By Pritam Singh
It grabbed one’s attention, yet sat very uneasily in the hearts of the Sikhs who read it. Slightly more than two years ago, an article titled “Why Sikhism is the best religion” was uploaded onto the Central Sikh Gurdwara Board (a gazetted statutory board in Singapore) website. Occupying a place amongst other articles that did nothing more than to detail the nature, practices and scholarship pertaining to the Sikh faith, the article in question was unusual in that it ran contrary to the egalitarian basis of a religion whose devotees are not wont to public bouts of chest-thumping and flag-waving in support of their faith, but more importantly, are obliged to respect and protect the sanctity and religious beliefs of others.
The author of the article contended that the Sikh faith did not subject people to “valueless” rituals, before going on to refer to the caste system, bathing in holy rivers, facing a certain direction for prayers, slaughtering animals in the name of God and circumcision as examples of such rituals. Needless to say, this was hardly an oblique reference to our Hindu and Muslim brothers and sisters.
Fortunately, after a complaint by a member of the Singapore’s Sikh community, the Central Sikh Gurdwara Board took down the article without fuss. In fairness to the Board, many of its members had no idea such an article was uploaded in the first place.
Interestingly however, some Sikhs contended privately that the offending article was a response to the increasingly aggressive and sustained attempts at proselytization by some members of cash-rich Christian churches. While the article in question may have been uncomfortable for some, it was a necessary response given the perception of a new climate of insecurity in Singapore’s public space viz. religion, they argued. Sikhism in Singapore needed to imbibe a “coolness” quotient, just like how some Christian ministries had done, so as to inspire and unite younger Sikhs. The way to do it was through a sharper identification of Sikh religious identity. Offence to others was incidental, not their intention, they would erroneously reason.
For sometime now, the increasingly prominent and public expansion of the Christian faith in Singapore has led to feelings of genuine discomfort among members of Singapore’s other faiths. This discomfort is not rooted in antagonism against Christianity or Christians, far from it – but solely in the insensitive proselytizing of a minority of over-zealous and small-minded Christians. Anecdotal evidence suggests that such proselytizing takes on various forms – from aggressive and unsolicited door-to-door one-on-ones with non-Christian HDB flat-dwellers, to unsolicited engagements at bus interchanges and other public places, and to other more subtler techniques. But one of its more painful and blunt manifestations was exposed by Pastor Rony Tan’s now infamous comments about Buddhists and Taoists.
In a country whose citizens live cheek by jowl, remarks like Pastor Tan’s stoke resentment and create a snowball effect, bringing out the worst in each of us. The Sikh who penned the offending article referred to above presents a case in point. The truth of the matter is that Singaporeans do not need to define themselves and their beliefs in reference to ill-conceived ideas of what adherents of other faiths purportedly lack, or do not believe in. To do so would be to exhibit insecurities about one’s own beliefs and convictions.
Separately, the fallout from Pastor Tan’s comments has had the effect of putting Singapore’s Christians in the spotlight – unfairly it must be added. A faith that has inspired so many Christians and non-Christians alike is erroneously cast as disrespectful, insensitive and exclusive because of a misguided Pastor’s callous remarks, broadcast over the Internet. The need of the hour calls for some empathy from Singaporeans of all faiths to assure our moderate Christian friends and neighbours that as a nation, we stand together with them and should put this episode behind us. Singapore’s non-Christian citizens must also remember that like the followers of many faiths (including my own – Sikhism), Christians are not necessarily a monolithic group. Many are not insensitive, but respect the boundaries of multi-racial Singapore. To surmise that the conduct of some misguided believers is representative of all Christians would not only be grossly simplistic, but more importantly, intellectually deficient.
If there is something educative the Rony Tan episode stands for, it ought to be that religious sensitivity and a respect for the secular public space must remain the central pillars of every Singaporean’s religious ethos. Apart from incidences where some members of any faith ridicule the religious beliefs and rituals of others, Singaporeans must be watchful against spreading hate against non-religious communities too, such as gays and non-believers, and call out such improper behaviour before it morphs into something uglier. In addition, our religious leaders must recognise that the advent of internet-based communication technologies have shrunk the concept of “private” space. The scope of what constitutes as “public” necessitates greater self-policing among members of every faith in order to keep Singapore’s multi-racial landscape as free as possible from religious hatred and bigotry.
On closer scrutiny, it is clear, albeit understated that Singapore’s economic success has been partly underwritten by the leaders and members of our various religious communities who acknowledge the importance of managing inter-racial relations with sensitivity and mutual respect. As a citizenry, we would be turning the clock back if we allow religion to define, distinguish and divide us a nation. We may be Hindus, Jews, Zoroastrians, Buddhists, Taoists, Jains, Christians, Muslims, Sikhs, Baha’is or even atheists, but we must be Singaporeans who acknowledge that the experience of mankind so far has proved that religion is a tinderbox that needs only a small spark to engulf entire communities. There can be no greater motivation to counsel and forewarn the Rony Tan in each of us of this historical reality.
_____________________________
Pritam can be reached at pritam@opinionasia.com
Headline picture from dhammaprotector
_____________________________________________________________________
Nice to hear the views of someone from another religion which has a neutral stand in this issue :)
Well said.
Wait, so am I reading this right?
The author is saying that we should respect the rights of the christians to infringe on our own religious beliefs? And that if we feel unhappy about christians evangelizing their faith at our own doorsteps (often being insensitive about our own beliefs), we should not complain because by doing so we’re just like Rony Tan?
I’m sorry, I don’t buy that. Doesn’t feel neutral to me at all.
might as well say there is a freak in each of us? so dun call people freaks har! :P
lol…
As i have said it before in some of my postings pertaining peace and harmony amongst religious
groups.Why not let the government decreed all Christian churches must be members of the government-approved inter-faiths religious council.Nobody has yet to tell me my idea is futile and draconian in my approach to a resolution.Is’nt this religious organization is meant for all religious groups to get together,a love-in of some sort,knowing each other and have their points of view heard among them,getting along and perhaps sipping Kopi at a round table?.So,what is so very wrong with that?.Someone wrote in on TOC and mentioned that if made mandatory,many
evangelical churches will go underground.Give me a break.Tell me who is persecuting them?The Muslims?,The Anglicans?,the Hindus?,the Buddhist monks?,the Sikhs?,The Jews? or the ISD in that council?.There is another poster who said that the fundamentalist and charismatic christians would never change in their beliefs even,if forced to joined.Hello!,nobody is forcing them to change their beliefs.All the organization wants to do is to have a dialog with all faiths and hopefully change those ‘extreme’ Christians’ behavior towards other faiths.And what is wrong with that?
Our society works well under draconian measures.That is why we have clean environment,smooth-flowing traffic,no ghettos in our public housings,no wide-spread of drug addictions and crimes.If we truly want to see peace and harmony in our religious communities,let us do the SINGAPORE WAY.
yes NOBLE and PIOUS master.
Give it a rest, resuscitating a dead story to preach “The Rony Tan in each of US“.
good article but we are not “STUPID” , mollycoddling too much.
Dear #4, stop preaching,
Thank you for your comments. It sounded like a rant, but thats ok, thats your perogative and I respect it.
When I was referring to the Rony Tan in each of us, I was driving at an rather existentialist point – we are all flawed and imperfect. Some more so than others, granted.
Ultimately, religion is an intensely personal thing. At different points in our lives, we get attracted (or repulsed) to it for various reasons. We live in an imperfect world. Islam, Christianity, Sikhism etc. are not the problem. Muslims, Christians, Sikhs etc. are. There will be more Rony Tan’s in future – you can count on it. The majority may well come from the Christian faith. As long as faith can mobilise people in the thousands, it will be a phenomenon that has to be managed. There are no “solutions” in the conventional sense of the word.
So what approach does one take to deal with this? Ask our Christian friends to try and see the perspective of non-believers? Or turn blue in face, and huff and puff at them?
Regardless of faith, we all have a choice – to point out to the inclusive elements of our faiths (love thy neighbour etc.) or harp on about the importance of the bits that can be so easily decontextualised. I don’t buy the argument that Christians are mind-numbingly implored to evangelise, period and that the only way to do it is to shove it down one’s throat either by callous remarks of Rony’s, or by the sword (the historical record does point out some Christians have been very violent in spreading their faith. Read an online review of this fantastic account: A Short Account of the Destruction of the Indies by Bartolome de las Casas). There is a middle path to practice one’s faith without stepping on the heads of others. And what I suggest is a path of empathy for Christians and all those who think their faith is the best.
Think of it like accessing email on your PDA. The choice is between push-email or pull-email. Do you go out a push your faith in the faces of people and earn their ire and disrespect as a result or do you say, come to my church if you want to know more about Christianity and I will be happy to deal with your questions?
Now, lets be clear, any religious group has it share of fundamentalists. Some Christians may well argue, lets just get the numbers in, enlarge the church and deal with problems as they come (my own personal friendships with many Christians informs me that not all think like this – and this was a point I sought to stress, it was not mollycoddling as you suggest. But perhaps I could have made it clearer). This is where such a mindset needs to be checked by the government and frankly, one of the government’s early responses to this have not been too encouraging.
In one of his first publicly broadcasted speeches (I saw it on the 9.30 news) after Mas Selamat escaped, DPM Wong Kan Seng in a speech at a Home Team function, referred to insensitive proselytizing as a “minor” problem. For a minister with the years of experience under his belt, this remark came as a surprise to me. It doesn’t take a PR genius to conclude that this would be interpreted by any Christian fundamentalist as tacit approval to proselytize. Politicians have reasons for doing and saying things, but I thought the DPM was playing with fire. History tells us that some people start a fire to take the credit when they put it out. Politics is politics, but doing it with religion is to ask for trouble.
In the final analysis Singapore and Singaporeans need to stand a notch above politics and politicians. No politician is going to help us do this – we have to do it ourselves. An important first step may well be to listen more and temper our anger. Deal with insensitive proselytizing with a simple “no” and shut the door. Shape arguments with numbers and statistics, or defendable positions, not Rony Tan-styled shots from the hip. I did wonder what gave him the authority to speak about Buddhism and Taoism since he is not a believer of either faith.
You said “we are not stupid”. But Mr or Ms stop-preaching, who do you speak for? And what makes you think you are stupid? This is not a facetious question. Why don’t you put down your arguments/concerns so they can be addressed.
This may cause the hair at the back of your neck to stand, Singaporeans may just have to love each other more, regardless of race, language or religion. With such a foundation, maybe, just maybe, no politician or religious dimwit will be able to get under your skin.
@Pritam Singh
That was a very good response
in the words of JOhn lennon…….. “IMAgine NO Religion”….
Mr Pritam,
You are indeed very cunning to link the abrasive comments on other religions made by a fellow sikh believer to Christian proselytysing. I think that is very wrong on your part when the references in the commentary referred to religions other than christianity.
Please refrain from this silly lecture of yours to knife the christians from the back when everyone wants to put this episode behind them. Very mischevious indeed! I believe you should be reported to the authorities for trying to stoke fires in a peace loving nation like ours.
Please dont go there again. You are not an authority on this subject and so keep your views privately. This does not make you a Saint!
Interesting views Tony Danza. Unfortunately, thoroughly misplaced. You see, if you calm down a little, the light may shine through that one-dimensional mind of yours. Lets imagine a hypothetical believer of religion V saying bad things about religion W, X and Y. What makes you think he wouldn’t say something bad about religion Z? Has the light shone yet?
I really urge you to take it upon yourself to report me to the authorities. And who knows, maybe the policeman that attends to you might ask for an autograph.
Why the double standards?
While I agree that there is no necessity to mock other religions when you preach the gospel of Jesus Christ, I can’t help but think that a double standard exists.
Why do I say that a double standard exists?
Well, I recall that when the Da Vinci Code movie and book were popular here, it upset many Christians like myself and caused many of us to question our faith. It also caused many non-Christians to believe that the whole Christian faith was a hoax. Yet, nothing was done about it, though I am sure many Christians voiced their concerns and hoped that the movie and book would be banned.
To make matters worse, well-watched documentary TV channels took advantage of the movie’s popularity and aired documentaries (such as the Gospel Of Judas) here that further undermined the Christian faith. These documentaries, the movie and similar publications said many things which Christians regard as blasphemous. For example, they disputed the death and resurrection of Jesus, a fundamental truth of Christianity, and said that He had sex and hence children with Mary Magdalene.
So I can’t help but think that it is somehow okay to “mock” or “test” Christians here, but not believers of other faiths. (Don’t get me wrong. I am NOT saying that it is right to mock other religions.) No one doubts that such movies and books would never be allowed in Singapore if they were undermining, say, Islam. Can you imagine what would happen if a Da Vinci Code type of movie and book about the Muslim faith were to be screened and sold here?
So why do the other faiths here seem to enjoy more protection than the Christian faith? Were the movie, documentaries and books permitted to be shown and sold in Singapore because Christians here were not vocal enough, that is, we did not protest in the streets or call for the death of Dan Brown? Must it come to that before we are heard? Didn’t the religious harmony bill speak loud enough for us?
Perhaps we are seen as more tolerant, less volatile — hence it’s okay to push the boundaries when it comes to content that undermines and mocks the Christian faith.
I really hope that in future, Christians here can enjoy the same amount of protection the other faiths here enjoy. Let’s be fair.
From one Pritam Singh to another Pritam Singh – MY PRAYERS ARE WITH YOU AND TO ALL OF US.
I cant help but notice your immaturity and poor grasp of these sensitive subjects. It is best left to our government to handle this lest in your zeal you begin to villify the innocent by treading on dangerous territory. The comment by the Sikh believer you deemed as reactionary to Christian proselytysing (no mention of this was made by the poor sikh believer) is definetely suggestive and mischevious on your part.
Andrew
Come on, not Da Vinci Code again?
If you keep comparing da vinci code to your holy bible, then you are doing your bible injustice; reducing the bible to the same catergory as fiction.
Perhaps, Dawkins’s statement that Da Vinci Code = Modern Fiction, Bible = Ancient Fiction is appropriate in your case.
Please get some perspective here, simply by showing science programme showing ‘Big Bang’, Dinosaurs and Evolution will affend the hardcore Christian Fundamentalist.
So what should the government do? Banned all the science programme from all MSM??? Seriously.
If you are contended to live in a civilization without science, please do so.
But the rest of us has the right to progress with science.
Finally, Christian dont have the same amount of protection? Seriously, you’re not kidding me?
So, anyone still insist that religious people are reasonable people, based on these comments?
Thank you Mr. Singh! You have try your best!
Tony Danza – If you want to see evil and mischief in others, you don’t have to look too hard, as you have proved. It takes some courage and strength to look beyond. I am no expert of the Bible – but the little I know of it has assured me that one can find much peace in it. But only if you desire this peace in the first place.
And btw, how’s that police report coming along?
Pastor Singh – Warm Greetings to you, and thank you for your prayers Sir.
“God doesnt make one a bigot or misogynist. People are bigots and misogynists. Religion however, provides a powerful language to justify any ideology, whether its about peace and tolerance. Or fanaticism. The vast majority people of faith with moderate views gets drowned out by loud, obnoxious voices of extremism.” – Reza Aslan, author.
“It is best left to our government to handle this lest in your zeal you begin to villify the innocent by treading on dangerous territory.”
i find it strange, and sad, that many of us still expect the govt to do everything for us.
On Andrew’s comment, well, lets compare Satanic Verses, The Last Temptation of Christ and Da Vinci Code. Only the latter was allowed.
Why? my guess is that the Singapore govt reacts to international community’s reactions. Its not about protection level or fairness, but the impact those materials have on our nation. The govt will act accordingly.
Pritam – i see your point. Let those without sin throw the first stone, as they say. Let’s look into ourselves to make things better. We dont have to wait for the govt to set the OB markers, the rules and regulations.
unfortunately, your use of the pastor’s name has made some unhappy, as they want to move on.
oh well, how one reacts to your piece is, to me, a reflection of their own self-belief.
Preston
With regards to registering indiependent christian churches – the effort has been made to reach out to them but they refuse. According to a survey done (by Mathew Mathews, a visiting fellow at the National University of Singapore and reported in ST), most of these churches see joining the IFC as diluting their faith and beliefs.
“A recent article published by the Straits Times on September 3rd, 2008 reported that nearly 50 per cent of the Christian clergymen polled “feared (that) interfaith dialogue would compromise their religious convictions”
So force them? what good would that do?
To others
Just another defensive spiel by fundies to maintain their right to criticise, insult, and demonis all others who do not share their viewpoint. Rather than lighting a fuse, this feature serves fair warning that EVRYONE will suffer, christians and non-christians alike , if the actions of christain findamentalists in the last few months were allowed scot-free. If you still deny that those actions and deeds were beneficial for society, then perhaps it is you that is seditious and it is you who obviously has not the interests of society at heart, only the interest of your own narrow minded enclave.
Pritnam
As for why they govt initially had such a low kep reaction, check out the composition of MPs in our govt – 25 are christians, 8 are buddhists and 12 are muslimes. What do you think the cabinet ismade up of? For a country that is half buddhist, i find it surprising that our govt does not reflect that.
http://singaporeanskeptic.blogspot.com/2010/02/religious-demographics-of-our.html
My bad:
“If you still insist (not ‘deny’) that those actions and deeds were beneficial for society”
Pritam and the leaders of the Sikh community have got it wrong to take down the article. Though I am not a Sikh I would want to learn from the Sikhs why they think their religion is the best of all religions.
In many points Pritam is correct but wrong when he said,
“If there is something educative the Rony Tan episode stands for, it ought to be that religious sensitivity and a respect for the secular public space must remain the central pillars …”
because the “Pastor Rony” saga took place in a Christian church for Christians. Likewise the Sikh article is hosted in a Sikh organisation website. If netizens are offended by these articles, the problem is theirs because they choose to go to the website, not Pastor Rony, nor the Sikh organisation.
Every religion must agree to disagree because all religions claim they are unique or exclusive in some way. Singaporeans must be mature enough to debate religion without complaining to the government, or recourse to violence.
The answer lies across the bridge when we cross to the other side.
Pritam Singh
Feb 24 2010, 10:27
eh, you refering to me? my post was under moderation, you may have quoted the wrong person when my post “re-appeared”.
please include the poster’s name or nick, and ideally the details like the date & time to avoid misunderstanding, yeah?..
Pritam Singh
Feb 24, 2010, 10:27
eh, you refering to me? my post was under moderation, you may have quoted the wrong person when my post “re-appeared”.
please include the poster’s name or nick, and ideally the details like the date & time to avoid misunderstanding, yeah?
“It is best left to our government to handle this…” , Tony Danza
In ancient East Asia the king or emperor is the “son of heaven”, a sort of god status. The suggestion by Tony borders on the absurd because the arbiter of the various religions would make one a god. So who is the son of heaven in Singapore?
Let the leaders of the various religions make their case, leave it to the individuals to decide.
Advocates for government intervention should try living in totalitarian regimes like North Korea, Saudi Arabia, etc.
@ Andrew
The Da Vinci Code movie and book was allowed because it is fiction. Are you telling me that a fictitious story caused many Christians to question their faith?
In fact, I’ve been approached by Christians to “join them and be saved” numerous times; on a bus or at my doorstep. Christians enjoy more protection as compared to other religions.
@JW
According to you, would it be okay for an individual to set up a website and upload a video of that individual blasting another religion?
After all, its the netizens’ problem because “they choose to go to the website”?
Are Singaporeans really mature enough to debate religion? Can religion be debated in the first place?
Nice of you to drop by here Mr Oh! And thank you for your kind words. May God bless you too Sir!
But you may want to google “Oh Tham Eng” . I think you have an evil twin who is wrecking your good name.
Good job admin.
Mr. Oh is a very confused man. Claiming to be a fundamentalist Christian, he misquotes the Bible.
He would be the ideal person in charge of inter-faith affairs in S’pore because he mixes everything up to form his own religion.
Mr. Oh you’re indeed creative!
Thank you for this article. The past few weeks of this drama has left a very bad taste in the hearts of Singaporeans and i am one of them. To detractors of this article, I do not see any malice, cunning, “knifing” or manipulation involved. Perhaps the only cunning is in your own creative heads where you have outwitted yourselves, imagined a conspiracy and exposed your own insecurities. In the little village state of Singapore where people are so eager to adopt a mob mentality, it’s great that this article uses the mistakes of Pastor Rony to act as a reminder that potentially, we can be just as flawed as he is. One credit i have to give to Pastor Rony is that he was blunt and blatant about his beliefs (whether or not this was intentional is unknown though), revealing the ticking time bomb inside almost every Singaporean who passively thinks his/her own religion, race, sexuality, car, house, income, job, beliefs etc is the best. It exposes the egoist in all of us. One might say that perhaps it is not a problem of religion but a problem of being in a society where there is pressure to perform and be the best (or believe you’re the best) in everything, even in religion!
I miss the times where concepts of churches were houses of refuge for the weak, not centers of tactical military planning. Have people forgotten that fellowship simply means to be strong for each other, welcoming those who are willing to join… and not a recruitment drive for an army? Perhaps they still exist in a minority, or perhaps they never existed at all.
Rony Tan is a good guy lah… he may have foolishly said the wrong things in public and caused an uproar… but generally for those who know him, he is a good and compassionate guy..
let’s all be gracious and give him a break…
Joe, i totally agreed with you!
But, then again i also think a tiger is only a big big cat. Soft, Furrry, Cuddly and soooo Cute.
Give it a break and dont keep saying tigers are dangerous (well until it opens it mouth anyway).
peace
thanks kernz.. i get your point… but seriously man, rony’s an ok guy. i think it is a moment of foolishness with no malice intended .
i would say he is a big cat and one day thought of roaring like a tiger and then got whacked and then went back to meowing again..
but he is an ok cat lah…
Mr Pritam,
I have reviewed your comments in response to the others who have given their views. I notice a common tenor in them-you seem to be picking mostly on christians by using the umbrella of plurality (other religions) to higlight some of the negative aspects of christianity by even citing historic precedents. I dont even understand why the need to caricature Rony Tan when he has asked for forgiveness for his thoughtless representation of other faiths. In fact, the Buddhists have recognised that “to err is human and to forgive is divine”. But not so with you. Does Rony Tan deserve to be treated in the same vein as those who use religion to ferment hatred among their followers for their fellow human beings. If Rony Tan was such a person, go and interview for yourself some of the people who have come to be members of his church. I do not think they were born christians. I do not think they were brain washed either. Many of them will describe how the negative situations and circumstances had turned around after listening to his sermons and receiving prayer from him. Can a man of hatred have such a impact on thousands who are attending the church out of a free will.
I would urge you to consider your comments carefully before caricaturazing a person and using his name to label the negative instincts that may loom in each of our hearts. Yes, I agree we should not parade our respective beliefs as the Superior one because each one of us is called to serve the other as God’s creation. Rony Tan has done lot of good in our nation, let us not become frivilous and petty minded by speculative commentary.
@Tony Danza, Joe, etc.:
The point is that for us on the outside looking in, Rony Tan has to be judged by his contributions to public discourse (on other faiths, on homosexuality, etc.), not by his good works for the local Christian community. And he has to be judged by his actions, not by his character or being a ‘good guy’. Those actions were harmful and defamatory to other social groups, and did “ferment hatred” (which was why he was called up by the ISD). Even if they were one-off, that doesn’t make him any less culpable — though it is good grounds for forgiving (i.e. not punishing). And that’s precisely what the authorities did, by dropping the matter after Tan apologized.
But forgiving doesn’t mean excusing. A religious leader of such standing must be held fully responsible for his actions, especially if they impinge on the wider community’s interests. Besides, the Rony Tan saga added more fuel to the popular perception (right or wrong) that Christianity and intolerance go hand-in-hand. I think Pritam was drawing on that popular perception, rather than using a caricature of his own. And to accuse everyone else of being “frivolous and petty-minded” will further alienate ‘us’ from ‘you’. The best response is simply to acknowledge that those remarks were wrong, and an example of what ‘ought-not-be-done’. Being cited again and again for his intolerant remarks is, unfortunately, the penance which Rony Tan must pay. That’s tiny, compared to the trouble he might have landed in.
Tony,
1. You claim in your latest entry to have reviewed my comments. But you have not got the crux of my point. I wrote it in reference to what Pastor Tan did – so of course I was dealing with Christians! But if you were less enthusiastic about jumping to conclusions and making assertions on my behalf (i.e. I am “picking” on Christians), you would have realized I was speaking of a specific minority of Christians, not all Christians. But rather than address my larger point that both Christians and non-Christians are flawed and must consider the multi-racial reality of Singapore, you fall into a siege mentality mindset that sees a ghost who wants to lambast Christianity at every chance. This is patently not true. We are all in this together. I put the example of my own community on the record to show that all of us need to look beyond our respective faiths. And even more so when it comes to proseltysing. That’s all.
2. Your latest point is another puzzle I can’t make out. Whoever said anything negative or bad about Pastor Tan’s outstanding work in turning people around? When was that ever an issue? I think its wonderful that he has done this. In the same way I know of Buddhist priests, Imams and Sikh priests who have turned people around to become better human beings. But why should one’s good deeds in the past exonerate him/her for excesses and failures in the future? Think Ren Ci, and in a different context, T.T. Durai. And why should these good deeds allow one to criticize gays in such sharp and hurtful ways? Something isn’t right no? Surely our religious leaders must be more sensitive and civic-conscience given their mobilizing power and mass appeal.
3. And then you have another point which may not be seen in the effusive way you present it – “Rony Tan has done lot of good in our nation”. Let me share some thoughts with you on this. I think religion and politics should be kept as far as possible from each other, given today’s context. Historically, religion has often been on the opposite end of politics, speaking out against injustice, cruelty etc., as religious personalities worship God (and a moral conscience to consider), not politicians. When a religious personality openly supports a political personality, there are some who will be very disconcerted by such a development. It can be construed as a strategic and calculated obsequiousness on the part of those religious leaders that seek to build up a “goodwill bank” for their faith in the eyes of the political leadership. A literature student friend of mine put this point to me very starkly many years ago, “Mr Singh, I think patriotism is the first and last refuge of scoundrels.” Now before you lose your head, blow another fuse and suggest I am calling Pastor Tan a scoundrel, no I am not. That student’s remark was made specifically to a hypothetical point about mixing of religion and politics. Some tell me that this such religious support is supposed to be good for the PAP in terms as a vote. I am not so sanguine about this conclusion. And the unfortunate part of this is that the PAP has traditionally been consciously equal towards all religious groups. I would argue that such activities by religious personalities unnecessarily politicizes the social and public space beyond what ought to be necessary, even though in other cases, it may have been totally well-meaning and innocent.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2O67SyJiyzY
4. Finally, you urge me not to be “frivolous” and “petty-minded”. And that I should not indulge in such “speculative” commentary. My friend, I wrote this article in my real name. I commented in my real name. I have an email address up there for public perusal. The latter points should make it amply clear to you that this is a very serious issue to me. If we want to live in a peaceful, harmonious and tolerant society, everyone needs to do their part. What Pastor Tan did was wrong, distasteful and not becoming of a man of his stature. Forgiveness is a virtue, but what use is forgiveness if the same error is committed again? And this may happen again if the right lessons are not learnt. All of us must do our part and not allow it to happen again.