Judge Magnus On The Seditious Bloggers

Today the Straits Times has reproduced key points from the ruling of Senior District Judge Richard Magnus. In routine cases, the Subordinate Court judges usually do not explain their decisions at all, unless there is an appeal against their decision. In the present sedition cases, the fact that:

(a) Magnus, the No. 1 judge in the Subordinate Court hierarchy, personally heard the case; and

(b) Magnus bothered to articulate his grounds of decision in court;

shows that the courts recognise these sedition cases to be quite significant, from a public policy perspective. Let's take a look at what Magnus had to say:

'WHILE an offence under section 4(1a) of the Sedition Act is rare, it is necessary for this court to make it clear that such an offence will be met, upon conviction, with a sentence of general deterrence.

The phrase "general deterrence" tells you that the court is going to give a heavy sentence. When a judge says "general deterrence", this means that he wants to impose a sentence that will send a warning to the public and tell people that they had better think twice before committing a similar offence. The other kind of deterrence is "individual deterrence", where the judge is imposing a heavy sentence to deter that particular offender from committing the same crime again.

Racial and religious hostility feeds on itself. This sentencing approach of general deterrence is because of three main reasons:

The section 4(1a) offence is mala per se (heinous in or of itself);

The especial sensitivity of racial and religious issues in our multicultural society, particularly given our history of the Maria Hertogh incident in the 1950s and the July and September 1964 race riots;

The current domestic and international security climate. The court will therefore be generally inclined towards a custodial sentence for such an offence.

The third reason is interesting. In fact, in my private email discussions with one of my readers, Asoka Lotus, I had mentioned this factor as one likely to shape the authorities' view of the matter. The rise of terrorism has arguably made peaceful, conservative Muslims (ie the extremely vast majority of Muslims in Singapore) somewhat less certain of their place in this country, and it is important that we do not allow any behaviour that makes them feel that they might not be welcome or accepted here - this is probably what Magnus is saying.

The virtual reality of cyberspace is generally unrefereed. But one cannot hide behind the anonymity of cyberspace, as each of the accused has done, to pen diatribes against another race or religion.

The right to propagate an opinion on the Internet is not, and cannot be, an unfettered right. The right of one person's freedom of expression must always be balanced by the right of another's freedom from offence, and tampered by wider public interest considerations.

It is only appropriate social behaviour, independent of any legal duty, of every Singapore citizen and resident to respect the other races in view of our multiracial society.

The three paragraphs look rather obvious, but somewhere in their midst lies a rather subtle point. Many of you would not notice it, unless Mr Wang pointed it out. The point, however, is very significant, because this is Magnus speaking, and the Senior District Judge's ruling on this matter is what the other judges will scrutinise, and follow, in future similar cases. Here is the subtle point again:

"The right of one person's freedom of expression must always be balanced by the right of another's freedom from offence ..."

Why is this significant? Because when we talk about the freedom of expression, we always end up talking about the grounds on which it can be legitimately limited. Then we would turn to consider two broad principles.

The first is known as the harm principle, which says that the freedom of expression can be limited if the words or ideas expressed would cause undue harm to society. The second is known as the offence principle - that is to say, the freedom of expression can be limited if the words or ideas expressed would cause undue offence to society.

The offence principle is more controversial than the harm principle. Proponents of free speech are much more wary of the the offence principle than the harm principle. Let's illustrate the difference with a simple example.

Consider a speaker whose remarks are likely to incite racial riots. In such riots, people would be killed or injured. The harm principle says that this person's freedom of speech should be limited, so as to prevent harm from happening to society.

Then consider a person whose remarks will not cause racial riots at all, but will offend members of a particular race, say, the Indians. No harm is actually caused, except that the Indians feel very offended. The offence principle says that the speaker's freedom of speech should be limited, so as to prevent the offence from happening.

What Magnus is saying is that he will support limiting free speech on the basis not just of the harm principle, but also the offence principle. And Magnus's view is significant because, as I said, his ruling and reasoning as Senior District Judge is to be followed by all the other Subordinate Court judges.

What else did Magnus say?

... the remarks posted by Benjamin Koh on his blog were particularly vile, to use the words of the learned Deputy Public Prosecutors. Paragraph 10 of the learned DPPs' submission on sentence said: 'He...spewed vulgarities at the Muslim Malay community, derided and mocked their customs and beliefs and profaned their religion. He even compared their religion to Satanism.'

That is all we will learn from the court's judgment about what the two bloggers actually said.

His remarks provoked a widespread and virulent response. They sparked off more than 200 comments, some of which involved the slinging of racial slurs at Chinese and Malays. This is an aggravating factor.

In other words, if your seditious remarks attract lots of readers, you get a heavy sentence.

In the case of Nicholas Lim, the learned DPPs say that his comments are less serious than those by Benjamin Koh. This is borne out by a comparison of the offending materials.

The quantum of sentence on each of the accused persons, therefore, varies according to their level of blameworthiness.

As I mentioned in my preceding post, Magnus is paying careful attention to the actual content of the remarks made.

Finally a word of warning from Magnus:

The court will not hesitate to impose appropriate salutary and stiffer sentences in future cases.

Two Bloggers Jailed

Well, the first two sedition cases are over.

Oct 7, 2005
Two jailed for racist postings on the Internet

TWO men were sentenced to jail on Friday for posting racist remarks about Muslims on the Internet in the first case of its kind here.

Nicholas Lim Yew, 25, and Benjamin Koh Song Huat, 27, were charged under the Sedition Act for promoting 'feelings of ill will and hostility between different races or classes of the population of Singapore' on the Internet.

On Friday, Koh was sentenced to jail for a month and Lim for a day. Lim was also fined S$5,000.

The maximum sentence for first-time convicts under the Sedition Act is 3 years' imprisonment and $5,000 fine. As Mr Wang previously explained, maximum sentences for any crime are rarely imposed, and are used only in the most severe of cases. And as Mr Wang predicted, the two bloggers here received nothing close to the maximum.

Still the question which everyone will be discussing is whether the sentences actually imposed, in these two cases, were too drastic anyway.

Lim, an assistant marketing manager, allegedly posted anti-Muslim remarks on an online forum for dog lovers in Singapore - www.doggiesite.com.

Koh, who works at a kennel, was said to have made similar racist comments on his blog, Phoenyx Chronicles, on several occasions.

During sentencing, senior district judge Richard Magnus said Koh's comments, which contained vulgarities, were 'particularly vile'.

There is considerable disparity between Koh's and Lim's respective sentences. Koh gets a month in jail and Lim gets a day. Lim will be out by tomorrow morning. What this tells you is that although Koh and Lim committed similar offences, Judge Magnus paid careful consideration to the actual remarks that each of them made. Koh apparently made much more extreme remarks and therefore received a heavier sentence.

The Straits Times did not tell us what Koh and Lim actually wrote. In a way, this is a pity, because if bloggers knew what Koh and Lim actually wrote, then bloggers themselves would know what they should not write. As it is, these two cases will produce some unnecessary "chilling effect" on bloggers erring grossly on the side of caution.

On the other hand, the Straits Times probably made a considered decision not to report the specifics of Koh's and Lim's remarks, as these remarks are offensive to begin with, and probably contain words not generally considered polite enought to be printed in a newspaper.

Stupid Press

Yes, yes, I'm supposed to be away, but I thought I'd just pop back in here to provide another example of why you should be Very Careful when you read the local newspapers. Today the Business Times has an article with the title:

Asia is home to world's best and worst cities
However, when you read the article, you see that what it actually says is this :

(SINGAPORE) The Asia-Pacific region boasts some of the world's most liveable cities but also a number of the most wretched capitals on earth, according to a survey. Melbourne came in second and three other Australian cities - Perth, Adelaide and Sydney - were in the top 10 in a global list compiled by research firm the Economist Intelligence Unit (EIU).

Vancouver in western Canada topped the list. Also among the 10 best cities were Vienna, Geneva, Zurich, Toronto and Calgary.

The headline tells us that Asia is home to the world's best cities. But from the article we learn that it is actually Melbourne, Perth, Adelaide and Sydney which feature in the world's top 10 cities. And none of these 4 cities are cities in Asia. The Business Times has confused Asia with Asia-Pacific.

In fact, there is no Asian city that features among the top 15. Tokyo comes in at No. 16, while Osaka and Kobe share the No. 20 spot. Hong Kong was ranked 41st while Seoul and Singapore tied for 54th place.

So the Business Times title is not very credible at all. In fact, it is quite misleading. Asia may indeed be home to the world's worst cities, but it cannot really claim to be home to the world's best cities.

Three Small, Brave Noise-Makers

Here's the background, in case you didn't already know it. Following the NKF saga, four persons had staged a peaceful demonstration in the heart of the Central Business District, calling for greater transparency in organisations such as the CPF, GIC and HDB. A big squad of riot police promptly arrived at the scene armed with dangerous weapons, and broke up the 4-man demonstration.

Mr Wang, in an earlier post, had provided a legal analysis of this factual scenario. Mr Wang's conclusion was that the 4 protestors had carefully planned their demonstration such that they had probably broken no law in Singapore (and therefore the police should not have taken action against them) . In another post, Mr Wang even went on to talk about creative ways to legally hold a public protest in Singapore.

But what about our four little protestors - what have they been up to lately? Well, they dwindled to three (I don't know why) and are now taking legal action against the Home Affairs Minister. Check it out.

Oct 2, 2005
Protesters seek legal action against minister, police chief

THREE people who were among four protesters told to disperse outside the Central Provident Fund Building in August have filed a motion in the High Court against the Home Affairs Minister and Commissioner of Police.

Ms Chee Siok Chin, Ms N. Gogelavany and Mr Yap Keng Ho said in their affidavit that they were standing peacefully with a fourth person, Mr Tan Teck Wee, outside the CPF Building in Robinson Road on Aug 11 when police asked them to leave.

Each was wearing a white T-shirt emblazoned with words and acronyms in red.

Ms Chee, 39, sister of Singapore Democratic Party chief Chee Soon Juan, said then that their protest had nothing to do with the party.

Her T-shirt had 'National Reserves' printed on the front and 'HDB GIC' on the back. Ms Gogelavany's T-shirt had 'Be Transparent Now' on the front and 'NKF CPF' on the back.

Mr Yap was holding a placard above his head which read: 'Singaporeans spend on HDB; whole earnings on CPF; life savings - but cannot withdraw when they need.'

Police came and dispersed them, saying they were causing a 'public nuisance'. Their T-shirts and placards were seized later.

And what is it that the three protestors are now seeking in court?

The two women and Mr Yap, who are represented by Mr M. Ravi, want a declaration that the Minister and the Commissioner of Police acted 'in an unlawful and unconstitutional manner' when they ordered them to disperse.

....

A motion is an application made to a judge in open court to obtain an order or rule, directing some act to be done in favour of the applicant.

The case will be heard on Oct 21.

Mr Wang is fairly confident that the police had no legal right to put an end to the protest on 11 August. However, Mr Wang is also fairly confident that the three protestors will not win their case in court and obtain the court's declaration that the authorities had acted "in an unlawful and unconstitutional manner" in commanding them in court.

The reason is more technical than anything else. You see, as the law stands, the courts generally do not make bare declarations. If you have suffered some losses, then you come to court and prove your case and if you succeed, the courts will say, "I order X to pay you $50,000" or something like that. However, if you cannot demonstrate any such losses, then the court generally will not declare "X was wrong", just for the sake of making you feel better.

In the present case, the police had told the protestors to end their protest, and the protestors had voluntarily obeyed. Thus it will be difficult for them to demonstrate that they had suffered any losses. If they had not obeyed the police, and had been forcibly arrested, then ironically that would actually put them in a better position to sue for wrongful confinement or false imprisonment (an action in the law of torts).

Of course, winning the battle in court may not really be the main purpose of these protestors. In fact they may be happy to lose, provided that they get publicity anyway for their cause. That's probably what this whole thing is about, isn't it?

Mr Wang also has a feeling that the three protestors deliberately picked this time to inititate this legal action. It probably has to do with certain recent mumblings from Second Minister for Finance and Foreign Affairs Mr Raymond Lim. Apparently, Mr Lim told the media that unlike Singaporeans, foreigners are perfectly welcome to stage large protests and demonstrations in Singapore. I am rather amazed to hear such strange noises from Raymond Lim - I would really like to believe that I have misunderstood him - so perhaps it's best that you click here and read and judge for yourself.

Anyway, the Singapore government is now in a potentially embarrassing position. This is what may yet transpire -

Four little Singaporeans staging a peaceful (and legal) protest are illegally stopped by a big squad of riot police, but the Singapore courts won't declare that the police acted wrongly; meanwhile, 2nd Minister Raymond Lim makes special arrangements for dozens, perhaps hundreds of foreigners, to stage loud, noisy, traffic-obstructing protests in Singapore. Another credibility issue for the PAP government to manage.


Police officers use pepper spray on protestors at a World Bank / IMF meeting in Washington DC, in April, 2000. Nearly 1,300 protestors were arrested in total, and there were baton blows in several confrontations. Why does Minister Raymond Lim want to run the risk of this happening in Singapore? Mr Wang is baffled.

Rethinking Respect

I just realised that Carl Skadian's Life! article was part of the Straits Times fatherhood series, about daddies and such. Bah. It was such a lousy "fatherhood" article that I didn't even realise until now that it was supposed to be a "fatherhood" article. Let Mr Wang offer you something more interesting to read, on the topic of fatherhood.

In the Comments section of my preceding post, my readers raised some interesting points about respect. Should students respect teachers, simply because teachers are teachers and students are students? Also, should children respect parents, simply because parents are parents and children are children?

Sleepless in Singapore wrote:

"I have no experience as a teacher, but I do conduct a lot of training for adults. In recent years, I have had opportunity to train professionals from neighbouring Asean countries. I find that their attitude towards the trainer is so respectful and appreciative. I really enjoy teaching them and am motivated to go the extra mile even though the fee I get from them is much lower.

Singaporeans, on the other hand tend to treat trainers like other service providers like waiters, or taxi drivers. If you read Br BL Ogs, blog, you will see that they treat doctors in much the same way.

In conclusion, I think this is an unhealthy trend. If principals don't do something about it, they are not doing their jobs. And you parents out there, if you do not do something about it, the next blog you read could be about what a rotten dad or mum you are."

I largely disagree with Sleepless's position. In fact, it is perhaps psychologically impossible for me to agree with him. My brain simply does not work that way. As I have mentioned previously, I am an INTJ, and here is what Keirsey has to say about INTJs:

To INTJs, authority based on position, rank, title, or publication has absolutely no force. This type is not likely to succumb to the magic of slogans, watchwords, or shibboleths. If an idea or position makes sense to an INTJ, it will be adopted; if it doesn't, it won't, regardless of who took the position or generated the idea. As with the INTP, authority per se does not impress the INTJ.

In other words, Mr Wang is unable to respect a teacher for being a teacher. Mr Wang is only able to respect teachers for teaching well. This is a notorious Mr Wang characteristic which generally defines his relationships with people all arouind him.

In Mr Wang's ideal world, the same would apply in schools. Teachers would not be respected simply by virtue of their status as teachers. Respect has to be earned. Bad teachers deserve no respect simply by virtue of their status as teachers.

And frankly, I do not think that I am placing very high standards on teachers. The average teacher is older than his young charges; he is therefore much more experienced; he has been educated to a higher level; he ought to know his subject far better than his student; he has received professional training for his job; he should be a mature person. He should be able to teach well enough to earn his students' respect.

And what about parents and children? Sleepless wrote:

And you parents out there, if you do not do something about it, the next blog you read could be about what a rotten dad or mum you are.

To this, I would say that if you are a rotten dad or mum, then surely your children would be perfectly correct to think that you are a rotten dad or mum. Your children must be rather stupid or at least naive, if you are a rotten dad or mum, and they did not know it.

If you accidentally stumble across your child's blog where he writes that you are a rotten dad or mum, then you should treat this as a wake-up call. You should even consider yourself lucky. You've just got a chance to look straight into your child's mind. You are being confronted with your child's genuine opinion about you. It may not be pleasant, but it is genuine.

There is no point in saying, "How dare you write this, you insolent child!" and then proceed to punish the child. Instead you should take time out to reflect on what has caused your child to feel this way about it. If there is something rotten about you, then you should fix yourself. If there is a breakdown in the communication between yourself and the child, then that is what you need to fix.

Mr Wang is a parent too. He has two young children. The younger one is too young to have too many opinions. But the older one is precocious and has opinions about everything under the sun (sigh, so much like his father). I encourage him to have opinions, to express views, to say what he likes and does not like. It is never too early to start teaching your children to think for themselves.

If a young child misbehaves, it is the easiest thing in the world to shout and yell and pull out a cane and intimidate the child into submission - but is that right? Is that really "respect"? I don't think so. You have to look at the root cause of the misbehaviour. Often it will at least be partially due to your own failings as a parent - for example, the child may be misbehaving to get your attention because you just haven't been giving him enough. In the end, parents should earn their children's respect through their own behaviour - parents must conduct themselves in such a way that their children look up to them.

Does Mr Wang always live up to his own professed standards? Alas, no. Mr Wang is an imperfect father. There have been occasions when Mr Wang lost his temper and treated his children (especially the mischevious older one) in ways that he later regretted. But Mr Wang will always strive to be a better father. That is his duty, and the duty of all the daddies in the world. Daddies will never quite reach perfection, but that's no reason not to strive for it.