In the aftermath of the AWARE EGM, there has been much discussion about the role of religion in a secular state.
In her first speech to parliament since the AWARE EGM, Thio Li-ann took the opportunity to share her views on the subject framing “thick secularism” as another kind of religious belief: “anti-religion religion.”
26 May 2009:
Video of Speech in Full
More from Channel News Asia
Excerpts
IN A recent interview, Deputy Prime Minister Wong Kan Seng reiterated that religion and politics must not be mixed. This is sound, though there are difficulties of definition as no bright line demarcates ‘religion’ from ‘politics’. We need to understand what ‘secularism’ entails in Singapore for more specific guidance.
A state’s attitude towards religion turns upon its model of constitutional secularism. ‘Secularism’ is a protean, chameleon-like term: what it means depends on the context and who is using it; it can be a virtue or a vice. It is timely to eschew glibness and examine the Singapore model of secularism with precision.
There are in fact many secularisms or degrees of secularity. This complex term needs to be unpacked.
Historically, ‘secularism’ originates from the Latin ‘saeculum’, meaning ‘temporal’, worldly affairs, rather than ‘spiritual’, other-worldly matters. The word ‘secular’ is an emblem of intense historical conflict.
Today, in some circles, ‘secularism’ connotes systematic hostility towards religion, as a synonym for a politicised form of ideological atheism whose creed is that humanity is destined to wholly shed religious conviction. The atheistic word was made flesh in the atheistic state produced by the Russian Revolution of 1917, devoted to Marx’s assumption that religion stupefies the masses and must be eradicated to bring forth the new Communist Man.
The principle of secularity dates back to the Roman Empire. It derived from the teaching of Jesus to ‘render unto Caesar the things that are Caesar’s and to God the things that are God’s’. This principle of limited government opposed state absolutism in suggesting Caesar did not wield absolute authority: While a citizen was to obey civil authority, he was to enjoy freedom from state interference in matters pertaining to the worship of God. Religious liberty thus limits state power. America first experimented constitutionally with dividing sacred from secular authority, rejecting the European conflation of civil and religious power.
Senior Minister of State Zainul Abidin Rasheed described Singapore secularism as ‘secularism with a soul’. This deft juxtaposing of the material and the metaphysical speaks to the cooperative relation between state and religion.
The Constitution does not forbid the state to lend financial or other support to a religion; thus we have the Islamic Religious Council of Singapore as a statutory government body serving the Muslim community.
In 1989, Foreign Minister George Yeo observed the Government was ‘secular but it is certainly not atheistic’. This evinces a rejection of a thick, atheistic version of secularism.
Secular humanism, which posits a morality independent of God, is a comprehensive anti-theistic world view. Some courts recognise it as a religion. It dogmatically asserts the absence of God, without any empirical evidence. We know from elementary logic that it is impossible to prove a universal negative. Whether God exists or not cannot be proved or disproved by evidence or logic.
It takes faith to believe or not to believe in God or gods. A lot of faith is needed to believe there is no divine. As Turkish journalist Mustafa Akyol wrote: ‘It is the atheist’s opium to regard that unsubstantiated faith as established fact.’ Thick secularism is thus an anti-religion religion.
Secular democracies should be neutral not only between traditional religions but also regarding modern religions with atheistic foundations.
What is the situation in Singapore? DPM Wong emphasised the secular nature of the political arena and how keeping ‘religion’ and ‘politics’ separate was a key rule of political engagement.
What this means specifically is that laws and policies derive their legitimacy not from divine sanction but from a democratically elected government. Law generally applies to and equally protects all citizens, regardless of race, religion or social status. Clearly, the Singapore model of secularism is anti-theocratic in that religious tenets and secular law are separated, not conflated.
While anti-theocratic, the Singapore secularism is not anti-religious. This is a vital distinction.
DPM Wong welcomed the public service of individuals inspired by their religious convictions; they also ‘set’ society’s ‘moral tone’. He affirmed that religious individuals had the same right as other citizens to ‘express their views on issues in the public space’ guided by their beliefs.
Religion is thus separated from politics, but, religion is not separated from public life and culture. Everyone has values, whether shaped by religious or secular ideologies; all may participate in public discourse to forge an ethical social consensus. While religion is personal, it is not exclusively private and has a social dimension which is not to be trivialised.
Thus, Singapore secularism is ‘agnostic’ and ‘thin’. The Government does not favour or disfavour any particular religion. We practise ‘accommodative secularism’ described by the Court of Appeal as removing restrictions to one’s choice of religious belief. Religious values do have a role in public debate.
Agnostic secularism of this sort is a virtue; it is a ‘framework’ which facilitates the peaceful co-existence of religions.
Conversely, militant secularism is an illiberal and undemocratic vice in seeking to gag religious views in the public square and so to privilege its atheistic values, as in communist states.
Secular fundamentalists are oppressive where they seek to mute religiously informed convictions in public debate, by demonising a view as religious.
Militant exclusionist secularism is thus a recipe for social disharmony; it feeds the ‘culture wars’ in the US and provokes those it seeks to exclude. It will not promote unity in diversity.
When it comes to moral disagreements and public policy, the press is powerfully positioned to promote informed debate. However the press may, by biased and selective reporting, misrepresent, distort or obscure an issue. We need to broaden our understanding of responsible journalism in Singapore, which rejects the extremes of an adversarial American watchdog and a Pravda-like lapdog, or running dog.
The feedback I received from friends and strangers on the reporting of the Aware controversy was that much of the reporting, particularly in one paper, was biased. It largely lacked a diversity of views in singing the same chorus that religious groups should not get involved in secular organisations. Some spoke of their new lists of ‘fair’ and ‘unfair’ journalists.
Responsible journalism should extend to covering a diversity of views, not a journalist’s preferred view. It should include the accurate representation of differing viewpoints, and not paint the fringe as mainstream or the pathological as normal. Readers may then see all sides of an issue and decide what is true.
This is important given the near monopolistic position of Singapore broadsheets. A lawyer recently returned from London wrote to me expressing horror in finding local papers apparently had nothing better to report than the Aware saga, as opposed to the more interesting British papers which offered a lot more variety.
This made me somewhat nostalgic for my student days in Cambridge, where I could, with chocolate croissant and Nescafe coffee in hand, survey a range of perspectives from The Times, Guardian, Independent or Telegraph.
It is very sly of TLA to suggest that a lack of belief in the divine is an act of faith itself and thus constitutes just another religious belief. She does this because the “system of belief” which denies the existence of supernatural actors does have a name and one held in very high esteem.
It’s called science.
I am an evangelical Christian (defintely not a Right Wing Christian).
Usually, in Singapore, it is the religious (especially the vocal Christian Right) that are out to try taking away the freedom of others who do not share their belief. The non-religious do not go out of the way to try taking away the freedom of the religious to practise their values. Thio Li-Ann has portrayed the persecutor (e.g. Right Wing Christians) as a victim when in reality it is the those who uphold the values of secularism (e.g. NMP Siew Kum Hong and e.g. AWARE old guards) that have been consistently been persecuted by the Right Wing Christians.
For example, when the Christians organise a public event such as a evangelistic event in the Indoor Stadium or the Transformation Event at Expo (an event that encourages Christians to transform the nation such that the national values are align to Christian values), the non-Christians do not try to sabotage the event by urging the authorities not to grant the permit. But when others who wanted to organise a picnic outing for people who are gay-accepting, it is those Right Wing Christians who are quick to circulate emails to tell people to complain to authorities to try to block those events from taking place. (this happened one or two years ago)
It is not Christians who are being persecuted, but rather, it is a very vocal minority Right Wing Christians who are out to persecute others!!! (they see it as upholding moral values, fighting against others with values that are not aligned with their Christian values – they refuse to respect others to have the space to live up to different moral values). In the case of homosexuality, Buddhism affirms it as being equal to heterosexuality. The Christian Right people is essentially lacking respect for Buddhists whose religious values on homosexuality is opposite from those Christians.
Secularism means not siding with Christianity or Buddhism or other religions but to be fair to all religions. Secularism is not about anti-religion, but rather affirming all recognised religions. And this means, in the public space, the Christians ought to respect others whose moral values are different and let them have the space to live out their non-Christian moral values (be it Buddhist values, atheists’ values, agnostics’ values, Taoist values etc) instead of trying to intrude into their share of the space in the public domain.
Hi, my letter in response to this issue was published in the forum pages of the straits times today.
http://www.straitstimes.com/ST%2BForum/Story/STIStory_382511.html
Also, I would like to quote Barack Obama:
“Democracy demands that the religiously motivated translate their concerns into universal, rather than religion-specific, values. It requires that their proposals be subject to argument, and amenable to reason.”
If Thio, or any other NMP or MP cannot present his or her argument in a way which is applicable to other Singaporeans who are not of a particular religion, then why should that argument be considered appropriate in a country which prides itself as being secular and inclusive?
Hi Felicia,
I read your letter in TODAY paper. I am glad that both TODAY and Straits Times published your letter to put back a proper perspective of secularism against the misleading picture painted by Thio. How may I get in touch with you to discuss something related to protecting secularism against those militant religious right.
How about contacting me at funanalyst69@gmail.com?
Felicia, I hope you don’t mind if I copy your linked comment in the ST Forum so that we can archive it here. If you would like it removed we will gladly do so. – Admin
Facts outshine faith
I DISAGREE with Nominated Member of Parliament Thio Li-Ann’s assertion yesterday (‘Secularism practised in S’pore ‘does not exclude religion”) that religion is appropriate in the public sphere.
On the contrary, it is precisely because of Singapore’s multi-religious nature that pure secularism in the public sphere is essential to ensure that no policies or public debates encroach on the beliefs or disbeliefs of any individual.
By basing an argument on one’s religious views, one would essentially alienate the views of other Singaporeans who are of other religions or are non- believers.
Such an argument would be non-inclusive, narrow and, worst of all, belief- specific.
In a country where people of various religions and non-believers alike co- exist, it would be extremely unreasonable and self-centred to assert that a policy be implemented because of the beliefs of a single religion, especially if this policy contradicts the beliefs or principles of another group.
An argument about a policy or social issue should be made based on its own merits.
Instead of appealing to one’s faith as the basis of arguing for or against a policy or law, one must instead appeal to the scientific, sociological or economic facts of the issue.
Only then can Singaporeans be confident that the policy was made with each citizen’s secular interests in mind, and not as a form of favouritism towards one or a few religions.
In this way, pure secularism, with its clear separation of religion and politics, is the only rational option for a multi-religious country, to ensure every religion is free to practise in its own private space.
Religion-based arguments have no place in public debates about policies. Only logic and reason should dominate discourse in the public sphere.
Felicia Tan (Miss)
ST Forum 28 May 2009
before the AWARE EGM, many people did not like aggressive religionists proselytism in the common space but we tolerate them.
after the AWARE EGM, it seems that some vocal Christians are now trying to force their definition of a christian-secularism onto the common space.
really, faith is not the sole propriety of religion. faith is an innate human quality. mahatma gandhi had great faith. so does jane goodall.
let us recall the lessons learned at the aware egm: secularism in Singapore is simply an agreement of trust, respect and choice.
basically, it is the golden rule of reciprocity that Karen Armstrong, Barak Obama, the major religions and secular philosophers promote: treat one another as we wish to be treated.
no amount of lies, theft and bullying will deny this universal principle of compassion.
compassion motivates us to help the weak and rejoice in others’ joys.
compassion is the altruistic love that dissolves fear and hatred.
go on, give compassion a try.
the next time that you invite me to go to church, if i refuse your “goodwill”, will you have the good sense to leave me alone and even wish me well?
TLA says that “Secular fundamentalists are oppressive where they seek to mute religiously informed convictions in public debate, by demonising a view as religious.”
Actually, the reason why “religious views” are discredited in public is not because people are “anti-religious” but because those who espouse religious views in the public square:
a) use their religion as the basis for their arguments and are simply are not persuasive to those who do not share their faith;
b) advocate extreme positions which put people off – they come across as arrogant and intolerant of other views ;
c) are blinded by their own faith, act stupidly and sometimes unethically. The AWARE Takeover Saga is of course the classic demonstration of this.
It’s really pretty obvious. But TLA, the clever scholar from Cambridge would have us believe that those who discredit the views of the vocal religious, are the militants and the fundamentalists. The cheek of it! This year’s top prize for militancy and demonizing behavior goes to their Christian Right for their recent work in taking over AWARE, smear campaigns against the Press, AWARE’s CSE, NMP Siew Kum Hong, and NMP hopefuls Beatrice Chia-Richmond and Loretta Chen.
Trust, Respect and Choice – if the Christian Right Wing would offer this to the world, they would receive it too. And these values are entrenched in the Bible. “Do Unto Others” and “Love Your Neighbour”. Just live and let live, and the world will be a better place.
http://tnp.sg/news/story/0,4136,203337,00.html?
Church group members harrass student for days
http://wayangparty.com/?p=9897
Now who is preying on our young pple?
First, I’m going to repeat what I said on Twitter: Thio Li-Ann is very talented at using fancy metaphors, inventive phraseology and obtuse examples to gloss over the fact that she has no proper, logical argument.
Second, considering there has been all this concern about the supposed “polarising” of Singaporean society, I am surprised she would use this issue to set up binaries, making it seem as though everyone who identifies with a religion, possesses one value system and everyone who identifies as not following a religion, possesses another.
Thirdly, while I might agree, for the sake of argument, that lack of belief in a divine power could constitute an act of faith (and therefore a “religion”) in and of itself, I would hesitate, in the context of public/political debate, to frame it as such. Simply becaue there are many “belief systems” not involving divine power, that shape individuals and cultures, and that people put an almost-religious faith in – e.g. Money, Science, Media, Technology.Looking at what dictates the lives of many Singaporeans, I might even go as far as to suggest that some of these belief systems are what shape our values more than religion or even the construct of “Asian Values”. Should all these be considered religious and non-secular?
Once possessing no religion can be re-defined as a religion, and as a non-secular trait, we have to start dissecting ALL belief systems that don’t involve a divine power or a spiritual factor. Is Thio Li-Ann prepared to walk the talk and debate the possibility of all these belief systems being religious as well?
Seriously, there is no proper argument (at least not from her) for not keeping religion and politics separate. A clear division between religion and politics does not seek to exclude religion-based values from the public sphere, but instead, encourages us to forge and focus on developing policies based on values that we do share, despite possessing different religious ideologies.
This junior Ms Thio Li-ann is at least slightly better than the senior Ms Dr Thio’s earlier attitude or approach within AWARE because she dares to stand up & speak out loud & clear right in front of available grand-stand as a member of the house though I personally disagree with her overall concept of argument! She used the ancient history to apply in today practical living lives is already out of date! Because she still uses the stones to rub against each other to produce fire for cooking in the kitchen YET she enjoys all the technology products regardless good (holy) or bad ( not holy)! More so, the wordings & sentences (a b c…) are all created by mankind through evolution & then the language merely for communication purpose as human beings because we are the masters on earth. And Engish is just one language only! Remember, we are ALL still practically living on earth & we haven’t gone to heaven or hell yet! Does she has any choice but to drag religion in the picture? Actually, I personally feel religion is their base of starting point for ALL that had been happening during AWARE saga! If Dr Thio did not talk discuss dialogue debate within AWARE as a member, I feel she is a great ‘sin’ in the name of ALL Christians’ brothers & sisters in Singapore especially to AWARE. Because “Thou shall love your sisters/brohers or even your enemy”. NOT doing something quietly from behind such like the grap of AWARE leadership afterall Josie Lau was NOT elected to be President as I understand & instead she was appointed by those who were in majority in exco-members after the elected president on 28th March 2009 was pressured & finally was forced to resign after 10 days in the office! I feel Dr Thio is the root cause of AWARE’s members splitting right NOW! Nevertheless, I still hope they all can sit down at a round table & talk, discuss, dialogue & debate for the sole benefit of ALL Singapore WOMEN as well as MEN!
“It takes faith to believe or not to believe in God or gods. A lot of faith is needed to believe there is no divine. As Turkish journalist Mustafa Akyol wrote: ‘It is the atheist’s opium to regard that unsubstantiated faith as established fact.’ Thick secularism is thus an anti-religion religion.”
Bullshit. It takes NO faith to NOT believe in deities.
I agree with Tania who posted above. It doesn’t matter how many pretty words you wrap around an argument — it still doesn’t make it true or convincing. Dr Thio’s logical progression on how agnosticism or atheism require more ‘faith’ than standard religions, and thus constitute a religion in and of itself resides on some very shaky assumptions.
Even if agnosticism or atheism -did- require ‘a lot of faith’ (my brain just imploded typing that, but let’s just assume this, for the sake of an argument), agnostics and atheists don’t draw from a shared pool of knowledge and ideologies the way members of organized religions do. Not are they an organized group, and hence lack the political leverage that a religious organization might possess.
And Dr Thio is allowed to get away with this kind of specious reasoning in Parliament?