Gerald Giam

Religion and its discontents

Freedom of religion is one of the fundamental human rights that most of the world has agreed on — at least in principle. In practice, however, people in many countries continue to face restrictions to varying degrees in the practice of their own faith. In this article, we examine the situation in Singapore.

A universal right

Article 18 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) states that:

Everyone has the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion; this right includes freedom to change his religion or belief, and freedom, either alone or in community with others and in public or private, to manifest his religion or belief in teaching, practice, worship and observance.

The UDHR was adopted by the United Nations (UN) General Assembly in 1948. The UDHR forms the basis for the International Bill of Human Rights which has taken the force of international law since 1976. This means that all 192 member states of the UN are legally obliged to abide by this declaration.

Freedom of religion in Singapore

In Singapore, freedom of religion is also enshrined in our Constitution. Article 15 of the Constitution of the Republic of Singapore states that:

(1) Every person has the right to profess and practise his religion and to propagate it.

Many Singaporeans may not be aware of this, but freedom of religion in Singapore is accorded to every person, in contrast with freedom of speech and expression (Article 14) which is a privilege technically enjoyed by only Singaporeans.

People of faith in Singapore are fortunate to enjoy the freedom to practice their religion, both within the confines of their religious institutions and, to a more limited extent, outside. Singaporeans enjoy a level of freedom of worship of the same — or possibly even greater — degree than in advanced democracies.

That Singapore has managed to uphold religious freedom despite our history of racially and religiously-motivated violence is something that the government and the people must be commended for.

‘Religious touting’

Despite the general satisfaction with the state of religious freedom in Singapore, some rumblings of discontent can be heard on the Internet and in the mainstream media.

In his June 15 piece on The Online Citizen (TOC), Religion and the right not to respect it, Joel Tan lamented that society accorded a lopsided deference to religion, sometimes at the expense of other fundamental human rights.

On April 12 this year, the Straits Times published a forum letter by Wee Feng Yi, who in addition to complaining about the “noticeable trend by Singaporeans to proselytise in public”, proposed enacting a law to ban “religious touting”.

Back in 2005, the Straits Times ran an Insight feature on proselytising in the public sphere. It highlighted public concerns about proselytising in schools and hospitals. The Ministry of Education made clear its stance on the issue.

A common thread in all these articles is the unhappiness in some quarters with unwelcome proselytisation by Christians.

There is usually no shortage of secular viewpoints on this matter. Many secularists clearly relish the opportunity to pummel religion — and Christianity in particular — for bringing their beliefs into the public sphere. It is fashionable for intellectuals to brand organised religion as being backward, intolerant and not given to reason, unlike their more “enlightened” secular world-views. It is not unusual to see religion being held responsible for everything that is wrong with the world. US President George Bush’s much derided neo-conservative agenda is inevitably tied to his “fundamentalist” Christian faith.

It is interesting that — at least in Singapore — the same people who are so open about their criticisms of Christians hide behind the cloak of “religious harmony” to avoid criticising other religions in the same manner.

Fair criticism

Of course not all the criticisms are without merit. As a Christian, I have seen and known a few Christians whose “evangelistic” actions seem motivated more by proving themselves right and others wrong, than by genuine love and concern for those who do not share their faith.

One of the authors of the New Testament anticipated that this would be a problem. In his A.D. 56 letter to the ancient church in Corinth, Paul the apostle warned his flock that: “If I speak with the tongues of men and of angels, but have not love, I am only a resounding gong or a clanging cymbal.” Right things must be done in the right way or they will be perceived as wrong things.

Christian teachings clearly instruct followers that love must be the main motivation of everything we do. Evangelising with any other motivation will likely produce a negative reaction — and deservedly so.

In response to the 2005 Straits Times article on proselytising in hospitals, the Christian Medical and Dental Fellowship told the paper that “Under no circumstances should doctors abuse the professional relationship with the patient and compel a patient to embrace a certain faith.”

Methodist bishop, Dr Robert Solomon, who is also a medical doctor, said: “When you’re treating patients, their religious views are important and need to be taken into consideration. That dimension will be cut off from the process of healing if we get to the stage where talking about religion is complete anathema… But if the doctor brings upthe issue, and the patient is uncomfortable, then I think a line has been crossed.”

Not an excuse to curb religious freedom

I agree with this moderate stance on this issue of religion and the public sphere. The vast majority of Christians that I know are extremely sensitive — often even to the point of being fearful — when talking to their friends about their faith. Insensitive Christian evangelists make up a very small minority of the faithful.

Having said that, it is also unfair to label any Christian who makes the effort to tell others about their faith a religious tout. Religious faith is something that is intensely personal. It is impossible to compel someone to embrace a certain faith. No one can be forced to genuinely believe in something against one’s will.

Many secularists have argued that there should be a thick wall of separation from religion in the public sphere. The Straits Times forum writer mentioned above had even argued for proselytisation to be banned, despite the right to “propagate” one’s religion being codified in our Constitution.

This is sadly misguided.

Secularists have often charged that Christians hold an exclusive world-view and expect others to conform to their views. In doing so, they have failed to recognise that they too are expecting people of faith to unquestio
ningly accept their concept of keeping the public sphere free of religion.

The way forward

I believe freedom of religion, freedom of speech and religious harmony can all co-exist. We can have all three without impinging on each others’ rights.

Evangelists of all religions need to always respect others’ deeply-held beliefs, learn when to draw the line and always let their actions be motivated by love and concern for their fellow man, rather than self-seeking pride.

Liberal secularists on the other hand, would do well to apply their same standards of freedom of political and artistic expression to the realm of religious expression.

Political Films and the Ruling Party

During yesterday’s Seminar on Internet Regulatory Reform, the subject of “party political” films was discussed and debated.

For readers who are not already aware, films which promote any political party in Singapore are banned. The relevant legislation is Section 33 of the Films Act. Section 35 of the Films Act is an omnibus law that gives the Minister absolute discretion to ban any film that, in his opinion, is “not in the public interest”.

The 13 bloggers who submitted the proposal on Internet freedom unanimously agreed that both these pieces of legislation should be repealed.

Cheong Yip Seng, chairman of the government-appointed Advisory Council on the Impact of New Media on Society, yesterday appeared to be in favour of keeping this law. Citing a recent conference he attended in Canada, he argued that since films tend to have a strong emotive appeal, they could easily be used to “distort the truth”. His words were covered well by The Sunday Times today.

I’m glad Tan Tarn How, a researcher from the Institute of Policy Studies, debunked this false dichotomy. He said that voting is an emotional exercise and there is nothing wrong with appealing to the emotions.

I also gave my views to the panel and the audience after Tan:

When we were drafting the section on the regulation of political content on the Internet, we were well aware that the removal of Sections 33 and 35 of the Films Act will benefit the ruling party more than the opposition. This is because the PAP, with its vast resources, will be able to put out much slicker and emotive videos than the opposition could.

In fact, even if the opposition were to put out a video that “distorts the truth”, with its easy access to the mass media, the PAP could easily debunk it and reveal the opposition’s lie.

But what the PAP perhaps fears, is if on Day 6 of the nine day election campaign period, an opposition party puts out a truthful video that uncovers a real misdeed on the part of the ruling party (eg, a top lawyer fixing judicial appointments or a Health Minister committing adultery in a hotel room), then the whole tide of the electorate could suddenly turn against the government and vote them out of power.

Perhaps this is why they want to continue to keep that law.

But come to think of it, this law at the end of the day might not even protect them.

As Cherian George pointed out, laws like this only serve to deter law-abiding citizens. It cannot stop someone from uploading such a video to YouTube.

So either way, they can’t protect themselves and cover up wrongdoing. Might as well open up and let a hundred films bloom.

Internet Content Consultative Committee

I attended the Seminar on Internet Regulatory Reform at URA Centre this afternoon. The seminar was kindly sponsored and organised by NTU’s Wee Kim Wee School of Communications, together with “Bloggers 13” — the 13 bloggers who submitted the Proposals for Internet freedom in Singapore to the MICA Minister exactly two months ago. Special thanks must go to Dr Cherian George, who mooted the idea for this seminar and Alex Au and Choo Zheng Xi who put it all together.

I was quite glad that many members of civil society, academia and bloggers turned up to support the event. Also present were Mr Cheong Yip Seng, chairman of the Advisory Council on the Impact of New Media on Society (AIMS), and members of the press.

After presentations explaining the proposals, the floor was opened for Q&A.

It seemed that the subject that caught the most interest was our proposal to establish an Internet Content Consultative Committee (IC3). This is the section of our proposal where we mentioned the IC3:

2.3 Community moderation instead of formal regulation

We believe that almost all of society’s legitimate concerns about the abuse of free speech can be addressed outside the formal regulatory system. Online communities have already evolved sophisticated norms of informal self-regulation.

Internet forums are almost always moderated; bloggers keep an eye over readers’ comments appended to their posts. Popular sites heavy with pictorial or video content, such as YouTube, have their own rules forbidding salacious material.

With the evolution of new technology and social practices of netizens, it is neither practical nor is there need for the state to play the role of a master moderator. Legislation and state intervention, except in extremis, do not provide the best solution in dealing with the emerging complexities of the Internet.

The Internet is a social space, and social norms of leeway and consideration are constantly shifting. Although we have faith that these norms will evolve in pro-social directions, we agree that this won’t happen without some concerted effort. What is needed is a process through which online communities are represented in Singapore’s search for the right balance between individual freedoms and social goals.

One possible approach is to organise an Internet Content Consultative Committee (IC3) comprising one-third independent content providers, one-third persons familiar with rapidly evolving digital technologies, and one-third regular consumers of Internet content (i.e. regular surfers). The IC3 would issue recommendations whenever controversies arise regarding digital content, for example offering its view when conflicts arise between the state and content providers alleged to have behaved irresponsibly.

The IC3’s deliberations should be open to public view – and digital technology can be harnessed to this goal. The objective over time is to subject more and more so-called “sensitive” areas to public reason, replacing intervention by the state (whether heavy handed or light touch) with people’s own capacities for discernment and judgement. The only viable long term response to the impracticality of internet censorship is to help Singapore mature as a society, online as well as offline.

I think this is something that requires more discussion, and probably another paper fleshing out details of this proposal.

The libertarians amongst my fellow bloggers will question why there is even a need to have an IC3, when what we should be calling for is total freedom on the Internet.

I do not believe that this is practicable. In any community, there are bound to be those who contravine generally accepted rules and codes of conduct. At stake also is the racial and religious harmony of our state, and the protection of minors from undesirable content on the Internet.

I am persuaded that the government will make no move towards acceding to our requests like repealing the Films Act, Section 33 (party political films) and 35 (films contrary to public interest) until every last fuddy duddy there is convinced that the community is able to self-regulate. IC3, therefore, could fill in this gap to allow the government to cede this space to citizens.

A point of debate during our seminar was about who would appoint the IC3. Should it be the government or civil society? At stake is the credibility and sustainability of the IC3.

As a member of the Films Appeal Committee, I am well aware of the strengths and limitations of government-appointed committees.

For the IC3, I feel it would be ideal if it were a citizen-established committee which receives no funding from the government. The members of the committee could include representatives from blogosphere, educators, academics, media, and the government. The chairman of the committee should be elected by fellow members on a regular basis.

There is still much more to discuss regarding this proposal. We would very much want to involve the wider Internet community in this. Suggestions are most welcome!

Seminar on Internet Regulatory Reform, Sat 21 Jun, 2pm

There will be a public forum this Saturday, 21 June 2008, on Internet regulatory reform. Organised by the Wee Kim Wee School of Communication and Information, Nanyang Technological University, it aims to contribute ideas to the government’s ongoing review of Internet regulations. It will discuss the proposals submitted to the government recently by a group of independent bloggers.

Mr Arun Mahizhnan, Deputy Director of the Institute of Policy Studies, will provide a bird’s eye view with his opening remarks. Members of the bloggers’ initiative for Internet reform will present the key elements of their proposals, and there will lots of time set aside for questions and open debate.

Says Assistant Professor Cherian George from the Wee Kim Wee School:
“Some of the key issues to be discussed are deeply contentious, even within the blogging community. We don’t expect a consensus at the end of the day, but we can at least aim for a better understanding of the various positions.”

Mr Choo Zheng Xi, an editor-in-chief of The Online Citizen: “Public awareness and discussion are critical. It is important that as many stakeholders as possible are involved in shaping the future of newmedia, and there is no more important stakeholder than every single member of the public.”

Mr Tan Tarn How, a media researcher with the Institute of Policy Studies: “The proposals call for a fundamental reassessment of Singapore’s Internet regulations. Anyone who is concerned about the current regulation regime for new media – its philosophical underpinnings, its enforceability, and its wider effects on society –
ought to give the proposal serious consideration, and the forum is a good occasion for doing it.”

The forum, formally titled “Seminar on Internet Regulatory Reform”, will be held at the Function Hall (level 5) of the URA Centre on Maxwell Road, on Saturday 21, June 2008, at 2 p.m.

Admission is free and the event will be open to media reporting.

To reserve a seat, please register by sending an email to:
irr-singapore-subscribe@googlegroups.com

On opposition politicians

The Straits Times asked for my views of four Singapore opposition politicians. The article appeared in today’s Insight (login required).

This was my full response to ST:

Low Thia Khiang – Sustainable development

Low seems to be approaching opposition politics with the aim of “sustainable development”. Together with Sylvia Lim, he appears to be very slowly but steadily building up a political party that is respected by Singaporeans, avoiding anything (read: lawsuits) that could derail the party. This has made the WP the opposition party with the most broad-based support in Singapore.

Unfortunately the “softly, softly” approach is seen by many as weak and ineffective. He seems to be more content being a “check” (holding the government to account) than a “balance” (coming up with sound alternative policies and visions) to the ruling party.

All this could change if he and Ms Lim commit themselves to recruiting more leaders into their fold. Already, they have managed to assemble a small but solid team around them. But time is not on their side and the expectations of Singaporeans of them are higher than they seem to realise.

Chiam See Tong – Mr Nice Guy

Chiam’s sincerity is his greatest strength. He is probably the most respected of all opposition politicians in Singapore. His residents see that he genuinely cares for their welfare. However, he has in the past surrounded himself with the wrong people who ended up playing him out. With his poor health hindering his effectiveness, it would be sad to see his party take a bow together with him. Unfortunately this is where his party seems to be headed.

J.B. Jeyaretnam – Unappreciated

JBJ is a man who was ahead of his time. Being the first opposition MP since independence, he raised many pertinent issues in Parliament and kept the Government on their toes. Unfortunately, the press failed to report what he said, and he was often painted as harsh critic of the Government and little else. Had he been in Parliament today, he would surely have been much better appreciated, if not by the mainstream media, then by bloggers.

Chee Soon Juan – Rebel who’s lost his cause

Chee is a politician who would be more effective as a political activist. Feel free to quote from my two recent blog posts on Chee:
http://singaporepatriot.blogspot.com/2008/05/politicians-and-activists-both-have.html
http://singaporepatriot.blogspot.com/2008/05/chee-should-quit-politics-and-start.html

Obama courting lobbyists

Barack Obama, who claims to reject Washington lobbyists, three days ago addressed the American-Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) — probably the most powerful lobby group in the US.

He pledged to “eliminate” the threat of Iran and do everything in his power to prevent Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon. He also promised $30 billion in assistance to Israel over the next decade. To a rousing ovation, he declared he would always keep the threat of military action on the table to defend Israel.

It is certainly a sight to see the future leader of the most powerful nation on earth grovelling at group of lobbyists who represent the narrow interests of a small foreign state.

To be fair to Obama, this is the default position of any American politician who aspires to be elected to high office. John McCain is even more hawkish when it comes to defending Israel and attacking Iran (recall his “Bomb, bomb, Iran” rendition of the Beach Boys’ song).

Fortunately, Obama in his speech signalled his commitment to realising an independent, contiguous Palestinian state at peace with Israel. One could hear a pin drop in the auditorium when he said that. I hope that as president, Obama will honour this commitment.

I support Israel’s right to exist and to defend its borders. But I do not support a US policy that provides unconditional support to Israel while ignoring the plight of Palestinians who are subject to such appalling injustice in their own land.

Myanmar generals lose to Saddam

The Myanmar generals seem pleased with the results of the recent referendum to approve a new constitution which bans Aung San Suu Kyi from standing for elections and reserves one-quarter of the parliamentary seats for the military. This of course means the Constitution will effectively never be amended, since two-thirds majority is needed to change it.

According to ‘official’ results, 92.48 per cent of voters had endorsed the charter, and voter turnout was 98.12 per cent.

98.12 per cent turnout! Wow, General Than Shwe. Your people must really love you. Despite two of your districts being virtually wiped out by Cyclone Nargis, the people there still managed to make it to the polls to vote for you.

Still they lost out to their rival dictator, the late Saddam Hussein. Back in October 2002, just months before the invasion of Iraq, officials there proclaimed that Saddam won 100 per cent backing in a referendum on whether he should rule for another seven years.

Seminar on Internet Regulatory Reform

Organised by the Wee Kim Wee School of Communication and Information, NTU

“The job of a citizen is to keep his mouth open” – Gunter Grass

Are Singaporeans satisfied with the state of Internet regulation as existing?

If not, what changes do we wish to see and how can a bottom-up desire for reform translate into policy review?

Can Singapore afford the political and social costs of free speech? Is there a contradiction between wanting freedom for political speech and controls over social speech? Is technology really in the driver’s seat? Are governments powerless in the face of a global Internet?

Guest speaker:

Mr Arun Mahizhnan, Dep. Dir. Institute of Policy Studies

Presentations by members of the Bloggers’ Group for Internet Deregulation

Chaired by Asst Prof Cherian George, Wee Kim Wee School, NTU

—————

Date: Sat, 21 June 2008

Time: 2.00pm to 5.00pm

Venue: URA Centre, Maxwell Road, Function Hall, Level 5

Admission: Free, RSVP required

Media: Open to reporting

To register (RSVP), please send an empty email to :

irr-singapore-subscribe@googlegroups.com

You will get an email response asking you to confirm your request.

Late notices, if any, will come from the Googlegroup.

Politicians and activists both have a role in S’pore

It appears I have upset a few anonymous readers (presumably SDP supporters or members) for suggesting in my previous post that Chee Soon Juan should concentrate on being a political activist rather than a politician.

My suggestion is not new. I know several other people — none of whom are PAP supporters — who have suggested the same thing.

I believe there are two main ways of engaging in politics in Singapore, and elsewhere: One, by contesting elections; and two, through civil society activism. (The PAP, through the Catherine Lim affair in the 1990s, believes only the first is valid. I strongly disagree.)

Fortunately in Singapore, both avenues are available to citizens. In some countries like China, North Korea and Cuba, only the second method is possible, albeit very difficult. One reader pointed out that Chee and company will never get their application to start a civil activist group approved. For someone who advocates non-violent civil disobedience, this should be the least of his concerns.

To build a democratic society — as we have all pledged to do — Singapore needs both politicians and political activists. Neither is more or less important than the other. In fact, the two often have a symbiotic relationship.

Thus, when I say that Chee should quit politics and start an activist group, I mean him no disrespect. For the reasons explained in my previous post, I believe he will serve Singaporeans better as a non-partisan political activist.

Since Chee likes to compare himself with Mahatma Gandhi and Martin Luther King, Jr, he would be aware that neither of these men was a politician, nor did they have plans to become one. They were above partisan politics.

I have seen Chee speak on several occasions, and I know he is not the crazy person that most Singaporeans think he is (probably stemming from the way the media paints him to be). I agree with many of his beliefs on freedom, democracy and human rights. Unfortunately, unless these ideals are translated to dollars and cents for “pragmatic” Singaporeans who make up the majority of the electorate, he will make no headway at the polls.

Having said that, there is a great and pressing need for more political education in Singapore. Most Singaporeans are not aware of their civil and political rights. They don’t know where the law stands on issues. I frequently get asked by well-meaning friends: “Won’t you get in trouble for criticizing the government on your blog?” I also know of ex-colleagues in the Civil Service who think civil servants and NTUC members must vote for the PAP during elections. (That is not true, by the way.)

Chee and his colleagues could help fill this gap. In fact, they are already doing this quite well. The One Nation Under Lee film which they supported (or some believe, made) is an excellent example. That film chronicles all the strong arm tactics used by Lee Kuan Yew to suppress dissent in Singapore during and after his reign. These are important historical issues that every Singaporean, regardless of political affiliation, should at least be aware of.

It would be much less distracting if Chee didn’t appear to be doing that to win votes at the polls.

Loser generals

From the wires:

Myanmar junta distributes foreign aid – with generals’ names on it

YANGON (Myanmar) – MYANMAR’S military regime distributed international aid Saturday but plastered the boxes with names of top generals in an apparent effort to turn the relief effort for last week’s devastating cyclone into a propaganda exercise.

The United Nations sent in three more planes and several trucks loaded with aid even though the junta took over its first two shipments. The government agreed to let a US cargo plane bring in supplies on Monday, but foreign disaster experts were still being barred entry.

State-run television continuously ran images of top generals – including the junta leader, Senior Gen. Than Shwe – handing out boxes of aid to survivors at elaborate ceremonies.

One box bore the name of Lt Gen Myint Swe, a rising star in the government hierarchy, in bold letters that overshadowed a smaller label reading: ‘Aid from the Kingdom of Thailand.’

‘We have already seen regional commanders putting their names on the side of aid shipments from Asia, saying this was gift from them and then distributing it in their region,’ said Mr Mark Farmaner, director of Burma Campaign UK, which campaigns for human rights and democracy in the country.

‘It is not going to areas where it is most in need,’ he said in London.

What a bunch of sad losers these idiotic generals are. Now we know why they are holding up aid agencies’ access to their suffering people — they are too busy pasting their stupid names on the boxes.