Public Prosecutor v Amos Yee Pang Sang
| Jurisdiction | Singapore |
| Judge | Kaur Jasvender |
| Judgment Date | 28 July 2015 |
| Neutral Citation | [2015] SGDC 215 |
| Citation | [2015] SGDC 215 |
| Docket Number | MAC No. 902694 & 902695 of 2015 |
| Published date | 04 August 2015 |
| Hearing Date | 07 May 2015,12 May 2015,23 June 2015,06 July 2015,27 May 2015,02 June 2015,08 May 2015 |
| Plaintiff Counsel | Hay Hung Chun, Hon Yi & Kelvin Kow Weijie (Deputy Public Prosecutors) |
| Defendant Counsel | Alfred Dodwell and Chong Jia Hao (Dodwell & Co LLC) and Tan Ngee Wee Ervin (Michael Hwang Chambers LLC) |
| Court | District Court (Singapore) |
The accused claimed trial to a charge under section 292(1)(a) of the Penal Code (Cap 224) and a charge under section 298 of the Penal Code (Cap 224). He was found guilty and sentenced to one week’s imprisonment on the charge under section 292(1)(a) and to three weeks’ imprisonment on the charge under section 298. Both terms of imprisonment were ordered to run consecutively. The four-week term was backdated and the accused was released on the same day. He has now appealed against the conviction and sentence on both charges.
The prosecution and defence agreed to proceed by way of agreed facts (‘ASOF’) and exhibits thus dispensing with the need for any evidence to be called. Accordingly, it was agreed that no adverse inference will be drawn against the accused from not testifying in his defence.
In the course of the closing submissions, the defence made reference to the cautioned statement of the accused relating to the section 298 charge recorded on 30 March 2015 at 10.07am. The prosecution objected to the defence making reference to the statement on the ground that it was not part of the ASOF and exhibits. I shall deal with this aspect later.
Section 292(1)(a) chargeThe background to this charge is set out at paragraphs 4 and 5 of the ASOF, which reads:
The accused had disagreed with a statement attributed to the late Mrs Margaret Thatcher to the effect that Mr Lee Kuan Yew was always right. The accused took this to mean that the former had an “uncanny liking” for the latter.
On 25 March 2015, the accused posted a status update to his Facebook page where he stated “Is anyone able to photoshop a picture of Margaret Thatcher making out with Lee Kuan Yew?” The accused decided to create one himself. He found an image depicting two persons and promptly superimposed the faces of the subjects on the image.
On 28 March 2015, the accused created a blog post, entitled “Lee Kuan Yew buttfucking Margaret Thatcher”. As part of the blog post, he uploaded the image in question.
It was not in dispute that the uploading of the image by the accused to his blog post page was a transmission of the image via electronic means.
The defence submitted that section 292 is ‘meant to catch purveyors and peddlers of pornography; not political satire’.
I will make three observations in this regard. First, pornography is an aggravated form of obscenity. It is obvious that the commercial exploitation of pornography has the greatest evil, and accordingly it is unsurprising that the law enforcement agencies will target their enforcement against such activities. The bulk of prosecutions involve the commercial sale and distribution of obscene materials but there are also prosecutions involving possession for private use.
Second, the use of the section has evolved with changing trends and mediums of publication. The early cases involved the print material – books and magazines; next came the prosecution for obscene inlays of films; thereafter prosecutions involving playing cards and computer games started to come before the courts; and there has also been at least one prosecution involving t-shirts. The Internet represented a new medium, which resulted in section 292 being updated in 2008.
Third, the purposes or intention of the author or publisher are irrelevant. The object of the section is the protection of minds. At the end of the day, it is for the Public Prosecutor to decide when a prosecution is warranted in the public interest.
The sole issue was whether the image in question is an obscene representation. Section 42 of the Penal Code (Cap 224) describes ‘obscene’ as follows:
The word “obscene”, in relation to any thing or matter, means any thing or matter the effect of which is, if taken as a whole, such as to tend to deprave and corrupt persons who are likely, having regard to all relevant circumstances, to read, see or hear the matter contained or embodied in it.
The statutory definition was introduced in 2008. It requires that the image be judged by its impact on the primary readership, i.e. those persons who are likely to view the blog post.
There were two questions which I had to determine: first, what persons were likely to read the blog post; and, whether the image would tend to deprave and corrupt such persons.
Persons likely to view the blog postIt is a well-known fact that Singaporeans from all age groups use the Internet daily. The readers of the blog post would therefore range from teenagers to those in their forties or even older. Whilst a broad ranging community would have access to the blog post, the significant fact is that the accused is a teenager. It is therefore reasonable to infer that a blog by a teenager will attract readership amongst his age group.
I did not agree with the prosecution that I should be concerned with the effect of the image on the minds of the indistinct ‘average Singaporean on the MRT train with Internet access’. In my judgment, I should be concerned with the effect of the image on teenagers as the group of likely readers. If the image were likely to deprave and corrupt them, then it will be obscene.
Tendency to deprave and corrupt What is considered as obscene has changed from time to time and may not exactly be the same in different countries. I shall at this stage deal with the defence submission that a similar image is found on a Women’s Health Magazine website from South Africa (exhibit D1). Comparisons with other available material has been held to be the wrong approach (
The words ‘deprave’ and ‘corrupt’ appear to be synonymous. In
The Obscene Publications Act 1959 adopted the expression “deprave and corrupt” but gave a new turn to it. Previously, though appearing in Cockburn C.J.’s formula, the words had in fact been largely disregarded: the courts simply considered whether the publication was obscene and the tendency to deprave and corrupt was presumed: see
Crowe v. Graham (1968) 41 A.L.J.R. 402, 409, per Windeyer J. citing Professor Glanville Williams [Criminal Law, The General Part , 2nd ed. (1961), p. 70]. But the Act of 1959 changed all this. Instead of a presumed consequence of obscenity, a tendency to deprave and corrupt became the test of obscenity and became what had to be proved. One consequence appears to be that the section does not hit “articles” which merely shock however many people.
But in my opinion, the words “deprave and corrupt” in the statutory definition, as in the judgment of Cockburn C.J. in
Reg v. Hicklin L.R. 3 Q.B. 360, refer to the effect of pornographic articles on the mind, including the emotions and it is not essential that any physical sexual activity (or any “overt sexual activity,” if that phrase has a different meaning) should result.
As regards how the tendency to deprave and corrupt is to be judged, Lord Wilberforce stated that the tendency to deprave and corrupt is not to be estimated in relation to some assumed standard of purity of some reasonable average man. It is the likely reader. And to apply different tests to teenagers, members of men’s clubs or men in various occupations or localities would be a matter of common sense. This approach is in line with the Malaysian case of
I turn now to the defence submission. In the main, the defence submitted that the image does not meet the high threshold of ‘deprave and corrupt’. It was said:
… taking the prosecution’s case at its highest, the influence of image on the likely viewer is such that it may either: (a) lead them toward being disrespectful or vulgar; or (b) lead them toward sexual experimentation. This does not meet the test of having a tendency to ‘deprave and corrupt.” Further, a court having regard to the current standards of ordinary decent people will not find sexual experimentation of the sort which the image is directed towards as having a tendency to “deprave and corrupt”.
Taking the last point of the defence first,
Sexuality education has been introduced in our schools for some time now. According to the website of the Ministry of Education, the object is as follows:
Our children and youth grow up in a rapidly changing world where globalisation and technological advancements expose them to a wide range of influences from around the world. They need to acquire the knowledge, skills, values and attitudes which will allow them to develop healthy and responsible relationships and make informed and responsible decisions. While parents play the primary role, schools have a complementary role in...
To continue reading
Request your trial