Sedition Act (Singapore)

972:(2005), in which the constitutionality of provisions of the Miscellaneous Offences (Public Order and Nuisance) Act ("MOA") was considered, the High Court held it was sufficient that Parliament had "considered" and "intended" to impose restrictions on freedom of speech that were necessary or expedient to ensure public order through the MOA. The Court did not undertake any separate inquiry into the necessity or expediency of the impugned restrictions in determining whether the MOA's constitutionality could be sustained. Furthermore, since Article 14(2) permits restrictions "in the interests of" rather than "for the maintenance of" public order, this authorizes Parliament to take a pre-emptive or "prophylactic approach" to crafting restrictive laws which may not address the immediate or direct maintenance of public order. The Sedition Act is an example of such a restrictive law and the court is entitled to interpret it as such, showing little balancing of the interest in protecting free speech against other public interests. 939: 865:, District Judge Neighbour stated that while people may have a desire to profess and spread their faith, the right to propagate such opinions cannot be unfettered. He found that both the accused persons, by distributing the seditious and objectionable tracts to Muslims and the general public, clearly reflected their intolerance, insensitivity and ignorance of delicate issues concerning race and religion in Singapore's multiracial and multi-religious society. Furthermore, in distributing the seditious and offensive tracts to spread their faith, the accused persons used the postal service to achieve their purpose and so were shielded by anonymity until the time they were apprehended. There is no doubt that this must have made it difficult for the police to trace them. In view of these circumstances, his Honour found that custodial sentences were warranted for both accused persons. 1153:

the community. Professor Thio has argued that the Sedition Act should be reserved for politically motivated incitements of violence which threaten the life of the state and its institutions, and that public order problems of feelings of ill-will and hostility between different races or classes should not be prosecuted under the umbrella of sedition. In other words, the vertical aspect of sedition should be retained, but there should be separate legislation for the horizontal aspect. Such a separate statutory provision could set out precise norms to regulate harmful non-political forms of speech with the goal of managing ethnic relations and promoting national identity. This would bring clarity to the underlying free speech theories involved. The proposal is supported by the view of Professor

4375: 26: 1342: 696:. The issue in the case was whether the accused persons had knowledge or reason to believe that the publications possessed seditious tendencies. The first accused claimed he did not read the tracts and thus did not know that they had seditious tendencies. He alleged that all he did was to post the tracts after the second accused had prepared them. The second accused claimed that she had purchased and distributed the tracts without reading them and had no reason to believe the publications were seditious or objectionable because they were freely available on sale in local bookstores. 1015:. Put another way, the offence of distributing a seditious publication that promoted feelings of ill-will and hostility between different races or classes of the population of Singapore would only be consistent with the right to free speech if it was limited to actions expressly or impliedly inciting public disorder. Without analysing Article 14(2) or factors such as the gravity of the threat to public order, the likelihood of disorder occurring, the speaker's intent, or the reasonableness of the audience, the District Court disagreed with this submission. It stated: 909:

order "prohibiting the issuing and circulation of that 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". It is an offence to fail to deliver a prohibited publication to a police officer on being served a prohibition order, or if it comes to one's knowledge that he or she has a prohibited publication in his or her possession, power or control. The punishment is a fine of up to $ 1,000 or jail for up to one year or both.

841:, as well as the "current domestic and international security climate". He also apparently recognized the educative potential of a prison sentence. Even though the prosecution had only urged for the maximum fine permitted under the law to be imposed on one of the accused persons, his Honour felt that a nominal one-day imprisonment was also necessary to signify the seriousness of the offence. Nonetheless, he cautioned that the court would not hesitate to impose stiffer sentences in future cases where appropriate. 1167: 808: 299: 759:(1993) established that "the court must assume the position of the actual individual involved (i.e. including his knowledge and experience) , but must reason (i.e. infer from the facts known to such individual) from that position like an objective reasonable man ". However, instead of applying this test, District Judge Neighbour simply asserted that the accused persons must have known and/or had reason to believe that the tracts were objectionable and had a seditious tendency. 925:". The Public Prosecutor could, of course, bring a criminal charge against someone for circulating a seditious publication, but the new power was desirable as "in the meantime the harm that is being done by this thing being publishing and circulated all round the country, if not stopped, would be very much mitigated ... No time is wasted in stopping the dissemination of the libel, and that, I suggest, particularly at this juncture, is a very important condition." 1125:, Senior District Judge Magnus employed the phrases "anti-Muslim" and "anti-Malay" interchangeably and suggested that the Sedition Act governs acts which connote anti-religious sentiments. Unlike the Sedition Act, the MRHA excludes the word "tendency", which means there must be evidence that the person has "committed" or "is attempting to commit" an act that harms religious harmony, instead of having a mere tendency cause such harm. 1020:

should be given a plain and literal interpretation. There is no requirement in the section that proof of sedition requires intent to endanger the maintenance of the government. It would be clearly wrong to input such intent into the section. All that is needed to be proved is that the publication is question had a tendency to promote feelings of ill will and hostility between different races or classes of the population in Singapore.

345:(that is, sedition in a printed form) as the criticism of public persons or the government, and established it as a crime. The crime of sedition was premised on the need to maintain respect for the government and its agents, for criticism of public persons or the government undermines respect for public authorities. Even though the Star Chamber was later dissolved, seditious libel had become established as a common law offence. 651:

deed may produce different "feelings" depending on the temperament of the audience, as "language which would be innocuous, practically speaking if used to an assembly of professors or divines, might produce a different result if used before an excited audience of young and uneducated men". Due to such ambiguity, people are left without clear guidelines as to what constitutes a seditious tendency, which may result in the

1073:, District Judge Neighbour did not treat free speech in the form of seditious speech as trumping the competing interests of ensuring freedom from offence, as well as protecting social harmony between ethnic and religious groups. He approved the view that offences involving community and/or race relations warrant general deterrence. Furthermore, the judge did not deem the right of religious propagation guaranteed by 1025:

the interests of one of the stated objectives in Article 14(2). In other words, the State must discharge a higher burden of proof before it can lawfully regulate seditious speech which has a "political" element. The Sedition Act, in prohibiting speech based upon mere proof of a "seditious tendency" regardless of the actual risks posed to public order, would not be in line with this proposed interpretation.

723:(MDA). In fact, the second accused had been formally informed by the MDA that the publications she ordered were detained for being undesirable or objectionable. However, despite "having their suspicions firmly grounded", and having every opportunity to examine the publications, they "made a conscious and deliberate decision not to investigate further". 1376:, he announced a reversal of this policy. At an event in March 2015 he said, "We should not be apologetic. Some may say this is not democratic, this rights to freedom, and more, but I want to say that there is no absolute freedom. There is no place for absolute freedom without responsibility in this country." On 10 April 2015, following a 12-hour 1137:, which was introduced in 2007 to "criminalise the deliberate promotion by someone of enmity, hatred or ill-will between different racial and religious groups on grounds of race or religion". Unlike the Sedition Act, section 298A includes the additional requirement of knowledge, and excludes a proviso which decriminalizes certain 1116:

stated that the MRHA takes a pre-emptive approach and can be invoked in a restrained manner to enable prompt and effective action. In contrast with the punitive approach of the Sedition Act where a breach of the statute carries criminal liability, under the MRHA restraining orders may be imposed upon

1036:

cases involved statements that offended Malays or Muslims, this may demonstrate a greater solicitude for the sensitivities of Malays in Singapore who are predominantly Muslims. On the other hand, individuals who made racist comments against Indians and offensive cartoons against Jesus Christ were let

677:

Where allegedly seditious publications are concerned, section 6(2) of the Sedition Act provides that "o 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

658:

Another criticism is the risk that courts may place too much emphasis on subjective feelings, which may not be a reliable basis for restricting free speech. If a subjective test is adopted, people who wish to express views on racial and religious issues may find themselves held hostage to segments of

541:

intended to embody the common law of seditious libel into section 3(1)(e). Since prosecutions under the Sedition Act since 1966 have been based on section 3(1)(e), a distinctive feature of the use of the Act in the 21st century is that it has primarily been employed to deal with disruptions to racial

525:

Although this statutory definition broadly corresponds to its common law counterpart, there are two key differences. First, unlike the common law offence which requires evidence of a seditious intent, an offender's intention is irrelevant under the Sedition Act, and it suffices that the act possesses

1304:

In 2015, the Sedition Act was invoked in respect of two separate incidents. On 7 April, a Filipino nurse named Ello Ed Mundsel Bello was charged with posting comments on Facebook on 2 January that had a tendency to promote feelings of ill-will and hostility between Filipinos and Singaporeans. In one

1287:

between April and July 2005. Gan pleaded guilty to two counts of sedition, and on 23 November 2005 he was granted 24 months' supervised probation that included counselling sessions and service in the Malay community. In June 2006, a 21-year-old blogger who used the moniker "Char" was investigated by

1152:

Currently, the Sedition Act has both "vertical" and "horizontal" dimensions. The Act has vertical effect in that it criminalizes statements which incites violence against government institutions, and horizontal effect because it criminalizes statements which harm the relationships between sectors of

1065:

characterized racial and religious divides as "the most visceral and dangerous fault line" in Singapore society, and earlier he had said that "we must respect one another's religions, we must not deliberately insult or desecrate what others hold sacred because if we want to live peacefully together,

1024:

It has been argued that expediency may the correct standard for seditious speech that inflicts injury. However, it is rare that seditious speech only inflicts injury without any contribution to public discourse. Hence, restrictions of such speech should be held to the higher standard of necessity in

868:

One academic has, however, suggested that rather than invoke legal sanctions, offensive speech of this nature should just be ignored. This is because legal sanctions chill free speech, which is a social good. Furthermore, complaining about wounding speech fuels inter-class hostility and ill-will and

771:

Section 7 of the Sedition Act provides that a person who is sent any seditious publication without his or her "knowledge or privity" is not liable for possession of the publication if he or she "forthwith as soon as the nature of its contents has become known" hands it to the police. However, when a

650:

It is difficult to apply "feelings" as a basis for constraining speech as they are inherently subjective and difficult to measure. Furthermore, section 3(1)(e) is silent as to which audience a tendency should be evaluated by – the actual audience or an audience of "reasonable persons". The same

468:

5,000 or imprisonment not exceeding three years or both, and for a subsequent offender imprisonment not exceeding five years. The court is required to forfeit any seditious publication found in an offender's possession or used in evidence at the trial, and may order that it be destroyed or otherwise

226:

A notable feature of the Sedition Act was that in addition to punishing actions that tend to undermine the administration of government, the Act also criminalized actions which promoted feelings of ill-will or hostility between different races or classes of the population. In contrast to arrests and

1489:

The Malaysian Act extended to Sabah on 28 May 1964 (Modification of Laws (Sedition) (Extension and Modification) Order 1964 (Legal Notification (L.N.) 149/64)), and to Sarawak on 20 November 1969 (Modification of Laws (Sedition) (Extension and Modification) Order 1969 (P.U.(A) 476/69)). (P.U. is an

1019:

It is clear that if Parliament had intended to include the additional requirement for a seditious tendency to be directed against the maintenance of government it would have expressly legislated to that effect in the SA. ... I agree with the prosecution's argument that the provisions of the SA

920:

The above powers for suppressing seditious publications were introduced in the Sedition Ordinance 1948 of Malaysia. As regards the power to prevent a publication's circulation, at the time of its introduction the Acting Attorney-General of the Federation of Malaya said that it was intended to "give

844:

Senior District Judge Magnus equated the moral culpability of the offender with the offensiveness of the materials. As such, the first accused's "particularly vile remarks", which had provoked a widespread and virulent response and sparked off the slinging of racial slurs at Chinese and Malays, was

641:

legislation, contains the additional words "likely to cause violence", which implies that section 3(1)(e) sets a lower threshold than Article 149. This is consistent with how the courts have interpreted section 3(1)(e), as the cases do not address the likelihood of the seditious acts to cause harm.

1255:

on 14 July 2005. In the letter, a Muslim woman asked if taxi companies allowed uncaged pets to be transported in taxis, as she had seen a dog standing on a taxi seat next to its owner. She said that "dogs may drool on the seats or dirty them with their paws". Her concerns had a religious basis as,

1384:

and promoting feelings of ill-will, hostility and hatred between people or groups of people on religious grounds amount to sedition; empowering the Public Prosecutor to call for bail to be denied to persons charged with sedition and for them to be prevented from leaving the country; introducing a

1332:

website was disabled after the MDA suspended the statutory class licence applicable to the site and ordered its editors to cease operating it. Ai pleaded guilty and was sentenced to ten months' imprisonment in March 2016. Yang claimed trial and was also convicted; he was sentenced in June 2016 to

908:

and shows 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 is required to issue an

222:

acts and speech; and the printing, publication, sale, distribution, reproduction and importation of seditious publications. The essential ingredient of any offence under the Act was the finding of a "seditious tendency", and the intention of the offender is irrelevant. The Act also listed several

853:

specific to the case – the offending acts by the accused persons were halted early on, and they had taken action to reduce the offensiveness of the acts. One of the accused persons issued an apology and removed the offending material from public access, while the other locked the discussion

711:

can be proved, as wilful blindness is, in law, a form of actual knowledge. To establish wilful blindness, a person concerned must have a clear suspicion that something is amiss, but nonetheless makes a deliberate decision not to make further inquiries in order to avoid confirming what the actual

404:

debate on 6 July 1948, the Acting Attorney-General of the Federation, E. P. S. Bell, said the Government considered it "convenient to have a Federal law" to replace the various sedition enactments in the Federation which were based on a model ordinance "sent to this country some years ago by the

1120:

While the MRHA is meant to efficiently quell mischief of a religious nature, the Sedition Act encompasses a broader category of mischief. A plain reading suggests that section 3 of the Sedition Act governs racial and class activities. However, it has been argued that the mischief of the MRHA is

916:

authorizing a police officer not below the rank of sergeant to enter and search any specified premises, to seize any prohibited publications found, and to use necessary force in doing so. Copies of the prohibition order and search warrant must be left in a "conspicuous position" in the premises

730:

Even though the offending tracts were available for sale to the public in a bookstore, the MDA informs importers to refer doubtful publications it, and importers have access to MDA's database to determine whether a publication is objectionable. There was no evidence that the accused persons did

1053:

has expressed the opinion that in Singapore free speech is not a primary right, but is qualified by public order considerations couched in terms of "racial and religious harmony". It seems that the legal framework prefers to serve foundational commitments such as the harmonious co-existence of

592:

Section 3(1)(e) of the Sedition Act refers to promoting "feelings of ill-will and hostility between different races or classes of the population of Singapore". In contrast to the other limbs of section 3(1), which mainly aim to capture acts of subversion directed at the established government,

1248:

The first convictions under the Sedition Act since the 1960s took place in October 2005, and involved two men, Benjamin Koh and Nicholas Lim, who pleaded guilty to charges under section 4(1)(a) for making anti-Malay and anti-Muslim remarks on the Internet in response to a letter published in

581:

and denigrated Islam, and which were described as a "pointed attack by one religion on another". Not only would such seditious tendencies be obvious to any reasonable man, the recipients of the tracts testified that they felt angry after reading the publications. District Judge Roy Grenville

762:

There is also a suggestion that the religious doctrine held by the accused persons was relevant to the issue of whether the content was objectionable or seditious. If the accused persons had religious beliefs similar to that of the tracts' author, it would have been unlikely that reasonable

738:

It was difficult to believe that in their fervour to spread the gospel truth, both accused persons did not read the publications. The titles were sufficiently arousing for someone to at least flip through their contents. Furthermore, given that the accused persons consciously undertook this

642:

In other words, freedom of speech and expression is limited solely because of its potential consequences, the magnitude of which is categorically assumed. However, it is arguable whether acts promoting class hatred which do not incite violence should in themselves be termed "seditious".

239:(2009) had centred around acts and publications tending to have the latter effect. Academics had raised concerns about whether the Sedition Act was satisfactorily interpreted in those cases, and whether the use of "feelings" as a yardstick to measure seditious tendencies is appropriate. 1194:("Dawn" in Malay). Eight students involved in the publication were charged under the Sedition Ordinance 1938 (S.S.) with possessing and distributing the newsletter, which was claimed to contain seditious articles that criticized the British colonial government. The students included 1295:

involved a middle-aged Christian couple, Ong Kian Cheong and Dorothy Chan, who were charged with possessing and distributing seditious publications contrary to the Sedition Act, and distributing objectionable publications contrary to the Undesirable Publications Act. The works were

1300:

which the couple had posted to Muslims, and the charges alleged that the tracts had the tendency to promote feelings of ill-will and hostility between Christians and Muslims. Following a trial, the couple were found guilty and sentenced on 6 August 2009 to eight weeks' jail each.

917:

entered. The owner of a prohibited publication which has been seized by or delivered to the police can apply to the Court within 14 days for the prohibition order to be discharged and the return of the publications if he or she believes the order to have been improperly made.

613:. Therefore, religious publications denigrating Islam would not only affect Muslims, but would undoubtedly cause feelings of ill-will or hostility within the Malay community as well. Also, the seditious publications distributed by the accused persons which disparaged the 885:

Prohibiting the publisher, proprietor or editor of the 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

678:

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."

262:), it had to be limited to actions expressly or impliedly inciting public disorder. The District Court disagreed, stating that if Parliament had intended to include this additional requirement, it would have expressly legislated to that effect in the Act. The 442:

2019, the Administration of Justice (Protection) Act 2016, the Undesirable Publications Act, the Newspaper and Printing Presses Act, and specific provisions under the Penal Code were sufficient to address issues "in a more targeted and calibrated manner".

987:

arguably should not be interpreted disjunctively, which would only require the State to show that a restriction imposed by Parliament is either "necessary" or "expedient". Since expedience is easily satisfied, this allows for too lenient a standard of

2625:

SA, s. 10(7). If no application is made within 14 days from the date of seizure or delivery of the publication, or the High Court does not order the publication to be returned to its owner, the publication is deemed to be forfeited to the Government:

663:

on the testimonies of a police officer and recipients of the tracts has been criticized as "highly problematic", and it has been suggested that an objective test needs to be adopted to determine if an act will be offensive to other races or classes.

360:(1990) as "encouraging the violent overthrow of democratic institutions". In the important common law jurisdictions, "seditious libel means defiance or censure of constituted authority leading to foreseeable harm to public order", and the Court in 1385:

minimum jail term of three years and extending the maximum term to 20 years; and enabling the courts to order that seditious material on the Internet be taken down or blocked. On the other hand, criticizing the government is no longer an offence.

1305:

post he allegedly called Singaporeans "loosers" (losers) and vowed to "evict" them from the country. He prayed that "disators" (disasters) would strike Singapore, and that he would celebrate when "more Singaporeans will die". The post concluded, "

1157:

that when construing section 3(1)(e) in the light of the preceding four limbs, it could only have been intended to embody one of the many forms of seditious libel and must be construed so as to require proof of defiance of constituted authority.

1086:

There is an "intricate latticework of legislation" in Singapore to curb public disorder, which arguably gives effect to Parliament's intent to configure an overlapping array of arrangements, and to leave the choice of a suitable response to

877:

After a person has been convicted of publishing matters having a seditious tendency in a newspaper, the court has power either in lieu of or in addition to any punishment, to make the following orders having effect for not more than a year:

734:

Since both the accused persons read some tracts after they ordered them, they would have known that the tracts had seditious tendencies. The tracts were easy to read and a quick flip through them would easily give the reader a gist of their

726:

Both accused persons made no effort to surrender the offending publications, to ascertain from the MDA why the publications were objectionable, or to take other publications in their possession to the MDA to determine whether they were also

1980: 746:

District Judge Neighbour's judgment has been criticized on the basis that his conclusions that the tracts were objectionable and that the accused persons knew about the seditious contents of the tracts were insufficient to fulfil the

1245:, a left-wing politician who had founded the Barisan Sosialis. On 26 July 1966, the defendants were found guilty and sentenced to a fine of $ 2,000 each. They appealed against their convictions but subsequently withdrew the appeals. 1994: 1322:

a number of articles that could lead to ill-will and hostility between Singaporeans and foreigners. These included an untrue story about a Filipino family who had supposedly provoked an incident between participants of the annual

424:

to form Malaysia. Singapore retained the legislation after its separation from Malaysia with effect from 9 August 1965. The current version of the legislation in Singapore is the Sedition Act (Chapter 290, 1985 Revised Edition).

476:

As the Act defines something as seditious if it has a "seditious tendency", a crucial element underpinning the offences mentioned above is the requirement to prove a seditious tendency which is defined in sections 3(1) and (2):

965:

of the Constitution. Article 14(2)(a) states that Parliament may by law impose restrictions on this right where it is necessary or expedient in the interest of, among other things, the security of Singapore or public order. In

1327:

procession and the police by complaining about musical instruments being played during the event, and a claim that Filipinos living in Singapore were favouring fellow citizens to the detriment of Singaporeans. On 3 May 2015

463:

The Sedition Act criminalizes seditious acts and speech; and the printing, publication, sale, distribution, reproduction and importation of seditious publications. The maximum penalty for a first offender is a fine of up to

604:

have been interpreted rather loosely when applying the Sedition Act. It appears that the two words are sufficiently malleable to include religious groups and cater to other types of inter-group hostility. For instance, in

433:

On 13 September 2021, the government introduced a bill in parliament to repeal the Sedition Act. The Ministry of Home Affairs cited its "limited application" as a reason for its repeal, and added that new laws like the

1640: 1143:

acts. Nonetheless, even though section 298A is regarded as an alternative to the Sedition Act, it has been proposed that the law should make clearer when section 298A, instead of the Sedition Act, should be employed.

953:, but Article 14(2)(a) allows Parliament to impose restrictions on the right where it is necessary or expedient in the interest of, among other things, public order. The Sedition Act can be seen as such a restriction. 2883: 569:

remarks on the Internet. Given that "acial and religious hostility feeds on itself", such "feelings" may spread and multiply, and they need not be confined to the direct impact of the seditious act itself.

2636: 968: 3940: 511:(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; 1077:

of the Constitution a mitigating factor because the accused persons, as Singaporeans, could not claim ignorance of the sensitive nature of race and religion in multiracial and multi-religious Singapore.

3866: 815:. In judgments delivered in 2005 and 2009, the District Court, which is part of the State Courts, held that convictions under the Sedition Act should generally be punished with imprisonment to promote 3916: 1109:("MRHA") is another piece of this legislative jigsaw. It was introduced to ensure that adherents of different religious groups exercise tolerance and moderation, and to keep religion out of politics. 517:(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, 2061: 529:

Secondly, section 3(1)(e) differs from the classic common law idea of sedition because there is no requirement that the seditious tendency has to be directed against the maintenance of government. A

858:, District Judge Neighbour observing that despite their presence the offences committed were serious in that they had the capacity to undermine and erode racial and religious harmony in Singapore. 409:". The Ordinance was largely a re-enactment of the F.M.S. Enactment, though the penalties for the offences under section 4 were increased and two new clauses (now sections 9 and 10) were included. 352:

and government from any potential uprising, sedition laws prohibited any acts, speech, or publications or writing that were made with seditious intent. Seditious intent was broadly defined by the

282:

considerations couched in terms of racial and religious harmony. It has also been posited that if Article 14 is properly interpreted, section 3(1)(e) of the Sedition Act is not in line with it.

1988: 561:(2005), the accused persons pleaded guilty to doing seditious acts tending to promote feelings of ill-will and hostility. The acts in question were the posting of invective and pejorative anti- 4436: 3892: 609:

there was a tendency to conflate ethnicity with religious affiliation. This inclination to associate race with religion may stem from the fact that in Singapore, most Malays are Muslims and

491:(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; 2011: 1410:

on 14 August 2014. On 6 October, the Federal Court ruled that the provision of the Sedition Act challenged was not unconstitutional. Azmi will therefore stand trial on the original charge.

1268:, Senior District Judge Magnus sentenced Koh to one month's imprisonment as he found the statements Koh made to have been "particularly vile" – among other things, Koh had placed the 3804: 3618: 1309:

better and stronger than Stinkaporeans". In another post made later that day, he said he would "kick out all Singaporeans" and that the country would be a new "filipino state" [

1117:

people causing feelings of enmity, hatred, ill-will or hostility between different religious groups, among other things. Criminal sanctions only apply if such orders are contravened.

897:, or as a criminal offence having a maximum sentence of a fine not exceeding $ 5,000 or jail of up to three years or both. However, no one may be punished twice for the same offence. 983:

and constitutional supremacy enshrined in Article 4 of the Constitution, and accords too much deference to the legislative and executive branches of government. Moreover, the phrase

3817: 3053: 1318:

On 14 April a couple, a Singaporean man named Yang Kaiheng and an Australian woman named Ai Takagi, were charged with seven counts of posting on a website operated by them called

3417: 633:

A literal reading of section 3(1)(e) indicates that the provision does not require proof that an act has the propensity to cause violence. In contrast, Article 149(1)(c) of the

1653: 1264:

school of thought. This means they are not allowed to touch dogs which are wet, which would include a dog's saliva. This is a religious requirement." In the judgment entitled

3681: 1105:

The Sedition Act plays its part by criminalizing the doing of any act or the uttering of any words having a seditious tendency, and dealings with seditious publications. The

1283:

A third person, a 17-year-old youth named Gan Huai Shi, was also charged under the Sedition Act for posting a series of offensive comments about Malays on his blog entitled

1697: 577:, the accused persons were convicted of distributing seditious publications tending to promote feelings of ill-will and hostility, namely, evangelical tracts that promoted 3552: 804:(2007) that there are many situations where general deterrence assumes significance and relevance, and one of them is offences involving community and/or race relations. 715:

The District Judge took into account the following facts to conclude that both the accused persons had been wilfully blind to the seditious contents of the publications:

4700: 3713: 1054:

different ethnic and religious communities, because "community or racial harmony form the bedrock upon which peace and progress in Singapore are founded". In his 2009

3842: 3596: 1315:]. Bello pleaded guilty to the charge and was sentenced to three months' jail for the seditious statements, and another month for lying to police investigators. 2892: 3510: 1007:, the accused persons argued that in order for section 3(1)(e) of the Sedition Act to "conform" with Article 14(2), it had to be read as if it contained the words 504:(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 — 4374: 4426: 3948: 3704:

Pearl Lee (29 June 2016), "TRS co-founder gets eight months' jail: Yang exploited nationalistic sentiments for financial gain and not for ideology, says judge",

3570: 1365:, there has been mounting civil society pressure for Commonwealth countries including Malaysia and India to repeal their sedition laws. In July 2012, Malaysia's 1037:

off with only a police warning for flouting the Sedition Act. It has been said it is a matter of speculation whether this reflects geopolitical realities or the

3780: 4470: 3876: 1857: 1260:

Ali Haji Mohamed, chairman of Khadijah Mosque: "There are various Islamic schools of thought which differ in views. But most Muslims in Singapore are from the

1041:'s discharge of its duty under Article 152(2) of the Constitution to protect the interests of Malays and their religion as the indigenous people of Singapore. 996:

redundant, which goes against the well-known rule that every word in an enactment must be given meaning. Furthermore, it would undermine the value of the word

439: 3759: 2767: 3924: 2737: 2076: 246:, the accused persons argued that in order for section 3(1)(e) of the Act to be consistent with the right to freedom of speech and expression guaranteed to 681:

A plain reading of the provision suggests that there are two disjunctive limbs, such that to avail himself of section 6(2) an accused needs only to prove:

526:

the requisite seditious tendency. Thus, it is immaterial that the offender failed to foresee or misjudged the risk that his or her act would be seditious.

514:(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 4533: 384:(F.M.S.) in 1939, in the form of the Sedition Enactment 1939. While the Sedition Ordinance 1938 (S.S.) remained in force in Singapore after it became a 4675: 4300: 227:

prosecutions in the 1950s and 1960s which involved allegations of fomenting disaffection against the government, those in the 21st century such as the

685:

either that the publication was distributed "without his authority, consent and knowledge and without any want of due care or caution on his part"; or

889:

Ordering that the printing press used to produce the newspaper be seized and detained by the police, or that it only be used on specified conditions.

4665: 4408: 3900: 2850: 938: 4655: 1540:

Proceedings of the Legislative Council of the Federation of Malaya for the Period (First Session) February, 1948, to February, 1949 with Appendix

921:

the court that power which exists now on the civil side of the Court – to issue an injunction against the perpetuation and dissemination of

3810: 4710: 4295: 3626: 854:

thread containing the offending statement and also tendered a written apology. The significance of these mitigating factors was downplayed in

4670: 4398: 4457: 3827: 3672:

Rachel Au-Yong (4 May 2015), "Socio-political site shut down on MDA's orders: The Real Singapore had published 'objectionable' material",

833:(inherently wrong), and alluded to "the especial sensitivity of racial and religious issues in our multicultural society", in view of the 4760: 4015: 1419: 1074: 962: 942: 251: 4088: 3045: 4575: 4563: 4418: 4198: 1393: 3407: 3665: 1276:(Islamic Religious Council of Singapore) next to a picture of a pig's head, mocked Muslim customs and beliefs, and compared Islam to 659:

the population who may be oversensitive and more prone to finding offence than others. Hence, District Judge Neighbour's reliance in

4047: 2851:"PM warns of religious fault lines: Race and religion identified as 'most dangerous' threat to Singapore's harmony and cohesiveness" 1777: 4570: 4505: 4403: 4355: 3781:"Sedition Act needed to curb terror threat: Najib: Malaysian PM defends law, as critics accuse govt of using it to silence critics" 3689: 3381:

Vinita Ramani (24 November 2005), "An 'eye-opening' probation: Judge recommends community service with Malays for racist blogger",

3249:

Chia Poteik; Cheong Yip Seng; Yeo Toon Joo (27 July 1966), "MPs found guilty, fined $ 2,000 each: Counsel gives notice of appeal",

3742: 4796: 4742: 4483: 4441: 1707: 776:

until the contrary is proved that the person knew the contents of the publication when it first came into his or her possession.

4032: 3562: 1561: 788:, the District Court held that a conviction under section 4(1)(a) of the Sedition Act will be met with a sentence that promotes 739:

evangelical exercise to convert persons of other faiths, they must have known the contents of the tracts they were distributing.

4431: 3348: 625:

Several academics have pointed out the weaknesses of section 3(1)(e) as a benchmark for what constitutes a seditious tendency.

617:

and other faiths were held to have affected followers comprising "different races and classes of the population in Singapore".

1835: 1473: 1361:

Following the abolition of the common law offences of sedition and seditious libel in the United Kingdom by section 73 of the

4716: 4121: 1603: 1113: 3721: 4629: 4156:

Zhong, Zewei (2009), "Racial and Religious Hate Speech in Singapore: Management, Democracy, and the Victim's Perspective",

4021: 3850: 3002: 2982: 2953: 2859: 1187: 1175: 1110: 1106: 1100: 827:

the appropriateness of a custodial sentence for such an offence. The judge took the view that a section 4(1)(a) offence is

435: 223:

examples of what is not a seditious tendency, and provides defences for accused persons in a limited number of situations.

3602: 2128:

Zhong Zewei (2009), "Racial and Religious Hate Speech in Singapore: Management, Democracy, and the Victim's Perspective",

4048:"Seditious in Singapore! Free Speech and the Offence of Promoting Ill-will and Hostility between Different Racial Groups" 3823: 3185: 1778:"Seditious in Singapore! Free Speech and the Offence of Promoting Ill-will and Hostility between Different Racial Groups" 1373: 3978: 3504: 1836:"Bill to repeal Sedition Act introduced in Parliament; its application is 'limited' given overlaps with other laws: MHA" 1683: 989: 4680: 4290: 2727: 1626: 1542:, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia: Printed at the Government Press by H. T. Ross, Government Printer, 1951, pp. B351–B353, 763:

individuals in the position of the accused persons would have thought that the content was objectionable or seditious.

3635: 3580: 4806: 4695: 4538: 4478: 4350: 3788: 1214:

On 25 August, following a two-and-a-half-day trial, the First Criminal District Court accepted Pritt's submission of

719:

Both accused persons were aware that something was amiss with the consignment of tracts when it was detained by the

500:(e) to promote feelings of ill-will and hostility between different races or classes of the population of Singapore. 329:, which is committed when spoken or written words are published with seditious intent, was a criminal offence under 4811: 4639: 3765: 2779: 1401: 1372:

announced plans to repeal the Sedition Act 1948. However, at the 2014 general assembly of his political party, the

494:(c) to bring into hatred or contempt or to excite disaffection against the administration of justice in Singapore; 4721: 4543: 4383: 582:

Neighbour found that the recipients' testimony "clearly proves that the publications have a seditious tendency".

30: 1892: 1280:. As Lim's statements were not as serious, he was sentenced to one day in jail and the maximum fine of $ 5,000. 1178:. Its publication led to eight Club members being charged for sedition, though they were subsequently acquitted. 869:

generates a culture of escalating complaints and counter-complaints, resulting in a further net loss of speech.

578: 4705: 4613: 4191: 1380:

debate, the Sedition (Amendment) Act 2015 was enacted. Changes to the law included clarifying that calling for

1346: 614: 4248: 3735: 3682:"Govt orders shutdown of The Real Singapore: Site published articles that were against national harmony: MDA" 1362: 957:

The Sedition Act is a significant restriction on the right to freedom of speech and expression guaranteed to

901: 1288:

the police for posting offensive cartoons of Jesus Christ on his blog. He was let off with a stern warning.

1218:. The judge, Frederick Arthur Chua, ruled that the newsletter was not seditious and acquitted the students. 215: 166: 4608: 4585: 4310: 4285: 3233:

Cheong Yip Seng (13 July 1966), "Chia makes defence on why he printed article: Sedition trial: Sixth day",

2327: 1273: 838: 700: 389: 267: 176: 156: 1858:"Parliament repeals Sedition Act, amends Penal Code and Criminal Procedure Code to cover relevant aspects" 4360: 4243: 3661: 3383: 1059: 958: 950: 720: 401: 247: 87: 39: 2865: 497:(d) to raise discontent or disaffection amongst the citizens of Singapore or the residents in Singapore; 368:

refers to "some person or body holding public office or discharging some public function of the state".

4791: 4553: 4510: 4305: 1366: 3006: 2957: 1341: 521:

if such act, speech, words, publication or other thing has not otherwise in fact a seditious tendency.

400:

which was introduced by the British government to curb opposition to colonial rule. Speaking during a

4690: 4590: 4520: 4345: 4332: 4322: 4184: 4007: 3988: 2190: 1984: 1429: 1389: 1183: 946: 819:, because of the serious effects of acts and statements offending racial and religious sensitivities. 812: 634: 530: 255: 228: 3178:

The Fajar Generation: The University Socialist Club and the Politics of Postwar Malaya and Singapore

4755: 4737: 4548: 4113: 3201:"Two Barisan leaders arrested on sedition charge: Chia Thye Poh, Koo Young picked up at party HQ", 2002: 1595: 1238: 1088: 4600: 4315: 4269: 4233: 3413: 3399:

Zakir Hussain (14 June 2006), "Blogger who posted cartoons of Christ online being investigated",

3225:"The day Chin Siong tried to kill himself ...: MPs on trial on sedition charge: First day", 2420: 1469: 1439: 1424: 1354: 1038: 905: 752: 538: 446:

On 5 October 2021, Parliament passed the Sedition (Repeal) Bill. It was assented to by President

397: 263: 2973:(section entitled "Preserving religious and racial harmony in the new global security climate"). 2891:, Singapore United: The Community Engagement Programme, Ministry of Home Affairs, archived from 4558: 4340: 4264: 4228: 4131:

Wong, Ronald (2011), "Evangelism and Racial-Religious Harmony: A Call To Reconsider Tolerance:

3083: 1806: 1377: 1350: 1134: 470: 381: 303: 4169: 4148: 4079: 2960: 2287: 2270:

Ronald Wong (2011), "Evangelism And Racial-Religious Harmony: A Call To Reconsider Tolerance:

2141: 1731: 3974: 2741: 1679: 1229:

and Koo Young, were charged with sedition after publishing the 11 December 1965 issue of the

748: 688:"he did not know and had no reason to believe that the publication had a seditious tendency". 413: 353: 333:. It emerged in an era where political violence threatened the stability of governments. The 3180:, Petaling Jaya, Selangor, Malaysia: Strategic Information and Research Development Centre, 743:

Accordingly, the accused persons could not avail themselves of the defence in section 6(2).

25: 4786: 4685: 4238: 3354: 3136:"Students' trial set for Aug. 10, 11: Varsity publication seditious 'as a whole' – Crown", 1465: 1397: 393: 307: 91: 76: 43: 3365:

Chong Chee Kin (27 October 2005), "3rd racist blogger convicted but may avoid jail term",

1879: 8: 4660: 4058: 1788: 1757: 1703: 834: 377: 278:

indicate that in Singapore freedom of speech is not a primary right, but is qualified by

137: 1066:

then we must live and let live, there must be tolerance, there must be mutual respect".

4634: 3739: 2744: 2641: 1211: 1055: 980: 846: 816: 789: 566: 3332:

Chong Chee Kin (17 September 2005), "Third person accused of racist comments on Net",

2466: 2319: 1622: 1490:

abbreviation for Pemberitahu Undangan, which is Malay for "Legislative Notification".)

488:(a) to bring into hatred or contempt or to excite disaffection against the Government; 380:(S.S.) through the Sedition Ordinance 1938. Similar legislation was introduced in the 4801: 4528: 4165: 4144: 4117: 4075: 3181: 2855: 2732: 2283: 2137: 1727: 1599: 1543: 1251: 1215: 894: 850: 708: 562: 4089:"Excluding Religion from Politics and Enforcing Religious Harmony – Singapore-style" 3358: 3046:"Excluding Religion from Politics and Enforcing Religious Harmony – Singapore-style" 2858:(reproduced on the website of Singapore United: The Community Engagement Programme, 330: 4207: 3276:

Chong Chee Kin (13 September 2005), "2 charged with making racist remarks on Net",

1477: 1222: 508:(a) to show that the Government has been misled or mistaken in any of its measures; 465: 3941:"Federal Court rules Sedition Act constitutional, UM's Azmi Sharom to stand trial" 3746: 3373:

Chong Chee Kin (24 November 2005), "Not jail, but immersion in Malay community",

2879: 1062: 652: 406: 342: 319: 3871: 3144:"Sedition charges specified by Crown: The 8 varsity students get the details", 2969: 1406: 1396:

was pending. The case was brought by Dr. Azmi Sharom, a law professor from the

1242: 270:

have yet to render any judgment on the issue. According to one legal scholar,

4780: 3447:

T. Rajan (21 July 2006), "Warning for blogger who posted cartoon of Christ",

3007:

speech during the Second Reading of the Maintenance of Religious Harmony Bill

1547: 1226: 1199: 913: 807: 447: 314:. The chamber lent its name to a court of law that decided, in the 1572 case 3867:"Sedition Act unconstitutional as it pre-dates Parliament, apex court hears" 692:

The second limb of section 6(2) was examined by District Judge Neighbour in

298: 3601:, Agence France-Press (reproduced on Yahoo! News Singapore), archived from 2998: 1203: 1166: 1154: 593:

section 3(1)(e) relates to the inflaming of ethno-religious sensitivities.

385: 334: 311: 279: 106: 3917:"Take Perak crisis route for speedy end to Selangor impasse, Pakatan told" 3819:

Malaysian parliament passes tough Sedition Act amendments criticised by UN

1891:

Sedition (Repeal) Act 2021 (Commencement) Notification 2022 2022 (

412:

The 1948 Ordinance was extended to Singapore on 28 May 1964 following its

4105: 3558: 2949: 1587: 1392:

on whether the Act violated the right to freedom of speech guaranteed by

1369: 1297: 1207: 1195: 1133:

Another statutory counterpart to the Sedition Act is section 298A of the

1050: 829: 797: 773: 2654: 1500: 537:(2009) that on a plain and literal reading, there is no suggestion that 119:

19 July 1948 (Peninsular Malaysia); extended to Singapore on 28 May 1964

1261: 1139: 638: 54: 4025: 4011: 3248: 2986: 2194: 1147: 259: 3463: 1381: 1324: 349: 212: 3087: 1822: 4176: 4070:

Tan, Yock Lin (2011), "Sedition and Its New Clothes in Singapore",

3971:

R. v. Chief Metropolitan Stipendiary Magistrate, ex parte Choudhury

3575: 3175: 1676:

R. v. Chief Metropolitan Stipendiary Magistrate, ex parte Choudhury

1434: 1277: 933: 376:

Sedition laws were initially introduced in Singapore and the other

326: 219: 3802: 3217:"Court sets aside seven days in July for Barisan sedition trial", 1722:

Tan Yock Lin (2011), "Sedition and Its New Clothes in Singapore",

1044: 3357:(reproduced on Singapore Window), 26 October 2005, archived from 3168:"Eight university students freed: No sedition, the judge rules", 2773: 421: 3893:"UM law professor latest caught in Putrajaya's sedition dragnet" 3806:

Sedition Act passed with slight amendments after 12-hour debate

3292:

Zuraimah Mohammed (14 June 2005), "Uncaged pet seen in taxi ",

1400:

who had been charged with sedition for comments he made on the

707:(2008), held that the requirement of knowledge is satisfied if 672: 199: 3655: 3571:"Filipino charged with sedition for 'anti-S'pore rant' on FB" 3554:

Filipino charged with sedition for anti-Singapore online rant

3509:, Agence France-Presse (reproduced on AsiaOne), 29 May 2009, 2768:"ISD investigation not less serious than being arrested: DPM" 1699:

Sedition in England: The Abolition of a Law from a Bygone Era

1535:

Official Report of the Proceedings of the Legislative Council

1306: 1269: 1257: 1174:, the official organ of the University Socialist Club of the 922: 811:

The Subordinate Courts of Singapore, known since 2014 as the

417: 3843:"Malaysia toughens sedition law to include online media ban" 2653:

Miscellaneous Offences (Public Order and Nuisance) Act (

949:

guarantees the right to freedom of speech and expression to

450:

on 29 October 2021 and came into effect on 2 November 2022.

4701:

Protection from Online Falsehoods and Manipulation Act 2019

1641:"Trying Beliefs: The Law of Cultural Orthodoxy and Dissent" 1357:, it changed its plans and instead amended the Act in 2015. 979:

towards Article 14 goes against the venerable tradition of

3431:

Karen Tee (27 June 2006), "Blogosphere: Char speaks out",

3714:"Former TRS editor Yang Kaiheng found guilty of sedition" 2069:

Singapore Academy of Law Annual Review of Singapore Cases

2051: 2049: 2003:

Singapore Academy of Law Annual Review of Singapore Cases

1311: 3803:

G. Surach; Shaik Amin; Noraizura Ahmad (10 April 2015),

3350:

Third Singapore racist blogger pleads guilty to sedition

872: 358:

R. v. Chief Metropolitan Stipendiary, ex parte Choudhury

4108:(2012), "Freedom of Speech, Assembly and Association", 3152:"Q.C. says: Tremendous victory for freedom of speech", 1590:(2012), "Freedom of Speech, Assembly and Association", 1094: 3176:

Poh Soo Kai; Tan Jing Quee; Koh Kay Yew, eds. (2010),

2885:

National Day Rally Speech 2009, Sunday, 16 August 2009

2046: 1388:

The Malaysian Act was amended while a decision by the

1336: 440:

Protection from Online Falsehoods and Manipulation Act

3764:, Yahoo! News Singapore, 12 July 2012, archived from 3623:

The Straits Times (reproduced on Singapore Law Watch)

1775: 1645:

Insights on Law and Society, American Bar Association

1619:

The Case De Libellis Famosis, or of Scandalous Libels

893:

Contravention of any order made can be punished as a

585: 550: 79:), 2020 Revised Edition—Sedition Act 1948 (Singapore) 3598:

Singapore jails Filipino nurse for 'seditious' posts

3409:

Jesus cartoons could draw jail for Singapore blogger

1121:

subsumed under the Sedition Act. This is because in

882:

Prohibiting the future publication of the newspaper.

545: 4711:

Third-Party Taxi Booking Service Providers Act 2015

3636:"The Real Singapore duo charged under Sedition Act" 3506:

Christian couple convicted for anti-Muslim booklets

2945: 2943: 1695: 1148:

Proposal for legislation for inter-group antagonism

928: 849:. The Senior District Judge also took into account 645: 285:On 2 November 2022, the Sedition Act was repealed. 4301:Constitution of the Republic of Singapore Tribunal 3634: 3209:"Sedition charge not properly framed says court", 2910:"Danish cartoons provocative and wrong, says PM", 1973: 1971: 1652: 772:person is charged with possession, the court will 3619:"Couple behind TRS website face sedition charges" 3291: 2075:: 1–38 at 17–20, paras. 1.43–1.48, archived from 2010:: 1–37 at 12–17, paras. 1.28–1.39, archived from 1702:, In Custodia Legis: Law Librarians of Congress, 1353:announced in 2012 that it would be repealing the 975:It has been suggested that the approach taken in 4778: 4666:Liquor Control (Supply and Consumption) Act 2015 3011:Singapore Parliamentary Debates, Official Report 2965:Singapore Parliamentary Debates, Official Report 2940: 2058:SGDC 272, D.C. (Singapore). For commentary, see 1638: 1562:"Commencement of the Sedition (Repeal) Act 2021" 1501:"Legislative History Sedition Act (Chapter 290)" 1161: 934:Interpretation of Article 14 of the Constitution 4656:Foreign Interference (Countermeasures) Act 2021 3271: 3269: 3232: 2878: 2819: 2817: 1968: 1529: 1527: 1525: 1523: 1521: 1045:Prioritization of other values over free speech 469:disposed of. No person may be convicted on the 3671: 3372: 3364: 3331: 3275: 2469:, 2 S.L.R.(R.) 814, H.C. (Singapore). 2217: 2215: 2205: 2203: 823:Senior District Judge Richard Magnus noted in 4671:Medical (Therapy, Education and Research) Act 4192: 3914: 3890: 3761:Malaysia to repeal sedition law as polls loom 3632: 3398: 3380: 3043: 628: 3594: 3266: 2848: 2814: 2793:Thio, p. 784, para. 14.078–14.079. 2765: 2644:, S.L.R.(R.) 582, H.C. (Singapore). 1721: 1598:, pp. 747–867 at p. 775, para. 14.061, 1518: 1013:with the effect of producing public disorder 1009:productive of public disturbance or disorder 779: 673:Acts done without accused person's knowledge 484:.— (1) A seditious tendency is a tendency — 4761:List of acts of the Parliament of Singapore 3985:Public Prosecutor v. Koh Song Huat Benjamin 3849:, p. 10, 11 April 2015, archived from 3834:"Malaysia passes changes to Sedition Act", 3679: 3616: 3568: 2637:Chee Siok Chin v. Minister for Home Affairs 2269: 2212: 2200: 2127: 2059: 2056:Public Prosecutor v. Koh Song Huat Benjamin 1992: 1586: 1420:Article 14 of the Constitution of Singapore 1266:Public Prosecutor v. Koh Song Huat Benjamin 1190:published issue 7 of the Club's newsletter 1128: 969:Chee Siok Chin v. Minister for Home Affairs 796:District Judge Neighbour relied on Justice 699:District Judge Neighbour, referring to the 559:Public Prosecutor v. Koh Song Huat Benjamin 233:Public Prosecutor v. Koh Song Huat Benjamin 4199: 4185: 4110:A Treatise on Singapore Constitutional Law 3787:, p. 1, 26 March 2015, archived from 2403: 2401: 2399: 1961: 1959: 1878:Sedition (Repeal) Act 2021 2021 ( 1592:A Treatise on Singapore Constitutional Law 1394:Article 10 of the Constitution of Malaysia 24: 4008:Constitution of the Republic of Singapore 3703: 3430: 2954:Senior Minister of State for Home Affairs 2350: 2348: 2299: 2297: 2191:Constitution of the Republic of Singapore 2162: 2160: 2111: 2109: 2107: 2105: 2027: 2025: 1805:Sedition Enactment 1939 (No. 13 of 1939, 1756:Sedition Ordinance 1938 (No. 18 of 1938, 1621: (1572) (1606) 5 Co. Rep. 125a, 1464:Sedition Ordinance 1948 (No. 14 of 1958, 1233:, the Chinese edition of the party organ 635:Constitution of the Republic of Singapore 256:Constitution of the Republic of Singapore 75:Sedition Ordinance 1948 (No. 14 of 1948, 4506:Singapore International Mediation Centre 4356:Presidential Council for Minority Rights 3711: 3446: 2092: 2090: 2043:Thio, p. 778, paras. 14.071–14.072. 1340: 1165: 937: 806: 297: 151:E. P. S. Bell (Acting Attorney-General). 4743:Integrated Electronic Litigation System 4534:Criminal Law (Temporary Provisions) Act 3938: 3864: 2958:speech during the Second Reading of the 2396: 2062:"Administrative and Constitutional Law" 1995:"Administrative and Constitutional Law" 1956: 1404:which were published on the website of 63:An Act for the punishment of sedition. 4779: 4774:Statute of the Parliament of Singapore 4676:Mental Health (Care and Treatment) Act 4437:Relevant and irrelevant considerations 4026:Cap. 167A, 2001 Rev. Ed. 3412:, Agence France-Presse (reproduced on 2987:Cap. 167A, 2001 Rev. Ed. 2345: 2294: 2157: 2102: 2022: 1991:on 17 April 2015. For commentary, see 1770: 1768: 1766: 1696:Clare Feikert-Ahalt (2 October 2012), 4717:Transboundary Haze Pollution Act 2014 4180: 4155: 3557:, Agence France-Press (reproduced on 3513:from the original on 16 February 2016 3476:"Couple charged under Sedition Act", 3464:Cap. 338, 1998 Rev. Ed. 3126:Thio, p. 791, para. 14.097. 3117:Thio, p. 787, para. 14.086. 3088:Cap. 224, 2008 Rev. Ed. 3056:from the original on 18 February 2017 2967:(22 October 2007), vol. 83, col. 2175 2839:Thio, p. 786, para. 14.084. 2811:Thio, p. 789, para. 14.090. 2802:Thio, p. 783, para. 14.077. 2690:Thio, p. 789, para. 14.092. 2655:Cap. 184, 1997 Rev. Ed. 2230:Thio, p. 779, para. 14.069. 2221:Thio, p. 789, para. 14.091. 2209:Thio, p. 779, para. 14.068. 2154:Thio, p. 787, para. 14.088. 2087: 1935:Thio, p. 778, para. 14.065. 1823:Cap. 290, 1985 Rev. Ed. 1817: 1815: 992:. Such a reading would make the word 873:Suppression of seditious publications 620: 453: 4630:Maintenance of Religious Harmony Act 4206: 4133:Public Prosecutor v. Ong Kian Cheong 4130: 4104: 4022:Maintenance of Religious Harmony Act 3995:Public Prosecutor v. Ong Kian Cheong 2983:Maintenance of Religious Harmony Act 2272:Public Prosecutor v. Ong Kian Cheong 1978:Public Prosecutor v. Ong Kian Cheong 1460: 1458: 1456: 1454: 1293:Public Prosecutor v. Ong Kian Cheong 1241:government was "plotting to murder" 1107:Maintenance of Religious Harmony Act 1101:Maintenance of Religious Harmony Act 1095:Maintenance of Religious Harmony Act 535:Public Prosecutor v. Ong Kian Cheong 436:Maintenance of Religious Harmony Act 237:Public Prosecutor v. Ong Kian Cheong 4571:Prevention of Human Trafficking Act 4086: 4069: 4045: 3824:Australian Broadcasting Corporation 1763: 1374:United Malays National Organisation 1337:Developments in other jurisdictions 766: 13: 4681:Newspaper and Printing Presses Act 4442:Substantive legitimate expectation 4093:Singapore Journal of Legal Studies 4072:Singapore Journal of Legal Studies 4055:Singapore Journal of Legal Studies 3891:Zurairi A. R. (1 September 2014), 3595:Stefanus Ian (21 September 2015), 3462:Undesirable Publications Act ( 3420:from the original on 21 April 2015 3257:"Barisan ex-MPs withdraw appeal", 3050:Singapore Journal of Legal Studies 2877:. The full speech is available at 2728:Supreme Court of the United States 2316:Tan Kiam Peng v. Public Prosecutor 1812: 1785:Singapore Journal of Legal Studies 1724:Singapore Journal of Legal Studies 705:Tan Kiam Peng v. Public Prosecutor 587:Between different races or classes 552:Feelings of ill-will and hostility 416:with the Federation together with 14: 4823: 4696:Personal Data Protection Act 2012 4484:Procedural legitimate expectation 3809:, The Rakyat Post, archived from 3013:(18 July 1990), vol. 56, col. 325 2772:The Straits Times (reproduced on 2766:Rachel Chang (10 February 2010), 2463:Public Prosecutor v. Law Aik Meng 2417:Koh Hak Boon v. Public Prosecutor 1451: 1188:University of Malaya in Singapore 1176:University of Malaya in Singapore 1081: 802:Public Prosecutor v. Law Aik Meng 757:Koh Hak Boon v. Public Prosecutor 546:Interpretation of section 3(1)(e) 428: 4640:Administration of Muslim Law Act 4373: 4001: 3932: 3915:Zurairi A. R. (14 August 2014), 3908: 3884: 3858: 3796: 3773: 3752: 3729: 3697: 3648: 3610: 3588: 3545: 3525: 3497: 3485: 3469: 3456: 3440: 3433:The Straits Times (Digital Life) 3392: 3341: 3325: 3313: 3301: 3285: 3242: 3194: 3129: 3120: 3111: 3102: 3093: 3077: 3068: 2562:Thio, p. 788, para. 14.089. 1787:: 351–372 at 353, archived from 1639:James H. Landman (Winter 2002), 1402:2009 Perak constitutional crisis 929:The Sedition Act and free speech 646:Feelings as unreliable indicator 4722:Workplace Safety and Health Act 4046:Neo, Jaclyn Ling-Chien (2011), 4012:1985 Rev. Ed., 1999 Reprint 3826:, 10 April 2015, archived from 3633:Neo Chai Chin (15 April 2015), 3561:), 7 April 2015, archived from 3037: 3028: 3019: 2992: 2976: 2931: 2919: 2903: 2849:Clarissa Oon (17 August 2009), 2842: 2833: 2805: 2796: 2787: 2759: 2750: 2720: 2711: 2702: 2693: 2684: 2672: 2660: 2647: 2629: 2619: 2610: 2601: 2592: 2583: 2574: 2565: 2556: 2544: 2532: 2520: 2508: 2496: 2484: 2472: 2456: 2444: 2435: 2426: 2410: 2384: 2372: 2360: 2333: 2324:Singapore Law Reports (Reissue) 2309: 2263: 2254: 2245: 2233: 2224: 2195:1985 Rev. Ed., 1999 Reprint 2184: 2172: 2148: 2121: 2037: 1947: 1938: 1929: 1916: 1907: 1898: 1885: 1872: 1850: 1828: 1799: 1750: 1738: 1715: 1689: 348:Originally designed to protect 260:1985 Rev. Ed., 1999 Reprint 4797:Freedom of speech in Singapore 4706:Silver Support Scheme Act 2015 4576:Protection from Harassment Act 4564:Section 377A of the Penal Code 4039: 3688:, pp. 1–2, archived from 1776:Jaclyn Ling-Chien Neo (2011), 1669: 1632: 1612: 1580: 1554: 1537:(F.S. 10404/48, 6 July 1948): 1493: 1483: 1347:Malaysian Houses of Parliament 371: 33:, photographed in January 2006 1: 3959: 3736:Coroners and Justice Act 2009 3617:Elena Chong (15 April 2015), 3261:, p. 6, 16 December 1966 2914:, p. 6, 11 February 2006 2826:, p. 827, para. 24, cited in 1363:Coroners and Justice Act 2009 1182:On or about 10 May 1954, the 1162:Notable uses of sedition laws 310:receiving dignitaries in the 306:from a 1504 document showing 293: 4586:Undesirable Publications Act 4399:Exclusion of judicial review 3664:, 3 May 2015, archived from 3579:, p. A4, archived from 3569:Elena Chong (8 April 2015), 1333:eight months' imprisonment. 1298:tracts by Chick Publications 1274:Majlis Ugama Islam Singapura 396:the law was replaced by the 7: 4361:Singaporean nationality law 3997:SGDC 163, D.C. (Singapore). 3662:Media Development Authority 3172:, p. 7, 26 August 1954 3164:, p. 6, 26 August 1954 3156:, p. 1, 26 August 1954 2961:Penal Code (Amendment) Bill 1987:(Singapore), archived from 1533:"The Sedition Bill, 1948", 1476:, Malaysia), archived from 1413: 1202:. They were represented by 912:The High Court can issue a 721:Media Development Authority 667: 402:Federal Legislative Council 88:Federal Legislative Council 40:Federal Legislative Council 10: 4828: 4511:Singapore Mediation Centre 3939:Ida Lim (6 October 2015), 3680:Valerie Koh (4 May 2015), 3536:"Duo jailed eight weeks", 3213:, p. 2, 17 April 1966 3205:, p. 1, 16 April 1966 2726:Zhong, p. 28, quoting the 2242:(1909) 22 Cox C.C. 1 at 3. 1098: 629:Emphasis on potential harm 458: 288: 191:Sedition (Repeal) Act 2021 4751: 4730: 4691:Payment Services Act 2019 4648: 4622: 4599: 4519: 4496: 4469: 4450: 4417: 4391: 4382: 4371: 4331: 4278: 4257: 4221: 4214: 4057:: 351–372, archived from 3865:Ida Lim (24 March 2015), 3712:Kelly Ng (24 June 2016), 3160:"A charge of sedition ", 3003:Minister for Home Affairs 1505:Singapore Statutes Online 1430:Criminal law of Singapore 1237:, which claimed that the 1184:University Socialist Club 1170:The 10 May 1954 issue of 1111:Minister for Home Affairs 947:Constitution of Singapore 780:Sentencing considerations 195: 190: 185: 175: 165: 155: 147: 136: 131: 123: 115: 105: 97: 83: 71: 49: 38: 23: 18: 4807:Singaporean criminal law 4756:Sources of Singapore law 4738:Electronic Filing System 4549:Organised Crime Act 2015 3964: 3229:, p. 9, 5 July 1966 3221:, p. 11, 1 May 1966 3148:, p. 5, 3 July 1954 3140:, p. 7, 2 July 1954 2860:Ministry of Home Affairs 1922:SA, s. 2 (definition of 1566:Ministry of Home Affairs 1445: 1198:, James Puthucheary and 1129:Penal Code, section 298A 1089:prosecutorial discretion 637:, which authorizes anti- 471:uncorroborated testimony 4812:Singaporean legislation 4427:Fettering of discretion 4087:Tey, Tsun Hang (2008), 3414:Daily News and Analysis 2642:[2005] SGHC 216 1981:[2009] SGDC 163 1440:Sedition Act (Malaysia) 1425:Censorship in Singapore 1225:Members of Parliament, 731:either of these things. 579:Protestant Christianity 542:and religious harmony. 398:Sedition Ordinance 1948 322:was a criminal offence. 4471:Procedural impropriety 3981:) (England and Wales). 3320:Koh Song Huat Benjamin 3308:Koh Song Huat Benjamin 3044:Tey Tsun Hang (2008), 2607:SA, ss. 10(4) and (5). 2527:Koh Song Huat Benjamin 2515:Koh Song Huat Benjamin 2503:Koh Song Huat Benjamin 2491:Koh Song Huat Benjamin 2467:[2007] SGHC 33 2451:Koh Song Huat Benjamin 2320:[2007] SGCA 38 2097:Koh Song Huat Benjamin 1807:Federated Malay States 1686:) (England and Wales). 1358: 1351:Government of Malaysia 1179: 1123:Koh Song Huat Benjamin 1030:Koh Song Huat Benjamin 1022: 985:necessary or expedient 954: 835:Maria Hertogh incident 825:Koh Song Huat Benjamin 820: 786:Koh Song Huat Benjamin 523: 382:Federated Malay States 323: 272:Koh Song Huat Benjamin 4539:Internal Security Act 4432:Precedent fact errors 4351:Internal Security Act 4291:Judicial independence 3745:20 April 2015 at the 3559:Yahoo! News Singapore 3052:: 118–142 at p. 132, 2580:SA, ss. 9(2) and (3). 2322:, 1 S.L.R.(R.) [ 1344: 1239:People's Action Party 1169: 1017: 941: 837:in the 1950s and the 810: 615:Roman Catholic Church 479: 473:of a single witness. 366:constituted authority 354:High Court of Justice 301: 4686:Pawnbrokers Act 2015 4158:Singapore Law Review 4137:Singapore Law Review 4116:, pp. 747–867, 3657:MDA Statement on TRS 3355:Agence France-Presse 2276:Singapore Law Review 2130:Singapore Law Review 2060:Thio Li-ann (2005), 1993:Thio Li-ann (2009), 1474:Act 15, 2006 Reprint 1398:University of Malaya 1285:The Second Holocaust 394:Federation of Malaya 390:self-governing state 92:Federation of Malaya 44:Federation of Malaya 31:Old Parliament House 4661:Income Tax Act 1947 4544:Misuse of Drugs Act 4497:Alternative dispute 4031:Sedition Act 1948 ( 3927:on 26 December 2014 3903:on 1 September 2014 3322:, paras. 11 and 16. 3310:, paras. 11 and 15. 2782:on 14 February 2010 2681:, p. 603, para. 50. 2669:, p. 604, para. 56. 1880:No. 30 of 2021 1838:. 13 September 2021 1758:Straits Settlements 1704:Library of Congress 1651:(2), archived from 596:However, the words 378:Straits Settlements 339:De Libellis Famosis 316:De Libellis Famosis 304:illuminated capital 132:Legislative history 4384:Administrative law 4258:Legislative branch 4215:Constitutional law 4114:Academy Publishing 3025:MRHA, ss. 8 and 9. 2882:(16 August 2009), 2419:2 S.L.R.(R.) 733, 1821:Sedition Act ( 1745:Ex parte Choudhury 1726:: 212–236 at 212, 1596:Academy Publishing 1359: 1330:The Real Singapore 1320:The Real Singapore 1208:Denis Nowell Pritt 1180: 1056:National Day Rally 981:limited government 959:Singapore citizens 955: 951:Singapore citizens 851:mitigating factors 847:aggravating factor 821: 817:general deterrence 790:general deterrence 621:Academic criticism 454:Seditious tendency 362:ex parte Choudhury 331:English common law 324: 248:Singapore citizens 143:Sedition Bill 1948 4792:1964 in Singapore 4769: 4768: 4529:Arms Offences Act 4492: 4491: 4369: 4368: 4296:Judicial officers 4123:978-981-07-1516-8 3951:on 6 October 2015 3836:The Straits Times 3706:The Straits Times 3674:The Straits Times 3605:on 6 October 2015 3538:The Straits Times 3478:The Straits Times 3449:The Straits Times 3416:), 14 June 2006, 3401:The Straits Times 3375:The Straits Times 3367:The Straits Times 3334:The Straits Times 3294:The Straits Times 3278:The Straits Times 3259:The Straits Times 3251:The Straits Times 3235:The Straits Times 3227:The Straits Times 3219:The Straits Times 3211:The Straits Times 3203:The Straits Times 3170:The Straits Times 3162:The Straits Times 3154:The Straits Times 3146:The Straits Times 3138:The Straits Times 3074:Tey, pp. 131–132. 2912:The Straits Times 2856:The Straits Times 2733:Virginia v. Black 2699:Zhong, pp. 27–30. 2251:Neo, pp. 361–362. 1605:978-981-07-1516-8 1568:. 1 November 2022 1470:Sedition Act 1948 1252:The Straits Times 1216:no case to answer 902:Public Prosecutor 895:contempt of court 749:standard of proof 337:, in the case of 218:which prohibited 209:Sedition Act 1948 205: 204: 19:Sedition Act 1948 4819: 4461:unreasonableness 4409:Threshold issues 4389: 4388: 4377: 4249:Attorney-General 4222:Executive branch 4219: 4218: 4208:Law of Singapore 4201: 4194: 4187: 4178: 4177: 4172: 4151: 4126: 4100: 4082: 4065: 4064:on 17 April 2015 4063: 4052: 3954: 3952: 3947:, archived from 3936: 3930: 3928: 3923:, archived from 3912: 3906: 3904: 3899:, archived from 3888: 3882: 3880: 3879:on 22 April 2015 3875:, archived from 3862: 3856: 3854: 3853:on 22 April 2015 3839: 3831: 3830:on 22 April 2015 3814: 3813:on 22 April 2015 3800: 3794: 3792: 3791:on 22 April 2015 3777: 3771: 3769: 3768:on 21 April 2015 3756: 3750: 3733: 3727: 3725: 3720:, archived from 3709: 3701: 3695: 3693: 3677: 3669: 3652: 3646: 3644: 3638: 3630: 3629:on 22 April 2015 3625:, archived from 3614: 3608: 3606: 3592: 3586: 3584: 3583:on 22 April 2015 3566: 3565:on 22 April 2015 3549: 3543: 3541: 3534:, paras. 84–86; 3529: 3523: 3521: 3520: 3518: 3501: 3495: 3489: 3483: 3481: 3473: 3467: 3460: 3454: 3452: 3444: 3438: 3436: 3428: 3427: 3425: 3404: 3396: 3390: 3388: 3378: 3370: 3362: 3345: 3339: 3337: 3329: 3323: 3317: 3311: 3305: 3299: 3297: 3289: 3283: 3281: 3273: 3264: 3262: 3254: 3246: 3240: 3238: 3230: 3222: 3214: 3206: 3198: 3192: 3190: 3173: 3165: 3157: 3149: 3141: 3133: 3127: 3124: 3118: 3115: 3109: 3106: 3100: 3097: 3091: 3081: 3075: 3072: 3066: 3064: 3063: 3061: 3041: 3035: 3032: 3026: 3023: 3017: 2996: 2990: 2980: 2974: 2947: 2938: 2935: 2929: 2923: 2917: 2915: 2907: 2901: 2899: 2898:on 19 April 2015 2897: 2890: 2876: 2875: 2873: 2864:, archived from 2846: 2840: 2837: 2831: 2830:, para. 74. 2821: 2812: 2809: 2803: 2800: 2794: 2791: 2785: 2783: 2778:, archived from 2763: 2757: 2754: 2748: 2724: 2718: 2715: 2709: 2706: 2700: 2697: 2691: 2688: 2682: 2676: 2670: 2664: 2658: 2651: 2645: 2633: 2627: 2623: 2617: 2614: 2608: 2605: 2599: 2596: 2590: 2587: 2581: 2578: 2572: 2569: 2563: 2560: 2554: 2548: 2542: 2536: 2530: 2524: 2518: 2512: 2506: 2500: 2494: 2488: 2482: 2476: 2470: 2460: 2454: 2448: 2442: 2439: 2433: 2432:Wong, pp. 90–91. 2430: 2424: 2414: 2408: 2405: 2394: 2388: 2382: 2376: 2370: 2364: 2358: 2352: 2343: 2337: 2331: 2313: 2307: 2301: 2292: 2290: 2282:: 85–113 at 90, 2267: 2261: 2258: 2252: 2249: 2243: 2237: 2231: 2228: 2222: 2219: 2210: 2207: 2198: 2188: 2182: 2176: 2170: 2164: 2155: 2152: 2146: 2144: 2125: 2119: 2113: 2100: 2094: 2085: 2083: 2082:on 21 March 2015 2081: 2066: 2053: 2044: 2041: 2035: 2029: 2020: 2018: 2017:on 19 March 2015 2016: 1999: 1975: 1966: 1963: 1954: 1951: 1945: 1942: 1936: 1933: 1927: 1920: 1914: 1911: 1905: 1902: 1896: 1889: 1883: 1876: 1870: 1869: 1867: 1865: 1860:. 5 October 2021 1854: 1848: 1847: 1845: 1843: 1832: 1826: 1819: 1810: 1803: 1797: 1795: 1794:on 17 April 2015 1793: 1782: 1772: 1761: 1754: 1748: 1742: 1736: 1734: 1719: 1713: 1711: 1710:on 24 March 2015 1706:, archived from 1693: 1687: 1673: 1667: 1665: 1664: 1662: 1657:on 17 April 2015 1656: 1636: 1630: 1616: 1610: 1608: 1584: 1578: 1577: 1575: 1573: 1558: 1552: 1550: 1531: 1516: 1515: 1513: 1511: 1497: 1491: 1487: 1481: 1480:on 4 April 2015. 1462: 1223:Barisan Sosialis 943:Article 14(1)(a) 800:'s statement in 792:. Similarly, in 767:Innocent receipt 709:wilful blindness 655:of free speech. 392:in 1959, in the 341:(1572), defined 252:Article 14(1)(a) 28: 16: 15: 4827: 4826: 4822: 4821: 4820: 4818: 4817: 4816: 4777: 4776: 4775: 4770: 4765: 4747: 4726: 4644: 4618: 4614:Women's Charter 4609:Matrimonial law 4595: 4515: 4498: 4488: 4465: 4446: 4413: 4378: 4365: 4327: 4311:Court of Appeal 4286:Judicial system 4279:Judicial branch 4274: 4253: 4210: 4205: 4124: 4061: 4050: 4042: 4004: 3967: 3962: 3957: 3937: 3933: 3913: 3909: 3889: 3885: 3863: 3859: 3841: 3838:, 11 April 2015 3833: 3816: 3801: 3797: 3779: 3778: 3774: 3758: 3757: 3753: 3747:Wayback Machine 3734: 3730: 3724:on 25 June 2016 3702: 3698: 3654: 3653: 3649: 3615: 3611: 3593: 3589: 3551: 3550: 3546: 3535: 3532:Ong Kian Cheong 3530: 3526: 3516: 3514: 3503: 3502: 3498: 3492:Ong Kian Cheong 3490: 3486: 3480:, 15 April 2008 3475: 3474: 3470: 3461: 3457: 3445: 3441: 3423: 3421: 3406: 3397: 3393: 3361:on 22 June 2013 3347: 3346: 3342: 3330: 3326: 3318: 3314: 3306: 3302: 3290: 3286: 3274: 3267: 3256: 3247: 3243: 3224: 3216: 3208: 3200: 3199: 3195: 3188: 3187:978-983378287-1 3167: 3159: 3151: 3143: 3135: 3134: 3130: 3125: 3121: 3116: 3112: 3107: 3103: 3098: 3094: 3082: 3078: 3073: 3069: 3059: 3057: 3042: 3038: 3033: 3029: 3024: 3020: 2997: 2993: 2981: 2977: 2948: 2941: 2936: 2932: 2924: 2920: 2909: 2908: 2904: 2895: 2888: 2880:Lee Hsien Loong 2871: 2869: 2847: 2843: 2838: 2834: 2828:Ong Kian Cheong 2822: 2815: 2810: 2806: 2801: 2797: 2792: 2788: 2764: 2760: 2755: 2751: 2725: 2721: 2716: 2712: 2708:SA, s. 4(1)(c). 2707: 2703: 2698: 2694: 2689: 2685: 2677: 2673: 2665: 2661: 2652: 2648: 2634: 2630: 2624: 2620: 2615: 2611: 2606: 2602: 2597: 2593: 2588: 2584: 2579: 2575: 2570: 2566: 2561: 2557: 2553:, paras. 80–84. 2551:Ong Kian Cheong 2549: 2545: 2541:, paras. 75–76. 2539:Ong Kian Cheong 2537: 2533: 2525: 2521: 2513: 2509: 2501: 2497: 2493:, paras. 16–17. 2489: 2485: 2479:Ong Kian Cheong 2477: 2473: 2461: 2457: 2449: 2445: 2440: 2436: 2431: 2427: 2415: 2411: 2406: 2397: 2391:Ong Kian Cheong 2389: 2385: 2379:Ong Kian Cheong 2377: 2373: 2367:Ong Kian Cheong 2365: 2361: 2355:Ong Kian Cheong 2353: 2346: 2340:Ong Kian Cheong 2338: 2334: 2328:Court of Appeal 2314: 2310: 2304:Ong Kian Cheong 2302: 2295: 2268: 2264: 2259: 2255: 2250: 2246: 2238: 2234: 2229: 2225: 2220: 2213: 2208: 2201: 2189: 2185: 2179:Ong Kian Cheong 2177: 2173: 2167:Ong Kian Cheong 2165: 2158: 2153: 2149: 2136:: 13–59 at 16, 2126: 2122: 2116:Ong Kian Cheong 2114: 2103: 2095: 2088: 2079: 2064: 2054: 2047: 2042: 2038: 2032:Ong Kian Cheong 2030: 2023: 2014: 1997: 1976: 1969: 1964: 1957: 1952: 1948: 1943: 1939: 1934: 1930: 1921: 1917: 1912: 1908: 1903: 1899: 1893:S 867/2022 1890: 1886: 1877: 1873: 1863: 1861: 1856: 1855: 1851: 1841: 1839: 1834: 1833: 1829: 1820: 1813: 1804: 1800: 1791: 1780: 1773: 1764: 1755: 1751: 1743: 1739: 1720: 1716: 1694: 1690: 1674: 1670: 1660: 1658: 1637: 1633: 1629: (England). 1617: 1613: 1606: 1585: 1581: 1571: 1569: 1560: 1559: 1555: 1538: 1532: 1519: 1509: 1507: 1499: 1498: 1494: 1488: 1484: 1463: 1452: 1448: 1416: 1349:. Although the 1339: 1164: 1150: 1131: 1103: 1097: 1084: 1071:Ong Kian Cheong 1063:Lee Hsien Loong 1047: 1034:Ong Kian Cheong 1005:Ong Kian Cheong 1000:in Article 14. 990:judicial review 936: 931: 904:applies to the 875: 863:Ong Kian Cheong 856:Ong Kian Cheong 845:taken to be an 839:1964 race riots 794:Ong Kian Cheong 782: 769: 703:'s judgment in 701:Court of Appeal 694:Ong Kian Cheong 675: 670: 661:Ong Kian Cheong 648: 631: 623: 607:Ong Kian Cheong 590: 575:Ong Kian Cheong 555: 548: 461: 456: 431: 407:Colonial Office 374: 364:clarified that 343:seditious libel 320:seditious libel 302:A detail of an 296: 291: 276:Ong Kian Cheong 268:Court of Appeal 244:Ong Kian Cheong 127:2 November 2022 84:Enacted by 67: 64: 59: 58: 34: 12: 11: 5: 4825: 4815: 4814: 4809: 4804: 4799: 4794: 4789: 4773: 4767: 4766: 4764: 4763: 4758: 4752: 4749: 4748: 4746: 4745: 4740: 4734: 4732: 4728: 4727: 4725: 4724: 4719: 4714: 4708: 4703: 4698: 4693: 4688: 4683: 4678: 4673: 4668: 4663: 4658: 4652: 4650: 4646: 4645: 4643: 4642: 4637: 4632: 4626: 4624: 4620: 4619: 4617: 4616: 4611: 4605: 4603: 4597: 4596: 4594: 4593: 4588: 4583: 4578: 4573: 4568: 4567: 4566: 4556: 4554:Kidnapping Act 4551: 4546: 4541: 4536: 4531: 4525: 4523: 4517: 4516: 4514: 4513: 4508: 4502: 4500: 4494: 4493: 4490: 4489: 4487: 4486: 4481: 4475: 4473: 4467: 4466: 4464: 4463: 4454: 4452: 4448: 4447: 4445: 4444: 4439: 4434: 4429: 4423: 4421: 4415: 4414: 4412: 4411: 4406: 4401: 4395: 4393: 4386: 4380: 4379: 4372: 4370: 4367: 4366: 4364: 4363: 4358: 4353: 4348: 4343: 4337: 4335: 4329: 4328: 4326: 4325: 4320: 4319: 4318: 4313: 4303: 4298: 4293: 4288: 4282: 4280: 4276: 4275: 4273: 4272: 4267: 4261: 4259: 4255: 4254: 4252: 4251: 4246: 4244:Prime Minister 4241: 4236: 4231: 4225: 4223: 4216: 4212: 4211: 4204: 4203: 4196: 4189: 4181: 4175: 4174: 4153: 4128: 4122: 4102: 4084: 4067: 4041: 4038: 4037: 4036: 4029: 4019: 4003: 4000: 3999: 3998: 3992: 3989:District Court 3982: 3966: 3963: 3961: 3958: 3956: 3955: 3945:The Malay Mail 3931: 3921:The Malay Mail 3907: 3897:The Malay Mail 3883: 3872:The Malay Mail 3857: 3795: 3772: 3751: 3728: 3696: 3647: 3609: 3587: 3544: 3540:, 11 June 2009 3524: 3496: 3484: 3468: 3455: 3439: 3391: 3340: 3324: 3312: 3300: 3284: 3265: 3241: 3193: 3186: 3128: 3119: 3110: 3101: 3092: 3076: 3067: 3036: 3027: 3018: 2991: 2975: 2939: 2930: 2918: 2902: 2868:on 18 May 2015 2841: 2832: 2813: 2804: 2795: 2786: 2758: 2749: 2719: 2710: 2701: 2692: 2683: 2679:Chee Siok Chin 2671: 2667:Chee Siok Chin 2659: 2646: 2628: 2626:s. 10(8). 2618: 2609: 2600: 2591: 2582: 2573: 2564: 2555: 2543: 2531: 2519: 2507: 2495: 2483: 2471: 2455: 2443: 2434: 2425: 2409: 2395: 2383: 2371: 2359: 2344: 2332: 2308: 2293: 2262: 2253: 2244: 2232: 2223: 2211: 2199: 2183: 2171: 2156: 2147: 2120: 2101: 2086: 2045: 2036: 2021: 1985:District Court 1967: 1955: 1946: 1937: 1928: 1915: 1906: 1897: 1884: 1871: 1849: 1827: 1811: 1798: 1762: 1749: 1737: 1714: 1688: 1668: 1631: 1611: 1604: 1579: 1553: 1517: 1492: 1482: 1449: 1447: 1444: 1443: 1442: 1437: 1432: 1427: 1422: 1415: 1412: 1407:The Malay Mail 1367:Prime Minister 1338: 1335: 1243:Lim Chin Siong 1231:Chern Sien Pau 1163: 1160: 1149: 1146: 1130: 1127: 1099:Main article: 1096: 1093: 1083: 1082:Other statutes 1080: 1060:Prime Minister 1046: 1043: 977:Chee Siok Chin 935: 932: 930: 927: 891: 890: 887: 883: 874: 871: 781: 778: 768: 765: 741: 740: 736: 732: 728: 727:objectionable. 724: 712:situation is. 690: 689: 686: 674: 671: 669: 666: 647: 644: 630: 627: 622: 619: 589: 584: 554: 549: 547: 544: 531:District Court 519: 518: 515: 512: 509: 502: 501: 498: 495: 492: 489: 460: 457: 455: 452: 430: 429:Repeal in 2022 427: 388:in 1946 and a 373: 370: 295: 292: 290: 287: 229:District Court 203: 202: 193: 192: 188: 187: 183: 182: 179: 173: 172: 169: 167:Second reading 163: 162: 159: 153: 152: 149: 145: 144: 141: 134: 133: 129: 128: 125: 121: 120: 117: 113: 112: 109: 103: 102: 99: 95: 94: 85: 81: 80: 73: 69: 68: 66: 65: 62: 52: 51: 50: 47: 46: 36: 35: 29: 21: 20: 9: 6: 4: 3: 2: 4824: 4813: 4810: 4808: 4805: 4803: 4800: 4798: 4795: 4793: 4790: 4788: 4785: 4784: 4782: 4772: 4762: 4759: 4757: 4754: 4753: 4750: 4744: 4741: 4739: 4736: 4735: 4733: 4729: 4723: 4720: 4718: 4715: 4712: 4709: 4707: 4704: 4702: 4699: 4697: 4694: 4692: 4689: 4687: 4684: 4682: 4679: 4677: 4674: 4672: 4669: 4667: 4664: 4662: 4659: 4657: 4654: 4653: 4651: 4647: 4641: 4638: 4636: 4635:Charities Act 4633: 4631: 4628: 4627: 4625: 4623:Religious law 4621: 4615: 4612: 4610: 4607: 4606: 4604: 4602: 4598: 4592: 4591:Vandalism Act 4589: 4587: 4584: 4582: 4579: 4577: 4574: 4572: 4569: 4565: 4562: 4561: 4560: 4557: 4555: 4552: 4550: 4547: 4545: 4542: 4540: 4537: 4535: 4532: 4530: 4527: 4526: 4524: 4522: 4518: 4512: 4509: 4507: 4504: 4503: 4501: 4495: 4485: 4482: 4480: 4477: 4476: 4474: 4472: 4468: 4462: 4460: 4456: 4455: 4453: 4451:Irrationality 4449: 4443: 4440: 4438: 4435: 4433: 4430: 4428: 4425: 4424: 4422: 4420: 4416: 4410: 4407: 4405: 4402: 4400: 4397: 4396: 4394: 4390: 4387: 4385: 4381: 4376: 4362: 4359: 4357: 4354: 4352: 4349: 4347: 4344: 4342: 4339: 4338: 4336: 4334: 4330: 4324: 4321: 4317: 4314: 4312: 4309: 4308: 4307: 4306:Supreme Court 4304: 4302: 4299: 4297: 4294: 4292: 4289: 4287: 4284: 4283: 4281: 4277: 4271: 4268: 4266: 4263: 4262: 4260: 4256: 4250: 4247: 4245: 4242: 4240: 4237: 4235: 4232: 4230: 4227: 4226: 4224: 4220: 4217: 4213: 4209: 4202: 4197: 4195: 4190: 4188: 4183: 4182: 4179: 4171: 4167: 4163: 4159: 4154: 4150: 4146: 4142: 4138: 4134: 4129: 4125: 4119: 4115: 4112:, Singapore: 4111: 4107: 4103: 4098: 4094: 4090: 4085: 4081: 4077: 4073: 4068: 4060: 4056: 4049: 4044: 4043: 4034: 4030: 4027: 4023: 4020: 4017: 4013: 4009: 4006: 4005: 3996: 3993: 3990: 3986: 3983: 3980: 3979:Queen's Bench 3976: 3972: 3969: 3968: 3950: 3946: 3942: 3935: 3926: 3922: 3918: 3911: 3902: 3898: 3894: 3887: 3878: 3874: 3873: 3868: 3861: 3852: 3848: 3844: 3837: 3829: 3825: 3821: 3820: 3812: 3808: 3807: 3799: 3790: 3786: 3782: 3776: 3767: 3763: 3762: 3755: 3748: 3744: 3741: 3737: 3732: 3723: 3719: 3715: 3707: 3700: 3692:on 4 May 2015 3691: 3687: 3683: 3675: 3668:on 4 May 2015 3667: 3663: 3659: 3658: 3651: 3642: 3637: 3628: 3624: 3620: 3613: 3604: 3600: 3599: 3591: 3582: 3578: 3577: 3572: 3564: 3560: 3556: 3555: 3548: 3539: 3533: 3528: 3512: 3508: 3507: 3500: 3493: 3488: 3479: 3472: 3465: 3459: 3450: 3443: 3434: 3419: 3415: 3411: 3410: 3402: 3395: 3386: 3385: 3376: 3368: 3360: 3356: 3352: 3351: 3344: 3335: 3328: 3321: 3316: 3309: 3304: 3295: 3288: 3279: 3272: 3270: 3260: 3252: 3245: 3236: 3228: 3220: 3212: 3204: 3197: 3189: 3183: 3179: 3171: 3163: 3155: 3147: 3139: 3132: 3123: 3114: 3105: 3099:Zhong, p. 28. 3096: 3089: 3085: 3080: 3071: 3055: 3051: 3047: 3040: 3031: 3022: 3016: 3012: 3008: 3004: 3000: 2995: 2988: 2984: 2979: 2972: 2971: 2966: 2962: 2959: 2955: 2951: 2946: 2944: 2937:Zhong, p. 19. 2934: 2927: 2922: 2913: 2906: 2894: 2887: 2886: 2881: 2867: 2863: 2861: 2857: 2852: 2845: 2836: 2829: 2825: 2820: 2818: 2808: 2799: 2790: 2781: 2777: 2775: 2769: 2762: 2756:Zhong, p. 43. 2753: 2746: 2743: 2739: 2735: 2734: 2729: 2723: 2717:Zhong, p. 42. 2714: 2705: 2696: 2687: 2680: 2675: 2668: 2663: 2656: 2650: 2643: 2639: 2638: 2632: 2622: 2616:SA, s. 10(6). 2613: 2604: 2598:SA, s. 10(1). 2595: 2589:SA, s. 10(9). 2586: 2577: 2568: 2559: 2552: 2547: 2540: 2535: 2528: 2523: 2516: 2511: 2504: 2499: 2492: 2487: 2480: 2475: 2468: 2464: 2459: 2452: 2447: 2438: 2429: 2422: 2418: 2413: 2404: 2402: 2400: 2392: 2387: 2380: 2375: 2368: 2363: 2356: 2351: 2349: 2341: 2336: 2329: 2325: 2321: 2317: 2312: 2305: 2300: 2298: 2289: 2285: 2281: 2277: 2273: 2266: 2257: 2248: 2241: 2236: 2227: 2218: 2216: 2206: 2204: 2196: 2192: 2187: 2180: 2175: 2168: 2163: 2161: 2151: 2143: 2139: 2135: 2131: 2124: 2117: 2112: 2110: 2108: 2106: 2098: 2093: 2091: 2078: 2074: 2070: 2063: 2057: 2052: 2050: 2040: 2033: 2028: 2026: 2013: 2009: 2005: 2004: 1996: 1990: 1986: 1982: 1979: 1974: 1972: 1962: 1960: 1950: 1941: 1932: 1925: 1919: 1910: 1901: 1894: 1888: 1881: 1875: 1859: 1853: 1837: 1831: 1824: 1818: 1816: 1808: 1802: 1790: 1786: 1779: 1771: 1769: 1767: 1759: 1753: 1746: 1741: 1733: 1729: 1725: 1718: 1709: 1705: 1701: 1700: 1692: 1685: 1684:Queen's Bench 1681: 1677: 1672: 1655: 1650: 1646: 1642: 1635: 1628: 1624: 1620: 1615: 1607: 1601: 1597: 1594:, Singapore: 1593: 1589: 1583: 1567: 1563: 1557: 1549: 1545: 1541: 1536: 1530: 1528: 1526: 1524: 1522: 1506: 1502: 1496: 1486: 1479: 1475: 1471: 1467: 1461: 1459: 1457: 1455: 1450: 1441: 1438: 1436: 1433: 1431: 1428: 1426: 1423: 1421: 1418: 1417: 1411: 1409: 1408: 1403: 1399: 1395: 1391: 1390:Federal Court 1386: 1383: 1379: 1378:parliamentary 1375: 1371: 1368: 1364: 1356: 1352: 1348: 1343: 1334: 1331: 1326: 1321: 1316: 1314: 1313: 1308: 1302: 1299: 1294: 1289: 1286: 1281: 1279: 1275: 1271: 1267: 1263: 1259: 1256:according to 1254: 1253: 1246: 1244: 1240: 1236: 1232: 1228: 1227:Chia Thye Poh 1224: 1219: 1217: 1213: 1209: 1205: 1201: 1200:Edwin Thumboo 1197: 1193: 1189: 1185: 1177: 1173: 1168: 1159: 1156: 1145: 1142: 1141: 1136: 1126: 1124: 1118: 1115: 1112: 1108: 1102: 1092: 1090: 1079: 1076: 1075:Article 15(1) 1072: 1067: 1064: 1061: 1057: 1052: 1042: 1040: 1035: 1031: 1026: 1021: 1016: 1014: 1010: 1006: 1001: 999: 995: 991: 986: 982: 978: 973: 971: 970: 964: 960: 952: 948: 944: 940: 926: 924: 918: 915: 910: 907: 903: 898: 896: 888: 884: 881: 880: 879: 870: 866: 864: 859: 857: 852: 848: 842: 840: 836: 832: 831: 826: 818: 814: 809: 805: 803: 799: 795: 791: 787: 777: 775: 764: 760: 758: 754: 750: 744: 737: 733: 729: 725: 722: 718: 717: 716: 713: 710: 706: 702: 697: 695: 687: 684: 683: 682: 679: 665: 662: 656: 654: 643: 640: 636: 626: 618: 616: 612: 608: 603: 599: 594: 588: 583: 580: 576: 571: 568: 564: 560: 553: 543: 540: 536: 532: 527: 522: 516: 513: 510: 507: 506: 505: 499: 496: 493: 490: 487: 486: 485: 483: 478: 474: 472: 467: 451: 449: 448:Halimah Yacob 444: 441: 437: 426: 423: 419: 415: 410: 408: 403: 399: 395: 391: 387: 383: 379: 369: 367: 363: 359: 355: 351: 346: 344: 340: 336: 332: 328: 321: 317: 313: 309: 305: 300: 286: 283: 281: 277: 273: 269: 265: 261: 257: 253: 249: 245: 240: 238: 234: 230: 224: 221: 217: 214: 210: 201: 198: 194: 189: 184: 180: 178: 177:Third reading 174: 170: 168: 164: 160: 158: 157:First reading 154: 150: 148:Introduced by 146: 142: 139: 135: 130: 126: 122: 118: 114: 110: 108: 104: 100: 96: 93: 89: 86: 82: 78: 74: 70: 61: 60: 57: 56: 48: 45: 41: 37: 32: 27: 22: 17: 4771: 4581:Sedition Act 4580: 4521:Criminal law 4458: 4346:Human rights 4333:Constitution 4323:State Courts 4161: 4157: 4140: 4136: 4132: 4109: 4106:Thio, Li-ann 4096: 4092: 4071: 4059:the original 4054: 4033:2020 Rev. Ed 3994: 3991:(Singapore). 3984: 3973:1 Q.B. 429, 3970: 3949:the original 3944: 3934: 3925:the original 3920: 3910: 3901:the original 3896: 3886: 3877:the original 3870: 3860: 3851:the original 3846: 3835: 3828:the original 3818: 3811:the original 3805: 3798: 3789:the original 3784: 3775: 3766:the original 3760: 3754: 3731: 3722:the original 3717: 3708:, p. A4 3705: 3699: 3690:the original 3685: 3673: 3666:the original 3656: 3650: 3640: 3627:the original 3622: 3612: 3603:the original 3597: 3590: 3581:the original 3574: 3563:the original 3553: 3547: 3537: 3531: 3527: 3515:, retrieved 3505: 3499: 3491: 3487: 3477: 3471: 3458: 3448: 3442: 3435:, p. 18 3432: 3422:, retrieved 3408: 3400: 3394: 3387:, p. 10 3382: 3374: 3366: 3359:the original 3349: 3343: 3333: 3327: 3319: 3315: 3307: 3303: 3293: 3287: 3277: 3258: 3253:, p. 11 3250: 3244: 3234: 3226: 3218: 3210: 3202: 3196: 3177: 3169: 3161: 3153: 3145: 3137: 3131: 3122: 3113: 3108:Tey, p. 140. 3104: 3095: 3079: 3070: 3058:, retrieved 3049: 3039: 3034:MRHA, s. 16. 3030: 3021: 3014: 3010: 2999:S. Jayakumar 2994: 2978: 2968: 2964: 2933: 2926:Ong Ah Chuan 2925: 2921: 2911: 2905: 2893:the original 2884: 2870:, retrieved 2866:the original 2854: 2844: 2835: 2827: 2824:Law Aik Meng 2823: 2807: 2798: 2789: 2780:the original 2771: 2761: 2752: 2747: (2003). 2731: 2722: 2713: 2704: 2695: 2686: 2678: 2674: 2666: 2662: 2649: 2635: 2631: 2621: 2612: 2603: 2594: 2585: 2576: 2571:SA, s. 9(1). 2567: 2558: 2550: 2546: 2538: 2534: 2526: 2522: 2514: 2510: 2502: 2498: 2490: 2486: 2478: 2474: 2462: 2458: 2450: 2446: 2437: 2428: 2423:(Singapore). 2416: 2412: 2407:Wong, p. 90. 2390: 2386: 2378: 2374: 2366: 2362: 2354: 2339: 2335: 2330:(Singapore). 2323: 2315: 2311: 2303: 2279: 2275: 2271: 2265: 2260:SA, s. 6(2). 2256: 2247: 2240:R. v. Aldred 2239: 2235: 2226: 2186: 2178: 2174: 2166: 2150: 2133: 2129: 2123: 2115: 2096: 2077:the original 2072: 2068: 2055: 2039: 2031: 2012:the original 2007: 2001: 1989:the original 1977: 1965:Tan, p. 228. 1953:Tan, p. 225. 1949: 1944:SA, s. 3(3). 1940: 1931: 1923: 1918: 1913:SA, s. 6(1). 1909: 1900: 1887: 1874: 1862:. Retrieved 1852: 1842:13 September 1840:. Retrieved 1830: 1801: 1789:the original 1784: 1752: 1744: 1740: 1723: 1717: 1708:the original 1698: 1691: 1678:1 Q.B. 429, 1675: 1671: 1659:, retrieved 1654:the original 1648: 1644: 1634: 1627:King's Bench 1618: 1614: 1591: 1582: 1570:. Retrieved 1565: 1556: 1539: 1534: 1508:. Retrieved 1504: 1495: 1485: 1478:the original 1405: 1387: 1360: 1355:Sedition Act 1329: 1319: 1317: 1310: 1303: 1292: 1291:The case of 1290: 1284: 1282: 1272:logo of the 1265: 1250: 1247: 1234: 1230: 1220: 1204:Lee Kuan Yew 1191: 1181: 1171: 1155:Tan Yock Lin 1151: 1138: 1132: 1122: 1119: 1114:S. Jayakumar 1104: 1085: 1070: 1068: 1048: 1033: 1029: 1027: 1023: 1018: 1012: 1008: 1004: 1002: 997: 993: 984: 976: 974: 967: 956: 919: 911: 899: 892: 876: 867: 862: 860: 855: 843: 828: 824: 822: 813:State Courts 801: 793: 785: 783: 770: 761: 756: 745: 742: 714: 704: 698: 693: 691: 680: 676: 660: 657: 649: 632: 624: 610: 606: 601: 597: 595: 591: 586: 574: 572: 558: 556: 551: 534: 528: 524: 520: 503: 481: 480: 475: 462: 445: 432: 411: 386:Crown colony 375: 365: 361: 357: 347: 338: 335:Star Chamber 325: 315: 312:Star Chamber 284: 280:public order 275: 271: 243: 241: 236: 232: 225: 208: 206: 196: 111:15 July 1948 107:Royal assent 53: 4787:1964 in law 4135:SGDC 163", 4074:: 212–236, 4040:Other works 4028:) ("MRHA"). 4002:Legislation 3676:, p. 1 3643:, p. 1 3451:, p. 4 3403:, p. 1 3377:, p. 1 3369:, p. 1 3336:, p. 2 3296:, p. 8 3280:, p. 1 3237:, p. 5 3174:. See also 2989:) ("MRHA"). 2950:Ho Peng Kee 2928:, para. 82. 2529:, para. 10. 2517:, para. 11. 2505:, para. 12. 2481:, para. 74. 2393:, para. 64. 2381:, para. 63. 2369:, para. 61. 2357:, para. 51. 2342:, para. 50. 2306:, para. 45. 2274:SGDC 163", 2181:, para. 48. 2169:, para. 77. 2118:, para. 59. 2034:, para. 47. 1623:77 E.R. 250 1588:Thio Li-ann 1468:), now the 1370:Najib Razak 1235:The Barisan 1196:Poh Soo Kai 1051:Thio Li-ann 886:newspaper". 830:malum in se 798:V. K. Rajah 372:Legislation 235:(2005) and 216:statute law 213:Singaporean 186:Repealed by 181:6 July 1948 171:6 July 1948 161:6 July 1948 101:6 July 1948 4781:Categories 4713:(Repealed) 4601:Family law 4559:Penal Code 4499:resolution 4459:Wednesbury 4419:Illegality 4316:High Court 4270:Parliament 4234:Government 4143:: 85–113, 4016:Article 14 3987:SGDC 272, 3975:High Court 3960:References 3494:, para. 4. 3084:Penal Code 2657:) ("MOA"). 2453:, para. 5. 2421:High Court 2099:, para. 6. 1680:High Court 1572:3 November 1135:Penal Code 1049:Professor 1039:Government 963:Article 14 906:High Court 753:High Court 639:subversion 611:vice versa 539:Parliament 294:Common law 264:High Court 55:Long title 4731:Procedure 4341:Elections 4265:President 4229:President 4164:: 13–59, 4099:: 118–142 4035:) ("SA"). 2441:SA, s. 7. 1924:seditious 1904:SA, s. 4. 1864:5 October 1825:) ("SA"). 1747:, p. 453. 1548:225372680 1510:5 October 1382:secession 1325:Thaipusam 1140:bona fide 994:necessary 565:and anti- 350:the Crown 308:Henry VII 231:cases of 220:seditious 116:Commenced 4802:Sedition 4404:Remedies 3743:Archived 3576:My Paper 3517:23 April 3511:archived 3424:23 April 3418:archived 3060:24 April 3054:archived 2872:19 April 1661:23 April 1435:Sedition 1414:See also 1278:Satanism 1058:speech, 735:message. 668:Defences 653:chilling 533:held in 327:Sedition 200:Repealed 124:Repealed 72:Citation 4392:General 4239:Cabinet 4170:1418654 4149:2544171 4080:1965870 3005:), 2956:), 2774:AsiaOne 2288:2544171 2142:1418654 1732:1965870 1262:Shafi'i 1186:of the 1028:As the 945:of the 914:warrant 900:If the 774:presume 602:classes 459:Meaning 422:Sarawak 318:, that 289:History 254:of the 197:Status: 98:Enacted 4168: 4147: 4120: 4078: 4024: ( 4010: ( 3749:, UK). 3184: 3086: ( 3009:, 3001: ( 2985: ( 2963:, 2952: ( 2736:, 2286: 2193: ( 2140: 1730: 1602: 1546: 1466:Malaya 751:. The 567:Muslim 438:, the 414:merger 258: ( 211:was a 77:Malaya 4649:Other 4062:(PDF) 4051:(PDF) 3965:Cases 3847:Today 3785:Today 3740:c. 25 3718:Today 3686:Today 3641:Today 3384:Today 2896:(PDF) 2889:(PDF) 2740: 2640: 2465: 2318: 2080:(PDF) 2065:(PDF) 2015:(PDF) 1998:(PDF) 1792:(PDF) 1781:(PDF) 1446:Notes 1307:Pinoy 1270:halal 1258:Ustaz 1192:Fajar 1172:Fajar 998:right 923:libel 598:races 563:Malay 418:Sabah 140:title 4479:Bias 4166:SSRN 4145:SSRN 4118:ISBN 4097:2008 4076:SSRN 3519:2015 3426:2015 3182:ISBN 3062:2019 2874:2015 2742:U.S. 2284:SSRN 2138:SSRN 1866:2021 1844:2021 1774:See 1728:SSRN 1663:2015 1600:ISBN 1574:2022 1544:OCLC 1512:2021 1345:The 1221:Two 1212:Q.C. 1206:and 1032:and 600:and 420:and 274:and 266:and 207:The 138:Bill 4014:), 3015:ff. 2970:ff. 2745:343 2738:538 2730:in 2326:1, 1312:sic 1069:In 1011:or 1003:In 961:by 861:In 784:In 755:in 573:In 557:In 466:S$ 356:in 250:by 242:In 4783:: 4162:27 4160:, 4141:29 4139:, 4095:, 4091:, 4053:, 3943:, 3919:, 3895:, 3869:, 3845:, 3840:; 3832:; 3822:, 3815:; 3783:, 3716:, 3710:; 3684:, 3678:; 3670:; 3660:, 3639:, 3631:; 3621:, 3573:, 3567:; 3466:). 3429:; 3405:; 3379:; 3371:; 3363:; 3353:, 3268:^ 3255:; 3231:; 3223:; 3215:; 3207:; 3166:; 3158:; 3150:; 3142:; 3090:). 3048:, 2942:^ 2853:, 2816:^ 2770:, 2398:^ 2347:^ 2296:^ 2280:29 2278:, 2214:^ 2202:^ 2197:). 2159:^ 2134:27 2132:, 2104:^ 2089:^ 2071:, 2067:, 2048:^ 2024:^ 2008:10 2006:, 2000:, 1983:, 1970:^ 1958:^ 1926:). 1814:^ 1809:). 1783:, 1765:^ 1760:). 1647:, 1643:, 1625:, 1564:. 1520:^ 1503:. 1453:^ 1210:, 1091:. 90:, 42:, 4200:e 4193:t 4186:v 4173:. 4152:. 4127:. 4101:. 4083:. 4066:. 4018:. 3977:( 3953:. 3929:. 3905:. 3881:. 3855:. 3793:. 3770:. 3738:( 3726:. 3694:. 3645:. 3607:. 3585:. 3542:. 3522:. 3482:. 3453:. 3437:. 3389:. 3338:. 3298:. 3282:. 3263:. 3239:. 3191:. 3065:. 2916:. 2900:. 2862:) 2784:. 2776:) 2291:. 2145:. 2084:. 2073:6 2019:. 1895:) 1882:) 1868:. 1846:. 1796:. 1735:. 1712:. 1682:( 1666:. 1649:2 1609:. 1576:. 1551:. 1514:. 1472:( 482:3

Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.

Knowledge

Sedition Act (Singapore)

Index