Skip to main content

Advertisement

Advertisement

Amos Yee prosecuted ‘for vicious statements, not political dissent’

SINGAPORE — Blogger Amos Yee was prosecuted for making “vicious statements” about Christians and Muslims, and not political dissent, as The Economist had implied in an article, said Ms Foo Chi Hsia, Singapore’s High Commissioner in London.

Amos Yee leaving the State Court with his parents. TODAY file photo

Amos Yee leaving the State Court with his parents. TODAY file photo

Follow TODAY on WhatsApp

SINGAPORE — Blogger Amos Yee was prosecuted for making “vicious statements” about Christians and Muslims, and not political dissent, as The Economist had implied in an article, said Ms Foo Chi Hsia, Singapore’s High Commissioner in London.

She was responding to an article on Yee gaining asylum in the United States, titled “No place for the crass” published on March 30.

The article noted that the profanity-laced video that got Yee in court contained only “a small part”, around 30 seconds of a 519-second clip, where he mocked Christianity. The other portions contained negative comments against founding Prime Minister Lee Kuan Yew.

It also said the judge’s grounds of decision spanned 13 pages when asylum bids are typically granted “with a simple, spoken ruling”.

In a letter to the weekly, Ms Foo cited the comments Yee had made in 2015 and last year, leading to his prosecutions. “The Economist may agree with the American judge that such bigotry is free speech. But Singapore does not countenance hate speech, because we have learnt from bitter experience how fragile our racial and religious harmony is,” she said. “Several people have been prosecuted for engaging in such hate speech.”

In granting Yee asylum, immigration judge Samuel Cole in Chicago found that Yee’s prosecution and detention by the Singapore authorities “constitute(s) persecution on account of Amos’ political opinions”, and called him a “young political dissident”.

“The evidence presented at the hearing demonstrates Singapore’s prosecution of Amos was a pretext to silence his political opinions critical of the Singapore government,” Mr Cole had written.

In response to the decision, the Ministry of Home Affairs (MHA) said it was “the prerogative of the US to take in such people who engage in hate speech”.

The Economist article described the MHA statement as a “huffy response”. It went on to question comments made separately by Mr Sunil Sudheesan, the president of the Association of Criminal Lawyers, that its members were “outraged” by the judge’s “baseless and unwarranted” findings.

The article said: “Saying such things about a ruling of a Singaporean court, ironically, could put the speaker at risk of prosecution for contempt.”

Ms Foo, however, said that contrary to what The Economist suggested, Singapore’s laws on contempt do not prevent fair criticisms of court judgments, noting that the article itself demonstrates the point. “Singapore’s court judgments, including on Mr Yee’s case, are reasoned and published, and can stand scrutiny by anyone, including The Economist,” she added.

In September of last year, Yee pleaded guilty to six charges of deliberately posting comments on the internet — in videos, blog posts and a picture — that were critical of Christianity and Islam. He was sentenced to six weeks in jail.

In 2015, Yee was convicted on charges of harassment and insulting a religious group over comments he made about Christians and Mr Lee Kuan Yew soon after Mr Lee’s death. His sentence at the time amounted to four weeks in jail.

Read more of the latest in

Advertisement

Advertisement

Stay in the know. Anytime. Anywhere.

Subscribe to get daily news updates, insights and must reads delivered straight to your inbox.

By clicking subscribe, I agree for my personal data to be used to send me TODAY newsletters, promotional offers and for research and analysis.