# Singapore Prime Minister warns that RELIGION(extremism) threatens stability



## CougarKing (17 Aug 2009)

And PM Lee re-emphasizes Singapore's own practice of the tenet of "Seperation of Church and State".

http://sg.news.yahoo.com/ap/20090817/tap-as-singapore-religion-832f4ab.html



> *Singapore PM warns religion threatens stability *
> By ALEX KENNEDY,Associated Press Writer AP - Monday, August 17
> SINGAPORE - *Singapore's prime minister warned Sunday in his National Day speech that "aggressive preaching" by religious groups and attempts to convert others threaten the tiny city-state's stability.
> 
> ...


----------



## Edward Campbell (18 Aug 2009)

Some ethnic and religious tension is always just under the surface in Singapore – especially relative to the Malay minority and often provoked by Malaysia, itself, in an attempt to better the lot of the ethnic Malays in Singapore.

Singapore, itself, was born of ethnic divisions. The country is about 75% Chinese and it simply *could not* fit into the pre 1965 Malaysia which was and is largely Malay and Muslim. (Parenthetically, Malaysia still has ethnic problems. Ethnic Malay-Muslims have many special _programmes_ designed to _level the field_ (provide some sort of equality of outcomes) with the more prosperous ethnic Chinese minority. (Malaysia is about 50% Malay-Muslim, 25% ethnic Chinese, 15% _aboriginal_ (mainly in Sarawak) and 10% ethnic Indian-Tamil and others.) These programmes create social divisions; the ethnic Chinese believing they are _oppressed_ and denied equality of opportunity.)

BG, as Lee Hsien Loong is popularly known, is a smart guy and he knows how to promise liberalism and deliver conservatism. In this particular case he’s going to deliver a rather unique blend: a *real liberal* principle of an irreligious society coupled with the _conservative_ dream of social harmony – enforced with prison time and a cane, if necessary.

Make no mistake: two groups will be “victims” here – evangelical Christians and believing Muslims. Neither will get any sympathy from the Government of Singapore which *believes*, firmly, that religion stops at the church/mosque/temple door and begins again inside the door of your private dwelling.  My understanding (and it may be well out of date) is that Christian and Muslim school curricula are tightly regulated so that religious “education” or indoctrination is, virtually, non-existent.

Personally, I believe BG is on the right track.


----------



## Colin Parkinson (18 Aug 2009)

It's interesting that in Singapore our hotel was beside a mosque, and you could not tell, no cry for prayer there, although some odd looking hardcore Muslims about, this was in Little India. Compare that to stay at my Sister inlaw in KL at Central station where the Hindu temple and the Mosque are trying to out clamour each other with loudspeakers. Some interesting court cases in Malaysia regarding religion, technically a secular country by their Constitution, but in everyday a moderate Islamic one. They claim there is no compulsion, just try changing your religion from Islam....


----------



## Edward Campbell (18 Aug 2009)

Singapore has a lot of that strong “social capital” about which I go on and on and on until everyone is thoroughly bored.

Singapore, being a predominantly Chinese society is, essentially, conservative. One of the values that conservatives and liberals share in a belief in a “right” to privacy.

Now, as a good *classical liberal*, I define privacy as a right to be “free” from intrusions by collectives – including the state itself, and groups, like religions. That means, in principle, that mosques should not intrude into my "privacy" by “broadcasting” calls to prayer and churches ought not to ring bells. I do not especially object to either, in moderation. If I stand on my balcony on a Sunday morning I can hear the bells from a couple of churches; if I close the balcony door I cannot. That is sufficient "privacy" for me. I accept that they have a “right” to free expression when, now and again, they should be able to call their faithful to prayer. I would (must) accord the same “right” to a mosque, were one within earshot.

The good conservatives in Singapore see it in another way. The collectives have rights, including rights to free expression, but society at large *requires* protection from noise – which might well include calls to prayer. It may be that mosques in Singapore do, as I believe they believe they must, broadcast calls to prayer five times a day – but through one small speaker just at the front door. 

Singapore is one of the most densely populated countries on earth. It is not surprising that conservative Singaporeans put so much stress on privacy – and few things are a greater intrusions than proselytizing, by any religious group. But all evangelical Christians, for example, believe they must proselytize, as do many, probably most, Muslims. This puts them at odds with both liberals and conservatives, both of which groups require that others respect their *right* to privacy.


----------



## Colin Parkinson (18 Aug 2009)

Proselytizing and converting Muslims is a serious crime in Malaysia, however converting other religions to Islam is considered good, as long as you are a Sunni. Some nasty tales recently in Malaysia of authorities snatching the bodies of the deceased from the family claiming the person had converted to Islam and therefore required a Muslim funeral.


----------



## Edward Campbell (19 Aug 2009)

Although it’s been almost twenty years since they were adopted and although they are not _pushed_ very hard, Singapore has some official “shared values:”

•	*Nation before community and society above self*: _Putting the interests of society ahead of the individual_.
•	*Family as the basic unit of society*: _The family is identified as the most stable fundamental building block of the nation_. 
•	*Community support and respect for the individual*: _Recognizes that the individual has rights, which should be respected and not light encroached upon. Encourages the community to support and have compassion for the disadvantaged individual who may have been left behind by the free market system_.
•	*Consensus, not conflict*: _Resolving issues through consensus and not conflict stresses the importance of compromise and national unity_.
•	*Racial and religious harmony*: _Recognizes the need for different communities to live harmoniously with one another in order for all to prosper_.

The first two and the fourth are deeply Confucian and enormously _conservative_; they are _natural_ for Singapore’s Chinese majority. The third is both _liberal_ and _pragmatic_; it suits the _Anglos_ and, indeed, the entire business community because, in law, corporations are _individuals_ and they have individual “rights.”

The last aims to prevent discrimination against the Indian/Tamil and Malay/Muslim minorities.

I think the order is intentional and reflects the government’s view of their relative importance.

Going back to the original post: what Lee Hsien Loong is saying is that no religion may _intrude_ on society, the community – the one Singaporean “community” – and the nation, itself. Religion remains “free” but, above all, *private*. Freedom *of* religion is to be balanced by freedom *from* religion.


----------



## Colin Parkinson (19 Aug 2009)

I do agree that it appears to still be the case. Singapore is facing another issue as well. For many years it has promoted the concept of "Citizen responsibility" and much of this was done through national military service. However these duties are seen to conflict now with the business culture, who feel they are a distraction from making money. The officer mess used to be one of the major networking places and built connections between the various business leaders, that is no longer the case. Being in the military now is less a source of pride than a commitment to fulfil and move on. To help counter this and build pride and anticipation, the government built the Discovery centre which is a mix of Science world and a propaganda theatre for Singapore. Well worth the visit for anyone interested in military stuff .
http://www.sdc.com.sg/


----------



## Edward Campbell (23 Aug 2009)

Colin P said:
			
		

> Proselytizing and converting Muslims is a serious crime in Malaysia, however converting other religions to Islam is considered good, as long as you are a Sunni. Some nasty tales recently in Malaysia of authorities snatching the bodies of the deceased from the family claiming the person had converted to Islam and therefore required a Muslim funeral.



Malaysia's interpretations of Islamic law can appear a bit harsh.

It has also been reported that she wants a public caning, _pour enourager les autres_.

The story received world wide attention but, not surprisingly, the Singaporean media was pretty much silent. Caning is also a common punishment in Singapore and Singaporeans remember the unseemly, indeed downright stupid fuss the Americans made when a juvenile delinquent (teen aged son of an American resident of Singapore) was caned for vandalism.


----------



## Colin Parkinson (23 Aug 2009)

My wife tells the story of how they brought a human dummy to school to demonstrate caning to the kids. It had a lasting effect. Sadly the country is currently suffering a very nasty crime wave, partly domestic, but also illegal immigrant driven, on top of a very serious H1N1 outbreak.


----------



## Edward Campbell (23 Aug 2009)

I think the same thing is, at least was, done in Singaporean schools with a very similar salutary effect.

I'm not opposed to corporeal punishment; I think it can have a useful _shock effect_ - especially if done in public, as I'm inclined to believe should be the case. It seemed to me to be the _appropriate_ punishment for the young American vandal, for example. One wonders if _harsh_, public corporeal punishments might not have a good deterrent value.


----------



## Colin Parkinson (24 Aug 2009)

A common punishment in Europe and the new world, was time in the stocks in the public square. It amounted to public shaming, this would be an excellent punishment for "white collar crimes" as well. Apparently the Public enjoyed expressing their displeasure with rotten fruit, which sale of rotten fruit could help cover the costs of the stocks.  :nod:


----------



## CougarKing (24 Aug 2009)

Speaking of that Malaysian woman, it seems her sentence has been delayed.


----------



## Edward Campbell (30 Aug 2009)

A bit more on the problems "solutions" in Malaysia, reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions (§29) of the Copyright Act from the _Globe and Mail_ website:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/arts/malaysia-bars-muslims-from-black-eyed-peas-concert/article1266343/


> Malaysia bars Muslims from Black Eyed Peas concert
> 
> Sean Yoong
> 
> ...



My comments, here about the _moral certainty_ that characterizes the “thinking” of our own loony left applies, in spades, to religious leaders, too – and not just to Muslims religious leaders.

Life gets too hard to manage when you have to make the moral judgements for everyone. It’s why we have _reformations_, which are continuous, albeit, in too many cases, glacially slow.


----------



## Colin Parkinson (30 Aug 2009)

They did the same to Madonna, can't remember if she cancelled or not. I find the Chinese and Indian ladies over there dress sexy, but also classy. So I am not sure if Madonna fashions would go over there well. Mind you for the Imans, they are more worried about the soft and tender minds of the kampang girls.


----------

