M
Mdm Tang
Guest
.
Amy Cheong 'could face charges' for online rant
Straits Times
Date11 Oct 2012
THE woman who posted an expletive-laden rant about Malay weddings on her Facebook page could well face charges of inciting hatred among people of different races, said lawyers.
They said it is clear that Ms Amy Cheong's posts contain elements of an offence under the law.
However, most of them added that it is early days yet, as police investigations into the matter are just under way. There are also other considerations before an offence is established, such as whether a person had deliberately set out to cause enmity or ill will.
Lawyers said there are three possible outcomes to the case: No further action is taken against her; she is given a warning; or she is hauled to court.
If it is the third outcome, Ms Cheong could be punished with a fine, a jail sentence of up to three years, or both, if found guilty.
The 37-year-old saw her online rant on Sunday go viral almost immediately. Among other things, she disparaged what she felt to be the low cost and overly lengthy nature of void-deck weddings. She also mocked the Malay community's divorce rate.
On Monday, Ms Cheong was fired from her job as assistant director at the membership department of the National Trades Union Congress. Her actions were also condemned by community leaders and ministers, including Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong.
She has since left for Perth, although she may have to return here to assist in police investigations.
Lawyer Amolat Singh said her "entire Facebook post, if you look at it, puts Malays in a bad light".
Previously, individuals who incited ill feeling between races could be punished under the Sedition Act, which comes with a maximum jail term of five years.
Although enacted before independence, the Sedition Act was used for the first time only in 2005, to convict three young men who made racist remarks on the Internet.
In 2007, changes were made to the Penal Code, which Singapore's criminal laws are based on, to include such offences.
Then Senior Minister of State for Home Affairs and Law Ho Peng Kee told Parliament that the case of the racist bloggers had raised the question of whether there was a need to prosecute such offenders under the Sedition Act, which carries a heavier punishment.
To provide for greater prosecutorial discretion, the scope of Section 298 of the Penal Code was expanded so that any word, gesture or action intended to hurt not just the religious feelings of a person, but also the racial feelings of a person, was a criminal act. The maximum penalty is three years' jail.
The amendments would also cover transmissions online, Professor Ho said then.
Lawyers said Ms Cheong's remarks would likely be investigated under Section 298 or 298A.
A retired police officer with experience in such investigations said that while the content of Ms Cheong's post may appear offensive, there are other "bigger elements required to establish a criminal offence".
He did not want to elaborate, but a key factor in such cases is whether there was deliberate intent to hurt religious or racial feelings.
While Mr Subhas Anandan, president of the Association of Criminal Lawyers of Singapore, acknowledged the seriousness of Ms Cheong's post, he said he hopes the Attorney-General's Chambers will let her off with a warning.
"We're trying to be a gracious society after all. It's good to give second chances," he said. "There will always be Amy Cheongs in our lives."
Criminal lawyer Shashi Nathan agreed, saying: "She's already been swiftly punished. She has been castigated on the Internet; she's lost her job. I don't know if there's any real benefit to anyone to have her prosecuted."
Ms Cheong had said in previous media reports that she was not thinking carefully at that time, and was simply venting her frustrations.
But, Mr Singh pointed out: "The fact that you are on a computer and not doing it face to face makes it harder to claim it's a spur-of-the-moment thing."
[email protected]
Amy Cheong 'could face charges' for online rant
Straits Times
Date11 Oct 2012
THE woman who posted an expletive-laden rant about Malay weddings on her Facebook page could well face charges of inciting hatred among people of different races, said lawyers.
They said it is clear that Ms Amy Cheong's posts contain elements of an offence under the law.
However, most of them added that it is early days yet, as police investigations into the matter are just under way. There are also other considerations before an offence is established, such as whether a person had deliberately set out to cause enmity or ill will.
Lawyers said there are three possible outcomes to the case: No further action is taken against her; she is given a warning; or she is hauled to court.
If it is the third outcome, Ms Cheong could be punished with a fine, a jail sentence of up to three years, or both, if found guilty.
The 37-year-old saw her online rant on Sunday go viral almost immediately. Among other things, she disparaged what she felt to be the low cost and overly lengthy nature of void-deck weddings. She also mocked the Malay community's divorce rate.
On Monday, Ms Cheong was fired from her job as assistant director at the membership department of the National Trades Union Congress. Her actions were also condemned by community leaders and ministers, including Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong.
She has since left for Perth, although she may have to return here to assist in police investigations.
Lawyer Amolat Singh said her "entire Facebook post, if you look at it, puts Malays in a bad light".
Previously, individuals who incited ill feeling between races could be punished under the Sedition Act, which comes with a maximum jail term of five years.
Although enacted before independence, the Sedition Act was used for the first time only in 2005, to convict three young men who made racist remarks on the Internet.
In 2007, changes were made to the Penal Code, which Singapore's criminal laws are based on, to include such offences.
Then Senior Minister of State for Home Affairs and Law Ho Peng Kee told Parliament that the case of the racist bloggers had raised the question of whether there was a need to prosecute such offenders under the Sedition Act, which carries a heavier punishment.
To provide for greater prosecutorial discretion, the scope of Section 298 of the Penal Code was expanded so that any word, gesture or action intended to hurt not just the religious feelings of a person, but also the racial feelings of a person, was a criminal act. The maximum penalty is three years' jail.
The amendments would also cover transmissions online, Professor Ho said then.
Lawyers said Ms Cheong's remarks would likely be investigated under Section 298 or 298A.
A retired police officer with experience in such investigations said that while the content of Ms Cheong's post may appear offensive, there are other "bigger elements required to establish a criminal offence".
He did not want to elaborate, but a key factor in such cases is whether there was deliberate intent to hurt religious or racial feelings.
While Mr Subhas Anandan, president of the Association of Criminal Lawyers of Singapore, acknowledged the seriousness of Ms Cheong's post, he said he hopes the Attorney-General's Chambers will let her off with a warning.
"We're trying to be a gracious society after all. It's good to give second chances," he said. "There will always be Amy Cheongs in our lives."
Criminal lawyer Shashi Nathan agreed, saying: "She's already been swiftly punished. She has been castigated on the Internet; she's lost her job. I don't know if there's any real benefit to anyone to have her prosecuted."
Ms Cheong had said in previous media reports that she was not thinking carefully at that time, and was simply venting her frustrations.
But, Mr Singh pointed out: "The fact that you are on a computer and not doing it face to face makes it harder to claim it's a spur-of-the-moment thing."
[email protected]
