Unless you've been in self-exile these past few days, you will probably know that two locals got charged under the Seditions Act for posting seditious material on the web. Singapore Angle has a good coverage of opinions from the local blogosphere so far which I won't rehash.

I'm curious about something though. What or who determines intent, extent and how? The Seditions Act covers almost every base I can think of, from the realm of the oral to the written and printed. In fact, if I'm not wrong, "everything [which] by its form, shape or in any other manner capable of suggesting words or ideas" potentially covers telepathic thoughts as well, if they exist (proof that our legislators are forward-thinking). How useful and practical is such an act? Pretty much gives the "who" in question carte blanche if you ask me.

This is not to downplay the severity of the duo's actions, because details are sketchy in that area. At the back of my mind, I believe that they must have done or said something seriously wrong, for them to have the dubious honor of being the first two people to be charged under the act for ten years. Even without a trial, I've pretty much robbed them of the benefit of the doubt, and that's pretty disturbing to me. Granted, they probably did deserve getting charged, but that the invocation of one mysterious, obscure and blanket act can swing public opinion immediately leaves something sour in my mouth. Who knows, I could well be an accused charged under a similarly obscure act next week. Employ basic common sense? Well, I can try, but then, there's really no guarantee is there? This message illustrates my point. "Are you allowed to challenge people's cu[l]tural beliefs about religon [in Singapore], or would that upset people too much?". I'd have thought that challenging the religious beliefs of anybody anywhere without being invited to would fall under the category of "rude" rather than common sense. Apparently not.

Kind of ironic that we have to rely on so much common sense, when Singapore is reputed to have countless self-explanatory laws to govern everything from flushing the toilet to spitting to retrofitting window rivets. Go figure.

Off topic, the news has gotten onto Slashdot, and the discussion is there mixed with racism ("slant-eyed rice-pickers"), good-old-USA sentiment and total misinformation ("no chewing gum in public". As far as I know, it's import and sale of chewing gum that's banned). This one takes the cake. 22% of all prisoners get raped? That's almost 1 in 4 prisoners. What, did the census collector go undercover?

Filed under: News, Singapore, Musings, Law