There was a conference in my school with the editors of WSJA. In his closing remarks, Mr Costas Paris said, ‘if you want freedom, you, as the voters and citizens of singapore must fight for it.’

I must admit that the discussion thread at some parts was beyond my comprehension(mainly the information overload) but am very heartened to see that in this virtual world, exists fellow Singaporeans who feel strongly about how they want this country to be run.

What is needed now, are people who believe in not just talking, but taking action, this community in cyper space has to move into real space to express these thoughts and feelings over to the people who matter.

People out there need to be convinced that change must come. It is our jobs as friends, neighbours and fellow Singaporeans to show them what needs to be done.

I never thought i would see the day a black man would be in the white house, just like how most of us believe that we will never see a credible and organized opposition rise to take power in this fair nation of ours.

Hmm, actually what i wrote in the second part wasn’t directly addressing you, it was more of a case of ‘my opinions’.

As for the distortion of religious doctrine part, I would believe that all religious practices are in some way or another, variations from the doctrine. That is all.

smallvoice – I think you misread Kyle completely. Read his piece again. He’s under no illusion that Obama is the greatest. In fact, he’s saying that Obama won because Bush screwed up royally. Read again.

‘It is not a matter of which religion people believe in that creates the problem, but why these people believe in that particular form of religious belief that is more radicial and extreme is one that begs the question.’

I must say that I am rather confused about the point that you are trying to make, and it seems like we are going in two separate directions here – I do not think that any of us were arguing that the problem is caused by beliefs in different religions, merely by a distortion of religious doctrine.

Think the issue here is partly a definition problem as well as me not making myself clear earlier on. Fundamentalism, within a religious context, can be understood as “returning to the basics”, like following the doctrine strictly etc. I think the issue here is why are people doing so, if we follow the modernity logic, then it can be seen as a response to globalization and modernization ( I’m making things brief here, of course there are other factors).

I’m saying that it is the political that we should be concern with, like why do certain groups of people in different parts of the world resort to violence, why these groups not others, why in particular this period of time etc. I’m saying too that viewed in this manner, there is nothing wrong with taking a fundamental viewpoint on his/her religion, in fact there’s nothing different from reading it in a more liberal way etc, the same way that you both have argued. The same way we don’t see conservatism as dangerous, why should we view fundamentalism as dangerous (although radicalism and extremism is another issue together).

Why in which certain forms of “fundamentalism” takes on a radical or extremist turn are political in nature. This is regarding my point earlier on “religion” on a “collective”. It is not a matter of which religion people believe in that creates the problem, but why these people believe in that particular form of religious belief that is more radicial and extreme is one that begs the question.

Perhaps it is not fundamentalism, but radicalism or extremism that is essentially dangerous? These are quintessentially different terms.

I think it is correct to say that all religious radicals and extremists are, or at least see themselves as, fundamentalists – but many do distort the words or essence of their religion’s teachings.

Fundamentalists, on the other hand, usually would not label themselves extremists or radicals, in fact, I would argue that many do not condone their ideas or methods of conveying them. I see fundamentalists as people who subscribe and follow extremely closely to what they believe in, they are for the most part also highly conservative.

There is a fine line to be drawn especially in the post 9/11 era, and I am sure that there are more than a few fundamentalists out there who are offended at the negativity that the term carries today.

Have to say that I’m a bit confused about your points. I think the the basic problem might be how we define ‘fundamentalism’. And as we all agree, it is very a complex issue. How to start?

I always believe that the saying “the devil can quote the Scriptures for his own ends’ rings true when it comes to fundamentalism. (let’s just stick to religious fundamentalism for the time being)

Religion, from an academic perspective, is neither right nor wrong. Some people hear God’s (‘God” in its neutral term… call it Allah, Yahweh, Jesus, Nirvana, krishna, the Void, the Force what-have-you-not) words and start feeding the poor. Others hear God’s words and start a bloody Crusade. (Ok, of course religion is also very often a justification, and not the cause of)

On the same note, someone, or a group of people might follow the Scriptures (or some other religious doctrine) faithfully and literally, like, say, live like how the Hebrews lived during Moses’ time. (no TV, no techonology).. and they pose no threat to society whatever-so. (like the film The Village) Conversely, another group might follow the same Scriptures and become like, you know, the 20% of the religious right-wing in America who disguise bigotry and intolerance with the bible, AND want to turn a secular democracy into a theocracy – ie, imposing their will on a large number of people who do not subscribe to their beliefs.

So to pin the blame on the Bible or the Koran or the Dharma just misses the point. Fundamentalists will always find a reason or doctrine to justify their actions.

“The other thing is, if we take the view that fundamentalism is essentially dangerous, it obscured religious practices and beliefs on a collective level.”

You have to elaborate further.

Hmm, what I was arguing was the opposite actually. Must be brevity problem again!

I was actually meaning to say that fundamentalism itself, on the logic of strict adherence to the scripture does not constitute a threat in the global sense. If we follow that fundamentalism is a particular intepretation of the doctrine, then it wouldn’t be too hard to place it as a certain form of religious intepretation that innately do not constitute “a threat”.

The problem is that fundamentalism are by most part an ideological response to modernity, which is why most of the time they are viewed as anti-modernization, hence a threat. The other thing is, if we take the view that fundamentalism is essentially dangerous, it obscured religious practices and beliefs on a collective level.

What i’m saying here is a “fundamental” understanding of a doctrine does not constitute the perceived danger we see, but rather that the collective response of “fundamentalism” are so complex and it is the “fundamentalist”, not the problem with the religion that is problematic. I hope i didnt construe your points to anyway they shouldn’t be.

and yes donaldson, i think it can be argued that all forms of religious beliefs are discriminatory to a certain extent, why should “fundamentalism” be viewed in a different light? If the perceived threat here is that they would bond together and reject people different from them, well, it is very hard to attribute the “rejection” to just religion alone. Beliefs are by and large shaped by the people who subscribed to them, if we just understand the phenomenon of “fundamentalism” from the point of its religious text, then it kind of hides the fact that it tends to happen that only certain groups of people practise that.

If I follow you correct, then i would presume that the same rules should apply. A fair place, equal for all would have less chance of a breeding grounds for such radical ideologies.

I think MM is “passe” in the context of Singapore’s future. I think he fully deserves credit for getting Singapore to where it is right now but the future direction will no longer be on his shoulders or that of his original team. That’s a fact of life.

There is an element of danger to focus too much on his tenure. What he did was in the circumstance of his time. China took a long while to get over Mao, more than 2 decades. I hope Singapore doesn’t need that long to progress beyond MM.

Today’s world requires today’s leaders. The future direction requires leaders with vision. I’m sure in typical MM efficiency, there are already lots of plans marked out on how things will go in certain sectors. But overall, how the vision of Singapore could pan out is still very much undecided.

To be the man…..whooooo you gotta beat the man.

If there’s one thing very heartening in this US elections, it is that it is also the voice of sane people telling the extreme religious right they’ve had enough of them getting involved in politics. (Although American liberals would disagree, because Calfornians voted for a ban on same-sex marriage on the same day they voted for Obama… but that’s another topic altogether)

Apologies if the points weren’t made clear. In the need for brevity, I must’ve unwittingly created the perception that ONLY muslim fundamentalism is a threat. You are right to say that all forms of fundamentalism are dangerous, and the factors contributing to them are complex. I was using the middle east situation because it is current. :) I truly believe that middle east, and the african continent would be much less volatile places fifty years from now, even though it doesn’t look so now. A hundred years ago, nobody could have imagined the end of collonialism (in the classic sense), but it did.

fundamentalism, understood correctly, is a reorientation to a strict adherence to a set of basic principles, in lay words, strict following of the doctrinal teachings.

I oppose to your use of fundamentalism as a threat, there are christian fundamentalism and other forms and so on. It doesn’t make it more clear why muslim fundamentalism should be a threat, and not other religions.

The key of which i think you’re seeking is deeply linked to terrorism, which is complex and has roots in social exclusion and historical changes over the last century. Religion itself does not account solely for why people would participate in violence. Where appropriate, it is used as a legitimizing tool for engaging in terror or violence events. This whole issue is complex.

Other than that, i pretty much agree with what your said.

We’ll bring along a big screen and hook it up to a laptop with Skype. You can’t escape!
:)

I think TOC will organise more of such HLP protests so it is good to attend if you are able to.

I can’t as I am abroad in Sydney but my heart is with you guys!

We are not suppose to believe anything other than the believe of LKY, because by believing what you people believe, change will take shape and LKY and his party fear to have this change to take place.

I guess Tolstoy is right, and Marx is half-right. Marx is right that history occurs dialectically. And i tend to believe Tolstoy who says that historical events are more caused by the collective consciousness of people rather than any individuals. Obama is a representation of the collective will of most of the American people at a time where the age of unfettered capitalism is coming to an end. Seen in this light, Bush Jr had to happen. Marx is of course wrong that the end result is communism.

But i do believe that something good will come out of everything that’s happening now. Hopefully we will eventually work towards a fairer, more humane, less exploitative world economy. Twenty years ago, nobody would have predicted the rise of China and India. Many developing nations are starting to assert themselves and saying to the G-8 (or 7?) nations, enough of exploiting us.

Considering the fact that Muslim fundamentalism didn’t happen overnight but had its roots when the winners of WW1 carved up the Middle East without regards to the will of the people, it also means that a fairer more multilateral world would reduce the threat of fundamentalism that the hawks in the Bush Administration could not.

Obama, while he may not deliver on his promise, is nonetheless a symbol for these changing times.

Many naysayers can draw parallels to many instances in the past where the world looks like it is on the edge of a golden age but ‘nothing changes’. “look at the 60s! What had the hippie movement achieved? What had Martin Luther King achieved? The blacks are still among the poorest people in USA.”

I think this is the classic ‘glass is half empty’ mentality vs “the glass is half-full.”

If you look at human history in general, despite the wars, violence, mistakes stupidity, false starts etc… we are making progress on all fronts, from how we think to how we organise society, to more people thinking that we should work towards a better world.

What has this got to do with change in Singapore? Everything, really.

Because you can’t change anything unless you believe the goal is attainable. Unless you believe there is something better than what we have now.

Personally, one of the failures of LKY, (and the PAP in general) is this. Compare LKY’s speeches during the 50s and now. His speech then was full of hope. That was what rallied people to him. Now? It’s all fear-based. Fear that we will be ruined. Fear that we will end up as maids in Indonesia. I’m giving him a benefit of a doubt and say that he isn’t saying this to ‘control’ us; he definitely loves Singapore in his own way. So he’s expressing a genuine feeling of fear for the people he had (in his mind) brought so far.

And because his is such an influential voice, you get so many of us who thinks like that too. We live in fear, but it’s more than just the fear of the government. It’s fear of change. It’s the fear that the vision of a more equal and just society is a mere illusion.

The first step towards change, is to change how you think.

It’s very naive right? Some of you might laugh. But the British were also laughing when a little brown man in white dhoti told them “Pharoh! Let my people go!”

Oh wait. That was Moses..

His blunders over North Korea, Iran, pushing them and others towards nuclear power as the only means to deter large power aggression is indeed a “genius”, not that it wasn’t predicted. Those failures means the US has to maintain high levels of military spending which the US can now ill afford, yet must continue to spend. Ironic when in contrast, Clinton didn’t need as much and yet most people globally would have felt much safer in his tenure.

Obama inherits these broken pieces and to expect him to mend Bush Jnr’s elephant in the china shop mess into a Clinton era world is living in cloud cuckoo land. I don’t have such expectations.

One can hope Iraq ends up like Vietnam, a country that basically picked up its pieces without impacting on the wider region. Yet Iraq, unlike Vietnam, was a significant part of the Muslim world and the implications of foreign policy blunders in Iraq has far more repercussions and impacts on people’s mindset in that region than Vietnam will ever have.

I hope for Bush Jnr’s sake, that Obama succeeds in bringing back prosperity to America. Bush’s presidency would hence be only a blip. Otherwise, historians would point to Bush as the starting point of the fall of the US empire…. a bit kwa zhang but that’s literary license.