paralyse any effort for progressive change,” Prof George predicted.

Subscribe
Notify of
2 Comments
Newest
Oldest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
You May Also Like

网民同情被捕外卖快递员 热心人士拟筹赠电动滑板车

一名外卖递送员因使用违规电动滑板车,在义顺被陆路交通管理局执法人员拦截,但情绪变得激动,而遭到辅警制服和逮捕。 SG Road Vigilante在Facebook页面上载的照片显示,一名穿着Food Panda制服的外卖递送员,在义顺地铁站巴士站附近,遭执法人员制服。同时,一辆电动滑板车被放置在一个秤上,应该是在量度电动滑板车是否超重。 执法人员在本月20日,于义顺二道拦截一名33岁电动滑板车骑士,在量过他的电动滑板车后发现重量超过20公斤。 执法人员向有关外卖快递员解释,他的电动滑板车朝中违规,他的情绪变得激动,躺在路上。“为了外卖快递员和其他道路使用者的安全,在场的辅警暂时将他制伏,等候警察的到来。” 警方表示,他们当天约在早上10点半接到一起鲁莽行为的通报,男子之后被捕,警方仍在调查中。 刚买新电动滑板车 SG Road Vigilante也警惕大家需注意自己的个人代步工具(PMD)必须符合陆路交通局规定的规格:重量不可超过20公斤,宽度也不可超过70公分,最高车速不能超过每小时25公里。…

Singapore to receive a batch of COVID-19 vaccines called “Comirnaty”; MOH says they’re same as Pfizer

The Ministry of Healthy (MOH) said that Singapore will soon be getting…

Hong Kong's extradition Bill opponents storm into suburban Sha Tin district, Carrie Lam stays mum on total withdrawal

Protests against the Hong Kong government’s extradition Bill show no signs of…

港立法会议再展延 人权组织抨击警方暴力驱散群众

续昨日因大批港人聚集香港立法会,防堵“送中”条例修法通过二读,立法会议展延。而今早虽有议员前往立法会大楼,但是在今日(13日)上午11时许,立法会秘书处宣布会议再次展延,不会在今日举行。 在昨日,集会群众不满政府仍未撤回上述修法而不肯离去,但在约下午三时后演变成流血骚乱,警方多次发射催泪弹、橡胶子弹和布袋弹,以及催泪喷剂等驱赶立法会周边的示威者,但群众只是暂时撤退,或退至附近商场内和中环一带,警民仍持续对峙至晚上。 一些上班族下班后还特地赶到集会现场声援。直到晚上集会群众才逐渐散去,留下零星示威者收拾物资。一些群众还表示“明早七时见”。不过今早立法会外已有大批防暴警察戒备,警察也在逐步收拾和拆除民众昨日设置在道路上的路障。 至于香港民间人权阵线召集人岑子杰告诉媒体,原本有申请在今日集会,但遭警方反对。他表示民阵的集会必须合法,遗憾今日无法集会,惟呼吁市民继续罢工罢市罢课,继续抗争到底。 今早一些民众获悉立法会将再召开会议,仍到现场支持了解近况,直到得知立法会今日不开会,现场示威者才欢呼鼓掌。港警在香港金钟中信大厦行人天桥设下关卡,只允许大厦职员通过。但仍有零星市民聚集有关通往立法会的天桥。还有大批年轻人在附近的添马公园“野餐”。 人权组织、律师公会谴责暴力行为 昨日的冲突,已造成伤者多达79人,最年轻者年仅15岁,其中两人伤势严重。国际特赦组织(Amnesty International)也严正谴责港警动用催泪弹、布袋弹和橡胶子弹对付群众。 该组织香港分会总干事谭万基指责,警方向行动相当和平的示威者使用催泪弹及胡椒弹有违国际法。警方有责任维持社会秩序,但警方使用武力有严谨限制。香港警方今天的表现,未能达到这个标准。警方以少数暴力行为作前提,企图合理化向大部份和平示威者使用过度武力。 他认为,催泪气体及橡胶子弹等武器可致重伤,严重可致死,而这些发射物武器难以对准目标,攻击任意,容易滥伤无辜,不应用作驱散和平示威者之用。 “警方过份动武令现场情况更加紧张,不但没有停止冲突,反而很大程度令冲突加剧。我们呼呼警方不要一再向和平示威者滥用警力,而是要确保市民能够合法地行使他们的权利。我们 同时提醒警方,向已被制服的个人或示威者动武,同样不合法。”…