Just yesterday, the newspapers reported on Mr. Wong Kan Seng's speech on increasing religiosity in Singapore. Mr. Wong was clearly concerned about religions encroaching onto what is known as the "neutral common space". I hope Mr. Wong understands that public space (or neutral common space) belongs to all Singaporeans and that hitherto, more often than not, we find that the strong government in Singapore does have a rather discerning influence on the conduct of affairs in public space and of the conduct of civil society.
Public space should not be completely devoid of religion as most Singaporeans do ascribe to a certain religion and one cannot simply dictate that since Singapore is a secular country and therefore all public debate should be 100% secular. 100% secularism is as extremist as any religion or ideology that is implemented or practiced in an extremist inflexible form.
Rather than to see religion as encroaching onto public space, one should recognize that religion and other non-state actors such as Chinese clans and ethnic based associations have always had a stake in public debate. The key here is to develop a certain level of matured debate and a system of engagement (not state sponsored of course) for inter-religious dialogue and public debate on sensitive matters. To ignore the religious component in any public debate would result in inefficient policies as they might run against the grain of religious beliefs (which the state of somewhat avoided but not completely).
The growing intolerance amongst religious groups that have been alluded to by Mr. Wong is perhaps an indication of the crippled civil society and the lack of non-state sponsored inter-religious interaction in Singapore. State orchestrated movements are often only half-potent due to lack of impetus and ownership from stakeholders (because the state owns the movement). Besides the highlighting the need for tolerance amongst religions, it is also important to note that there is also a need for the non-religious to be tolerant of the religious. Mega-churches that have amassed large amounts of money is an indication of their success and the religious service that they provide. Ultimately, the governance of finances in churches should be resolved by the churches themselves, in line with government regulations, and definitely with the agreement of church members. Some of the gloating and sneering that churches (mega and non-mega) have gotten in trouble with the government is another extension of religious intolerance.
As for the issue of proselytizing, I would agree that aggressive evangelism is unwise of multi-ethnic, multi-religious Singapore as such sensitivities when mishandled may escalate into unplesantries and even violence. However, to denounce proselytizing completely is tantamount to saying that there should be no exchange of thoughts and ideas. And we were just talking about mature religious dialogue in previous paragraphs?! =) Shouldn't a civil and mature society know how to politely say no to another and the other party to know how to accept a no graciously. To criticize all forms of proselytizing is also a form of intolerance.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Don't think too much about what is said, but rather what is really meant, which is to raise the religious boogieman - a continuation and development of the theme setup during LHL NDP's speech - for the purposes of soon coming election, namely that Singapore needs a strong government, which in turn means, that only PAP can do the job.
ReplyDeleteI find it amazing that the religious has chosen to ignore the many incidents in the past year that HAS encroached into the public sphere, into 'secular' territory. And we ask ourselves why is there a religious bogeyman? It was formed from the actions of the strident faithful.
ReplyDeleteObviously the govt's light touch on secular space has allowed some of the more brash religious minded to take advantage of vague, lightly enforced rules and the tolerant attitude of most singaporeans. In response to the 'offensive' remarks and actions u get an outburst of anger and intolerance that was caused initially by the actions of these few religious individuals.
If the govt does not take a firmer approach, then the so far limited response could easily overspill into more dangerous territory.
And lets not forget that even in incidents like AWARE, Rony Tan and City Harvest and Ming Yi, The Christians and buddhist themselves were vocal in their criticisms of what they see as intolerant and unfair.
So support for a more secular space does not exclude religious sensitivities; but when it come to 'mature' debates on policies and other matters, religious minded individuals should pitch their points and arguments which appeal to as wide a reach as possible, including people of different races and faiths.
it is time for the religious to stop feeling victimised in a situation that is so clearly self- created. Much like the Catholic Church, braying that it is the target and victim of unfair attacks over their sad response to the priest and pedophile scandal.
Our secular space should never be dominated by the religious nor should it ignore them. For those who strive to make this country a nation under their God, remember that theirs is not the only God in the world or in our society.
I
i think the government, and the people, need too reframe the issue with a bit more clarity.
ReplyDeletethe issue is not that we are against open dialogs and debates in public spaces or what have you.
rather, the issue at hand should be to have a MATURE and SUSTAINABLE debate and dialogue which are RATIONAL and ACCOUNTABLE.
generally, discussion or debate on secular subjects can often been substantiated and proven through logical process and thus, CONVINCING.
but can you say that about religious ideas and THEORIES?
the danger with religious ideas is that there is a fine line between reality and FANTASY. preachers, in the name of faith and religion, can freely conjured ideas which are DECEPTIVE, EXPLOITATIVE and possibly inflict irreparable DAMAGES to society and people's lives.
now should we practice "tolerance" with people who are not prepared to be ACCOUNTABLE for their words? should we, in the name of multi-culturism discard logic and sensibilities?
i don't think so,and neither should our government.
so what cannot be substantiated or proven, in general, should not enjoy the same liberty of expression in public places as rational and accountable ideas.
in other words, you don't have the right to LIE to the public - in the name of god or whatever!!!
ReplyDeletethat said, you are FREE to say anything so long as it can be SUBSTANTIATED and can be PROVEN through logical process.
give you an example.
ReplyDeletelet say you want to reach out to the public and champion animal rights. you may conduct debates, disseminate information, raise awareness and funds and proselyte for your cause - no problem because animal abuses are well documented
you may even create your own fantasy animal gospel in comics form for personal or private consumption - no problem
but when you go round telling people, hey, do you know animal blood can make you look younger by ten years or more and its blood can even protect you from generation curses and ward off evil. or, if you put 10% of your money with animal causes, the king dog will multiply your investment by 30 to 100 times.
and you can only be saved from your miserable life through drinking and believing in animal blood
when asked to substantiate your claims, you pull out your comics and swear by it.
now should we send such people for mental health checks and lock them away in mental institution?
the only way, and i see NO other way, to UNITE people(a divided people is trouble) for common good is to be sensible,truthful,factual and logical - only live by truths which are VERIFIABLE
ReplyDeletethat's how we conduct our affairs in parliament(THE HOUSE) and as such, should be replicated in public spaces.