For advertisement

Sample

6/07/2008

Sedition Acts

When you are not seditious when discussing sensitive racial, religious or political issues. The Acts have provisions to allow discussion of such subjects provided the intent is not to incite, cause hatred and stir up the emotions of the people leading to violence, anti govt activities etc. Para 2 below provides for discussions if the intent of the discussions is to alleviate misunderstanding, reduces differences, to improve or to point out errors etc without doing the above. 3. —(1) A seditious tendency is a tendency — (a) to bring into hatred or contempt or to excite disaffection against the Government; (b) to excite the citizens of Singapore or the residents in Singapore to attempt to procure in Singapore, the alteration, otherwise than by lawful means, of any matter as by law established; (c) to bring into hatred or contempt or to excite disaffection against the administration of justice in Singapore; (d) to raise discontent or disaffection amongst the citizens of Singapore or the residents in Singapore; (e) to promote feelings of ill-will and hostility between different races or classes of the population of Singapore. (2) Notwithstanding subsection (1), any act, speech, words, publication or other thing shall not be deemed to be seditious by reason only that it has a tendency — (a) to show that the Government has been misled or mistaken in any of its measures; (b) to point out errors or defects in the Government or the Constitution as by law established or in legislation or in the administration of justice with a view to the remedying of such errors or defects; (c) to persuade the citizens of Singapore or the residents in Singapore to attempt to procure by lawful means the alteration of any matter in Singapore; or (d) to point out, with a view to their removal, any matters producing or having a tendency to produce feelings of ill-will and enmity between different races or classes of the population of Singapore, if such act, speech, words, publication or other thing has not otherwise in fact a seditious tendency.

1 comment:

Anonymous said...

You would expect the lawyer drafting the sedition acts to cover every loophole from the government pov. If it ain't, it's deliberately left vague and broad so as to cover every possibilities. Who is that lawyer?