Religiosity should have no bearing on the rule of law

I agree that religious harmony is sacrosanct, and the rule of law is one of many tools in building cohesion and harmony.

The City Harvest example cited in “Reinforce religious ideas of love, forgiveness to support rule of law” (April 17), however, is largely about abuse of power, and not about religiosity.

The rule of law provides for accountability, transparency, equal opportunity, justice, et cetera, not favouring any group or individual who is bound to uphold the same rules in the discharge of duties.

Should the managements of religious groups, non-governmental organisations, charities, et cetera, be exempt from scrutiny? There should be principles of good governance, especially in organisations that should be taking the moral high ground in such matters when executives have erred.

The case is predominantly about impropriety. It has a religious setting, but not in content.

It is about an organisation’s management that went rogue. Maybe it should be discussed, therefore, in order that such impropriety does not recur.

Indeed, the Attorney-General’s Chambers has referred the judgment to the Court of Appeal on the grounds of public interest.