When a team play rough.another usually will follow
And play rougher.
Politics in SG is open to Singapore citizen ONLY.
If u want to play,join the club called SG Inc.
Dunt quit and want to play,play.
The membership card is the passport.
The most ugly one is to play and want not governed by the
rules
of the game.
The rule is form a Party and go for election.
LKY went to this route.
If u want short cut,gavaman also go for short cut.
Ballots or bullets.U can choose to change the world.
But gavaman also can choose---Soft or HARD approach.
U give me face.I give u too.
U dunt give me face.I just tear down my mask---very ugly.
2.Western
countries also get Sedition Act to stand by
study the following Aussie Act and other countries
carefully.
See if SG Sedition Act is unreasonable.
Pl note that under Aussie laws,those commit outside Aussie
also under Oz jurisdiction:
80.4 Extended geographical
jurisdiction for offences
http://www.aph.gov.au/library/INTGUIDE/LAW/sedition.htm
start of quote
<!--Content Area Start-->
Current Issues
John Macarthur (1767–1834). Founder of the wool
industry. Charged and acquitted of seditious behaviour against
Governor Bligh in 1807-1808.
Portrait (showing him carrying a possibly seditious letter)
reproduced by permission Dixson Galleries, State Library of New
South Wales
This e-Brief provides background on the history of sedition as a
Commonwealth criminal offence. Some examples of past sedition
prosecutions are given. Proposals for reform in the early 1990s are
outlined as well as the controversial amendments which were made
during 2005. On 2 March 2006, the Attorney-General announced a
review of sedition laws would be conducted and it is intended that
this e-brief will be updated as needed.
In colonial times and into the twentieth century, some colonies
or States contained the offence of seditious activities in their
criminal legislation eg Criminal Code (Qld) ss 44–46, 52; Criminal Code (Tas) ss 66-67, Criminal Code (WA) ss 44–46, 52,
Criminal Code (NT) ss 45-46. In those States
where criminal offences have been codified, these offences still
exist today. In the other States, however, seditious libel,
uttering seditious words, and participation in a seditious
conspiracy were, and still are, common law offences. The exceptions
are in South Australia and the Australian Capital Territory, where
legislation has repealed the common law offence.
Laurence Maher (1992) comments that sedition is primarily a
peacetime weapon.
In time of war the Commonwealth Government is amply equipped to
implement a policy of total mobilisation for the prosecution of the
war effort. This last occurred in Australia following the outbreak
of war in Europe in 1939. The basic legal mechanism was the
National Security Act 1939 and the Regulations made under
the Act. The Commonwealth was able to exercise extensive control over the dissemination of
information and opinion by (a) the imposition of rigid censorship,
(b) the prohibition of certain organisations (such as the Communist
Party of Australia), whose aims and activities were considered by
the Government to be inimical to the war effort and (c) the
internment of alleged subversives. (page 287).
1986 Intelligence and Security (Consequential Amendments)
Act 1986 (no. 102). This amended s. 24A to remove
references to the United Kingdom and overseas and narrowed the
definition of sedition to include the concept of intent to cause
violence, etc. This implemented a recommendation by Justice Hope in
his 1985 Final Report of the Royal Commission on Australia's
Security and Intelligence Agencies. Second Reading speech.
1989 Crimes Legislation Amendment Act 1989 (no.
108). This amended s. 24E to remove the imposition of a
fine to those found guilty of sedition summarily (by a magistrate)
in addition to, or instead of, imprisonment. The maximum sentence
would now be 12 months imprisonment. This was part of a programme
to reform penalty provisions in the Crimes Act. Second Reading speech.
1991 Review of Commonwealth Criminal Law (Gibbs
Report). In its Fifth interim report, the Review, chaired by Sir
Harry Gibbs, recommended that sections 24-28 of the Crimes Act
1914 be repealed and be replaced by 3 offences: incitement to
overthrow the Constitution or the government; incitement to
interfere by force or violence with Parliamentary elections; and
inciting violence against national, racial or religious groups (new
section 28(1)). A dissent in good faith section was also
recommended (new section 28(2)). These recommendations were set out
in chapter 32 and in a draft bill attached as Part VII, but lay
dormant until 2005.
2001 Law and Justice Legislation Amendment (Application
of Criminal Code) Act 2001 (no. 24). This repealed and
substituted section 24C to effect the removal of the references in
paragraphs 24C(a)-(c) to agreeing or undertaking to engage in a
seditious enterprise, conspiring with any person to carry out a
seditious enterprise and counselling, advising or attempting to
procure the carrying out of a seditious enterprise. These matters
were ancillary to the primary offence provided in section 24C,
namely engaging in a seditious enterprise. Reliance would instead
be placed upon the relevant general ancillary provision in the
Criminal Code, namely sections 11.1 (attempt), 11.2
(aiding, abetting, counselling or procuring the commission of a
primary offence) and 11.5 (conspiracy). Second Reading speech.
2005 Anti-Terrorism Act (No. 2) 2005 (no. 144). This
repealed most of the existing provisions on sedition in the Crimes
Act and, in their place, inserted new provisions (sections
80.2-80.6) into the Criminal Code. This was done in accordance
with Government policy to put major new offences into the
Criminal Code Act 1995 rather than in the Crimes Act. The
Code is intended to incorporate old common law offences as well as
new changes to the criminal law. The new provisions expanded the
offence to include the behaviour of ‘urging’ and the element of
recklessness. They commenced on Royal Assent on 28 December 2005.
Appendix B shows the seditions provisions in the
Crimes Act immediately before their repeal, while Appendix C shows the current provisions in the
Criminal Code and the Crimes Act.
Although the new provisions were similar to those already
existing, they received much critical comment from a variety of
sources. The main criticisms fell into the following
categories:
As a result of these comments some amendments were made to the
Bill, such as clarifying the role of the media when reporting or
publishing comments. Further comment and analysis are provided in
the Key Documents listed below:
When introducing the sedition law amendments on 3 November 2005,
the Attorney-General announced that they would be reviewed by the
Government in 2006. After concerns were raised that the review may not be
fully independent and a recommendation (no. 28) from the Senate Committee looking into the Bill for a
public inquiry, the Government agreed to the Australian Law Reform Commission (ALRC)
conducting the review.
The terms of reference for the inquiry were announced on 2 March 2006. The Commission was
asked to review the appropriateness and effectiveness of the
amended sedition legislation and to report by 30 May 2006.The ALRC
chair has written about the inquiry in On Line Opinion. A detailed Issues Paper
was published on 20 March and a Discussion Paper was
published on 29 May. The report, Fighting Words: A Review of
Sedition Laws in Australia (ALRC 104), was tabled in
Parliament on 13 September and recommended several changes
including removal of the word 'sedition' since it was seen as being
archaic, but the Commission still supported the offence of urging
violence against the government and community groups. All documents
may be found on the inquiry website.
Some submissions to the review have been published on the
Internet:
Commonwealth prosecutions for sedition were made mainly against
members of the Communist Party of Australia (CPA). Some examples
were:
There were no Commonwealth prosecutions for sedition during the
Vietnam War era even though one commentator reports that seditious
activity occurred (Douglas, 2004, p. 248).
In 2006, police ruled that books promoting suicide bombings and
anti-Australian conspiracies can be sold in the Muslim community
because they don't breach the new sedition laws. 'Muslim 'books of hate' get OK', Daily
Telegraph, 15 May, 2006, p. 1. In response, the Government at
first considered stronger sedition laws: 'Sedition laws missing mark on hate books:
Vaile', Age, 17 May 2006, p. 10. It later referred the
books for a review of their classification and asked for State and
Territory opinion on the matter: Classification review to consider hate
material, Attorney-General's press release, 9 June 2006.
The Classification Review Board banned two of the books (Attorney-General's press release, 11 July
2006)
It appears that many countries have such an offence, mainly in
legislation but occasionally only at common law. In most
democracies, sedition laws are rarely used, but in other countries
they continue to be used to suppress the media and there have been
several recent incidents of prosecutions.
The following legislation has been found, mainly from English
speaking countries, with Internet links to the text, where
available.
Penal Code, s. 124A
Criminal Code chapter 101 ss 213-217 Brunei Sedition
Act, chapter 24
Criminal Code s. 59
Penal Code, Cap. 17, s. 65-66
Penal Code s. 124A
Offences against the State Act 1939, ss. 11, 12,
26 ; Public Safety Act 1927, s.11
Penal Code, ch 67, Part IX
Sedition Act 1948
Penal Code
Crimes Act 1961, ss 81-85. Repealed, on 1 January 2008, by
section 5 of the Crimes (Repeal of Seditious Offences) Amendment
Act 2007 (2007 No 96).
First prosecution in 30 years in 2006 (against Tim
Selwyn). Nigeria Criminal Code Act s. 51
Penal Code s. 124A
Criminal Code 1974, ss 44-46
Revised Penal Code, articles 139-142
Sierra Leone Public Order Act 1965, ss 33-37
Sedition Act 1964
Sedition Act 1940
Criminal Code, articles 66-69; Press Law, article 25
Criminal Code, article 100
Criminal Offences Act ch. 18, ss 47-48
Sedition Act Tuvalu Penal Code, ch 8, Part IX Uganda
Sections 41, 42 and 50 of the Penal Code Act
Sections 39, 40, 42, 43 and 179 of the Penal Code Act (Chapter
120 of the revised Laws of Uganda)
United Kingdom There is
probably no offence properly described as 'sedition' in English
law, but -
(1) the oral or written publication of words with a seditious
intention, and
(2) an agreement to further a seditious intention by doing any
act,
have always been common law offences. Source: Law Commission, Codification of the Criminal
Law: Treason, Sedition and Allied Offences (Working Paper 72),
1978. United States Smith
Act of 1940 (18 U.S. Code § 2384-5)
This publication also provides background on sedition laws in
some countries:
ARTICLE 19, Global Campaign for Free Expression. Memorandum on
the Malaysian Sedition Act 1948. London, July 2003.
80.2 Sedition
Urging the overthrow of the Constitution or Government
(1) A person commits an offence if the person urges another person
to overthrow by force or violence:
(a) the Constitution; or
(b) the Government of the Commonwealth, a State or a Territory;
or
(c) the lawful authority of the Government of the Commonwealth.
Penalty: Imprisonment for 7 years.
(2) Recklessness applies to the element of the offence under
subsection (1) that it is:
(a) the Constitution; or
(b) the Government of the Commonwealth, a State or a Territory;
or
(c) the lawful authority of the Government of the Commonwealth;
that the first-mentioned person urges the other person to
overthrow.
Urging interference in Parliamentary elections
(3) A person commits an offence if the person urges another
person to interfere by force or violence with lawful processes for
an election of a member or members of a House of the
Parliament.
Penalty: Imprisonment for 7 years.
(4) Recklessness applies to the element of the offence under
subsection (3) that it is lawful processes for an election of a
member or members of a House of the Parliament that the
first-mentioned person urges the other person to interfere
with.
Urging violence within the community
(5) A person commits an offence if:
(a) the person urges a group or groups (whether distinguished by
race, religion, nationality or political opinion) to use force or
violence against another group or other groups (as so
distinguished); and
(b) the use of the force or violence would threaten the peace,
order and good government of the Commonwealth.
Penalty: Imprisonment for 7 years.
(6) Recklessness applies to the element of the offence under
subsection (5) that it is a group or groups that are distinguished
by race, religion, nationality or political opinion that the
first-mentioned person urges the other person to use force or
violence against.
Urging a person to assist the enemy
(7) A person commits an offence if:
(a) the person urges another person to engage in conduct;
and
(b) the first-mentioned person intends the conduct to assist an
organisation or country; and
(c) the organisation or country is:
(i) at war with the Commonwealth, whether or not the existence
of a state of war has been declared; and
(ii) specified by Proclamation made for the purpose of paragraph
80.1(1)(e) to be an enemy at war with the Commonwealth.
Penalty: Imprisonment for 7 years.
Urging a person to assist those engaged in armed hostilities
(8) A person commits an offence if:
(a) the person urges another person to engage in conduct;
and
(b) the first-mentioned person intends the conduct to assist an
organisation or country; and
(c) the organisation or country is engaged in armed hostilities
against the Australian Defence Force.
Penalty: Imprisonment for 7 years.
Defence
(9) Subsections (7) and (8) do not apply to engagement in
conduct by way of, or for the purposes of, the provision of aid of
a humanitarian nature.
Note 1: A defendant bears an evidential burden in relation to
the matter in subsection (9). See subsection 13.3(3).
Note 2: There is a defence in section 80.3 for acts done in good
faith.
80.3 Defence for acts done in good faith
(1) Sections 80.1 and 80.2 do not apply to a person who:
(a) tries in good faith to show that any of the following
persons are mistaken in any of his or her counsels, policies or
actions:
(i) the Sovereign;
(ii) the Governor-General;
(iii) the Governor of a State;
(iv) the Administrator of a Territory;
(v) an adviser of any of the above;
(vi) a person responsible for the government of another country;
or
(b) points out in good faith errors or defects in the following,
with a view to reforming those errors or defects:
(i) the Government of the Commonwealth, a State or a
Territory;
(ii) the Constitution;
(iii) legislation of the Commonwealth, a State, a Territory or
another country;
(iv) the administration of justice of or in the Commonwealth, a
State, a Territory or another country; or
(c) urges in good faith another person to attempt to lawfully
procure a change to any matter established by law, policy or
practice in the Commonwealth, a State, a Territory or another
country; or
(d) points out in good faith any matters that are producing, or
have a tendency to produce, feelings of ill-will or hostility
between different groups, in order to bring about the removal of
those matters; or
(e) does anything in good faith in connection with an industrial
dispute or an industrial matter; or
(f) publishes in good faith a report or commentary about a matter
of public interest.
Note: A defendant bears an evidential burden in relation to the
matter in subsection (1). See subsection 13.3(3).
(2) In considering a defence under subsection (1), the Court may
have regard to any relevant matter, including whether the acts were
done:
(a) for a purpose intended to be prejudicial to the safety or
defence of the Commonwealth; or
(b) with the intention of assisting an enemy:
(i) at war with the Commonwealth; and
(ii) specified by Proclamation made for the purpose of paragraph
80.1(1)(e) to be an enemy at war with the Commonwealth; or
(c) with the intention of assisting another country, or an
organisation, that is engaged in armed hostilities against the
Australian Defence Force; or
(d) with the intention of assisting a proclaimed enemy of a
proclaimed country (within the meaning of subsection 24AA(4) of the
Crimes Act 1914); or
(e) with the intention of assisting persons specified in paragraphs
24AA(2)(a) and (b) of the Crimes Act 1914; or
(f) with the intention of causing violence or creating public
disorder or a public disturbance.
80.4 Extended geographical
jurisdiction for offences
Section 15.4 (extended
geographical jurisdiction—category D) applies to an offence against
this Division.
80.5 Attorney-General’s consent required
(1) Proceedings for an offence against this Division must not be
commenced without the Attorney-General’s written consent.
(2) Despite subsection (1):
(a) a person may be arrested for an offence against this
Division; or
(b) a warrant for the arrest of a person for such an offence may be
issued and executed;
and the person may be charged, and may be remanded in custody or on
bail, but:
(c) no further proceedings may be taken until that consent has been
obtained
