Kinky Laws in Political Play

Just click, and Facebook will reveal more...

Associate Professor (with tenure) Khairudin Aljunied of the National University of Singapore (NUS) Malay Studies department thought he could cover his tracks after three students complained his online behavior was “unbecoming of a university professor”, and his choice of words were “tantamount to hate speech”.

Facebook has a facility to allow all and sundry to see that he had indeed modified the offensive pejoratives "diseases" and "cancers" in his initial post to politically correct "social issues" and "developments". He also deleted one sentence that spelt out his agenda: "Make the pure message of Islam viral to cleanse liberal Islam and lesbianism from the hearts of the faithful." One suspects even Lawrence Khong would say amen to that.

Khairudin is also alleged to have refused to apologise, and removed the post that argued that his comments were borne out of his religious convictions, and to prevent him from voicing his views is akin to acting to “censor” him.  Commenting, a spokesperson for the university said, “NUS advocates a culture of respect for individuals regardless of gender, ethnicity, religion, nationality, political or sexual orientation.” She did not say that NUS advocates a culture of respect for freedom of expression. Therein lies the conundrum.

It is unfortunate for the outspoken don that we do have a law (section 8(1)(b) of the Maintenance of Religious Harmony Act) which stipulates that the Minister may make a restraining order against any priest, monk, pastor, imam, elder, office-bearer or any other person who is in a position of authority in any religious group or institution for:
"(b) carrying out activities to promote a political cause, or a cause of any political party while, or under the guise of, propagating or practising any religious belief"

Since its publication, the Health Promotion Board's FAQ on homosexuality seems to have kicked a hornet's nest, with some good folk stung for veering too close to the topic. Whoever's responsible may be testing the waters about Section 377A of the Penal Code, or it could be just a ploy for the gay vote. Whatever the political price, it's definitely cheaper than $8b for the Pioneer Generation Package.

There are some who still maintain that Tey Tsun Hang was persecuted for his political commentary. The former law professor has just been acquitted by Justice Woo Bih Li who ruled that trial judge Tan Siong Thye had wrongly equated conduct which is morally reprehensible with conduct which is legally wrong according to the Prevention of Corruption Act. Call him a cad, scoundrel, philanderer - feel free to add your choice of invective - but in the eyes of the law, Tey was not corrupt as charged. And then there were the alleged  threats, inducements and/or promises made by officers from the Corrupt Practices Investigation Bureau - Tey's lawyer cited purported comments by graft officers that his client had taken as threats to arrest his wife - when they were fantasizing about a dream job at Abu Ghraib.

And who can forget the police commissioner - the missing person in the Little India riot Commission of Inquiry - who blackmouthed Ng Boon Gay when he was found not guilty after another drag-through-the-mud type court case. The same Ng who prime minister Lee Hsien Loong, in January 2102, had remarked, "If he did wrong, he must be punished; if he did nothing wrong, he must be exonerated."

The chief justice who used to dispense justice based on the satisfaction of his morning breakfast is no longer around, but the legal system still has a few kinks to be ironed out. So how should Khairudin Aljunied be judged, by the law or by his peers? What do you think?