Penal Code: Proposed changes 'relevant and compassionate'

"The National Council of Churches of Singapore (NCCS) is of the view that generally speaking, the proposed amendments to the Penal Code (PC) are relevant, timely, compassionate and appear well thought through.

In presenting this feedback, the NCCS is mindful of the role of governing authorities and the Scriptural injunction to Christians on their attitude towards the higher powers (Romans 13:1)...

"'(a) the proposed section 298A PC ("Promoting enmity between different groups on ground of religion or race, and doing acts prejudicial to maintenance of harmony"). An issue that arises for consideration (quite apart from the legal issue of what is the mens rea [i.e. blameworthy state of mind] involved in this intended offence) is what scenarios are envisaged by the Government as constituting: -
(i) words/signs/visible representations that "[promote] disharmony or feelings of enmity, hatred or ill-will between different religious … groups or communities" or
(ii) acts that are "prejudicial to the maintenance of harmony between different religious … groups or communities … which disturbs or is likely to disturb the public tranquillity"

The deeper or underlying issue is how these intended PC offences correlate with fundamental rights enshrined in Article 15(1) of the Constitution safeguarding the freedom of religion (i.e. the right to profess, practise and propagate one's religion). Will a Christian who shares his/her faith to a non-Christian trigger off the commission of a criminal offence under this section? This issue may not be unique to Christians alone. It may also impact on devotees of other "missionary" religions such as Islam.

Other examples come to mind. If a Christian narrates his testimony of conversion in his web log or personal website and makes reference to how he failed to find fulfilment and meaning in his former religion and only found the same in Christ, could that constitute promoting disharmony or feelings of ill-will (even if it does not meet the conceivably higher threshold of promoting enmity or hatred) between different religious groups/communities?

Assuming that we have a situation of a Muslim convert that wishes to be baptised in a local church … could the act of baptism performed by the pastor be prejudicial to the maintenance of religious harmony and likely to disturb the public tranquillity?

In this regard, it is interesting to note that the language in the proposed section 298A PC is similar to section 8(1) of the Maintenance of Religious Harmony Act (Cap 167A) ("MRHA"). That section allows the Government to make a restraining order against religious leaders where the Minister is satisfied that that person has committed/is attempting to commit acts that cause "feelings of enmity, hatred, ill-will or hostility between different religious groups". As far as we know, no restraining order has been made under the MRHA since that legislation was enacted. However, the present statutory changes envisaged to the PC elevate the commission of such acts to a criminal offence. The danger with this is the possible subjectivity and arbitrariness of the judgment which may be made about which acts transgress the boundaries and which do not. The uncertainty is unsatisfactory.

To remedy the same, one view is that the Government should insert some illustrations and explanatory notes to this statutory provision to clarify what constitutes an offence under this new section and what does not. This approach adheres to the scheme of the PC as originally codified. This will enable the parameters of the criminal offence concerned to be spelt out clearly."

***

In presenting this feedback, we are mindful of the role of non-Christians and the Scriptural injunction to Christians on their attitude towards those who offend them (Matthew 5:38-44)...

"'(a) the proposed section 298A PC ("Promoting enmity between different groups on ground of religion or race, and doing acts prejudicial to maintenance of harmony"). An issue that arises for consideration (quite apart from the legal issue of what is the mens rea [i.e. blameworthy state of mind] involved in this intended offence) is what scenarios are envisaged by the Government as constituting: -
(i) words/signs/visible representations that "[promote] disharmony or feelings of enmity, hatred or ill-will between different religious … groups or communities" or
(ii) acts that are "prejudicial to the maintenance of harmony between different religious … groups or communities … which disturbs or is likely to disturb the public tranquillity"

The deeper or underlying issue is how these intended PC offences correlate with fundamental rights enshrined in Article 15(1) of the Constitution safeguarding the freedom of religion (i.e. the right to profess, practise and propagate one's religion [or lack thereof]). Will a non-Christian who shares the reasons for his/her lack of faith to a Christian trigger off the commission of a criminal offence under this section? This issue may not be unique to non-Christians alone. It may also impact on non-adherents of other religions such as Islam.

Other examples come to mind. If a non-Christian narrates his testimony of deconversion in his web log or personal website and makes reference to how he failed to find fulfilment and meaning in his former religion, could that constitute promoting disharmony or feelings of ill-will (even if it does not meet the conceivably higher threshold of promoting enmity or hatred) between different religious groups/communities?

"Our Western politicians avoid mentioning the R word (religion), and instead characterize their battle as a war against 'terror', as though terror were a kind of spirit or force, with a will and a mind of its own. Or they characterize terrorists as motivated by pure 'evil'. But they are not motivated by evil. However misguided we may think them, they are motivated, like the Christian murderers of abortion doctors, by what they perceive to be righteousness, faithfully pursuing what their religion tells them. They are not psychotic; they are religious idealists who, by their own lights, are rational. They perceive their acts to be good, not because of some warped personal idiosyncrasy, and not because they have been possessed by Satan, but because they have been brought up, from the cradle, to have total and unquestioning faith."

"And it shall come to pass, that every soul, which will not hear that prophet, shall be destroyed from among the people."

"The Bible did not arrive by fax from heaven"

"As for the Disbelievers, Whether thou warn them or thou warn them not it is all one for them; they believe not. Allah hath sealed their hearing and their hearts, and on their eyes there is a covering. Theirs will be an awful doom."

"The usual fawning praise was then heaped upon their god. They talked about praise for nations, despite the fact that the world is ridden with grief, conflict and strife. Their raising of funds for a van for Sri Lanka was then highlighted, and their god then praised, despite not only not having contributed to the relief effort, but allowing the problem to happen in the first place through its negligence. Well done!"

Would such lines be considered to "[promote] disharmony or feelings of enmity, hatred or ill-will between different religious … groups or communities"? For then we would have to ban not only The God Delusion, the Da Vinci Code and a popular Singaporean blog, but the Bible and the Koran too.

In this regard, it is interesting to note that the language in the proposed section 298A PC is similar to section 8(1) of the Maintenance of Religious Harmony Act (Cap 167A) ("MRHA"). That section allows the Government to make a restraining order against religious leaders where the Minister is satisfied that that person has committed/is attempting to commit acts that cause "feelings of enmity, hatred, ill-will or hostility between different religious groups". As far as we know, no restraining order has been made under the MRHA since that legislation was enacted. However, the present statutory changes envisaged to the PC elevate the commission of such acts to a criminal offence. The danger with this is the possible subjectivity and arbitrariness of the judgment which may be made about which acts transgress the boundaries and which do not. The uncertainty is unsatisfactory.

To remedy the same, one view is that the Government should insert some illustrations and explanatory notes to this statutory provision to clarify what constitutes an offence under this new section and what does not. This approach adheres to the scheme of the PC as originally codified. This will enable the parameters of the criminal offence concerned to be spelt out clearly."