是自由言論,抑或濫用網路表達意見?

前陣子馬來西亞的部落客才為了讀者在部落格上留下的煽動性迴響而緊張不安,深怕會惹上法律問題,沒想到新加坡政府決定在同一個禮拜內以騷動法案起訴三名部落客。

此 舉讓不少海峽兩岸,也就是東南亞連結最緊密的這些國家的部落客,感到無比的矛盾及驚愕。根據美聯社的報導,這幾次由新加坡和鄰近的馬來西亞所進行的逮捕行 動,已經在網路上造成恐慌,因為這兩個國家擁有類似的法律及種族敏感。類似的地方在於回教馬來社群在網路上是被詆毀污衊的目標;不同點則在於回教馬來社群 僅佔新加坡百分之十五的人口,而卻在馬來西亞佔有百分之六十五的高人口比例。這使得這兩個鄰近國家的部落客對這件事產生了截然不同的反應。

九月十二號,新加坡政府引用騷動法案起訴二十五歲的Nicholas Lim Yew、二十七歲的Koh Song Huat,因為他們在網路上發表了種族主義者的言論,引起騷亂,這是近十年來第一次引用此法。



九月十六日,新加坡的部落客Gan Huai Shi,一個十七歲的學生,因為提倡仇視,違反騷亂罪的第29章,而被指控七項罪狀。

根據消息指出,新加坡人要是被指控違反騷亂法,一旦判刑定讞,最高可處三年有期徒刑。

在 第一個案子當中,Nicholas Lim和Benjamin Koh兩名部落客因為在網路上製造反穆斯林言論而被起訴。兩人的言論是為了回應海峽時報論壇刊登的一封信,信中詢問道計程車公司是否容許沒被關在籠子裡的 寵物上車,因為新加坡大部分的回教徒不能接觸狗的唾液。

Lim在新加坡一個線上愛狗人論壇發表了他的評論,www.doggiesite.com。Koh在狗舍工作,負責照顧狗,據說也在他自己的部落格,Phoenyx Chronicles上發表了類似的種族主義者言論,部落格設在www.upsaid.com

根據新報公佈的法院文件,Lim在論壇上的留言一開始就這麼說:「這些人是白痴」。他接著繼續發表對穆斯林貶低藐視的言論。跟著他把注意力轉到中國人和印度人身上,他寫道,聽「中國人和印度人的抱怨也讓人很煩」。

Koh的言論更為銳利。根據媒體報導的法庭文件指出,他的部落格文章充斥著粗話,針對著馬來人及回教徒發表長篇大論。在他的部落格里還有一幅烤豬頭的圖片,上頭有著專為回教徒處理的肉品標誌「a Halal look-alike logo」。

在第三個案子裡,Gan被控經營一個倡導種族主義的部落格,他稱之為第二次大屠殺,內容主要攻擊基督徒及同性戀。他也被指控常常抨擊當地馬來社群的生活型態、宗教信仰、以及經濟情況。

為什麼有關當局要插手,並引用騷亂法案來對付這些在網路上斥罵伊斯蘭及穆斯林的公民呢?有很多種說法。

網路上有說法認為這是為了要剝奪網路上的爭論,因為網路無邊無際,有關當局很難徹底巡查或是加以控制。也有人認為此舉是政府為了間接向網路中的政治及其他領域的言論發放警告,要他們知道界線在哪。

兩種說法都有道理,因為就在九月十七號,官營的新加坡海峽時報就刊出了一則由政治新聞編輯Paul Jacob所寫的評論,替官方先設下了立場。這則政府發言將在網路上支持及維護法律的責任分擔給了部落格及網站的擁有者。評論中指明:

網路不是個人空間。

但是那些透過網路發放誹謗訊息的人認為他們不僅是匿名的,而且沒有任何規定及約束可以限制他們。要是網站主人及管理者沒有盡責,網路公民又不嚴格遵守規矩,便會加深這種認知。

據說新加坡約有超過一百萬名積極的網路使用者,可想而知,比起那些鼓吹仇視、嘲笑、以及對別人的信念表示懷疑的份子,有更多人有能力去做好事,並且維持網路系統的治安。

所以與其質疑政府為什麼要這麼做,或是還有沒有更適合的法律可以引用,又或著這是不是一次政治壓迫的前奏曲,不如由主動的使用者施展力量,並且自己將這種情形壓制下來。

這篇文章以一個抱怨者的話結尾:

這些傢伙所作的,就如同一些人已經說過的,就是要讓部落客和聊天室背上惡名。

如果社群不想要有老大哥在後頭監視,最好的辦法就是自己監視自己。

評論發表當天,新加坡總理李顯龍隨即給了此議題一個適當的背景。海峽新聞亞洲報的一則相關新聞馬上被北京的人民網新華網採用。

「這就是訊息,這是難以接受的。這是違法的,騷亂法特別註明如果你引起種族間的不信任和敵意,我們就會依法處理。」

媒體引述新加坡總理的話,強調新加坡對於多元種族和多元宗教十分重視,政府將會對任何發表種族主義言論的人採取行動。

毫無疑問的,不少新加坡部落客說這些違反法律者不值得同情,因為他們的言論讓人感到不愉快,但是這起案例也引發了新加坡政府可能加強社會控制的疑慮。

「一部分的我對於這兩個發表極端種族評論的人得到懲罰感到很高興,」部落客「MercerMachine」寫道,「另一部份的我,對於現在這樣連一點假裝出來的言論自由都沒了的情形,非常反感。」

Coup de Grace」是另外一個很快就對於這起事件有所回應的部落格。他承認他在部落格里曾經反對過新加坡版本的增進婦弱就業行動,「這會讓我吃上官司嗎?」他問道。他認為這項法律行動會讓對社會有益的言論與辯論都消失,並且將騷亂法中讓部落客遭到控訴的章節描述為「模糊的讓人很煩」。

同一時間,那些求知若渴的部落客開始上網查閱騷亂法部落客Zeenie說道:「我唯一一次聽到「騷亂」這個字,是在電影Last of the Mohicans裡頭。」

有關這個法案部落客Sammyboy說:「根據這張表單,每個母親的兒子和女兒只要在這裡留過言,馬上就會被送進監獄了。」

部落客大衛的身分是個二十來歲的軍人,他說民眾會因為「說出他們的意見」而遭到逮捕這件事嚇壞了他。「人們會說如果我玩弄這些規則,我不會有事,但是誰來決定這些規則的?」

其他人則質疑此法是否為雙面刃。住在上海的加拿大部落客Myrick觀察:「這樣做並無法解決種族主義的問題,只是讓這個問題躲到檯面下並且更惡化。」

另一方面,Benjamin Lee,也就是Miyagi先生,他透過部落格娛樂讀者,但從不牽扯種族或文化的敏感地帶,他告訴海峽新聞亞洲報:「很多人會開始盯著他們的部落格,思考自己有沒有發表任何騷亂的言論。我認為因為如此,這件事會開始傳播,這對新加坡部落格社群來說是個負面宣傳。」

即使是諷刺作家布朗先生也察覺到了這股恐懼的氛圍,並且發表了一篇忠告:「在任何媒體上發表種族仇視的文章,不管是部落格、電子郵件、平面媒體、電視、廣播、還是你放在人家車上一張小紙片,在新加坡都算是犯罪,即使在許多其他國家,如英國,也是一樣。有些事情要記牢,不管你是不是部落客。」

如同已經準備好應付將接踵而至,來自部落客的「支持言論自由」說法,Alee J,英國布里斯脫大學法律系的學生支持布朗先生的論點,指出新加坡並不是唯一限制言論自由的國家。

原文鏈結


Short title.
1. This Act may be cited as the Sedition Act.
Interpretation.
2. In this Act —
"publication" includes all written or printed matter and everything whether of a nature similar to written or printed matter or not containing any visible representation or by its form, shape or in any other manner capable of suggesting words or ideas, and every copy and reproduction or substantial reproduction of any publication;
"seditious" when applied to or used in respect of any act, speech, words, publication or other thing qualifies such act, speech, words, publication or other thing as one having a seditious tendency;
"words" includes any phrase, sentence or other consecutive number or combination of words, oral or written.
Seditious tendency.
3. —(1) A seditious tendency is a tendency —
(a) to bring into hatred or contempt or to excite disaffection against the Government;
(b) to excite the citizens of Singapore or the residents in Singapore to attempt to procure in Singapore, the alteration, otherwise than by lawful means, of any matter as by law established;
(c) to bring into hatred or contempt or to excite disaffection against the administration of justice in Singapore;
(d) to raise discontent or disaffection amongst the citizens of Singapore or the residents in Singapore;
(e) to promote feelings of ill-will and hostility between different races or classes of the population of Singapore.
(2) Notwithstanding subsection (1), any act, speech, words, publication or other thing shall not be deemed to be seditious by reason only that it has a tendency —
(a) to show that the Government has been misled or mistaken in any of its measures;
(b) to point out errors or defects in the Government or the Constitution as by law established or in legislation or in the administration of justice with a view to the remedying of such errors or defects;
(c) to persuade the citizens of Singapore or the residents in Singapore to attempt to procure by lawful means the alteration of any matter in Singapore; or
(d) to point out, with a view to their removal, any matters producing or having a tendency to produce feelings of ill-will and enmity between different races or classes of the population of Singapore,
if such act, speech, words, publication or other thing has not otherwise in fact a seditious tendency. (3) For the purpose of proving the commission of any offence under this Act, the intention of the person charged at the time he did or attempted to do or made any preparation to do or conspired with any person to do any act or uttered any seditious words or printed, published, sold, offered for sale, distributed, reproduced or imported any publication or did any other thing shall be deemed to be irrelevant if in fact such act had, or would, if done, have had, or such words, publication or thing had a seditious tendency.
Offences.
4. —(1) Any person who —
(a) does or attempts to do, or makes any preparation to do, or conspires with any person to do, any act which has or which would, if done, have a seditious tendency;
(b) utters any seditious words;
(c) prints, publishes, sells, offers for sale, distributes or reproduces any seditious publication; or
(d) imports any seditious publication,
shall be guilty of an offence and shall be liable on conviction for a first offence to a fine not exceeding $5,000 or to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 3 years or to both, and, for a subsequent offence, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 5 years; and any seditious publication found in the possession of that person or used in evidence at his trial shall be forfeited and may be destroyed or otherwise disposed of as the court directs. (2) Any person who without lawful excuse has in his possession any seditious publication shall be guilty of an offence and shall be liable on conviction for a first offence to a fine not exceeding $2,000 or to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 18 months or to both, and, for a subsequent offence, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 3 years, and such publication shall be forfeited and may be destroyed or otherwise disposed of as the court directs.
Legal proceedings.
5. —(1) No prosecution for an offence under section 4 shall be begun except within 6 months after the offence is committed: Provided that for the purposes of this subsection a prosecution shall be deemed to be begun against any person when a warrant or summons has been issued in respect of any charge made against that person and based on the facts or incident in respect of which the prosecution afterwards proceeds. (2) No person shall be prosecuted for an offence under section 4 without the written consent of the Public Prosecutor. In such written consent the Public Prosecutor may designate any court to be the court of trial.
Evidence.
6. —(1) Notwithstanding anything to the contrary in the Evidence Act, no person shall be convicted of an offence under section 4 on the uncorroborated testimony of one witness.
Cap. 97.
(2) No person shall be convicted of any offence referred to in section 4 (1) (c) or (d) if such person proves that the publication in respect of which he is charged was printed, published, sold, offered for sale, distributed, reproduced or imported (as the case may be) without his authority, consent and knowledge and without any want of due care or caution on his part or that he did not know and had no reason to believe that the publication had a seditious tendency.
Innocent receiver of seditious publication.
7. Any person to whom any seditious publication is sent without his knowledge or privity shall forthwith as soon as the nature of its contents has become known to him deliver the publication to the officer in charge of a police division and any person who complies with this section shall not be liable to be convicted for having in his possession that publication: Provided that in any proceedings against such person the court shall presume until the contrary is shown that that person knew the contents of the publication at the time it first came into his possession.
Issue of search warrant.
8. —(1) A Magistrate may issue a warrant empowering any police officer, not below the rank of sergeant, to enter upon any premises where any seditious publication is known or is reasonably suspected to be and to search therein for any seditious publication.
21/73.
(2) Whenever it appears to any police officer, not below the rank of sergeant, that there is reasonable cause to believe that in any premises there is concealed or deposited any seditious publication, and he has reasonable grounds for believing that, by reason of the delay which would be entailed by obtaining a search warrant, the object of the search is likely to be frustrated, he may enter and search the premises as if he were empowered to do so by a warrant issued under subsection (1).
21/73.
Suspension of newspaper containing seditious matter.
9. —(1) Whenever any person is convicted of publishing in any newspaper matter having a seditious tendency, the court may, if it thinks fit, either in lieu of or in addition to any other punishment, make orders as to all or any of the following matters:
(a) prohibiting, either absolutely or except on conditions to be specified in the order, for any period not exceeding one year from the date of the order, the future publication of that newspaper;
(b) prohibiting, either absolutely or except on conditions to be specified in the order, for the period aforesaid, the publisher, proprietor or editor of that newspaper from publishing, editing or writing for any newspaper or from assisting, whether with money or money’s worth, material, personal service or otherwise in the publication, editing or production of any newspaper;
(c) that for the period aforesaid any printing press used in the production of the newspaper be used only on conditions to be specified in the order or that it be seized by the police and detained by them for the period aforesaid.
(2) Any person who contravenes an order made under this section shall be guilty of an offence and shall be liable on conviction to a fine not exceeding $5,000 or to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 3 years or to both. (3) Nothing in this Act shall affect the power of the court to punish any person contravening an order made under this section for contempt of court: Provided that no person shall be punished twice for the same offence.
Power of Court to prohibit circulation of seditious publications.
10. —(1) Whenever on the application of the Public Prosecutor it is shown to the satisfaction of the Court that the issue or circulation of a seditious publication is or if commenced or continued would be likely to lead to unlawful violence or appears to have the object of promoting feelings of hostility between different classes or races of the community, the Court shall make an order (referred to in this section as a prohibition order) prohibiting the issuing and circulation of that publication (referred to in this section as a prohibited publication) and requiring every person having any copy of the prohibited publication in his possession, power or control forthwith to deliver every such copy into the custody of the police. (2) An order under this section may be made ex parte on the application of the Public Prosecutor in chambers. (3) It shall be sufficient if the order so describes the prohibited publication that it can be identified by a reasonable person who compares the prohibited publication with the description in the prohibition order. (4) Every person on whom a copy of a prohibition order is served by any police officer shall forthwith deliver to that police officer every prohibited publication in his possession, power or control, and, if he fails to do so, he shall be guilty of an offence and shall be liable on conviction to a fine not exceeding $1,000 or to imprisonment for a term not exceeding one year or to both. (5) Every person to whose knowledge it comes that a prohibited publication is in his possession, power or control shall forthwith deliver every such publication into the custody of the police, and, if he fails to do so, he shall be guilty of an offence and shall be liable on conviction to a fine not exceeding $1,000 or to imprisonment for a term not exceeding one year or to both. (6) The Court may, if it thinks fit, either before or after or without service of the prohibition order on any person, issue a warrant authorising any police officer not below the rank of sergeant to enter and search any premises specified in the order, and to seize and carry away every prohibited publication there found, and to use such force as may be necessary for the purpose. A copy of the prohibition order and of the search warrant shall be left in a conspicuous position at every building or place so entered.
21/73.
(7)    The owner of any prohibited publication delivered or seized under this section may, at any time within 14 days after the delivery or seizure, apply to the Court by originating summons for the discharge of the prohibition order, and if the Court, on the hearing of the application, decides that the prohibition order ought not to have been made, it shall discharge the order and shall order the prohibited publication delivered by or seized from the applicant to be returned to him. (8) Every prohibited publication delivered or seized under this section with respect to which an application under subsection (7) is not filed within the time aforesaid or which is not ordered to be returned to the owner shall be deemed to be forfeited to the Government. (9) For the purposes of this section, “Court” means the High Court.
21/73.
Arrest without warrant.
11. Any police officer may arrest without warrant any person found committing or reasonably suspected of committing or of having committed or of attempting to commit or of procuring or abetting any person to commit any offence under this Act or reasonably suspected of the unlawful possession of any thing liable to forfeiture thereunder.
21/73.


http://statutes.agc.gov.sg/non_version/cgi-bin/cgi_getdata.pl?actno=1964-REVED-290&doctitle=SEDITION%20ACT%0a&date=latest&method=part&segid
arrow
arrow
    全站熱搜

    milk100sina 發表在 痞客邦 留言(0) 人氣()