Aftermath of Rony Tan fiasco: ISD shouldn’t be policing racial and inter-faith relations
February 14th, 2010 | 
Author: By Hurr Riyahi
In the recent fiasco of Paster Rony Tan, it is not unusual to see ISD intervening. It is always either ISD who intervene in cases of any breach or potential breach in race or inter-faith relations. However what is unusual is that if one looks at any developed or civilized countries, there is no other parallel of a security intelligence agency taking such a role. Instead without involving security or enforcement agencies, other countries try to seek resolution using much peaceful and amicable methods.
Local governments elsewhere being able to resolve race and inter-faith issues
I have seen in many instances in several countries where someone says something unpleasant like Rony Tan or whatsoever to breach the cordiality of race or inter-faith relations. Many a times, the local governments are able to intervene together with community agencies and seek a resolution.
Local governments refer to municipalities and in Singapore the equivalent will be town councils. Unfortunately in Singapore, town councils seem to be more interested of garbage collection and investing in mini-bonds even though it is not capable of the latter. The reason why local governments intervene is because they are closest to the issue and often they are able to move in fast together with all the community organizations, community representatives and so on. Then again the other issue is that local governments in civilized and developed countries will not wait for instructions from higher authorities which will be the case if Singapore town councils played a greater role in race and inter-faith relations. Local governments typically also have better staff who are capable of managing issues beyond garbage collection. They also foster close partnerships with community individuals, organisations, places of worship etc.
Communities being able to resolve race and inter-faith issues
I have also seen communities themselves being able to resolve race ad inter-faith issues. For instance in a case like Rony Tan, if this was happening in a civilized or developed country, one can expect other churches to step in to diffuse the tension. Unfortunately in Singapore we have not seen this. Should instead of Rony Tan, some other priest of some other faith in Singapore had behaved in the same fashion, the respective communities will also not have stepped in immediately. Part of the reason is the fragmentation of the various communities.
The reason why other churches didnt intervene is partly because they may have felt it is the problem of the church of Paster Rony Tan and not theirs. Part of the reason is also fear of intervening. Singaporeans are generally fearful of intervening in an issue where they are not the primary person involved. What Singapore needs is not the empowerment of politicians, ministries, statutory boards, government agencies etc but none of these can really solve a race or inter-faith issue.
The police and ISD can at the most disrupt the issues but not resolve such issues. What instead is required is empowerment of the communities in Singapore. The next time an issue such as what we have seen repeats, the first person to intervene should be the various churches together with temples. If at this day and age if Singaporeans are not capable of such amicable resolution to such issues and instead are only capable of brawls, shouting matches and confrontations, then we as a society are only half human in nature.
Politicians should play a more active role
It was funny to see there has been only the MInister of Home Affairs speaking on the issue and that too because ISD intervened. Instead all the MPs have gone into hiding. They should be the ones stepping forward to diffuse the tension. They should not try to control how the issue should be resolved but instead act as mediators bringing the various community individuals, institutions etc together to the resolution table. I used to live in one municipality where the MP will organize community parties at the house of my friend who is a respected member of community.
Whenever there is any issue involving the community, MP will contact and communicate majority of the key community members within an hour and resolve any issue fast within days or weeks. The fact that no MP in Singapore intervened shows they lack the confidence to manage race and inter-faith issues in Singapore. What they are capable of is only passing consitutency walkabout statements about need for harmony blah blah blah. They are absolutely useless in diffusion of tension and achieving amicable resolution of conflicts.
ISD is a security agency, in essence
Essentially ISD is a security agency. They should be intervening in issues where someone is planning to disrupt the security of the country. Pastor Rony Tan was not at all planning anything like that. He should not have received a call from ISD at all. Instead he should have received a call from his local MP who should have coordinated with his town council and other churches and temples. Many issues can hypothetically escalate to threaten public and national security and ISD shouldnt be a paranoid freakish organisation intervening in all such hypothetical cases. They should intervene in very clear categorical cases. Instead other necessary agents of society such as stated above should be the ones intervening.
Other articles by Hurr Riyahi:
>> Security threat posed by foreigners versus Muslims
>> How often is there tolerance in Singapore or Malaysia
Related articles:
1. What LKY said to Archbishop Gregory Yong in 1987
2. Is it really necessary for the ISD to deal with Pastor Rony Tan?
3. Public anger against Rony Tan fast turning to PAP
4. Rony Tan’s Facebook closed after being flooded with comments from netizens
5. Rony Tan’s views on homosexuality
6. Perceived double standards in the application of Sedition Act
7. Facebook group set up to demand punishment for Rony Tan
8. VIDEO: Pastor Rony Tan’s comments on Buddhism
9. Hardwarezone forumers up in arms over Pastor Rony Tan’s remarks
10. Pastor Rony Tan issues public apology on his remarks about Buddhism
Posted in 
We need more vocal and independent thinking MPs. Does this mean there are none? I am not saying. I am just saying we need more.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
I totally disagreed with Mr Rayahi view that ISD should not interven in the case of Pastor Rony Tan issue.
I think ISD had done the right thing but to pressing further charges on Pastor tan or not is yet to be seen by the relevant Authority, which I shall not comment.
We will never know what is being discussed/presented in a weekly service done in church, til now. if pastor Tan carried on the same over a period of time and his 12000 follower had their mind fixed in such a attitude( what you practice is not exist, your pratice is nonsensicle,no logical, you way is still in doubt, Mine is the sure and only way ,for example ) towards others believes, it is a matter of time we will see what if not worst situation happen in Singapore as did in Malaysian.Thats a security issue and I agreed with ISD.
I would sleep better now , if our laws had provision for all mass religous meeting/preaching held in their weekly, monthly
gethering video record to be submitted for a committee( consisted of others faith members)/ISD review every quaterly.
Regards,
Hotshoot
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Dear Hurr,
You are quite right except for the fact that NETizens by nature like to raise temperature with the help of WEBSITES to stretch it further after most direct parties including the Govt.had tone it down to a rational volume.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
so much verbiage, yet so off tangent.
It’s not a “fiasco”. It was a calculated/pre-meditated to convert others into Rony’s brand of Christianity, as is probably the modus operandi of charismatic churches, as witness by the jailing of a couple who stuffed pamphlets into Muslim letter-boxes denigrated Islam.
As seen in letters in the press, many families members are at odds/conflict with each other because of members joining Churches and then denigrating their own kins for not converting into Christianity.
According to msm, Rony said that he was “told off” by ISD………which in my opinion doesn’t reflect the “severity” of his offence as claimed by DPM Wong Kan Seng
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
The writer is someone who had not been in Singapore for a long time. I wonder how much ground feelings could one have if he is not there. If the writer thinks that communities should be able to defuse local racial and inter-faith conflict then there would not have any JI cases, Rony cases, etc.
The writer is speaking from his ass.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Hurr Riyahi is indeed shallow as far as the thinking process goes! Quick intervention made Rony Tan see his own bigotry where he thinks only his group is right! ISD was right this time.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Pastor RT is lucky enough to get away with just a warning.
Over the past years, there have been 2 cases of Christians insulting Muslims and they all got published under the law and sentenced to jails.
This time round, the victims are Buddhists and Taoists, and he is very lucky to have escaped jail term. If the victims were Muslims and they were ridiculed in the same way, I am very sure he would not have escaped going to jail.
There have been many cases of Zealous Christians attacking other faiths and these have tarnished the image of Christianity among non-believers.
It is therefore in the interest of the faith that they respect the beliefs of others, failing which, we will see more conflicts arising from their insensitive acts.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
I am wondering if this writer “Hurr Rihyahi” is a Singaporean first of all. He/she appears to be not local, yet taking a pot shot at Singapore Politics.
Firstly I find it ridiculous that the writer finds fault with the intervention of Singapore’s ISD in this saga and insists that MP intervention is prefererd. He bases his logic by observing (which country can be smaller than SG) countries where “local governments in civilized and developed countries will not wait for instructions from higher authorities which will be the case if Singapore town councils played a greater role”
Is he implying that ISD intervention is uncivilised?
Singapore’s racial harmony success model should NOT be compared with different “civilised” countries’. We have different geographic size, different racial makeup, different political powers, different historical baggages. What is wrong about ISD coming into the picture? Why do you, Hurr Riyahi care and demand that MP’s intervention is better? You are completely detracting from the point that the purpose of the authorities (whichever authority) action is to promote security and defuse sensitive situations. For singaporeans, ISD represent a higher level and therefore the intervention of ISD brings emphasis to the importance of the episode. ISD which operates in semi-secret style, represents the ultimate in Secular authority. MP’s on the other hand are humans and some MPs are well known to be of a certain religion too, therefore, there is no necessary advantage for MPs to do this job (not to say it is wrong either),
Secondly the writer has no authority to declare “The reason why other churches didnt intervene is partly because they may have felt it is the problem of the church of Paster Rony Tan and not theirs.” How dare you make such a declaration without material facts! You are not part of “the other churches” so you cannot see what goes on. I could make another possible conjecture :the reason why they didnt intervene is because they did not feel the pastor was wrong”. Indeed, there are comments here on this blog where someone (perhaps from same or other church) said.. “truth hurts” You see there are christians who actually feel that nothing wrong was done. YOU shouldn’t assume that other churches will graciously automatically come to the scene to defuse the situation!!!!! Religion is very sensitive matter. No one knows, therefore ISD intervention is perfectly acceptable, please don’t insist that it should be MP’s, it should be “other” churches. It is like saying blue is better than green, what a narrow minded viewpoint.
In my opinion, Singaporeans are quite happy with ISD intervention but the only displeasure is the perceived double-standards which is widely publicised already in TR.
When TR finds people’s interest in this thread is falling, as indicated by numerous posts asking TR to stop this thread and close the chapter, TR now choses to focuses on a non-issue :ISD intervention is wrong:\
Shame on you TR. Please read the comments i have in my other post too TR.
zero
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
In the end, Pastor Rony Tan of Lighthouse Church, ‘PASSED THE BALL’ to the PAP government and he happily walk away.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Hi Zero,
1. You do not own TR and have no right to demand it to publish articles which suit your liking.
2. Nobody is forcing you to read the articles here. You have the right not to come here.
so please get the f**k out of here and stop whining away like a faggot!
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
To transformer
You are correct that no one has a right to demand tr to publish artilces to suit his or her liking. This is a free country. You have no right to demand Straits Times to publish articles in any way too.
However, if i understand correctly, the mission of TR is to present a creditable platform, TO EXPOSE THE FALLACIES AND EVILS of the incumbent government. Please first of all get this clear: I am NOT A PAP Internet Brigade supporter. I am merely a person who likes to see fairness and fairplay. I don;t even like the ISD, I don;t think CSJ’s detention is fair in any way at all, and I don;t even like LKY anymore. However, if opposing the present government means to use unfair and unreasonable ways to incite anger, to fan discord, I do not support it. As a concerend local born and bred Singaporean, i have a right to expose what I perceive as underhand tactics that will do harm to singapore. LEt the reader decide if i am speaking rubbish, to each his own, i am not even interested whether you, or any other reader, agree witn me or not.
Ironically, sensible people will start voting for PAP if they see that TR and whatever political supporters behind them, is nothing but troublemaker making mountain out of molehill, with absolutely zero postive contributions. In my opinion, for every stupid person who is conned by TR slanted articles, there will be a smart person who sees it and then, the result is that you have PAP back in power. I believe it wasn’t TR’s idea to have PAP coninue the government of Singapore.
You are right, too, that no one is forcing me to read the articles here. You could tell same to the large number of people who have similarly appealed to TR to stop this thread (under various other thread names). TR ignores them all, i don’t have a problem with that, this is their website, we are guests expressing our opinion, simple as that. i have no right to tell you to get lose and vice versa.
Go read for yourself in the other thread instead of hiding yourself in an emotional frenzy and using foul letter language which betrays your level of intelligence and intellectual prowess.
zero
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Transforme, go rinse your mouth.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
I too came to TR with a hope for an alternative view and hope for an “AWAKENING” or a possible “TSUNAMI” in the next election but alas it is getting from bad to worse spinning articles to draw readers like a cheap tabloid.
Unless a website of substance to draw the fence sitter to the opposition side soon, The next GE will not be a watershed.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Reading through the thread above, I SEE ALL EMOTIONS COMPLETELY MISPLACED OF REALITIES.
TR IS COMPLETELY RIGHT – ISD perhaps should NOT be involved in this matter. Why?
The three teenagers in Facebook and Rony Tan all got “entangled” on race or inter-faith relationship issues BUT THERE IS A BIG DIFFERENCES HERE BEWILDERING OF COMPREHENSION. It was the police which handled matters appertaining to three polytechnic students and ISD dealt with Rony Tan.
why???????????
WKS said the issues in Rony Tan is “not less serious” than the three polytechnic students.
Really??
I actually thought the issues involving the students were LESS SERIOUS than the issues involving Rony Tan.
The three polytechnic students were in the result of police interviews assessed to lack maturity. No malice were involved. In criminal law – the “INTENT” element is missing that would be necessary to prove the prosecution’s case of criminal law violation. In other words, the police investigation found NO GROUNDS to charge the students for alleged offence!
I am NOT surprised at the “correctness” Police final assessment and decision NOT to prosecute. But until the decision NOT to charge the three polytechnic students, the reasonable assumption at law is that the police is working on the presumption that charges will be laid. But is that charges, if laid, justified?
I would believe for two of them, the charges would be hollow of substance in evidence. It was reported in the media – there were administrator of the FACEBOOK offensive publishing. It is NOT certain that they themselves published any offensive statement in that facebook. If they didn’t it would be gross injustice to convict them of offence BY REASON OF GUILT ASSOCIATION. If by mere fact that they were administrator incriminated their guilty of someone else’s offensive publishing, then ANYONE READING THOSE OFFENSIVE REMARKS WOULD ALSO BE GUILTY BY ASSOCIATION.
That is utter rubbish at law.
Rony Tan is similar and yet disimilar. Similar of inter-faith racial offensive statements that is race-relevant in that Buddhism and Taoism is mainly Chinese of following here – RACE matters. Rony Tan utterance is less acceptable than the three polytechnic students for a number of obvious reasons
- he is much more matured and worldly experience of affairs and knowledge to know the gravity of his comments’ hurts. That IS PATENTLY PROVED by his now admission that a “wrong is a wrong, not to be justified”
- the cirumstances of transgression are different. Rony Tan’s audience were “captive” audiences and THEY PARTICIPATED IN RACOUS INSENSITIVE LAUGHTER OF ANOTHER RELIGIONS – these are highly imflamatory conduct in CONCERT (together rather than isolated) of an congregation. In contrast, I have no awareness of the students’ transgression if TR had not published it and by virtue of that it is NON-INFLAMMATORY TO ME AND ALL OTHERS WHO ARE UNAWARE OF THOSE OFFENSIVE WORDS.
- Rony Tan is a pastor with defined following of his preaching and messages, the students’ are non-entity of any following of the offensive comments.
- even the complainant, Mr. Praha……. thought the police reaction was excessive. – in other words, the police may have overreacted.
- in Rony Tan’s transgression, the inflammatory repeated derision of other faiths successfully “incite” the audience he was targetting for message. THEY ENJOYED THE LAUGTER. This is deadly evidence in law of intent and outcome. In the three polytechnic’s students’ facebook transgression, it is GENERIC AND REMOTE OF CONTENT such that I had no awareness could NOT have incite me or any others.
CAN YOU ALL IMAGINE WHAT THE RIDICULOUS SITUATION OF DIABOLICAL LAW OUTCOME IF RONY TAN IS NOT CHARGED BUT THE STUDENTS WERE CHARGED FOR OFFENCE?
Please bear in mind the one-man protest law. In Rony Tan’s case, a whole congregation is involved. Rony Tan’s offence is more serious. To charge Rony Tan might have to involved charging all his congregation listening and laughing at what he said in possibly describe as religious vilification. HOW MANY THE LAW GOING TO CHARGE???
BASICALLY ISD WAS CAUGHT OFF GUARD with this one-man protest law. YOU CANNOT JUSTIFY ONE-MAN PROTEST LAW BUT ALLOWING A MOB OF LAW VIOLATORS GETTING AWAY WITH COLLECTIVE LAW VIOLATIONS OF CAUSE-RELATED ISSUES OF INTER-FAITH RELATIONS IN THE RACE HARMONY ACT.
But if ISD do NOT charge Rony Tan, and the Police charged the three students – the courts in proceedings would be embarassed to explain the OBVIOUS inequities. Those who successfully incite sedition gets away and those students who failed to incite sedition get charged for offence??? The number of any emails to TR proved that incite did occasioned of fault lines being torn apart – something that Rony Tan admits now which I hope will close this chapter.
For media to speculate that Rony Tan cannot be charge for his high profile as compared to the students’ – it is a fallacy of Briginshaw hypocrisy. To sustain otherwise, means that the more high profile one is – it is a licence to commit the most serious criminal offence and get away with it. That is why I believe the Briginshaw principle is now even discredited in criminal law in Australia.
So it begs the question – is there a division of thoughts and legal positions between the Police and ISD on whether to charge their respective “clients” because the Police and ISD were seem to be in mutually conflicting situations of circumstances and fairness.
The question therefore raised by TR – SHOULD ISD BE INVOLVED IN MATTERS OF RACE AND INTER-RACIAL FAITH IS PERTINENTLY AND RELEVANTLY CORRECT ISSUE TO RAISE, I AM INCLINED TO BELIEVE.
ANYONE DISAGREEING??
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
I agree too that in this instance, ISD should had step in. Weather the action they have taken is the correct one, is a debate for another day.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
So many suppositions, presumptions and unsupported statements – what kind of opinion piece is this without facts or case studies to back it up his?
Which countries have solved problems like ours through community agencies?
Do these countries have the same socio and ethnic makeup as ours?
Do these countries have a major dominant religion?
IS the real reason why other churches did not chastise Rony Tan is cos they also support his beliefs and actions?
Christians are fearful? what about the Aware incident and Thio Li Ann and her mother?
And the list goes on….
Its opinion pieces like these, shallow analysis and lacking in depth, that contributes nothing whatsover to the debate and discussion.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
14/2/10
This pastor has indeed gone too far and thinking that he and his church did the right thing ie always condemning other relgion (this is very common in Assembly of God and Pentacostal churches)and let us move forward and should he does this again, charge him in court like the couple who insulted another religion, and send a strong signal that he is not above the Rule of Law, so what he is a pastor cum founder of this influential and powerful church.
I have also been accused of being a racist which I am not and what I did was quoting the numbers of Singaporean Indians in the PAP government cabinet. Today only free, have been very busy with my work over the past two weeks, no time to read TR
Regards
Andrew Chuah
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
@Anonymous 3 floors above
I absolutely agree with your arguement although I could not have worded the same as fluid and legit as you.
If I may be allowed to add, you mentioned the Briginshaw principle which is not practise (at least legally and officially) in Sinkapore. Sinkapore system uses a MORAL WAIVER principle which basically means the same thing unofficially, of course.
On a side note, you have never fail to impress me with your knowledge of law plus your insight into many things in life, you see things that others like me would have conveniently overlook.
You remind me of a lawyer friend I had before I QUITer the system, her name was Jane Ho and like you, her knowledge and insight into life never fail to amaze me.
When I 1st read your posting, I was quite sure that you were her but coming back to sense, you would have been 103 years old and a Senior Senior Counsel if you were indeed her.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
The writer shd know that cow heads and even pig heads were thrown into Indian temoles and mosques by the Muslims themselves in Malaysia. Then churches were firebombed and even a Sikh temple was stoned by we all know who again.
Maybe Nurr you shd recommend your wonderful plans to the majority Muslims across the causeway.
I believe the government here is doing the right thing.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
The apparent collision between the contradictory circumstances between the Police and the ISD and the decision NOT to charge all give rise to speculation that
- the laws as enacted is self-contradictory in practice – one-man protest is criminal – a mob of law violators is excused of the law violations as not criminal of behavior – the consequences too big to contemplate????
- a lot of truth might have been hidden away in the decisions NOT to charge by both ISD and the Police in panic reactions
- there is confusion as to WHO the law is – is it the Police or ISD – and the Minister without fresh legislation to bring about clarity left this country in a confusion.
And finally we cannot have ISD and Police moving the law proceedings in courtroom in contradictory position of law interpretation of what is – one-man protest when mob violations are actually a COLLECTION OF “ONE-MAN PROTEST” OF many and indefinite count of “protesters” involving ONE CAUSE OR ONE ISSUE.
The law appears to be caught off-guard of consistency, application and fairness.
Maybe the one-man protest law should be rescinded.
THE LOGIC IS SIMPLE.
If you must arrest one-man protests, the law is even more compellingly obliged to arrest a whole mob of intentional or unintentional violators – willing or reluctantly of law application.
In Rony Tan’s fiasco, how to charge thousands of faithful followers and proving their guilt when all might IN THE COURTROOM OF EVIDENCE deny that ” I was laughing while Rony Tan was mocking another religion!”????
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Our dear Pastor Rony Tan from Lighthouse Church in the same ‘programme’ with the 3 Poly boys?
” In reply to media queries, Police confirmed Friday night that the boy “who started the Facebook group that stirred feelings of unhappiness and resentment against other races would be placed on a Guidance Programme”.
He may be given a police warning after satisfactorily completing the programme – run by the Ministry for Community Development, Youth and Sports – and, in that case, would not have any criminal record. ”
oooooooooooooo
Quote-
TODAY Newspaper February 13, 2010
>
> FACEBOOK TRIO NOT CHARGED
> ————————-
> SINGAPORE – The three youth arrested for posting racist comments on Facebook have been given a second chance.
>
> In reply to media queries, Police confirmed Friday night that the boy “who started the Facebook group that stirred feelings of unhappiness and resentment against other races would be placed on a Guidance Programme”. He may be given a police warning after satisfactorily completing the programme – run by the Ministry for Community Development, Youth and Sports – and, in that case, would not have any criminal record.
>
> The other two boys, who acted as the administrators to the Facebook page, have also been cautioned by the Police and will not have any record of criminal conviction.
>
> “In consideration that the youth had acted out of immaturity rather than malice, and in consultation with the Attorney-General’s Chambers, these actions were taken by Police,” said the Police. “The three boys have since apologised for their actions and the offensive online page and forum removed.”
>
> The trio, aged 17 and 18, were arrested on Jan 31. The Police said it still takes a serious view of acts that can threaten the social harmony here, including those done “behind a shroud of anonymity afforded by the Internet”. Zul Othman
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Our dear Pastor Rony Tan from Lighthouse Church in the same ‘programme’ with the 3 Poly boys?
” In reply to media queries, Police confirmed Friday night that the boy “who started the Facebook group that stirred feelings of unhappiness and resentment against other races would be placed on a Guidance Programme”.
He may be given a police warning after satisfactorily completing the programme – run by the Ministry for Community Development, Youth and Sports – and, in that case, would not have any criminal record. ”
[TODAY Newspaper February 13, 2010]
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Sinkapore on Sun, 14th Feb 2010 11:52 pm
You mentioned about “MORAL WAIVER principle” applicable. I am not aware of this but looking at the two words ” MORAL WAIVER”, I could imagine (correctly or incorrectly) the relevance of “MORAL” consideration which I think is open to abuse down the slippery road. Law itself is NOT quite moral.
Why????
If A is alleged to kill the mother of B and charged in court, should the judge pronounced A is guilty on moral grounds that a precious life of someone’s mother has been cruelly extinguished? The answer is DEFINITELY NO. The finding of guilt or otherwise, needs to prove beyond reasonable doubt that A is the assailant. It could be A is the informant, not the vanished killer, right? Law is law, moral is moral.
But there are compelling circumstances why a case might merit a waiver.
Consider this real life happening.
An Australian-born (citizen) Lebanese boy returning from war-torn Middle East after a 2-week vacation got this stupid question at Australian Immigration check-point – “Are you, Lebanese??” Very stupid question – his Lebanese name is on his passport and also his Lebanese ethnicity is disclosed therein. The stupid and lazy immigration officer did NOT check.
Offended of this racial slant and slur ( by the way, Lebanese has got NOT very good reputation in matters of criminal law history), the Lebanese kid retorted angrily – ” Must I put a bomb under your car to prove I am a Lebanese?”
WOW – those are very dangerous words of sedition at law. In criminal law extent, it is the same as some stupid people jokingly says I got a bomb in my luggage that it why it is so heavy – SURE YOU WILL BE CHARGED AND IMPRISONED FOR THREATENING TERRORISM!!!
The question is – do the law then charge the Lebanese kid for sedition?
If the answer is yes, they have to charge the Immigration Officer for Sedition as well in the line of duty.
Why???
The racial slant divide the community into fault-line of unproven criminality – all Australians are “super mortals” and Lebanese as “lesser mortal”. You cannot charge one party ( the Lebanese kid) without charging the other ( the Immigration Officer) who started the seditious utterance. And since nothing further happen from that angry exchange, the law cannot prove beyond reasonable doubt of “violent intent” in the Lebanese kid, it has no ground to pursue the charge and on those circumstances it is appropriate to apply the “moral waiver” if a formal complaint is lodged with the police.
The Briginshaw principle is worse than “moral waiver” – IT IS WHO THE DEFENDANT IS – not what crime is committed – that matters. This one is a slippery road to injustice at law because the more high profile the criminal, the more he or she cannot be pursued as EQUAL before the law. Briginshaw principle demand that a higher standard of evidence to prove the case successfully. THAT IS A DANGEROUS DEPARTURE FROM THE UNIVERSAL PRINCIPLE THAT EVERYONE IS EQUAL BEFORE THE LAW.
Now imagine, if I had a business dealing with you. I fouled up the contract. You are angry and sued me. Civil law applies in proceedings of contract law. To defeat your legitimate claims, I stir the pot with bigger SHIT by slugging into criminal law violation of all sorts imaginable – forging checks, giving cash cheques in pretense of peaceful settlement when the account already been closed by my banker for delinquent account( in law, that is criminal fraud), NOW YOU ARE TRAPPED!!!.
You cannot sue a criminal case against me in a civil proceeding where civil law is based on balance of probabilities and criminal law prosecution is on proven beyond reasonable doubt. You have to prove a criminal case inside a civil proceeding. In criminal proceedings, the police is the prosecuting party, you as the aggrieved party is the witness and I am the defendant. In civil law, your are the plaintiff and I am the defendant. IT IS VERY DIFFERENT.
The police might attempt to prove a criminal case, not the financial loss of your civil claims. So even winning the criminal case sent me to prison BUT DOES NOT ENABLE YOU TO GET YOUR CIVIL CLAIMS RIGHT OF COMPENSATION AND DAMAGES.
And since I am someone of high profile – and Briginshaw Principle require a higher standard of evidence – YOU ARE AT A DISADVANTAGE.!! And if the police decide NOT to prosecute me (also PROTECTED BY BRINGINSHAW principle) as they got bigger case to pursue in criminal law – YOU ARE IN DOUBLE JEOPARDY. You cannot fight the criminal law violation of mine and you cannot fight the civil case which build upon my criminal law violations,. HAHAHAHA, how do you win then when I trigger “Briginshaw’s higher standard of evidence rule?
Briginshaw principle favours crooks – the bigger the crook, the better is his or her chance of escape.
Where is moral and justice in that case??? You lost despite your merit of claims, I “won” ONLY BECAUSE I AM A BIGGEST CROOK IN TOWN!!!!
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
For a while I wondered if ISD is the religion mitigation office in Singapore. Valid points raised by Hurr Riyahi, is it due to the religion communities doing their own thing and not interacting with each other? As more and more people are ignorant of, or even worse, have the wrong set of values of the other religions, tension and conflicts will bound to surface again.
I would like to suggest a 100 million religion/racial integration fund and a religion/racial integration committee to be setup for Singaporeans. There are 9 main religions here locally, usually after a person is in one of the religion, he/she will rarely switch and thus be able to find out any information of other religions.
This religion/racial integration committee will organize joint events from different religions/race and visits of places of worship during festive seasons of the year. In this case the committee can organize talks so that the Christians can understand the teachings behind Buddhism, Taoism, Muslim, Hinduism etc and vice-versa. There are those who might gain more insight on their own religion if they happened to attended these kind of talks. One can even organize a debate between the religions in Singapore after some success. Smart people can think of more ideas than me.
Furthermore they will be tasked to resolve any conflicts that occurred between races and religions. So this Pastor Rony Tan’s case and the facebook case goes to them.
When we have sedition law in place and we still keep getting people who speaks against other religions and other races, that is very telling isn’t it?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
From the posts of the many who want the ISD (or police)to intervene and charge Pastor Rony, it shows that these people would be much happier in a country run by the PAP government.
That the leaders of the Taoists and Buddhists have accepted the apology of shows the true tolerance of Buddhism/Taoism.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
why can’t this case be handled by the police?
would this not show the need for ISD?
in other countries without ISD, does it mean no one can handle the case?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
you guys are amazing.
I would sleep better now , if our laws had provision for all mass religous meeting/preaching held in their weekly, monthly
gethering video record to be submitted for a committee( consisted of others faith members)/ISD review every quaterly.
ISD which operates in semi-secret style, represents the ultimate in Secular authority.
In my opinion, Singaporeans are quite happy with ISD intervention
I agree too that in this instance, ISD should had step in. Weather the action they have taken is the correct one, is a debate for another day.
. . .
may i suggest their official uniform includes a mask as well. like the stormtroopers in star wars. and they be allowed to throw any guy they buay “song” into the freezer for a long long time. but you guys are safe – they very “song” you.
these guys, however …
http://www.google.com.sg/search?hl=en&rlz=1C1CHMA_en-GBSG344SG345&q=%2B%22youtube.com%22+%2Bspeakers+%2B%22IMF-World+Bank%22+%2B2006&btnG=Search&meta=&aq=f&oq=
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
JW on Mon, 15th Feb 2010 8:19 am
“From the posts of the many who want the ISD (or police)to intervene and charge Pastor Rony, it shows that these people would be much happier in a country run by the PAP government.”
It is “STRETCHING OF IMAGINATION” the conclusion you arrived at in this thread. I believe Yew See Lee on Mon, 15th Feb 2010 8:28 am is correct.
Only one branch of law enforcement agency is needed and that is the Police for obvious reasons of the law NOT being caught off-guard of consistency, application and fairness.
As it was recently , the handling is like a crocodile fighting with a monkey
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IALJXP8LaS4&NR=1
NO POSITIVE ACHIEVED OUTCOME.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
The role of government in a democracy is to maintain the rule-of-law, security (both home and foreign). The smaller the government, the better it is for its citizens.
We accuse the PAP government of being a nanny state for its all-encompassing cradle-to-grave policies, and in a sense that is correct. However, the handling by the PAP government of the “Pastor Rony” saga is correct and sensible.
Many netizens are calling for Pastor Rony’s blood because they are politically motivated against the PAP. If the government says “left”, they will say “right”; if it says “up”, they will say “down”.
The suggestion “…if our laws had provision for all mass religous meeting/preaching held in their weekly, monthly
gethering video record to be submitted…for ISD review every quaterly….” shows that many are still tied to the umbilical cord of the PAP.
This practice is only done in Marxist North Korea, not in China nor even Russia.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
“We should not TRIVIALIZE other people’s RELIGION” is quite right. He meant well. However, is it ONLY about RELIGION??? … and …
1. US as ordinary or commoner citizens? Shouldn’t this be applied to EVERY Citizen? And shouldn’t Political leaders in government like him in The Executive, The Legislature and The Judiciary and other government agencies LEAD BY EXAMPLE FIRST!!!
2. That said, I remember that flamboyant and blunt old man once said on CNA that HE… “Does NOT believe THAT Either THE Koran OR THE Bible HAS THE LAST WORD ABOUT LIFE”.
3. So, has he DEMEANED and/or SLURRED Muslims AND Christians? Even though it is obviously a personal opinion… SHOULD HE have been so PROFUSELY Frank and “opulent” in his position and longstanding here of 50 years?
4. That said, WAS HE OFFENSIVE and somewhat “seditious” too??? BUT of course knowing where he comes from, his “off-the-cuff” opinion and remarks WON”t start a Rebellion FOR REASONS Well-Known to us.
So, ARE they then EXCEPTIONS to THE RULE OF LAW And CIVILITY by virtue of their HIGH-Office posts??? Are they EQUAL to US where THE LAW And CIVILITY IS CONCERN???
5. Although it is common knowledge that “To ERR is human” as NONE IS perfect, @Anonymous’ comments conjures up in my mind about ESPECIALLY How PERFECT MUST our Incumbent parliamentarian leaders MUST ‘LOOK’ TO BE? And I mean even when IT IS SO OBVIOUS that they are FALLIBLE too and definitely NOT. Are “Politically Charades” to look right and good so important in a claimed “1st-World” nation? Does CIVILITY need to rely on such falsehoods??? Like children playing Superman, Batman & Robin or also Robin Hood for example???
6. Thus, how many childish minds ARE there really living in ADULT bodies within our leadership proclaimed “Open and Inclusive Civil Society? When we CAN BE CALLED Sheep or Daft top down??? ARE WE REALLY CIVIC WHEN leaders speak to us in NON-CIVIC manners? THINK HARD about these things!!!
Since no man is an educated man unless behaves and communicate in EDUCATED AND CIVILIZED WAYS to ONE And ALL!!!
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Rony Tan followers and himself are , no offence , disgrace their
own religion and almost destroyed our country multi racial society of harmony and peace.
He thinks he knows all about Buddhist , Muslim and such , but
he knows nothing , when he insulted Buddhist , he did not see that [my religion] the religion had is just no one point of view
but it has many , in fact some of the original views in Buddhism
relates to physics , astrology and even more!
Basically , he is a moronic bas5tered with no life leading a group of stupid idiotic f-ing mor*ns and then spreading the
so called ” true ” , even kids my age at one glance could tell
he is a insulter , only people that cannot be BRAINWASHED
by him are sensible to see that he is a moronic idiot.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
@Anonymous, your arguement again is NOT without merits but you probably ‘misunderstood’ the MORAL WAIVER which I was referring to.
The MORAL WAIVER I mentioned is NOT a principle which is applicable in law as opposed to the Briginshaw principle. It is a practise adopted by those TOP in the system to ‘pardon and forgive’ those holding ‘connections and authority’ for a an offence they have committed BEFORE their case goes to trial.
A crude comparison between both would be this (as best as I can put it):
A Millionaire commits shopliftting of a $20 item and was charged in Court. Going by Briginshaw principle, the Judge would likely opined that since he is a millionaire, the act is unlikely to be intentional but committed out of his ‘inadvertedly forgotten to pay’, ie: since he is a millionaire and being rich, he is unlikely to have committed the offence intentionally, thus he was left off.
Under the MORAL WAIVER practice, whether he is guilty of the offence or not is irrelevant since the matter would not be brought to Court. The fact that he is a millionaire and is ‘well-connected’ suffice for those at the TOP to grant a MORAL WAIVER to NOT prosecute him, thus the ‘pardon and forgive’. There is NO QUESTION of application of law but rather the non application of law for MORAL WAIVER.
In any case, BOTH anchor on WHO THE DEFENDANT IS rather than WHAT THE OFFENCE is, that matters. And as you said, THAT IS A DANGEROUS DEPARTURE FROM THE UNIVERSAL PRINCIPLE THAT EVERYONE IS EQUAL BEFORE THE LAW which I cannot disagree.
In another reply, you mentioned ISD and the application contradiction in the enforcement of law between the Police and them. Your arguement again, is VALID IN LAW but unfortunately, the system DOESN’T work this way.
Allow me to start off by putting it on record that ISD is NOT a law enforcement agency, per se. The ISD and the Police are DIFFERENT in that the Police is an ACTIVE agency while ISD is slanted towards PASSIVE.
Legally speaking, the Police is actively seeking and looking for infringement in law, arresting the culprits and conducting investigation while the ISD acts only when INSTRUCTED or CALLED for. The ISD is basically an agency that deals with National Security while the Police deals with Local Laws and enforcing them.
Now the technical aspect. The Police is under he MHA (MHA being a stat board) and although ISD is answerable to the Millister for Home Affairs (and his permsec ONLY), the ISD is NOT under the MHA (functioning as a stat board) but the PMO, akin to the CPIB by comparison.
Finally the juicy and scarry part (if you are on the receiving end). The Police acts and function within the confines of applicable law but the ISD act based ONLY on INSTRUCTIONS from the TOP, no question of applicable law needed for ISD to detain anyone once instruction is passed and their (ISD) detention CANNOT BE challenged by ANYONE, not the AGC, not the Supreme Court.
CRUDELY PUT, the ISD is ‘above the law’ and even the SUPREME COURT of Sinkapore has NO jurisdiction over their action or inaction. Once a person is detained under ISA, even the Supreme Court CANNOT order a release of the detainee unless it is approved by those at the TOP giving the instructions.
Thus in your earlier reply, “And finally we cannot have ISD and Police moving the law proceedings in courtroom in contradictory position of law interpretation of what is ” is factually incorrect as the ISD will NEVER charge anyone in Court as opposed to the Police.
The ISD is all about detention without trial under INSTRUCTION from the TOP (ONLY) while the Police is all about applicable law. BOTH these agencies will NEVER been seen together in Court charging their ‘clients’.
Of course you can argue that the ISD is still about law and that ISD acts within the confines of the ISA but that is a different topic in a different league best save fro another day
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Sinkapore on Mon, 15th Feb 2010 5:27 pm
I enjoyed your in depth explanation of the diff betwe POLICE and ISD. Thanks. Very enlightening.
A minor point if I may add. The Police is not a Stat Board. It is a direct body under the MHA.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Sinkapore on Mon, 15th Feb 2010 5:27 pm
Thank you very much for your most illuminating explanation on the difference between the roles of ISD and the Police.
I agree with you now that.. my comment .” finally we cannot have ISD and Police moving the law proceedings in courtroom in contradictory position of law interpretation of what is ” is factually incorrect.
Thanks again for that CONSTRUCTIVE AND INFORMATIVE “correction”.
My mind was thinking of this possibility when I wrote that mistaken line.
If the police acted swiftly and charged the three polytechnic students in the court and AFTER THAT, the Rony Tan’s saga imploded right in the face of ISD. And if ISD “closed” the case in the manner they did, the process of law would be “moved” by the decisions of the ISD and Police BUT WHICH WOULD BE CLEARLY INEQUITABLE TO THE STUDENTS ACCUSED OF OFFENCE AND THE COURT STUCK WITH THE DILEMMA of IMPOSSIBLE embarrassment of “how to dispose the case” when in fact, no grounds exist to charge them in the first place.
You can’t charge the students who are NOT guilty by the police evidenced now disclosed of fact WHILE AT THE SAME TIME letting off a whole mob of law violators who by video evidence committed much more serious of offence AND IN COLLECTIVE CONCERT of breaking the “one-man protest law” in realities of proven evidence.
It would do terrible justice to convict the students and damaging to society’s confidence of the rule of law when “morale waiver” is selectively applied or the Briginshaw principle is silently applied to excuse and protect “WHO THE DEFENDANT” and considering nothing else as MSM would have us all to believe is the ideal outcome.
It would be diabolical and tyrannical of law enforcement in those circumstances – some would legitimately felt so.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
@Anonymous, I would agree that should the Police have acted swiftly and charged the 3 youth in court with the youth claiming trial and then only have the decision of the ISD (let Rony off) implode in the Judge’s face, how embaressing an incident and predicament the Judge would be putting himself into.
If that situation had existed, I would guess there are possibly 2 likely scenario if the gahment wants to portray itself a ‘fair and just’:
1. The AGC withdraws the charges.
2. The Judge rule an acquittal during the trial.
Anything other than the above is surely a travesty of justice not acceptable to anyone following the issue.
I am quite sure that if this did happen, those at the TOP would probably make a few phone calls to AGC to ensure that the embaressing situation ‘goes away’. It has happened in the past.
BTW, I just noticed that you mentioned the ‘one-man protest law’ being applicable in the Rony fiasco but I fail to see how applicable is this law in that situation?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Sinkapore on Tue, 16th Feb 2010 10:20 pm
……” ‘one-man protest law’ being applicable in the Rony fiasco but I fail to see how applicable….?
The relevance of “one-man” protest law?
It is what is known as “legislative intent” of that law i.e. what Parliament intends when it enacted that legislation. That was explained as to prevent /forestall the propagation of any particular CAUSE by any one person.
In other common law jurisdiction, I doubt it will get pass the first legislative hearing because it offends the unspoken implied constitutional rights of political communication of one thoughts, be this thought political in nature or otherwise. Writing history like MIW is expression of that political cause of telling past event and if the law wants to punish anyone for publishing “history”, it can invoke or trigger the “one man” protest law.
The ambit of this “one-man protest law” is very wide and discretionary , almost tyrannical of selective application. You look at practical realities, some one handling out the literature propagating his/her preferred religion to the disgust of another offends that law. There had been convicted cases. But you get people evangelising in groups approaching strangers starting with a friendly greeting and then the “superiority” of a certain religious belief.
Is that NOT violation of “one-man protest” law by individuals involved if the person so approached find the evangelism of another religion offensive to his/her divine preference – SINGLY AND COLLECTIVELY AS A GROUP??
Likewise, a facebook can individual propagation of a cause – which can be religious or any other cause. And if that offends the Racial Harmony Act, one can be charge if proven beyond reasonable doubt. And in a congregation worship, a preacher demonising another religion would offend the racial harmony legislation of propagating a cause of his/her preferred religion. Right??
And what is the relevance of that to the congregation? It would be of no relevance IF NO ONE IN THE CONGREGATION PARTICIPATE IN THAT DEMONSING OF RELIGION OF OTHERS. That is to say, they were oblivious and totally in ignorance of the offensive utterance of the offending preacher – either by all LITERALLY AND PHYSICALLY felling asleep or they all collectively in unison and without exception booing him or her off the stage.
In the Rony Tan’s fiasco, there were video evidence of collective laughter at his mocking of other divine. Now that is damming evidence of the congregation’s participation in the incitement of racial disharmony both individually and in collective encourage of one another. INDIVIDUALLY, they incite racial disharmony by their conduct. Anyone of those who religion was mocked witnessing the occurences would be very offended.
Viewed in context of public behavior, each of them in the congregation laughing in mock of other religions can be charged for violation of the racial harmoney legislation in exactly the same way as if you join a gang fight against another race for “rioting” – not just a fight between two person. View in perspective, each of those laughing and mocking at another religion is INDIVIDUALLY can be said to be violating the “one-man” protest law propagating a particular cause of his/her preferred religion.
Question is – do the law charge each of them for violating the one-man protest law befiting the “legislative intent” of that law. If you do, then you practically charge the whole congregation. But how to prove the case “beyond reasonable doubt” in evidence in the court-room? Nearly and practically IMPOSSIBLE. All will deny this and they would assert that “I was NOT laughing or mocking or other uttering offensive comments about other religion is hypocritical or deviant of God-like behavour when such mocking occasioned by the preacher.
So what is the result?
The result is an anomalous situation. If you carry a big poster card condemning another religion on the street, you will be immediately arrested, charged and convicted of crime under “one-man” protest rule DESPITE YOUR CONSTITUTIONALLY PROTECTED RIGHT OF POLITICAL COMMUNICATION. But in the RT fiasco, there could be thousands of INDIVIDUALLY within a whole congregation of similar violators, ESCAPED THE RULE OF LAW if they are NOT arrested, charge and convicted as well.
The “one-man” protest law application of its “legislative intent” is mistaken and misinformed of justice in practical reality.
It is EMBARASSSING of real injustice inflicted upon you exclusively or is it NOT?
It, in my opinion, should be rescinded because the law, if applied , oppress the individual BUT MOB BEHAVIOUR oppress the fair justice of this law as was designed of that “legislative intent”.
It is my view that if “one-man” protest offends the law, there is a BIGGER COMPELLING REASON TO APPLY THE SAME TO MOB BEHAVIOUR where the conduct involved instigates risks and damage to society is FAR MORE DAMAGING AND EXPANDING OF CONSEQUENCES. THEY INFLAMED MOB BEHAVIOUR . The logic is is a bit similar to the common law doctrine of conspiracy to defraud. For that to happen, the offending party must decieve the mind of the victim and the victim must react in some manner to prejudice his /her rights or interest. Both elements of “deception” (first limb) and “reaction” (second limb) must occur to prove “conspiracy to defraud” charge. NO fraud is proven until the victim suffered some loss. The One man protest rule – propagating of a cause gets you into big trouble with with the law. NOW THAT IS ONLY ONE LIMB OF THE LAW and despite the possibility that everyone seeing you ignored you as a “nut head “ case of irrelevance. But when incitement “reaction” took place EVIDENCING THE SECOND LIMB OF THE LAW violated as well (when the congregation roared repeatedly in laugher in response to the preacher’s propagation – in effect propogating their faith is superior in agreement with the preacher), NO OFFENCE OF LAW TAKES PLACE????
IF IT IS SO, then the application of the common law doctrine of conspiracy to defraud OVER A CENTURY must be PERVERTED IN THAT CASE!!!!!
People will ask – Is the one-man protest law NOT mistaken and/or misinformed of justice or even hypocritical of outcome??
Like or Dislike:
0 
0