No – there has been NO change to standard Islamic teachings. Singapore law might permit abortion – but NOT standard Muslim Law. It is HARAM. Neither MUIS nor any Muslim scholar nor the Muslim MP’s – can declare abortion to be Halal. Because that would invite the wrath of the Muslim world. Muslims all over the world will condemn such people if they say that abortion is halal !! It is NOT Halal and will remain so despite the fact that the Singapore authorities allows it. Muslims are NOT advised to go for abortions. None of the Muslim self-help groups give such advice. None.

As for being minority – well – Singaporean Chinese are a minority in this big green sea of Muslim dominated countries. Shouldn’t they then work hard to fit into a Muslim dominated region and society ?

No – I reject your ideas regarding minorities. We have Article 152 of the Consitution to protect Malay-Muslim interests. The minorities must be protected from the tyranny of the majority.

Best Regards
Dr Syed Alwi

Your #76 I am not singling out any one particular group and here we are going away from the subject at hand.

All minorities, all over the world, in every society feel at a disadvantage. For societies to function a consensus has to be hammered out based on the views of most numbers in the group and this has nothing to do with religion or ethnicity. This is true, even in ordinary social clubs where minorities get routinely voted down at general meetings.

I would urge you not to develop feelings of persecution or blow what is at the moment purely an intellectual discussion out of proportion.

With regard to your #66 I disagree that societies do not change. Muslims in Singapore are permitted to go for abortions, are they not? And Singapore Muslims are participating in and benefiting from HOTA. You yourself have stated that you are not in favour of Syariah laws being implemented in Singapore (#73). This is change. The pace of change might be slow, glacially slow even, but change it is.

What is important is that each of us examine every issue critically and then reach a decision with which we can live. We must be true to our own consciences.

At this point I would like to echo Richard and consider my input on this subject as ended.

[PS For the record, both ethnically and in terms of religion I belong to a minority group. I do not consider either factor important with regard to my views on this matter]

Why should we even consider financial reasons for the AMD when our Government is prepared to LOSE much more than $ 58 billion in bad investments (see Temasek Holdings and GIC) – and yet, is NOT willing to spend a few billion supporting health care initiatives for the aged and so on ?
What kind of values is this ?

Best Regards
Dr Syed Alwi

#60) Richard Woo says:

In fact debates have already started and will no doubt continue. If or when a final decision is reached at government level, that, plausibly, would be the conclusive outcome. No matter where we look, moral disagreement is a pervasive fact of life, but it does not mean there is no question of what is right or wrong. What is enshrined in law needs to be followed, as simple as that; any commitment of a breach has its own consequence[s]. For voluntary euthanasia, there would be no deal without a specific request from the patient; ultimately, the decision rests with the patient.

There is no denying that whatever the final outcome may be, in the discourse of legalizing euthanasia that, ultimately goes into the adoption of a decision by the government, every citizen of whatever religious or non-religious inclinations will have to abide by such a decision. There is nothing to argue about over this.

What we are attempting to do here is to contribute to the discourse before such a decision is undertaken. Theist and Atheist will both have their reasons for the beliefs they subscribe to and it is a fact that both divides have their fair share of strong and valid points to either support or oppose euthanasia.

I think both camps are in agreement that the final decision to either end or sustain a life undergoing its final stage of being, belongs solely to the dying individual. It is how the dying patient derives at the decision that opinions differ.

For the atheist (generally speaking because they represent the group with no religious inclinations); is the dying individual in a proper state of mind to make the right decision for himself? Under what reasons is he making the decision to end his life? Is it the pain? Is it the cost of staying alive? Is it the consideration of the pain his family and close friends are continually having to go through for an indefinite time? Is it plainly the feeling of hopelessness?

For the theist (generally the faithful of the faith they belong to), under what conditions does he decide that death is the option?

For one who is stronger in his faith and belief, I would prefer to think that they would rather embrace the sufferings and see it as a transition from the temporal into the eternal. Suffering is temporal, joy is everlasting.

So you see, for the non-believers, there is no qualm in deciding for death to escape the suffering condition. For the believers, it is the embracing of pain for the eternal, which is life.

Euthanasia, the debate between supporters and oppositions will rage on because the former speaks of the choice to die while the latter speaks of the choice to live.

So Richard, you are correct when you say that if or when a final decision is reached at government level, that, plausibly, would be the conclusive outcome; but then the government must accept that almost all religious institutions will continue to oppose it even if they accept it when legislation is introduced.

The contradiction here will always be, in your own words; that the decision to choose to die, ultimately, rests with the patient.

My personal stand is that AMD is as far as the government should go. Euthanasia must not be an option when a patient is in a state or condition where other factors determine his decision to choose to die.

Your view regarding the majority – is NOT acceptable to the minorities. In this sense – I completely agree with LKY’s idea of having the GRC. You are talking about the tyranny of the majority. You mean to tell me that the Malay-Muslims have no voice at all – just because the majority are all Non-Muslims ?

Well in that case – you have brought up the classic racial issue that was emphasised by Malaysia’s Dr Mahathir. You are giving Mahathir exactly the reasons to reject meritocracy !

Sorry – but I dare say that the malay-Muslim community does NOT wish to be treated as voiceless. You do that at the risk of sparking a racial conflict and also at the risk of encouraging extremists like the JI. The extremists will use your words against you.

The reality of communa politics in South East Asia has to be accepted by all. There must be give and take. You cannot just take without giving.

That is why I support the PAP’s GRC program.

Best Regards
Dr Syed Alwi

With respect, your points are noted and they have relevance. However, in a democracy, it is the majority view that prevails and unless the majority is made up of any one particular religious group, it is unlikely that their views will prevail.

In fact, in Singapore, as you will see from the discussion above, it is already possible to sign something called an Advanced Medical Directive to authorize medical care givers not to prolong life under certain circumstances (see http://infopedia.nl.sg/articles/SIP_543_2004-12-18.html). I don’t think this amounts to full voluntary euthanasia but it is a step in the direction that Richard and I and several others have been arguing for.

To Richard: as I said above, religion is a Pandora’s box and is best left alone. All we can hope to do is mobilize opinion amongst like minded people.

Thank you for the feedback.

Let’s say we agree to disagree.

No I am totally against your view. I know for a fact that the current PAP Government DOES take religious views into account. While it is true that many Syariah Laws are NOT implemented here – it is also true that our Malay MP’s DO reflect various aspects of Islamic teachings in their views. Dogma or otherwise – certain aspects of Islamic teachings cannot be left out by the Muslim MP’s. Thats the reality we all live in. I myself – if you have noticed – am against the implementation of Syariah Laws in Singapore. I have argued as such in another thread.

What you want is an ideal situation where religious dogma should not be taken into account at all. I am sorry to tell you that such a situation is NOT possible in contemporary Singapore. Religion plays an important role in the lives of many here in South East Asia. And yes – dogma does affect political calculations.

Another issue I disagree with you on is – to ignore Singapore’s situation among her Muslim neighbours. We cannot decouple ourselves from the socio-political developments of our neighbours. The rise of Islamic parties there – does affect us. MUIS and Muslim MP’s here in Singapore will have to operate in a more conservative environment. Besides – the views of our neighbours does affect our political calculations. They cannot be ignored.

You are asking for an ideal situation. It seems to me that you want a Western, secular, Liberal Democracy for Singapore. One where religion plays only a small role. But I am sorry to tell you that we are NOT America nor Europe. The politics of South East Asia is communal in nature. And it will remain so for a long time to come.

Finally – you will notice that I myself am against the implementation of Syariah Laws here in Singapore. But at the same time – I admit that religious dogma does affect political decisions here. The reality is that religion plays too important a role in contemporary South East Asian society – for us to ignore it.

Best Regards
Dr Syed Alwi

“I do not know what your point is.”

I am sorry you have not grasped the argument points in our discussions.
My point is, and I have said this several times, no religious dogma must be allowed to intrude into the realm of politics, in a multi-cultural, multi-religious society. IFa Muslim or a Christian thinks drinking vodka or whisky is a sin against God, that is their business; but they cannot expect the government to pass a law banning the selling of vodka or whisky. To others, drinking vodka or whisky may be an enjoyable activity.

Likewise with the casino question not so long ago. IF gambling to Islam is a wrong, to non-Muslims it may be a matter of personal choice. Hence the decision of our government that is soon to culminate in the opening of one [the first of two] casino.

“All I am saying is that – religion cannot be ignored in policy making here in Singapore – because it has a large and strong following. Not only that – Singapore’s immediate neighbours are all non-secular Muslim countries. You cannot formulate a policy which is against religion. It would not work because of the significant role of religion in Singapore’s society.”

I have said that religious organizations are not precluded from expressing their views, but if such views are taken into account, it has to be on the basis of their values, socio-economic for instance, not because they are religious dogma. See the difference?

It does not matter whether Singapore’s neighbors are all Muslims or Christians or Buddhists, or whatever. We are a sovereign nation. We have a right to do what’s in our interest or necessary for our survival, within the confine of international laws and within what is regarded to be the Golden Rule of reciprocity.

I do not know what your point is. But what I do know is that – here in South East Asia – religion is an important part of society. It does have a role to play in policy making. Simply because it carries such a strong following and therefore cannot be ignored.

All I am saying is that – religion cannot be ignored in policy making here in Singapore – because it has a large and strong following. Not only that – Singapore’s immediate neighbours are all non-secular Muslim countries. You cannot formulate a policy which is against religion. It would not work because of the significant role of religion in Singapore’s society.

Best Regards
Dr Syed Alwi

“Singapore has a Minister In Charge of Muslim Affairs” – is undoubtedly true.

But our laws are all state-laws and insofar as I am aware there is no law that is applicable only to people within a particular religious group. This is what I meant when I said that secularism is the norm for legislation in Singapore.

“Singapore is NOT entirely secular”.

Singapore, as I have stated more than once, is multi-cultural and multi-religious. You have merely echoed what I said.

“Neither can she aspire to be totally secular – since her immediate neighbours are all non-secular, Muslim countries.”

The fact that there people here are free to practice the religion of their choice and that there exist so many different faiths renders your statement irrelevant. The use of “she” as the subject – which seems to imply the entire population or the Singapore government – is just out of sync with reality.

“No matter what your ideals are – Singapore is run on a very pragmatic basis. Yes – we do not have Syariah Laws beyond marriage laws here. But the social pressure and stigma plus family pressure – is enormous in the Muslim community.”

Nowhere where have I stated or hinted that Singapore is not run on a pragmatic basis. So it appears your statement is a non-sequitur and, moreover, I cannot understand the relevance the third sentence has on the argument that voluntary euthanasia should be legalized as to be available only for those who want to make use of this facility, and in circumstances that are deemed fitting.

“So perhaps – while you might aspire to be some kind of secular, Western liberal democracy – the reality on the ground however – is still very much coloured by religion. Until such time when religion plays a more reduced role in Singaporean society……you will still have to contend with it…………..

Singapore is already a democracy but whether it can be considered to be “liberal” or not is not an open-and-shut case. The government is cognizant of the multi-cultural, multi-religious nature of the community that is Singapore’s population, hence has instituted measures to promote religious harmony. You will have to live with the fact that religion may continue to play a vital role in the lives of some people.

No – I totally disagree with you. Singapore has a Minister In Charge of Muslim Affairs. Singapore is NOT entirely secular. Neither can she aspire to be totally secular – since her immediate neighbours are all non-secular, Muslim countries.

No matter what your ideals are – Singapore is run on a very pragmatic basis. Yes – we do not have Syariah Laws beyond marriage laws here. But the social pressure and stigma plus family pressure – is enormous in the Muslim community.

So perhaps – while you might aspire to be some kind of secular, Western liberal democracy – the reality on the ground however – is still very much coloured by religion. Until such time when religion plays a more reduced role in Singaporean society……you will still have to contend with it…………..

Best Regards
Dr Syed Alwi

Whether Islamic dogma continues unchanged for the next 1,000 years is not a matter of relevance over the question of whether voluntary euthanasia should be legalized. Members of Islamic clergy are of course free to dictate to their followers any Islamic ruling or tenet affecting their lives. But no religion, be it Islam, Christianity, Judaism, Hinduism, Buddhism etc should ever be allowed to impose its religious dogma as a basis for formulating public policy-making in a multi-cultural multi-religious society. Hence no minister in Singapore – whether the PM or otherwise, for the sake of the society as a whole – should ever, even for a moment, entertain thoughts of framing any public policy using a religious doctrine as a basis. To do so may result in adverse repercussions.

Would you agree with this, Dr Syed Alwi?

Our laws and policies should continue to be strictly secular, with socio-economic factors as the underpinnings. If an adult person, Muslim or otherwise, were to step into a brothel or casino to have fun, would any brothel/casino management staff bother to stop them? If the clerical shepherds are unable to control members or certain members of their flock, then, obviously, they cannot expect others to do the job for them.

Agree/Disagree?

Tks, Peter for your comments. Insightful. Top-rate.

I cannot speak of the other religions. But I can speak of Islam. Islam’s central theme is the permanency of the Quran and its unchanging nature. In fact Islam prides itself in its unchanging nature. Therefore – the idea of changing Quranic commandments is completely out of the question in Islam.

And there are verses regarding suicide etc in the Quran. Forbidden under all circumstances.

I cannot tell the future. But if Islam is to Reform – then it will be a long time away. Maybe 100 years…..

Best Regards
Dr Syed Alwi

I am in 100% agreement with Richard Woo on the central point of his article above (voluntary euthanasia).

I can only speak for myself. I intend to make it clear in writing, whilst I am in complete possession of my faculties, that should I ever reach a vegetative state with no hope of recovery or where my quality of life is completely gone, the plug should be pulled. I understand from the discussion above this is now possible in Singapore by means of a living Will or something called an Advanced Medical Directive. If this was not possible (hypothetical, since it is), I would instruct my care giver to remove me to a place where it would be possible to pull the plug.

There seems to be quite a lot of misunderstanding as to the expression ‘love’. To me, it would be an act of love on my part not to have to burden my near and dear ones with the responsibility of caring for me when all hope of me leading a life with the quality I would like is gone.

To Dr Syed Alwi, who makes some very rational points, I would say: be positive. Society is made up of people and people make choices. If enough people think in a certain way then society changes. Richard makes some very pertinent points about how the Church has modified its views over time. In 18th and early 19th century India, the practice of ‘Sati’ (immolation of the bride on the husband’s funeral pyre) was common along with child marriages and other practices. Force of opinion changed societies views on these.

To Gemami, #37 para 4, I would ask: is abortion not legal in Singapore? [See http://www.singapore-window.org/sw00/000814ha.htm. I will not labour the inconsistency.

Discussions of a religious nature are Pandora's boxes and are best left alone save, as I say, if enough people think in a certain way, society can and does change.

To Arix, #56 point 1 (For all Atheists who claim to have their own moral standards, go do some research - and you will find that ALL your moral standards come from particular religions.) I would say you've got it back-to-front. Man came first, then religion. As Descarte said cogito ergo sum, I think, therefore I am. Richard quotes Dr Yaron Brook of the Ayn Rand Institute to say the same thing. Man is a rational being and our rationality must always prevail.

So good luck, Richard, I hope you've managed to get a small snowball going.

[PS Is anyone willing to do an article on organ trading? For the record, I am all in favour of legalised organ trading on a willing-seller-willing-buyer basis:) ].

Rachel has leapfrogged me on this. I am not going to analyze Rachel’s rebuttal point by point so my response, to your post may overlap what she has already said. But I have questions for you, which I hope you will answer to set the position clear.

You are a theist, presumably? If so which religious affiliation are you attached to? If atheism to you is incoherent [and this seems to be nothing more than a display of prejudice or ignorance], theism is far more incoherent, as it has no empirical proof for the core of its belief. Nothing except for a thing called ‘faith’, beyond any semblance of reason or logic.

“The Financial Cost Argument …It is the Moral Obligation of a Government to provide for its citizens whenever they cannot provide for themselves. A Government that doesn’t do this is shirking its responsibility.”

Please tell this to our government. They may award you a prize for this grand idea. You have my support, though.

The Despairing Pain Argument – Are you aware that there are about ten [plausibly more] countries in the world that have made euthanasia legal? Many of these countries are from the western world. You appear to be simplistic by assuming that only people who are atheists would opt for euthanasia. Mrs Janet Sng is just one example; we cannot discount there may be other people who are Christian and still are in favor of euthanasia. The US is a predominantly Christian country and two of its states [Oregon and Washington] have legalized euthanasia; do you think that the people who passed the euthanasia law are/were atheists? And, no doubt, you believe euthanasia is only for atheists.

As voluntary euthanasia is something for the patient to exercise, you as a patient do not have to opt for it if you don’t want to. Your religion may forbid you, but others who are not religious or who do not share your religious concerns are free to exercise their choices, right? Aesop’s fable of the fox and the sour grapes?

“Terri Schiavo’s case was problematic.” Certainly it was, and that’s why her husband sought court sanction. Fifteen years in coma; how long more should it have been allowed to continue? Theists like you seem to live in a world of idealism. Please remember things are different in reality.

“As for the French woman quoted in the Straits Times article – I wish to enquire where the idea of “incurable” is obtained from; perhaps it is the reporter’s own opinion. (Sorry, Straits Times reporters are not always so professional.)”

You appear to be someone with a proclivity to “assume” and then assert without obtaining clarification or verification. My article mentioned: “A recent case reported in the newspapers [The Straits Times, Mar 21, 2008] is a case in point.” Clearly, nothing was stated about the case being the output of a ST reporter. Evidently, you have not been circumspect – that the article could just have been a reprint from another newspaper.

“Her response is thus understandable.” Good for you – it shows that you have understanding in some area but not in others.

“Contrary to what some atheists think, Theists are not cold-hearted people who love watching patients undergoing torture.”

Has any atheist here talked about theists being cold-hearted people who love patients undergoing torture? How did this thought spring into your mind?

“Essentially, an Active Euthanasia policy would mean saying, “Right? you are going to die in 3 years’ time if we put you on treatment. So why don’t just save us all the money and time and your family loads of agony and just die off right now?” What is the problem with this statement? It totally lacks any form of empathy with the patient! Seriously, as humans, would we want our medical practitioners adopting this as a de-facto attitude? (And not to forget, the whole “vision” of a Suicide Tourism Hub!)”

I suggest you re-read my article. Your thinking on this is clearly convoluted. I think Rachel has been more specific about this, if you have read her comments.

“So pleas Atheists, re-think through your positions.
4. Values & Politics – It seems patently unfair that Atheists are permitted to let their views affect policy and legislation while Theists are told to shut up. Aren’t Theists just as much citizens of this country as Atheists?”

Rachel has succinctly stated her points. All I want to add here is that you appear to have an unbounded capacity for imagination. But that’s typical of some theists of which, presumably you are one.