My letter to the Straits Times in response to Felicia Tan’s letter was published on its Online Forum today.
Religiously informed views can make policies better
I REFER to last Thursday’s letter by Ms Felicia Tan, ‘Facts outshine faith’.
Ms Tan advances the concept of pure secularism as the superior and only rational option for a multi-religious country like Singapore, believing that this is essential ‘to ensure that no policies or public debates encroach on the beliefs or disbeliefs of any individual’.
I respectfully disagree. A non-religious policy has as much potential to encroach on the beliefs or disbeliefs of any individual as a religiously informed one. Even a non-religious policy such as on the integrated resorts will encroach on the beliefs of those who believe the state should not condone gambling, whether out of religious conviction or non-religious experience.
In my opinion, it is precisely because Singapore is multi-religious that it is necessary for a fair opportunity to be given to all views, whether based on religion or not, to be debated by any individual or parliamentarian who cares to raise them. What is essential is that this debate should be carried out respectfully, with the hope that different views will find common areas of agreement, and with the understanding that one view (or certain parts of one view) may sometimes have to give way graciously to another in the implementation of a policy or law.
Ms Tan also argues that, as part of pure secularism, ‘only logic and reason should dominate discourse’.
And that ’scientific, sociological and economic facts’ and not faith should form the basis for a policy or law.
The process of law or policymaking is not so simple.
The death penalty or castration would be highly effective in deterring rapists from re-offending. However, many of us would hesitate to prescribe such severe penalties for rapists. A clinical examination of scientific or economic facts alone does not determine law or policy.
This leaves secular values to mean the values held by the majority on a non-religious basis at a particular time. If so, Ms Tan must be prepared for the possibility that such values may change over time. What the majority perceives as cruel and unusual punishment for rapists today may be regarded as completely acceptable in the future.
Religiously informed values, on the other hand, do not shift with the mood prevailing in society, at least in theory. This is the positive contribution which religious conviction can bring to the debate and formulation of policies and laws.
This is the original text.
Facts Outshine Faith ?
I refer to the forum letter, “Facts Outshine Faith”, by Ms Felicia Tan (28 May 2009).
Ms Tan advances the concept of pure secularism as the superior and only rational option for a multi-religious country like Singapore, believing that this is essential “to ensure that no policies or public debates encroach on the beliefs or disbeliefs of any individual”.
I respectfully disagree. A non-religious policy has as much potential to encroach on the beliefs or disbeliefs of any individual, as does a religiously-informed one. Even a non-religious policy such as the establishment of integrated resorts, will encroach on the beliefs of those who believe that the state should not condone gambling, whether out of religious conviction or non-religious experience.
In my opinion, it is precisely because Singapore is multi-religious, that it is necessary for a fair opportunity to be given to all views, whether based on religion or not, to be debated by any individual or parliamentarian who cares to raise them. What is essential is that this debate should (to the extent it is humanly possible) be carried out respectfully, with the hope that the different views will find common areas of agreement, and with the understanding that one view (or certain parts of one view) may sometimes have to graciously give way to another in the implementation of a policy or law.
Ms Tan also argues that, as part of pure secularism, “only logic and reason should dominate discourse”. “Scientific, sociological and economic facts” and not faith should form the basis for a policy or law.
I question if the process of law / policy making is so simple.
Factually, the death penalty or castration would be highly effective in preventing rapists from reoffending. However, many of us would hesitate to prescribe such severe penalties for rapists, and indeed modern societies do not. This suggests that a clinical examination of scientific or economic facts alone should not determine law and / or policy.
In the above example, a common perception that the death penalty or castration for rape would constitute cruel and unusual punishment and a violation of human rights, has resulted in the imposition of more humane penalties for rapists. In other words, clinical facts are sometimes (if not always) weighed against personal values, before a law or policy is formulated.
Ms Tan would argue that these values should be purely secular. Can they ? I have just argued that it may not always be possible to derive (secular) values from a clinical examination of scientific or economic facts.
This leaves secular values to mean the values held by the majority on a non-religious basis at the relevant point in time. If so, Ms Tan must be prepared for the possibility that such values may change over time. That what the majority perceives as cruel and unusual punishment for rapists today, may be regarded as completely acceptable sometime in the future.
Religiously-informed values, on the other hand, do not shift with the mood prevailing in society, at least in theory. This is the positive contribution which religious conviction can bring to the debate and formulation of policies and laws.
