Of all alternative media, TOC was slowest in commenting on the Rony Tan affair.
So when it arrives, I look forward to reading it.
This contributor to TOC - his article I read with shock.
The comments that follow even more shocking.
Suddenly, Rony Tan is the 'hero' with the 'courage to apologise'.
Before I calm down & compose my response, I like to know how our regulars view this article - very different from mainstream opinion.
Don't dismiss lightly, the slant of this article is highly significant on various levels.
Community, Main Stories, Politics - Written on Wednesday, February 10, 2010 11:00 - 61 Comments
Not your ordinary chit-chat session
Tags: buddhism, isd, religious harmony, rony tan, Terence Lee
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.
to continue....
So when it arrives, I look forward to reading it.
This contributor to TOC - his article I read with shock.
The comments that follow even more shocking.
Suddenly, Rony Tan is the 'hero' with the 'courage to apologise'.
Before I calm down & compose my response, I like to know how our regulars view this article - very different from mainstream opinion.
Don't dismiss lightly, the slant of this article is highly significant on various levels.
Community, Main Stories, Politics - Written on Wednesday, February 10, 2010 11:00 - 61 Comments
Not your ordinary chit-chat session
Tags: buddhism, isd, religious harmony, rony tan, Terence Lee
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.
to continue....
[/FONT]
