Seditious Tendencies | Libertarian Society Singapore

In a recent conversation between me and a friend of mine, he offhandedly mentioned that it would be nearly impossible for a lone person to challenge the Establishment. Why?
“In Singapore, it’s perfectly okay to think, but not okay to talk about your thoughts, especially if your thoughts are in direct contradiction with the orthodoxy.”
Observe the recent issue which is the arrest of Mr. Yang Kaiheng and his girlfriend Ai Takagi. Why were they arrested? What law did they break?
What does this law imply for Singaporeans?
In accordance with this publication by the Attorney-General Chambers,
(1)  A seditious tendency is a tendency —
(a) to bring into hatred or contempt or to excite disaffection against the Government;(b) to excite the citizens of Singapore or the residents in Singapore to attempt to procure in Singapore, the alteration, otherwise than by lawful means, of any matter as by law established;
(c) to bring into hatred or contempt or to excite disaffection against the administration of justice in Singapore;(d) to raise discontent or disaffection amongst the citizens of Singapore or the residents in Singapore;(e) to promote feelings of ill-will and hostility between different races or classes of the population of Singapore.
If it’s not already eminently clear, the publication effectively states that Mr. Yang, who faces the charge, is only doing so because the government thinks he mighthurt the feelings of others.
It’s not a mere conjecture – observe the words that are used above in the publication. Such a definition takes not objectivity as a primary, as a law properly should, but rather fosters subjectivism and in effect propogates the orthodoxy, since it takes feelings as a standard of judgement.
It hurt the Athenian government’s feelings when Socrates, the self-proclaimed gadfly of society, destroyed their claims with argumentative logic. It hurt the Church’s feelings when Copernicus claimed that the Earth revolved around the sun. It hurt Stalin’s feelings when the peasant in his famine-ridden USSR refused to be a slave to the masses.
Do you recall what happened to them?
In all the above examples, the primary constant is the wish to control men’s minds. It demonstrates the till-death compliance to the status quo, and the monstrosity of a law demanding it.
Take for instance, an anarchist’s misguided claim that a government should not exist, and his belief that a government only serves to stifle the minds of people. For good measure, he throws in a few swear words. Perhaps he says a few untruths – a few from error and a few from intention. Let’s assume that by making that very statement, he wins the disdain and hatred of just about all of Singapore. Riots ensue. He then is arrested for sedition.
Let us consider the fact that there are anarchists in Singapore (not as a political force, but as an idealogical group), and these people may applaud his statement. Since what he says is in accordance with their beliefs, would it be just to arrest him for saying what he (and a few other men) think is right?
Furthermore, when a mob riots after listening to a speech, who is to be held responsible: the man giving a speech which rouses their feelings, or the men listening to said speech who chose to act on their feelings? If we agree that a human being, by virtue of his birth, is free to act (and thus be responsible for their actions), in what capacity can a man be charged for the actions of other men?
Substitute anarchist with atheist, capitalist, moralist, or any other person who holds an ideology that differs from the Establishment, and ask yourself – is it worth having something you believe in here in Singapore?
What is the value of having convictions if such convictions only convict you?
The coup de grâce of such irrationality comes in this article, where Amos Yee’s posting was deemed “offensive” in reference to a subjective standard set by Justice Tay Yong Kwang.
 “Would a young man visiting his girlfriend’s parents share the image with his prospective in-laws?”
I submit to you the rule of the status quo, where any difference in opinion is not settled with debate, but with legalized force. Not by logic and reason, but by whim-worship and subjectivism.
Since feelings are not proper means of cognition nor tools of action, making them to be the standard of justice would mean to provide a weapon for the Establishment. Consider the dismal state of the anti-trust laws in the States, which directly contradict each other. Consider the rule of brutality in the Dark Ages, where dissension was punishable by death.
Do not be mistaken when they claim that freedom ought to be curtailed to ensure order. What kind of “order” do these people want to achieve?
The order that they want involves the negation of your mind. It tells you, in effect:
“Who are you to think? How dare you have an opinion of your own?”
From that comes the docility of submission – of a mind taught to not think, but to simply obey. Do you think such a mentality is only propagated by the government? Observe the “irrefutable argument” that parents use to discipline their child – that they ought to do something because they MUST.
Does it really come as a surprise as to why the homosexuality laws have not been repealed?
Sedition is an ancient law that goes against the fundamental being of not just Singaporeans, but of mankind. Man, a specific entity which possesses free will, is not the tool and object of a bureaucrat or of political scientists. He is not the means to someone else’s ends.
Singaporeans require a moral and intellectual base for freedom. It is that which I wish to provide.
“I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it” – Evelyn Beatrice Hall

Libertarian Society Singapore

We believe that freedom and liberty is a moral right. The role of the Singapore government is not to run the economy and run our lives, but simply to protect the rights of Singaporeans. Find out more on various social media avenues!

Post A Comment: