I would give the Prime Minister 85 out of 100 for his national day rally speech on race and religion.
First the good points.
It was good that the Prime Minister praised religion, as “a positive force in human societies… provid[ing] spiritual strength, guidance, solace and a sense of purpose to many, especially in our fast-changing and uncertain world”.
Also, it is always a good thing to remind religious Singaporeans and their religious leaders (85% of the population by the way) of the need to be tolerant, rational and grow the common space so that all can live harmoniously.
When then, you may ask, does he score only 85 marks at least in the mind of this Singaporean (whatever that grade is worth to the PM of course)?
That’s because, in the PM’s attempt to “assess progress” and “recognize trends”, he has somehow neglected to include a sector of Singaporeans (about 15% of them) in his analysis; namely Singaporeans who identify themselves as professing no religion, and who describe themselves variously as freethinkers, secularists, atheists or agnostics.
Now don’t get me wrong. I have nothing against such Singaporeans. I count a few of them as my friends. While not being religiously inclined themselves, and sometimes looking at their religiously inclined Singaporeans (I am one of them) with a certain amount of bemusement, they are, mostly tolerant, rational and also value the harmonious multi racial and multi religious society that is Singapore.
My “gripe” with the PM (if I can use that word), is very simple actually. Why is this group of Singaporeans somehow exempt from scrutiny, and from the need to be reminded by our national leaders that they too must play their role in striving towards a harmonious Singapore?
It is true. Some religiously inclined persons are susceptible to intolerant and irrational ideas and need to be put in their place.
But are so called “non-religious” persons, by virtue of their non-religiosity, naturally immune to the plague of intolerance and irrational behaviour?
I would think not.
In a speech about a year ago, Anthony Fisher, auxillary Bishop of Sydney coined the term “dogmatic secularism” to describe secularists who are “uncomfortable with pleas of immunity on religious or other conscientious grounds.”
Bishop Fisher should know. The State of Victoria, Australia, recently passed a law not only legalizing abortion up to 24 weeks but also mandating that doctors and other healthcare professionals who object to abortion on religious or conscientious grounds “refer women who approach them to other healthcare professionals”. Not only that, they are required to perform the abortion in case of an emergency. Failure to do so would result in a lost of their medical license.
This is a clear case of dogmatic secularists griped by intolerant behavior.
But surely secularists in Singapore are different. We will never go the way of the West.
I hope so but I am not so sure.
Indeed, if one is to browse through any major bookstore in Singapore (Borders and Kinokuniya comes to mind), one would quickly discover books with titles that are, to put it mildly, provocative.
We will quickly discover, titles like “God is not great: Why religion poisons everything” by Christopher Hitchens. Or if you prefer, there is also “the God Delusion” by Richard Dawkins (who by the way called the teaching of religion to children by parents a form of child abuse and has gone on record to call for government intervention). And if you are still in the mood “the atheist manifesto” by Michael Onfray, who for good measure, subtitles his book “the Case against Christianity, Judaism, and Islam.”
Books do not appear on the shelves of major bookstores unless there is a market for them. And judging by their prominent locations (very often in the religion section of all places), there is a sizeable demand.
Nor is this appetite for books advocating dogmatic secularism simply read as a pastime.
We see intolerant secularism actually rearing its ugly head in concrete actions.
Take the question of homosexuality for instance. If you disagree in public, even in Singapore, where homosexual sex acts are technically illegal, that the homosexual lifestyle should be promoted as a normal or a neutral thing, you had better be prepared to face being called "fundamentalist", "Christian Taliban" "hate monger" and other types of inflammatory language which, if used in other contexts, will risk bringing down the power of the sedition act on you for inciting racial and religious tension.
Or if you are a religiously inspired organization, who intend to raise money for a children’s learning centre by tying up with a local bank, but happen to also hold views on sexuality deemed by secularists to be politically incorrect, you risk facing a campaign waged against you demanding that Singapore’s largest bank stop its tie up with you.
Or if you are a parent concerned about what’s being taught for sexuality education in schools, you might be accused of “have[ing] an inflated sense of your own worth in society” “a selfish, ignorant fool” and “a menace to society”. (Oh yes this was published in a mainstream newspaper’s blog before it was thankfully taken down. If you want the full text of this so called journalist’s vile writings, please email me separately).
But nevertheless kudos to you, Prime Minister. It was good of you to remind our religious leaders and religiously inclined Singaporeans to be vigilant and not allow racial and religious intolerance to boil over.
It would have been even better if you have reminded the 15 percent of non-religious/secular Singaporeans that the same rules which apply to religious groups also apply to them.
Now I know that dogmatic secularists might accuse me of making a mountain out of a molehill and that they are fundamentally nice people and that I am engaged in scaremongering. (after all, that’s what religious people are often good at).
For the sake of this country, I hope for once that they are right.
Posts
