Fundamental Freedoms
I was very disturbed to read in the papers recently about two Singaporean bloggers who are being sentenced in court for comments that were posted online in their blogs. They are being sentenced for writing stuff which is considered racially inflammatory and seditious and could face up to 4 years in jail. These two men were writing in response to a letter posted to the forum page of the local newspaper regarding the issue of allowing dogs to travel in local taxi cabs, with the author of the letter, a Malay Muslim, asking that this be stopped and their comments were placed on personal blogs.
This for me is a very scary situation and a severe blow to any pretensions (very few to begin with, admittedly) about the extent to which there is freedom of speech in this country. For me, the right to say and to write what you think is a very fundamental thing, and I personally feel that I would find it difficult to live in any society where such a right is not fully enshrined. In America, this right, guarenteed under the first amendment, is zealously safeguarded by such civil watchdogs as the American Civil Liberties Union, and this right is given without any discrimination in terms of the sentiments or topic areas expressed by individuals. The ACLU has gone so far as to protect the right of neo-Nazis to say what they think.
Implicit within this discussion is the extent to which a blog constitutes a public or private space. There is little doubt that the comments that they expressed were probably racist in some form, but that does not mean, as the charges against them suggest, that they are inflammatory, which is a whole different issue. If the two men had been sitting in a coffeeshop talking over a beer and made these comments, then they would probably not have been charged based on this Act of law, though it would have been a different matter if they had done so standing along a busy street like Orchard Road exhorting passer-bys with racist comments at the top of their lungs. So how does this distinction work with regards to Blogging?
Blogging is rather difficult to place in this regard. It is pretty much undeniable that comments written in blogs are placed very much in the public domain and are accesible to all. This is made even clearer by the fact that most blogs now have the option of keeping an entry "private" meaning that it can only be viewed by that individual and a select few rather than by anyone who accesses that blog. However, blogs are very much private spaces in that they are either personal chronicles or personal opinions written in an individual capacity.
In the end, I think that the charge that they are facing, of writing inflammatory material that could incite racial hatred is ridiculous. For one thing, unlike if they had been shouting from a street corner, in which case passerbys would have no choice but to listen to their comments, only people who actively searched out and read their blogs would be subject to whatever they have written. And who would be likely to read such comments? Probably people of a similar ilk. People who don't agree with what they say aren't likely to be persuaded just by a couple of lines written in a blog. That goes with even for people who stand at street corners and rant. I was in New York for a week and at lots of random subway exits you would find people saying the most outrageous things, much of which would be considered seditious in Singapore. My personal favourite must be a black man trying to convince everyone that Jesus Christ was not only not a Jew, but that he was actually black. All he got for all his trouble and his exhortations was a very sceptical crowd gathered around him, many of whom were either arguing doggedly against him, or heckling him. You didn't seem him starting a riot or people suddenly changing their views. Are Singaporeans really that incapable of similarly judging for themselves what is claptrap and what is not?
In a recent discussion about this at a family dinner (yes, this is the kind of thing my family talks about, often rather heatedly, over dinner!), we more or less agreed that race and religion is often such a big issue in Singapore only because the government is so determined to make it such a big issue. The surest way to ensure that ethnic and racial and religious divisions remain entrenched is to continually make it an issue and to insist repeatedly that we must be on the watch for people who are intent on dividing us in such a manner. We are inundated with stories from the past in which this were the case - from the Maria Hertog riots, to other race riots, as if such a situation repeating itself is something that is inevitable, if the proper "precautions" are not undertaken. However, race is hardly an issue for anyone in my generation, and we are probably much more integrated as a whole that my parents generation. It seems the government is creating something out of nothing with regards to this. After all, why is it that our race has to be listed on our identity cards, despite the fact that very often it is something that is a very artificial indicator anyway? What is the "race" of someone who has a chinese father, an indian mother, with Peranakan heritage lets say? If Tiger Woods were born in Singapore, what would his race be listed as?
There has been much talk of Singapore opening up, of greater freedom, of letting people express themselves, but the case of these bloggers is a step backwards, and a big one at that. The Government insists that we are free to express what we think, up to certain out of bounds markers (OB markers in popular parlance), which if crossed will lead to repercussions. The problem is, where exactly these markers lie is still very much open to question, and one will probably only find out that one has violated a marker when one is arrested/questioned by the police/sued in court which in Singapore, is far far too late. After all, given what has just happened, will this post be considered political in nature and violate the ordinance banning anything political from being broadcast over any form of media. After all, the internet is clearly a form of media, and this post clearly reflects my opinions, and some of what is written here is political...... Could it be that I am trying to subvert the minds of my fellow Singaporeans to my own personal stance?
This for me is a very scary situation and a severe blow to any pretensions (very few to begin with, admittedly) about the extent to which there is freedom of speech in this country. For me, the right to say and to write what you think is a very fundamental thing, and I personally feel that I would find it difficult to live in any society where such a right is not fully enshrined. In America, this right, guarenteed under the first amendment, is zealously safeguarded by such civil watchdogs as the American Civil Liberties Union, and this right is given without any discrimination in terms of the sentiments or topic areas expressed by individuals. The ACLU has gone so far as to protect the right of neo-Nazis to say what they think.
Implicit within this discussion is the extent to which a blog constitutes a public or private space. There is little doubt that the comments that they expressed were probably racist in some form, but that does not mean, as the charges against them suggest, that they are inflammatory, which is a whole different issue. If the two men had been sitting in a coffeeshop talking over a beer and made these comments, then they would probably not have been charged based on this Act of law, though it would have been a different matter if they had done so standing along a busy street like Orchard Road exhorting passer-bys with racist comments at the top of their lungs. So how does this distinction work with regards to Blogging?
Blogging is rather difficult to place in this regard. It is pretty much undeniable that comments written in blogs are placed very much in the public domain and are accesible to all. This is made even clearer by the fact that most blogs now have the option of keeping an entry "private" meaning that it can only be viewed by that individual and a select few rather than by anyone who accesses that blog. However, blogs are very much private spaces in that they are either personal chronicles or personal opinions written in an individual capacity.
In the end, I think that the charge that they are facing, of writing inflammatory material that could incite racial hatred is ridiculous. For one thing, unlike if they had been shouting from a street corner, in which case passerbys would have no choice but to listen to their comments, only people who actively searched out and read their blogs would be subject to whatever they have written. And who would be likely to read such comments? Probably people of a similar ilk. People who don't agree with what they say aren't likely to be persuaded just by a couple of lines written in a blog. That goes with even for people who stand at street corners and rant. I was in New York for a week and at lots of random subway exits you would find people saying the most outrageous things, much of which would be considered seditious in Singapore. My personal favourite must be a black man trying to convince everyone that Jesus Christ was not only not a Jew, but that he was actually black. All he got for all his trouble and his exhortations was a very sceptical crowd gathered around him, many of whom were either arguing doggedly against him, or heckling him. You didn't seem him starting a riot or people suddenly changing their views. Are Singaporeans really that incapable of similarly judging for themselves what is claptrap and what is not?
In a recent discussion about this at a family dinner (yes, this is the kind of thing my family talks about, often rather heatedly, over dinner!), we more or less agreed that race and religion is often such a big issue in Singapore only because the government is so determined to make it such a big issue. The surest way to ensure that ethnic and racial and religious divisions remain entrenched is to continually make it an issue and to insist repeatedly that we must be on the watch for people who are intent on dividing us in such a manner. We are inundated with stories from the past in which this were the case - from the Maria Hertog riots, to other race riots, as if such a situation repeating itself is something that is inevitable, if the proper "precautions" are not undertaken. However, race is hardly an issue for anyone in my generation, and we are probably much more integrated as a whole that my parents generation. It seems the government is creating something out of nothing with regards to this. After all, why is it that our race has to be listed on our identity cards, despite the fact that very often it is something that is a very artificial indicator anyway? What is the "race" of someone who has a chinese father, an indian mother, with Peranakan heritage lets say? If Tiger Woods were born in Singapore, what would his race be listed as?
There has been much talk of Singapore opening up, of greater freedom, of letting people express themselves, but the case of these bloggers is a step backwards, and a big one at that. The Government insists that we are free to express what we think, up to certain out of bounds markers (OB markers in popular parlance), which if crossed will lead to repercussions. The problem is, where exactly these markers lie is still very much open to question, and one will probably only find out that one has violated a marker when one is arrested/questioned by the police/sued in court which in Singapore, is far far too late. After all, given what has just happened, will this post be considered political in nature and violate the ordinance banning anything political from being broadcast over any form of media. After all, the internet is clearly a form of media, and this post clearly reflects my opinions, and some of what is written here is political...... Could it be that I am trying to subvert the minds of my fellow Singaporeans to my own personal stance?
posted by Caleb Liu | 7:30 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home