They were naked and so?

So apparently, the “crowd cheered” as they saw the now infamous naked couple strolling down Lorong Mambong at Holland V. It seems mostly innocuous – fun for some, but must have rubbed others the wrong way. It is interesting to see what the authorities will do. The range of scenarios which might be captured under section 27A of the Miscellaneous Offences (Public Order and Nuisance) Act is quite wide. These scenarios should include masturbating in public, flashing in public, sexual intercourse in public, appearing topless in a pub, and to certain controversy, being naked at home exposed to public view.  In the most recent case I could remember, a Flilipino was fined $1000 for dancing topless in a pub. 

Appearing nude in public or private place
27A. —(1) Any person who appears nude — (a) in a public place; or (b) in a private place and is exposed to public view, shall be guilty of an offence and shall be liable on conviction to a fine not exceeding $2,000 or to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 3 months or to both. 

(2) For the purpose of this section, the reference to a person appearing nude includes a person who is clad in such a manner as to offend against public decency or order.

Indecent exposure laws are an interesting study. They reflect the squemishness of society to nudity and does at a certain level, reflect the level of conservatism of that society. Many self-acclaimed  ”conservative” Singaporeans who think it objectionable that anyone should be naked in public will however reject the Taliban’s imposition of the compulsory wearing of the Burqa. And as for any suggestion that such nude practices are a result of the influence of the west, it should be recalled that in the 1960s, the exposure of the naval in Europe and the United States was considered indecent. 

I think section 27A of the Miscellanous Offences Act as it is drafted today is terrible.  It takes little account of the intention of the actor. It makes little distinction between the offence of being naked at home (exposed to the public – perhaps unwittingly) and the deliberate flashing of genitalia for sexual gratification.  For example, let us say that Mr Forgetful Tan (a very forgetful person) is often seen running naked at home from his shower to his room because he often forgets to bring his towel and clothes with him to the shower. And once, in that unfortunate and often state of undress,  he is photograhed by his neighbour – a well-know kaypoh – who proceeded to call the police. It is to my mind, ridiculous that Mr Forgetful Tan should be considered a criminal equivalent to the flasher.

Under the various Australian legislation, one sees that their respective legislatures recognised that the chief problem is wilful and obscene exposure instead of exposure per se. It is for example considered an “aggravation” if the intention for the exposure is to embrass or to offend.  

New South Wales (Summary Offence Act 1988, section 5):

A person shall not, in or within view from a public place or a school, wilfully and obscenely expose his or her person.

Queensland Summary Offences Act 2005 No. 4 – Section 9:Section 9

(1) A person in a public place must not wilfully expose his or her genitals, unless the person has a reasonable excuse.

(2) A person who is so near a public place that the person may be seen from the public place must not wilfully expose his or her genitals so that the person’s genitals may be seen from the public place, unless the person has a reasonable excuse.

(3) It is a circumstance of aggravation for this section for a person to wilfully expose his or her genitals so as to offend or embarrass another person.

Thoughts on the Chick Tracts

Do the hateful and demented contents of the Chick Tracts cause feelings of enmity, hatred, ill-will or hostility between two religious groups? Should it? Should it therefore be banned?

The formula of the Chick Tracts is beguiling simple. Pick a denomination or religion or an aspect of pop culture (e.g. rock music or celebration of Halloween), invent the most absurd conspiracy theory about it (e.g. the Pope is the Antichrist or witches cast spell on rock musicians), grossly and falsely exaggerate the effects of the practice of the religion or that pop culture; then contrast these “sinful” and “hell-bound” practices to a heaven-bound fundamentalist Christian belief. Thereafter, write a little message preaching conversion to Christianity.

Will that formula really result in religious conversion? While there is little doubt the Chick Tracts are inflammatory, they are far more absurd and far more unconvincing. If fundamentalist Christian evangelism takes the form of a Chick Tract, there appears very little chance the hateful ideas conveyed in the Chick Tracts will gain traction. As an example, will you believe that terrorism is caused by a shattered belief in Santa Claus and Easter Bunny? How stupid is that? Do you think children will believe that?

However, restrictions on speech are not dependent on the direct consequences of speech (or how stupid it is), but whether the reader (and his community) will find the content of your speech offensive, and in some instances, whether the reader (and a small segment of his community) will resort to violence (e.g. the reaction to the publication of The Satanic Verses  and more recently, The Jewel of Medina ). Even in the United Kingdom, post-Rushdie Affair, as Kenan Malik contends (or complains), there has been greater acceptance that speech ought to be restricted when it might cause offence to other cultures.

One of the problem with offence as the basis for restricting speech is its inherent subjectivity. Take the practice of evangelism through the distribution of the Chick Tracts for example. Many who receive the Chick Tracts will feel insulted but might chuckle and then deposit it where it rightfully belongs – in the recycle bin. Others might fume about it for days.

As much as I dislike proselytizing (especially if is conducted aggressively), I did not call the police when 2 members from Jehovah’s Witness tried passing me some of their (likely prohibited) publications. Others will. For better or worse, I feel that the people who are compelled to “spread the word” despite the apparent illegality, often do so with the best intentions. These are the same people who are most likely to believe in the messages of the Chick Tracts and/or believe they are doing a very good deed. 

How does Singapore balance the perceived needs of general deterrence with the apparent lack of “moral culpability” in such cases? In Singapore, it appears the the pendulum is likely to swing strongly in favor of protection against insults/restrictions against speech. VK Rajah J said in the case of Chee Siok Chin v. Ministry of Home Affairs: ”“All persons have a general right to be protected from insult, abuse or harassment. Those who improperly infringe or intrude upon such a right to draw publicity to their cause, regardless of the extent and sincerity of their beliefs, must be held accountable for their conduct.”

Another issue with offence as the basis for restricting speech is that it does not appear that everyone is equally protected from “offence”. For example, if Chick Tracts (those insulting gays and atheists) were respectively distributed to gays and atheists, can they complain? Will those complaints be considered legitimate? The sad irony is that the person holding the same fundamentalist beliefs as those espoused in the Chick Tracts is likely to be protected from offence, and in effect, also given the “right to offend.” That is ridiculous. If there is to be protection from hate speech, then the scope ought to extend wider. If not, then I think we should allow all parties to sort it out by talking to one another about their respective beliefs.

Fairer fair fares?

Disparities of public concession fares for polytechnic/tertiary students and JC/ITE students do not stand up to scrutiny. The degree of disparity is questionable. Why should a archetypical 17 year old polytechnic student – lets call him Tan – pay as much as 89 percent more than say Lim, his JC counterpart? It is probable that Tan is from a humbler family background than Lim. Furthermore, studying in a polytechnic per se will not improve Tan’s financial situation vis-a-vis Lim. I am not too sure about the respective school fees but Tan’s might actually have to pay more. Also, considering the lower number of polytechnics, among other things being equal, Tan probably has to travel further and incur greater costs on a daily basis to reach his school. From the needs based perspective generally, and I also believe that students should not have to worry too much about public transport fares, the disparities in the concession fares is unsound. 

On the flip side, from the cost perspective, it does mean it will likely cost more to subsidize Tan. Also, the burden of any increase in concessions is likely to fall on the other public transport users. I think that will be counter-productive considering the fact the government is encouraging increase usage of public transport. I feel that to avoid this, a mechanism should and could be found to place the burden of subsidies of public transport on private road users. For example and perhaps rather simplistically – we can peg 15 percent of any taxes on fuel or/and ERP prices to such subsidies. This will also not only avoid the public perception that the government is “making money” from high fuel prices or the “ERP”, it will be a continued incentive for Singaporeans to take public transport and in so doing, ease road congestion for private road users.