Under the 50 years of PAP rule, Singapore has become an over-regulated piece of real estate. Mr. Wong and the PAP Government may not be too contented to just end at ‘commercial exploitation’ only. In using this term “misleading use” Mr. Wong has cast his net wide. Is he or the Government bent on introducing all manner of pains and penalties with this statute for insulting Emperor Harry, his properties and those near him?
Mr. Wong could emulate the Thais and bring their lèse-majesté laws into Singapore et al. The Constitution of Thailand contains the clause: “The King shall be enthroned in a position of revered worship and shall not be violated. No person shall expose the King to any sort of accusation or action.” Thai criminal code elaborates in Article 112: “Whoever defames, insults or threatens the King, Queen, the Heir-apparent or the Regent, shall be punished with imprisonment of three to fifteen years.”
It is better the Government not think of introducing coins and notes or postage stamps bearing the face of Emperor Harry. What if we crumple the notes or stamp on the coins? What if we pasted the postage stamps upside down onto the envelopes? Would we be charged for lèse-majesté?
And please do not attempt to name the airports or roads or buildings after Emperor Harry. Our dogs most likely would take aim and pee and poo there (pun unintended). Some of us may even relish bringing our canine friends there for that purpose and then laws will have to be promulgated to put the dogs down!
In days of yore, striking a King would, according to the strict letter of the law, render the assailant liable to the death penalty. What retribution begets Amos Yee if the Attorney General so decides to charge him with “attempted assassination” of Emperor Harry over the Internet? Surely, this is worse than striking a King.
But reading the MCCY mission statement, it doesn’t seem to be MCCY job to propose laws to safeguard the image of former leaders of the country (talking about that, what about safeguarding the image of former Presidents like Yusof Ishak or Ong Teng Cheong?). Why is Mr. Wong doing this? Is he trying to “brown-nose” or “carry balls”?
Mr. Wong is going the extra mile and is bent on preserving the Lee Monarchy. In this way the PAP elites also protect their status quo and their ‘money come first’ attitude. And they must do this now and not before they lose their two-thirds majority in Parliament or worse, get voted out.
It may very well look like we will be the first in the world to adopt a ‘lèse-majesté’ legislation in a republic. Step aside the Queen. Same for the King of Thailand. Ditto Malaysia’s Agong. We shall be their envy.
In 2005, Thai King Bhumibol Adulyadej encouraged criticism of himself: “Actually, I must also be criticized. I am not afraid if the criticism concerns what I do wrong, because then I know.” But is Mr. Wong saying Emperor Harry did no wrong and could not be criticised?
As with modern totalitarian dictators e.g. the Kims of North Korea, it is likely that not only words but action as well that will very likely result in prosecution. In Singapore, no death sentence is likely for lese majeste but jail. So one day, it may just come to pass that repeating a PM’s old quote to rubbish him will land one in jail: “I give you an example: you put out a fun podcast, you talk about ‘bak chor mee’; I will say “mee siam mai hum”, then we compete.” . . . PM Lee Hsien Loong.
And thou shalt henceforth not call him Mee Siam Mai Hum.
Finally, Mr. Wong said, “I should make it very clear that the intent is not to restrict people from coming up with their own creative ways to pay their tribute to Mr. Lee. Our intent is in line with public concerns.” This surely is the mother of all ‘balls carrying’ statements!
Richard Lu
* Contributed by TRE reader
http://www.tremeritus.com/2015/05/27/emperor-harry-and-minister-lawrence-wong/
Mr. Wong could emulate the Thais and bring their lèse-majesté laws into Singapore et al. The Constitution of Thailand contains the clause: “The King shall be enthroned in a position of revered worship and shall not be violated. No person shall expose the King to any sort of accusation or action.” Thai criminal code elaborates in Article 112: “Whoever defames, insults or threatens the King, Queen, the Heir-apparent or the Regent, shall be punished with imprisonment of three to fifteen years.”
It is better the Government not think of introducing coins and notes or postage stamps bearing the face of Emperor Harry. What if we crumple the notes or stamp on the coins? What if we pasted the postage stamps upside down onto the envelopes? Would we be charged for lèse-majesté?
And please do not attempt to name the airports or roads or buildings after Emperor Harry. Our dogs most likely would take aim and pee and poo there (pun unintended). Some of us may even relish bringing our canine friends there for that purpose and then laws will have to be promulgated to put the dogs down!
In days of yore, striking a King would, according to the strict letter of the law, render the assailant liable to the death penalty. What retribution begets Amos Yee if the Attorney General so decides to charge him with “attempted assassination” of Emperor Harry over the Internet? Surely, this is worse than striking a King.
But reading the MCCY mission statement, it doesn’t seem to be MCCY job to propose laws to safeguard the image of former leaders of the country (talking about that, what about safeguarding the image of former Presidents like Yusof Ishak or Ong Teng Cheong?). Why is Mr. Wong doing this? Is he trying to “brown-nose” or “carry balls”?
Mr. Wong is going the extra mile and is bent on preserving the Lee Monarchy. In this way the PAP elites also protect their status quo and their ‘money come first’ attitude. And they must do this now and not before they lose their two-thirds majority in Parliament or worse, get voted out.
It may very well look like we will be the first in the world to adopt a ‘lèse-majesté’ legislation in a republic. Step aside the Queen. Same for the King of Thailand. Ditto Malaysia’s Agong. We shall be their envy.
In 2005, Thai King Bhumibol Adulyadej encouraged criticism of himself: “Actually, I must also be criticized. I am not afraid if the criticism concerns what I do wrong, because then I know.” But is Mr. Wong saying Emperor Harry did no wrong and could not be criticised?
As with modern totalitarian dictators e.g. the Kims of North Korea, it is likely that not only words but action as well that will very likely result in prosecution. In Singapore, no death sentence is likely for lese majeste but jail. So one day, it may just come to pass that repeating a PM’s old quote to rubbish him will land one in jail: “I give you an example: you put out a fun podcast, you talk about ‘bak chor mee’; I will say “mee siam mai hum”, then we compete.” . . . PM Lee Hsien Loong.
And thou shalt henceforth not call him Mee Siam Mai Hum.
Finally, Mr. Wong said, “I should make it very clear that the intent is not to restrict people from coming up with their own creative ways to pay their tribute to Mr. Lee. Our intent is in line with public concerns.” This surely is the mother of all ‘balls carrying’ statements!
Richard Lu
* Contributed by TRE reader
http://www.tremeritus.com/2015/05/27/emperor-harry-and-minister-lawrence-wong/
