| dbo:abstract
|
- 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 Constitution of the Republic of Singapore (1985 Rev. Ed., 1999 Reprint), 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 On 2 November 2022, the Sedition Act was repealed. (en)
- 《煽动法令》是新加坡的一项已被废除的禁止煽动性行为和言论；以及煽动性出版物的印刷、出版、销售、分发、复制和进口的法令。根据该法令，任何可构成犯罪的行为的基本要素是发现其的「煽动性倾向」，而犯罪者的意图无关紧要。法令还列举了几个不属于具有煽动性倾向的行为，并在有限的几种情况下为被告提供辩护。 该法令的一个特点是，除了惩罚倾向于破坏政府行政的行为外，该法还将引起「不同种族或阶级之间的恶意和敌对情绪」的行为定为刑事犯罪。与1950年代和1960年代涉及煽动对政府不满的指控的逮捕和起诉相比，21世纪的逮捕和起诉（例如地庭（英语：District Court）的检察官诉许松发案 (2005) 和检察官诉王建聪案 (2009) ）集中在产生后一种效果的行为和出版物。学界对《煽动法令》在这些案件中的解释是否令人满意，以及使用“感情”作为衡量煽动性倾向的尺度是否合适提出了担忧。 在王建聪一案中，被告辩称，为了使《煽动法令》第3(1)(e)条与新加坡共和国宪法（1985 年修订版，1999 年再版）第14(1)(a)条所给予的新加坡公民的言论和表达自由权相一致，法令的应用必须被限制于明示或暗示煽动公共秩序混乱的行为。地庭对被告的说辞表示不认同，指出如果国会打算包括这一额外要求，它就会在法令当中明确立法解释。高等法院和上诉法院并未就此事件作出任何判决。据一位法律学者称，许松发案和王建聪案显示，在新加坡，人民的言论自由受到种族和宗教和谐方面的公共秩序考量的约束，它并不是一项主要权利。也有人认为如果对宪法第14条进行适当的解释，则《煽动法令》第3(1)(e)条不符合这一条文。 2021年9月13日，新加坡政府向国会提交了一项法案，以废除《煽动法令》。法令于2022年11月2日被正式废除。 (zh)
|
| dbo:thumbnail
| |
| dbo:wikiPageExternalLink
| |
| dbo:wikiPageID
| |
| dbo:wikiPageLength
|
- 85575 (xsd:nonNegativeInteger)
|
| dbo:wikiPageRevisionID
| |
| dbo:wikiPageWikiLink
| |
| dbp:1stReading
| |
| dbp:2ndReading
| |
| dbp:3rdReading
| |
| dbp:bill
| |
| dbp:cap
| |
| dbp:caption
|
- Old Parliament House, photographed in January 2006 (en)
|
| dbp:citation
|
- Sedition Ordinance 1948 , 2020 Revised Edition—Sedition Act 1948 (en)
|
| dbp:dateCommenced
|
- 0001-07-19 (xsd:gMonthDay)
|
| dbp:dateEnacted
| |
| dbp:dateRepealed
| |
| dbp:ed
|
- 1985 (xsd:integer)
- 2001 (xsd:integer)
|
| dbp:enactedBy
| |
| dbp:imagealt
|
- Old Parliament House, Singapore (en)
|
| dbp:introducedBy
| |
| dbp:longTitle
|
- An Act for the punishment of sedition. (en)
|
| dbp:rep
| |
| dbp:repealedBy
| |
| dbp:royalAssent
| |
| dbp:shortTitle
| |
| dbp:status
| |
| dbp:title
|
- Constitution (en)
- Maintenance of Religious Harmony Act (en)
|
| dbp:titlelink
|
- Maintenance of Religious Harmony Act (en)
|
| dbp:wikiPageUsesTemplate
| |
| dcterms:subject
| |
| gold:hypernym
| |
| rdf:type
| |
| rdfs:comment
|
- 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. On 2 November 2022, the Sedition Act was repealed. (en)
- 《煽动法令》是新加坡的一项已被废除的禁止煽动性行为和言论；以及煽动性出版物的印刷、出版、销售、分发、复制和进口的法令。根据该法令，任何可构成犯罪的行为的基本要素是发现其的「煽动性倾向」，而犯罪者的意图无关紧要。法令还列举了几个不属于具有煽动性倾向的行为，并在有限的几种情况下为被告提供辩护。 该法令的一个特点是，除了惩罚倾向于破坏政府行政的行为外，该法还将引起「不同种族或阶级之间的恶意和敌对情绪」的行为定为刑事犯罪。与1950年代和1960年代涉及煽动对政府不满的指控的逮捕和起诉相比，21世纪的逮捕和起诉（例如地庭（英语：District Court）的检察官诉许松发案 (2005) 和检察官诉王建聪案 (2009) ）集中在产生后一种效果的行为和出版物。学界对《煽动法令》在这些案件中的解释是否令人满意，以及使用“感情”作为衡量煽动性倾向的尺度是否合适提出了担忧。 2021年9月13日，新加坡政府向国会提交了一项法案，以废除《煽动法令》。法令于2022年11月2日被正式废除。 (zh)
|
| rdfs:label
|
- Sedition Act (Singapore) (en)
- 煽动法令 (新加坡) (zh)
|
| owl:sameAs
| |
| prov:wasDerivedFrom
| |
| foaf:depiction
| |
| foaf:isPrimaryTopicOf
| |
| is dbo:wikiPageDisambiguates
of | |
| is dbo:wikiPageRedirects
of | |
| is dbo:wikiPageWikiLink
of | |
| is dbp:relatedLegislation
of | |
| is rdfs:seeAlso
of | |
| is foaf:primaryTopic
of | |
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
