involving two consenting adults, as any viable moral theory emplaces limits on
consent. In underscoring the social value of the law, entrapment operations were
recognised as serving the ‘socially desirable and laudable objective of containing
the drug trade’, a ‘grave menace’ to society. Such operations were ‘necessary’ to
flush out and deter drug suppliers. Thus the interest of the accused person in being
treated ‘equally’ could not outweigh these competing community considerations.
The non-liberal tenor framing judicial review is evident in the first case extending to
cyberspace laws regulating free speech,PPv.Koh Song Huat Benjamin.^90 The
Sedition Act^91 was applied to anti-Muslim and anti-Malay remarks posted online,
which was treated as part of the public realm. Richard Magnus SDJ emphasised the
‘especial sensitivity of racial and religious issues in our multi-cultural society’, and
noted how ‘callous and reckless remarks on racial or religious subjects’ could ‘cause
social disorder’ in ‘whatever medium or forum they are expressed’, including the
Internet with ‘its ubiquitous reach’.
92
As such, ‘one cannot hide behind the anonymity
of cyberspace, as each accused has done, to pen diatribes against another race or
religion’.
93
Freedom of expression (‘right to propagate an opinion on the Internet’) was
not to be considered in isolation, but was qualified by ‘another’s freedom from offence’
and ‘wider public interests considerations’; that is, not causing racial strife harmful to
‘one racial group’ (Malays) and ‘the very fabric of our society’ (all Singaporeans).
Giving close contextual consideration to Singapore’s historical race riot experiences,
Magnus SDJ stressed that Singapore citizens and residents were responsible for
respecting other races within a multiracial society and for doing nothing ‘which
might incite the people and plunge the country into racial strife and violence’.^94
The importance of racial and religious harmony as a social good is reflected in the
government’s attitude towards the disallowed Prophet Muhammad cartoons or
the ban on Salman Rushdie’sSatanic Verses. Free speech is not valorised but subject
to other basic values, like a culture of tolerance and respect for religious beliefs, to
secure peace and harmony. However, there is always the danger that constitutional
liberties will be unduly discounted or ignored, as inPPv.Ong Kian Cheong,^95 where
religious speech was considered seditious as it promoted ‘feelings of ill-will and
hostility between different races or classes of the population of Singapore’.^96
(^90) [ 2005 ] SGDC 272 (District Court, Singapore).
(^91) Notably, the Sedition Act has both ‘vertical’ and ‘horizontal’ dimensions, insofar as the
understanding of sedition transcends the common-law understanding of inciting violence
against government institutions to include the ‘horizontal’ statutory meaning applicable to
tensions between social groups as a threat to state survivability, more broadly conceived.
See Thio Li-ann, ‘The virtual and the real: Article 14 , political speech and the calibrated
management of deliberative democracy in Singapore’ ( 2008 )SJLS 25.
(^92) [ 2005 ] SGDC 272 (District Court, Singapore), [ 7 ]. (^93) Ibid., [ 8 ]. (^94) Ibid.
(^95) Ibid.For an analysis, see Thio Li-ann, ‘Contentious liberty: regulating religious propaga-
tion in a religiously diverse secular democracy’ ( 2010 )SJLS 484.
(^96) Section 3 ( 1 )(e), Sedition Act (Cap 290 ).