Andrew Loh / Deputy Editor
“We need to overcome taboos about death and communicate better — both among ourselves as well as between doctors and their patients,” said Health Minister Khaw Boon Wan last month. (See here).
I agree with the minister.
More often than not, we would rather not talk about death, or the possibility of our dying. It is indeed still quite a taboo subject. It is a cultural thing, some say. Couple this with our religious beliefs and it gets very personal, emotional and spiritual as well.
Yet, looking at what the minister has said over the last few years on the issue, I do believe that he is not just looking, simply, to letting Singaporeans choose to die – whether it is through the Advance Medical Directive or legalised mercy-killing, to put it another way. Rather, Mr Khaw has obviously adopted more of a holistic approach than just a simplistic one of whether one should take one’s own life or allow another to do so on one’s behalf.
The main point I believe he is trying to get across, perhaps not very well so far, is one of dying with dignity.
In this, there can be little argument or disagreement with the principle. It is in the definition of the word “dignity” itself, however, which is the bone of contention. Some say that taking one’s own life is not dignified no matter how it is achieved. That the act of suicide or assisted-suicide, whether legal or illegal, through the AMD or legalised euthanasia, is just plain wrong.
“We will go down a slippery slope”, is a phrase used.
While I do agree that there are many – many – issues involved, I am in agreement with Mr Khaw that we should be allowed to “die with dignity”. And that, in my opinion, should be one of the main points of this debate. In this respect, I am glad that the minister is looking into palliative care and palliative medicine and making these more easily-available. A pilot scheme to bring such care to nursing homes will be implemented next year.
More needs to be done, of course. Besides getting doctors themselves to understand the AMD better, the bigger challenge, I feel, is getting the average Singaporean (especially the less-educated and literate) to know what the issues are.
The one thing which we should not fail to address is the notion, already in some people’s minds, that assisted-suicide is directed at the “less-able” or that it is the less-literate and less-educated who will be targeted for “elimination”.
My hope is that the minister will not rush through any changes in legislation but allow as much time as possible for discussion, debate and feedback to take place.
Every life is precious. When the time arrives, and each of us will face this, we will have to decide (if we are able to) how we will die. Personally, to have the choice to decide how I would die is a gift as not everyone gets to have this choice.
Thus, if there were legislation in place which would allow me to do this, to make this choice, and it gives me dignity in my death, I welcome it.
But first, lets address the many issues involved for the concerns are real and important.
———
HELP keep the voice of TOC alive!
If you like this article, please consider a small donation to help theonlinecitizen.com stay alive. Please note that we can only accept donations from Singaporeans. Thank you for your assistance.Do you have a flair for writing? Volunteer with us. Email us your full name and contact details to theonlinecitizen@gmail.com
Euthanasia isn’t the only slippery slope. Organ trading is another one too.
Trapped inside their bodies, apparently switched off to the world, but still alive: they are the undead. Or so we thought. Forty per cent of patients in a ‘vegetative state’ are misdiagnosed. Now British scientists are leading the field in trying to put that right – John Cornwell, Times Online
With figures like that, even doctors would find it hard to ascertain if a patient qualifies for euthanasia.
@Donaldson: if people have questionable values, everything under the sun is a slippery slope. If we think of slippery slopes all the time, I wonder if we’d still be in stone age.
my view is to STOP thinking about slippery slopes and argue about issue on their OWN merits, or the lack of it.
I thought we Singapore had already allow “Mercy Killing” in the past at Keong Siak Kai (Next to Chinatown). I heard from the elderly when I was in Secondary school that it used to be a street for the childless, poor, sick and old people to kill themselve with injection.
Some one out there please verify this.
Dear Andrew,
I think that there are many Religious issues with euthanasia. I do not think that euthanasia will be acceptable here. Islam certainly does not accept euthanasia. The Catholic Church has voiced its opposition to it and so on.
This is an issue where the Gov should not touch as it deals with the sensitivities of many religions.
Dear Dr Syed Alwi,
How about abortion and casino gambling? What make them different from euthanasia as a Religious issues?
I would like to learn your views.
Sincerely.
Dying with dignity is an issue that pro-euthanasia people use. It pays however, to see that term in a different light. Does dying with dignity really mean allowing someone to kill you? If put in the position to terminate a life, would intentionally killing someone seem dignified to you? To me, “dying with dignity” means being surrounded by family and friends until your life is claimed. Dignity is knowing that you are not taking your life into your own hands and knowingly allowing someone to end your life, no matter the cost to those around you. Those who describe euthanasia as “dying with dignity” are merely sugarcoating the fact that murder has become tolerable in today’s society.
If majority support or don’t support Euthanasia, should they determine the direction to take or should 1 man do the decision making?
Dear Dr Alwi,
Yes, I agree that there are many religious issues which this issue brings up. However, that would be looking at the issue from one angle only – what about those of us who do not subscribe to any religious beliefs? Should we be made to, effectively, subscribe to these religious dictates vicariously? I do not think we should. I respect people who object to euthanasia on religious grounds. That is their right.
But I do not think that the rest of us should be made to adhere to these beliefs.
Ravi,
That is one way of looking at the meaning of “dying with dignity”. That was what I mentioned in the article – the bone of contention is the meaning of the term. To me, dying with dignity is not “sugarcoating” but a real consideration.
Andrew.
also, kidney donations. from what i hear, the Muslim community was rather divided over this. But MUIS released a fatwa that supported the govt’s stance.
Yes, its sensitive to many religions, but the govt is viewing palliative care (which includes the right to die with “dignity”) from a secular point of view, from an economic point of view, and social point of view.
Should our govt remain secular? but let individuals and their families decide based on their religious beliefs?
to add, i mean, isnt this part and parcel of letting go, and letting individuals decide, rather than having a nanny state (a conversation which started again from the Lehman minibonds fiasco)?
Tricky tricky tricky… what defines euthanasia?
If someone is in a vegetative state and the loved ones say pull the plug on life-sustaining machine?
If someone is suffering but is conscious, and asks to be put to death with lethal injection?
If someone has terminal illness eg cancer and rejects chemotherapy, preferring instead to die with at least some hair on his/her head?
Dear Andrew,
Well I suppose Muslims and Catholics will have to be excused from euthanasia. Singapore’s MUIS or Catholic Church cannot pass fatwas and opinions based on Gov persuasion. The larger Muslim world and Catholic community will have to be consulted.
Organ donation was allowed by MUIS only AFTER the Muslim scholars WORLD-WIDE accepted the practice. Euthanasia is a different ball game altogether.
Seems to me that Muslims and Catholics will have to be excused from euthanasia. As for the others – its none of my business to interfere in your religious practices and values.
Reality come true at last ! what’s been said among singaporean folks that they can afford to die BUT cannot afford to fall ill in Singapore.
@Dr. Syew Alwi,
Why should the secular government police a religious belief? More to the point, why should be punish religious sin? We should always keep our coercive apparatus of the status secular. With all due respect, I think that people will be worse off if a law was made to disable Catholic or Muslims from euthanasia. I think it’s hypocritical to say that in one case, it’s not murder, but if it was a Catholic or Muslim, then it’s murder.
Either we have it or we don’t, and if you have it everybody must be equal. We’re better off with more choices of freedom that don’t come at a cost to society.
There is no ‘one-size-fits-all’ solution to this issue.
Just like abortion, gambling & capital punishment, even as the state found it necessary to adopt such legislations it does not mean that the opposing bodies or institutions subscribe to them.
These institutions, especially religious institutions, work around such legislations and keep its faithfuls informed that these legalised legislations goes against the fundamentals of these religions.
This is the best they can do. It does not mean that they have accepted the legality of such legislations.
It will be the same for euthanasia. From the way things are panning out to be, it is a no brainer that there is no consensus on whether euthanasia should be accepted. however, it does not mean that it will be legally introduced in the near future. When it does, the followers of religious faiths that do not support euthanasia will be bound by the stand of these faiths.
This is where the state cannot imposed its legalised liegislations on these group of religious faithfuls.
No one, whether legally or otherwise, can send someone to death whether there is consent or not.
Therefore, coming back to the article, it is okay for the State to let you choose how to die but it cannot decide for you when you should die.
Yep.
I am very religious and I believe I will go to heaven to see God when I die.
Thus if my illness is beyond recovery, I would choose euthanasia as it means I end my suffering on earth and meet God sooner.
My fellow believers, please don’t be afraid of death. Whether we die either naturally or by euthanasia, it is God’s will as he doesn’t believe in making us suffer.
Religious groups should not impose their views on others. Euthanasia is a choice that should be made available to those who want it (and it is by no means easy to fulfill the stringent requirements of being allowed euthanasia to begin with so abuse is minimal). Those who don’t subscribe to euthanasia, don’t opt for it. But don’t impose your views on those who choose to opt for it.
Dear People,
What you believe is your business. But you cannot say that a Muslim or Catholic can opt for euthanasia. If a Muslim or Catholic does so against his or her religious rules – then he or she is viewed by other Muslims and Catholics to have committed a big sin !
I am NO fundamentalist – but you must understand that you cannot impose your values on others. If you want to die – then thats your business. But you cannot force Muslims or Catholics to accept the idea of euthanasia. Just like abortion. The Abrahamic faiths do NOT accept it – despite Gov approval.
MUIS will NEVER pass a fatwa on such a controversial issue without first consulting Muslim scholars world-wide. Neither will the Catholic Church.
Singapore must realise that she is a very tiny dot that cannot alter religious beliefs nor influence the gigantic religious communities world-wide. The Gov cannot force the Catholic Church nor the Muslim scholars to legitimise euthanasia.
Well it seems to me that it’s the other way round: the religions cannot force the government to outlaw, or not legitimize euthanasia. Is it ok then, to force the views of these religions on other people?
It is the prerogative of the government to allow euthanasia. it is not forcing catholics/muslims/any other to euthanize. like 16) gemami said at the end, it’s ok for the state to let you choose how to die, but it cannot decide for you when to die. If the religious wishes to not exercise this choice, so be it. If someone from the religion wants to exercise it, then i guess his faith is not that strong after all. don’t refuse others the option. that’s selfish in my opinion.
It is a touchy issue and i myself have yet to make up my mind, but having to see a close relative of mine suffer for months wasting away in pain from terminal lung cancer is not something i will forget easily nor soon..
Well Weijia, you have to understand that you live in a region where Islam is a major socio-political force. I think neither Islam nor Catholicism wants to impose its views on non-believers. However both Islam and Catholicism will NOT approve euthanasia nor leave it to their followers as a matter of choice.
You cannot make Islam or Catholicism approve or legitimise euthanasia. They will surely reject it in the strongest of terms.
And I suppose the Gov will allow euthanasia but Muslims and Catholics will reject it as being unacceptable to religious values. Just like abortion….Maybe MUIS might even say that Muslims must NOT ought for euthanasia etc.
#19)
>Religious groups should not impose their views on others<.
Sharing of views from a religious perspective is not imposing those views.
There has been much discussion on euthanasia and the end result is going to be very clear – the state will IMPOSE euthanasia.
So, if you are pro-choice, I would say, you have nothing to worry about, your battle has already been won.
It is those who are pro-Life & pro-God who has a lot to worry about because when euthanasia is IMPOSED on us, we will have to make adjustments to ensure that these impositions are not carried out on us.
#21 Weijia,
……..>like 16) gemami said at the end, it’s ok for the state to let you choose how to die, but it cannot decide for you when to die. If the religious wishes to not exercise this choice, so be it<
I need to clarify the quote because I did not write these words “If the religious wishes to not exercise this choice, so be it….<.
For religious such as Catholics, when you knowingly and deliberately exercise this choice, you are then no longer considered a Catholic although you may still call yourself one by name.
In other word, if one professes to be a Catholic, he does not have this choice. To exercise this choice is to go against the fundamental teachings of the Catholic Church. To choose to be un-Catholic, so to speak.
It is quite understandable that non-Catholics may find this hard to grasp because there will be some who will counter argue that we have been given the ‘free will’ to decide and so on. Indeed, we have the choice of free will but giving up this free will to obey the commands of God Almighty is what faith is all about.
It is precisely this reason that the faithful Catholics choose to forgo this freedom to choose for the greater glory of God and His ultimate plan for mankind.
If I sound like I am preaching, my apologies. My intention is to share as best as I can, some fundamental teachings of the Catholic Church for readers here to get a better picture of why it is not as simple as giving a yes or no answer to such issues as euthanasia.
It is good for one to die with as little pain as possible and it is up to the dying to choose how he wants to die. His decision is between him and God.
The State, through legalised legislation cannot play the role of God and decide by means of legislation, if a patient should die or when he should die. This is IMPOSING on the faithful of those with religious observances.
Dear Dr. Syed Alwi,
I think you are jumping the gun a little too soon. With all due respect, the law has not been passed. While I do not agree with the gov on many issues, I am certain they will not come out with a law that ignores the religious sentiments of various groups.
I fully agree with you: No one should impose their values, religious or otherwise, on another person.
In my church, just as an example, we do not go and knock on the doors of our Muslim friends, but we have an open door policy that allows anyone who wants to learn of the christian faith to walk in freely.
All that said, there are many other issues in this society that contravene and contradict the religious beliefs of the Muslims, Catholics, and Christians that we have now learn to close our eyes to. You should know what I mean without me having to elaborate further. It is therefore sad (trying to be diplomatic and mild about it), to see religious leaders not taking up issues with the authorities over such issues while they will vehemently voice against others.
Weaskforit, comment #25, well said. We shouldnt impose our beliefs on those who dont, and vice versa. And there a lot more things out there that contravene Islam and Christianity, on a daily basis, and our religious leaders should be busy tackling these issues with the govt. The govt’s role in this case is to set legislation that will NOT put people into the wrong side of the law, regardless of the decision they make.
Researching a bit more, most Islamic sites clearly state the sanctity of life and for us to do our utmost to protect it. But some interesting quotes i gather from UK and US-based sites:
“Palliative care is recommended in Islam, and the best hospice for a Muslim is to die at home with family members around. Natural death (that is, according to God’s plan and not according to a doctor’s, a judge’s or the family’s plan or decision) is in the patient’s best interests and is the most dignified death for a Muslim believer.”
“If, however, a number of medical experts determine that a patient is in a terminal condition and there is no hope for his/her recovery, then it could be permissible for them to stop the medication. If the patient is on life support, it may be permissible, with due consultation and care, to decide to switch off the life support machine and let the nature take its own time. Under no condition it is permissible to induce death to a patient.”
“If an individual is suffering from a terminal illness, it is permissible for the individual to refuse medication and/or resuscitation. Other examples include individuals suffering from kidney failure who refuse dialysis treatments and cancer patients who refuse chemotherapy.”
The Islamic European Council for Fatwa and Research (ECFR) in 2003 ruled that “the removal of life-support machines for the clinically dead is permissible. These machines help patients breathe and activate their blood cycle, but if they are already clinically dead and have lost all their senses due to brain damage, it makes no sense to keep these machines running, because they cost the hospital a lot of money and might be direly needed by other patients.”
Dear Aygee,
Why don’t you ask the rest of the Muslim world whether euthanasia is valid in Islam ?
As liberal as I am – I find your views to be too extreme. Why don’t you go ahead and ask the Malaysians, the Indonesians, the Arabs etc on whether they will accept euthanasia in Islam ?
Perhaps you would like to persuade the likes of PAS and UMNO to legitimise euthanasia in Islam ?
For me – I rest my case. I know euthanasia will not fly and if you think otherwise – please take up my challenge to champion euthanasia in the Muslim world !
Dr Syed Alwi,
I don’t think the government or anyone here is asking the Muslims and Catholics to endorse euthanasia. The writer Andrew is only asking the Muslims and Catholics not to impose their beliefs on non-believers.
I am for choice. The most likely outcome is that euthanasia will be allowed under prescribed circumstances, but Muslims, Catholics and others who object due to their religious convictions are free to accept or reject euthanasia as they see fit.
Dr Alwi,
I do not see anyone trying to impose their decisions on the religious groups. I think the hope is that people will be given a choice to decide.
For those who are religious, they can decide on religious grounds.
For those who are not religious, they will decide on personal grounds.
I think you may have the wrong idea of what the govt is trying to do here. I get the feeling that you think the AMD or aiding-in-death will be made compulsory. As far` as I can read, I do not see the govt proposing that.
So, there is no question of anyone imposing anything on anyone else.
The issue here is this: Let everyone have a choice to decide for himself.
I think you may have misread or misunderstood what is being proposed here.
Dear Andrew,
Well I certainly hope that I have made a mistake and that the Gov will not shove it down the throat of everyone.
For God’s sake – I do hope that I have made a mistake on this one. Because I can tell you right now – the Catholics and the Muslims are totally appalled by this idea.
Hopefully I am wrong !
24) gemami
I apologize if it appears that i misquoted you, i had meant that you only said the first part “it’s ok for the state to let you choose how to die, but it cannot decide for you when to die. “. The rest after that are my sentiments.
and Dr Alwi, this is about giving choice to those who wishes to end their life. This is about making euthanasia legal, NOT making it MANDATORY. so there is really no forcing down the throats of anyone. Like i said, it is up to individuals whether they wish to take this path or not. But if religious groups were to say that, “No i think it is a sin and no one else can do it because i refuse to do it” then i think that is forcing their views upon others. A similar issue will be that of abortion. It is currently available here. whether or not any one (religious or not) chooses to go for that is an individual choice.
and #30 Dr Alwi, how can the government force it down the throats of anyone? by forcing people to go for euthanasia? against their wishes? that’s simply impossible. that’s called murder.
Dr Alwi,
I think you missed my point.
I merely pointed out that there are Muslim organisations who have different takes on “dying with dignity”.
and i dont really care what malaysians or indonesians or PAS or UMNO think. that is not the discussion here. We are talking about Singapore. I’m all for the govt to put in regulations to make sure that whatever decision people take, whether they’re atheists, muslims, or christians, buddhists, hindus, they dont go on the wrong side of the law.
If MUIS says its wrong, then its up to us to follow. if there are those that dont, then thats the choice they make and they make their peace with God when the time comes for them. Its not up to the govt to “punish” them. and it it certainly not up to you to judge them.
that is the point here.
Whats interesting to me is that, from reading the many websites:
Western ulamas and Islamic organisations have a more liberal acceptance to “dying with dignity”, whereas Middle Eastern and Asian Islamic Councils are very clear – euthanasia is sinful.
perhaps Western ulamas come from secular countries whereas Asian/middle eastern countries tend to have Islamic govts?
for the point of religion, do we consider it a point from the religion or from the people/person that practise that religious beliefs with regards to euthanasia?
i tend to think that by changing the status quo, the government has made it into an issue where some parties are in a position to impose on others their religious views.
and, when we talk about religious views, who are we considering then? From the “official” stand or from the person who practise that religion who is currently facing that situation or death?
and ultimately, presuming in a conscious state, who’s “really” deciding the issue that you want to take up the choice of euthanasia?
the doctor who said “you only have 3 months to live”, or you as an individual who can’t bear to “live”- which includes medically defined state of being as well as a perceived state of being.
I’m not saying that this is right, but ultimately who is anyone to refuse people who want to “die” despite grounds that they are medically fit?
it is about the right to choose it’s pretty simple, but when it’s a choice of choosing to end all choices then it’s really really really murky.
maybe we should be looking more towards better life support for terminally ill people instead of arguing over an issue of euthanasia.
I am for the idea of euthanasia to alleviate the pain and suffering of the dying.
However, to put it into practice (or to legalise it), I worry more for the country.
Simply because I feel most singaporeans don’t have enough maturity to think through issues. They are not even ready for life, not to talk about ending another’s responsibly.
And Singapore is a place built on greed.
I know it would eventually be legalised. The ministers have a job to soft launch the product. Just like the organ trading idea … it always start with small acceptable ideas and then grow to big evil monsters to kill us.
A buddhist told me that this is the sign of times. A world must destroy before it rebuilds. And that’s life.
32) aygee
(………..I’m all for the govt to put in regulations to make sure that whatever decision people take, whether they’re atheists, muslims, or christians, buddhists, hindus, they dont go on the wrong side of the law……………..)
Now, this is to say that the govt would have to turned a deaf ear to the positions of these religious institutions first, in order to make it ‘law’.
The govt is duty-bound to take into account the positions of these institutions first before they decide to make it into ‘law’.
34) laserpointer
(…………i tend to think that by changing the status quo, the government has made it into an issue where some parties are in a position to impose on others their religious views……..)
I think we have to see the views of religious expressions in their proper perspectives.
We all know that Singapore is a multi-religious country and any issues that crosses into the realm of religious prohibitions must take into account these prohibitions regardless whether the faithfuls who belong to any of these religions, pratice the faith or not.
Issues like euthanasia crosses into this religious boundary. When this happens, a full and proper sharing of information is a MUST. There is no imposition here. If there is, it is also wrong from the religious standpoint.
Also, the views of non-believers have to be incorporated into this sharing. It must also be in the form of sharing and there should be no ‘imposing’.
Against this backdrop, now you tell me, honestly, do you see any way that we can get a compromise to come to a solution?.
Questions surface because of this:
a. What do we do when we cannot get a compromise?
b. How can we find a solution without offending one party or the other?
c. Can we IMPOSE a solution when there is no agreement?
Dear Aygee,
You may not care what Malaysians, Indonesians and Arabs think. But many other Muslims do. In any case – if Malaysians and Indonesians start to denounce euthanasia – what does that imply regarding Muslim organisations in Singapore ?
I am a very very secular humanistic person. I am very secular. But as liberal as I am – I know how strong the influence of orthodoxy on Muslims here is.
I am against euthanasia simply because it will give the hardliners and the fundamentalists a cause to fight for. A rallying call.
If you support euthanasia – then you support the rise of the fundamentalists !
Dear people,
What individual choice is there – in Islam ? Look at Lina Joy in Malaysia !
I have spent many years fighting these fundamentalists and they do not buy this individual choice thing.
A support for euthanasia – will give the fundamentalists a reason to fight on. You are giving them a cause.
I am secular – but I am cunning enough to know that the fundies only need a good reason !
Maybe I need to give Dr Alwi a hand.
I have extracted this out from BBC’s GCSE Bitesize. This is about the Islamic stand on euthanasia.
Religious Studies
Islam: euthanasia
Euthanasia is not suicide but the assisted ending of someone’s life who is suffering. Most religions offer teaching on euthanasia and the end of life.
Types of euthanasia
Euthanasia is illegal in the United Kingdom but it was legalised in certain circumstances in the Netherlands in 2002 and assisted suicide was legalised in the State of Oregon (USA) in 1997.
There are two principal types of euthanasia:
1. voluntary euthanasia
– the person concerned asks someone to help them die, perhaps by asking for help to take an overdose of painkillers
2. involuntary euthanasia
– euthanasia is carried out without the patient’s consent, for example, if they are in a persistent vegetative state and no longer able to live without a lifesupport machine, which is then switched off.
Remember that a person’s decision to take their own life is known as ‘suicide’.
Muslim attitudes towards euthanasia
Islam is totally opposed to euthanasia.
The Qur’an says that Allah created all life and everything belongs to him:
“To Allah belongs the kingdom of the heavens and the earth. He creates what He pleases”. — Surah 42:50
Because of this, Muslim people are forbidden to kill themselves:
“Destroy not yourselves. Surely Allah is ever merciful to you”. –Surah 4:29
Suicide
The Prophet Muhammad said that suicides would go to hell:
“Anyone who throws themselves down from a rock and commits suicide will be throwing themselves into Hell. A person who drinks poison and kills themselves will drink it for ever in Hell. A person who stabs themselves will stab themselves for ever in Hell. ”
– (Hadith)
If people are suffering badly they should ask Allah for help:
“O ye who believe, seek the help of Allah through steadfastness and Prayer; surely Allah is with the steadfast…. We will surely try you with somewhat of fear and hunger, and loss of wealth and lives and fruits; then give glad tidings to the steadfast, who, when a misfortune overtakes them do not lose heart, but say: Surely, to Allah we belong and to Him we will return” –Surah 2:153-156
No one has the right to decide when they will die:
“When their time… arrives they cannot tarry for a single hour nor can they go ahead”. — Surah 16:61
“No one can die except by Allah’s leave, that is a decree with a fixed term”. — Surah 3:145
If one professes to be religious (all religions included) and is one who observes the teachings and a stout believer of his faith, how can such a person bring his case across to anyone who does not understand his dispostion to such beliefs?
How can one like Dr Alwi share his views without sounding as if he is imposing his views – which I am certain is not what he is attempting to do.
He needs to tell (educate) the world that euthanasia cannot be accepted by one who observes and practice the Islamic faith. We need to understand this.
This is why the state has a big problem in their hands deciding if it should consider legalising euthanasia.
The good Dr Alwi will not allow them any reason to achieve this end . It is un-Islamic.
Dear gemami,
Thanks for your help. I fear provoking the Islamic Fundamentalists into action. By supporting euthanasia – these people have unwittingly given the game and a cause to the Extremists, Fanatics and Fundamentalists. These Fundies will now say that Singapore’s Muslim organisations are a farce and not Islamic at all !
The consequence of that is very frightening. Singapore will be viewed with extreme prejudice by these Fundies ! We will be sitting ducks……
40) Dr Syed Alwi
Indeed, the dangers you’ve described are very real.
The saddest thing is we are almost sure that euthanasia WILL be introduced eventually. In what form will it take we do not yet know.
When it does takes shape, it is people like you and me that has to see to it that we have a choice to decide based on our beliefs. It must not be forced upon us or anyone who places his faith in God above all else.
Dear gemami,
I have reached the point where I no longer believe in a one-party state. Absolute power corrupts absolutely. Men should never be given absolute power. The way I see it – Singapore must move away from a one-party state…..we truly need a decent and courageous Opposition in substantial numbers in Parliament.
Singapore is not making sense anymore……..Its very sad to see this……..
/// Singapore is not making sense anymore……..Its very sad to see this…….. ///
I second that. When everything in Singapore is about making billions of dollars, why bother with making cents? Why bother with making sense?
Dr Alwi,
Absolutely. One party state has more ills than good.
The most telling of all is that it gives the ones entrenched in power the false notion that they are infallable. After they get a false sense of infallibility, they go on to get a false sense of power – power to rule over the citizens by dictating every aspects of their daily lives.
Even worse than this is the fact that the power the lust after is none other that the root of all evil – money. They become slaves to this evil and as a result, they neglect the citizens they are supposed to provide for.
I am sick to the bone.
However, I have hope becuase I believe in God and His providence, not man’s providence – it’s fake.