Mr Tan defended his actions, and said he does not feel he has contravened any laws, in particular Singapore’s Sedition Act which some bloggers have been charged under previously. Instead, Mr Tan described those attacking him or accusing him as “a lynch mob”. He explained that the source of the picture was not him, but another person. It is unclear if the person is a Singaporean.
Mr Tan had re-posted the picture with the warning: “This is a flame bait. YOU ARE WARNED.” He explained that he was bringing attention to the fact that there was such a poster being circulated online and that he was in effect whistle-blowing and finds nothing wrong in what he has done. It is those who are offended who are practising double-standards, he says.
It has been pointed out that some others - who are believed to be Muslims - had also posted the same picture on their Facebook walls and that they are not accused of trying to create ill will, but that when a non-Muslim like Mr Tan does, he is accused of inflaming anti-Islam sentiments.
But shouldn’t Mr Tan be sensitive to the feelings of other races and their religions, even if it involves postings on his personal Facebook wall?
“Generally people on Facebook are open-minded for discussion,” he said. “My wall is generally a safe place… For me totally no censorship on my wall. Facebook people have the right to unfriend me and remove themselves from there. I don’t have to impose anything on them.”
Asked if he felt he should take into consideration Singapore’s multi-racial, multi-religious and multi-cultural context, Mr Tan says there is “no such thing as a Singapore context.”
“Today we live in a hyper-connected world. We just have to adapt to the differences. There is no Singapore context.”
He feels that there are “religious vigilantes around” whose standards for discourse is set at the “lowest denominator” and this is what he is worried about. To him, the issue is not a religious or racial one, but one which has to do with the freedom of expression and personal and individual liberties.
“Religion doesn’t even come into consideration,” he said. “Firstly, I was whistle-blowing. Secondly, I do not censor anything on my wall. Thirdly, people are trying the third angle – that I am out to offend Muslims. They are basically trying to change public opinion against me.”
Mr Tan has, since the incident emerged, continued to stick to his stand – that people should not be held “hostage” by what he calls the “religious thought police” from expressing their views, and that “people are overreacting a lot.”
Online discourse following the incident has also centred more on the question of civil liberties, particularly freedom of expression and whether the making of reports to the authorities on such matters as this incident involving Mr Tan is desired. Some argued that society should be allowed and granted space to have discussions and debates on matters of race and religion openly, and that this is how deeper understanding can be had.
Others, however, draw a line at what they see as offensive content and that the authorities should intervene when these surface.
Whatever the outcome of these latest incidences of alleged racist and anti-religion postings, one thing is for certain – online discourse will continue to push the perimeters of the boundaries for dialogue on such once-taboo matters which the mainstream channels have avoided so far.
How this pans out will determine how much the authorities need to intervene – if at all – and where the line between the right to free speech and something more sinister is.
As for the report made against his posting, Mr Tan says the police have yet to contact him.
He says he “is confident” that he has not contravened the provisions in the Sedition Act.
