A recent op-ed written by Chua Mui Hoong and published in The Straits Times, ‘S’pore teen detained under ISA: Wake-up call for Christian community’ (5 Feb 2021), has piqued some interest and stirred emotive discussions within the non-religious community. This is particularly because Archbishop William Goh, of the Catholic Church, was quoted that he ‘believes that the greatest risk of religious fanaticism comes from a hostile and extreme form of secularism’. He argued that an overly secular society would push religion into marginalised, private areas, diminishing the scope for open, public sharing and discussions of commonalities and differences. Some of us may remember Archbishop Goh’s previous misinformed comments on atheism and secularism.
This bears repeating.
While there are many definitions of secularism around the world, secularism is not anti-religious in Singapore’s context. In October of 2019, Minister of Home Affairs and Minister of Law, Mr K Shanmugam, explained in Parliament that secularism in Singapore is unique:
It is not like secularism in some other countries. The example I spoke about in April, in this House, was France. There, the state will not intervene in religious matters, even, for example, if an act or speech offends other religions. We take a different position. I explained this in some detail, in my Parliamentary Statement in April before this House.
The Government does not privilege any religious group. But we also do not allow any religious group to be attacked or insulted. We actively encourage interfaith dialogues and activities to foster mutual understanding, respect. At the same time, we keep to the position that no religious group should influence Government policy and decision-making.
The Humanist Society (Singapore), as an organisation for the non-religious, atheists, agnostics, secularists, humanists, and free thinkers, support Singapore’s secularism model, where all religions are treated equally and where no religious group influences Government policy and decision-making.
Archbishop Goh’s reference to a ‘hostile and extreme form of secularism’ is regretful since this casts secularism as a boogeyman despite it having served us well thus far, enabling the separation of religion and politics, allowing us to exercise the freedom of and from religion, as well as to protect the common spaces for interfaith dialogues.
It is perhaps timely that the 16th issue of the IPS Exchange Series was recently published. Titled, ‘Our Singaporean Values’, it detailed findings from the World Values Survey, investigating public attitudes and values in Singapore, how they change and their impact on socio-political life. The survey showed that Protestants and Muslims were ‘far more likely to subscribe to religious exclusivism’. 53.5% of Protestants and 48.9% of Muslims agreed or strongly agreed that the only acceptable religion was their own. Religious fanaticism, defined as an uncritical obsession or devotion to one’s religion, may be fuelled by a self-righteous notion that other faiths, and their followers, are wrong or sinful. To quote Matthew 7:3, ‘why do you look at the speck of sawdust in your brother’s eye and pay no attention to the plank in your own eye?’
The survey also further demonstrated that Muslims (70%) and Protestants (58.1%) were again ‘most likely to express agreement or strong agreements that religion trumped science’. We have already seen how demagogues, conspiracy theories, and the unwillingness to heed reason, evidence, and science, can come together to create the perfect storm, wreaking havoc on a pandemic-stricken democracy. The right to profess, practise, and propagate one’s religion is enshrined in Article 15 of the Constitution. But when such beliefs turn hostile towards facts, we run the risk of going against public order, public health, and morality.
We do agree with the Archbishop when he said that, ‘[w]hen religions are being privatised, we do not know exactly what the other religions also believe in. I’ve always advocated that the way to protect everyone, including the secularists, is what the government is doing – to create common space for dialogue so that those from different religions can understand each other and understand how religion affects politics, government and state.’
The Humanist Society supports such common spaces for dialogue so that those from different religions, and those who are non-religious, can understand each other better. However, common spaces should not be used for aggressive lobbying against government policies, nor used as platforms for pushy proselytisation.
We concur with See Guat Kwee and Mohamed Imran Mohamed Taib, two well-respected interfaith veterans, that ‘there is a strain of extremism in each religion’ and that ‘we must talk of extremism as a problem in all religions’. We must be able to have open, civil discourse about such issues in order to acknowledge and address them appropriately. The Humanist Society welcomes everyone to our ‘Ask Me Anything’ session to be held in the month of April. The AMA provides a safe space for curious, or even sensitive questions, without shame or judgment.
Lastly, every religion, belief and creed will have their critics. All criticism will be hurtful, one way or another. If poorly and brashly communicated, criticism can be counterproductive. However, spaces for constructive criticism must be necessary and even proactively protected to drive reform, expose any abuse, and ensure that interpretations stay relevant to the times.
It is through constructive criticism that Singapore progresses and prospers as a multi-religious, multi-racial society, with sufficient spaces for each community and a better future for all of us.
Executive Committee
Humanist Society (Singapore)
