By Alex Au

Sometimes, people respond to a hole by digging a deeper one. Archbishop Nicholas Chia of the Catholic Church issued a press statement at around 10:30 pm last night in response to my post Lunch menu a 4-point letter. I only heard about it from reporters, and at the time of writing this, have not seen a copy of the press statement he issued.

According to the Straits Times:

The head of the Catholic Church in Singapore has confirmed that he wrote to an activist group backing its call to abolish the Internal Security Act (ISA) – but withdrew the letter later fearing it could affect the country’s social harmony.

Archbishop Nicholas Chia, 73, yesterday said he had retracted the letter to Function 8 after he reflected on it and became concerned it could be used “in a manner that I did not intend”.

[snip]

Last night, Archbishop Chia sent The Straits Times a one-page response, saying the fact that the incident had come to light confirmed his fears. “Au’s article confirmed my fear that the group would use my letter in a manner that I did not agree with, and make use of the Office of the Archbishop and the Catholic Church for their own ends,” he said.

He noted that Mr Au’s account could only have come from Function8, with which he had communicated in private.

He said he had decided to withdraw his letter after reflecting on it, “because if the letter were to be used in a manner that I did not intend, it may inadvertently harm the social harmony in Singapore”.

Function8 acknowledged his decision and returned the Archbishop his letter, he added.

He said: “The article by Mr Au, which has appeared now, months later, confirms the correctness of my earlier decision to withdraw the letter so as not to inadvertently embroil the Catholic Church and the office of the Archbishop in a political event which was being staged by the group.”

–  Straits Times, 20 September 2012, Archbishop clarifies retraction of letter to group, by Tessa Wong

Today newspaper reported likewise:

The head of the Catholic Church here has criticised a blogger and the organisers of a rally against the Internal Security Act (ISA) over a blog post which suggested that he was pressured by the Government into retracting a letter he had sent expressing support for the event.

The flap arose from Mr Alex Au’s lengthy critique on his blog – posted on Tuesday – of what he described as the Government’s “arm-twisting” of Archbishop Nicholas Chia.

[snip]

Archbishop Chia said yesterday that he had decided to withdraw his letter because “on reflection, its contents did not accurately reflect my views on the subject, and if used in a manner that I did not intend, may inadvertently harm the social harmony in Singapore”.

– Today, 20 September 2012, Archbishop slams Alex Au, anti-ISA rally organisers

He described as “irresponsible” my publication of the chronology of events and his assumption that it was Function 8 which told me about it.

“These irresponsible actions can easily cause serious misunderstanding between the Catholic Church and the Government, and damage the long-standing trust and cooperation between the two. It is most regrettable that Au and the group have acted in this manner,” he said in his press statement.

On the contrary, I think it is the responsible thing to do to expose these hidden events to public scrutiny. They show Singaporeans the inner workings of how our country is governed, and transparency is essential to a healthier democracy. The very fact that powerful forces would want these goings-on to be kept from the public eye is itself suspicious.

In addition, I had hoped through telling this story, to generate, inter alia, a debate about where citizens would like to draw the line between religious organisations and politics, and how that line is to be maintained. Going by the comments to the earlier article that have been received so far, I think a very civil discussion has indeed started.

So, when he says the exposure of those events “confirms the correctness of my earlier decision to withdraw the letter so as not to inadvertently embroil the Catholic Church and the office of the Archbishop in a political event which was being staged by the group”, it sounds a bit strange. After all, the point of my article was to raise the very same issue of whether or not a religious organisation should be lending voice to a political position. Do note that not only was the original letter supportive of the rally against detention without trial, his second letter said the organisers were free to tell the rally participants that the archbishop had sent a letter of support. What can he possibly mean when he now says that he was afraid of his first letter being used “in a manner that I did not intend”?

The chronology of events that I published indicated that it was the Internal Security Department that first planted the argument that the Church could be “used” by a group. This amazing possibility arose even when the group had not solicited the archbishop’s support in the first place.

I understand from reporters that nothing in his press statement contradicted my account of events.

Chia wrote about his fears of harming social harmony in Singapore. Is that not misplaced? Did he use offensive language against other religions, ethnic or social groups in his original (now withdrawn) letter? Not that I know of. The only “harmony” that might feel threatened by his now-retracted letter is the silence the government might want over its (mis)use of arbitrary arrest and detention without trial.

Alternatively, one could say the only “harmony” that might be put at risk is the take-for-granted support among Roman Catholics for the ruling party. After they hear of the shabby way the government treated the local head of the faith, maybe the flock won’t be so “harmonious” towards the ruling party anymore? Is that the “social disquiet” one fears?  If so, who is it exactly who has reason to be anxious?  The Church or the government?

TOC thanks Alex for allowing us to republish an excerpt of her blog post. The full article can be found at his blog Yawning Bread.

You May Also Like

Murali outlines mentoring programme for Bukit Batok youths

Speaking to reporters on 3 May after a walkabout, the People’s Action…

S&CC fees to go up 18% in near future?

I refer to the article “Additional S$100m a year to help town…

农历新年高人流量 樟宜机场体温监测涵盖中国入境旅客

新加坡卫生部发文告称,有鉴于在中国武汉,以及其他国家城市的新型冠状病毒肺炎病例有增加迹象,加上华人农历新年假期间的出行高人流量,卫生部将从本月22日起,扩大樟宜机场的体温监测,涵括所有来自中国的入境旅客。 两周内曾到过武汉、并出现肺炎症状的个人,将送到医院接受隔离治疗和检查。 从本月3日起,该部就下令在樟宜机场对来自武汉航班的旅客进行提问检测。机场也设立健康资讯海报,以提醒前往或来自武汉的旅客,注意个人健康。 此外,卫生部和国家传染病中心(NCID)携手,制定联合临床指南以为侦测可疑病例提供建议,该指南已分发给急诊科、传染病科医生、公共医院实验室等。 该部在昨日向全体医疗人员提醒,以提防和侦测曾前往武汉的肺炎患者。 目前未有确诊新型冠状病毒病例 该部指出,新加坡目前仍未有获确诊的武汉新型冠状病毒病例。不过有鉴于我国乃是区域旅游枢纽,因此不能排除外地来的病例。一旦确诊,当局将启动追踪曾于病患接触人士,并落实严格隔离避免病例进一步扩散。 卫生部昨日也在脸书发文,指截至昨日早上10时,卫生部得知一名44岁新加坡女性被诊断疑似肺炎症状,她也曾到过武汉,不过没前往被传出武汉肺炎的华南海鲜批发市场。 上述女子已入院隔离和接受治疗、检查,目前情况稳定。至于在本月18日被诊断出现肺炎症状的52岁男子,经诊断已知与武汉肺炎无关。