- Joined
- Jan 18, 2010
- Messages
- 7,177
- Points
- 48
It is clear the reason why Khong is making a big issue out of this case...
He was hurts when MOM official reminded him of his family's shameful secret and was a blow to his ego? So being rich and with backing from church (especially the funds), he fought back. He has nothing to lose and everything to gain.
He was hurts when MOM official reminded him of his family's shameful secret and was a blow to his ego? So being rich and with backing from church (especially the funds), he fought back. He has nothing to lose and everything to gain.
SINGAPORE — Do religious groups’ constitutional right to manage their own religious affairs include the hiring and firing of employees and setting of their expected moral standards?
This was the poser that Faith Community Baptist Church (FCBC) Senior Pastor Lawrence Khong is asking the courts to “give guidance” on, in applying for a judicial review yesterday of a sanction handed down by Acting Manpower Minister Tan Chuan-Jin.
The FCBC was ordered to compensate a pregnant staff it had sacked in September last year, for an extramarital affair with another former church worker. The pair were named in court documents submitted yesterday by the church.
“We are mindful of the gravity of this application, and we recognise any outcome may have a bearing beyond our own organisation and affect the religious community at large — Christian or otherwise,” Mr Khong said in a separate media statement.
When contacted, the Ministry of Manpower (MOM) said that it had “not formally received” the court documents. Nevertheless, it felt compelled to respond, and reiterated that “many different religions co-exist and thrive” here and individuals and religious organisations are “free to practise their respective faiths”.
“However, our system of governance is a secular one and everyone has to abide by the laws of the land regardless of race, language or religion,” the MOM said. “The laws regarding employment constitute one such area. Employment laws have to be applied equally to all regardless of their religion.”
It noted that the case “was strictly a dispute between an employer and an employee, and MOM treated it as such”. “All organisations, whether they are religious or not, must abide by the same laws,” it added.
While the Constitution states that religious groups have the right to manage their own religious affairs, it excludes acts that are “contrary to any general law relating to public order, public health or morality”. In an Aug 28 statement explaining why it sanctioned the FCBC, the MOM said there was insufficient cause to support the dismissal, while noting that “we have to preserve a common secular space for people with other beliefs, and employment is one of these secular spaces”.
In an 11-page application it submitted yesterday, the church contended that the dismissal was within “religious affairs”, and that managing them was its constitutional right which the ministry had contravened. Given the staff’s job scope and the church’s religious values and principles, “especially in relation to what constitutes misconduct for its staff” and how the church dealt with these, the ministry’s decision was “irrational”.
The church was also obliged to deal with her misconduct because of its accountability to its members and the general public, it contended.
The staff was the “designated representative” to meet couples seeking to wed — and to explain what was required of them — and thus her employment “bears sufficient or close proximity” with its mission, the church added.
It described her adulterous sexual relationship with the divorced male colleague as “sinful, inappropriate and unacceptable”, and said she had also “misled and lied” to church managers about the affair. The church said it terminated her employment due to “sexual misconduct and her persistence on it”, and her refusal to abide by conditions the church had set after her affair was uncovered.
When her colleagues and supervisors came to know that she was carrying the child of her illicit lover — while she was separated from her ex-husband — she refused to “confess and repent, to cease her sexual misconduct, and to come under the discipline of the pastors to assist her throughout the term of her pregnancy thereafter”.
In his affidavit, the church’s former Chief Operating Officer Jonathan Ow Kim Chuan said he assured the female staff that the church was “willing to work with (her)” to help her keep her job, on condition that she showed “true repentance” and stopped the affair. She agreed to the conditions, but went back on her word, Mr Ow said. He added that he was questioned by an employee how the church could “condone such immoral behaviour, bearing in mind that (the pregnant staff) was working in the department of the church which oversaw matters relating to weddings and marriages”.
A landmark case?
Lawyers TODAY spoke to noted the significance of the case and the issue at hand — whether the sacking was indeed on religious and moral grounds, and whether such a dismissal would fall under the purview of the employment laws.
Mr Abraham Vergis said: “What is ordinarily an employment law matter is now being recast in terms of the constitutional right of a church to manage its religious affairs. This challenge has the potential to become a landmark case depending on how the courts address the questions raised.”
Another lawyer, Mr Chia Boon Teck, felt that should the court’s ruling allow for an exception for religious organisations with regard to the employment laws, “the wider implication may be that other religious bodies would also argue that the authorities not interfere with how they deal with their staff”, a point Mr Khong also acknowledged in his media statement.
In his affidavit, Mr Khong also hit out at how the MOM conducted the inquiry into the dismissal. In particular, he said the MOM’s Assistant Commissioner for Labour had, during a meeting on Oct 8 last year, made an “unwarranted” reference to his daughter — she had a child out of wedlock — which was “tantamount to a personal attack”.
Arguing that his daughter Priscilla’s conduct was irrelevant to the case because she was never an FCBC employee and that she had confessed and sought forgiveness before her pastors, Mr Khong said: “I am surprised that (the Assistant Commissioner for Labour), as a representative of MOM, would make such comments without a full understanding of the facts.”
He also took issue with the ministry for only recording statements from the church’s junior staff, and not any of its leaders. The Assistant Commissioner for Labour’s conduct and the MOM’s failure to take the church leaders’ statements meant that the inquiry and Mr Tan’s subsequent decision were “tainted with bias”, Mr Khong claimed.
Church's dismissal of pregnant worker: The Manpower Ministry responds
The Ministry of Manpower (MOM) has not formally received the court documents. However, a number of statements have been made and we would like to reiterate our position.
Many different religions co-exist and thrive in Singapore; it is part of our make-up as a nation. Individuals and religious organisations are free to practise their respective faiths. However, our system of governance is a secular one and everyone has to abide by the laws of the land regardless of race, language or religion. The laws regarding employment constitute one such area. Employment laws have to be applied equally to all regardless of their religion.
MOM’s role is to protect employees’ rights in their workplaces. In the Faith Community Baptist Church’s case, an order for compensation was made in favour of a female clerical employee because the Minister found that her dismissal, within six months of the date she was due to deliver her baby, was made without sufficient cause. This had the effect of depriving her of her statutory benefits, as the law provides. Our laws are applied to safeguard employees’ rights such as these, and not to undermine religious beliefs nor to restrict the practices of religious organisations.
This was strictly a dispute between an employer and an employee, and MOM treated it as such. All organisations, whether they are religious or not, must abide by the same laws.
