Feb 12, 2010
Netizens the new vigilante citizenry
Cyberspace influenced the authorities' thinking in handling Pastor Tan
By Rachel Chang
http://www.straitstimes.com/PrimeNews/Story/STIStory_489552.html
WHEN the now infamous video clips of Pastor Rony Tan and two former Buddhists were first uploaded on his church's website two weeks ago, it seemed a routine act. After all, clips of his sermons and church services had been regularly uploaded on the website of the Lighthouse Evangelism church before.
But as Pastor Tan has since realised, the sound and fury of cyberspace cannot be underestimated - or contained. Singapore's online community has again demonstrated its ability to disseminate information almost instantaneously. And it seems to have taken up the mantle of vigilantism as well. It effectively put Pastor Tan in the dock - and assumed the role of prosecutor, judge and jury.
In fact, the incident 'reflects the fact that the cyberspace community can self-regulate to some extent', political observer Eugene Tan of the Singapore Management University (SMU) noted. The question now is whether vigilant netizens will accept the way the Government handled the incident.
First, a quick recap of the sequence of events: On Feb 3, a netizen posted the clips on the fuckwarezone online forum, noting that the pastor's views were 'interesting'.
Within 10 minutes, three others replied. The third, 'arcturuz', proved to be prescient: 'Making fun of Buddhism... ask the ISD to investigate this church?'
Other netizens made other suggestions: 'report to the authorities', 'call the police', even 'call SPH' (the Singapore Press Holdings, which owns The Straits Times and a stable of other newspapers). One netizen posted a link to the Singapore Police Force's 'Electronic Police Centre', a site where citizens can report lost property and crimes that do not require immediate action.
On Feb 8, the Government announced that the Internal Security Department (ISD) had indeed hauled up Pastor Tan. It is not clear if the authorities had been alerted to his remarks as a result of the online furore. It is likely the ISD was monitoring the situation.
But one thing is obvious: Cyberspace influenced the authorities' thinking in the way Pastor Tan was handled.
Many - both online and off - have pointed out that remarks disparaging other religions are not rare. But such comments are usually made off-the-cuff.
It is clear Pastor Tan did not realise the inappropriateness of his remarks. He also certainly did not realise that in uploading the videos on his website, his church was casting his comments into the World Wide (public) Web that is the Internet.
In cyberspace, there is no clear line between what is private and public. As the SMU's Dr Tan noted, in having the video clips uploaded, Pastor Tan had unwittingly 'subjected himself to the online community'.
As a result, the authorities could not deal with the situation in the quiet way that they might have preferred. The role the Internet played in Pastor Tan's case meant that something that previously may have been dealt with in private, had now become public, said research fellow Azhar Ghani of the Institute of Policy Studies. Hence, the Home Affairs Ministry's public acknowledgement of the ISD's intervention.
The chain of events shows how cyberspace has again democratised the detection of rule-breaking.
The Government's message from Deputy Prime Minister Wong Kan Seng was that Pastor Tan had apologised; that the leaders of the religions he disparaged had accepted his apology; and that he should be allowed to put the incident behind him, with the knowledge that he cannot trespass again.
The Government also reminded everyone that mutual respect, tolerance and restraint were critical for peace and harmony here - and warned that propagating any particular religion should never be done by insulting or denigrating other religions.
Yet there are netizens who are dissatisfied with this state of affairs. They seem unwilling to accept that Pastor Tan will not be arrested under the Sedition Act. Their argument: Pastor Tan's pulpit reaches a 12,000-strong 'megachurch'. And since his views are influential, he should be punished more severely than the three youths who are being investigated by the police for sedition for making racist comments in a Facebook group.
Some wonder if Pastor Tan's allegedly privileged position got him 'special treatment', saying that the rich elites are treated better than common Singaporeans.
But as sociologist Terence Chong of the Institute of Southeast Asian Studies noted, it is Pastor Tan's status in his community, not anything else, that must be considered: 'A well-established Christian leader being charged under the Sedition Act would send shockwaves through the Christian community and put the community under siege.'
Any trial would cause greater agitation, Mr Chong added - precisely what the Government is keen to avoid.
Other observers argue that misunderstandings such as these between religions are bound to surface again.
Given this likelihood, the actions taken by the authorities towards Pastor Tan's indiscretions may reflect a dispassionate way of handling a potentially explosive situation.
He was hauled up for questioning by the ISD - which is no less firm a course of action than being investigated by the police. As a result, there was clear recognition on Pastor Tan's part of the error of his ways.
Would a drawn-out case in court have served as a better lesson for us all? Or would it have proven divisive for society?
Time may soothe frayed nerves. And regardless of what more the Government may decide to do, Pastor Tan has already learnt the lesson that all public figures need to learn in this Internet Age: Everybody is watching.
There is one bright spot in the entire sorry incident: For all the anti-Government views expressed online, netizens seem to agree with the authorities on one fundamental issue: that no one should be allowed to mess with Singapore's secularism and get away with it.
[email protected]
Netizens the new vigilante citizenry
Cyberspace influenced the authorities' thinking in handling Pastor Tan
By Rachel Chang
http://www.straitstimes.com/PrimeNews/Story/STIStory_489552.html
WHEN the now infamous video clips of Pastor Rony Tan and two former Buddhists were first uploaded on his church's website two weeks ago, it seemed a routine act. After all, clips of his sermons and church services had been regularly uploaded on the website of the Lighthouse Evangelism church before.
But as Pastor Tan has since realised, the sound and fury of cyberspace cannot be underestimated - or contained. Singapore's online community has again demonstrated its ability to disseminate information almost instantaneously. And it seems to have taken up the mantle of vigilantism as well. It effectively put Pastor Tan in the dock - and assumed the role of prosecutor, judge and jury.
In fact, the incident 'reflects the fact that the cyberspace community can self-regulate to some extent', political observer Eugene Tan of the Singapore Management University (SMU) noted. The question now is whether vigilant netizens will accept the way the Government handled the incident.
First, a quick recap of the sequence of events: On Feb 3, a netizen posted the clips on the fuckwarezone online forum, noting that the pastor's views were 'interesting'.
Within 10 minutes, three others replied. The third, 'arcturuz', proved to be prescient: 'Making fun of Buddhism... ask the ISD to investigate this church?'
Other netizens made other suggestions: 'report to the authorities', 'call the police', even 'call SPH' (the Singapore Press Holdings, which owns The Straits Times and a stable of other newspapers). One netizen posted a link to the Singapore Police Force's 'Electronic Police Centre', a site where citizens can report lost property and crimes that do not require immediate action.
On Feb 8, the Government announced that the Internal Security Department (ISD) had indeed hauled up Pastor Tan. It is not clear if the authorities had been alerted to his remarks as a result of the online furore. It is likely the ISD was monitoring the situation.
But one thing is obvious: Cyberspace influenced the authorities' thinking in the way Pastor Tan was handled.
Many - both online and off - have pointed out that remarks disparaging other religions are not rare. But such comments are usually made off-the-cuff.
It is clear Pastor Tan did not realise the inappropriateness of his remarks. He also certainly did not realise that in uploading the videos on his website, his church was casting his comments into the World Wide (public) Web that is the Internet.
In cyberspace, there is no clear line between what is private and public. As the SMU's Dr Tan noted, in having the video clips uploaded, Pastor Tan had unwittingly 'subjected himself to the online community'.
As a result, the authorities could not deal with the situation in the quiet way that they might have preferred. The role the Internet played in Pastor Tan's case meant that something that previously may have been dealt with in private, had now become public, said research fellow Azhar Ghani of the Institute of Policy Studies. Hence, the Home Affairs Ministry's public acknowledgement of the ISD's intervention.
The chain of events shows how cyberspace has again democratised the detection of rule-breaking.
The Government's message from Deputy Prime Minister Wong Kan Seng was that Pastor Tan had apologised; that the leaders of the religions he disparaged had accepted his apology; and that he should be allowed to put the incident behind him, with the knowledge that he cannot trespass again.
The Government also reminded everyone that mutual respect, tolerance and restraint were critical for peace and harmony here - and warned that propagating any particular religion should never be done by insulting or denigrating other religions.
Yet there are netizens who are dissatisfied with this state of affairs. They seem unwilling to accept that Pastor Tan will not be arrested under the Sedition Act. Their argument: Pastor Tan's pulpit reaches a 12,000-strong 'megachurch'. And since his views are influential, he should be punished more severely than the three youths who are being investigated by the police for sedition for making racist comments in a Facebook group.
Some wonder if Pastor Tan's allegedly privileged position got him 'special treatment', saying that the rich elites are treated better than common Singaporeans.
But as sociologist Terence Chong of the Institute of Southeast Asian Studies noted, it is Pastor Tan's status in his community, not anything else, that must be considered: 'A well-established Christian leader being charged under the Sedition Act would send shockwaves through the Christian community and put the community under siege.'
Any trial would cause greater agitation, Mr Chong added - precisely what the Government is keen to avoid.
Other observers argue that misunderstandings such as these between religions are bound to surface again.
Given this likelihood, the actions taken by the authorities towards Pastor Tan's indiscretions may reflect a dispassionate way of handling a potentially explosive situation.
He was hauled up for questioning by the ISD - which is no less firm a course of action than being investigated by the police. As a result, there was clear recognition on Pastor Tan's part of the error of his ways.
Would a drawn-out case in court have served as a better lesson for us all? Or would it have proven divisive for society?
Time may soothe frayed nerves. And regardless of what more the Government may decide to do, Pastor Tan has already learnt the lesson that all public figures need to learn in this Internet Age: Everybody is watching.
There is one bright spot in the entire sorry incident: For all the anti-Government views expressed online, netizens seem to agree with the authorities on one fundamental issue: that no one should be allowed to mess with Singapore's secularism and get away with it.
[email protected]
