While the campaign is on pause, many people still do not believe that I can win the case. So for the first time ever, I have decided to ask AI for its input about Naz's case.
Q: Here is a scenario:
A man named Muhd Naz Farihin falsely accuses me of defamation and slander then uses false rumours to accuse me of sexually harassing girls and lying to the police. He then uses his supporters mostly under the age of 18 to smear the name of me, a 16 year old and flame me for exposing Naz. Is this considered oppression?
A: Yes, based on your description, this scenario can absolutely be considered oppression.
Here's why:
Abuse of Power/Influence: Even if Muhd Naz Farihin doesn't hold a formal position of power over you, he is using his influence over his supporters (especially those under 18) to target and harm you. This creates an imbalance of power where you are significantly disadvantaged.
Systematic Harassment and Defamation: The repeated false accusations of defamation, slander, sexual harassment, and lying to the police, coupled with the smear campaign by his supporters, constitute a systematic pattern of harassment aimed at damaging your reputation and causing you distress.
Targeting and Marginalization: You are being singled out and targeted, and the actions are designed to isolate you, discredit you, and potentially make you feel marginalized within your community or social circles.
Psychological Harm: Being falsely accused of serious offenses, having your name smeared, and being flamed by a group of people can lead to significant psychological distress, anxiety, fear, and damage to your self-esteem.
Vulnerability: As a 16-year-old, you are particularly vulnerable to such attacks, and the involvement of other minors in the smear campaign further complicates the situation and exploits their potential lack of understanding of the consequences of their actions.
In essence, oppression is about the unjust exercise of power or authority by one group (or individual with influence) over another, resulting in suffering, hardship, or an unfair disadvantage. The actions described fit this definition, as you are being subjected to severe and unjust treatment that is causing you harm.
It's important to recognize that what you're experiencing is not okay and has serious implications.
Q: What laws can Naz be prosecuted under?
Based on the information provided and Singaporean law, Muhd Naz Farihin could potentially be prosecuted under several laws. It's important to note that whether a prosecution occurs and its outcome depends on the specific evidence, the discretion of the authorities, and the legal process.
Here are the potential laws:
1. Defamation (Criminal and Civil):
Penal Code Section 499 (Criminal Defamation): This section criminalizes making or publishing any imputation concerning a person, intending to harm or knowing/having reason to believe that such imputation will harm the reputation of that person. The false accusations of "defamation and slander" and "sexually harassing girls" and "lying to the police" directly fall under this.
Penalty:Imprisonment for up to two years, a fine, or both (under Section 500 of the Penal Code).1
Defamation Act (Civil Defamation): Even if there's no intent to defame, if a false statement harms someone's reputation, it can lead to civil action. You could sue him for damages to compensate for the distress caused and to restore your reputation.
Remedies: Monetary damages, prohibitory injunctions (to stop future defamatory statements), and interlocutory injunctions (to compel retraction of statements).
2. Providing False Information to a Public Servant:
Penal Code Section 182 / Section 209: If Naz made false accusations to the police, knowing them to be false, he could be prosecuted for providing false information to a public servant or filing false charges.
Penalty (Section 182): Imprisonment for up to a year and a fine of up to S$5,000.
Penalty (Section 209):Severe penalties, including imprisonment.2
3. Protection from Harassment Act (POHA):
This Act is specifically designed to address harassment, including cyberbullying and online harassment.3 The actions described, such as using supporters to "smear the name" and "flame" you online, clearly fall under POHA.
Section 3 (Causing Intentional Harassment, Alarm, or Distress): If Naz intentionally caused you harassment, alarm, or distress through his actions.
Penalty: A fine of up to S$5,000, imprisonment of up to 6 months, or both. For subsequent offenses, the penalties can increase to a S$10,000 fine, up to 12 months' imprisonment, or both.
Section 5 (Causing Fear, Provocation of Facilitation of Violence): If his actions caused you fear or provoked violence.
Penalty: A fine of up to S$5,000, imprisonment of up to 12 months, or both.
Non-Publication Orders: The court can issue orders to prevent further dissemination of false statements, including correction notices or disabling access to online content.
Protection Orders (PO) / Expedited Protection Orders (EPO): These orders can be sought to restrain him from continuing his abusive actions and provide immediate protection.
Considerations given your age (16):
As a minor, you are particularly vulnerable, and the laws often provide stronger protections.
The Youth Courts handle cases involving children and young persons under the Children and Young Persons Act, which aims to ensure children in need of care and protection are safe. While this primarily relates to welfare, it underscores the legal system's focus on protecting minors.
It is highly recommended that you or your parents/guardians seek legal advice from a lawyer in Singapore to understand your specific options and how to proceed. They can guide you through reporting these incidents to the police and pursuing civil remedies.
Critics claim the court will highly likely side with Naz, so I decided to ask AI the following questions:
Q. If the court somehow sides with Naz, is it considered unfair persecution?
This is an excellent and important question that delves into the nuances of legal outcomes and the concept of justice.
If the court, somehow, sides with Naz despite strong evidence against him, the term "unfair persecution" might be used to describe the feeling or experience you would have. However, in a strict legal sense, it's more accurate to say it would be an instance of miscarriage of justice or an unjust outcome of prosecution.
Let's break down the difference between "persecution" and "prosecution" in a legal context:
Prosecution: This refers to the legal process of bringing charges against someone for a crime and trying to prove their guilt in court.1 It's the formal legal procedure.
Persecution: In a legal and human rights context, "persecution" generally refers to the systematic mistreatment of an individual or group, often based on their race, religion, political beliefs, or other protected characteristics, with the intent to injure, oppress, or punish them. It implies a deeper, more malicious, and often discriminatory intent behind the actions, which may or may not involve formal legal proceedings. It often suggests a lack of due process or the misuse of legal systems to achieve an unjust end.2
Why an "unjust outcome of prosecution" rather than "persecution" in this specific scenario (if the court sides with Naz):
The Case is a Prosecution: You initiated a legal process or are facing one (even if it's a false accusation against you). The court's role is to prosecute the case (or decide on the prosecution's claim) based on evidence and legal arguments.
Focus on Due Process: If the court sides with Naz despite compelling evidence that he lied, it suggests a failure within the judicial process itself. This could be due to:
Insufficient evidence presented by your side: Even if you believe the evidence is strong, perhaps it wasn't presented effectively or wasn't sufficient to meet the legal burden of proof.
Errors in legal interpretation: The judge or jury might have made an error in applying the law to the facts.
Prejudice or bias (unlikely but possible): In rare cases, systemic bias or individual prejudice could influence a decision, leading to an unfair outcome.
Naz's ability to manipulate the system: He might have been more convincing, or his lies might have been more difficult to disprove in court.
Lack of "Systematic Mistreatment" by the Court (ideally): While the outcome would feel deeply unfair to you, the court's siding with Naz (assuming it's not part of a broader, pattern of discriminatory actions against you by the state) wouldn't typically qualify as "persecution" by the court itself. Persecution implies the court is acting with malicious or discriminatory intent to oppress you, rather than making an error in judgment or procedure.
However, the overall situation you described, where Naz falsely accuses you and mobilizes others against you, is a form of social persecution as discussed previously. If the legal system fails to provide a remedy and instead legitimizes his false claims, it compounds that social persecution by making it harder for you to seek justice and clear your name.
What you could potentially do if the court sided with Naz:
Appeal: If there are grounds for appeal (e.g., errors in law, new evidence, or procedural irregularities), you could appeal the court's decision to a higher court.
Review of conduct: If you believe there was actual misconduct by any party involved in the legal process (e.g., a police officer failing to properly investigate, or extreme judicial bias), you might be able to file a formal complaint with the relevant oversight bodies.
Further evidence gathering: Sometimes an initial court loss can motivate a deeper investigation and discovery of new evidence.
In summary, while you would undoubtedly feel persecuted if the court sided with Naz given the false accusations, legally, it would be termed an unjust outcome, a miscarriage of justice, or a failure of the prosecution process. The initial actions of Naz, however, certainly constitute social and reputational persecution.
Q. If such a scenario happens, should I run for the next General Election to call for better laws to prevent a repeat of such an incident?
It's understandable that you would feel a strong desire to prevent others from experiencing what you have. Running for the next General Election is a very significant step, and while it stems from a valid motivation, there are several practical and legal considerations in Singapore, especially given your current age.
Here's a breakdown of whether running for election is feasible and what other avenues you might explore:
I. Feasibility of Running for Election in Singapore (Current Time: June 2025)
Age Requirement: A key hurdle is the age requirement. In Singapore, a person must be at least 21 years old on Nomination Day to qualify as a candidate for a General Election.1 As you are currently 16, you would not be eligible to stand for election in the next few General Elections.
General Elections in Singapore must be held within three months after five years have elapsed from the date of the first sitting2 of Parliament.3 The last GE was in 2020. This means the next one would likely be sometime in 2025 (as indicated in the search results "GE2025: What should I know before voting?"). Even if it's later, you would still be under 21.
Other Qualifications:
Singapore citizen.
Name appears in a current register of electors.
Resident in Singapore for an aggregate period of not less than ten years before Nomination Day.
Able to speak, read, and write at least one of the official languages (English, Malay, Mandarin, Tamil) with sufficient proficiency to participate in parliamentary proceedings.4
Not subject to certain disqualifications (e.g., unsound mind, undischarged bankrupt, certain criminal convictions, voluntarily acquired foreign citizenship).5
II. Alternative Avenues to Call for Better Laws and Prevent Such Incidents
Even if running for election isn't immediately possible due to age, your desire to advocate for change is valuable and can be channeled through many effective avenues:
Advocacy and Public Education (Immediate & Powerful):
Share Your Story (Carefully and Safely): You can use your experience to raise awareness about false accusations, cyberbullying, and the impact on young people. This could be through:
Blogging or social media: Share your story (anonymously or with appropriate safeguards) to educate others.
Public speaking: If you feel comfortable, speaking at school events, youth forums, or community organizations.
Writing articles/letters to the editor: Submit pieces to local newspapers or online publications.
Work with NGOs/Youth Organizations: Many organizations in Singapore focus on youth well-being, cyber wellness, anti-bullying, and legal aid.
Organizations like TOUCH Community Services, Campus Impact, or even legal aid clinics might welcome your input or offer support.
REACH (Reaching Everyone for Active Citizenry @ Home) is a government platform that engages youth on key issues and ensures their voices are heard in policymaking.6 They run programs like the Singapore Model Parliament.
The National Youth Council (NYC) also actively engages youth and conducts surveys to inform policy.7
Engage with Policymakers and Legal Professionals:
Write to Your Member of Parliament (MP): Share your story and propose specific changes to existing laws (like POHA) or call for new legislation to better protect individuals from false accusations and online harassment, especially targeting minors. MPs often bring up constituents' concerns in Parliament.8
Participate in Consultations: When new laws or amendments are being considered, the government often holds public consultations. Look out for these opportunities to provide your perspective.
Connect with Legal Experts: Lawyers specializing in defamation, cybercrime, or youth law can provide insights into current legal gaps and how laws could be improved. Some may even be willing to offer pro bono advice or support your advocacy efforts.
School and Community Initiatives:
Advocate for better school policies: Work with your school administration to strengthen policies against bullying, cyberbullying, and false accusations, and to provide better support for victims.
Start a peer support group or initiative: Create a safe space for other young people who might be going through similar experiences.
Consider a Future in Law or Politics:
If your passion for justice remains strong, pursuing a degree in law, political science, or public policy could equip you with the expertise and credentials to effect change more directly in the future.
This would also give you time to meet the age and residency requirements for a future election.
Conclusion:
While running for the next General Election is not immediately possible due to the age requirement, your motivation to prevent such incidents is incredibly valid and important. Focusing on advocacy, engaging with existing political channels, and educating the public are powerful ways you can contribute to better laws and a safer environment for everyone, particularly young people. These actions can lay a strong foundation for any future aspirations you might have in public service or politics once you meet the eligibility criteria.
That's all of whatever AI has said about the Naz case.
No comments:
Post a Comment