Terence Lee
When the Internal Security Department (ISD) called up Pastor Rony Tan to talk about his callous comments on Buddhism, it was no ordinary chit-chat session.
Pleasantries might have been exchanged and the obligatory coffee proffered, but this was not a case of two grown men sitting down to discuss contractual terms on equal footing.
The contract was already favouring the ISD. What they presented, by virtue of their contact with Pastor Tan, was a timely reminder that the full brunt of the law would bear down on him if he did not comply.
Pastor Tan’s recent incendiary comments on Buddhism are certainly a cause for concern. As the leader of a large megachurch of over 10,000 members, the government had every reason to sit up when complaints about his remarks reached their letterbox.
Equally as worrying is the fact that the ISD has such broad powers that allow it to act as it did. Certainly, there is an obvious need to protect religious harmony in Singapore. This is indisputable fact that few will argue against. As such, many have also lauded the government’s swift action.
But are we too quick to celebrate?
Vague laws lead to confusion
Let us be reminded that we have a government that wields a plethora of legislature to keep its citizens in check. The Sedition Act is an example of one such law. The Maintenance of Religious Harmony Act (MRHA), no doubt drafted to deal with recalcitrant religionists, is another.
Both have one thing in common: the wordings drafted out in the legislation gifts the government with overbearing powers of control.
The Sedition Act grants the state the right to arrest anyone who promotes “feelings of ill-will and hostility between different races or classes of the population of Singapore.” The MRHA has a similar phrasing, threatening to restrain anyone that is “causing feelings of enmity, hatred, ill-will or hostility between different religious groups.”
Is this a good thing? On one hand, it does give them broad power to maintain harmony and keep the peace. But on the other hand, such a blunt instrument has created a chilling effect over religious and political debate. Such phrasing gives the Minister too much latitude to act while providing religious and political leaders with too little clarity in what they can or cannot do.
There is another common flaw in the Sedition Act and MRHA. Both legislatures, if one studies them closely, place an emphasis on maintaining societal harmony at the expense of truth or justice. When placed in the hands of a hypothetical corrupt regime, the consequences could be disastrous.
The MRHA compromises religious truth just like how the Sedition Act jeopardises political justice. Suppose that a Muslim imam decides, as a matter of conviction, to speak up against a Buddhist group. This would inevitably cause “feelings of ill-will, hatred, enmity, and hostility” between the two groups, even though the imam may be right. How would the government rule in this case?
What I am seeking to illustrate is this: if the Sedition Act and MRHA are not amended, religious groups could use it as a weapon to oppress one another, putting the government in a bind.
Let us come back to the present crisis involving Pastor Tan. Suppose that Pastor Tan, in criticising Buddhism, did so with well-researched substantiation and in a non-patronising tone. No attempt was made to ridicule the faith, but every effort was made to encourage a genuine debate about the issue at hand. Would he be reprimanded by the government as well?
The fact is that we simply do not know. One possibility is that overzealous Buddhists and Taoists could become oversensitive and sound the alarm bells to the authorities. The ISD could then be forced to act for fear that tensions could escalate.
Understanding religious beliefs
Of course, I have much faith in our Buddhist and Taoist brethren. But the above scenario could become possible if religious groups continue to be ignorant about one another’s beliefs.
It could also happen if we hold to unrealistic expectations about religious believers, such that the ideas that religious belief is private and that one faith should not interfere in another. I believe such reasoning is utter nonsense for two reasons.
First, the separation of church and state is only an organic divorce; actual division do not exist in reality. Our religious values (or lack thereof) influence our worldview, which in turn influences policy-making. A debate about religion has an influence on debate about policy matters like abortion, social welfare, and even education (sex education and evolution comes to mind).
As such, religious debate should have its rightful place in the public sphere; nothing less.
Second, all religions ultimately contradict one another, even as they share similarities. All are in contention for the truth. The Buddhist belief in reincarnation is incompatible with mainline Christian and Islamic beliefs. And while many Christians claim that their religion is the only path to god, Islam will eagerly dispute that.
Christians, therefore, should not be denied their right to evangelise, given that it is a fundamental tenet of their belief. Evangelism is also not an imperialist act as some might paint it to be. Any pastor will tell you that evangelism must ultimately be practiced with love, compassion, and sensitivity. Whether they live it is another thing altogether.
Both religious groups are engaged in fundamentally the same task: influencing others. Evangelism is simply a more proactive way of doing so, although Christians themselves have different ways of practicing it.
At the risk of oversimplifying things, we can liken Buddhists to a computer stall that seeks to convert potential customers who pay a visit; Christians can be seen as the door-to-door salesmen. And as most salesmen will understand, just as they have the right to peddle their wares to you, you too have the right to reject them.
Maintaining a balance
With this framework in mind, we can then analyse Pastor Tan’s predicament for what it is: An attempt at influencing the public to his religion that ended up becoming crude, insensitive, and misleading.
The government needs to strike a balance when it intervenes in religious affairs: the maintenance of religious harmony on one hand and the need to foster intelligent religious debate on the other.
Some will no doubt question: Was the government too harsh by handing Pastor Tan the yellow card?
That, however, is not the main issue. What we should question is their use of vague legislature as a blunt instrument to protect harmony while giving up the chance to give citizens an opportunity to learn how to better deal with insensitive religious remarks.
Micromanaging public debate may deprive Singaporeans the chance to develop genuine religious tolerance that comes from the bottom up rather than the top down. It also creates another dilemma: The government is forced to continually use the heavy hand of the law to maintain control over its people. If they start letting up, chaos might erupt as the people are not trained to handle disruptive remarks in a mature way.
One can only speculate as to why the government chose to react in the way they did. It could be due to the religious tensions that erupted in Malaysia. The fact that Pastor Tan was a pastor of a prominent church is another consideration.
But the Aware saga, in which a group of Christians took over a secular feminist organisation for allegedly promoting pro-gay views, has proved that Singaporeans can resolve disputes among themselves in a mature, civil manner with minimal intervention from the Singapore government. So why intervene this time?
Perhaps the messiness of the Aware saga made them realise that a laid-back approach was too much of a risk. Perhaps they did not want to see another protracted saga happen on our shores. Or maybe the government just did not want to be seen as promoting a pro-gay cause then.
But whatever the reason, by resorting to blanket laws as a means of control, the government is sending the unfortunate message that it does not trust community moderation as a means of conflict resolution. These laws, although unlimited in scope, also opens up the opportunity for hate groups to exploit it to their advantage.
This incident can be seen as another opportunity lost for Singaporeans to step up to the plate. By intervening early, the government had deprived the Buddhist authorities the chance to take the initiative and engage Pastor Tan on a direct level. It has also deprived the pastor an opportunity to show humility without the urging of the government.
Ultimately, we are not horses that obey the whims of our masters. When push comes to shove, the people of Singapore knows how to react in a way that ultimately contributes to religious harmony. But it seems that the government does not have the same faith in its people.
Photo 1: Taken from The Straits Times
Photo 2: Wikimedia
Related posts:
- My awakening: political education of an ordinary Singaporean student
- “The strength is in the ordinary people” – JB Jeyaretnam
- George Yeo’s Meet the People Session at McDonald’s
- CPF – F1 or F9 : Credit extension, mortgages and ordinary/special accounts
- Reform Party: Discussion session on Singapore’s economy
i am convinced singapore has a lot of potential religious fanatics who does not really understand the purpose of going into religion nor its teachings.
a youtube comment to the video was there are about 12000 members for his congregation.
i feel really said for singapore. why are people so foolish to ridicule another religion? what wisdom ?
12/2/10
To:
Mr Bala Reddy
Principal State Counsel
Head
State Prosecution Division
From: Mr Oh Tham Eng
cc – AG Walter Woon, CP Ng Joo Hee, Mr Wong Kan Seng, PM Lee Venerabe Kwang Sheng, Pastor Rony Tan, Others
Dear Sir:
AN APPEAL FOR COMPASSION AND WISE ACTION FOR 3 POLY TEENAGERS ARRESTED FOR SEDITION
I am so pleased to be able to write to you again. The previous time as the wise DJ Bala Reddy of the Subordinate Court where you were the trial judge for schoolboy blogger Gan Huai Shi arrested and charged for sedition. This time I wish to let you know in advance I would be putting up an appeal and suggestion to you and the police how I think the sedition of these 3 quarrelling teenagers can be best handled, now that ISD and DPM Wong Kan Seng have so beautifully managed Pastor Rony Tan’s case, which is of course a much more serious one than the trivial spat among 3 insignificant poly teens inadvertently caught for seditious offences.
So I have attached for your information in Attachment 4 below the feelings on the ground what Singaporeans feel about the case of the arrested teens, and how they correctly felt it should be managed. I am so pleased that you should be the wise and trusted person who would be handling this case as the God-blessed prosecutor, Sir! So I am justified to say in anticipation how lucky the 3 teens are that you are now the Head of State Prosecution Division in the AGC.
May God bless you and all your loved ones, Sir!
Majulah Singapura!
Sincerely,
Oh Tham Eng
Don’t know about everyone on this forum, but I find the postings of Oh Tham Eng quite irritating. He seem to be in his own world, navel-gazing and wanting to teach people what to do. (Sorry Mr Oh, don’t take offense. Just my opinion.)
Bear.
Make that 2.
Worry not that no one knows of you; seek to be worth knowing
- Confucious
Dear Oh Tham Eng,
Though I don’t quite understand much about legal point of view but somehow I support your compassive action.
A Very Happy Chinese Lunar New Year!
David Leong
D
Feb 11, 2010 23:58
@Oh Tham Eng
I would love rony tan to be charged under sedition act. If everything can be done with just apology, later no more job for lawyers :-)
On another note, i do find the sentence ‘may god bless you’ offensive, unless we believe in the same god. From this we can see that, it is indeed very hard to keep religious harmony in check while at the same time allow open evangelism, so i propose singapore law ban the practice of evangelism, and any reference to religion could not be done in public and only for private and make sure that they don’t leak to the public, or simply ban all religious practice problem solved :-)
100% agree! Need to bring up to Singapore MP! Timely to to make an impact in Singapore if we can get the statistics of figures & facts inclusive responses/feedbacks from onlines website public interviews etc etc as Per Recent Rev Pastor Rony Tan Case! Smile & Cheers ~~~
David8649,
Perhaps we ned to abolish the practice of law then?:-)
It would be a long argument, but I would say that we all believe in the same God, since there is only one God, but we believe different things about him, some truly contradictory, others apparently contradictory but (theoretically) resolvable with sufficient information. And note also, “God” is different from “god”. Classic anti-Christian/anti-religious Category Error #1.
If you ban evangelism, then you are essentially banning Christianity, even those denominations that do not “openly” evangelise. Evangelism is part of the Christian identity, so open evangelism must be allowed if you are sincere about respecting the religious freedom of Christians. The exact method which evangelism ought to be carried out in, however, is a valid point of discussion.
If you simply ban all forms of religious practice, you are violating not only freedom of religion, freedom of speech and freedom of expression, but also most importantly freedom of conscience. All religions have a conscientious core which all their doctrines – even supposedly more esoteric ones – are built up around.
all these holy holy thing that Oh Tham Eng and his like mind people always gives me the creeps…. it seems like they are people who are quite on the surface… hypocrites…. that is the impression they give me….
holy venture and stuff… its all crap
{Slap Rony Tan the PEST Feb 12, 2010 8:18
@Oh tham eng
yes, i will think it will mitigate a little for the grave insults, this idiot pest has been spewing.
yes, and it will also help to fight for my defenseless mother, my wife, my kids etc. don’t worry, after i slapped him, i will say “even though you deserve it, sorry. I think the presentation may be insensitive to some.” on yr offer, u did not insult me, why should i want to slap u? if u want to take the rap for this idiot, there are lots of temples in Singapore.
just go to any one and confess to this idiot’s insults of the devotees and their religion, and see if anyone wants to take up yr offer. by the way, thanks for the blessing, but i think u better save it for the Rony idiot before he goes to hell.}
Hi dude,
My post got lost. What happened?
{Slap Rony Tan the PEST
Feb 12, 2010 8:18
@Oh tham eng
yes, i will think it will mitigate a little for the grave insults, this idiot pest has been spewing.
yes, and it will also help to fight for my defenseless mother, my wife, my kids etc.
don’t worry, after i slapped him, i will say “even though you deserve it, sorry. I think the presentation may be insensitive to some.”
on yr offer, u did not insult me, why should i want to slap u?
if u want to take the rap for this idiot, there are lots of temples in Singapore.
just go to any one and confess to this idiot’s insults of the devotees and their religion, and see if anyone wants to take up yr offer.
by the way, thanks for the blessing, but i think u better save it for the Rony idiot before he goes to hell.}
Hi dude,
MAY YOU BE BLESSED AND TRANSFORMED BY DIVINE POWER, SIR!
It seems you have a low EQ or IQ. If Rony Tan is what he was before a Taoist medium ‘introduced’ Jesus and demonstrated the power of Jesus while the latter was in a trance and connected to demon spirits (which then got Rony Tan interest in this Jesus), he would want to kill you too, as he nearly did to one of his dear band-mates. But if you are serious in wanting to slap him, just remember that he spoke sensibly and truthfully from the perspective of his previous life as a staunch, anti-Christian Taoist-Buddhist. No cooked up stories.
Well, just let me/us know clearly that you are serious in wanting to slap him and/or me (since I have now good reasons to say you have have exposed yourself to have a low mentality). Let’s get the journalists to cover your slapping appointment and tell us where we can meet you and the press. But if you want to change your mind about not wanting to slap me/him, we won’t be complaining. Just that we want you to be serious in what you say you want to do. You must also tell the press (who will report to Singaporeans) how such a slapping act can make you into a better person. If you could not, it is okay with me to slap me so that I can tell you again we are very sorry, and thereafter wishing that you can be blessed by divine power to be transformed one day. It would be educational (depending on how one looks at it) if the slapping appointment can be uploaded on youtube for all to see.
No problem for him if you want to slap him. He is a brave and humble man, and he knows how you feel as he himself was like that as a staunch Taoist-Buddhist. But of course not all Taoist-Buddhists are like that, with such low mentality as you have. That is why I seriously think you need to make a trip or two to Bright Hill Temple and seat at the feat of the wise and Venerable Kwang Sheng to learn Buddhism and be civilised by that venerable Buddhist priest. It was a very good session with them for Pastor Rony Tan on 9/2/10 morning. So I believe it will also be very good for you to make the trips there to learn from Venerable Kwang Sheng. Otherwise I do not know how you can exorcise the animalism in you. But please do not feel shy to drop by Lighthouse Evangelsiom to attend the Saturday’s Night Miracle Service if you or your loved ones have any sickness or problems one day and need prayers.
May you be blessed and transformed within by the power of divine love, sir!. Good night!
Oh Tham Eng
Feb 12, 2010 23:11
in your post somewhere 2/3 of it there is a line that reads:
“He is a brave and humble man,…”
care to enlighten how your opinion is such?
Oh Tham Eng
Feb 12, 2010 23:11
in your post somewhere 2/3 of it there is a line that reads:
“He is a brave and humble man,…”
care to enlighten how your opinion is such?