Perdition and sedition
"This case came to my attention only recently
though it happened a few years ago. Nonetheless, I think it is still relevant
today, and will probably be relevant for many years from now. The question is:
How to set the limits and inculcate sensibilities of evangelism in a secular
and multi-religion state. As the article states, though "the defendants
appeared motivated by religious fervour rather than malice", it is exactly
such religious fervour that often leads to malice. In a secular state,
religious freedom and free speech does not equate to freedom to evangelize, a
point that many Christians in Singapore seems to have forgotten in the name of
being faithful missionaries."——Lim Ni Eng
JUNE 12, 2009 BY LEONG SZE HIAN
The invoking of the Sedition Act in the prosecution
of the Christian couple for distributing offensive tracts may seem overly harsh
– setting a dangerous precedent for the future.
EIGHT WEEKS in jail– that was the sentence dished
out under the Sedition Act to Christian couple Mr Ong Kian Cheong and Dorothy
Chan for distributing offensive tracts to Muslims.
(Photo from The Straits Times)
Even so, as ill-judged as the couple’s actions were,
it was still a leap to argue that they had committed sedition. The fallout
seemed localised; the defendants appeared motivated by religious fervour rather
than malice.
Nevertheless, the sentencing should have come as
little surprise, since a pair of bloggers were similarly jailed under the Act
for posting “racist remarks on the Internet in 2005.
There is also no surprise that the Muslims who
received the tracts were offended and chose to take action. A pair of booklets
that were highlighted by the prosecution aimed at advocating conversion away
from Islam by grossly misrepresenting the religion.
Understandably the recipients –- having received
such tracts anonymously in the mail, and with little information about how many
had been sent out or the intent of the sender –- were not out of place in
fearing that it could be an attempt to undermine their religion.
Why Sedition Act and not Penal Code?
One curious aspect of the case is that the
government chose to prosecute the couple under the portentous Sedition Act,
rather than Sections 298 and 298A of the Penal Code which address acts that
deliberately injure racial or religious feelings.
Furthermore, Sections 298 and 298A were added by the
government in 2007 in response to the blogger case of 2005 so as to provide a
lower-signature alternative to the Sedition Act to deal with such offenders.
In this context, the use of the Sedition Act against
Mr Ong and Ms Chan suggests that the government intended to attach a high
signature to the case, perhaps for a deterrence effect.
Or it could be for the more practical reason that
the Sedition Act specifically legislates against the “distribution” of
“seditious” material, while the Penal Code is more vague on this point.
Invoking the Sedition Act would also allow the government to take action
against stores that imported the booklets.
Legalities aside, the case is unfortunately timed.
National attention on religious matters has been unusually intense of late,
particularly since the high-profile ouster of a Christian faction from the
Association of Women for Action and Research (AWARE), a local woman’s rights
group.
The sentences passed on Mr Ong and Ms Chan, who had
expressed contrition for their actions, might appear harsh to elements in the
Christian community already chaffing at the fallout from the AWARE takeover,
perhaps even reinforcing their perceptions that their religion is being
unjustly singled out.
The government’s decision to invoke the Sedition Act
could therefore prove to be a double-edged sword. The Act seems to have become
the government’s favoured weapon for tackling racial- and religious-related
offences.
Interestingly, prior to the 2005 cases involving the
bloggers, the last time the Act was invoked was in 1966.
The problem is that the present case might have set
a relatively low bar for invoking the Act, causing the government to rely more
rather than less on it in future.
http://www.theonlinecitizen.com/2009/06/perdition-and-sedition/
