- The laws against insulting religions are part of a wider system to allow for smooth integration in a region that has known genocide and riots as the traditional means of resolving racial and religious differences. They have been relatively successful in my experience, especially compared to some neighbours who have overtly racist government policies; amongst other things, Singapore has not known a race riot since the 1960s.
- The laws against obscenity are a holdover from the British period which (like 377A, which is almost never enforced today - edit, seems Section 377 was repealed in 2007 according to Singapore Law Watch, as per link below! I never heard of this before) will probably gradually disappear as the country becomes a little less socially conservative and people stop putting pressure on their representative not to strike them off (as happened in the USA, where it took until 2015 for gay marriage to become legal).
Both were, nevertheless, the law, and he broke both repeatedly, including breaking bail. This is kind of like being a Colorado resident (where weed is legal afaik) and bringing a large bag of legally bought weed over to any number of particularly harsh penalty countries (Singapore included), then complaining when you're put in jail or even on death row due to local law, arguing that weed is a victimless crime and the punishment is disproportionate. Also worth noting that it was his own mother who first brought him to the Institute of Mental Health, not the authorities, but this is of course not mentioned by the Economist which is happy to resume the long standing feud it has with Singaporean authorities by diluting the quality of its usually high journalistic standards.
The charge against insulting LKY has been deferred to a later trial once the other two charges have been resolved. I suspect it was put on because the nation was grieving and the insult was particularly badly timed. Remember about a quarter of the population turned up for the funeral (and I lonely expat here for three years also did), because most have seen the country literally go "from third world to first" in the space of a couple generations. It is impossible for foreigners - particularly those whose country's independence and economic success is centuries old, or whose founders did not have quite the same results - to understand the esteem (and frankly, love) in which LKY is held locally. I would reserve judgement until the court decision.
Further reading: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amos_Yee appears quite detailed and well written. Some background on Section 292: http://www.singaporelawwatch.sg/slw/attachments/64631/Penal%...
I'm not taking sides, frankly I couldn't care less about the case. But wanted to add some perspective before the sharks circle. By the way, congratulations on the first HN Singapore thread that does not mention chewing gum!