Saturday, December 06, 2008

Satire: MDA on sedition trial

In a twist to my usual style, I will use satire to make my point about what I think about the opening of the trial of the couple charged for sedition for distributing "seditious" tracts.

A news report you will probably never see in the Straits Times (Any use of real names is accidental and coincidental):

The chairman of the MDA [Media Development Authority], together with two other top-ranking officers who approved the showing of the Da Vinci Code movie, went on trial on Thursday.

Col. Tan Kai Hsiang, 54, the chairman of the MDA, together with Dr. Goh See Tet, 46, and Dr. Justin Lee, 50, are facing two counts of sedition each.

They are accused of giving the green light to the showing of the Da Vinci Code movie in Singapore, as well as ignoring numerous complaints about the blasphemous contents of the show.

The film is said 'to promote feelings of ill-will and hostility between Christians and non-Christians in Singapore' according to the charge.

Mr John Brown, a small-time Christian businessman, told the court that he noticed the movie theaters in Singapore showing and promoting the film.

After watching the movie, he felt angry and very offended.

He said the movie was 'somewhat condemning' of his religion.

There were also other offensive references to Jesus Christ, the founder of Christianity, and to the Church.

At the start of cross-examination, the MDA's chief lawyer, Mr Silva de Carlo, defended his client's decision as the expression of free speech and done all in good fun.

Mr Brown, who had made a police report that day (Jan 9), countered that such did not give the MDA the right to allow the screening of a extremely blasphemous film.

'The behavior of the recalcitrant MDA in this episode is simply reprehensible. The government has previously chosen not to reproduce the Muhammad cartoons because of the offence they cause to Muslims, yet in this instance the MDA has decided to offend Christians by allowing the public screening of this blasphemous film', he said. 'Especially in light of the recent sedition charge against a Christian couple for distributing Chick tracts, there is simply no excuse and precedent for such inflammatory actions. That couple has offended only one person, and possibly three others, but this movie is an affront to the entire Christian population in Singapore which number in the tens to hundreds of thousands. The chairman and officers of the MDA should immediately issue a public apology to Christians and resign from their positions.'

When asked, spokesmen from the MDA declined comment, except to say they are consulting the ISD [Internal Security Department] for further advice. The trial continues.

[HT: Word and Verse]

6 comments:

Isaiah said...

heh! Pretty good, bro.

Munchy said...

Hi

Perhaps the only way to prevent blasphemous stuff in the media in today's culture is to appeal to Islam as a benchmark as no one is ever allowed to offend them

Munchy said...

but then again neither should we be dumping tracts in pple's mailbox without proper explanation and follow-up

PuritanReformed said...

Isaiah:

=)

Munchy:

I agree we shouldn't be dumping tracts in people's mailbox without proper evaluation and follow-up. Having seen the tracts, I think it was really stupid of them to use such tracts also. Having said that, IMO the entire case is blown totally out of proportion. The couple at the most deserved a warning letter, not being charged for "sedition".

And yup, I *agree* with your point of using Islam as a benchmark, which Al Qaeda and the majority of Arab Islamicists do too. Problem is, the Sunnis and Shiites will continue to fight each other. =)

Beng said...

How very very interesting.

It seems that the defence lawyer for the Christian couple has been reading your blog!

He read several excerpts from books such as "God is not great", "The God delusion", "The Da Vinci code", etc and asked the MDA representative testifying if he found the excerpts offensive.

Either that, or the same Spirit is at work!

PuritanReformed said...

SB,

I see. Sadly, I haven't been following the case much, but I guess that is the best method of defense. =)