The Sedition Act and Anton Casey?

I am responding to a request by my reader Ronald Seah (thanks for bringing this to my attention Ron) to look at this story on TRS. "Police did not arrest Anton Casey for Sedition because he is a foreign talent?" Now I read the post on TRS and I didn't know whether to laugh at how stupid the writer was or to despair at how low TRS has sunk. I know the people behind TRS have a difficult balancing act: if Singaporeans are genuinely unhappy with a situation, they have to try their best to reflect that situation but what if it means giving the subaltern a voice rather than only running article written by obviously well-educated writers who are articulate? Oh gosh, this brings me right back to that module I had in university about Indian philosopher Gayatri Spivak about trying to capture the voice of the subaltern.

Singaporeans: your PM's stance on foreigners is clear. 

In case I get too erudite in my approach, let me tell you a story from my primary school days. There was this rather irritating girl in my class, let's call her Karen (not her real name). She hated her personal space being invaded and you know how in primary school, the desks are put side to side so the students are sitting in extremely close to each other. Should your hand accidentally stray a little bit into Karen's "territory", she would scream, "Teacher! S/he put his hand on my side of the table!" Or if your bag or book were to stray across this imaginary line, she would scream just as loudly - she didn't care whom or what she interrupted, her personal space was being invaded.

So there was this one day when her classmate's hand accidentally brushed against her worksheet. Now let me explain: these are worksheets that have been freshly photocopied by the teacher, brought into the classroom at the beginning of the lesson and handed out by the teacher to the students. Every single worksheet was identical, all with that fresh smell of photocopy ink. Karen screamed, "Teacher! He touch my worksheet!" The teacher was in the middle of a lesson and was already pretty flustered that day, so what did the teacher do? She picked up Karen's worksheet and inspected it carefully. Then gave the worksheet to the boy sitting next to Karen and simply said, "pass it to the person next to you." The boy did so and the teacher repeated her instruction in a calm voice. "Pass it on". The worksheet was then passed from student to student, around the entire classroom until everyone had touched it. When it finally made its way back to the person sitting next to Karen, the teacher said in an equally calm voice, "now please give that worksheet back to Karen."  Karen was left speechless as that was not what she was expecting - she had expected the teacher to do exactly what she wanted: which was to punish the boy for (accidentally) touching her worksheet.

Did my teacher do the right thing to teach Karen a lesson?

Maybe this teacher's reaction would shock some of you who may protest, "what if this child had some irrational fear will get traumatized by everyone touching her worksheet?" But this was 1983 if I may remind you (yes I am that old) and teachers were very different in those days. My opinion is that the teacher did the right thing - Karen was never going to go through life like this, kicking up a big fuss every time someone accidentally invaded her personal space. Mind you, we're not even talking about physical contact with any part of her body - just accidentally brushing against her chair or table would send her into a hysterical frenzy. The other classmates were just scared of her (everyone avoided her) and perhaps the teacher was trying to knock some sense into her. In 2014, the child would have been given some kind of medical condition (I'm sure the shrinks will invent some term to describe her condition) and be told she needs expensive sessions of therapy but back in 1983, Singapore was a very different place.

Now this person who is demanding that the police arrest Anton Casey for sedition is behaving just like Karen. This person is personally offended by the actions of Anton Casey (the same way Karen took grave offence when her classmate accidentally brushed his hand against her worksheet). Sure, no one is disputing that what Anton Casey said was offensive and it is clear that it was a serious lapse of judgement on his part. But is it criminal? Does it warrant police intervention under the sedition act? Is there a danger to society if he is not arrested at once?

Has Anton Casey committed any crime? Is he a criminal? No.

The simple answer is no, it isn't. Let's look at what the sedition act involves: Singapore's Sedition Act (Chapter 290) Section 3 (1) as: A seditious tendency is a tendency — (d) to raise discontent or disaffection amongst the citizens of Singapore or the residents in Singapore; (e) to promote feelings of ill-will and hostility between different races or classes of the population of Singapore.

Now how should this be interpreted? Could it be applied in any case where one party has taken personal offence as a result of the words or action of another? Is it therefore a criminal offence to do/say something that may result in the discontent or disaffection of other citizens in Singapore? Goodness me, if it was interpreted that literally, that there would be thousands of arrests everyday in Singapore whenever someone says or does anything that causes "discontent" or "disaffection", every time some Singaporean has his/her tender feelings hurt.

Surely the courts of Singapore should deal with real crimes rather than petty disputes

Let's look at a case study and see if one could apply this law in cases where someone has been offended by the actions of another: I refer you to the Cosplay under boob incident at Suntec City back in November 2013. So this Singaporean auntie is offended by the sight of under boob at the Cosplay event and decided that it was a good enough to personally 'arrest' the model in question and call the police. Crikey, I wonder how this auntie would react if she went to say Adventure Cove at Sentosa and saw all these tourists (and locals alike) wearing bikinis. Nonetheless, because this auntie chose to take offence at the sight of under boob, can she demand that this model be arrested for causing offence to her? She could claim that she was made to experience 'discontent, disaffection and hostility' (she definitely reacted in a very hostile way to the model) upon the sight of under boob in such a public place - oblivious to the fact that everyone else merely looked the other way if they were uncomfortable with the sight of under boob.

Or can we just be a bit more grown up about this whole thing? Going back to Karen in my primary school, how would I have dealt with the situation? Like Karen, I also have a sense of personal space and I do feel uncomfortable with 'space invaders' who do not respect my sense of personal space. I would however, deal with the situation myself: I would firmly request the person who has invaded my personal space to back off and inform them that I am not happy with them invading my personal space. That should be the end of it - Karen however, refused to deal with the situation herself that way. Instead, she would always scream for help, "Teacher!!!" Oh I have also heard her scream, "Mummy!!!" or "Daddy!!!" if either parent is present. Did her parents not teach her to try to resolve her own conflicts? Clearly not.

When can one rightfully turn to the law for justice?

There is much we can do to try to resolve our own conflicts in real life without screaming, "Teacher!!!"  like Karen. Now whilst I completely condemn and deplore anyone who has made death threats to Anton Casey and his family, at least these people are taking the fight directly to Casey instead of turning to the authorities (albeit in a completely unacceptable manner). What I deplore are the people who are not happy about the situation but expect someone else to solve the problem for them - whose first reaction is to scream, "Teacher!!!"

Let me give you an example: back in my army days, there was this big car park in the middle of camp which was shared by several different units housed in the buildings around the car park. One night, there was a huge storm and the strong winds resulted in a big branch being broken from one of the trees near the car park. The branch was blown into the middle of the car park and there it laid, evidence of the storm from the night before. There was this huge argument that followed. I won't name the individual units here but as the branch was somewhat closer to the building unit A occupied, most people said to them, "you need to clear the branch in the car park from in front of your building." Unit A then pointed out, "the tree the branch is from is in front of unit B, so this should be their responsibility, not ours. The wind just happened to have blown that branch our way." Unit C then said, "I don't care, Unit A or Unit B should clear that branch away by this afternoon as we need the parade square for a rehearsal this afternoon." Units A and B then turned around and say, "you want to use the parade square, you clear then branch away then."

Units A, B and C couldn't agree whose responsibility it was to remove that branch.

This went on for hours, with Units A, B and C arguing over whose responsibility it was to clear the branch when it wasn't really that big a task and if they had agreed to work together, it could have been cleared away and dealt with in a matter of minutes. This isn't a uniquely Singaporean problem of course, but it is clear that whilst the netizens are deeply unhappy with Anton Casey, they have all been looking at someone else (be it the government, the police or other netizens) to solve the problem for them. Hence that is why they are turning to the Sedition Act in this case, as this puts the onus on the police to deal with the situation when really, what Anton Casey said was stupid but not criminal per se.

The fact is, we cannot turn to the police or the government every time someone offends us - even Karen had to learn the hard way that she cannot scream, "Teacher!!!" each time someone offends her. There are of course, occasions when we have every justification to run to the authority, such as when a stranger makes a death threat against us or our family - then there is clear evidence of criminal intent on the part of the person making such a threat. However, the fact that your tender feelings are hurt does not tantamount to a crime has happened. In such a situation, the best thing to do is to react by dealing with the problem personally or simply ignoring it and not allowing the incident to bother you.

What is the right way for Singaporeans to react to the Anton Casey story?

Thus the Singapore police did the right thing by not doing anything in this case for no crime was committed - if Casey's current employers wanted to do something about the situation, then it would be a private matter between Casey and his employers to resolve - this is not trial by social media. As for deporting Mr Casey the same way the Little India rioters or the PRC bus driver strikers were deported, I say, what's the point? The amount of damage done to Singapore's reputation by deporting him would be huge - it would portray Singapore as some kind of North Korean style pariah state, where people can be banished or punished for silly comments made on Facebook. Whilst what Anton Casey said was undoubtedly stupid, banishing him for his actions would be downright ridiculous. He has become a scapegoat for frustrated Singaporeans to vent their anger on and it has turned very ugly indeed.

OK so where does this leave us then? I have been asked how a situation like that would be dealt with in the UK and I have a very good case study which is just hilarious. Now a right wing extremist UKIP councilor (ie. a minor, local elected political representative) David Silvester recently blamed the recent heavy rains and subsequent floods on the British government for having recently passed a new law on Gay Marriage (yup, we're expecting our first gay marriage in March 2014). He claimed that prime minister David Cameron had acted ‘arrogantly against the Gospel’.Now clearly what he said was extremely offensive to many people on so many levels, he was even expelled from UKIP by party leader Nigel Farage (who is well known for his pretty extremist right-wing views) and if you're too barmy, extremist and nasty for someone like Nigel Farage, then you must be really extreme!

Now how has the British public reacted to David Silvester? The reaction has been pretty amazing. First came the Twitter account #UKIPweather which has currently over 109,000 followers and has made headlines. Here's an example of some of the best tweets from #UKIPweather: one said, "Dark clouds are forming over the Midlands following voluntary sexual intercourse between two unmarried persons". Another said, "A lingering look between 2 men at a gym in York has sparked concerns from residents living near the River Ouse." There is also the brilliant spoof UKIP shipping forecast that has gone viral as well. Humour is the best weapon in this case.

It gets better:  "It's Raining Men" by The Weather Girls is a 1982 disco hit which has been a huge gay anthem over the years and there is a currently a campaign to try to get "It's Raining Men" to number one in the UK charts as a reaction to David Silvester's recent comments on the link between gay marriage and weather. According to their Facebook campaign, "For decades now, this song has been used as a gay anthem, we thought it fitted all the better based on UKIP's comments regarding storms and floods being caused by LGBT people and Gay marriage. Let's get 'It's Raining Men' to Number 1 to show the power and community of gay people pulling together is stronger than his idiotic views of us, as well as also celebrating the new laws being passed on equal marriage in the UK very soon.”

It also has emerged in the news yesterday that a petition has began to remove him from his elected position in Oxfordshire. Even our prime minister David Cameron has waded in on the debate and has personally mocked David Silvester, not in a vicious way but as always, with humour. So there you go - sure there have been some angry reactions to David Silvester's homophobic statement, but really, humour has been the response of choice in Britain. Now compare that to the death threats that Anton Casey and his family has received in Singapore. You know what the irony is? Anton Casey got into trouble because he was trying to be funny and failed - so you know the saying, don't quite your day job yet to become a comedian Anton, please leave comedy to the professionals.

So that's my update for today on the issue - this story has been gaining ground in the media in the West, looking at the wider issues of white expats in Asia. My next installment on this ongoing saga would be looking at the reaction on the ground, here in London, to this story. As usual, please leave a comment do let me know what you think, thank you!

Update, part 6: http://limpehft.blogspot.co.uk/2014/01/the-british-reaction-to-anton-casey.html
part 7: http://limpehft.blogspot.co.uk/2014/01/a-very-hollow-victory-for-singaporeans.html

Limpeh, bringing you the story from London