The Sedition Act 1948 was a Singaporean statute law which prohibited seditious 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 examples of what is not a seditious tendency, and provides defences for accused persons in a limited number of situations.
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 prosecutions in the 1950s and 1960s which involved allegations of fomenting disaffection against the government, those in the 21st century such as the District Court cases of Public Prosecutor v. Koh Song Huat Benjamin (2005) and Public Prosecutor v. Ong Kian Cheong (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.
In Ong Kian Cheong, 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 Singapore citizens by Article 14(1)(a) of the , 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 High Court and Court of Appeal have yet to render any judgment on the issue. According to one legal scholar, Koh Song Huat Benjamin and Ong Kian Cheong indicate that in Singapore freedom of speech is not a primary right, but is qualified by public order 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.
On 2 November 2022, the Sedition Act was repealed.
History Common law
Sedition, which is committed when spoken or written words are published with seditious intent, was a criminal offence under English common law. It emerged in an era where political violence threatened the stability of governments.. The Star Chamber, in the case of De Libellis Famosis (1572),. defined seditious libel (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..
Originally designed to protect the Crown 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 High Court of Justice in R. v. Chief Metropolitan Stipendiary, ex parte Choudhury (1990)R. v. Chief Metropolitan Stipendiary Magistrate, ex parte Choudhury 1 Q.B. 429, High Court (Queen's Bench) (England and Wales). 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 ex parte Choudhury clarified that constituted authority refers to "some person or body holding public office or discharging some public function of the state".Ex parte Choudhury, p. 453.
Legislation Sedition laws were initially introduced in Singapore and the other Straits Settlements (S.S.) through the Sedition Ordinance 1938.Sedition Ordinance 1938 (No. 18 of 1938, Straits Settlements).See . Similar legislation was introduced in the Federated Malay States (F.M.S.) in 1939, in the form of the Sedition Enactment 1939.Sedition Enactment 1939 (No. 13 of 1939, Federated Malay States). While the Sedition Ordinance 1938 (S.S.) remained in force in Singapore after it became a Crown colony in 1946 and a self-governing state in 1959, in the Federation of Malaya the law was replaced by the Sedition Ordinance 1948 which was introduced by the British government to curb opposition to colonial rule. Speaking during a Federal Legislative Council 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 Colonial Office". 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.
The 1948 Ordinance was extended to Singapore on 28 May 1964 following its merger with the Federation together with Sabah and Sarawak 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). ("SA").
Repeal in 2022
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 Maintenance of Religious Harmony Act, the Protection from Online Falsehoods and Manipulation Act 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".
On 5 October 2021, Parliament passed the Sedition (Repeal) Bill. It was assented to by President Halimah Yacob on 29 October 2021 and came into effect on 2 November 2022.
Seditious tendency Meaning 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 S$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 disposed of.SA, s. 4. No person may be convicted on the uncorroborated testimony of a single witness.SA, s. 6(1).
As the Act defines something as seditious if it has a "seditious tendency",SA, s. 2 (definition of seditious). 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):
Although this statutory definition broadly corresponds to its common law counterpart,Thio, p. 778, para. 14.065. 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,SA, s. 3(3). and it suffices that the act possesses the requisite seditious tendency.Tan, p. 225. Thus, it is immaterial that the offender failed to foresee or misjudged the risk that his or her act would be seditious.Tan, p. 228.
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 District Court held in Public Prosecutor v. Ong Kian Cheong (2009)Public Prosecutor v. Ong Kian Cheong SGDC 163, District Court (Singapore), archived from the original on 17 April 2015. For commentary, see . that on a plain and literal reading, there is no suggestion that Parliament intended to embody the common law of seditious libel into section 3(1)(e).Ong Kian Cheong, para. 47. 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 and religious harmony.Thio, p. 778, paras. 14.071–14.072.
Interpretation of section 3(1)(e) Feelings of ill-will and hostility In Public Prosecutor v. Koh Song Huat Benjamin (2005),Public Prosecutor v. Koh Song Huat Benjamin SGDC 272, D.C. (Singapore). For commentary, see . 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-Malay and anti-Muslim remarks on the Internet. Given that "[r]acial and religious hostility feeds on itself",Koh Song Huat Benjamin, para. 6. such "feelings" may spread and multiply, and they need not be confined to the direct impact of the seditious act itself.
In Ong Kian Cheong, the accused persons were convicted of distributing seditious publications tending to promote feelings of ill-will and hostility, namely, evangelical tracts that promoted Protestant Christianity and denigrated Islam, and which were described as a "pointed attack by one religion on another".Ong Kian Cheong, para. 59. 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 Neighbour found that the recipients' testimony "clearly proves that the publications have a seditious tendency".
Between different races or classes 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, section 3(1)(e) relates to the inflaming of ethno-religious sensitivities..
However, the words races and classes have been interpreted rather loosely when applying the Sedition Act.Thio, p. 787, para. 14.088. 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 Ong Kian Cheong 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 MuslimsOng Kian Cheong, para. 77. and vice versa.Ong Kian Cheong, para. 48. 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 Roman Catholic Church and other faiths were held to have affected followers comprising "different races and classes of the population in Singapore".
Academic criticism Several academics have pointed out the weaknesses of section 3(1)(e) as a benchmark for what constitutes a seditious tendency.
Emphasis on potential harm