Surprisingly, at least to me, the churches up north are seemingly more active than those in Singapore inspite or despite of their majority Muslim population. A click of their website showed that they even organised a public forum on Malaysian's nuclear energy policy.
Straits Times last Saturday also ran an article on Council of Churches Malaysia and demonstrated how Christian organisations can participate constructively in civil society. The CCM has spoken strongly and righteously on several issues including the Shah Alam Section 23 cow's head protest, the death of Teo Beng Hock and Perak political saga.
Reverend Hermen Shastri of CCM puts it most aptly, "I think it augers well for moral responsibility. This is the responsibility of our faith." Already CCM have held dialogues with MCA and UMNO.
Although Christians only make up 9-10% of Malaysian population, I am sure they have much to contribute if they act responsibly and follow the examples taught in the Bible. The pandemic problem of corruption in many ASEAN states can be eradicated if citizens stop participating in it.
What about Spore where the Christian population is much more than 10%? Do we have a positive contribution to make to better Spore? With and In this blog, I say YES!
Tuesday, September 29, 2009
Thursday, September 24, 2009
Between the Nerd n the Hustler
Someone read my blog and asked what I think about alternative journalism ventures such as Singanews or other online news portals. I told him I was a loner in school, you could either hang out with the nerdy kids (and I mean like serious nerds) and bore yourself out or create havoc with the hustlers and Ah Bengs...there weren't like simple cool kids, at least in my school there was a serious lack of it.
The mainstream media and (some of the) online so-called news website have that same dichotomy. Needless to say, MSM are the nerds! Hah. You just need to switch on Taiwanese news to understand what is really journalism. On the other hand, some of the online news website just go off on their on tangent and have their own agenda - not that having an agenda is wrong but it's just so annoying when one tints every article with that same bias viewpoint.
So I guess more opinions are good, the Spore market is small but hey, what's another online news portal. Anyway, that what internet and blogging is about - connecting and informing people.
TOC has posted Thio Li-ann's speech at the New Media Breakfast, while I don't agree with everything that she said, she did made some good points. Maybe that's fodder for the next post.
The mainstream media and (some of the) online so-called news website have that same dichotomy. Needless to say, MSM are the nerds! Hah. You just need to switch on Taiwanese news to understand what is really journalism. On the other hand, some of the online news website just go off on their on tangent and have their own agenda - not that having an agenda is wrong but it's just so annoying when one tints every article with that same bias viewpoint.
So I guess more opinions are good, the Spore market is small but hey, what's another online news portal. Anyway, that what internet and blogging is about - connecting and informing people.
TOC has posted Thio Li-ann's speech at the New Media Breakfast, while I don't agree with everything that she said, she did made some good points. Maybe that's fodder for the next post.
Thursday, September 17, 2009
SINGANEWS-GUILTY UNLESS PROVEN INNOCENT
It’s peculiar how netizens are so quick to judge on Singanews – an online news portal that was soft launched in the Kum Yan Methodist Church on 9th Sep 09. Singanews hasn’t even written a single word and people are fear mongering about a Christian conspiracy in public space. You can read about it in thevoiddeck and temasekreview as I had and I think they are not worthy of being reposted here.
Well, basically, they have problems with Singanews being softie launched in a church and sharing a stage with Thio Li-ann (she has death threats issued on her I think). They also have issues with the editorial being majority Christians and funding from individuals who profess Christianity as their religion (apparently it’s a crime to be a Christian online ;p). The Singapore parliament has many Christians and I don’t see netizens criticising MPs for pushing the Christian agenda/conspiracy in public. What about Christian editors in our major newspapers? Have you seen a Chritsian agenda being hawkered in the op-ed columns over the years? Have you seen Christian funded welfare organisations going around old folks and actively trying to ask them to give up their Buddha statues or Korans?
Simply put, they pick on one of the weakest kid on the block and gang-up against him, they find seemingly only circumstantial evidence and keep harping on it – repeating it countless times until they become the truth (age old tested tactic). Oh well, the people behind Singanews should have expected this when they decide to do their sofite launch (they could have ask their children how they behave online). A somewhat unwise move on their part, I think.
The Christian community is not homogeneous, and we don’t pretend to be one. There are just too many different groups and opinions out there (with regards to gays, abortions, proselytising etc). However, what we believe is listening and respecting others when they are speaking . Singanews may or may not represent what people termed as fundamentalists. Nonetheless, they should be applauded for having the will to organise and set-up an alternative news website, how many Singaporeans are willing to devote time and effort to such ventures? I hope they won’t stop before they even start. It would be a step backwards for the alternative online media.
Tuesday, September 15, 2009
A person must be understood and taken as a whole
A recent article TODAY article caught my eye and I have posted it below. Quoting research from NUS, it said that those who seek deep value in their religion and identify with statements like, "My whole approach to life is based on my religion", were more likely to engage in volunteer work. Surprisingly, only 6% volunteer with religious organization while most others volunteered with schools, charitable and non-profit groups.
This reminds me of PM Lee’s observation that religiousity is growing amongst Singaporeans and although religion is positive for individual and Singapore society, it could backfire if practiced aggressively. But no one bothered to ask him for the definition of an “aggressive” religion besides insensitive proselytizing. Can someone receive a good religion wholeheartedly including its beliefs and values but throw away the activism that comes along with it? To a true practitioner, religion forms his fundamental world view (including secular) and instead of nick-picking and trying to filter out the parts that are unpalatable, why not try to understand and harness this positive energy. Or maybe someone should start a checklist and tick those actions that would render religion a negative force?
Today Online
A flipside to the religious coin
05:55 AM Aug 29, 2009
by Neo Chai Chin
WARNINGS have been sounded over growing religiosity and the problems this could mean for the common, secular space in multiracial Singapore - but consider, also, a positive flipside to the trend.
New research by the National University of Singapore (NUS) shows that those who seek deep value in their religion, are more likely to volunteer their time to help their fellow man, regardless of his faith.
The finding, which emerged from a survey of 3,143 NUS undergraduates in May, was announced at Friday's launch of the Centre for Social Entrepreneurship and Philanthropy (CSEP) at the NUS Business School.
Simply professing to a religion does not increase one's likelihood of volunteering, however. The survey found that those who participate in religious activities for extrinsic praise or rewards were not more inclined to volunteer - these were respondents who agreed to statements like, "I pray mainly to gain relief and protection".
In contrast, those who agreed with statements like "My whole approach to life is based on my religion" and "It is important to me to spend time in private thought and prayer", were more inclined to do volunteer work.
But their volunteering efforts do not appear to be church, temple or mosque-centric. Survey respondents who were active volunteers said they most often channelled their volunteering through their schools or charitable and non-profit groups.
Only about 6 per cent said a religious organisation.
And their volunteer work was most likely to support the education, social service, grassroots and youth sectors. Only 6 per cent said the religious sector.
Co-researcher and CSEP director Associate Professor Albert Teo said the encouraging findings "mitigate some concerns recently raised by politicians".
While some people may perceive the religious as "inward-looking", the results show they are "actually out to make a difference, and are helping people regardless of their religious affiliation".
The CSEP began work about a year ago, with the mission to advance research and education in philanthropy and social entrepreneurship.
It is currently working on case studies of local and foreign social enterprises, and developing a system to measure social value created by them.
Its preliminary research on local grant-making bodies revealed that 85 per cent of them contribute to educational causes, and 80 per cent to social welfare causes.
Just 17 per cent of them support arts, cultural and sports, while 13 per cent donate to causes outside of Singapore. But a shift towards these "non-essential" areas might take place in the next few years as the country matures, said Prof Teo.
Saturday, September 12, 2009
The Separation of State and Church: Does it equate to separation between politics and religion?
The issue of racial and religious harmony came into focus at the 2009 Prime Minister’s National Day Rally Speech. The Prime Minister spoke of four basic rules that govern racial and religious harmony in Singapore:
1) All groups must exercise tolerance and restraint.
2) The Government must remain secular.
3) Religion must stay separate from politics.
4) A common space that all Singaporeans can be comfortable in because it is secular and neutral.
The first two points are pretty much non-contentious. Living in a multi-ethnic society Singapore, we all must exercise some tolerance and restraint to maintain a harmonious co-existence. I can’t possibly go around denouncing other practices and asking others to conform to my beliefs, it would simply be rude and offensive. Similarly, the government must remain secular in its political ideology so that communities would not regard themselves as being unjustly discriminated due to their ethnicity or religious beliefs. However, the last two points aren’t that straightforward. And even though they sound totally logical to me in theory, I doubt that the implementation of such rules would be feasible where the realms of politics and religion are kept clearly separated.
The eventual separation of State and Church in Western civilization was a long process from the ancient Roman Empire to Medieval Europe to the American Declaration of Independence. Even till today, the Church of England is headed by the British Monarch and 26 bishops sit in House of Lords. For Singapore, we did not go through this historical process as our country and government were secular at birth. While I understand the need for separation of State and religious institutions, i.e. PM’s point of the government must remain secular; I can’t quite comprehend how one can separate clearly between politics and religion, or to be more precise, silence a religious viewpoint in politics. It’s similar to arguing that one can also separate politics and arts, politics and racial/ethnic identities – it’s just not possible.
The examples where the realms of politics and religion overlap are aplenty. We find a Minister-In-Charge of Muslim Affairs in our cabinet and a Syriah Court within our judicial system. We also see various government-led initiatives to bolster inter-religious harmony like the Inter-Racial and Religious Confidence Circles and the Community Engagement Programme. Beyond all the official hobnob, there are many more collaboration between religious organizations and government outfits especially for social and welfare services. Somewhat more contentious was the furor generated during the debate on Section 377A and the establishment of casinos in Singapore where religious groups put forth their arguments in the public space.
So are we going to nod in agreement when someone says it’s alright for a government hand in religion but a religious point of view on a political/national matter should be disregarded? Can we work towards a more inclusive and integrated society on such a mindset where one should just accept a national policy even when it is against his religion? Or should Singapore politicians revisit the notion that politics are best just left to politicians?
While we can keep State and religious institutions separate (i.e. church cannot decidedly influence the decision-making of the state), politics and religion would invariably remain intertwined; for good or worse would depend on how the government, religious groups and individuals interact in the common public space. Perhaps Singapore lack a civil society whereby religious groups are able to articulate their beliefs confidently. And perhaps because of this deficiency, when religious groups do articulate their views in public, it could end up explosive because of the powerful emotions generated on obviously controversial issues. I may be terribly wrong but we might just be building the clash of titans (secular and religious) when we sweep the matter under the carpet by decreeing that religion must stay separate from politics.
1) All groups must exercise tolerance and restraint.
2) The Government must remain secular.
3) Religion must stay separate from politics.
4) A common space that all Singaporeans can be comfortable in because it is secular and neutral.
The first two points are pretty much non-contentious. Living in a multi-ethnic society Singapore, we all must exercise some tolerance and restraint to maintain a harmonious co-existence. I can’t possibly go around denouncing other practices and asking others to conform to my beliefs, it would simply be rude and offensive. Similarly, the government must remain secular in its political ideology so that communities would not regard themselves as being unjustly discriminated due to their ethnicity or religious beliefs. However, the last two points aren’t that straightforward. And even though they sound totally logical to me in theory, I doubt that the implementation of such rules would be feasible where the realms of politics and religion are kept clearly separated.
The eventual separation of State and Church in Western civilization was a long process from the ancient Roman Empire to Medieval Europe to the American Declaration of Independence. Even till today, the Church of England is headed by the British Monarch and 26 bishops sit in House of Lords. For Singapore, we did not go through this historical process as our country and government were secular at birth. While I understand the need for separation of State and religious institutions, i.e. PM’s point of the government must remain secular; I can’t quite comprehend how one can separate clearly between politics and religion, or to be more precise, silence a religious viewpoint in politics. It’s similar to arguing that one can also separate politics and arts, politics and racial/ethnic identities – it’s just not possible.
The examples where the realms of politics and religion overlap are aplenty. We find a Minister-In-Charge of Muslim Affairs in our cabinet and a Syriah Court within our judicial system. We also see various government-led initiatives to bolster inter-religious harmony like the Inter-Racial and Religious Confidence Circles and the Community Engagement Programme. Beyond all the official hobnob, there are many more collaboration between religious organizations and government outfits especially for social and welfare services. Somewhat more contentious was the furor generated during the debate on Section 377A and the establishment of casinos in Singapore where religious groups put forth their arguments in the public space.
So are we going to nod in agreement when someone says it’s alright for a government hand in religion but a religious point of view on a political/national matter should be disregarded? Can we work towards a more inclusive and integrated society on such a mindset where one should just accept a national policy even when it is against his religion? Or should Singapore politicians revisit the notion that politics are best just left to politicians?
While we can keep State and religious institutions separate (i.e. church cannot decidedly influence the decision-making of the state), politics and religion would invariably remain intertwined; for good or worse would depend on how the government, religious groups and individuals interact in the common public space. Perhaps Singapore lack a civil society whereby religious groups are able to articulate their beliefs confidently. And perhaps because of this deficiency, when religious groups do articulate their views in public, it could end up explosive because of the powerful emotions generated on obviously controversial issues. I may be terribly wrong but we might just be building the clash of titans (secular and religious) when we sweep the matter under the carpet by decreeing that religion must stay separate from politics.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
