• Home
  • About RSIS
    • Introduction
    • Building the Foundations
    • Welcome Message
    • Board of Governors
    • Staff Profiles
      • Executive Deputy Chairman’s Office
      • Dean’s Office
      • Management
      • Distinguished Fellows
      • Faculty and Research
      • Associate Research Fellows, Senior Analysts and Research Analysts
      • Visiting Fellows
      • Adjunct Fellows
      • Administrative Staff
    • Honours and Awards for RSIS Staff and Students
    • RSIS Endowment Fund
    • Endowed Professorships
    • Career Opportunities
    • Getting to RSIS
  • Research
    • Research Centres
      • Centre for Multilateralism Studies (CMS)
      • Centre for Non-Traditional Security Studies (NTS Centre)
      • Centre of Excellence for National Security (CENS)
      • Institute of Defence and Strategic Studies (IDSS)
      • International Centre for Political Violence and Terrorism Research (ICPVTR)
    • Research Programmes
      • National Security Studies Programme (NSSP)
      • Studies in Inter-Religious Relations in Plural Societies (SRP) Programme
    • Future Issues and Technology Cluster
    • [email protected] Newsletter
    • Other Research
      • Science and Technology Studies Programme (STSP) (2017-2020)
  • Graduate Education
    • Graduate Programmes Office
    • Overview
    • MSc (Asian Studies)
    • MSc (International Political Economy)
    • MSc (International Relations)
    • MSc (Strategic Studies)
    • NTU-Warwick Double Masters Programme
    • PhD Programme
    • Exchange Partners and Programmes
    • How to Apply
    • Financial Assistance
    • Meet the Admissions Team: Information Sessions and other events
    • RSIS Alumni
  • Alumni & Networks
    • Alumni
    • Asia-Pacific Programme for Senior Military Officers (APPSMO)
    • Asia-Pacific Programme for Senior National Security Officers (APPSNO)
    • International Strategy Forum-Asia (ISF-Asia)
    • SRP Executive Programme
    • Terrorism Analyst Training Course (TATC)
  • Publications
    • RSIS Publications
      • Annual Reviews
      • Books
      • Bulletins and Newsletters
      • Commentaries
      • Counter Terrorist Trends and Analyses
      • Commemorative / Event Reports
      • IDSS Paper
      • Interreligious Relations
      • Monographs
      • NTS Insight
      • Policy Reports
      • Working Papers
      • RSIS Publications for the Year
    • Glossary of Abbreviations
    • External Publications
      • Authored Books
      • Journal Articles
      • Edited Books
      • Chapters in Edited Books
      • Policy Reports
      • Working Papers
      • Op-Eds
      • External Publications for the Year
    • Policy-relevant Articles Given RSIS Award
  • Media
    • Great Powers
    • Sustainable Security
    • Other Resource Pages
    • Media Highlights
    • News Releases
    • Speeches
    • Vidcast Channel
    • Audio/Video Forums
  • Events
  • Giving
  • Contact Us
Facebook
Twitter
YouTube
RSISVideoCast RSISVideoCast rsis.sg
Linkedin
instagram instagram rsis.sg
RSS
  • Home
  • About RSIS
      • Introduction
      • Building the Foundations
      • Welcome Message
      • Board of Governors
      • Staff Profiles
        • Executive Deputy Chairman’s Office
        • Dean’s Office
        • Management
        • Distinguished Fellows
        • Faculty and Research
        • Associate Research Fellows, Senior Analysts and Research Analysts
        • Visiting Fellows
        • Adjunct Fellows
        • Administrative Staff
      • Honours and Awards for RSIS Staff and Students
      • RSIS Endowment Fund
      • Endowed Professorships
      • Career Opportunities
      • Getting to RSIS
  • Research
      • Research Centres
        • Centre for Multilateralism Studies (CMS)
        • Centre for Non-Traditional Security Studies (NTS Centre)
        • Centre of Excellence for National Security (CENS)
        • Institute of Defence and Strategic Studies (IDSS)
        • International Centre for Political Violence and Terrorism Research (ICPVTR)
      • Research Programmes
        • National Security Studies Programme (NSSP)
        • Studies in Inter-Religious Relations in Plural Societies (SRP) Programme
      • Future Issues and Technology Cluster
      • [email protected] Newsletter
      • Other Research
        • Science and Technology Studies Programme (STSP) (2017-2020)
  • Graduate Education
      • Graduate Programmes Office
      • Overview
      • MSc (Asian Studies)
      • MSc (International Political Economy)
      • MSc (International Relations)
      • MSc (Strategic Studies)
      • NTU-Warwick Double Masters Programme
      • PhD Programme
      • Exchange Partners and Programmes
      • How to Apply
      • Financial Assistance
      • Meet the Admissions Team: Information Sessions and other events
      • RSIS Alumni
  • Alumni & Networks
      • Alumni
      • Asia-Pacific Programme for Senior Military Officers (APPSMO)
      • Asia-Pacific Programme for Senior National Security Officers (APPSNO)
      • International Strategy Forum-Asia (ISF-Asia)
      • SRP Executive Programme
      • Terrorism Analyst Training Course (TATC)
  • Publications
      • RSIS Publications
        • Annual Reviews
        • Books
        • Bulletins and Newsletters
        • Commentaries
        • Counter Terrorist Trends and Analyses
        • Commemorative / Event Reports
        • IDSS Paper
        • Interreligious Relations
        • Monographs
        • NTS Insight
        • Policy Reports
        • Working Papers
        • RSIS Publications for the Year
      • Glossary of Abbreviations
      • External Publications
        • Authored Books
        • Journal Articles
        • Edited Books
        • Chapters in Edited Books
        • Policy Reports
        • Working Papers
        • Op-Eds
        • External Publications for the Year
      • Policy-relevant Articles Given RSIS Award
  • Media
      • Great Powers
      • Sustainable Security
      • Other Resource Pages
      • Media Highlights
      • News Releases
      • Speeches
      • Vidcast Channel
      • Audio/Video Forums
  • Events
  • Giving
  • Contact Us
  • instagram instagram rsis.sg
Connect

Getting to RSIS

Map

Address

Nanyang Technological University
Block S4, Level B3,
50 Nanyang Avenue,
Singapore 639798

View location on Google maps Click here for directions to RSIS

Get in Touch

    Connect with Us

      rsis.ntu
      rsis_ntu
      rsisntu
    RSISVideoCast RSISVideoCast rsisvideocast
      school/rsis-ntu
    instagram instagram rsis.sg
      RSS
    Subscribe to RSIS Publications
    Subscribe to RSIS Events

    RSIS Intranet

    S. Rajaratnam School of International Studies Think Tank and Graduate School Ponder The Improbable Since 1966
    Nanyang Technological University Nanyang Technological University

    Skip to content

     
    • RSIS
    • Publication
    • RSIS Publications
    • CO10026 | Three Youths and a Pastor: A Deconstruction of the Current Debate
    • Annual Reviews
    • Books
    • Bulletins and Newsletters
    • Commentaries
    • Counter Terrorist Trends and Analyses
    • Commemorative / Event Reports
    • IDSS Paper
    • Interreligious Relations
    • Monographs
    • NTS Insight
    • Policy Reports
    • Working Papers
    • RSIS Publications for the Year

    CO10026 | Three Youths and a Pastor: A Deconstruction of the Current Debate

    04 March 2010

    download pdf
    RSIS Commentary is a platform to provide timely and, where appropriate, policy-relevant commentary and analysis of topical and contemporary issues. The authors’ views are their own and do not represent the official position of the S. Rajaratnam School of International Studies (RSIS), NTU. These commentaries may be reproduced with prior permission from RSIS and due credit to the author(s) and RSIS. Please email to Editor RSIS Commentary at [email protected].

    Commentary

    Racial and religious stability are pillars of Singaporean society. A threat to either should be dealt with swiftly, with a clear appreciation of the public perception and potential consequences involved.

    TWO RECENTS incidents in Singapore brought to the forefront the island nation’s strict monitoring of potential threats to its delicate racial and religious balance. The first involved postings on the popular social networking site Facebook. On 31 January, three youths were arrested under the Sedition Act for allegedly posting racist comments against Indians. The second incident involved a religious figure. Pastor Rony Tan of the Lighthouse Evangelism Church was featured in several clips on YouTube deriding the Buddhist and Taoist faith. He was called up and questioned by the Internal Security Department (ISD) after which he posted an apology on his website and apologised in person to Buddhists and Taoists leaders.

    While the three youths were arrested under existing criminal legislation by the police, Pastor Tan received nothing more than a reprimand from the ISD. According to press reports, this has led to questions being raised from certain quarters regarding the severity of the official response faced by the three youths compared to Pastor Tan. While both cases have since been resolved by the authorities, the perception that Pastor Tan has gotten off lightly compared to the youths is potentially damaging to the government’s ongoing efforts in heightening awareness of the country’s religious and racial sensibilities. In dealing with this, there is a need to appreciate the balance between managing perceptions and potential consequences.

    A “Tendentious Contest”

    Both incidents were viewed seriously by the government for their potential to disrupt the country’s otherwise stable race and religious relations. An editorial published on 11 February in The Straits Times drove home the point that public calm and cohesiveness could potentially be undermined “if religion were turned into a tendentious contest”. However, the official response to both incidents had the unintended consequence of creating another “tendentious contest”: public opinion is now divided over whether the official reaction to Pastor Tan’s transgressions was severe enough compared with the treatment meted out to the three youths.

    The rumblings were strong enough to elicit a response from Deputy Prime Minister and Home Affairs Minister Wong Kan Seng. In his response, DPM Wong pointed to the fact that being hauled up by the ISD is no less serious than being investigated by the police. He noted that “the bottom line in such cases is that we must ensure that the OB (out-of-bounds) markers are clear and that transgressions are dealt with in a balanced and professional manner”.

    One explanation for the difference in approach was that a complaint was made to the police regarding the Facebook incident which warranted an investigation under existing criminal laws. The result was that the youths were investigated under the Sedition Act which was recently invoked for offences with the potential to cause racial and religious unrest. In 2005, two bloggers were convicted and given jail sentences for posting anti-Malay and anti-Muslim comments while a third was given a probationary sentence of 24 months.

    The Sedition Act was again used in 2009 against a Christian couple for possessing and distributing seditious publications with the potential of affecting racial and religious harmony. The fact that there is legislative strength behind the investigation on the three youths, which carries with it a potential jail sentence, cannot but underscore the seriousness of the official response to their actions.

    In contrast, the ISD appeared to have dealt with Pastor Tan directly, stopping at the issuance of a reprimand against him. The distinction however is now superfluous given the fact that the youths will now not be charged. The youth who started the Facebook group was placed under the Ministry of Community Development, Youth and Sports’ Guidance Programme while the other two were cautioned by the police.

    It is however the pastor’s status as head of a church which seems to have garnered comments that he should be made more accountable for his actions. A Straits Times article dated 10 February noted that many on and offline have argued that the pastor “reaches more hearts and minds than the three teenagers who posted their comments on Facebook”.

    Perception versus Pragmatism

    Perception does matter when it involves racial and religious issues. Both are long seen as keys to maintaining a cohesive society. So far, in dealing with both incidents, the government’s stated objective of setting “out-of-bound” markers has been achieved. There is no doubt that the public has been made aware of what the transgressions are and the fact that the authorities would not tolerate such misbehaviour.

    While the objective might have been met, the perception still lingers that the seriousness of the pastor’s actions has not been matched with the official response taken given his position as head of a church. Is this important? Yes, if this in any way affects or influences public perception of the government’s efforts in maintain religious harmony.

    However, at the same time the government needs to take into account the consequences of proceeding with further action against the pastor. If the matter were to be pursued by, for example, arresting and filing charges against the pastor and bringing the matter to court, the ensuing publicity may be sensational. The fact that the pastor is an influential figure would be a disadvantage in this scenario. Can the country afford this type of publicity? Given present-day sensitivities, the answer is rather obvious: allowing the issue to ferment in a court of law may cause more damage than just allowing time to dispel the details.

    Thus, the trick is in striking a balance between managing perceptions and potential consequences. Ultimately however, a choice has to be made as to which is more important in maintaining religious harmony and social cohesion in the country.

    About the Author

    Yeap Su Yin is Associate Research Fellow at the S. Rajaratnam School of International Studies (RSIS), Nanyang Technological University where she is with the Centre of Excellence for National Security (CENS). She conducts research on matters concerning social cohesion. 

    Categories: Commentaries / Singapore and Homeland Security / Southeast Asia and ASEAN

    Last updated on 10/10/2014

    RSIS Commentary is a platform to provide timely and, where appropriate, policy-relevant commentary and analysis of topical and contemporary issues. The authors’ views are their own and do not represent the official position of the S. Rajaratnam School of International Studies (RSIS), NTU. These commentaries may be reproduced with prior permission from RSIS and due credit to the author(s) and RSIS. Please email to Editor RSIS Commentary at [email protected].

    Commentary

    Racial and religious stability are pillars of Singaporean society. A threat to either should be dealt with swiftly, with a clear appreciation of the public perception and potential consequences involved.

    TWO RECENTS incidents in Singapore brought to the forefront the island nation’s strict monitoring of potential threats to its delicate racial and religious balance. The first involved postings on the popular social networking site Facebook. On 31 January, three youths were arrested under the Sedition Act for allegedly posting racist comments against Indians. The second incident involved a religious figure. Pastor Rony Tan of the Lighthouse Evangelism Church was featured in several clips on YouTube deriding the Buddhist and Taoist faith. He was called up and questioned by the Internal Security Department (ISD) after which he posted an apology on his website and apologised in person to Buddhists and Taoists leaders.

    While the three youths were arrested under existing criminal legislation by the police, Pastor Tan received nothing more than a reprimand from the ISD. According to press reports, this has led to questions being raised from certain quarters regarding the severity of the official response faced by the three youths compared to Pastor Tan. While both cases have since been resolved by the authorities, the perception that Pastor Tan has gotten off lightly compared to the youths is potentially damaging to the government’s ongoing efforts in heightening awareness of the country’s religious and racial sensibilities. In dealing with this, there is a need to appreciate the balance between managing perceptions and potential consequences.

    A “Tendentious Contest”

    Both incidents were viewed seriously by the government for their potential to disrupt the country’s otherwise stable race and religious relations. An editorial published on 11 February in The Straits Times drove home the point that public calm and cohesiveness could potentially be undermined “if religion were turned into a tendentious contest”. However, the official response to both incidents had the unintended consequence of creating another “tendentious contest”: public opinion is now divided over whether the official reaction to Pastor Tan’s transgressions was severe enough compared with the treatment meted out to the three youths.

    The rumblings were strong enough to elicit a response from Deputy Prime Minister and Home Affairs Minister Wong Kan Seng. In his response, DPM Wong pointed to the fact that being hauled up by the ISD is no less serious than being investigated by the police. He noted that “the bottom line in such cases is that we must ensure that the OB (out-of-bounds) markers are clear and that transgressions are dealt with in a balanced and professional manner”.

    One explanation for the difference in approach was that a complaint was made to the police regarding the Facebook incident which warranted an investigation under existing criminal laws. The result was that the youths were investigated under the Sedition Act which was recently invoked for offences with the potential to cause racial and religious unrest. In 2005, two bloggers were convicted and given jail sentences for posting anti-Malay and anti-Muslim comments while a third was given a probationary sentence of 24 months.

    The Sedition Act was again used in 2009 against a Christian couple for possessing and distributing seditious publications with the potential of affecting racial and religious harmony. The fact that there is legislative strength behind the investigation on the three youths, which carries with it a potential jail sentence, cannot but underscore the seriousness of the official response to their actions.

    In contrast, the ISD appeared to have dealt with Pastor Tan directly, stopping at the issuance of a reprimand against him. The distinction however is now superfluous given the fact that the youths will now not be charged. The youth who started the Facebook group was placed under the Ministry of Community Development, Youth and Sports’ Guidance Programme while the other two were cautioned by the police.

    It is however the pastor’s status as head of a church which seems to have garnered comments that he should be made more accountable for his actions. A Straits Times article dated 10 February noted that many on and offline have argued that the pastor “reaches more hearts and minds than the three teenagers who posted their comments on Facebook”.

    Perception versus Pragmatism

    Perception does matter when it involves racial and religious issues. Both are long seen as keys to maintaining a cohesive society. So far, in dealing with both incidents, the government’s stated objective of setting “out-of-bound” markers has been achieved. There is no doubt that the public has been made aware of what the transgressions are and the fact that the authorities would not tolerate such misbehaviour.

    While the objective might have been met, the perception still lingers that the seriousness of the pastor’s actions has not been matched with the official response taken given his position as head of a church. Is this important? Yes, if this in any way affects or influences public perception of the government’s efforts in maintain religious harmony.

    However, at the same time the government needs to take into account the consequences of proceeding with further action against the pastor. If the matter were to be pursued by, for example, arresting and filing charges against the pastor and bringing the matter to court, the ensuing publicity may be sensational. The fact that the pastor is an influential figure would be a disadvantage in this scenario. Can the country afford this type of publicity? Given present-day sensitivities, the answer is rather obvious: allowing the issue to ferment in a court of law may cause more damage than just allowing time to dispel the details.

    Thus, the trick is in striking a balance between managing perceptions and potential consequences. Ultimately however, a choice has to be made as to which is more important in maintaining religious harmony and social cohesion in the country.

    About the Author

    Yeap Su Yin is Associate Research Fellow at the S. Rajaratnam School of International Studies (RSIS), Nanyang Technological University where she is with the Centre of Excellence for National Security (CENS). She conducts research on matters concerning social cohesion. 

    Categories: Commentaries / Singapore and Homeland Security

    Last updated on 10/10/2014

    Back to top

    Terms of Use | Privacy Statement
    Copyright © S. Rajaratnam School of International Studies. All rights reserved.
    This site uses cookies to offer you a better browsing experience. By continuing, you are agreeing to the use of cookies on your device as described in our privacy policy. Learn more
    OK
    Latest Book
    more info