magnezium.

Hamelin: Études

2010-09-05T16:10:00.099+08:00

Hamelin: Études

Marc-André Hamelin

Referring to one of his own compositions on this disc, Marc-André Hamelin writes:

Although Toccata grottesca fortunately ended up having a personality of its own, it is actually modeled closely after a preexisting piece by another composer. This was a pure experiment on my part, and I am quite surprised at how I was able to adhere to the model without making the derivation obvious (at least I don’t think it’s obvious!), considering how similar the texture and form ended up being. Understandably, I don’t wish to reveal the identity of the original, and I am interested to know how skilful I was in masking the source of my inspiration. (Who is it that once said ‘originality is the art of concealing one’s source’?) It is not a terribly well-known work, although someone with a sufficiently broad knowledge of the piano literature might recognize it.

I'm not going to guess what this "preexisting piece by another composer" is, but the Twinkle, twinkle little star theme is unmistakeable in this work of Hamelin's (though I'm pretty sure he wasn't intending for us to actually guess this, since it is obvious). I also hear a few bars that sound like something out of the finale of Hindemith's Suite "1922".

That gives you a pretty good impression of this new recording of Hamelin's own compositions: it is a haze in which little snippets and fingerprints of various other composers mesh and dissolve, forming something of a scrapbook of pianophiliac memories. As a listener, you're always thinking, "Hey, haven't I heard that somewhere before?" Among the influences Hamelin credits explicitly are Alkan, Bach, Beethoven, Busoni, Chopin, Godowsky, Liszt, Paganini, Pergolesi, Rossini, Domenico Scarlatti, Tchaikovsky and a French folksong.

Even in the compositions for which Hamelin doesn't credit influences, suggesting that they are entirely original, one does hear influences both in terms of style and actual musical material. In the Music Box from the Con intimissimo sentimento set, for example, I hear the style of a Prokofiev Vision fugitive or a Shostakovich Prelude from the Op. 34 set. And in the Minuetto (the 11th Étude), I hear bits of the theme from the Chopin segment of Schumann's Carnaval. It's hard to tell how much of this is a figment of my imagination and how much isn't. But it is a pleasant and somewhat nostalgic feeling to be in this "Is it really there or is it not?" sort of semi-conscious state.

At some point, the question that doggedly gnaws at those who clamour for new music inevitably rears its head: given that Western classical music is based only on 12 notes, will we ever run out of new music to write? Will we then forever be condemned to hear the same motifs, over and over again? Indeed, Hamelin's own programme notes allude to such a nightmare. Writing about his 12th Étude, the Prelude and Fugue, he says:

I experienced a rather uneasy moment when, some time after completing the piece, I came across Sergei Taneyev’s Prelude and Fugue in G sharp minor, Op 29. I was alarmed to see that there were some startling similarities between the two fugues: same metre, same key (enharmonically), same pianistic terrains, and a very similar fugue subject. Please be assured that if this were other than mere coincidence, I would be honest enough to admit it!

Thankfully, there is enough new material (or what sounds like it) on this disc to convince one that the nightmare is just that. And that even if we ever run out of new music to write, rewriting it, à la Hamelin, will always give us new and stimulating things to listen to.

Shopping for Chopin

2010-08-29T19:03:00.005+08:00

It's been a long time since I've been to a live classical music performance. Back when I was in school and could get concession tickets, I watched a shitload of stuff because at $5 to $15 a concert, I could afford to. Nowadays, I can rarely get tickets for anything less than $25. CD's cost about $25. There is the occasional live performance that's darned good, but more often than not you're better off listening to a CD. What's more, for the same price (or less), you can hear it over and over again. And with the ultra-conservative programming that passes for classical music concerts these days, you'll probably hear more stuff by collecting CDs as opposed to watching concerts.

But today, I went to watch a live classical music performance. Or should I say, a performance that included live classical music. Shopping for Chopin was done in a black-box space, with a pianist playing live Chopin, video projections and pre-recorded music and voice. Each of these elements interacted with each other to create this performance.

There was a plot to it all: a love story, about a boy and a girl who meet at a Gramophone store and who share an interest in Chopin's music. The details of this plot you had to absorb by reading the texts projected on the screens, and by listening to the pre-recorded voice. I was too lazy to really do either. So I was just in this "this is a love story" haze.

Some have labelled this "basically a piano recital", but from the pianophile's perspective, it is not. It's not easy to describe what it was, but I'll try anyway. John Cheng (from NAFA) began ordinarily enough, with a sweet rendition of the Andante spianato (without the accompanying Polonaise). After this he rested, while an orchestrated version of the Op. 28 No. 7 Prelude was piped in to accompany a video projection. Then we were taken back to the Andante, and then to the orchestrated Prelude again.

Some voiceover, and then we heard the opening section of the second Ballade, the F major bits. But the pianist stopped there. It wasn't until we'd finished hearing more voiceover that he continued into the violent A minor section, played a bit further past that section, and then stopped there. The fiery coda we did not hear.

More voiceover, before some video accompanied by bits of the second Concerto's slow movement, from a recording. Then we heard the pianist perform the first half of the Op. 53 Polonaise, stopping just before the chords that herald the descending octaves. We never heard the rest of the Polonaise.

Next we had the pianist playing the Op. 28 No. 4 Prelude, while a recording of another completely different piano piece was playing in the background (I couldn't tell what it was).

Some more voiceover, and then the Op. 27 No. 2 Nocturne. But we heard only the left-hand accompaniment, without the melody. It was not until some time later that the melody was introduced.

If you weren't familiar with Chopin's music, you may not have noticed a lot of this: that the Chopin is not Chopin per se, but Chopin edited and modified and spliced. This is a problem, I think, because this performance was billed as a theatre-ish sort of thing. It attracted theatre-goers, who may not necessarily have been familiar enough with the music to catch these details. It may have looked like 'just another piano recital', when it really was far from orthodox for a piano recital.

Theatre-goers may also seldom walk into Gramophone stores. The significance of part of the set may therefore have been lost on some, for there was a glass human head with headphones on it. If you shop at Gramophone, you'd have recognised it.

Technically, too, there were a number of problems with the performance. Firstly, if you're someone who listens attentively, you may have found the juxtaposition of the live music and the recorded music a little jarring, because the sound quality of the recordings was not up there, and did not match the clarity of the live music. This was partly because some of the recordings being used were pretty old. But there was at least one Lang Lang recording (the second Concerto), which was probably pretty new but still sounded botched through the speakers.

Also, the piano wasn't perfectly tuned. They'd probably tuned it once before the first performance, and then left it to languish for the next few days while the air-conditioning came on and off. You might get away with this if your performance is in a large concert hall and the pianist is on stage and everyone else is not, but in a small space where the listener is within 10 metres of the piano, the flaw is noticeable.

The pianist wasn't perfect either. He took the F major section of the Ballade too fast for my taste, while the A minor section, comparatively, was too slow. He was clearly having technical difficulties with the Polonaise, even though he didn't have to do the octaves. I've always loved the Op. 28 No. 4 Prelude, which is so tragic in its simplicity. But because of the other piano recording playing simultaneously, we couldn't really appreciate this piece properly. He was best in the concluding Nocturne, I think, where his tone was nicely rounded and he was able to make the melodies sing. His runs here were pretty clear too.

Overall, I liked the concept. It's something that would have been worth paying $25 for. For one thing, it was interesting, which is more than can be said for most of the classical music calendar nowadays. I hope there will be more.

Shopping for Chopin is presented by Play Den Productions and runs till 31 August 2010. For details, click here.

Responding to the Minister's comments on the mandatory death penalty

2010-05-10T17:27:00.014+08:00

The Court of Appeal's decision in the Yong Vui Kong case still isn't out yet, but the Law Minister has made some comments defending the mandatory death penalty.

Here's one of the things he said:

People assume you can have this safety and security without this framework of the law; that you can change it, and yet your safety and security will not be affected... But there are always trade-offs. The difficulty the Government has sometimes in explaining this is that the trade-offs are not apparent. The damage to a large number of others is not obvious... You save one life here, but 10 other lives will be gone. What will your choice be?

There are two arguments buried here:

Having the mandatory death penalty improves safety and security.
The mandatory death penalty is justified because drug trafficking causes "damage".

Let's try and flesh out the first argument. How does having the mandatory death penalty improve safety and security? The argument probably flows like this: the mandatory death penalty deters people from trafficking in drugs, so drug-related crime is reduced.

What about the second argument? Fleshed out, it probably flows similarly: drug trafficking causes increased drug addiction and associated social fall-out (the "damage"); a mandatory death penalty would deter drug trafficking and thereby reduce drug addiction and social fall-out.

What do these two arguments have in common? They are both premised on one proposition: that having a mandatory death penalty deters drug trafficking. But does it really? This is a proposition that can be empirically tested (statisticians and criminologists will tell you how). But this kind of testing has not been done in Singapore. The Government, which has the capability to carry out such testing, has not done so. Instead, it continually asserts that the mandatory death penalty has deterrent effect, without ever citing any empirical evidence. Merely asserting something over and over again does not make it true.

You might say it is common sense that a mandatory death penalty will deter drug trafficking. But research in this area has shown that we should not be so quick to trust what some people claim is common sense. While no study has been done on the death penalty for drug trafficking in Singapore, at least one study has been done on the death penalty for murder. The study suggests that in Singapore, the mandatory death penalty does not have a deterrent effect on murder. In other parts of the world, too, scholars are agreed that the death penalty has no deterrent effect on murder. One cannot extrapolate from these studies about murder and conclude that the mandatory death penalty has no deterrent effect on drug trafficking, but these studies do give us reason to doubt that conclusion. Add to this the fact that mandatory sentencing itself, regardless of the type of punishment involved, has been shown to have no deterrent effect. Are we so sure of 'common sense' now?

The first two arguments, therefore, stand on shaky ground. I wouldn't take someone's life if I knew I stood on shaky ground. I don't think I am unique in this respect, either.

The Minister also said:

If we say, we'll let you go, what is the signal we're sending? We're sending a signal to all the drug barons out there, just make sure you choose a victim who's young, or who's preferably a mother of a young child and use them as the people to carry the drugs into Singapore. And then there can be a lot of sympathy generated if they do get caught. This poor lady, she's a mother of three young children, she only did it because she had to save her children. Or this young boy, he didn't know what he was doing. Then you will get 10 more. You will get a whole unstoppable stream of such people coming through.

First, we need to get past the rhetoric. Doing away with the mandatory nature of the death penalty does not mean 'letting people go'. They will not get off scot-free just because the death penalty is not mandatory. What will happen is that judges will decide how these criminals should be punished. If the judges think that these criminals were particularly blameworthy, they may be sentenced to death. If the judges think that they weren't that blameworthy, they may be given long terms of imprisonment. Neither of these amounts to 'letting people go'. Don't fall for the rhetoric.

Next, consider how drug barons would choose their mules. If I were a drug baron, I'd choose as mules those people who're less likely to get caught, so that I can use them more often, before they eventually get caught. For this purpose, it would not matter to me whether the person I choose is likely to get hanged or not. After all, once the mule gets caught, she's either going to be hanged, or jailed for a long, long time. Either way, I won't be able to use her as a mule anymore, at least not for the next 15-20 years or so. So what matters to me is her ability to avoid detection, and not whether she is young or has children. The Minister's fear—that abolishing the mandatory death penalty will lead to drug barons choosing more young people and mothers to be drug mules—is therefore likely to be unfounded.

Finally, notice the implicit admission in the Minister's comments: the people we hang are always the mules. We never get the barons. If you really wanted to reduce drug trafficking and its social ills, you'd go for the barons, not the mules. Even if the mandatory death penalty had deterrent effects, these are going to be merely minimal if the penalty is only awarded to mules. Perhaps what is truly crucial in the fight against drugs is not the mandatory death penalty, but better investigative capabilities, which allow us to capture the barons instead. Perhaps, the mandatory death penalty, which has no demonstrated deterrent effect and is always applied to mules only, just isn't such an indispensable part of the anti-drug strategy after all, and we should stop pretending that abolishing it is going to plunge Singapore into utter chaos.

Related posts:

Shanmugam's Slippery Slope (Benjamin Cheah)
Fuzzy Logic on the death penalty (Groundnotes)
Capital punishment in Singapore for drug-related offences (SpotlightOnSingapore)
Judgement on Yong Vui Kong’s appeal this Friday (The Online Citizen)
Death Penalty – Are we trading off justice for real deterrence? (Mathia Lee)
Against The “Trade-Off” (Ambiguity)
Shanmugam's misleading defense of the mandatory death penalty for drug trafficking (Trapper's Swamp)
Singapore official and media claim liberal cities are hotspots for drugs and crimes (Political Duo-ble)
Drug lords may gain from death penalty (Tan Chin Aik)
The slippery slope, the greasy pole (Andrew Loh)
The death penalty myopia (Kirsten Han)

Tweet this!

New Acquisitions!

2010-05-09T22:57:00.004+08:00

Baltic Exchange

Uģis Prauliņš, Maija Einfelde, Urmas Sisask & Vytautas Miškinis

Trinity College Choir Cambridge, Stephen Layton

Hyperion CDA67747

Got this for $23 at HMV. It's weird how the price of Hyperion releases has changed over the years. When I first started collecting, they were about $25. At one point, they became $28, then $30. Now, $23. Exchange rate fluctuations? Anyway, bought this one mainly because I love Urmas Sisask, who wrote a most beautiful Gloria Patri (check out the excerpts in Baltic Voices 2, and other excerpts from a now out-of-print complete recording on Finlandia). But, like his Starry Sky Cycle, the Sisask piece on this disc, Benedictio, is nothing to shout about. What really stands out on this disc is the stuff from Vytautas Miškinis, especially the opening of the Pater noster. The choir is up to par, aside from sounding a little too English at times.

Le Sacre du printemps / L'Oiseau de feu

Igor Stravinsky

Cleveland Orchestra, Chicago Symphony Orchestra, Pierre Boulez

Deutsche Grammophon

Okay, I don't have the same edition pictured here. I couldn't find a picture online of the exact one I bought, but it looks like something that was issued by DG in conjunction with Le Monde. The recordings are probably the same ones though, and they are legendary, as is the sound quality. Wasn't planning to buy this at first, but at $14.95, I couldn't pass. Didn't realise, though, that the booklet would be entirely in French! Haha oh well. At least it's not in German.

Do you support the mandatory death penalty for drug trafficking?

2010-02-17T09:00:00.000+08:00

How does the mandatory death penalty for drug trafficking work?

Under Singapore law, if it's been proven that you've been trafficking in a controlled drug, and the amount of drugs involved crosses a certain threshold, you will be sentenced to death. The threshold varies according to the drug, and these thresholds are all set out in the Second Schedule to the Misuse of Drugs Act. The threshold for diamorphine, for example, is 15 grammes. If you've been trafficking in more than 15 grammes of diamorphine, you will be sentenced to death.

The word “mandatory” means that the judge has no discretion to award you a lesser sentence. Even if your case has extenuating circumstances and the judge rightly takes pity on you, the judge has no choice but to sentence you to death. This is unlike most other criminal law provisions, which allow the judge to award more calibrated sentences, taking into account the moral culpability of the offender, his age, social background, whether he has prior convictions, etc.

Do you support the mandatory death penalty for drug trafficking?

Here are some things you should consider in making your decision:

1. Crimes are all serious. Does the punishment fit the crime?

You may think that drugs are a serious social evil, and that drug trafficking should therefore be punished severely. But this does not mean we we must necessarily use the most severe punishment available. We can, for example, imprison drug traffickers for life instead. If we really want to impose the death penalty, we must ask if drug trafficking really such a heinous crime. Is it as serious as murder? Does the punishment fit the crime? Or, is our response blown out of all proportion?

2. Does the death penalty “work”?

You may think that imposing the most severe penalty we have will deter people from trafficking in drugs. But there is no evidence that imposing the death penalty actually deters people from trafficking in drugs. Following the introduction of the death penalty for drugs in 1975, drug offences did indeed decrease in frequency. But around the time there was also an increase in the amount of resources put into catching drug offenders. So, which strategy worked — the death penalty, or better policing? We can't be sure. In the 1990's and 2000's, while the death penalty was firmly in place, figures for drug offences have just see-sawed up and down, revealing no discernible trend. Bottom-line: we really don't know if the death penalty works in deterring people from committing drug offences in Singapore.

While we don't have proper statistics for drug trafficking in Singapore, we do have statistics for murder. The available evidence shows us that the death penalty probably does not have any significant effect on reducing rates of murder in Singapore. Studies done in other parts of the world also say the same thing. If the death penalty doesn't work to deter murder, is it likely that it would deter drug trafficking? Are we justified in hanging people when we're so unsure of all these things?

3. Is the trial process fair? Are the people we hang really guilty?

Consider also the presumptions in the Misuse of Drugs Act that affect the trial process. Earlier I wrote about the prosecutor “proving” you were trafficking, but this is often unnecessary. Trafficking can often be proved indirectly, by means of a series of presumptions.

For example, if you hold the keys to a cupboard containing drugs, you are presumed to have been in possession of the drugs, even if, let's say, somebody put them there without you knowing (section 18(1)). The onus is now on you to prove your own innocence.

You are also presumed to have known that the drugs were indeed drugs (section 18(2)). Say for example that you hold the keys to a cupboard with some white powder inside. You are presumed to have known that the white powder was diamorphine, and the onus is on you to prove that you didn't really know.

If the drugs you were in possession of cross the threshold amount, you will be presumed to have been trafficking (section 17). For example, if you hold the keys to a cupboard containing 15 grammes of diamorphine, you will be presumed to have been trafficking in the drug. The onus is now on you to prove your own innocence.

This is just a sampling of the problems in the trial process. There are others, which are not specific to the Misuse of Drugs Act. For example, in all criminal cases, the police can rough you up and make you write a statement confessing to something you might not have done, and that statement can be admitted in court as evidence. The onus will then be on you to prove that you made the statement under police pressure, and that you didn't really do what you had confessed to doing.

With all these problems, the trial process shifts further away from the ‘innocent until proven guilty’ end of the spectrum and closer toward the ‘guilty until proven innocent’ end of the spectrum, so that at the end of the day, we can't say with much confidence that the person we hanged was really guilty of drug trafficking. We might just have hung some people for no rhyme or reason. In this sense, the mandatory death penalty for drug trafficking could be little more than a scheme for arbitrarily murdering some random people every once in a while.

4. Can't we be merciful when it is called for?

Many of the drug traffickers sentenced to death have so little money that they can't afford to pay for lawyers to defend them (the lawyers usually do it for free). This means that the drug traffickers we're hanging aren't making big bucks from their trafficking, and were probably forced into doing it for other reasons, just like how prostitutes are often forced into prostitution. We can't really say that the people we hang are monsters. In fact, it looks like we hang the small fry, while the big fish who really make money from the drug trade get off scot-free. This being the case, shouldn't judges have the discretion to be a little bit more merciful in deserving cases?

Also, don't people deserve a second chance? Instead of hanging people, wouldn't it be better if we locked them up for 20 years, following which they could come out and, having realised the error of their ways, become contributing members of society?

What can you do about it?

Ultimately, we as citizens bear responsibility for the people we hang. When they are hanged, it is in your name and mine. My purpose here is not to convince you that the mandatory death penalty is or is not a good idea. All I want you to do is think about whether your stand on the matter is a defensible one. If you support the mandatory death penalty for drug trafficking, and you can sleep peacefully at night, good for you. If you can't, maybe it's time you spoke out against the injustice being perpetrated in your name. You could join a Facebook group, sign a petition, tell your MP how you feel or just discuss the issue with your friends and family. Whatever you need to do, to clear your conscience.

For more information on the death penalty in Singapore, click here.

Tweet this!

Better statistics for the 377A debate?

2010-01-17T17:29:00.018+08:00

During the public debate on 377A some years ago, there were no proper statistics on what public opinion on the issue actually looked like. Many participants, for example, cited the study done by Benjamin H. Detenber, which found that Singaporeans generally have negative attitudes towards gay people (see "Singaporeans’ Attitudes toward Lesbians and Gay Men and their Tolerance of Media Portrayals of Homosexuality"). But the fact that someone has a negative attitude towards a particular practice does not always indicate that he/she also wishes that practice to be made the subject of a criminal offence. The Detenber study did not set out to gauge public opinion on the latter question, and those who cited it in support of their (usually anti-repeal) stance were really taking no more than a stab in the dark on that question.

Recently, however, Tan Seow Hon has published the results of a survey which could provide a more reliable indicator of public opinion on the issue (see "Law School and the Making of the Student into a Lawyer: Transformation of First Year Law Students in the National University of Singapore"). She asked about 200 first-year students who were reading law at NUS whether "sexual acts... between consenting adults of the same gender should continue to be a criminal offence". 20.1% said yes, and in a follow-up survey done a year later, on the same group of students, the figure went down to 15.8%.

The data is not entirely without problems. First, the question was prefaced by quoting section 377 of the Penal Code, and her actual question was "Do you think sexual acts of this nature between consenting adults of the same gender should continue to be a criminal offence" [emphasis mine]. The phrase "of this nature" could have had some bearing on the participants' interpretation of the question and on their answers, since the phrase refers to the conduct proscribed by 377, which at that time included intercourse with animals and used the words "against the order of nature".

A second potential problem is that university students, and those reading law in particular, are often said to be much more liberal in their political views as compared to the general public. Whether there is actual empirical evidence for this, I do not know. If it is true that university/law students are more liberal, my hunch is that it is not the case that people with more liberal views are more likely to apply to or get into university/law school. Rather, the connection is probably that university/legal education makes one more liberal. If the latter is true, its effect can only account for the 4.3% drop in anti-repeal responses between the first and second surveys. It cannot account for the initial low figure of 20.1%, which was obtained within the first week of the first year of law school, when almost zero university/legal education had taken place.

In any case, Tan's statistics are probably the most relevant and reliable ones that we have on the issue, at the moment. And, they are telling, aren't they?

Tweet this!

Statements on the Mandatory Death Penalty

2009-12-12T21:36:00.005+08:00

The serious opposition parties have both released pretty good statements on the mandatory death penalty:

SDP repeats call to abolish mandatory death penalty

The Reform Party Calls For Abolition of Death Penalty for Drug Trafficking

If you haven't been following the Yong Vui Kong case, read about it here.

Scholar Bias in Public Service

2009-11-07T11:14:00.006+08:00

PSC Chairman Eddie Teo said [PDF]:

They will get a good university education in NUS, NTU and SMU and their degrees will not hold them back if they perform well in their career, in or outside the Public Service. In all my years in Public Service, I have never witnessed anyone being promoted or not promoted on account of his university background.

Strictly speaking, this might be true: which university you went to does not have a direct impact on your career advancement in the civil service. But the concern that many people have is that it has an indirect impact: if you went to NUS, NTU or SMU, this means you weren't an overseas PSC scholar, and your career advancement will automatically be slower than the scholars' career advancement.

When I was interning at the AG's Chambers in 2008, I made it a point to ask the people there if this policy indeed existed. I didn't get any straight answers at all. Everyone I asked either gave ambiguous replies or just dodged the question entirely.

People say things are changing, etc. But nobody seems to know for sure. For many of the top minds at local universities, this uncertainty is great enough to make joining public service an unwise option, at least in the early stages of their careers.

Bridging the Gaps: Approaches to Hate Speech in the US, Canada and Singapore

2009-11-05T11:05:00.004+08:00

Abstract: When it comes to hate speech prohibitions, the US and Canada are often seen as being on opposite sides of a great divide. This paper attempts to cast that dichotomy as a blurred one, by showing that the discourse on hate speech regulation in both jurisdictions is guided by the same two principles of human dignity: (1) all lives have equal inherent value, and (2) each individual must be allowed to pursue his own conception of a successful life. This paper also blurs the US-Canada dichotomy by showing that while both jurisdictions have seemingly different legal rules, their actual operation is likely to yield similar results in similar cases. Lastly, the paper turns to Singapore. It argues that the discourse on hate speech prohibition in Singapore is driven primarily by public order considerations that are overblown, and that this has negative effects. An attempt is made to locate the two principles of human dignity in Singapore’s constitutional documents, and it is argued that these principles should form the basis of a new approach to hate speech prohibition in Singapore.

Click to read paper [PDF].

Killing the dream alive

2009-10-02T08:51:00.001+08:00

The controversy surrounding Ris Low, which has culminated in her resignation from the Miss World pageant, centers around two issues: her prior criminal conviction and her poor English. I am not so sure that these two grounds provide sufficient reason for arguing that she should not be allowed to represent Singapore.

Why is her prior criminal conviction even an issue? Is an ex-criminal who has realised the error of her ways always necessarily a bad role model? If her conduct has already been condemned by the courts and she has already been meted out punishment, do we really need to condemn and punish her for the very same act, all over again, outside the courtroom?

Why do we also object to her poor English? It cannot be that we think her standard of English is unrepresentative of Singaporeans: I find instead that the median standard of English in Singapore is roughly that of Ms Low's. If all we want to do is fool the international community that Singaporean English standards are higher than that, then we are just being hypocrites.

Are our criticisms based on nothing rational? Are they driven purely by our feeling that she embarrasses us? That is nothing short of animus.

Ris Low had a dream: a dream for herself, and a dream for Singapore. Have we mercilessly killed that dream with our unadulterated animus?

New Anti-Gay News Portal

2009-09-13T11:10:00.004+08:00

A group of Christians is spearheading a new online news portal whose agenda is avowedly anti-gay: it is to be guided by "mainstream family values", which means "a man, his wife, with a view to procreation". They already have S$90,000 in funding, the source of which remains secret.

Read all about it here.

Time to think about anti-discrimination law?

2009-07-25T18:20:00.003+08:00

This is the second letter I've ever written to the ST forum, and the second to get rejected also. haha. So my rejection rate is still 100%. Unlike my first letter, I didn't spend much time on this one. I typed most of it, except the citation, on my phone while waiting for a friend who was 20 minutes late. That also makes this my tech-iest post ever. haha. Anyway, posting this here so I don't lose it in the labyrinthine depths of my computer.

Time to think about anti-discrimination law?
9 July 2009

Recent comments by Mr K Shanmugam have initiated an important debate about affirmative action for Malays in Singapore.

I would like to add to this debate by pointing out a possible alternative solution for Singaporeans to consider: anti-discrimination law.

Essentially, anti-discrimination law makes discrimination by private parties illegal in certain situations. In the US, for example, Title VII of the Civil Rights Act makes it unlawful for employers to refuse to hire applicants simply because of their race, religion or other irrelevant classification. An aggrieved applicant can therefore sue the errant employer for compensation.

Most developed countries, including Australia, Canada and the UK, have laws of this type. Singapore, however, does not. We do have some guidelines, such as the Tripartite Guidelines on Non-Discriminatory Job Advertisements, but these do not carry any legal sanction and are therefore often disregarded by employers.

How is anti-discrimination law different from affirmative action? While anti-discrimination law ensures that the process of competing for jobs remains on a level playing field, affirmative action is more suited to achieving particular results that are unlikely to be achieved even if the playing field is level. In this way, anti-discrimination law seeks to solve a more basic problem.

And an acute problem it is, too. In a 2006 survey of 1,500 local job applicants, 19% reported having experienced discrimination on the basis of their race (see "When black and white doesn't help", TODAY, 29 December 2006). Given that minorities make up about 25% of our population, and that race discrimination is likely to target them more than majorities, the figure is a significant one.

Aside from solving these problems, another significant advantage of anti-discrimination law is that it is less of a political hot potato than affirmative action. While affirmative action may be necessary in the long run, it is probably better to exhaust our less controversial options first.

Also, anti-discrimination law could potentially be a broad-based solution to problems other than the Malay dilemma. It could, for example, deal with the myriad other types of discrimination that job applicants complain about, such as discrimination on the basis of age, nationality or even national service status.

All in, the introduction of anti-discrimination law will, I think, push us closer to an ideal Singapore in which everyone is treated as an equal.

Mohan Gopalan

Is there a right to privacy after death?

2009-06-20T08:45:00.003+08:00

I am quite irked that the contents of David Widjaja's computer are being spilled out in the press. How many of you would approve of your computer files being made public after your death? Should people be allowed to know who you sent emails to, what you googled, what you said to who on MSN, whom you stalked on Facebook, what kind of porn you surfed? And how many of you would want to have your suicide note, meant for a handful of loved ones, read by half the nation?

I don't know.

Racial and Religious Hate Speech in Singapore: Reclaiming the Victim's Perspective

2009-06-19T11:23:00.005+08:00

(With great pleasure, I announce:) New on SSRN: Racial and Religious Hate Speech in Singapore: Reclaiming the Victim's Perspective, by Zhong Zewei.

Abstract:

In this essay, I argue that the rationales offered by the Singapore Government for restricting racial and religious hate speech are not only constitutionally unsound, but also not without serious moral and social costs. I start off identifying two main rationales offered for the existing restrictions, namely (1) the maintenance of public order, and (2) the promotion of an ethic of intercultural tolerance. These twin rationales are buttressed by a literalist (and flawed) judicial interpretation of the right of free speech under Article 14 of the Singapore Constitution. Drawing on hate speech decisions from the U.S., Canada and Europe, I advance a more faithful reading of Article 14 which affords greater constitutional protection for hate speech as 'political speech'. I next trace how the Singapore Government's regulation of hate speech is rooted in its avowedly Asian-style 'communitarianism'. The 'public order' and 'tolerance' rationales, however, fail to recognize that race and religion are constitutive aspects of our individual flourishing and self-respect, which hate speech attacks. The present legislative regime is therefore guilty of self-contradiction. Lastly, I sketch a different, victim-centred justification for Singapore's hate speech laws which is responsive to the profound injury inflicted upon individuals targeted by racial and religious vilification. This victim-centred perspective, it is suggested, finds a comfortable textual home in Article 152(1) of the Singapore Constitution, which requires the Government to care for the interests of racial and religious minorities in Singapore.

More OMG again

2009-05-05T18:22:00.000+08:00

Neither could I.

2009-04-24T17:16:00.003+08:00

Jenica Chua, quoted in Today:

“The person who sent the threat said he has joined a jihadist group and ... will find ways to harm my loved ones,” said a visibly upset Ms Chua. “And all I did was join a women’s association. I couldn’t sleep for many nights.”

When you wrote all the crap you did two years ago, arguing for the law to continue perpetuating its violence against my loved ones, I couldn't sleep either.

Josie asks the question she dodges.

2009-04-17T21:31:00.003+08:00

From CNA:

The new president of the Association of Women for Action and Research (AWARE), Josie Lau, has questioned the intentions of veteran members who are unhappy that newcomers have swept most of the executive committee seats in the organisation's recent annual election.

In a statement to the media, she challenged these members to disclose their motives and objectives fully and honestly.

Their motive, Josie, is to make YOU disclose, FULLY AND HONESTLY, what YOUR MOTIVES AND OBJECTIVES ARE.

Josie and DBS's HR Policy

2009-04-17T01:11:00.004+08:00

I may not agree with Josie Lau's politics, but I think there is something not very right about what DBS is doing either.

Campaigning for justice on behalf of fellow citizens is, to me, one of the fundamental obligations of being a citizen (it doesn't matter that her conception of justice may be different from mine). If she can handle Aware and her DBS job well, at the same time, who is DBS to say that she needs approval to do this? DBS might fire her if she doesn't perform well; that might be justifiable. But to require prior approval? I'm not sure that's right. In any case, I hope she doesn't get fired just for breaching the "code of conduct".

Some comments on the Aware thing.

2009-04-16T06:30:00.006+08:00

I see a number of comments in the blogosphere to the effect that Aware's 'old guard' did not achieve anything and were "just sitting there, getting fat". I think this is a very misinformed opinion.

Aware has done a lot over the years, from campaigning against the Graduate Mother Scheme and quotas for female students in medical school; they've even gone so far as to table legislation in Parliament. I can't remember their other achievements off the top of my head, but see Diane K. Mauzy & R.S. Milne, Singapore Politics Under the People’s Action Party (London: Routledge, 2002) at 60, 159; Lenore Lyons, A State of Ambivalence [:] The Feminist Movement in Singapore (Leiden, Boston: Brill, 2004); and Lenore Lyons, “Internalised Boundaries: AWARE’s Place in Singapore’s Emerging Civil Society” in Michael D. Barr & Carl A. Trocki, eds., Paths Not Taken: Political Pluralism in Post-War Singapore (Singapore: NUS Press, 2008) 248.

If you're wondering why Aware has done so much but you haven't heard of it, the answer has to do with the way civil society groups work in Singapore. You campaign for what you want, but only until the Government starts listening to you and realising that you're right. Then you back off and let the Government implement your proposals in the way they see fit. Then you let the Government take all the credit. The moment you start getting all media-whore-y and high-profile, your relationship with the Government is screwed. And you might even begin worrying about worse things (think 1987). Keep your head down, and you might just get more of what you want. These are the unwritten rules of engagement.

This is the reason why you don't hear about the successes of many other civil society groups either: The Nature Society, for example - see Cherian George, “The Nature of Politics and the Politics of Nature” in Singapore: The Air‐Conditioned Nation at 139‐143; and Suzaina Kadir, “Singapore: Engagement and Autonomy Within the Political Status Quo” in Muthiah Alagappa ed., Civil Society and Political Change in Asia (Stanford, California: Stanford University Press, 2004) 324 at 337‐341.

Lots of people are also asking about what GLBTQ politics has to do with Aware. The answer: although sex between consenting women is not illegal in Singapore, the retention of 377A is a barrier to many other rights that lesbian women need to have - to marry, have kids, access social benefits, etc. It is also untrue that Aware has never taken a position on issues of homosexuality: Aware advocated repealing 377A in 2006, in a position paper on the proposed Penal Code amendments (which I can no longer find on Aware's website).

Lastly, people are saying that GLBTQ people are just being "sour grapes" and that the takeover was done legally etc etc. I don't think anyone is really being "sour grapes". People are just anxious, and feel that they might potentially be disappointed, because so many GLBTQ people have contributed to Aware in the past, and to see that it might all go to waste...well.

But the fight goes on. It always does.

Anti-gay lobby hijacks AWARE

2009-04-11T05:52:00.005+08:00

This is going to be rather interesting. For some time now I've been thinking that civil society groups in Singapore tend to leverage on their links with other civil society groups. Or at least that their members, or the people who volunteer with them, are a rather fluid lot who move from one group to another on a very ad-hoc kind of basis. That, at least, has been my (very limited) experience with civil society groups here. I started out doing some work for Aware (coincidence), and from there various people pulled me into doing work for various other groups. It seemed that there were familiar faces in every new group I moved to. It has also been my experience that civil society people generally tend to be liberal. It will be interesting to see, therefore, whether Aware will continue to be able to leverage on its networks, or whether it will continue to succeed without being able to do so.

The takeover is also interesting because civil society groups, some argue, are meant to act as a bulwark against the power of the state. Do the anti-gay lobbyists see themselves as being in opposition to the state? If so, then one can maybe draw some conclusions about where the anti-gay lobbyists think the government stands on this issue. And one can also think about whether these lobbyists see themselves as being in the majority or the minority among Singaporeans. The answer to that question, of course, will determine whether the arguments they usually put forward can be defeated on their own terms.

For more on this, see this blog post by Sam Ho, which has links at the end.

Straits Times, April 10, 2009
Unknowns knock out veterans at Aware polls
Caught off-guard by big turnout, longtime members lose to fresh faces
By Wong Kim Hoh

SINGAPORE'S best-known women's group, the Association of Women for Action and Research (Aware), has seen a dramatic changing of the guard - which some members are describing as nothing short of a leadership grab.

When Aware held its annual general meeting on March 28, everyone expected the usual: No more than 30 or 40 members would turn up at its Dover Crescent centre, and a prepared slate of candidates would be voted into office easily.

Instead, more than 100 people came, the majority of whom had joined Aware only in recent months.

And when the election of office bearers began, almost every position was challenged by new faces, who won by wide majorities.

In the end, nine out of 12 executive committee spots went to the newcomers.

One older member who won without a contest was Mrs Claire Nazar, a former corporate counsel nominated to be president by outgoing Aware chief Constance Singam.

But barely a week into her new term, and before making her first statement as president, Mrs Nazar quit suddenly this week.

She confirmed that she had resigned, but declined to say any more when reached by The Straits Times.

It is not known who will now become president.

Longtime members took two other positions: Chew I-Jin as assistant honorary treasurer and Caris Lim Chai Leng was elected a committee member.

The election results have left longtime Aware members in shock.

Former president Tan Joo Hymn, 38, told The Straits Times the big turnout at the AGM surprised her.

'I arrived at the meeting late and found out that I was No. 100 on the attendance list. I've been a member for 10 years, and never before has there been such a turnout,' said the former lawyer who is now a full-time mother.

Another former president, writer Dana Lam, 57, said: 'There were many faces I had not seen before, and I found that very strange.

'In previous years, even if there were new members, they would be known to one or more of the older members.'

The first indication that something was afoot came when Ms Chew, an Aware veteran, was challenged and defeated handsomely by new member Charlotte Wong Hock Soon for the post of vice-president.

Ms Chew was later elected unopposed as assistant honorary treasurer.

'It was alarming,' said Ms Lam. 'How could a new member who had just joined for a couple of months, and whom we knew nothing about, be picked over someone who has been with Aware for more than 15 years?'

Some of the older members immediately began checking the attendance list.

Ms Tan said: 'We found that about 80 of the 102 who turned up were new members who joined between January and March this year.'

Aware, a feminist group that has prided itself on being 'all inclusive', has never vetted the people who apply to be members.

Men can join too, as associate members.

As it dawned on them that a leadership grab was imminent, some older members at the AGM tried asking the newcomers who they were, what they stood for, and why they wanted to be in charge.

They got only the briefest answers, they said.

Ms Lam said she tried suggesting that new members serve a stint on Aware's various sub-committees before standing for election to leadership positions.

But such suggestions went unheeded as the election proceeded, with more newcomers winning executive committee positions by landslide margins.

Ironically, the old guard at Aware had been working towards changing their Constitution to make it a rule that only those who have been members for at least a year would be eligible to join the ex-co.

There is currently no rule to bar a brand new member from seeking office, and that was what happened at the AGM.

Ms Tan said: 'We were simply outnumbered. Technically, they got in legitimately.'

She added that the way the election proceeded was so unusual, it was hard to imagine that the takeover was not a planned effort.

'It could not be pure coincidence,' she said.

But little is known of Aware's new leaders, aside from the fact that they include women from the corporate sector, lawyers, company directors and academics.

Older members said the newcomers spoke well but would not elaborate on their plans for Aware.

'When asked if they believed in equality, they kept repeating they were there to support women and to make sure they got ahead and got all the opportunities given to them,' Ms Lam said.

Older members were keen to know if the newcomers shared Aware's vision and values, including equality for all regardless of race, religion or sexuality.

But one outspoken new member from the floor, who identified herself as Angela Thiang, said questions about the new office bearers' religion and their stand on homosexuality were not relevant.

Former Nominated Member of Parliament (NMP) Braema Mathi, a two-term president of Aware, told The Straits Times that she, like many other members, was concerned.

'If you are keen to serve, you don't challenge every position. We do not know who they are,' said the former journalist who is now in Bangkok doing consultancy work for international women's group Unifem.

'It is very troubling, more so because I've heard the new president has resigned.'

Almost a fortnight into their new roles, the new leaders of Aware were not entertaining calls from the media this week.

New honorary secretary Jenica Chua Chor Ping told The Straits Times a press release would be issued 'in a few days' and added that until then, the committee would not answer any questions.

A check showed that some of those at the AGM and on the new committee have appeared in The Straits Times Forum Page.

Ms Chua, Ms Thiang and Dr Alan Chin, a male member of Aware who attended the AGM and supported the newcomers, all wrote letters to this newspaper between August and October 2007.

In a letter on Oct 17 that year, Ms Chua said NMP Siew Kum Hong had overstepped his non-partisan role and advanced the homosexual cause by tabling a petition in Parliament to repeal Section 377A of the Penal Code which criminalises homosexual sex between consenting men.

In another letter on Oct 25, she took issue with a Straits Times report which said NMP Thio Li-Ann had been 'visibly distraught' when she opposed Mr Siew's petition vigorously.

Ms Chua said Ms Thio had dealt with several points succinctly, with humour and passion.

Dr Chin and Ms Thiang both wrote letters to caution against the risks of promoting the homosexual lifestyle.

Meanwhile, news of Aware's AGM has spread among older members who did not attend the meeting, as well as civil society groups.

The most frequently-asked questions: Who are the new women in charge, why do they want the leadership, and what are their plans for Aware?

Ms Mathi said: 'The building of an institution takes many years; building its value system is even harder.

'Why can't they come in and be part of the process, and build it together and in a more evolutionary manner? That way, the comfort level will be high for everyone.'

Former newspaper editor and media consultant Peter Lim, a longtime associate member of Aware, said he was very surprised to learn what had taken place.

Asked why he thought a group of newcomers would want to take control, he said he did not know if it was an orchestrated effort.

But he thought Aware would be attractive to those seeking to be in charge of an established institution. Setting up a new outfit would take too much time and trouble.

'Aware has built up its credentials over the years and achieved more than a few things,' he said.

Three former Aware presidents - Ms Claire Chiang, Dr Kanwaljit Soin and Ms Mathi - have served as NMPs.

'Aware is a brand name and most people regard it as the leading voice of the feminists and modern women in Singapore,' said Mr Lim.

Yvonne Lee sends V-day thank-you's to international anti-gay lobby group

2009-03-28T01:37:00.003+08:00

On 14 Feb 09, Yvonne C.L. Lee of the NUS Law Faculty wrote to MassResistance, an international anti-gay lobby group, thanking them for the work they have done, some of which she had cited in her latest article.

Read all about it here.

Singapore Communitarianism and the Case for Conserving 377A

2009-03-25T18:31:00.007+08:00

New article from Yvonne C.L. Lee: "'Don't ever take a fence down until you know the reason it was put up': Singapore Communitarianism and the Case for Conserving 377A" [2008] Singapore Journal of Legal Studies 347.

Abstract: A rare parliamentary petition which sought the repeal of section 377A of the Penal Code that criminalises acts of gross indecency between male adults, was presented and debated in Parliament in October 2007. This article critically examines the constitutional law dimension and issues in relation to the 377A debate in Singapore. It highlights the primary jurisprudential thrust of the competing arguments and assumptions. It advances and defends the communitarian case for preserving 377A which the author argues is both normatively desirable and empirically reflective of existing Singapore law and policy. With particular regard to the Singapore context, it reflects on how democratic societies should address questions of law and profound moral disagreement, the importance of civil debate, and whether the legislative or judicial forum is most appropriate for making decisions on morally controversial questions.

Click here for the full article [PDF].

Binker

2008-12-26T22:20:00.002+08:00

by Alan Alexander Milne

Binker - what I call him - is a secret of my own,
And Binker is the reason why I never feel alone.
Playing in the nursery, sitting on the stair,
Whatever I am busy at, Binker will be there.

Oh, Daddy is clever, he's a clever sort of man,
And Mummy is the best since the world began,
And Nanny is Nanny, and I call her Nan-

But they can't See Binker.

Binker's always talking, 'cos I'm teaching him to speak
He sometimes likes to do it in a funny sort of squeak,
And he sometimes likes to do it in a hoodling sort of roar...
And I have to do it for him 'cos his throat is rather sore.

Oh, Daddy is clever, he's a clever sort of man,
And Mummy knows all that anybody can,
And Nanny is Nanny, and I call her Nan -

But they don't Know Binker.

Binker's brave as lions when we're running in the park;
Binker's brave as tigers when we're lying in the dark;
Binker's brave as elephants. He never, never cries...
Except (like other people) when the soap gets in his eyes.

Oh, Daddy is Daddy, he's a Daddy sort of man,
And Mummy is as Mummy as anybody can,
And Nanny is Nanny, and I call her Nan...

But they're not Like Binker.

Binker isn't greedy, but he does like things to eat,
So I have to say to people when they're giving me a sweet,
"Oh, Binker wants a chocolate, so could you give me two?"
And then I eat it for him, 'cos his teeth are rather new.

Well, I'm very fond of Daddy, but he hasn't time to play,
And I'm very fond of Mummy, but she sometimes goes away,
And I'm often cross with Nanny when she wants to brush my hair...

But Binker's always Binker, and is certain to be there.

Far East Org and Focus on the Family

2008-12-12T09:09:00.004+08:00

I recently sent an email to Far East Organization asking for details of their dealings with Focus on the Family. This is the reply I got:

Thank you for your email.

Focus On The Family (FOTF) Singapore is one of several community and charity causes supported by Far East Organization.

Specifically pertaining to FOTF Singapore this year, we have contributed to a charity golf tournament and a family flag day – where participants raised funds with their kin as a group.

We have also worked together to hold seminars for our staff which focused on work-life balance, stress management and communication tools for families.

The understanding with FOTF Singapore is that we will have to agree as to how our sponsorship sums are to be used: and these must align with our organization’s aims and values which are about developing family ties and communication.

In this vein, we have also supported MILK (Mainly I love Kids), St John’s Home for Elderly Patients, Tan Tock Seng Hospital Community Charity Fund, the Yellow Ribbon Fund, among others.

We appreciate your taking the time to write in to us, and we hope that this answers your query.

I replied, requesting for more information. Specifically, I asked (1) whether FarEast was aware of FOTF's anti-gay politics; (2) whether FarEast was aware that FOTF was part of an international network of anti-gay lobby groups; (3) whether FarEast would monitor its donations so as to ensure that its money does not go towards these non-charitable and purely political causes; (4) what FarEast's general stance was on homosexuality. Their reply was as follows:

Thank you for your e-mail and we appreciate the concerns that you have brought up.

We decided to support FOTF Singapore on the basis that they want to help families thrive. Their programmes are ostensibly based on research and data, and are aimed to help participants become better fathers, mothers, daughters and sons – taking a moment out of fast paced lives to acknowledge and communicate with loved ones.

This was ideal as we at Far East Organization also believe in inspiring better lives, and strong families can help in that goal.

FOTF Singapore is a Singapore-registered charity so funds that it raises must be used in Singapore rather than supporting any organization outside this jurisdiction.

As part of our agreement, we also must be consulted on how our funds are used in their activities. And there have also been no attempts to proselytize divisive views at the seminars we have been a partner of so far.

At Far East Organization, we do not condone discrimination in any form.

Again, thank you for writing in and we hope that this, again, answers your queries.

BT article on DBS-FOTF tie-up

2008-12-06T00:10:00.007+08:00

BT has picked up the news as well. In this article, the DBS spokesperson is clearly trying to distance the bank from FOTF's politics, which indicates that DBS's choice of charity was really an honest mistake. This BT article is also more explicit than ST's in describing FOTF's true agenda.

Business Times - 05 Dec 2008
Online campaign leads to rethink at DBS
Bank removes ad references to controversial outfit
By SIOW LI SEN

(SINGAPORE) DBS Bank has removed all references to Focus On The Family (FOTF) in its advertising, after its credit card promotion supporting the evangelical Christian organisation provoked some angry reactions.

Since the bank's Nov 13 credit card promotion where DBS said that it would donate money to FOTF, 'a charity dedicated to helping children and families thrive', members of the gay and lesbian community have called for a boycott of the bank.

FOTF in Singapore is an affiliate of a US-based organisation of the same name founded in 1977 by evangelical Christian James Dobson who campaigns against gay rights.

Last month, FOTF in the US retrenched some 200 staff after it spent US$600,000 to defeat marriage equality in California. Mr Dobson has also railed against US President-elect Barack Obama, who has countered that Mr Dobson 'makes things up'.

DBS spokeswoman Karen Ngui said that it was never the intention of the bank to alienate any particular group. 'DBS supports children and learning in Asia . . . it's the cause that we are supporting and not FOTF, and or what it stands for,' she said.

She added that DBS believes in diversity and inclusion.

'We have since removed all references to FOTF in our advertising . . . however, we still support the cause . . . and thus will be contributing a small amount to their New Learning Centre for children with learning disabilities, due to be opened in March 2009.'

The bank's earlier move had sparked an online campaign. Jean Chong, a gay activist with People Like Us, said that to date, 1,063 people, including non-gays, had signed up with a Facebook group attacking the bank's support for an FOTF cause.

While some gay activists concede that DBS may not have known about the anti-gay agenda of FOTF, they felt that it still should not give to the charity because the donation could indirectly benefit its cause.

'It is my view that unfortunately, DBS did not realise that FOTF has a lot of baggage. It is also unclear how by funding one part of an organisation's activities, how much you also indirectly help another of its activities because money is fungible,' said Alex Au, People Like Us gay activist.

Ms Ngui has said that its credit card team checked on FOTF and proceeded as they are endorsed by the Ministry of Community Development, Youth and Sports and National Council of Social Service (NCSS). 'Going forward, the bank will conduct more extensive background checks,' she said.

DBS goes ahead with FOTF tie-up

2008-12-05T13:07:00.010+08:00

As I alluded to in my previous post, DBS wasn't entirely clear on what they were actually doing, but they seem to have confirmed to ST that they are going ahead with the Focus on the Family tie-up anyway. Note, however, that they have pledged to conduct better background checks the next time. Also note that FOTF has (very predictably) accused us of successfully intimidating Singapore's largest bank. The language used by its spokesperson is also very characteristic of the Singaporean and international anti-gay lobbying network. That pretty much confirms that FOTF takes its anti-gay agenda very seriously, and that it is not merely a "charity".

Straits Times, Dec 5, 2008
DBS' charity tie-up draws flak
Some cardholders don't agree with charity's anti-gay, anti-abortion stance
By Grace Chua

DBS Bank's selection of Focus on the Family as its charity for the holiday season this year has attracted a backlash from some customers unhappy with its choice.

Now, it has withdrawn the promotion from its website, following complaints that the charity's United States parent organisation, and its Singapore arm, are anti-gay, anti-abortion and pro-abstinence. But it will still be donating a sum to the charity's educational centre for learning-disabled children, it said.

'Focus on the Family is a voluntary welfare organisation endorsed by the Ministry of Community Development, Youth and Sports, and the National Council of Social Services,' said a DBS spokesman.

'We will still be supporting the cause of children and learning by contributing to the building of the children's learning centre.'

Under the tie-up, customers who spend above $300 after Nov14 on their DBS cards at some malls could redeem a pair of teddy bears.

DBS would then donate a sum to Focus on the Family.

But at least 10 customers have complained, writing in to say they may cancel their cards and close their accounts.

Playwright and poet Ng Yi-Sheng, 28, formed a Facebook group online last Thursday night opposing DBS' charity choice and urging its more than 1,000 members, not all of whom are DBS customers, to write in to the bank.

Miss Chan Sze-Wei, a 28-year-old student who wrote to DBS, said: 'I thought the charity tie-up was an inappropriate choice. Even if it reflects the beliefs of some of DBS' management or staff, it does not necessarily reflect the beliefs of customers.' She said that group's stance and beliefs, and close affiliation with its US parent group did not jibe with her values.

Focus on the Family Singapore's president Joanna Koh-Hoe said: 'We are deeply concerned that a small group of activists has successfully intimidated a major financial institution like DBS in such an unwarranted fashion that maligns a well-intended collaboration for the cause of children and families.'

In the US, the organisation conducts family life education from a Christian standpoint. Evangelical activities, however, are not in its charter here, according to the Ministry of Community Development, Youth and Sports' list of registered charities.

'We function akin to other faith-based organisations such as the Thye Hua Kwan Moral Society and Care Corner Family Service Centre in Singapore, or World Vision and YMCA internationally,' said Ms Koh-Hoe.

The charity here conducts marriage and parenting seminars and sex education programmes in schools. While it says it is not overtly Christian, it is conservative.

Its sex education website for teens - noapologies.sg - is pro-abstinence. It also publishes educational materials such as Straight Talk, a booklet on homosexuality aimed at teens. These were distributed through family service centres, schools, libraries and churches.

Eight out of 10 other DBS card holders The Straits Times contacted did not know about the charity scheme, while nine had not heard of Focus on the Family.

One who had, 25-year-old civil servant Andrew Tan, said he did not mind the tie-up.

The DBS spokesman added: 'It was never the intention of the Bank to discriminate against any group by supporting the cause of children and learning in Asia - DBS believes in diversity and inclusion. Going forward, we will be conducting more extensive background checks.'

Reflections on the DBS-FOTF faux-pas

2008-12-03T20:30:00.007+08:00

Some initial reflections, which might be premature, since the whole thing doesn't appear to have settled down yet.

I. Did we do the right thing?

When I told one of my friends about DBS's tie up with Focus on the Family and showed him the 'Boycott DBS' Facebook group, his reaction was something like "Does 'Focus on the Family' just mean charity for children?" I understood the concern because I had similar feelings too, although I'd known all along about FOTF's anti-gay agenda. The nagging thought in my mind was that this was an organisation that's registered as a "charity", and charity is not something you try to stop, because the word itself carries connotations of doing good.

Eventually, however, I clicked the 'join' button on the Facebook group. I did it because I realised that FOTF was not really a "charity" to me. To me, there are two ways in which people do good. They either contribute in resources or kind to those less well-off than them, or they campaign for the eradication of injustices suffered by others. The first of these I call "charity", and the second I call "politics". The problem with FOTF, to me, was that it seemed to be a mix of both (in fact, a lot of "charities" probably are).

A quick look at their website changed that perception for me. Most of their activities and programmes seemed to carry a participation fee, and one which isn't cheap at that. Also, their activities were mostly centred around promoting specific values and beliefs, rather than focussing on people in need of resources. For me, these things took FOTF firmly out of the charity sphere.

Whatever little charity there was in FOTF was certainly overpowered by their anti-gay agenda, so, to me, FOTF was firmly on the "politics" side of the line. The significance of the difference between charity and politics, to me, is this. While I would squirm about trying to bring down a charity, I would certainly have no qualms about voicing my disapproval of political groups, because other people's political values and beliefs are not things I always have to agree with.

II. What effect did we produce?

I think there were three main ways in which people reacted to DBS's faux-pas. They either sent complaint emails to DBS, blogged their disapproval or joined the Facebook group. DBS's response to the public reaction can be broken down into three phases. Their initial email responses were mostly a denial of FOTF's politics. Their second batch of emails made it clear that they had intentionally removed all references to FOTF from their website. Their third batch of emails announced that they were "removing" the campaign.

The need for a third batch of emails was clear. People were worried that DBS was continuing to support FOTF, only without the publicity ("under the table"). Merely saying that they were "removing" the campaign, however, has done little to dispel that fear. First, the word "removing" is awkward when it refers to a "campaign". Second, given the public's worry, DBS could have come out more explicitly to say that they were no longer supporting FOTF.

I think, however, that we ought to give DBS the benefit of the doubt, because they bothered to generate a third set of emails that was different from the second. That, to me, indicates that they had changed their position. And to me, "removing", although in this case somewhat awkwardly used, probably means "completely pulled out of". I think, therefore, that we ought not to doubt DBS's good faith on this issue, and support the stand they have taken.

Even if DBS has not pulled out of the deal completely, I think their public statements are more than what one could hope for. Companies don't do charity out of the goodness of their hearts (they have none); they do it to generate good publicity that in turn generates profits. The publicity, therefore, is key. If DBS has given up on the publicity aspect of this charity campaign, they're just throwing their money away, which I think is not an easy thing for them to decide to do, because overall they'd make a loss. Furthermore, DBS is probably locked into a contract with FOTF, which might mean they still have to make some contribution to FOTF or negotiate their way out of the deal. Either way, DBS loses money. The bottom-line is this: there's very little DBS can do to make money from this campaign anymore. That means that after this year, DBS is likely to be doubly careful when choosing charities, which is already something to be very happy about.

III. Did we do things the right way?

A friend of mine commented that we've put "unfair pressure" on DBS, and that we're no different from the Thai protesters holding two airports hostage. I understand his reaction because this is what people with an anti-gay agenda have tried to make everyone so afraid of: that gay people and their supporters will use pressure tactics take over the world.

I think this overestimates what we did by a lot. The number of people who joined the Facebook group has not yet hit 1,000, and when DBS sent out its second batch of emails, I think that number was closer to 500. DBS could not have received more email complaints than that. If you count people who've expressed their displeasure by blogging, I'd say there are maybe 20, at most 30. Many of these people weren't even customers (myself, for example), so DBS couldn't really have been worried about their bottom-line. Also consider that DBS has the financial clout of being Singapore's largest bank and it has 4,500,000 potential customers in Singapore alone. Given all of this, I think that we didn't really have much say in the matter. We also didn't take any physical action, like blocking access to DBS ATMs or waving banners outside their offices. I think we put extremely little pressure on DBS, if at all we did.

I think that to assert that DBS has backed out of this deal due to "pressure" is also unfair to DBS. It undermines the independence of DBS's decision-making, making them look like a bunch of spineless people swaying in the wind. In fact, DBS's emails have emphasised their commitment to non-discrimination, diversity and inclusion. If they were merely responding to pressure from us, they wouldn't have had to make those statements.

IV. Why, then, did DBS back down?

I'm guessing that DBS's of choice of "charity" was a mistake in the first place, and that they had not done their due diligence. There are probably two reasons why DBS backed down. First, they may have realised that supporting FOTF was going to tarnish their corporate image, especially in the international market, since FOTF is internationally notorious for its anti-gay agenda. We may have brought this to their attention, but that hardly amounts to pressure.

Given the tone of their emails, however, I'd like to credit DBS with more than mere commercial astuteness. I think DBS did what they did simply because they believed it was the right thing to do. And for that, I say yay for DBS.

DBS replies.

2008-12-03T01:22:00.002+08:00

About a week ago DBS announced that it was supporting Focus on the Family, a notoriously anti-gay lobby group, as part of a Christmas "charity" programme. This is an email from DBS to me, indicating that they are no longer going ahead with their FOTF tie-up.

Dear Mr XXX (me)

We thank you for your feedback and appreciate your concerns.

In line with DBS' corporate social responsibility (CSR) efforts that are geared towards supporting children and learning, several welfare organisations that support similar causes were short-listed.

It was never the intention of the Bank to discriminate against any group through this initiative. Nevertheless given feedback received, to demonstrate that DBS believes in diversity and inclusion, with immediate effect we will be removing the Christmas charity campaign.

DBS will continue to play its part to support the community at large, and we hope to have your kind understanding and support.

Yours sincerely

XXX
Assistant Vice President
Customer Care & Feedback Management
Consumer Banking Group Singapore

Don't use your DBS card this Christmas...

2008-11-28T21:02:00.013+08:00

...unless you want to spread hate, instead of love.

That's right: for every $300 charged to your DBS credit card this season, DBS will make a contribution to Focus on the Family, a notoriously anti-gay "charity".

What'll it be for you this Christmas? Love or Hate?

Click here to make your choice clear.

[UPDATE (3 Dec 2008): looks like DBS is not going ahead with this anymore. Click here to read their email to me.]

S'pore copies HK

2008-11-11T17:05:00.005+08:00

HK has had this technology since God knows when and I've always thought we should have it too but now I think I'd actually rather have the $12.7m returned to us than have it spent on something that's not strictly necessary. And does this thing really cost $12.7m? Seems like a LOT to me. After all, the location of the trains relative to the station is already known, since the stations get announced all the time, so not much technology cost there. We're not talking about installing a new GPS tracking system or something like that. All that has to be done is fix on some LED lights and a map and do some wiring. $12.7m? hmm.

Active map for trains: A waste of money
I REFER to last Saturday's article, 'MRT trains to get active map system'. The new map will feature a light for each train stop to show travel progress and a flashing light will indicate approaching stations.

The new map system will cost SMRT $12.7 million. This is a waste of money for something so unnecessary.

Currently, commuters can already hear announcements of approaching stations. And until recently, they could also see the station name on signs at each station. But now, these signs are obscured by advertising panels across the top portion of each window panel on many trains.

I suggest SMRT simply remove the advertising panels and save the $12.7 million. Otherwise, commuters will once again have to bear the cost with an increase in fares.

As a commuter, and in these hard times, I prefer to be able to see the station name on arrival, rather than pay higher fares for some extra blinking lights on a map system that is perfectly adequate. This is the kind of marginal increase in commuter experience low-income Singaporeans can do without.

Monica Cheang (Ms)

Hope over fear. Unity over division.

2008-11-03T23:39:00.001+08:00

Those OMG moments just keep coming...

2008-10-30T18:27:00.002+08:00

The Song Everybody's Looking For

2008-10-17T22:12:00.003+08:00

Two weeks ago, a French song was heard on Gossip Girl that no one can identify as yet. No one heard more than 30 seconds of it, but boy is everyone smitten. Enjoy:

My Favourite Footnotes

2008-10-12T23:42:00.004+08:00

I had reason to borrow one of my favourite law books again: Roy Goode's Legal Problems of Credit and Security (London: Sweet & Maxwell, 2003). Page 115:

In English law, a fund is considered to have an existence distinct from that of its components. The contents of the fund are constantly changing as assets are removed from the fund and new assets come into it, but the identity of the fund itself remains unchanged, in much the same way as the river Thames remains the river Thames despite the fact that the water in it is never the same from one minute to the next. Indeed, an open-ended fund (i.e. one which by the terms of its establishment is capable of increase with the addition of new assets) has a notional existence even at times when there are no assets comprised in it. To carry the river simile a stage further, we should continue to speak of the river Thames even if, through a drought, it had temporarily dried up.¹⁹

------

¹⁹ As with the river Todd in Alice Springs, Australia, which is dry for most of the year. The annual boat race, designated Henley on Todd, is run by the two teams carrying their respective boats on their shoulders.

Connecticut Supreme Court Allows Same-Sex Marriage

2008-10-12T00:12:00.001+08:00

A sharply divided Connecticut Supreme Court ruled on Friday that gay couples have the right to get married, saying legislators did not go far enough when they approved same-sex civil unions that were identical to marriages in virtually every respect except the name. The 4-3 ruling will make Connecticut the third state, behind Massachusetts and California, to allow same-sex marriages, decisions that in all cases were made by the highest state court.

Read on...

New Thio-ries on Bloggers and Homosexualists

2008-10-09T22:46:00.003+08:00

Excerpts from Professor Thio Li-ann's latest: "The Virtual and the Real: Article 14, Political Speech and the Calibrated Management of Deliberative Democracy in Singapore", [2008] Singapore Journal of Legal Studies 25. I've left out all the footnotes cause I can't be bothered to reconcile the supras and ibids (btw, one of her footnotes was a link to a post on a Trevvy forum). Abstract is available on SSRN.

On Bloggers 13:

...the low costs of the Internet in facilitating political organization has a dark side, as both legitimate, sensible groups and noxious groups will enjoy a louder voice in public affairs. This asymmetrical amplification of the views of a small group of netizens also produces a ‘thin’ type of community, as in the somewhat exaggerated ascription of the term ‘blogging community’ to a functionalist collection of 13 bloggers advocating Internet de-regulation in relation to political views.

On the 377A debate:

4. Horizontal Chilling: Recent Singapore Practice

Such noxious consequences have visited Singapore, where the Internet has been used as a channel to incite hatred and abuse against people who express their views on morally contentious questions. This goes beyond the social sanction of ‘flaming’ (verbal attacks in cyberspace). A clear case in point is the vicious reaction by political activists championing homosexualism to a Straits Times opinion-editorial authored by an academic. The article argued for the retention of section 377A of the Penal Code, which criminalizes homosexual sodomy, supporting the government's declared intention to do so in the forthcoming Penal Code amendment debates. Indeed, the 377A debate saw netizens mobilizing into ‘repeal 377A’ and ‘keep 377A’ camps, which the Prime Minister observed was a “very well organised campaign.”

The Straits Times article sparked off vicious online invective and ad hominem arguments by insult, undermining public debate in at least two ways. First, hubristic and somewhat hysterical name-calling displaces reasoned debate. Abusive speech which vilifies the speaker and makes distortive bald assertions detract from the substantive merits of an issue, undermining the argument from truth. Here, name-calling was a tactic deployed by radical homosexualism activists to intimidate and silence critics of their far-reaching social agenda and to distract attention from the real issues. This horizontal citizen to citizen ‘chilling’ is distinct from the ‘vertical’ or top-down chilling critics charge the government of effecting through restrictive legislation or defamation suits.

Second, the Internet was used to rally homosexualism activists to harass the author. A website called for complaints to be sent to the academic's employer, the National University of Singapore, listed her office and work email and provided links with her faculty website. This is a clear instance of cyber-nuisance, bordering on criminal intimidation.

Aside from threatening academic freedom, this extreme anti-social incivility and intemperate speech reflects both a breakdown in dialogue in favour of irrational attacks. The Internet's impersonal nature perhaps fuels this type of shameful cyber-bullying, rendering public debate “a locus only for harsh competition among political groups with political agendas and a kind of force that originates in powers different from reason itself.” If this becomes the norm, it portends a loss of the social capital of trust and may precipitate community decay, if citizens do not evolve a collective political culture of tolerance.

To promote democratic debate, citizens must agree to disagree on morally contentious questions in deference to ideological diversity, and to use democratic channels to influence public opinion, through deliberation rather than hate-mongering and harassment. As Rajah J.A. noted in Chee Siok Chin v. MHA:

"Contempt for the rights of others constitutes the foundation for public nuisance. All persons have a general right to be protected from insults, abuse or harassment. Those who improperly infringe or intrude upon such a right to draw publicity to their cause, regardless of the extent and sincerity of their beliefs, must be held accountable for their conduct. The right of freedom of expression should never be exercised on the basis that opinions are expressed in hermetically sealed vacuums where only the rights of those who ardently advocate their views matter."

This comment is apposite for both the real and cyber world, where virtual actions have real world consequences. An insightful news commentator observed that contending with one's adversaries in political debate “is not necessarily inconsistent with respect for one another”. In a nation seeking “democratic legs”, respectful “emotional interlocution” could be “woven into the patriotic fabric that binds us together.” Conversely, “identity politics turns sick when grievances transmute into an all-consuming demonisation of one's opponent.” He notes that two law professors who supported retaining 377A had been repeatedly asked online: “Are you stupid, a Christian, or both?” He wrote: “If ‘conservatives' or ‘Christians' are remorselessly assumed to be redneck hatemongers whom you can't respect as equals, then your politics has degenerated into a pharisaic narcissism.”

At best, name-calling reflects an immature level of debate, at worst, a corrosive spite, which might cow citizens from participating robustly in debate, for fear of attracting venomous personal attacks by skilled character assassins.

How Gossip Girl made me a sexaholic

2008-10-09T17:52:00.008+08:00

Some updates on Singaporean logic:

New logic 1. Chitra Rajaram wrote in TODAY:

A study in Boston showed that adolescents who took part in family activities more often had less sex, less unprotected sex and fewer sex partners.

It was very clear that the more a teen had dinner with his or her family orengaged in some fun activity with family, the less likely the teen was to engage in risky sexual behaviour.

It does make sense, as the kids have less time for idling, watching TV or surfing the Web.

Anecdotal evidence here also backs up the findings.

Obvious logical question here: "really? show me how." But look at the answer!:

A 60-year-old father of two grown-up girls recounted to me how he and his wife had dinner with his daughters at least three times a week during their teens. The couple went a step further and even prepared a topic for discussion each day.

And that was all!! Okay, so you proved the family time part, but what about the sex part (which I was waiting for!)? How does your anecdote prove that the teens were less likely to engage in risky sexual behaviour? I was waiting for a "because of that, their daughters had less sex with their friends" or something like that. But that just wasn't happening.

New Logic 2. A TODAY forum letter written in response to Chitra's piece gives us a new definition of 'family planning':

The key is to start family planning from young. Parents, as heads of the household, should plan their family time. Time that a family spends together should not be left to chance or spontaneity. If every Friday night is “Family Eat-Out Night”, and every Saturday night is “Family Games Night”, a child will grow up used to such open interaction on a routine basis.

Oh dear.

Anyway, back to the avowed agenda of this post. Chitra also wrote:

Our teenagers overdose on 90210, Gossip Girl, The OC; and the overarching theme in all these shows: Teens and sex. It is almost the norm in these shows that high school kids have sex, get pregnant, swap partners and do whatever else unimaginable. ... Soon, these attitudes become cool among their own social circles and casual sexual relations, among other social ills, is one take-away for them.

Uh oh. But if my impending sex addiction is gonna make me look more like ex-addict David Duchovny, hey, bring it on!

Seeing the likeness already?

Finally, I'd like to leave you with some great music! (which I heard on Gossip Girl!!!):

That's it, folks.
You know you love me,
XOXO, OMFG, WBZD, WXYZ,
Le garçon atomique.

Two years.

2008-09-02T20:36:00.002+08:00

Something unpredictable.

Don't know if it was right.

But I hope you had the time of your life.

Felix Cohen

2008-08-14T22:23:00.006+08:00

"I think courts generally try to make noises like slot-machines and to give the impression that they are not legislating. People don't swear at slot machines the way they do at other human beings."
- "Dialogue on Private Property" (1954) 9(2) Rutgers L. Rev. 357 at 382.

"theories are always other people's; what we ourselves believe is always fact or insight or experience or the law."
- ibid., at 376.

hmmm.

The Impossibility of Being a Criminal Lawyer

2008-08-06T22:29:00.003+08:00

"You can't be a good criminal lawyer if murder horrifies you, and if it doesn't horrify you, then what are you then?"
- Ally McBeal (26 April 1998)

Of course Ally meant that you would "then" probably not even be human, but there is of course that lawyer joke:

Q: What's the difference between a lawyer and a sperm cell?
A: The sperm cell has one chance in a million of becoming human.

And you know all that jazz about jokes being not completely innocent but related to the unconscious and all that Freud stuff... it's all made taking lawyer jokes seriously become serious business: see Marc Galanter, Lowering the Bar: Lawyer Jokes and Legal Culture (University of Wisconsin Press, 2006).

Coming soon.

2008-07-27T11:12:00.001+08:00

Experienced sweet and sour...

2008-07-13T11:12:00.003+08:00

I'm a little surprised that Today ran this photo, because it sort of legitimizes what the SDP does. People always ask, "Why are they doing all this? Why can't they just mind their own business?". And SDP finally provides the answer, although of course the answer was obvious all along:

That Today chose to run this photo is a sign of its progressiveness. But even then, the photo paints a disorganised, not-yet-quite-ready image of the SDP, with people pointing all over the place trying to get their placards straight. So maybe the message is: they love Singapore, but come on, there's no way they can run it like the PAP can. Sympathise, legitimize, but ultimately, dismiss, out of hand. The SDP website, of course, posted a better picture:

Anyway, since we're in the mood for love, allow me to share some of the stuff I stash in my iPod at this time of the year:

1. Kit Chan - There's No Place I'd Rather Be (2007):

2. Tanya Chua - Where I Belong (2003?):

3. It's the Little Things (1992). If you're around my age, you might remember this one. It's one of my favourites, but I don't know who sang it.

New Addiction.

2008-07-07T19:37:00.002+08:00

You'll never trust my taste again.

Moins vif.

2008-07-06T18:41:00.005+08:00

One of Ravel's best melodies is the Moins vif from the Valses nobles et sentimentales. Very sweet; very tender; yet somewhat playful; almost Prokofievian. In this video, you'll have to fast-forward till about 2'09 to hear it. This one was recorded by Krystian Zimerman. The one I grew up listening to is Pascal Rogé's, which I would still pick over anyone else's. Rogé is the only one who dares to bring to the surface the wobbly harmony that belies the melody. And when it gets broad, Rogé's is the only one that soars. The rest never really quite take flight. Rogé's isn't available on Youtube, so this is the next best.

This joyous roundelay.

2008-06-29T18:51:00.009+08:00

I hadn't read anything by Peter Carey before, so this was a real gamble especially since I would normally stay a million miles away from any book that screams "Love Story" on its cover. But it was a very enjoyable read. Hugh is a character that one can't fail to fall in love with. Which reminds me of a friend who told me I was to fall in love with Juno, despite her shortcomings. I most certainly did not. But perhaps that was because I watched a lot of other movies around the same time: Away from Her, P.S. I Love You, Happy Together, etc. The Juno soundtrack is also particularly irritating because the music doesn't ever fit the words. It's kind of like that part in the Roses are Red, Violets are Blue song where they go "Is that your......littlegirl......She looks......alotlikeyou" and I just groan. Which reminds me. Music and Lyrics should be watched.

Internet Deregulation

2008-06-25T20:58:00.026+08:00

Recently, a group of Singaporean bloggers submitted a paper to the Government, outlining proposals for internet deregulation. I've been trying to collect everything that's been written about the effort, but I've started rather late, and the work is a little daunting. I'll keep updating as I go along, but meanwhile, if you've noticed that I haven't linked something, please leave a comment or email me. Enjoy.

New this week (updated 30 June 2008):

Another stupid "anti-community moderation" trash article (Little Bird)
The Incredible Unlikeness of Being of The Sedition Act – A Critique on “Deregulating The Net.” [1] [2] (FILB)

The Proposal:

Proposals for Internet freedom in Singapore [PDF]

Process and Structure:

Bloggers’ group proposes sweeping changes in Internet regulation (Press Release)
Bloggers to send ideas on internet regulation to govt (Today)
Key concerns about internet deregulation emerge at forum (Yawning Bread)
A real grassroots initiative by bloggers (Aaron Ng)
When Good is not so Good – A Study in Consultative Affirmative Action (Brotherhood Press)
What is Really Wrong With the G-15 Proposal? (Brotherhood Press)
The Fish For A Day Project - Dissecting the only critical article of the 20-page proposal by 15 bloggers to MICA (Little Bird)
Superman's 'Right' to Blog Anonymously (Brotherhood Press)
My Inalienable Right to Remain Anon (Brotherhood Press)
Do not forget the moral of U Turn signs (redbean)

Community Moderation:

Community Moderation as an alternative to Internet Regulation in Singapore (Bernard Leong)
Internet Content Consultative Committee (Gerald Giam)
Community Moderation: Thoughts from the Internet Regulatory Reform Seminar (Bernard Leong)
Why we need a bottom-up internet content consultative committee (Cherian George)
The Fallacy of Community Regulation [1] [2] [3A] [3B] [3C] [3D] (Brotherhood Press)
One Battery Chicken Life Coming Up in the Net? (Brotherhood Press)
Internet deregulation seminar (One dimensional island)
After thoughts on the Proposals for Internet freedom in Singapore (Starry Nite)
Another stupid "anti-community moderation" trash article (Little Bird)

Racial and Religious Hate Speech:

Maintaining Racial and Religious Harmony through Criminal Law (Mohan Gopalan)
Why I dissented to the Bloggers’ proposals on the Regulation of Hate Speech on the Internet (Ng E-Jay)
The Incredible Unlikeness of Being of The Sedition Act – A Critique on “Deregulating The Net.” [1] [2] (FILB)

Films (Political or otherwise):

Why the Films Act should be trashed (Yawning Bread)
Political Films and the Ruling Party (Gerald Giam)
The Economics about Banning Political Films (Bernard Leong)
For voters, politicians, lift ban on political films (Choo Zheng Xi)

MICA's Response - Lighter Touch:

MICA's reply to bloggers’ Proposals for Internet freedom in Singapore (with commentary by Ng E-Jay)
Govt looking at lighter touch on Net (Straits Times)
From light to lighter: Government signals direction of Net regulation (Cherian George)
Touchy Bloggers or Govt? (The Void Deck)

Not yet classified:

Prosecute or nothing (Yawning Bread)
The pigeons are already among us (Yawning Bread)
Internet freedom: Rights come with responsibilities (Mok Wing Tat)
Internet should not be subject to the law over and above those that apply in real life (Ng E-Jay)
Responsibilities and Regulations (Benjamin Cheah)
Global Trends on Blogger Arrests for 2008 (Bernard Leong)
Bureaucratic ambiguity and Internet freedom (Straits Times)
Let people form body to oversee net content (Straits Times)
Rationality vs political expediency in internet policy (Arun Mahizhnan)
Freedom in the Net (Sam)
Why my right to privacy is ultimately a matter of choice – Sex, G-15 bloggers and Samizdat (Brotherhood Press)
Internet Content: Some control needed (George Lim)
Let public lend a hand in confronting Internet excess (Zhong Zewei)
The Shattered Dreams of the Blogger 15 [1] [2] (Brotherhood Press)
Cyberspace is No Man's Land (redbean)
Yay. Feedback on the April 28 article (Little Bird)
As a policy proposal it fails (Balderdash)

Enchanted.

2008-06-14T19:16:00.007+08:00

Tomás Luis de Victoria's O magnum mysterium. Once made a little boy wide-eyed with wonder. This performance by Raffles Chorale, conducted by Mr Toh Ban Sheng, in Olomouc. Not perfect (flat in less than 30 seconds; would have been better if altos were male). But still something very magical.

The steady decline.

2008-06-14T19:00:00.000+08:00

Best thing I have heard in a while.

2008-06-08T18:25:00.004+08:00

Especially the motets. Amazing.

Seminar on Internet Regulatory Reform

2008-05-31T10:49:00.012+08:00

Organised by the Wee Kim Wee School of Communication and Information, NTU

"The job of a citizen is to keep his mouth open"
- Günter Grass

Are Singaporeans satisfied with the state of internet regulation as existing? If not, what changes do we wish to see and how can a bottom-up desire for reform translate into policy review?

Can Singapore afford the political and social costs of free speech? Is there a contradiction between wanting freedom for political speech and controls over social speech?

Is technology really in the driver’s seat? Are governments powerless in the face of a global internet?

Guest speaker: Mr Arun Mahizhnan, Dep. Dir. Institute of Policy Studies
Presentations by members of the Bloggers’ Group for Internet Deregulation
Chaired by Asst Prof Cherian George, Wee Kim Wee School, NTU

Date: Sat, 21 June 2008
Time: 2:00 to 5:00 pm
Venue: URA Centre, Maxwell Road, Function Hall, Level 5
Admission: Free
Media: Open to reporting

To register (RSVP), please send an empty email to subscribe to irr-singapore-subscribe@googlegroups.com. You will get an email response asking you to confirm your request. Late notices, if any, will come from the Googlegroup.

California Supreme Court declares marriage available to same-sex couples

2008-05-16T01:05:00.017+08:00

I waited till 1am to read this as it came out:

"Accordingly, in light of the conclusions we reach concerning the constitutional questions brought to us for resolution, we determine that the language of section 300 limiting the designation of marriage to a union “between a man and a woman” is unconstitutional and must be stricken from the statute, and that the remaining statutory language must be understood as making the designation of marriage available both to opposite-sex and same-sex couples. In addition, because the limitation of marriage to opposite-sex couples imposed by section 308.5 can have no constitutionally permissible effect in light of the constitutional conclusions set forth in this opinion, that provision cannot stand."

In Re Marriage Cases, Case No. S147999 (Supreme Court of California) at page 120

The court was split 4-3 on this one. Domestic partnerships for same-sex couples were of course already available in California before this decision. What this decision does is to make it possible for them to "marry".

More detailed commentary may ensue if I can bring myself to read the whole judgment (172 pages!) in the next few days. Meanwhile, you can wait to see if California will fall into the Pacific Ocean anytime soon.

And you know what I just realised... this means that Kevin and Scotty can get married! Like for REAL! Coz they're in California! How cool is that.

Update: Alex has got a nice summary/commentary: Gay marriage victory in California Supreme Court. Can google around for the news reports too.

Wilde...

2008-05-15T02:57:00.002+08:00

Okay the film wasn't like super-fantastic or whatever but there were some really cool lines. Like:

Well of course there must be censorship! Or people would say they meant and then where should we be?

I nearly burst out laughing when I heard that, but apparently no one else thought it was funny and I had to stifle my laughter. Oh well.

But I must say, the soundtrack was utterly delightful!

OMG. OMG. OMG!!!

2008-05-12T21:44:00.002+08:00

I swear, when I first started watching this series, from Season 1 Episode 1, I had no idea that it was going to turn out so great.

I present to you a groundbreaking moment in the history of television: the wedding of Kevin Walker and Scotty Wandell. Congratulations, guys!

Broadcasting Gay Content: Singapore vs. Hong Kong

2008-05-10T15:34:00.039+08:00

A decision of the Hong Kong Broadcasting Authority claiming that Radio Television Hong Kong (RTHK) had breached the Authority's code of practice was quashed by the Hong Kong High Court on Thursday. The written judgment is available on HKLII: Cho Man Kit v. Broadcasting Authority, [2008] HKCFI 383.

The subject of the decision was a TV programme produced by RTHK, called "Hong Kong Connection - Gay Lovers". As the judge noted, the show was a "documentary-style programme which focused on the day-to-day lives of two gay couples, looking to the difficulties encountered in their lives, their fears and their aspirations." The participants also "spoke of their hopes that one day the law in Hong Kong would be changed to recognise a civil union between gay couples."

The Authority claimed that the programme breached the Code by presenting views on "matters of public policy or controversial issues of public importance in Hong Kong" without "due impartiality". The Authority alleged that the show was not "impartial" because "The absence of different views on homosexual marriage had the effect of promoting the acceptance of homosexual marriage." Put simply, the allegation was that RTHK had failed to include an anti-gay point of view.

What amounts to the promotion of a gay lifestyle?

The interesting thing is that although the programme talked about gay couples, their fears, problems and their hopes of marriage, the judge did not think that the programme promoted homosexual marriage, or promoted anything at all, for that matter. He wrote:

81. ... the programme was not about same-sex marriage. It was not, in any way a ‘political’ programme attempting to advance any sort of public cause. The issue of same-sex marriage was an incident in the programme; a material one, yes, but not in any way ‘promoted’ in the active and political sense that the word intends by either those in the programme or those who made it.

82. It is true that RTHK did not incorporate opposing points of view as to the issue of same-sex marriage. But, I am satisfied that on any reasonable viewing, the programme manifestly was not designed as a vehicle to ‘advocate’ any particular point of view; that is, to argue for it and press home that argument. ...

83. As a study of gay people involved in stable, long-term relationships, it naturally recorded matters that they considered important, such as the hope that one day their unions may receive some form of legal recognition. But the issue, as I have said, was not ‘advocated’ by them. ...

84. I would add by way of a broad observation that invariably any portrayal of the human condition will reflect some sympathy with the subject. Such sympathy, however, often no more really than an instinctive empathy, is not to be read as a form of active ‘promotion’ of any aspiration that arises in the course of the portrayal. ...

86. As I have said, I am satisfied that the programme did not in any way promote homosexual marriage and that the Authority, in so far as it believed it did, was plainly wrong. ...

The programme was thus not "impartial" for the reasons alleged by the Authority. The judge also went on to find that the true reason for the Authority's decision was that it thought that homosexuality would be offensive to viewers. This was not a valid ground for the Authority's decision and by making a decision on this ground, the Authority had misunderstood its own code of practice. It had therefore made an error of law and its decision had to be quashed.

Did the Channel 5 show promote a gay lifestyle?

Singapore's Free-To-Air Television Programme Code is worded slightly differently from Hong Kong's, but there is a similar requirement for "due impartiality" in news and other factual programmes (para 10.1). More than that, Singapore's Code has specific requirements for gay content:

5.2 Information, themes or subplots on lifestyles such as homosexuality, lesbianism, bisexualism, transsexualism, transvestism, paedophilia and incest should be treated with utmost caution. Their treatment should not in any way promote, justify or glamorise such lifestyles. ...

This, of course, is the portion of the Code that Channel 5 was alleged to have violated recently, and for which it was slapped by MDA with a $15,000 fine. MDA's press statement was as follows:

The programme "Find and Design" is a home and decor series and in the episode concerned, the host helps a gay couple to transform their game room into a new nursery for their adopted baby. The episode contained several scenes of the gay couple with their baby as well as the presenter's congratulations and acknowledgement of them as a family unit in a way which normalises their gay lifestyle and unconventional family setup. This is in breach of the Free-to-Air TV Programme Code which disallows programmes that promote, justify or glamourise gay lifestyles.

The interesting question is whether, by the Hong Kong court's standards, this programme would have been classified as one that 'promoted gay lifestyles'. After all, it was a home and decor show and probably didn't mention anything about gay rights or problems or the desire to have civil unions, which were all present in the Hong Kong show, but which was yet not deemed to promote gay lifestyles. One might also note that in the Hong Kong show, the homosexual theme was clearly in the foreground, while in the show that Channel 5 aired, it probably was not, since the show was mainly about interior design. If the content of Hong Kong show did not amount to a 'promotion of gay lifestyles', it is difficult to see how the show that Channel 5 aired can be considered to have engaged in any such advocacy.

Even if we put the Hong Kong court's standards aside, it is questionable whether Channel 5 met Singapore's own standards of what amounts to the promotion of a gay lifestyle. Speaking in Parliament, Minister of State for Information, Communication and the Arts, Dr. Balaji Sadasivan, appeared to be sensitive to the incidental nature of the homosexuality portrayed in the show aired by Channel 5. He said:

The TV programme was a programme about home decoration and design. It featured a game room being converted into a nursery. There was no objection to the skills and talent of the designers or to the general entertainment value of the programme. The objection raised does not relate to the main features of the programme but to an incidental feature found in this one episode. The concern was that in the programme the people who were going to live in the redesigned home were two men and a child, not the usual man, woman and child. The viewer can extrapolate what the relationship of the two men may be and then from the extrapolation conclude that family values are not being upheld.

Note also that Dr. Balaji's only objection seems to be that family values were not being upheld. This is something quite different from promoting, justifying or glamourising gay lifestyles, which was the allegation made by MDA against Channel 5.

Should Channel 5 have challenged MDA's fine in court?

Would it have succeeded? Channel 5 could have argued along the same lines as RTHK: that the programme it aired obviously did not promote, justify or glamourise gay lifestyles. Channel 5 could then argue that the real reason for MDA's decision is that, by MDA's own admission, the programme "normalises" gay lifestyles. If "normalisation" doesn't come under "promoting", "justifying" or "glamourising", then MDA made its decision based on irrelevant considerations. It therefore misunderstood its own code; there is therefore an error of law; and MDA's decision ought therefore to be quashed.

Plausible? Well, I don't know. There are some background considerations involved in the Hong Kong case which could have been material to the decision. Firstly, what the HongKongers have that we don't is a constitutional right to be free of discrimination on the basis of sex, which has been judicially interpreted to include a right to non-discrimination on the basis of sexuality. Singapore's Constitution has no explicit right to freedom from discrimination based on sex. Secondly, the judgment shows that they obviously have a very strong rights culture, holding the right to free speech in particular in very high regard. Do we? Lastly, the Hong Kong court didn't have moral markers like 377A standing in its way.

New 377A Case

2008-05-08T16:28:00.005+08:00

This nearly escaped me:

HIV man admits having oral sex with teenage boy
This is the first case to come to court under the amended Infectious Diseases Act passed last month.
By Elena Chong
ST, 07 May 2008

IN THE first case of its kind, an HIV-infected man was charged in court on Wednesday for engaging in oral sex with a 16-year-old boy.

Chan Mun Chiong, 43, pleaded guilty to the charge as well as another of committing an act of gross indecency with the teen.

The Ministry of Health summons charge states that he had oral sex with the boy without telling him of the risk of contracting HIV infection from him and getting his voluntary agreement to accept that risk.

The offence carries a maximum fine of up to $10,000 or jail term of up to two years or both.

The bespectacled chef with short spiky hair also admitted to performing oral sex on the boy and with each other at a male toilet cubicle at Northpoint Shopping Centre along Yishun Avenue 2 last Sept 15.

He will return to court on Thursday for his case to be dealt with.

He is out on $10,000 bail.

For the gross indecency charge, he faces a jail term of up to two years.

Under amendments to the Infectious Diseases Act passed last month, those found guilty of having unprotected sex even if they do not know but have 'reason to believe' that they have or have been exposed to the virus can be jailed for up to 10 years and/or fined up to $50,000.

MOH has investigated previous cases before but none has been prosecuted until Wednesday.

One case was compounded last year and the offender has left Singapore.

Questions, questions. Firstly, note that there are two charges, one under the Infectious Diseases Act, the other for 'gross indecency' (ie., 377A). If we adopt Alex's classification of 377A cases, there could be a few reasons why 377A was used in this particular case:

The sex occurred in a location accessible to the public (Category 3)
It involved a partner who was 16 or 17 years old (Category 4)
Or it could be the absence of consent (Category 5)

Which throws up the question of whether if you consented to the sex, but not to the HIV, did you still consent to the sex? Or was your consent to the sex vitiated by the non-disclosure of the HIV? Or, did you only not consent to the HIV?

If the answer is that you only didn't consent to the HIV, but that you consented to the sex, then the charge should only be for non-consensual HIV transmission (which, I think, is the charge under the Infectious Diseases Act). That would also mean that this conviction under 377A is strange because it would be the first consensual prosecution in many years.

Lots to think about here. But too bad. The guy's already pleaded guilty.

Maintaining Racial and Religious Harmony through Criminal Law

2008-05-08T02:15:00.013+08:00

Article 14(1)(a) of Singapore’s constitution guarantees to every citizen the right to freedom of speech and expression. Rights are, however, never absolute [yes, cliché], and must often be balanced against community interests which ought sometimes to prevail over those rights.

In Singapore, the right to freedom of speech is often at odds with the community interest in maintaining racial and religious harmony. The danger that offensive speech could engender social rifts or civil unrest is ever-present. One of the ways in which Singapore has attempted to deal with this threat is by criminalizing certain types of speech.

In this post, I attempt to analyse the relative weights that free speech rights and community interests have been accorded in the individual offences, to see where exactly the criminal law has struck the balance. I also try to show that at least one type of hate speech offence ought to be repealed, and that the penalties for the various offences are in need of re-calibration.

A. Constitutional rights, non-constitutional rights and community interests

Rights, being rights, should weigh heavily when balanced against competing community interests.¹ The right to freedom of speech, in particular, gains additional strength from two other factors. Firstly, it is a right that is generally considered to be crucial to a functioning democracy.² Secondly, the mere fact that it is enshrined in the constitution puts it on a pedestal as compared to other non-constitutional rights.³ Thus, the right to freedom of speech in Singapore cannot be taken lightly. Curtailment of the right calls for the demonstration of a serious, compelling community interest, and the infringement sought to be imposed ought to be the minimum necessary to protect that interest.

With this proposition in mind, we can proceed to evaluate the individual offences to see whether the right to freedom of speech has been accorded its due importance. Focussing on the countervailing interest that is sought to be protected, the offences we are here concerned with can be divided into four categories:

The community interest is most compelling in Category 4, where the threat of violence exists (ie., there is tangible “harm”). Comparatively, the community interest is less compelling in Categories 2 and 3, where there is no immediate threat of violence but where the danger of rifts forming between racial or religious groups exists. The community interest is least compelling in Category 1, where the threat is of isolated individuals being personally offended. Here, there is no threat of immediate violence or social rifts. Consequently, Categories 1, 2 and 3 are in need of more careful justification.

B. Justifying Category 2 and 3 offences

Criminalizing conduct that falls under Categories 2 and 3 may be justified on two grounds. Firstly, these categories may be said to form a “ring fence” around Category 4-type offences. These categories would therefore enable law enforcers to “nip problems in the bud”. However, this justification would require that there be a volatile climate in terms of racial and religious relations within the population, so that it may be contended that conduct falling within these categories is likely to lead to Category 4-type offences. If the climate is not volatile, then the “ring fence” is just that: it represents an area in which the community interest is not compelling enough to justify restrictions on free speech. Prophylaxis cannot, therefore, be a justification in the absence of volatility.

Alternatively, Category 2 and 3 offences may be justified on the ground that preventing racial and religious rifts is in itself a legitimate community objective that ought to trump the right to free speech. This could be because a cohesive society is necessary for the proper functioning of economic systems,⁴ which is arguably one of the central motivations for mankind’s commitment to forming societies. Societies also need relatively stable political systems to function, and it might be argued that this requires an emphasis on building cohesion and avoiding rifts.

However, the mere fact that these community interests in economic and/or political stability exist is not sufficient: these interests must be demonstrated to be sufficiently compelling in order to justify restrictions on free speech. I am not looking to prove how compelling these interests are, and for the present moment I am prepared to accept that they are sufficiently compelling.

What I am at present concerned to point out is that these economic and/or political stability-type justifications do not depend on volatility. They would therefore operate as justifications even in a non-volatile climate. Yet, at least in the case of Category 3 offences, volatility does not drop out of the picture completely. In deciding whether particular instances of speech have a “tendency to promote” social rifts, judges must be conscious of the current level of volatility. A higher threshold of proof should be required in non-volatile climates, and vice versa.

C. Justifying Category 1 offences

There are again two possible justifications for Category 1 offences. Firstly, it may be argued that conduct of this nature is a violation of the listener’s right to freedom from offence. Such a right has been recognised judicially in Singapore.⁵ It is not clear, however, that such an interest ought to be accorded the status of a right, nor that it should weigh heavily in the balance against the right to free speech. This is especially so when it is considered that the right to free speech is a constitutionally guaranteed right, while the right to freedom from offence is not.

Even if a right to freedom from offence ought to be taken seriously, the current Category 1 offences do not represent a fair balance of such a right against the right to free speech. Joel Feinberg provides us with a useful list of factors that ought to be considered in this balancing process:⁶

the intensity and durability of the repugnance produced, and the extent to which repugnance could be anticipated to be the general reaction of strangers to the conduct displayed or represented (conduct offensive only to persons with an abnormal susceptibility to offence would not count as very offensive);
the ease with which unwilling witnesses can avoid the offensive displays;
whether or not the witnesses have willingly assumed the risk of being offended either through curiosity or the anticipation of pleasure;
the personal importance to the actors themselves of the offensive behaviour and its social value generally;
the availability of alternative times and places where the conduct in question would cause less offense; and
the extent, if any, to which the offense is caused with spiteful motives.

One may evaluate the justifiability of Category 1 offences according to how well the offences deal with Feinberg’s 6 factors. The main Category 1 offence in Singapore is section 298 of the Penal Code:

Whoever, with deliberate intention of wounding the religious or racial feelings of any person, utters any word or makes any sound in the hearing of that person, or makes any gesture in the sight of that person, or places any object in the sight of that person, or causes any matter however represented to be seen or heard by that person, shall be punished with imprisonment for a term which may extend to 3 years, or with fine, or with both.

It will be noted that the section takes into account the motive of the offender (Factor 6), and, to the extent that the subject-matter of the offence is confined to race and religion, it arguably also takes into account the value of the speech (Factor 4). However, the section is not at all concerned with the effect of the speech on the listener (Factor 1) (note that the section does not require that the listener’s feelings be actually wounded), nor with the avoidability of the speech (Factors 2, 3 and 5). The complete omission of these factors (which would in effect weigh in favour of the right to free speech) removes the legitimacy of this section as a limit on free speech in that it accords that right almost no weight at all. Thus, even if freedom from offence could be a sufficient justification for a suitably worded Category 1 offence, it is clear that section 298 cannot claim to be so justified.

The second possible justification for Category 1 offences is the “ring fence” argument that was put forward earlier in relation to Category 2 and 3 offences. The argument is that repeated Category 1-type conduct, in a volatile climate, could lead to a Category 2, 3 or 4-type offences. Once again, this argument hinges on the volatility of racial and religious relations at any given time. Category 1 offences envisage isolated conduct, targeted at specific individuals, which in a non-volatile climate has little chance of causing Category 2, 3 or 4-type damage. If the conduct were instead targeted at a larger audience, it would arguably fall within Categories 2, 3 or 4, and no longer within Category 1.

It being clear that Category 1 offences depend largely on a volatile climate for their justification, it is high time that we embarked upon an at least rudimentary analysis of the racial and religious climate in Singapore, to get some indication of its current volatility.

D. How fragile is Singapore’s social fabric?

Racial and religious harmony in Singapore is often thought to be in a precarious position because of various racial and religious riots that took place here between 1950 and 1969. Almost forty years on, the memory of those riots continues to influence parliamentary as well as judicial thinking.⁷ The post-September 11 threat of religious extremism, coupled with Singapore’s geographical location in a predominantly Muslim region, has also been cited as a reason for taking a tough stance against racial and religious intolerance.⁸

While it is ultimately impossible to gauge with precision the exact contours of racial and religious relations in Singapore, it is submitted that these factors are not good indicators of those relations. The riots that took place in the 1950’s and 60’s are far too old to be of much use in assessing the situation today. The threat of religious extremism remains largely an external one. On its own, it is not at all an indicator of internal relations. While there have been reports of internal threats of religious extremism, these haven been largely isolated and appear to be the exception rather than the rule. These reports do not appear to be accurate reflections of the sentiments of the larger population. Indeed, local political leaders have often stressed that they are not.

The results of recent surveys on the perceptions of Singaporeans suggest that racial and religious relations here are not quite as volatile as they are often made out to be. By directly querying the actual perceptions of individuals, these surveys present more accurate reflections of current racial and religious relations than events of the past or external phenomena.

For example, a survey conducted by the Institute of Policy Studies in 1989 revealed that Singaporeans were far more racially and religiously integrated than they had been during in 1969, which was the year that the last racial riots took place.⁹

A survey done in 2002 by the Ministry of Community Development and Sports found that 99% of Singaporeans were willing to let their children play with children of other races, up from 98% in a similar survey done in 2001.¹⁰ 96% thought that it was desirable to have people of different races living in the same neighbourhood,¹¹ and 76% had close friends were not of their own race, up from 70% in 2001.¹²

In 2003, 80% of the respondents in a survey conducted by the Feedback Unit believed that their countrymen would stand united in the face of a terrorist attack, despite their racial or religious differences.¹³ The figure went up to 90% in a follow-up survey done in 2005.¹⁴

A more recent survey conducted in 2007 by the Centre of Excellence for National Security found that “inter-racial engagement was by and large robust”, with inter-racial acceptance rates generally being above 90%.¹⁵ Inter-religious confidence was also found to be “very sturdy”, with inter-religious acceptance rates similarly exceeding 90% on average.¹⁶

The data collected in these surveys indicates that racial and religious relations in Singapore are generally rather resilient. Therefore, the “ring fence” justification for Category 1, 2 and 3 offences is likely to be more akin to paranoia rather than prudent caution. While Category 2 and 3 offences may have an alternative justification independent of volatility (that avoiding rifts is an adequately compelling social goal), Category 1 offences do not, and must therefore be repealed (or suitably amended to be justifiable on a freedom from offence basis).

E. Penalties

Finally, we can take a cursory look at the penalties prescribed for the various offences. The compelling community interest in Category 4 offences dictates that the penalty for those offences ought to be higher than those of the other categories. As can be seen from the table above, this appears to be the case where section 505(c) is concerned, but not where section 298A(b) is concerned.

The penalties for offences outside Category 4 depend on their justifications. From the economic and/or political stability standpoint, Category 2 and 3 offences ought to carry a lesser penalty than Category 4 offences, since the community interest that is sought to be achieved is not as obviously compelling as compared to Category 4 offences. If Category 2 and 3 offences are justified on the "ring fence" principle, this again requires a lesser penalty than the Category 4 offences that are meant to be ring fenced. This is not borne out by the current state of the law.

Category 1 offences, even if they can be justified on a freedom from offence principle, ought also to have a lesser penalty than Category 4 offences. This is due to mere “offence” in Category 1 being more trivial as compared to “harm” in Category 4.¹⁷ The "ring fence" justification, if correct, also dictates that Category 1 offences should have lesser penalties than Category 4 offences. As to whether Category 1 offences should carry a lesser penalty than those of Category 2 or 3, I leave that open (does it matter how wide the "fence" is?). Either way, the table above shows that there is no corresponding calibration of Category 1 penalties, whether in comparison to Category 2, 3 or 4.

F. Conclusion

There are miles to go before we sleep.

References

¹ See Ronald Dworkin, Taking Rights Seriously (London: Duckworth, 1977).

²Usually attributed to Alexander Meiklejohn, Free Speech and Its Relation to Self-Government (New York: Harper, 1948). See also Wojciech Sadurski, Freedom of Speech and Its Limits (Dordrecht, Boston: Kluwer Academic Publishers, 1999) at 20-31.

³See, eg., Lord Steyn in Reynolds v. Times Newspapers Ltd (1999), [2001] 2 A.C. 127 (H.L. (Eng.)) at 207G: “By categorising this basic and fundamental right [to freedom of expression] as a constitutional right its higher normative force is emphasised.”

⁴ There are three main reasons for this. First, cohesion tends to promote adherence to the social contract, which is in turn vital to economic development: Stephen P. Heyneman, “From the Party/State to Multiethnic Democracy: Education and Social Cohesion in Europe and Central Asia” (2000) 22(2) Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis 173 at 174 (“the inability of societies to develop low-cost and effective self-regulating mechanisms for enforcement of social contracts prevents economic development... People are more likely to adhere to social contracts...when they do not consider each other to be cultural “strangers”; that is, when they have more understanding of each other as people, as citizens of the same country...”). Second, cohesion could create a common culture, which would lower transaction costs: Edward P. Lazear, “Culture and Language” (1999) 107(6) Journal of Political Economy S95. Third, cohesion could build trust, which contributes significantly to economic performance: Stephen Knack & Philip Keefer, “Does Social Capital have an Economic Payoff? A Cross-Country Investigation” (1997) 112(4) Quarterly Journal of Economics 1251. This particular need for cohesion could be highly compelling in societies with a high level of ethnic heterogeneity, which tends to correspond with a low level of trust: Edward L. Glaeser et al., “Measuring Trust” (2000) 115(3) Quarterly Journal of Economics 811.

⁵ Public Prosecutor v. Koh Song Huat Benjamin, [2005] SGDC 272 para. 8: “The right of one person’s freedom of expression must always be balanced by the right of another’s freedom from offence...” (per Senior District Judge Richard Magnus).

⁶Joel Feinberg, The Moral Limits of the Criminal Law: Volume 2: Offense to Others (New York: Oxford University Press, 1988) at 26.

⁷ See Public Prosecutor v. Koh Song Huat Benjamin, supra note 5 para. 6: “...the especial sensitivity of racial and religious issues in our multi-cultural society, particularly given our history of the Maria Hertogh incident in the 1950s and the July and September 1964 race riots...”

⁸ Ibid., para. 6: “...the current domestic and international security climate...”

⁹ “Strong national identity emerging”, The Straits Times (23 September 1990).

¹⁰ Ministry of Community Development and Sports, Attitudes on Race and Religion [:] Survey on Social Attitudes of Singaporeans (SAS) 2002, http://www.mcys.gov.sg/MCDSFiles/download/SAS02RR.pdf para. 2.27.

¹¹ Ibid., para. 2.28.

¹² Ibid., para. 2.29.

¹³ “S’poreans will stay united in face of terror”, The Straits Times (23 July 2005).

¹⁴ Ibid.

¹⁵ Yolanda Chin & Norman Vasu, The Ties that Bind and Blind [:] A Report on Inter-racial and Inter-religious Relations in Singapore (Singapore: Centre of Excellence for National Security, 2007), http://www.ntu.edu.sg/rsis/publications/reports/RSIS%20Social%20resilience%20report.pdf at 17.

¹⁶ Ibid., at 31.

¹⁷ Feinberg explicitly acknowledges this: see The Moral Limits of the Criminal Law: Volume 2: Offense to Others, supra note 6, at 3.

OMG!

2008-05-06T02:09:00.001+08:00

Challenging Prosecutorial Discretion in Singapore

2008-04-09T22:38:00.003+08:00

Sook Zhen has written an insightful piece on prosecutorial discretion in Singapore, quoting at one point the Workers' Party Manifesto 2006, which reads: "the exercise of prosecutorial discretion cannot be reviewed or appealed against."

Technically this is not a correct statement of the law.

The discretion to prosecute or not for a particular offence lies with the Attorney-General, under Article 35(8) of the Constitution:

(8) The Attorney-General shall have power, exercisable at his discretion, to institute, conduct or discontinue any proceedings for any offence.

In a 1978 Malaysian case that went to the Privy Council (Teh Cheng Poh v. Public Prosecutor, [1979] 1 MLJ 50), Lord Diplock delivering the judgment of the Board referred to a similar provision in the Malaysian constitution and wrote:

There are many factors which a prosecuting authority may properly take into account in exercising its discretion as to whether to charge a person at all, or, where the information available to it discloses the ingredients of a greater as well as a lesser offence, as to whether to charge the accused with the greater or the lesser. The existence of those factors to which the prosecuting authority may properly have regard and the relative weight to be attached to each of them may vary enormously between one case and another. All that equality before the law requires, is that the cases of all potential defendants to criminal charges shall be given unbiassed consideration by the prosecuting authority and that decisions whether or not to prosecute in a particular case for a particular offence should not be dictated by some irrelevant consideration.

Although Lord Diplock did not explicitly say that prosecutorial discretion was reviewable, he seemed to be suggesting that review was possible on at least two grounds - bias and irrelevant considerations. Later on in the same paragraph he wrote that there was no material on which to found an argument that in the instant case the prosecutor had exercised his discretion unlawfully. Clearly, judicial review was on his mind.

Lord Diplock's words have been quoted with approval in the Singapore Court of Appeal at least twice (Sim Min Teck v. Public Prosecutor [1987] SLR 30; Thiruselvam s/o Nagaratnam v. Public Prosecutor [2001] 2 SLR 125).

The most recent statement of the law, making explicit the possibility of review, is to be found in the Singapore High Court decision of Law Society of Singapore v. Tan Guat Neo Phyllis [2007] SGHC 207, where Chief Justice Chan Sek Keong wrote:

In our view, the exercise of the prosecutorial discretion is subject to judicial review in two situations: first, where the prosecutorial power is abused, ie, where it is exercised in bad faith for an extraneous purpose, and second, where its exercise contravenes constitutional protections and rights (for example, a discriminatory prosecution which results in an accused being deprived of his right to equality under the law and the equal protection of the law under Art 12 of the Constitution).

There you have it. Prosecutorial discretion in Singapore can be reviewed. But my concern is that no information will be available upon which the discretion can be reviewed. How are you going to prove bad faith or extraneous purpose if prosecutorial discretion is always exercised behind a closed door and nothing more than the result ever emerges? If prosecutors are not forthcoming in revealing the grounds on which they made their decisions, and if the courts cannot compel them to do so, then judicial review is unlikely to be of any use.

Subsidies and Legitimate Discrimination

2008-03-30T21:18:00.004+08:00

Alex wrote, in his latest article, "Hotel Singapore now officially gay-friendly", under the heading "The right to non-discrimination":

Then there are all sorts of tax allowances and subsidies that the state dishes out to legally married couples, who by law can only be opposite-sex couples. For example, an opposite-sex couple can get married and, waving a marriage certificate, avail themselves of tens of thousands of dollars in subsidies when they buy a flat from the Housing and Development Board. A gay couple cannot. How can this be fair?

Well, I think it can. This is mainly because there is no inherent right to most subsidies, which are implemented to pursue specific policy objectives rather than matters of principle.

Much therefore depends on the purpose for which subsidies are given out. This will determine who ought to be receiving the particular subsidies, which will in turn determine whether there is justifiable discrimination (discrimination is not always illegitimate). As long as subsidies are distributed to individuals in a way that can be said to accord with the objectives of the policy, I (seem to) have no objection.

If, for example, the purpose of giving subsidies is to increase the birth rate in Singapore, then surely these subsidies ought not to be given to people who don't reproduce. There is nothing wrong with denying gay people these subsidies, in the same way that there is nothing wrong in denying unmarried heterosexual people of these subsidies.

But if you were to deny gay people GST credits, then clearly there's something wrong there. GST credits are for cushioning the impact of increased GST. The objective has got nothing to do with sexual orientation at all, so discrimination on this ground would be unjustifiable.

If you're giving out subsidies that people can claim a right to, then things could be different. If, for example, the Singapore government decided to compensate all citizens for the incessant curtailment of their right to free speech, then there can be no discrimination here. Every citizen, being entitled to that right, must be entitled to the subsidy, as of right.

The last time I wrote about this was almost a year ago. Sad to say, my ideas are still so half-baked. Oh well.

Cut scholarship bond period to stem brain drain: NMP

2008-02-27T12:19:00.004+08:00

Straits Times, Feb 26, 2008
By Grace Ng

CUT THE length of scholarship bonds and grant tax rebates for the overseas university fees paid by parents whose children return to Singapore after their studies abroad.

These measures were suggested by Nominated MP Loo Choon Yong in Parliament on Tuesday to help stem Singapore's brain drain.

Noting that about 1,000 talented young Singaporeans leave the country annually to study and work overseas, Mr Loo feared that these people 'may be lost to Singapore permanently' if they settle overseas after studying there.

While he supported the notion that these Singaporeans must return to serve the country, he added that the current policy of scholarship bonds is 'counter-productive' and urged the Government to review the policy.

Bonds can be kept short and capped at about three years. Scholars can also be bonded to serve Singapore in both the public or private sector, rather than just the Government, suggested Mr Loo.

In this way, scholars who choose to work in the civil service would do so willingly, attracted by the excellent compensation and improved work environment in Government agencies, as well as the pride of serving Singapore, he said.

The scholarships must 'not be instrument for converting free Singaporeans into indentured Singaporeans', he said.

In light of the current shortage of places at local universities, Mr Loo also suggested that the Government consider giving tax rebates to parents who send their children to approved overseas universities, when they return here to work.

These tax rebates can be to 'the tune of the subsidy for fees at local universities'.

This will help to grow the local talent pool and give more Singaporeans a chance at tertiary education, said Mr Loo.

'If we lose our young, we will have nothing,' he said.

Better Hours for Doctors?

2008-02-22T22:15:00.007+08:00

Apparently, there aren't any limits on the working hours of doctors in Singapore (I've often tried to search for regulations on the working hours of doctors in Singapore but I've never found any; the would-be doctors that I've spoken to are also unaware of any such limits).

But that could change soon. And the change could come from an unexpected source.

The Workplace Safety and Health Act (WSHA) will be extended to cover the healthcare sector from 1st March. In line with this move, the Workplace Safety and Health Advisory Committee has issued guidelines that are specific to the healthcare sector. Section 2.4.1 of the guidelines refer to "Shift Work and Extended Work Times, Stress and Burnout" and recommend the following as control measures:

Shift design and schedules can be adjusted so that staff have sufficient rest days.
Provide rest facilities for all staff.
Provision of adequate meal breaks.
As far as possible, adhere to regular eating patterns and good nutrition
Consider sleeping on a set schedule and obtaining sufficient sleep
Allow time for relaxation
A regular exercise regime is recommended.

Healthcare institutions such as hospitals and clinics could be required to implement some of these measures as part of their risk management programmes under the WSHA.

Does this point to better working hours for doctors in the future? Well, the guidelines are not strictly enforceable and healthcare institutions presumably have the "not reasonably practicable" defence that seems to pervade the whole WSHA. But I guess there is hope.

The other interesting thing about the guidelines is that they deal with workplace harassment (see section 2.4.2). This is an area in which legal change has been slow. The guidelines seem to require employers to take steps to prevent the harassment from occurring, which is similar to what Title VII jurisprudence does in the US. But for a jurisdiction with hardly any legislation on workplace harassment, following the Title VII model, albeit in a not-strictly-enforceable way, is, I think, a rather radical move.

The Story of Section 298A

2008-02-06T21:38:00.000+08:00

As promised, here is an excerpt from a paper I was writing last year (never finished, as usual), dealing with race and religion-related offences in the Penal Code. The main thrust of this section of the paper is that the section 298A that we inserted recently is something that we had already rejected way back in 1938, and my main grouse is that we have put it back in without bothering to find out why we rejected it in the first place. Surely there must have been a reason?

I think one of the major defects of the recent Penal Code revision exercise is that the paper explaining the changes was so skimpy. Professor Michael Hor wrote in a paper published last year that he found it hard to believe that this skimpy paper is all there is. I tend to agree. But I would add that all this skimpiness makes the law revision commissioners look bad. One is left to wonder whether they actually thought sufficiently about the review as to be able to uncover issues such as this one. Anyway, enough rambling, here's the excerpt. A bit hard to follow because it is unedited, and don't trust the footnoting.

Legislative History of Section 298A
This is what section 298A of the Penal Code currently looks like:

Promoting enmity between different groups on grounds of religion or race and doing acts prejudicial to maintenance of harmony
298A. Whoever –
(a) by words, either spoken or written, or by signs or by visible representations or otherwise, knowingly promotes or attempts to promote, on grounds of religion or race, disharmony or feelings of enmity, hatred or ill-will between different religious or racial groups; or
(b) commits any act which he knows is prejudicial to the maintenance of harmony between different religious or racial groups and which disturbs or is likely to disturb the public tranquility, shall be punished with imprisonment for a term which may extend to 3 years, or with fine, or with both.

I. The Consolidation of Sedition Law
The parentage of section 298A has to be traced back to Macaulay’s draft of the Indian Penal Code, which included this provision:

113. Whoever, by words, either spoken or intended to be read, or by signs, or by visible representations, attempts to excite feelings of disaffection to the Government established by law in the territories of the East India Company, among any class of people who live under that Government, shall be punished with banishment for life or for any term from the territories of the East India Company, to which fine may be added, or with simple imprisonment for a term which may extend to three years, to which fine may be added, or with fine.

Explanation. Such a disapprobation of the measures of the Government as is compatible with a disposition to render obedience to the lawful authority of the Government, and to support the lawful authority of the Government against unlawful attempts to subvert or resist that authority, is not disaffection. Therefore the making of comments on the measures of the Government, with the intention of exciting only this species of disapprobation, is not an offence within this Clause.¹

This provision was left out of an 1870 Ordinance to introduce the Penal Code into the Straits Settlements, but this 1870 Ordinance never came into force. In the 1871 Ordinance that did come into force, an almost identical provision appeared as section 124A. In 1917, section 124A was repealed and re-enacted. Among the changes was the inclusion of a marginal note that reads “Sedition”. Section 124A came to read thus:

Sedition.
124A. Whoever by words, either spoken or written, or by signs, or by visible representation, or otherwise, brings or attempts to bring into hatred or contempt, or excites or attempts to excite feelings of dissatisfaction towards His Majesty or the Government established by law in the Colony, shall be punished with penal servitude for life, to which fine may be added, or with imprisonment for a term which may extend to three years, to which fine may be added, or with both.

Explanation 1. – The expression “dissatisfaction” includes disloyalty and all feelings of enmity.

Explanation 2. – Comments expressing disapprobation of the measures of Government with a view to obtain their alteration by lawful means, without exciting or attempting to excite hatred, contempt or dissatisfaction, do not constitute an offence under this section.

Explanation 3. – Comments expressing disapprobation of the administrative or other action of the Government without exciting or attempting to excite hatred, contempt or dissatisfaction, do not constitute an offence under this section.²

With the passing of the Sedition Ordinance on 29th August 1938, section 124A was repealed, along with the Seditious Publications Ordinance (which had appeared in 1915³).⁴ It appears from this that the intention of the legislature was to repeal all the existing sedition law and henceforth to deal with sedition through the Sedition Ordinance. Thus the Objects and Reasons to the Bill introducing the Sedition Ordinance states that “The purpose of this Bill is to re-enact the law relating to sedition”.⁵
II. The curious deletion of 153A
This intention was perhaps the driving force behind the curious deletion of a proposed Penal Code amendment. On 13th June 1938, a Bill was debated in the Legislative Council.⁶ One of the clauses in the Bill sought to introduce a section 153A, which looks strikingly similar to section 298A(a):

Promoting enmity between classes.
153A. Whoever by words, either spoken or written or by signs or by visible representations, or otherwise, promotes or attempts to promote feelings of enmity or hatred between different classes of the public shall be punished with imprisonment of either description which may extend to two years, or with fine, or with both.

Explanation – It does not amount to an offence within the meaning of this section to point out, without malicious intention and with an honest view to their removal, matters which are producing or have a tendency to produce, feelings of enmity or hatred between different classes of the public.

While the provision made no reference to race, it was stated in the Objects and Reasons of the Bill that the object of this section was “to prevent the fomentation of enmity between the various races and classes which make up the community”.⁷

At the second reading of the Bill, the clause introducing section 153A was deleted.⁸ Section 153A thus never came into existence. This writer is unaware of the reasons behind the deletion. Given however that the contents of the Bill introducing the Sedition Ordinance were already known at the time of the deletion, one may be led to surmise that the legislature thought that the Sedition Ordinance would cover the conduct envisaged by section 153A and thereby render the latter section useless.⁹

III. The ghost of 153A rears its head
It is therefore curious that section 153A has made a comeback in the form of section 298A(a). It appears, however, that the overlap with the Sedition Act may be an intentional move on the part of the legislature. While the Ministry of Home Affairs’ Consultation Paper on the Penal Code Amendments is silent about section 298A(a), it does make this comment about section 298:

Arising from the case of the racist bloggers who were charged under the Sedition Act, we propose amending the Penal Code to provide another option to the Sedition Act, to charge such offenders in future cases. Hence, MHA recommends expanding the scope of s.298 on “Uttering words, etc with deliberate intent to wound the religious feelings of any person” to cover the wounding of racial feelings as well. For future such cases, where appropriate, prosecution can have the option to proceed under the Penal Code or the Sedition Act.¹⁰

It is difficult to see what merit there may be in intentionally creating overlapping provisions that require prosecutorial discretion to be exercised. The overall drop in transparency in the administration of criminal justice is difficult to justify. Nevertheless, it must be said that between the Sedition Act and section 298A(a), it is the latter that is to be preferred, since it requires the offender to possess knowledge. The Sedition Act, by contrast, is not concerned with the offender’s mental state at all.¹¹

References
¹ Macaulay's Indian Penal Code at 16.
² Criminal Law (Amendment) Ordinance (No. 10 of 1917), section 9.
³ Seditious Publications Ordinance (No. 10 of 1915).
⁴ Sedition Ordinance 1938 (No. 18 of 1938), s. 10.
⁵ SS Govt Gazette, June 17 1938 at 1658.
⁶ Bill introducing the Penal Code (Amendment) Ordinance, 1938, printed in Straits Settlements Government Gazette, April 29, 1938 at 1227.
⁷ Straits Settlements Government Gazette, April 29, 1938 at 1228.
⁸ Straits Settlements Government Gazette, September 2, 1938 at 2449.
⁹ The Bill introducing the Sedition Ordinance was read a first time on 13 June 1938, which is the same day that the debate relating to section 153A occurred. See SS Govt Gazette June 17 1938 at 1655.
¹⁰ MHA Consultation Paper on Penal Code reforms, ¶ 9.
¹¹ See Sedition Act, section 3(3).

377A Still A Registrable Offence

2008-02-06T21:08:00.000+08:00

Sometime last week I said that 377A was no longer a registrable offence. That is incorrect.

In my enthusiasm I had failed to realise that the First Schedule to the Registration of Criminals Act had been amended to include new offences but that the original schedule still remains in force, and the original schedule did include 377A.

It appears that a lot of people read my post and I think some may have been in a celebratory mood because of it. I'm sorry to have spread this misinformation and to have to dampen your spirits like this. I promise to check more carefully next time.

Once again, my sincere apologies.

cry.

2008-02-05T23:37:00.000+08:00

Gay Anal Sex Illegal...really?

2008-02-01T15:29:00.000+08:00

The recent amendments to the Penal Code come into effect today, according to this gazette notification, and of course, section 377A still remains in the code.

Exactly what it is supposed to do, however, is still a matter of some dispute. Back in September, I argued that 377A does not cover oral or anal sex, and in December, Professor Kumaralingam Amirthalingam of the NUS Law Faculty argued that 377A does not cover anal sex. Here is an extract from Prof Kumar's article in The Straits Times that summarizes the argument somewhat:

There is an assumption that 377A includes anal sex as part of the definition of gross indecency. However, the legislative history of the two provisions, as well as the existing jurisprudence and prosecutorial policy, suggests that 377A does not include anal sex.

Section 377A was not in the original Penal Code of the Straits Settlements (the precursor to the Singapore Penal Code), but was introduced in 1938 following reforms in England. During the introduction of the Bill, it was explained that 377A 'makes punishable acts of gross indecency between male persons which do not amount to an unnatural offence within the meaning of 377 of the Code' (italics added). Clearly, 377 and 377A were intended to be complementary but mutually exclusive provisions.

The fact that the two provisions are aimed at different acts was highlighted in a Singapore High Court decision, PP v Kwan Kwong Weng, where the judge held that 377 was limited to anal sex and bestiality, excluding oral sex, which properly belonged to 377A...

The crucial question then is whether gross indecency in 377A can be interpreted to include anal sex in the light of the repeal of 377. Arguably, courts should not interpret 377A in this way, as one of the principles of statutory interpretation, particularly in criminal law, is that where there is ambiguity, the penal provision should be interpreted in favour of the accused.

Had Parliament intended to retain the crime of anal sex between males, it should have done so explicitly.

The following week, a spokesperson from the Ministry of Home Affairs wrote in response to Prof Kumar:

2 A/P Amirthalingam argued that based on existing jurisprudence, gross indecency under section 377A (Outrages on decency) of the Penal Code does not include anal sex between males. He is of the view that since section 377 (Unnatural offences) which criminalises consensual anal sex between males will be repealed and section 377A does not include anal sex, there is a lacuna in the law.

3 There is no lacuna in the law. The debate in Parliament made abundantly clear that the Government's intention is to decriminalise oral and anal sex between a consenting adult heterosexual couple in private by repealing section 377 but to retain the status quo whereby homosexual acts under section 377A remains criminalised. In this regard, the Attorney-General's Chambers had earlier advised that section 377A covers the act of anal sex between male persons.

Mr Toh Yong Chuan
Deputy Director
International & Corporate Relations Division
Ministry of Home Affairs

As some bloggers pointed out (I think it was Molly), it is hard to pinpoint Parliament's intention from a 'debate'. From my (somewhat limited) experience, however, 'Parliamentary intention' as evidenced in a Parliamentary debate is most often distilled from the speech of the Minister sponsoring the Bill, which in this case was Prof Ho Peng Kee. This is what he said in Parliament about 377A:

Next, Sir, section 377A which criminalises acts of gross indecency between two male adults will be retained. Public feedback on this issue has been emotional, divided and strongly expressed with the majority calling for its retention. Sir, Singaporeans are still a largely conservative society. The majority find homosexual behaviour offensive and unacceptable. Neither side is going to persuade or convince the other of their position. We should live and let live, and let the situation evolve, in tandem with the values of our society. This approach is a pragmatic one that maintains Singapore's social cohesion. Police has not been proactively enforcing the provision and will continue to take this stance. But this does not mean that the section is purely symbolic and thus redundant. There have been convictions over the years involving cases where minors were exploited and abused or where male adults committed the offence in a public place such as a public toilet or back-lane. Sir, whilst homosexuals have a place in society and, in recent years, more social space, repealing section 377A will be very contentious and may send a wrong signal that Government is encouraging and endorsing the homosexual lifestyle as part of our mainstream way of life.

His speech certainly did not make it "abundantly clear," as Mr Toh Yong Chuan had suggested, that 377A covers gay anal or oral sex.

In a court of law, a prosecutor faced with an argument similar to Prof Kumar's or mine will have to find evidence that Parliament intended 377A to cover gay anal sex. Unable to derive any support from Prof Ho's speech, such a prosecutor may be tempted to point to Mr Toh's letter as evidence of Parliamentary intention. But there is of course a problem here. The MHA is not Parliament; neither is its corporate relations department; neither is Mr Toh. Therefore, nothing in Mr Toh's letter can be taken as evidencing Parliamentary intention. The opinion of any body other than Parliament, such as the MHA, is irrelevant in interpreting a statute because it is Parliament that is supposed to make law, and not the MHA. So the reference in Mr Toh's letter to the opinion of the AG's Chambers is also somewhat insufficient to save 377A.

And so we are left in a dilemma, albeit a technical one, as to what is actually covered by 377A. I am pretty sure that if this issue were to come before a court, the judge would find a way of brushing it aside. But the fact is that this technical glitch exists now, and it wouldn't have existed if some people had done their homework properly. Prof Ho could easily have been told to say explicitly in his speech what 377A was intended to cover from now on, but probably nobody thought to do this because nobody had seen the problem - a problem which could have been uncovered if proper research had been done.

And the apparent lack of proper research doesn't stop at 377A. If I have the time, I'll post something else about this in a few days' time perhaps.

377A No Longer A Registrable Offence

2008-01-29T20:38:00.000+08:00

Erratum: The information in this post is not correct. In my enthusiasm I had failed to realise that the First Schedule to the Registration of Criminals Act had been amended to include new offences but that the original schedule still remains in force, and the original schedule did include 377A.

It appears that a lot of people read my post and I think some may have been in a celebratory mood because of it. I'm sorry to have spread this misinformation and to have to dampen your spirits like this. I promise to check more carefully next time.

Once again, my sincere apologies. This was the original post:

The past few days have seen the dissemination of subsidiary legislation to amend the schedules of various criminal statutes so as to bring them in line with the recent Penal Code reforms, which take effect on 1st February 2008.

While most of the changes have to do with the re-numbering of offences and other minor details, one of these hard-to-spot changes has caught my eye: while prior to 1st February 2008 all persons convicted under Penal Code section 377A had to be registered, this will no longer be the case after 1st February 2008. In other words, persons convicted under 377A after 1st February 2008 will not have a criminal record for this offence.

As you can see this is a very small change and I'm making a mountain of a mole-hill but of course you know this nitty-gritty stuff interests me. And actually, I think it's a move to be celebrated by gay people because now when a prospective employer asks you if you have a criminal record, you can say "no", even if you have been convicted under 377A after 1st February 2008. Which means, you won't have to explain the circumstances of your conviction to your employer, which means, you won't be outed unnecessarily. [But if your employer asks if you've been convicted of an offence you still have to answer "yes" although you don't have a record. So it all depends on what question you're asked. Thanks to Heng-Cheong Leong for pointing this out - see comments.]

The change could also be due to the government's declaration that 377A will not be actively enforced, but then non-registration happens whether or not your conviction was 'active' or 'passive'.

Other than that, I haven't quite been bothered to figure out if there are other material consequences legally, but if you have the time and you want to check it out, here is the Registration of Criminals Act, and here is the new Schedule.

SG Police Score Yet Again!

2008-01-27T22:56:00.000+08:00

Bureacratic muddle leads to canning of International Fringe Festival event
Posted by theonlinecitizen on January 27, 2008:

Members of the Singapore Complaints Choir have an additional grievance to add to their future lyric sheets: they have been effectively muzzled by the city state’s police.

The arrival of the Finnish ‘Complaints Choir’ in Singapore was an eagerly anticipated component of the M1 Singapore Fringe Festival 2008. The Singapore leg of the Complaints Choir was billed as the first Asian Complaints Choir to be organized.

Now, the Choir’s experience will be remembered as a first for a very different reason: it was effectively banned from performing in public by the police because of foreign members’ participation in the choir...

Read the rest of this entry at theonlinecitizen.com »

Simon Trpčeski

2008-01-19T00:48:00.000+08:00

Just watched Simon Trpčeski play Rachmaninov's 1st Concerto with SSO. I don't really like that concerto (my favourite is the second) and, honestly, Trpčeski was a tad more drama than I expected him to be from his recordings. His encore (October from Tchaikovsky's Seasons) was rather nice though. Earnest and very songful.

After the intermission, SSO played Stravinsky's Petrouchka suite which made me a very happy Mohan. Although the pianist (I don't think it was Shane) kinda sucked. Sounded like he didn't really know what to bring out and what to blur. But overall it was a much better performance than the last Petrouchka that I watched SSO play, the memory of which made me swear not to attend SSO concerts again.

During the intermission a very good friend who was trying to be my friend bought me a copy of Trpčeski's Chopin recording as an early birthday gift, so I got Trpčeski to sign it for me. So now I have every recording Trpčeski made for EMI minus the latest Debussy Images one.

And after that we had half-price desserts.

That's all.

Inspiration - Lucian Matis

2008-01-11T12:56:00.000+08:00

Fashion designer Lucian Matis, the son of a businessman and tailor shop owner, was born in Romania in 1979. He grew up in his mother's tailor shop and started designing from a very early age. His first customers consisted of his high school teachers. Lucian followed his studies in art, with a specialization in painting and graphics. He moved to Canada in 1999 starting his fashion studies at Ryerson University, where he soon showed great talent and maturity.

Since his graduation in 2003, Lucian has been working for major Canadian fashion retailers as a Buyer and Creative Fashion Director traveling the world, gathering knowledge and inspiration from the international fashion industry. With all the knowledge and experience he has accrued, Lucian has now launched his own label!

Lucian Matis is not only a fashion designer, but also, a true artist.

In 2007, Lucian Matis won second place in Project Runway Canada, where the final collection he showed at L'Oréal Fashion Week was an absolute stunner:

More of that collection in this YouTube vid:

See more of Lucian's work at his website: http://lucianmatis.com/ and in his Project Runway photo gallery.

Baby Baby Call Me Now...

2008-01-09T13:28:00.000+08:00

Last night was all cozy and having cheesecakes at NYDC and then handphone buzz once: SMS. Didn't read cause talking to friend opposite. Then buzz three times: 'X' calling.

X: Eh Mohan, got see the SMS?
Me: Oh. Got one just now leh; never read. You send one ah?
X: No. From Mindef de. Kena reservist liao.
Me: WTF!

So funny hor. Just few days ago talking about water bottle. ZR got ask some more whether I got go ICT (maybe Mindef read my blog and realise they havent call me up!!).

I think I (and everybody else) got this "suay sia. how come kena??" attitude. But actually, dunno why got this thinking also. Should be quite fun ba. Meet all the old people again. But if got exercise and lose all the store again and pay 1206 AGAIN...wah. damn sian.

New Toys

2008-01-08T10:38:00.000+08:00

Got some new stuff yesterday:

Sir Michael Tippett
Complete Music for Piano
Steven Osborne, BBC Scottish Symphony Orchestra, Martyn Brabbins
Tracklist:
Piano Concerto
Fantasia on a theme of Handel
Piano Sonata No. 1
Piano Sonata No. 2
Piano Sonata No. 3
Piano Sonata No. 4

I've actually been waiting for this disc for some time. Steven Osborne's biographies always say he's recording Tippett, but I guess with the Hyperion lawsuit and all, it didn't happen for a while. Now it's here. Listened to this once last night. Sounds like it's got potential, especially the concerto. I've now got every Steven Osborne release on Hyperion except the Debussy Preludes and the cello sonata disc he did with Alban Gerhardt.

George Tsontakis
Man of Sorrows
Stephen Hough, Dallas Symphony Orchestra, Andrew Litton
Tracklist:
Tsontakis - Man of Sorrows
Schoenberg - Sechs kleine Klavierstücke (Op. 19)
Berg - Piano Sonata
Webern - Variations
Tsontakis - Sarabesque

Bought this disc because my appetite for Tsontakis was whet by the Ghost Variations that Stephen Hough recorded for Hyperion on a disc called New York Variations. Listening to Man of Sorrows now as I type this. Sounds like something I will like if I hear it a few more times. I have most of the rest of the programme on disc already: the Schoenberg I have on a Frederic Chiu disc, I have the Berg Sonata (which I love!!) recorded live by Pierre-Laurent Aimard, and I have the ubiquitous Maurizio Pollini recording of the Webern (which I don't like so much).

Might give you all a better review in a few days.

Oh and most of my awesome CD collection is now available for viewing on my Facebook Album Rack. If you want to borrow anything, just let me know. Which reminds me: someone (I forgot who) still has a Dinu Lipatti disc of mine with a Bach Partita and some Chopin Waltzes. If you've got that lying around and you know it's not yours, please return to me ok? Thanks.

2008-01-07T12:09:00.000+08:00

Lately I've been remembering a lot of stuff. This one's from SISPEC days.

It was the final section manoeuvre of one of the day exercises. There was a water bottle under the bush I was lying next to. It had green insulating tape on it, and on the tape was written in black marker "T3103". I wondered who this other T3103 was, who had slept on my bed and had his stuff in my cupboard. I pulled the bottle out and flipped it over. On the other side, in black marker on green tape, was written "MOHAN". I reached behind and felt around: my own two water bottles were still there. Up till then, I hadn't lost a water bottle. I tried to see if the handwriting was mine, but I wasn't sure. With things written in caps, it's hard to tell. It was time to go. I flipped the bottle and shoved it back under the bush.

2007-12-18T20:11:00.000+08:00

oh boy. somewhere along the way, we all forgot how to have fun.

Back to Blogging

2007-12-18T11:52:00.000+08:00

I don't think I'm gonna do much socio-political blogging anymore because it's a friend-losing enterprise if done without a pseudonym. Like people who've known you all your life suddenly realise you're the Spawn of Satan just because you're pro-gay.

So anyway sometime last week I got some new kicks. Been wanting to do that for very long coz my NB's were so worn out they were giving me knee pains. So here's what my Asics GEL-DS Trainer 12's look like:Ok yeah I know they're fugly but trust me, they're fantastic to run in. Damage done: $213, from Running Lab, which I must say is a fantastic place to get shoes. I must have tried like 8 pairs and the sales people kept smiling. And you get to run in them on hard ground, track flooring and on a treadmill before you decide which ones to buy. And they can prescribe shoes for you, unlike your regular sports shop assistant who doesn't have a clue about what a high arch is.

Better Late Than Never

2007-12-13T13:06:00.000+08:00

The October edition of Juris Illuminae has some pretty relevant stuff that makes for interesting reading:

Law Reform - People or the Law? by Lynette Lim

As we plough through cases with long, dry judgments, we watch how the law has developed over the years through the various situations placed before the court. We tend to get be so focused on examining the past that we overlook the present - what the Attorney-General’s Chambers (AGC) Law Reform and Revision Division (LRRD) is doing on a day-to-day basis. [Read More]
Amendments to the Infectious Diseases Act by Smith Benjamin Yiwen

Many amendments have been made to existing legislation recently, but two of the proposed amendments to the Infectious Diseases Act (Cap. 137, 2003 Rev. Ed. Sing) (IDA) - designed to govern the management of infectious diseases- have garnered most attention. [Read More]
Amendments to Land Titles (Strata) Act by Choo Wan Ning Emily

The past months have seen Singapore caught up in an en bloc fever. Even as great profits have been made, some found themselves in the predicament of losing their homes. In response to such cries of foul play, the Minister for Law, Deputy Prime Minister Professor S. Jayakumar, moved to introduce amendments to the procedure for en bloc sales. [Read More]
Anti-Grooming Law: The First Step by Mohan Gopalan

Among the recent amendments to the Penal Code is a new offence of “Sexual grooming of minor under 16″. This offence is targeted at sexual predators who prowl Internet chat rooms hoping to procure minors for sexual activity. [Read More]
ASEAN: Coordinated Engagement in Myanmar by Harpreet Kaur Dhillon

The bloodshed in last month’s monk-led protests, however, was a potent enough message for the Association of South-East Asian Nations (ASEAN) — whose response to such strife in the past was to refrain from publicly castigating Myanmar’s government — to realise that its credibility was at stake. Singapore, due to its chairmanship of the 10-nation grouping, issued a statement on behalf of the group that, in the words of Foreign Minister George Yeo, “expressed their horror and anger”, admitting that they had been hesitant before but that “the honour of the family was at stake and the people of Myanmar would not forgive us if we kept silent.” [Read More]
The Tragedy of Burma by Akshay Kothari

The junta named it Myanmar, but I still say Burma. Burma, it was, until 1989, barely a year after a protest much like the recent ones ended in a hail of gunfire. Hundreds of thousands of protesters had taken to the streets on the 8^th of august 1988, students and monks with upturned begging bowls, demanding democratic rule in Burma. [Read More]
Mallal Moots 2007 by Nik Sim Shi Qiang

The B.A. Mallal Moots are an annual tradition in the Faculty of Law, organised by the Mooting and Debating Club. Each year, law students engage in fast and furious verbal battles in the hope of holding the coveted winner’s trophy. The competition is sponsored by Allen & Gledhill LLP. The Best Memorial Competition, which is held concurrently, is sponsored by LexisNexis. [Read More]
Spandeck: The Donoghue v. Stevenson of Singapore? by Ng Sook Zhen

When the Singapore Court of Appeal passed judgment on Spandeck Engineering v. Defence Science Technology Agency (DSTA), [2007] 1 Sing. L.R. 720 [Spandeck] in August this year, there was little attention given to the low profile case. After all, it was one of the many pure economic loss cases which passed through local courts… But when judgment was passed on 8th August, it was hailed as one of the most significant developments in the tort of negligence in Singapore, drawing the attention of academics and practising lawyers. [Read More]
Response to Odex Article by Serbene Liew

I have been reading the SLR and though most of the laws mentioned are rather difficult for me, a layman, to understand, I do appreciate the articles and comments made on the Odex case. Will you continue to comment on recent developments and help the struggling public with some legal feedback please? [Read More]

Conveyancing Lawyers Earn Too Much?

2007-12-04T23:07:00.000+08:00

So Lucky's got this post about how lawyers who do conveyancing earn too much for doing too little.

Sure, conveyancing is something you could do yourself. Lots of paperwork, but if you work hard enough at figuring everything out, you'd probably see some light at the end of the tunnel. Lawyers would probably be able to do it for you in about a quarter of the time, while you get on with the rest of your life.

But it's definitely not as simple as checking the names and addresses on your transfer documents. Your documents have got to comply with the formalities, and you've got to register them. If you can handle all this yourself, good for you. If you can't, you're almost certainly gonna end up in a big, big pile of mess, because in Singapore, where almost all land is under the Torrens system of land registration, the formalities are just about everything. And when you do end up in a pile of mess, that's when you'll look for a lawyer, and you can bet it's not going to cost you anything less than $3,000. You'd kick yourself for not having gotten a lawyer in the first place.

I think there are two reasons why lawyers charge so much for conveyancing. One is that it's not always easy. The second reason is that land transactions are risky because land is worth so much in Singapore. If you're the lawyer who screws up a land transaction, you could be looking at millions of dollars in liability. Now of course if nobody sued lawyers, there wouldn't be a problem; but people do sue lawyers, so lawyers defend against this risk by upping the cost. It's kinda like how doctors practice defensive medicine.

The bottom-line, people, is this: Don't expect to pay $2 for a car and not have it explode in your face.

I just went through a semester of property law and I could probably do my own conveyance myself, but I'd still get an experienced conveyancing lawyer to do it for me, just in case. When you're spending millions of dollars, what's $3,000 more for some peace of mind?

Further reading: Why Do Lawyers Earn So Much?

2007-12-01T13:09:00.000+08:00

Today it got so windy that one of the windows from LKYSPP got blown off its hinges. Mohan watched as it came crashing down - wood, glass and nail. Fascinating; the way the sunlight shimmered in the falling glass.

2007-11-22T14:11:00.000+08:00

Mohan is very tolerant. He doesn't mind when the Law library is invaded by the rest of NUS, even if it means that he has no place in his own library on days when he decides to wake up a little later. Can't blame them; Law library is too fantastic.

But when the Lee Kuan Yew School of Public Policy sticks signs outside its study rooms saying "This study room is for the exclusive use of students from the Lee Kuan Yew School of Public Policy," Mohan wonders if he should re-think his position.

Who's your monkey?

2007-11-12T22:02:00.000+08:00

Our (People's Action Party) five men are working hard, but the opposition's five have scattered like monkeys when the tree fell...
- Mr Lee Hsien Loong

...do not forget that even if you do not pay peanuts, but pay with a bigger piece, say, a banana instead, you can still get a monkey.
- Mr Low Thia Khiang

Gov't pays $40m to create traffic jam

2007-10-30T01:20:00.000+08:00

From ChannelNewsAsia:

Orchard Road, Singapore's main shopping belt, is set to be transformed under a S$40 million plan.

The Singapore Tourism Board (STB) announced on Monday that works to rejuvenate the area will start in February next year.

Part of the rejuvenation plans is to expand pedestrian walkways and create Urban Green Rooms, which will be used for art exhibitions, mini performances or major events like the Chingay.

The Urban Green Rooms will be constructed at the existing lane along Orchard Road that faces ION Orchard, Wisma Atria and Meritus Mandarin Hotel.

From the looks of it, this means that there will be one less lane on Orchard Road, which, during peak hours, is already almost clogged. Just so that buskers and caricature artists can have more space.

Worse still, "The whole stretch of area will be divided into three themes – flower theme in Tanglin Zone, forest theme at the Orchard Zone, and fruit theme at the Somerset Zone."

Somehow I'm not too excited about "themes". I think each little segment of Orchard Road has its own characteristic flavour. And if the "themes" make the flavour of each "zone" the same, then, well, Orchard Road will be downright boring.

But that's how we do things around here, isn't it? Everything that's unique must be altered so that it fits into the "theme".

My question is: Is this all really worth it? I mean, yeah, I guess these Urban Green Rooms will look nice and all, but right now it seems as though the only real difference will be increased traffic congestion, which will lead to increased pollution and air temperature... All this for $40 million? Hmmm. Kind of reminds me how we spent $400,000 to rename Marina Bay "Marina Bay".

And by the way, does anyone know what an Urban Green Room is? I thought the best way to answer this question was to look up "green room" in the Urban Dictionary, since, you know, this is an Urban Green Room. And so the Urban Dictionary defines "green room" thus:

This is where artists hangout before and after a show or interview. Usually much marijuana smoking and slapping of hoes asses takes place.
"I'm about to get my swerve on with the bitches in the green room."

Good grief. But seriously, what is an Urban Green Room? Another Uniquely Singaporean phrase?

De Souza's Question on Grooming

2007-10-24T00:05:00.000+08:00

On the new anti-grooming provision in the Penal Code (section 376E), Mr Christopher De Souza said:

There are two mechanisms built into the section to ensure culpability is not imputed arbitrarily. Importantly, there must have been (i) prior meeting/communication, which can take place within or outside Singapore, on at least 2 occasions as an indication of the offender’s intent of grooming the minor for sexual activities and (ii) the offender has to travel to meet or intentionally meet the victim in Singapore, with the intent to commit a sexual offence with the minor. I seek clarification from the Minister in relation to the second limb. Presuming an offender is overseas when he communicates with the minor would he have fulfilled limb (ii) if he flew to Singapore to meet the minor? I ask this question because I think limb (ii) should be fulfilled if there is an attempt to meet and should not be conditional on a meeting. This is so in order to prevent the harm which may arise out of the meeting.

At first I wanted to exclaim "Lawyer dunno how to read statute!". But then I realised this guy has a First Class LLB from King's and a BCL with Distinction from Oxford and was a JLC to the CJ and the Court of Appeal and basically has a stunning career in the legal service. So maybe there's some merit in his questions.

I think basically he has two questions. I'll tackle the second first, which is whether this new provision criminalises the attempt to meet, or whether it requires an actual meeting.

I think the provision deals with this point fairly clearly: the offence is made out if "A intentionally meets B or travels with the intention of meeting B". The 'travelling with the intention of meeting B' must be the attempt that Mr De Souza is looking for. In other words, yes, this provision does criminalise the attempt and is not conditional upon a meeting.

His other question was "Presuming an offender is overseas when he communicates with the minor would he have fulfilled limb (ii) if he flew to Singapore to meet the minor?"

The Explanatory Statement in the Bill does say "if an offender travels from a foreign country to Singapore, and travels within Singapore to meet a minor, the offence is made out." Mr De Souza couldn't have missed that, so I think the question he was asking ought to be phrased differently. I think he was asking whether a foreigner (with the requisite intention) would incur liability just by arriving in Singapore, and without travelling within Singapore.

My answer to that is No, because section 2 of the Penal Code requires the offender to have done some act or omission within Singapore. This requirement may be dispensed with if section 3 applies, but I don't think section 3 applies because I don't think there is a law that specifically says this offence may be tried in such a manner as envisaged in section 3.

A foreigner who merely steps onto our shores cannot really be said to have committed any act within Singapore for the purposes of section 2, so I don't think merely travelling to Singapore will be sufficient - the foreigner must also have travelled within Singapore to meet the minor (but he need not have actually met the minor).

And I think this is a fair requirement that shouldn't be changed in such a way as to make the crime easier to commit. One has to remember that we have already made this crime very easy to commit in comparison to attempts in general.

Why MPs should read blogs

2007-10-23T10:07:00.000+08:00

Yesterday in Parliament, Ho Peng Kee said:

"This does not mean that the section is purely symbolic … There have been convictions over the years involving cases where minors were exploited and abused, or where male adults committed the offence in a public place such as a public toilet or back-lane."

Was he saying that we should keep 377A because we need it to deal with pedophiles and people who have sex in public? Then you wouldn't pledge so vehemently that 377A will not be actively enforced, would you?

The answer is so simple: you have other laws to deal with fact situations like these - laws that don't give a damn about whether the offenders are straight or gay. Please see Alex Au's article: Why Section 377A is redundant. There is nothing that 377A can do that those other laws can't.

What have we come to, when a non-lawyer like Alex Au has to teach the Senior Minister of State for Law about the law?

I don't mean to bash the Minister. Obviously he would have known better than to say something as ridiculous as that. But this is what happens when one takes a defensive approach and tries to rebut arguments that cannot be rebutted. He should have just spoken his mind and told us all the true reason behind his desire to keep 377A.

Update: apparently, Mr Hri Kumar said in his speech:

Sir, through a 15-year period – 1988 to 2003 – there were only 8 convictions under Section 377A involving 7 incidents. Two convictions were for the same incident.

While I applaud Mr Hri Kumar's pro-repeal stance, I would like to state for the record that his numbers aren't accurate anymore. Mr Kumar, being a lawyer, must have gotten his information from Lynette Chua's article that was published in a local law journal in 2003. But official figures released recently by the Ministry for Home Affairs and some research by a blogger indicate that the numbers are much higher.

A Bleak Future?

2007-10-22T19:29:00.000+08:00

Balaji Sadasivan on 377A:

"We need a diversity of skills and views in our society so that we can respond to the changing environment in an effective manner," he said.
.
"As a society, it is better to deal with an issue when we can get enough Singaporeans to believe in tolerance and respect, by that I mean the spirit of tolerance and respect ... Then, we can have a meaningful dialogue."

I'd like to ask Dr Balaji how he intends to achieve a "diversity of skills and views in our society". Is it by retaining laws that stifle diversity?

I'd also like to ask how the Government (being a paternalistic one) is going to help Singaporeans get to the point where enough of us believe in tolerance and respect.

Is Singapore going to reach that point by banning gay movies and obliterating gay characters on TV serials? By preventing academics from speaking about issues of tolerance and respect that most Singaporeans remain clueless about? When are we going to start teaching people what equality and non-discrimination really mean? Or is national education forever going to be about how lousy we once were and how great we are now, just because we seem to have some superficial racial and religious harmony?

And for how long more are we going to pretend that "there is no discrimination of gays in the civil service?" One really doesn't have to look back more than a year to find at least one highly publicised instance.

Should we keep 377A just because "there is no entrapment of gays"? Sure, the last known entrapment case was in 1998. But shouldn't we learn lessons from observing the past? What's to stop entrapment from happening all over again? Shouldn't we do something to prevent history from repeating itself?

The last racial riots in Singapore were in 1969 - almost 40 years ago. Yet we still have legislation in place to prevent history from repeating itself, don't we?

We continuously teach our youth the value of religious tolerance. But what happens when religious freedom is abused by a particular religion to push their own agenda? What happens when the religious, whom we have been so careful to protect, turn their backs on us by decrying the very values of justice and equality that our nation is founded upon? What happens when they honestly believe that Singapore should be governed by God's Law, and that equality is a lie? What happens when the religious threaten our secular fabric - who should prevail?

Whatever happened to "community above self"? Does it merely mean "religious group above self"? Does it not mean "Singapore above religious group above self"?

What if we don't stop them early enough, and they continue to buy up shopping centres and make money from the rest of us so they can continue pushing their agenda? What if they become economic giants that the Government has to pander to? Are we already somewhere near that situation?

What if they enter the political arena in sufficiently large numbers as to be able to impose God's Law upon us all? Has that day already come?

Will our Government step in to protect us from those who have become so powerful thanks to the protection we have been according them all along?

Repeal 377A, Singapore!

2007-10-12T00:20:00.000+08:00

Click here to find out how you can make a difference.

The New Sexual Grooming Law - Part 2

2007-10-08T20:12:00.000+08:00

(This is Part 2 of 'The New Sexual Grooming Law'. Click here to read Part 1.)

Penalties and Practice
A person who is guilty of the new offence may be punished with imprisonment for up to 3 years, or with fine, or with both. Where the sexual offence that the accused intended to commit with the minor carries a lesser penalty, punishment under the new offence, which is essentially an ‘inchoate’ offence, may be more severe than under the intended sexual offence. Thus, an accused who meets a groomed minor with the intention of outraging her modesty but is arrested before doing so may be jailed for up to 3 years, although the maximum penalty for outrage of modesty itself is only 2 years.¹

In practice, however, an accused who actually does outrage the modesty of a groomed minor is likely to be charged with the offences of both outrage of modesty as well as sexual grooming, attracting a penalty of up to 5 years’ imprisonment. Thus, while the new provision is an offence in its own right, it also operates as a sort of ‘aggravating factor’ in the sense that where a sexual offence is committed with a minor, the fact that the minor has been groomed has the effect of increasing the maximum penalty by 3 years.

This is the way in which a similar offence in the United Kingdom has primarily been used. In most reported cases, the offender is charged with an actual sexual offence as well as the grooming offence.² Should things turn out the same way in Singapore, the new offence will be inconsequential in practice, since courts here already recognise that internet grooming can be an ‘aggravating factor’ that enhances a sentence.³

Still, the new offence will be useful in cases when there is enough evidence to show that an accused intends to commit a sexual offence following grooming. In such cases, being able to prevent the sexual offence from occurring will be of immeasurable worth to the minor. Cases in which sufficient evidence is available may be rare, but as Mr. Siew Kum Hong points out, “online predators will now have to think twice, because even though it is difficult to prove, it’s not impossible.”

The Way Forward
Deterrence alone, however, is unlikely to solve the problem entirely. Parents and educators must also play their part by warning minors of the risks posed to them by the Internet. Public education will also be useful in helping parents identify early warning signs, so that potential crimes can be prevented before it is too late.

One innovative step that has been taken in the United Kingdom is to provide a telephone helpline not only for adults who suspect that a particular child is being groomed, but also for those who have thought or are thinking about committing sexual offences with minors. The potential offender who calls is then counselled by trained staff who will advise him on how to prevent himself from committing an offence. The service has been largely successful so far, averaging over 120 calls per month, with 45% of those being from potential offenders.⁴

The implementation of a similar service as well as other non-legal measures could likewise go a long way towards protecting minors from sexual abuse here. The new anti-grooming offence may thus be little more than a first step, although it certainly is one in the right direction.

References
¹ A very rough check indicates that this odd situation does not arise in the context of the English offence that ours is based on. In England the grooming offence carries a maximum penalty of 10 years, while most of the 'relevant offences' seem to carry penalties of between 10 and 14 years. Could this be a case of Singapore "copying blindly"?
² Samantha Craven, Sarah Brown & Elizabeth Gilchrist, "Current Responses to Sexual Grooming: Implication for Prevention" (2007) 46(1) How. J. Crim. Justice 60 (“Between the legislation coming into force in May 2004 and 15 July 2005, BBC News Online have reported eight cases where an offender has been charged for ‘meeting a child following sexual grooming’; ... and seven of the offenders were also charged with a ‘hands on’ offence. Despite this being a crude analysis, and not guaranteed to include all cases, the newness of legislation and media focus on it, is likely to mean that it gives a good basic summary of how the legislation has been used” at 68). For cases where offenders were charged with both grooming as well as a sex offence, see R. v. Gray, [2007] EWCA Crim 1411; R. v. N.H., [2007] EWCA Crim 1257; R. v. Wilson, [2007] 2 Cr. App. R. (S.) 58; Attorney General's Reference No. 134 of 2006 (Adam Bennett), [2007] 2 Cr. App. R. (S.) 54; R. v. Walker, [2007] EWCA Crim 68; R. v. Costi, [2006] EWCA Crim 3152; R. v. Wilson, [2006] EWCA Crim 505; R. v. Tomlinson, [2005] EWCA Crim 2681; R. v. Mansfield, [2005] EWCA Crim 927. For cases where the charge was only for grooming, see R. v. Oakes, [2007] WL 1623292; R. v. Hall, [2007] 2 Cr. App. R. (S.) 42; R. v. Mohammed Raza (2006), [2007] 1 Cr. App. R. (S.) 16; Attorney-General's Reference No. 3 of 2006, [2006] EWCA Crim 695.
³ Tay Kim Kuan v. Public Prosecutor, [2001] 3 Sing. L.R. 567 (H.C) (“a deterrent sentence was necessitated in the present case in order to serve as a stern warning to like-minded men who seek to use the medium of the internet to gain, falsely, the trust of young immature girls and thereafter to sexually exploit them” ¶ 18). But see Annis bin Abdullah v. Public Prosecutor, [2004] 2 Sing. L.R. 93 (H.C.) (“while the courts will generally consider imposing a deterrent sentence where the initial contact between a sex offender and a victim is via the Internet, each case must be determined on its own facts. There may well be cases where the court may decide that a deterrent sentence is not appropriate, such as where the link between the Internet contact and the offence is overly remote” ¶ 71).
⁴ Hilary Eldridge et al., Stop it Now! Helpline Report 2002-2005 at 2, 11.

The New Sexual Grooming Law - Part 1

2007-10-06T14:22:00.000+08:00

(This is Part 1 of 'The New Sexual Grooming Law'. Click here to read Part 2.)

Background
The recently introduced Penal Code (Amendment) Bill, if passed, will create a new offence of “Sexual grooming of minor under 16”.¹ Modelled after an existing English provision, the new offence is targeted at sexual predators who prowl Internet chat rooms in the hope of procuring minors for sexual activity. The relevant parts are:

Sexual grooming of minor under 16
376E.–(1) Any person of or above the age of 21 years (A) shall be guilty of an offence if having met or communicated with another person (B) on 2 or more previous occasions –
(a) A intentionally meets B or travels with the intention of meeting B; and
(b) at the time of the acts referred to in paragraph (a) –
(i) A intends to do anything to or in respect of B, during or after the meeting, which if done will involve the commission by A of a relevant offence;
(ii) B is under 16 years of age; and
(iii) A does not reasonably believe that B is of or above the age of 16 years.
…
(4) A person who is guilty of an offence under this section shall be punished with imprisonment for a term which may extend to 3 years, or with fine, or with both.

A person above 21 years of age commits this offence if, while harbouring the intention to commit a sexual offence² with a minor, he intentionally meets or travels with the intention of meeting the minor. The accused must also have met or communicated with the minor on at least two prior occasions.³

In recent days, the new offence has received much criticism from bloggers (here, here) and news editors⁴. Some have been alleged that the new offence is a “thought crime”. Some say it is thus too easy to prove, while others charge that proving the “thought” is so difficult that this offence will be virtually useless. An analysis of the conduct and mental requirements of the new offence against the backdrop of general criminal law principles will show that these allegations are unfounded.

Theory
Before we engage in that analysis, I should explain what is meant by ‘conduct’ and ‘mental’ requirements. Crimes in general consist of two elements: conduct and mental state. Let’s take murder as an example. An accused who has caused the death of the victim by stabbing him (the conduct) while intending to kill the victim (the mental state), will be guilty of the crime of murder.

Crimes that have no conduct requirement at all are dangerous because the result is that people will be punished for thoughts alone. At some point in our lives many of us will have thought of strangling someone, but that thought alone does not make us all murderers. Similarly, a crime that has no requirement of a mental state is also dangerous. Let’s take as an example a doctor who operates on a patient. If the patient dies during the operation through no fault of the doctor, we would not call the doctor a murderer.

Thus it is imperative that every crime have balanced requirements in terms of conduct and mental state. These two must, if you will, be in ‘equilibrium’. If we lower the conduct requirement, we must increase the mental requirement, and vice versa.

An attempt provision
Now that we have that theory, we can return to our new sexual grooming offence. The new offence is effectively a more detailed ‘attempt’ provision, where the ‘attempted offence’ is the sexual offence that the accused intended to commit upon meeting the minor. The Penal Code in its present form already contains a provision that criminalizes attempts in general. Section 511 says:

Punishment for attempting to commit offences.
511. Whoever attempts to commit an offence punishable by this Code or by any other written law with imprisonment or fine or with a combination of such punishments, or attempts to cause such an offence to be committed, and in such attempt does any act towards the commission of the offence, shall, where no express provision is made by this Code or by such other written law, as the case may be, for the punishment of such attempt, be punished with such punishment as is provided for the offence:

Provided that any term of imprisonment imposed shall not exceed one-half of the longest term provided for the offence.

Thus it is possible to read most of the Penal Code offences “with” section 511, so that the attempt becomes criminal as well. For example, reading the existing rape provision (section 375) with section 511 gives you “attempted rape”.

Comparing the new offence of sexual grooming with what is already available under section 511 will reveal some insights. Let’s begin.

Conduct Requirements
In terms of conduct, the new offence requires an accused to either have met or travelled to meet the minor. He must also have either met or communicated with the minor on at least two prior occasions.

By contrast, section 511 as interpreted by Yong Pung How CJ in Chua Kian Kok v. Public Prosecutor⁵ requires the offender to have “embarked on the crime proper”⁶. The commission of an act will not satisfy this test merely by being part of a “series of acts which would culminate in the commission of the offence if uninterrupted”⁷. An act must be sufficiently late in this series before it can be said that the offender has “embarked on the crime proper”. However, the offender need not have gone so far as to have “crossed the Rubicon and burnt his boats”⁸.

As an example, Yong CJ said it would be “fairly absurd” for a person who intends to steal from another but merely starts walking towards the victim’s house to have thereby fulfilled the conduct requirements of section 511.⁹ This example suggests also that merely travelling to meet a minor, as envisaged by the new sexual grooming offence, would never have fulfilled the conduct requirements of section 511.

Mental Requirements
Since the conduct requirement of the new offence is looser than that of section 511, one would expect the mental requirements to be tighter (remember our theory earlier?). It was held in Chua Kian Kok that section 511 requires the accused to have “intended to commit” the principal offence.¹⁰ At first glance, the new offence appears to require the same mental state in that it requires proof that the accused intended to commit a sexual offence with the minor.

However, proving ‘intention’ in the new offence is likely to be more difficult than under section 511, due to the reduced conduct requirements of the new offence. It will be hard to prove that an accused who merely met or travelled to meet a minor intended also to commit a sexual offence.

Contrast this with an accused who meets the conduct requirements of section 511 by cornering the minor and attempting to remove her clothes, for example. In such a case, the conduct alone will be a strong indication that the accused intended to commit a sexual offence.

Consequently, a great deal more than just the conduct requirements must be proved in order to convince a judge that the mental requirements are satisfied in the new offence. Evidence that may be helpful in proving intention in the new offence will include telephone calls and text messages of a suggestive nature as well as the presence of pornography, condoms or lubricant on the accused when he met or travelled to meet the minor.¹¹

Conclusion
It should be clear by now that the criticisms I referred to earlier are unfounded. The new offence has conduct requirements, and thus it is incapable of being labelled a mere “thought crime”.

It also should not be alleged that the new offence is too difficult to prove. By lowering the conduct requirements, we have attempted to solve a social problem by making it easier to charge people before serious damage has been done. However, the qualification to this must be that we are absolutely sure that these people intended to commit sexual crimes with the minor, and thus we have raised the mental requirements.

So, I don’t think this new offence is as bad an idea as people seem to think it is.

Click here to read Part 2 of this article.

Read more about the new offence:

Sexual Grooming - transcript of a radio interview with Mr. Siew Kum Hong, among others.
Internet Crimes - by Mr. Siew Kum Hong.
What Tom Cruise Can Teach Singapore About The Law - by CreativeSpark.
Agagooga on the new sexual grooming law.
Seuxal Grooming: A crime or not? - an article written by Thomas Koshy for TODAY (24 May 2007).
Sexual Grooming - by Andre Yeo, for The Electric New Paper (10 October 2007).
Pizzalord: "the proposed changes to the Penal Code will definitely be a step in the right direction, allowing authorities to step in into such matters early, and be able to avert the otherwise imminent disaster. Especially since typically once the teenager is conned, their pride will get in the way of reporting such cases to the police, these changes will be all the more useful in catching sex offenders, since they will have the capability to arrest the criminals before the fragile egos of the victims are affected."

References
¹ The new s. 376E, introduced by clause 68 of the Penal Code (Amendment) Bill (No. 38 of 2007, Sing.). See page 30 of the Bill.
² The offence he intends to commit may be outrage of modesty (Penal Code (Cap. 224, 1985 Rev. Ed. Sing.), ss. 354, 354A), rape (s. 375), sexual penetration (ss. 376, 376A), procuring commercial sex (s. 376B), sexual activity with a mentally-disabled person (s. 376F), incest (s. 376G), gross indecency (s. 377A), sexual exploitation of child or young person (Children and Young Persons Act (Cap. 38, 2001 Rev. Ed. Sing.), s. 7) or a prostitution-related offence (Women’s Charter (Cap. 353, 1997 Rev. Ed. Sing.), s. 140).
³ These prior meetings need not have taken place within Singapore (s. 376E(3)). Thus, a person who travels to Singapore hoping to engage in sexual activity with a “groomed” minor is equally liable for this offence (see the Explanatory Statement to the new s. 376E, at page 174 of the Bill).
⁴ Andy Ho, “Anti-grooming law needs tweak to plug loopholes” The Straits Times (29 September 2007).
⁵ [1999] 2 Sing. L.R. 542 (H.C.) [Chua Kian Kok].
⁶ [1999] 2 Sing. L.R. 542 ¶ 36.
⁷ [1999] 2 Sing. L.R. 542 ¶ 34.
⁸ [1999] 2 Sing. L.R. 542 ¶ 35.
⁹ [1999] 2 Sing. L.R. 542 ¶ 34.
¹⁰ [1999] 2 Sing. L.R. 542 ¶ 31.
¹¹ On problems of evidence, see Samantha Craven, Sarah Brown & Elizabeth Gilchrist, "Current Responses to Sexual Grooming: Implication for Prevention" (2007) 46(1) How. J. Crim. Justice 60 at 64-65. I do not agree, however, that many of the "problems" they point to are really "problems", at least in the Singapore context. Some of the "problems" they cite may be solved by existing provisions in the Penal Code (eg. when one person grooms a child for someone else to sexually abuse, s. 37 would kick in). Other "problems" they cite ought to exist, because they raise the difficulty of proving the requisite mental state, as we have noted earlier. Essentially one has to remember that it is not so much the "grooming" that has to be proved but the intention to commit a sexual offence. Proof of the two may overlap significantly but it must be remembered that proof of one does not dictate proof of the other.

If you have questions or alternative views, do post a comment.

Free Burma.

2007-10-04T00:00:00.000+08:00

Adults Banned in Botanic Gardens

2007-10-01T20:16:00.000+08:00

Today the National Parks Board celebrated Children’s Day with the launch of Asia’s first children’s garden. Called the Jacob Ballas Children's Garden, it aims to provide a place for children to play, explore and have fun in. Some words from the press release:

"It is created as a unique and interactive garden where children up to 12 years of age can discover that plants are wonderful and provide for their daily needs. This is the first time that the Botanic Gardens has created facilities specially for young visitors as part of its redevelopment masterplan."

So, in between lectures, two friends and I decided to check out this new garden.

When they say "children up to 12 years", and "specially for young visitors", they really mean it. You can't enter this garden if you're above 12, unless you're accompanying your child. There's a sign outside that says so.

I couldn't understand how I, a 7%-GST-paying citizen, could be denied access to this public park that is maintained on public funds, so we all sauntered in when the security guard wasn't looking. We checked out the water features, a see-saw that is so big and heavy that a child would have a hard time trying to get onto it, and a maze that was pretty fun to navigate through.

We were admiring a waterfall on our way to the suspension bridge when a park warden realised we weren't under 12 and asked us to get out. His explanation for chasing us out: "Children are more comfortable with the people they're familiar with."

That would mean, of course, that if two families, who have never met before, appear at the garden at the same time, only one family should be allowed to enter, since the children of the other family probably won't be familiar with the parents in the family that entered.

And it also means that on a working day (which is most days) and during working hours (which is most hours), since no parents will be able to accompany their children to the garden, and no adults may enter without children to accompany them, this 7-million-dollar garden is likely to be very, very empty.

So much for a "redevelopment masterplan".

Anyway, here's some photos for those who may never get to see the inside of this forbidden garden:

The entrance stone.

A cafe near the entrance. Look how small the chairs are.

Sculpture near the entrance that is full of little figurines.

A 'learn about photosynthesis' thing.

A hut that was just tall enough.

A puzzle thingy - you rotate the cubes until they form the image of an insect.

The waterfall we saw just before being chased out.

Read more:

Asia's First Children's Garden Opens - media release from NParks
Singapore Botanic Gardens to get new attractions - ChannelNewsAsia report
The Secret Garden - Straits Times video report
Asia's first garden for children opens here - Straits Times report