DISCLAIMER: This post is merely a casual discussion and opinion in relation to free speech in Singapore, in light of the recent arrest of 17 year old Amos Yee. It is not meant to be a political critique whatsoever.
Mother of teen arrested for insensitive remarks on Christianity in video, says son is beyond control
First off, a little context
At the center of this recent saga in Singapore, is 17 year old Amos Yee. He uploaded a video on his YouTube channel, rejoicing over the death of Lee Kuan Yew, in the midst of the country's mourning. The video has since been removed, but according to my recollection, he started out proclaiming: "F*** yeah, Lee Kuan Yew is finally dead", or something to that effect.
Some of you would recognise that this isn't Amos Yee's first brush with "fame"; he previously dabbled in acting as a 14 year old (read this for more background info), and criticised the movie's "confusing" scenes at a press conference. In addition, he also won a Best Actor, and a Best Short Film award at The New Paper's FiRST Film Fest for his film entry. He also mocked the celebration of Chinese New Year in a YouTube video, which I believe is still on his channel.
And yes, he was raised in Singapore, despite the (faux) American accent which he apparently picked up from watching American TV series (LOL).
So what exactly did Amos Yee say in the most recent video?
- Made disrespectful comments with regards to the death of Lee Kuan Yew, and asked why nobody else was celebrating his demise.
- Claimed that LKY is actually a dictator who has fooled everyone into thinking that SG is a democratic country, by giving them the power to vote, but using propaganda to achieve his goals.
- Put forward the reasoning that Singaporeans avoid saying anything remotely bad about the People's Action Party (PAP, ruling party in SG), as they are in fear of being sued. He also made the statement that if the Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong wished to sue him, he would oblige, and "dance" with him.
- Drew analogies between Jesus and Lee Kuan Yew, proclaiming that they are both power-hungry people who have fooled their followers who lack sound logic, into thinking they are benevolent)
Amos Yee also reportedly posted a photo of LKY "buttfucking" Margaret Thatcher on his blog, which has since been made private. #muchclass
Amos Yee Le Brat
We see in Amos Yee, an intelligent and eloquent child, with a flair for drawing attention to himself through various controversial stunts on the internet. He is an unapologetically rebellious and complex individual, and I do feel some sympathy for the arrogant, but lonely child who wrote this blog post. He does stand out amongst his peers; most Singaporean students I have encountered generally follow the rules, and hardly go against the flow. He is interesting, but unfortunately, also quite unlikeable. His extreme diva-ness is apparent in the eyebrow-raising comments he made at the press conference for the movie he had a small role in, and we all know that being labelled a "diva" is euphemism for being a brat.
He comes across as extremely self-entitled, and unappreciative of the prosperity that Singaporeans now enjoy, thanks to LKY's decades of hard work, but aren't we all, to various different extents, as a collective bunch of the younger SG generation?
Daring or stupid? True or not?
Amos Yee is intelligent and brave, but perhaps not very smart, as some have argued, for publishing this video during such a sensitive period. Given all the flaming he had previously encountered from past experiences, he must have anticipated, and perhaps even looked forward to a massive public backlash, after insulting the widely revered LKY, so quickly after his death. Nasty comments were floating around all over social media, with one comment even saying "If he were my son, I would strangle him at birth" (which in my opinion, was totally uncalled for). What he probably might not have expected, was getting arrested and charged for it.
One key question that I have been grappling with for the past few days, is whether Amos Yee's YouTube rant, spoke the truth. One might point out that his arrest further supports his point that there is a well-founded fear of getting into legal troubles, when openly criticising the PAP. If Amos's goal was to validate that claim, then I guess he just achieved it.
Ignoring all the irritating and jarring vulgarities being spewed throughout the video, Amos's statements about the general unhappiness and misery of Singaporeans, coupled with or perhaps caused by long working hours and the pursuit of paper qualifications or good academic grades, in fact do have some merit to them. I recall all the overwhelming stress that my peers and I encountered constantly back in school, and the depression that set in whenever I scored badly. There was such a scramble to get into the "top class" every time streaming occurred. In contrast, I have heard from some Australians that students are told in school, that it's alright even if they're not academically brilliant; there are alternative career pathways they can pursue i.e. take on an apprenticeship and become a tradesman, which they can earn a pretty comfortable living from. In Singapore, no one tells you explicitly (didn't happen to me, at least) that you've got a dimmer future because you aren't scoring those A1s and A2s, but that, sadly, seems to be the general consensus. On the other hand, I also believe that such competitiveness does bring out the best in majority of students, as it make students work harder. (We've all heard people criticize the Singapore education system, and oh well, to each his own, I will not debate that today.)
On the other hand, I snorted at Amos Yee's point on Singapore's exceedingly "high" tax rates, in conjunction with low welfare expenditure (this I am inclined to agree with). Countries like Australia and the UK provide their citizens with extremely affordable, if not, in most circumstances, free healthcare, in exchange for high tax returns (up to approx 40% income tax in Aus, as opposed to approx 20% in SG). I do feel that more could be done to ensure better welfare for the needy, and in particular, the elderly (everyone focuses their attention on cute innocent kids, but sometimes neglect the old). I'm glad that we're moving towards that, with the recent subsidies for elderly healthcare (I must admit I am not particularly well-informed in that area), but constant improvement is always good. They say that "Once you go welfare, you never go back". It seems that there has been a recent Medicare proposal in Aus, to increase consultation fees to $7 (in light of the $44.5 billion deficit) , a move which has been consistently opposed. (Come on guys, going to a polyclinic in Singapore costs at least $30? And seeing a specialist is almost 10 times of that amount!). I had a chat with a friendly Dandenong Airport Bus Driver the other day, and he was lamenting about the long waiting list for operations. Apparently it takes approximately 2 or 3 years, at least. I guess there is a drawback to everything.
Why was Amos Yee arrested and charged?
Back when blogger Roy Ngerng was sued by Prime Minster Lee Hsien Loong, for defamation, I was initially gobsmacked at the news, but did see the reasoning behind it (although I still find the idea of a PM suing a citizen a bit hard to swallow). Upon hearing about Amos Yee's arrest, I cringed at the overreaction of many Singaporeans (over 20 police reports were reportedly made with regards to his offensive video), and people widely predicted that he had just "earned his ticket to Changi Prison".
Amos Yee is a Dick with a capital D. But given that being a dick has not been criminalized, what was Amos Yee charged under? Multiple offences it seems, notably section 289 of the Penal Code for "deliberate intention of wounding the religious/racial feelings of any person" (okay, yes, no doubt about that); and s 4(1)(b) of the Protection from Harrassment Act, because his video "contained remarks about Mr Lee Kuan Yew which was intended to be heard and seen by persons likely to be distressed" by the clip (okay?). Source: Channel News Asia
The Protection from Harassment Act commenced on 15th November 2014, to "protect persons against harassment and unlawful stalking and to create offences, and provide civil remedies related thereto or in relation to false statements of fact, and to make consequential amendments to other written laws".
So just a little background about this Act - it was recently used by Singaporean blogger Wendy Cheng aka Xiaxue, against SMRT Ltd (Feedback). Fyi, SMRT Ltd is an anonymous online troll page rather than an actual social media platform run by the SMRT corporation (leading public transport company in Singapore). I do appreciate some of their jokes. Anyway, you can read more about it here. Another blogger, Grace Tan, has since apparently followed suit, and sought a protection order against Xiaxue for cyber bullying.
According to my recollection, Amos Yee, in his video rant, pointed out LKY's mistreatment of his political opponents, an open fact which LKY has acknowledged and proclaimed as necessary for Singapore's survival, back in the old days. Singapore was a small country (still is), vulnerable to external forces such as Communism, and also internal conflict. I've heard some people describe this as an "open secret"; oh hell no, it's hardly a secret. All informed persons would have heard about the imprisonment of opposition figures; whether you agree/disagree with it is a distinct matter. Amos Yee also brought up the PAP's penchant for suing people who put forward political dissent, in particular Lee Hsien Loong's lawsuit with Roy Ngerng, which might have made international headlines.
Now back to the court statements about the video containing remarks about LKY, "intended to be heard and seen by persons likely to be distressed" by it. Clearly, Amos's nasty remarks and celebration of LKY's death was plain mean, nasty and malicious, and the same goes for the obscene images he distributed on his blog. In regular situations, I would interpret "persons likely to be distressed" as the late persons' family members and friends, who would understandably feel hurt by such insulting remarks. In this case, however, LKY's death is a national matter, and majority of the country is mourning the loss of Singapore's founding prime minister. Therefore, "persons likely to be distressed" seems here to be the general public, as represented/manifested in the people who felt the need to make police reports against Amos Yee. This might even cover the Christians in Singapore, whom he labelled fools with "no sound logic".
Love him or hate him, you cannot deny LKY's contributions to Singapore. He is a fundamental figure in SG history, and it is likely that SG might not have come so far without his leadership. It is a pity that Amos Yee cannot appreciate LKY's efforts in building a better Singapore, but the truth is, everyone is entitled to their own opinion. Which brings me to my next point.
To what extent should we honour the right to free speech?
In my opinion, absolute free speech should never be permissible. Some people say that you are always free to say whatever you want, but you are not free from the consequences, and therefore there cannot be free speech.
While giving his views on the Charlie Hebdo incident, Pope Francis put forward an arguably limited view with regards to free speech, by saing "If my good friend Dr Gasparri says a curse word against my mother, he can expect a punch in the nose,"; "it's normal. You cannot provoke. You cannot insult the faith of others. You cannot make fun of the faith of others."
On the other hand, you can read in this article how David Cameron suggested "I think in a free society, there is a right to cause offence about someone's religion". I am inclined to agree that this is the ideology that society should work towards achieving.
While most Western countries regard free speech as a fundamental aspect of basic human rights, it is not a secret that in the past, and even present, Asian countries typically place economic progress before the protection and promotion of human rights. We have our own Singaporean example from criticisms of LKY's rule as an "authoritarian", about how he ruled with an "iron clad fist". From a logical viewpoint, this makes practical sense. Prima facie, I agree that it might have been the most convenient and effective way to run the country in the past. Having said that, we must note that the times are now different; Singapore has been a first world country for a while now. Adaptation must take place, in order for progress to occur.
Did Amos Yee's video fall within the limits of responsible free speech?
That being said, we must adopt a practical approach to the acceptance of "free" speech, and put in place the appropriate limits. The issue here is - Did Amos Yee's video fall within the limits of responsible free speech?
There are 2 major limbs to his video - 1) him insulting the late LKY, and 2) mocking Christians.
I must say, that Amos Yee's video really did rile me up at some points, mainly due to his over-egoistic display and general haughtiness. It's hard not to dislike this boy. But as I pry through the overbearing and unlikeable presentation, and focus on the content of his arguments (minus the vulgarities of course), besides the mocking of Christianity, I found it hard to pinpoint any strong reasons to support an arrest.
It seems to me that Amos Yee merely published sentiments which a substantial number of people share (but probably would never dare to publish in this manner). As a renowned international figure, LKY, a brilliant and successful politician has never been a stranger to controversy. In fact, no politicians are shielded from public critique; no one gets a get-out-of-public-scrutiny card, even if they can obviously produce great results. It puzzles me why one would make a fuss out of such critique. Yes, it was rude and obnoxious, but minus all the swear words and smugness, it's stuff we've heard before, packaged in different writing and vocal styles, etc. Unlike Roy Ngerng, who vehemently suggested that the PAP was misappropriating Central Provident Funds, and attempted to use empirical evidence to prove it, Amos Yee stated that it was "suspicious" how the PAP would sue anyone who dared question their integrity.
As a non-Christian, I was not personally offended by the anti-Christianity segment of his video. Likewise, these are issues that have been raised by atheists, and even comedians (who make it funny for us, but obviously not to religious folks). At first instance, even though it does seem tenacious to persecute, and in this case, even prosecute him for questioning religion, I do appreciate that Singapore is a multi-cultural society susceptible to major instability, should the different races and religions come into conflict with one another. There have been major racial riots in the past, which perhaps contributed to our strict stance against such offensive remarks. His video would therefore be potentially seditious (whether it is conclusively seditious will depend on the court ruling). That arguably would be the practical approach towards free speech regarding religion, in the context of Singapore.
So I guess, ultimately, I do think that Amos Yee's arrest was reasonable according to the law. Whether I think the law should be such, is a different matter. As mentioned earlier, I do feel that society should move towards the ideology of free speech, although with each country at their own paces, and with the appropriate limits set in place.
Conclusion
After much pondering, I have concluded that the most problematic part of the Amos Yee saga, was the way he chose to voice his opinions, and the manner in which he delivered them. It probably doesn't matter that he's merely repeating what some others have voiced, the point is that he did so in a way that would rile up and upset certain people in the community. Perhaps they will argue in court that he intended to cause offence to, and potentially sow discord and disharmony amongst Singaporeans, or something to that effect. I am not sure.
In all, we have here an intelligent boy who was not very smart in timing the release of his video. He obviously did so while people were emotional about the passing of LKY, maybe for maximum publicity (bad publicity is still publicity, right?), and his demeanour throughout the whole video and saga was just deplorable. Is Amos Yee brave? Probably, but being "brave" isn't always a good thing. While I advocate for responsible free speech, his video does not meet the legal threshold of acceptable "free speech" in Singapore, simply because of the way he spoke about such sensitive issues. Rather than seizing the opportunity to put forward well-founded claims and valid points for discussion, he came across as an obnoxious, rude and ill-informed kid, although ultimately, we must acknowledge that he is a 17 year old boy. And wait, didn't I mention earlier that being a dick isn't a crime?
I'm sure we all made mistakes in our youth. Maybe they didn't snowball to that effect; maybe someone "saved" us before things got that bad. But I feel that us Singaporeans should have a lot more empathy and forgiveness in our hearts. I understand that it is an emotional period where many people are grieving over the death of LKY, but once we have calmed down, and stopped our raging over the audacity of this kiddo, perhaps we may come to realise that it really wasn't that bad after all.
Amos Yee's pre-trial conference will be held on April 17th. I will definitely be tuning in to the relevant updates.
No comments:
Post a Comment