Video criticising Lee Kuan Yew
On 23 March 2015, Lee Kuan Yew, the first Prime Minister of Singapore, died. [24] [25] [26] Four days later, Yee uploaded a YouTube video titled Lee Kuan Yew is Finally Dead!, [24] [27] in which he said that both Lee and Jesus were "power-hungry and malicious" individuals who deceived their followers into thinking otherwise. [28] Apart from hoping that Lee would not rest in peace, [29] Yee also said that Lee was a "horrible person", an "awful leader" and a dictator who made his followers believe he stood for democratic ideals, [30] and criticised Singapore's taxes overshadowing the government's spending of money on the public. [28] Lastly, Yee issued a challenge to Lee's son, former Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong, stating if he wished to sue him, Yee would "oblige to dance with him". [31] The video has since been viewed more than 880,000 times. [32]
Before uploading the video, Yee said that he was worried about the legal ramifications, such as the Sedition Act. He told Toh that he was making a video criticising Lee, and uploaded it despite her telling him not to. [33] Yee said that his ideas were influenced by meet-ups with members from the Singapore Democratic Party (SDP), one of whom introduced him to Roy Ngerng's blog, which convinced Yee. [34] In court documents, Yee also admitted that he criticised Christianity and Lee to initiate discussions on "problems" with religion and Singapore. He acknowledged the potential offences but continued posting blogs and hoped the discussions could lead to positive changes. [34]
Arrest
On 29 March 2015, Yee was arrested on the grounds of intentionally wounding religious or racial feelings, threatening, abusive or insulting communication, and obscenity. [8] 32 police reports were made against Yee's uploading of the 2015 video, [35] [36] while another police report was made against alleged obscene material on Yee's blog, [37] which contained an image titled "Lee Kuan Yew Buttfucking Margaret Thatcher". [38] [39] Toh filed a police report on the day of the arrest [3] because she was unable to control his behaviour. [1] This was later reported by Today, which added that on 5 May, she told the police that she no longer wanted to provide a statement. [40]
Charging, bail and remand
On 31 March, three charges were read out to Yee in the State Courts of Singapore, the first charge being that Yee's 2015 video violated Section 298 of the Penal Code, as it contained remarks that deliberately wounded religious feelings. [41] The second charge, which was declared nolle prosequi on 30 April, [42] was under Section 4 of the Protection from Harassment Act 2014, [43] as the video contained potentially distressing statements concerning Lee. The third charge was under Section 292 of the Penal Code, [44] which concerned the obscene image Yee uploaded on 28 March. [45] [46] Yee was released on a S$20,000 bail and prohibited from posting online content while the case was ongoing. [45] On 3 April, Toh brought him to the Institute of Mental Health (IMH) to see a psychiatrist to understand why he seemed to fear nothing, [40] but Yee could not attend the third session, [47] as it clashed with the day of his bail review hearing. [48]
On 14 April 2015, Yee violated his bail conditions by asking on both his blog and Facebook page for public donations to fund his legal fees; [49] [50] the blog post also linked to the video and image he had uploaded the prior month. [32] Yee was remanded in Changi Prison from 17 to 21 April because no one had posted bail, [51] despite the bail amount only needing to be pledged instead of being physically deposited. [52] Yee was released on bail by Vincent Law, a Christian family and youth counsellor. [53] Additionally, three lawyers—Alfred Dodwell, Chong Jia Hao, and Ervin Tan—offered to represent Yee pro bono . [43] [51]
On 29 April, Yee flouted his bail conditions again by making two blog posts; the first questioned his bail terms, and the second accused his father of being physically abusive. [54] District Judge Kessler Soh asked him to take the posts down, but Yee refused, feeling that doing so was the same as admitting guilt. [55] Concurrently, the bail amount was raised to S$30,000, and Yee was again taken into remand because nobody posted bail. [43] Yee rejected Law's offer to post bail for him again as Yee did not want to be "gagged", leading to Law discharging himself. [56] Yee's lawyers applied for a change in bail amount and conditions on 6 May, stating that social media was "like drinking water" for Yee and that the ban on uploading online information was too wide. The High Court judge, Tay Yong Kwang, upheld Yee's bail conditions after Yee rejected the prosecution's request to reduce the bail amount and to exempt Yee from having to report daily to a police station, provided Yee attended psychiatric counselling. [47] [57]
Slapping incident
On 30 April 2015, while en route to the state courts for a pre-trial conference, Yee was slapped in the face by Neo Gim Huah, [58] who ran away after challenging Yee to sue him. [43] Neo was arrested at 2 am the next day, less than 12 hours after the attack. [59] Neo, who said he "lost control" and wanted to "teach Yee a lesson", [60] has since apologised in his statement to Yee and his parents for the assault. Nevertheless, on 11 May, Neo was sentenced by District Judge Ronald Gwee to three weeks in jail for voluntarily causing hurt, [58] though the prosecution asked for two weeks' imprisonment. [61]
Trial
Yee was tried as an adult [62] and pleaded not guilty to both charges. The trial was originally scheduled for 7 May 2015, [34] but was postponed to 12 May by Yee's lawyers so that Yee would not spend more time in remand than necessary. The case attracted significant public interest, with over 20 people seen outside Court 7 more than an hour before the hearing was scheduled to begin. [63] Amongst those who attended the trial were both of Yee's parents, Ngerng, as well as social activists Andrew Loh and Teo Soh Lung. Law also attended the trial to support Yee [64] [65] and stated that he never changed his mind about bailing Yee out. [56]
The proceedings began with the defence arguing that the obscenity of an image is determined by whether or not it has a potentially depraving or corrupting effect on any person who is exposed to it, [63] and that the prosecution has not provided any evidence that the image passes the test. [66] They argued that Section 292, under which Yee was charged, was aimed at "peddlers and purveyors of pornography" and that it is "wholly inapt to describe [any] mischief [...] in this case". The prosecution had argued that Yee's own comments showed his intention to "corrupt and deprave", but the defence countered that a person cannot be convicted ipse dixit . They also argued that the image was not pornographic in nature, as it was not "designed to arouse". [44] Another of Yee's lawyers was allowed to admit a cautioned statement that would "vindicate his client". While the prosecution initially challenged this, the judge allowed its submission, to applause from members of the public in court. [63]
Verdict
The court found Yee guilty and convicted him of both charges on 12 May 2015. [67] With regards to the obscenity charge, judge Jasvender Kaur said that standards of obscenity differ among countries, and that the courts should decide based on their own standards. Kaur considered the effect that image had on teenagers, and concluded that it met the "strongest possible disapproval and condemnation". With regards to the second charge, Kaur said that Yee's remarks were "clearly derogatory and offensive to Christians". [68] During the court hearing, Yee, who faced a fine and up to three years' jail, [62] [69] had requested to be jailed instead of going for probation after Kaur found him guilty. [70] The prosecution requested that Yee be given counseling and probation. The court adjourned sentencing pending a probation report for Yee. [71]
Yee's bail was reduced to S$10,000, which his parents paid. The prohibition for him to post online was lifted, but Yee was required to remove the offensive YouTube video and the blog post in question. Yee complied, but on 21 May, Yee made them public again. [72] [73]
Yee was greeted by numerous bystanders, [74] but Yee said to reporters that he was unsure if he should "celebrate [his] release or mourn [his] sentence." [71] [75] A day before the verdict, dozens showed up for a candlelight vigil at Hong Lim Park to support Yee. [76] [77] [78]
Molestation allegations
On 13 May 2015, a day after being released, Yee falsely claimed on Facebook that his former bailor, Law, had molested him. In response, Law told The Online Citizen that he considered charging Yee for defamation if he did not make a public apology. [79] [80] [81] [82] Given that Yee described himself as a "slow writer", he requested that Law give him "about 3 days" to prepare the apology. [83] [84] Upon hearing what Yee had to say, Law decided to drop the investigation. [84]
Afterwards, Yee retracted his apology, [85] [84] saying it was foolish of people to think that he would provide a genuine apology. [67] In a 6000-word blog post, [86] Yee justified his definition of "molest" by saying it meant "annoy". [67] When asked about Yee's latest about-turn, Law believed it would be best to avoid writing about Yee, [87] [88] [89] and that he was not considering legal action. [84]
Sentencing and further remands
On 27 May 2015, Yee was called back to court for an urgent hearing as he refused to meet with his assigned probation officer. The prosecution called for a report to assess Yee's suitability for reformative training, arguing that a jail term or a fine would have no rehabilitative effect. [72] [90] [91] On 2 June, Yee was remanded for three weeks and a report was made to assess whether Yee was suitable to serve reformative training. [92] For this remand period, no bail option was offered. This decision came after Yee rejected the option of probation and instead pleaded for a jail term. The prosecution has argued that Yee's re-uploading of the image and video pertaining to his charges should be taken into account as an indication of his conduct and character. [92] [93] On 23 June, Kaur ordered that Yee again be remanded at the IMH for two weeks [94] in response to a report by Dr. Munidasa Winslow who said that Yee may have autism, [95] although a psychiatrist [96] later concluded that Yee does not suffer from any mental disorder, and would benefit from having someone guide him in Internet usage. [97]
Hospitalisation
On 5 July 2015, the night before Yee's next hearing was scheduled to be held, Yee was admitted to the Accident and Emergency department at Changi General Hospital [98] for low blood glucose levels. According to Toh, Yee had not been eating for several days, was not sleeping well and was feeling depressed. [99] Earlier, on 12 June, Yee's lawyer reported that Yee had been experiencing suicidal thoughts at the prospect of reformative training. While Yee had been "very courteous and engaged in the process", his stint at the IMH had been "a shock to his system". [2]
On 6 July, Yee was sentenced to four weeks in jail; [4] [5] three weeks for wounding the religious feelings of Christians in his Lee Kuan Yew video and one week for the caricature he posted, the sentences being served consecutively. [100] He was addressed directly by the judge Kaur who said that she hopes that Yee would reconsider his decision to drop out of school, before acknowledging that there are few dropout success stories. [96]
Release
Yee was released immediately after his sentences were announced as they were backdated to 2 June when he was in remand for 50 days. [2] [97] [101] Yee's demeanour when he was freed differed from his previous court appearances; he appeared pale and gaunt, [35] wore a frown on his face and kept his head bowed most of the time. In court, Deputy Public Prosecutor Hay Hung Chun acknowledged that Yee understood the severity of his actions. This was in response to IMH child psychiatrist Cai Yiming's report that Yee had admitted to his guilt, as well as the consequences of his actions. As a result of Yee's remorse, Hay announced that the prosecution would be asking for just one day of imprisonment. [102] Upon his release, Yee began to ask for cash donations. [103] In July 2015, Yee reportedly filed an appeal against the conviction and sentence, [104] [105] as his lawyer, Dodwell, questioned the legality of Yee's actions, but was willing to determine it in the High Court. [104] Yee continued to criticise the government of Singapore after his arrest; on 9 September 2015, Yee uploaded a video titled "PAP king manipulators", in which he criticised the ruling party of Singapore, but he was not arrested for uploading the video. [106]
International reactions
Initial reaction
Many netizens opposed Yee's video, although some defended the right to his opinions. [1] According to Sandra Hudd of the Journal of Applied Youth Studies, the timing at which the video was uploaded contributed to potentially offending Singaporeans, as it was uploaded during a week of national mourning. [107] Furthermore, many Singaporeans saw Lee's passing as the end of an era marked by significant economic development and racial harmony, while others criticised the severity of his political control, [108] labelling him as autocratic. [109] In an interview with Time , Lee Hsien Loong said that the government and its officials are allowed to be criticised, but that the freedom of expression has its limits. [110]
Yee, along with his views on Lee and religion, was described by Singaporean professor Ronald Chen as a floating signifier, as well as a "symbol of Singapore's progress and associated challenges". [111] Singaporean magazine Today published a piece by Edwin Teong, who felt that Yee's video was one of several cases representing poor decisions made by Singaporean youths. [112] Meanwhile, Mikha Chan of Free Malaysia Today characterised Yee as a "wannabe intellectual" who often sensationalised the topic of discussion, [113] while Grace Fu, Singapore's second minister for foreign affairs, said that the video "crossed the red line on religion". [114] In response to several violent and threatening remarks made against Yee online, [115] the Media Literacy Council and the Singapore Kindness Movement urged netizens to act responsibly and civilly, even when confronted with opinions they find offensive. [116]
Criticism of Yee's imprisonment
Alongside Yee's video, his arrest, [8] [27] [31] [62] imprisonment, trial and verdict drew international attention and scrutiny from both the media and human rights organisations. Amnesty International called Yee's four-week jail sentence a "dark day for freedom of expression" in Singapore [117] [118] and declared Yee a prisoner of conscience, citing Article 19 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, which highlights the principle to freedom of expression. [8] [9] The United Nations Human Rights Office called for his immediate release in line with the Convention on the Rights of the Child. [119] BBC News reported that Yee was among several people who criticised Lee online, but he was the only one who was arrested. [62] Ben Mathis-Lilley of Slate denied the possibility of Yee being an armed insurrectionist, while further labelling the Singaporeans who reported Yee to the police as "narcs". [120] Phil Robertson of Human Rights Watch (HRW) criticised the verdict as "publicly punishing" Yee and "intimidating anyone else who might think of doing the same in the future." [121] [122] On the other hand, Abdul Rani Kulup Abdullah, chief of the Martabat Jalinan Muhibbah Malaysia organisation, supported Yee's arrest and encouraged Malaysia to follow Singapore's example of implementing strict laws on free speech to prevent influential criticism against the government that could lead to anarchy. [123]
The Singaporean government's handling of Yee's case was also criticised by people and organisations within the country; the Association of Women for Action and Research urged the state to be mindful of the consequences of future prosecutions. [124] Politician Goh Meng Seng said that although he considered Yee rude, he felt that Yee was obligated to defend his rights. [125] Singaporean academic Cherian George, lawyer and former president of the Law Society of Singapore Peter Low, as well as leading rights activists, academics, filmmakers and members of the arts community signed a letter saying that they disapproved of the government's reactions and that facilitising Yee could prevent other Singaporean youths from openly expressing their views. [126] The Committee to Protect Journalists organisation and a petition started by a Christian Singaporean both called for Yee's release, the former of which criticised his arrest as a reminder of the restrictive working conditions that Singaporean journalists must work under. [62]
Protests
Yee's sentence led to protests from several activist groups. On 27 June 2015, about 60 people from more than 10 civil society groups under the banner of the Taiwan Association for Human Rights demonstrated outside the Singapore Trade Office in Taipei. The protesters held placards and chanted "Free Amos Yee" for about half an hour. [127] On 30 June, university students in Hong Kong held a protest to urge the Singaporean government to release Yee. Student activist group Scholarism, which took part in the protest, published a post asserting that the actions taken against Yee reflected the lack of freedom of speech within Singaporean society. [128] [129] [130]
On 5 July, a demonstration was held in Hong Kong, where protestors burnt effigies of Lee Hsien Loong and Lee Kuan Yew, to demand the release of Yee. About 50 people from various civic and political groups gathered near the Singapore Consulate in Admiralty with banners and placards, which read "Dissident is not Demented" and "Freedom of Speech should not be infringed". [125] The same day in Singapore, a rally organised by Community Action Network, which advocates for freedom of expression in the country, was attended by an estimated 500 people, [99] demanding the release of Yee. [131]
