Archive for the ‘Politics’ Category
Naomi Klein: Lying to sell books
Secularism, the Dr Thio Li-ann way
This post had been cross-posted to Singapore Angle here. I have disabled comments for this post, and comments should be redirected to the page on Singapore Angle.
I read the column published by Dr Thio Li-ann here, and I wish to comment on the issues raised.
A False Dichotomy
Dr Thio begins the column by setting up “theocracy” and “atheistic systems” as opposite extremes along a spectrum of secularity. She notes that neither extreme is desirable in multi-religious societies.There are two points to be addressed here. Firstly, she contends that the extremes are undesirable “in societies where people are of many religions”. This implies that they would be acceptable of all people are of the same religion, or if all people are atheist. Secondly, she presents communist regimes as examples of atheistic systems practicing “secular fundamentalism”.
The latter assertion betrays a superficial understanding of history and politics. Marx may have proclaimed religion to be the opiate of the masses, but to label communist regimes as “secular fundamentalist” would be to ignore the fact that these regimes are typically driven by cults of personality. Maoism, Stalinism, Leninism and their various counterparts would be more appropriately described as “godless religions”.
Rather than an outright ban, the usual practice was to restrict and control the activities of organised religion. That would have hardly been an indication of “secular fundamentalism”. Furthermore, the primary reason behind such restrictions was due more to realpolitik than any desire to adhere to Marxist ideals. Organised religion represented a threat to the power of the rulers, and therefore were not allowed to function independent of government approval. The various Orthodox churches behind the Iron Curtain were allowed to operate as long as they toed the official line.
It is interesting that Dr Thio chose to imply guilt by associating atheism with communism. Since communist regimes have inflicted horrors on their people, and they were supposed to be atheist, therefore atheism must also be bad. This approach however, only serves to underscore how unpersuasive her argument is.
Curiously, the extremes were described as undesirable only if a given society was multi-religious. The question however, is how many societies do we know of which are mono-religious? Should it not be that either extreme is undesirable regardless of circumstance, due to its oppressive effect on the freedom to have a religion or not have a religion?
I submit that Dr Thio’s characterisation of the extremes is inaccurate. The issue in question is not about religion or secularity, but a distinction between elevating religious beliefs to having the force of law, and restricting religious faith to that of personal applicability.
The Inheritance
Dr Thio is not wrong when she says that religion has a part to play in shaping the contours of public policy. It is certainly not the case that those of us who advocate the separation of religion and state in Singapore would wish to banish religion entirely from the public sphere.
Indeed, the foundations of secular humanism and various atheist systems of thought are intellectual and moral descendants of the Judaeo-Christian tradition. Concepts such as free will, human rights, reason, logic and the scientific method had their roots in the European Renaissance. For good or ill, religion is the primary force shaping societal norms of what is right and wrong in most parts of the world.
Unfortunately, Dr Thio’s brand of “moral conservatism” represents the worst instincts of that tradition, the authoritarian, the fascist, the totalitarian, the desire to control and oppress anything that does not conform to dogma. The Crusades, the Inquisition, Salem witch trials, abortion clinic bombings and 9-11 are but just a few examples. When religion is held to be beyond criticism or review, it is all too easy for fallible humans to hijack its institutions in pursuit of non-religious goals.
Law and secularism
Where the monotheistic religions hold themselves to be immutable truths to the exclusion of all others, the “secular framework” envisioned by Dr Thio is but a politically correct way of saying “I believe my religion is better than yours, but I won’t say it in public to avoid conflict”. This attitude is hypocritical at best, and at its worst, is an exercise in moral relativism.
For the above reasons, a secular legal system is, and has to be, more than a mere “framework to promote the co-existence of different religions and belief systems”. It is a guarantee to all people, regardless of religious or not, that they are allowed to live their lives free from the coercion of any one religion. Surely it cannot be fair or just to bind people to rules from a religion of which they are not a part?
Dr Thio states that religious and secular values MAY overlap, in cases such as murder, but she does not state why. Implicit in her argument is that the secular perspective is immoral, or amoral at best, when nothing can be further from the truth. There are moral principles which are universal to all humans, and which transcend individual religions.
An objective morality
Morality is objective and universal. The reason why we condemn murder is because a person’s life has been taken without their consent. We prohibit theft because a person’s property has been taken without their consent. We forbid fraudulent acts because people who are mislead are not able to give meaningful consent. We punish rapists because they infringe on the life and body of another without their consent.
These social norms have arisen out of thousands of years of human interaction, thus a secular perspective of the law is no less founded on the wisdom of human tradition. What we know as “law” is but an implementation of these social norms into formal rules, to be enforced with the threat of violence against those who infringe on these rules.
Thus the fundamental reason for the existence of government is this: governments have a monopoly on the use of coercive power to enforce legal rules, in order that they may protect the will of individuals from being subverted by others. In return, government power is, and should be, confined for that purpose.
Pragmatic rule-making
There is no doubt that our government is pragmatic in its approach to the law. The reason behind the decision not to repeal s 377a has less to do with “conservatism” of any sort, and more to do with horse-trading. We leave the law untouched, and these self-styled “conservatives” will in turn keep quiet about other more important issues such as the casino, abortion and the death penalty.
Given that homosexuals are unlikely to have much influence, if any at all, on the outcome of elections, it is understandable why the government has chosen this route. What is unacceptable is for these “conservatives” to pretend that their position is morally consistent, when in fact they are merely aiming for the softest targets who have no voice in policy-making.
Black sheep or white sheep, you are still sheep
Deng Xiaoping had this famous quote attributed to him, which goes something like this:
“No matter if it is a white cat or a black cat; as long as it can catch mice, it is a good cat.”「不管白猫、黑猫，逮住老鼠就是好猫。」
And I realised that this could be easily adapted for our Singaporean context, but with a twist in the meaning. In Singapore, it doesn’t matter if you are black sheep or white sheep, you are all still sheep.
I think there’s no need to assign colours to the 2 sides, either colour will do. The important point is to acknowledge the fact that people who are unthinkingly anti-govt/PAP and people who are unthinkingly pro-govt/PAP are equally moronic.
Sad to say, there are no signs that the unwashed masses have any intention of lifting themselves out of their stupor. Those who think it is oh-so-fashionable to be rabidly anti-establishment have merely flipped from being mindless followers of one Master to being mindless followers of another Master. No gain in self-awareness, no signs of any thoughtful self-reflection. Just look at the commenters on Mr Wang’s blog, or Singabloodypore, or Singapore Election Watch.
The worst thing about these people, is that they do not realise that they are STILL being sheep. By reflexively opposing any position taken by the PAP, without exercising anything in the manner of critical thought, analysis or just some effort in trying to understand what is at stake, these people are acting in the very manner that validates MM Lee’s belief that Singapore is still a long way away from being able to adopt a Western-style democracy.
And that makes me very sad, because I have always thought that all human beings are capable of rational thought and reason. It appears that many Singaporeans are not. This is a state of affairs for which I lay the blame squarely on MM Lee himself. For years he has cultivated a political culture which discourages clear, independent and analytical thought. This culture permeates every facet of Singapore life, from the civil service to our education system, right down to the person on the street. The end result is that whenever Singaporeans talk about politics, people unthinkingly repeat the same few natty slogans and catchphrases that Lee Kuan Yew and the PAP foisted on the people. Train them to think for themselves? Blasphemy! There is only the prophecy of the lightning bolts. Everything else is banned.
Now the results of this policy have come full circle to haunt the PAP. We have generations of unthinking morons in Singapore, unable to think or fend for themselves in a new global economy. They think that they either have to blindly follow the PAP, or blindly follow anything that appears to be opposed to the PAP, their minds trapped within this false dichotomy. Without anything to follow, they become lost, without their moorings, without a shepherd or a Master to guide them in this strange new world.
As long as these morons do not realise that their only master is themselves, they will always be, regardless of which colour they take, mere sheep.
