Well, as most of you probably know, ever since I uploaded the ‘Lee Kuan Yew is finally dead!’ video, I’ve been put in a cell, charged, deemed guilty and now bailed out. A just law would never have charged me for these crimes, but then again that’s with the assumption that the Judicial system in Singapore is actually just.
Since I’m the person who’s receiving the charges, and am the one who has discussed and thought about it extensively during this period of time, I should be more than capable to refute the charges against me, and I am, so here it is.
As the general public capable of looking at something critically (haha), I urge you not to simply see the matter at it’s surface, but actually contemplate, and use logic to form a judgement on whether or not I should be deemed guilty. Because really If you simply looked at the charge that I uploaded an obscene image on the surface, then yes, I did in fact upload an obscene image, and I would have immediately pleaded guilty. However, once you actually think about what in the context of Singapore, the definition of ‘obscene’, then you find out how seeing things on face-value (an aspect inherent in school) is usually false.
The written charges that were given to me are extremely long-winded, needlessly verbose, and is probably an indication of the inefficiency of the law system in general. Therefore I have paraphrased them. If you want the exact phrasing of these charges, look it up online or it could be mentioned in one of the news reports that about me. Though really, my paraphrasing doesn’t constitute at all to any loss of meaning.
1st charge – Charged for deliberately intending to wound the religious feelings of Christians in general and the feelings of Fong Huiling Pamela, female 26 years old and Lim Zijin, male 27 years old in particular (Section 298 – wounding religious feelings of a person either verbally or through an action) Punishment of up to 3 years, fine or both.
2nd Charge – Charged for insulting Lee Kuan Yew and intending for it to viewed by people who would be distressed by it(Section 4(1)(b) punishable under section 4(2)) Punishment of up to a $5000 fine.
3rd Charge – Charged for uploading an obscene image (Section 292 1(a) – distributes any obscene materials) Punishment of up to 3 months, fine or both
Now I found out that I am the 1st person ever in the history of Singapore to be charged with posting obscene material, and seeing how news of my charges has become international, there would probably be a significant section of my charge in the law book. It’s flattering that news of me would be studied by law students for years to come, though looking seeing how content in school textbooks are characterized by sheer mundanity, I hope they do not bowdlerize it.
The arguments I’m making here are not in any way the ‘script’ my lawyers used in trial, this isn’t verified by any of them, in fact most of this was written before I even met my lawyers. This is just a personal, logical refutation of the charges in my own words. Enjoy!
1. Charged for the intention of wounding religious feelings as well as Pamela and Zijin in particular (Constitutes the most severe sentence of 3 years imprisonment, fine or both)
Firstly, I would like to ask , who the fuck is Pamela and Zijin? I have absolutely no idea who these bitches are. I’m assuming that they are the cunts that managed to make their police report of their dear religion so attractive, so much so that their fucking names have to be blatantly shown on my charge.
I do not know what their hobbies are, what they’re doing now in their lives, whether or not they are ugly as fuck (They probably are) whether or not Zijin is a virgin, or if Pamela has double Ds, the only thing I’m assuming is that they are Christian, with a complete devotion to a fictitious, mass-murdering, sexist, racist, sadomasochistic God, formed by the unrelenting social conditioning of their religious parents ever since they were youths, a constant barrage of threats that they will go to a equally fictitious hell if they ever defile the dear Jesus’ name, wasting copious amounts of time weekly mindlessly singing hymns and listening to soporific sermons.
I do not know at all, who these 2 people are, and even if I did, I never once mentioned their names in the video, how the fuck am I able to deliberately hurt them ‘in particular’. There were 32 police reports filed when my video became viral, so why isn’t there an extensive list of the names of 32 people, what makes Pamela and Zijin so special?
When I first saw this, I was so overwhelmed by how fucking stupid this is. I already knew that the law and police were dumb, but to this extent, I would have never imagined.
This section of the charge, even more so than the rest, is the most ridiculous, it blows my mind on so many levels, and I will not be fucking deemed guilty for this fucking bullshit. And if the judge has the gall to claim that I knew these 2 people and deliberately tried to wound them, I will personally castrate myself, because that could possibly be the only way to ease the pain.
So since this charge has 2 aspects to it (Wounding religious feelings and wounding 2 cunts in particular) is it possible for me to be accountable for half the charge? Would the final sentence therefore be halved if I am deemed guilty for a half-charge?
*Update: The prosecutor did eventually remove the specific names of those 2 people before they found me guilty of this charge. My hope for humanity has been restored*
If you claim that Jesus is malicious, or that priests are deceptive, you don’t necessarily have the intention of promoting ill-will. Like when you say Hitler is malicious, does that mean that you deliberately intended to promote ill-will to people who are anti-Hitler? Just because a piece of work causes ill-will, doesn’t necessarily mean that it was intended to cause ill-will, subtle difference. And the law’s failure to distinct that the effect isn’t necessarily the intent is extremely egregious.
Furthermore, you never charged me for my ‘Refuting Christians with their own Christian bible’ video, and unlike the brief section that criticized Christianity in the Lee Kuan Yew video, this video dealt purely with the religion itself, it’s so obviously more effective in promoting ill-will amongst religious groups. You did include that video in my statement so you obviously acknowledged it . Yet you never charged me for that, thus indicating that the law deems that video as alright. So if that video isn’t considered as ‘intending to wound the religious feelings of Christians’, then why is that little section in the Lee Kuan Yew video deemed so?
Is that section considered harassment only because the LKY video was much more popular? So you’re saying that what is deemed harassment is not by whether or not the content stirs ill-will, but by how many people claim that the video stirred ill-will, what the fuck?!
Whether 1 person is distressed by a murder, or 50 people are distressed by the exact same murder, both murders should be sentenced with the same punishment because if the extent of public outcry somehow dictates the severity of a law, it seems like it can be very easily manipulated, especially in our technological world, where creating the illusion of a great public reception on the net is relatively easy (As can be seen from your Internet Brigades (https://www.reach.gov.sg/Mobile/YourSay/DiscussionForum.aspx?ssFormAction=%5B%5BssBlogThread_VIEW%5D%5D&tid=%5B%5B10072%5D%5D#top) and Justin Bieber Instagram followers (http://popcrush.com/justin-bieber-instagram-followers/).
And if the law still unfairly claims that the effect is able to accurately be indicative of an intent, then why didn’t Jason Neo get charged for this? Jason Neo was the dude who took a picture of a bus of black children, and claimed they were terrorists. This sparked public outcry and a long police investigation on the issue. However, up till today, he still hasn’t been charged for intending to promote ill-will amongst religious groups even though, at least in relation of this inane mindset of effect equating to intent, he did.
Is it because Jason is a member of the ruling party and I’m not, which is why he got charged and I didn’t? Well no where in the law book did you say that politicians are exempted from the law. So they are? Wow, that isn’t liable to abuse at all. I’m really glad that Lee Hsien Loong is allowed to run naked on the streets singing ‘Yankee Doodle Dandy’.
If your definition of ‘intending to promote ill-will amongst religious feelings’ is consistent and politicians aren’t exempted from the law (And yet you complain that people call Singapore a dictatorship), since Jason Neo wasn’t charged, then I too shouldn’t have been charged, and even more so, be deemed guilty.
2. Refutation of insulting Lee Kuan Yew and intending for it to be viewed by people who will be distressed by it
*The charge currently withheld by the Prosecutor though since it might be brought up again since I’d unprivatized my videos, and once again with the semblance that the law is consistent (Haha), they should*
Now, I would like to ask, how in the world are you able to accurately claim the existence of an intended purpose of a content-creator. Unless you have some sort mind-reading device, somehow I don’t think that you can.
Let me tell you that never in the process of conceptualizing to editing, did I ever acknowledge an intended purpose of making this video. Do you really think that I’m cackling in a corner all day, constantly trying to conjure up the most effective ways to piss people off? Saying ‘First Singapore, then Asia, then the world’?
The truth of the matter is that most content-creators, at least the good ones, ironically don’t acknowledge or aren’t really concerned with their intended purpose or target audience, at least consciously, because it doesn’t really affect the work and neither should it, you just produce the piece of work.
I’m sure everyone, at some point in time whether they were a kid or an adult, had drawn a picture of the sun. Now before or when you’re drawing it, do you ever honestly think ‘Oh! I want to impress middle-aged adults with my drawing of this sun’, or ’I intend to promote feelings of joy and satiation with my representation of this sun’, no, you just draw the fucking sun!
And also in relation to several exemplars in the past, Anton Casey definitely distressed the public and fans of public transport, when he made his comment about ‘wiping the stench of public transport’. Similarly Amy Cheong who criticized Malay weddings for their length and implied that it constituted to a high divorce rate. Both of their words constituted to a large public outcry, and what I’m assuming the law deems as ‘distress’. Those 2 eventually lose their jobs, but they weren’t charged though. Why not?
Is it because I do not have a job to lose therefore you feel the need to charge me? Is that a criteria that is written in the law book that people who do not have jobs to lose should cause the prosecutor to be more compelled to issue a charge? I don’t see that anywhere.
Am I being charged because the distress was catalyzed from insulting a supposedly loved figure? Well once again, the law didn’t say anything about how this charge relates to the distress caused specifically by insulting a public figure. I think there should be some form of prejudice equality, and you should charge me for intending to distress school students (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dYwqCDRKvsk) and Hunger games fans (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Gk4FNustn1A) as well.
It seems like it’s either the law is pulling all these criterias out their asses and inserting them into the law book as we speak, or they’re just being biased, and are able to get away with it because they have a high position of power. The latter argument seems quite convincing.
3. Charged for obscene imagery
I was also charged for posting an obscene image (The picture of Lee Kuan Yew buttfucking Margaret Thatcher). I had absolutely no idea that there such a law. And I think that it would be perfectly reasonable if I were to ask, how the fuck would I know?
When I was in Secondary 3 and 4, I studied Romeo and Juliet for English literature and in that play, there are several references to rape, sex, anal etcetera. Teachers explain the meaning and implications of these sexual references on a daily basis, and students are required to study them. Not only that, they are rewarded higher marks if they are able to more effectively articulate the depth of Gregory’s boasts about the massive size of his schlong.
Furthermore, E.L. James’ 50 shades of grey is also readily available in popular bookstores and sold to the general public, I myself have bought a copy. Although there is a little indication on the cover that says that this material might not be suitable for younger readers, a rating or a warning that claims that a book is obscene, doesn’t at all make it less obscene now doesn’t it?
I also distinctly remembered that when I was in Secondary 2, I borrowed a book called ‘The Claiming Of Sleeping Beauty’ by Anne Rice, from our very own public national library, if you dug out my library records you’d probably find the evidence. Unfortunately though, the book has already been taken down from the official NLB catalogue, so maybe in lieu of this law, they did their job, though unlike the banning of the book about homosexual penguins, this wasn’t announced to the public. So if that obscene book isn’t around anymore, then why is obscene material still taught in schools?
Does the word obscene only apply to images? Well the law that I’m being charged for says ‘obscene material’ so I’m guessing all pornographic books, films etcetera should be banned too right? And I think, at least if we’re being objective, a single pornographic image would be deemed less obscene compared to over 500 pages of pornographic writing. Why is my picture deemed obscene while the others aren’t?
Is it because the previous cases of obscene material was not reported while mine was? The law never claimed public opinion or the scale of public reaction dictates the relative level of obscenity, and if whether or not something is deemed obscene is dictated by the public, then once again, it seems very easy to manipulate.
If I hire 15 people to file police reports and ask them to create a multitude of anonymous accounts to stimulate a public outcry online about the Romeo and Juliet being placed in schools, does that mean that every secondary school English literature teacher is going to be arrested?
Is my image considered obscene and not the others because I used once living faces of figures as opposed to fictitious ones? So if Singaporeans posted Mario’s grand italian dick rubbing against Rosalina’s clitoris on the moon, that would be fine?
And how do you actually quantify obscene? Would you consider pornographic writing less obscene compared to pornographic images? Is something that is just a little bit obscene not be deemed obscene, even though it is still obscene?
I’m assuming that if there’s a law that so adamantly claims that the posting of obscene imagery is illegal, all books and materials that are obscene should be banned in Singapore? And if not, then I shouldn’t be liable for this charge.
In conclusion
So I explained, that even in relation to these inane law, I should not be deemed guilty for all of my charges. Unless the judicial system, the advocators of the law, is in fact, unlawful, which they are, but you know… there’s frequently hope that they wouldn’t be.
These laws are unnecessary, inane, and I also found out, unjustly placed without any fair or careful deliberation in parliament whatsoever. And because of that, people like me have to be victims of it.
And yes, to the chagrin of numerous people, I have not ‘learnt my lesson’, nor do I see any ‘lesson’ that needs to be learnt.If you are going to try to tower over me and say that you know something important that that I don’t, make sure you have a compelling argument for that. And if your lessons are borne from a corrupt, archaic Government lead by primitive monkeys, living under Dwayne Johnson (Thank you F.F.), then sorry if I doubt the credibility of your quote unquote ‘lessons’.
Hopefully history eventually vindicates me. But as of now, district judge Jasvender Kaur has deemed me guilty and the Prosecutor does in fact feel, that 30 months of a place worst than Prison (RTC) should be given to a boy who has posted an internet video.
Unless you do in fact relish in my misery, I hope both of you will be able to sleep at night, and live with the fact that right now, as it is written in the annals of history, my blood is on your hands.
Source: https://amosyee.wordpress.com
