"University politics are vicious precisely because the stakes are so small." - Henry Kissinger
***
The verdict in the latest Sedition trial is out: Ong Kian Cheong and Dorothy Chan Hien Leng are guilty.
While the verdict was never in any doubt (as with Defamation cases, when it comes to Race and Religion there is only ever one possible verdict in Singapore), perhaps the arguments raised will influence the quantum of sentencing.
Meanwhile, there're some interesting takeaways on discussing religion in the public sphere in Singapore coming from the cross-examination of Mr A.R. Madeei, the MDA's senior assistant director (publications). In his attempt to expose the paradoxes and contradictions of Singapore's allergy towards discussion of racial and religious issues, the couple's lawyer got Mr Madeei to lay out some principles by which religious discussion would be legal and acceptable, as it would not deal with matters of religion in such a manner likely to cause feelings of enmity, hatred, ill-will or hostility.
The material must be:
- untargeted: not directed specifically at groups
- not easily accessible: cartoon tracts (and presumably also videos) are more accessible than books
- containing words rather than pictures
- not easily understood by the "young and vulnerable": once again obscurantism proves its utility
- containing different points of view and arguments
- contextual
- allowing room for debate
Since excerpts from Christopher Hitchens's God Is Not Great, Sam Harris's The End Of Faith, Dan Brown's The Da Vinci Code and Richard Dawkin's The God Delusion were read out and cleared in court, it would seem that material in a similar vein which deals with religious matters is also kosher.
Doubtless the full legal transcripts will shed more light on this matter, including the reply (if any) to Irwan Ariffin's opinion that "one should not criticise or condemn another religion". Presumably he is shocked and disgusted by MDA's opinion that contextual criticism of religion that allows room for debate is permissible.