Lanka Citizen

Two bloggers jailed for making racist remarks online

For the first time, two Singaporeans have been sentenced to jail for posting racist remarks online. 28-year-old Benjamin Koh Seng Huat, a kennel keeper at an animal shelter, has been sentenced to one month’s jail. Separately, the court sentenced 25-year-old former assistant marketing manager, Nicholas Lim Yew, to serve one day in jail and a maximum fine of $5,000.

Koh walked into the court, accompanied by his lawyer and a friend Hisham Abu Bakar. He pleaded guilty to making racist remarks on his web blog which sparked off more than 200 comments. Lim, whose postings were regarded less serious than Koh’s by the court, was also charged under the Sedition Act.

In passing sentences, Senior District Judge Richard Magnus said the two had crossed the red line by wantonly breaching the basic ground rules. He said passing a deterrent sentence was necessary so that such offending acts are tackled early and contained.

The judge also said that young Singaporeans may have short memories that race and religion are sensitive issues. He said callous and reckless remarks on racial or religious subjects had the potential to cause social disorder, regardless of which medium or forum they are expressed.

The judge added the right of one to propagate an opinion on the Internet is not and cannot be an unfettered right. It is only appropriate social behaviour of every Singapore citizen and resident to respect the other races in view of Singapore’s multi-racial society.

Lim’s lawyer said there was a lesson to be learnt from the judgement. Helen Chia, Lim’s Lawyer, said: “He is sending out a signal to the public that this is a serious matter and everybody should take a second look at themselves.”

Separately, a third blogger, 17-year-old Gan Huai Shi faces seven charges of posting racist remarks on his blog. His case will be heard again on October 26.

07 October 2005, By Rita Zahara, Channel NewsAsia
http://www.channelnewsasia.com/stories/singaporelocalnews/
view/172257/1/.html

Rathna B. Ekanayake, a sinhala writer, writing an article on Election Promises, in Divayina, Sinhala daily, on October 13, 2005, had the following strong message to the politicians on behalf of the ordinary public. This is basically a literal translation of sections of the last two paragraphs of Ekanayake’s article.

“We live as slaves of the politicians of this country. [They] come to the people only at the elections and misleading them, get their vote, and then return to their thrones to reign as kings. …It has become characteristic of modern democracy [for the politicians] to legislate for their own benefit and oppress the people as slaves.

Even though we live as slaves of the politicians of this country, it is the absolute duty of the adult generation to create the space for at least our children to live in this country in freedom. Therefore, we need to carefully scrutinize the political promises presented by each political party. We need to reflect upon whether they are getting ready to develop the country? Or to further vandalize whatever little left over?”

//www.divaina.com/2005/10/13/feature.html

By Kumaran

Rajpal Abeynayake writing in The Sunday Times (09.10.2005) on ‘The Presidential debate that never took place’ makes some relevant points to ponder. Abeynayake writes: “Simone Weil wrote in her book “The search for roots,” that people identify with the state and only the state, as most other affiliations such as community have become meaningless.”

I would like to add, that despite, or rather above, the affiliations to a sense of community such as tribe, clan, linguistic nationality or religion, it is the state that can potentially manifest the broadest collective sense. This is an idea of the state we need to develop in the face of modern individualistic antipathy to state. The state or what the Greeks called the polity, is the political manifestation of the collective. Hence to talk of either withering away of the state as Marxists do, or to demand that civil society outside the state is the genuine space for politics as liberals do, is to reject reclaiming the political space for citizens. What is lacking in all the talk about civil society is a place for citizens who would want to have a say in determining the affairs that have an impact on their own lives. While Marxists reduced the state to the state machinery or apparatus, and the government, liberals would want to restrain the state impinging upon the ‘rights’ of the individual. And, there is no place for active citizenship in either of the discourses.

Abeynayake brings up the topic of the state to make the point that the Presidential election is not an occasion like electing office bearers of the debating society as some would tend to assume. Abeynayake notes that some others are “asking themselves, …which of these two men are more prone to kick our elected parliament aside? Which of these two will be the first to realize that we have abdicated all our powers as citizens to him — under this constitution - - and therefore are like chattel to be shoved around, until this future president has his way with us any time he wants?”

Abeynayake notes that while “[T]he American president has a veto power…our president can veto the whole parliament while he appoints the entire judiciary.” One cannot agree more with Abeynayake that “ the way back to civilization …. is to de-construct this monstrosity of the Presidency and bring it down. (emphasis ours. –ed) They never debated each other, but if they squared-off both should have to be asked why one will be less dictatorial than the other. It’s the trick question that no manifesto will answer, because we still think we are electing the radio club president.”

Very serious points to ponder indeed!

send your comments to: lankacitizen@gmail.com