Announcement:
TOC will be migrating to a new server in the coming day or two. If you experience any accessibility problems, please do be patient. The new server will allow for faster access speed on this website.
Tng Ying Hui
I love this phrase of the pledge, for all the virtues it embodies. Peace, understanding, tolerance and love. Wars and riots caused by issues of race, language and religion are replete throughout history.
For multiracial Singapore, these are important lessons to learn from. More importantly, to achieve and maintain the peace we now enjoy would be more than an ineffable ideal; it is a process of which, despite being long and arduous, the end would be long lasting and peaceful.
We are on our way there, we have to be. When we are there, our nation will flourish. As a nation we are not there yet, as Lee Kuan Yew reminded us recently.
A nation accepting and tolerant, which integrates seamlessly, is one impervious to disintegration within. In South East Asia, we have seen too many countries ripped apart by internal conflicts. The ethnic Karens are in constant battle with the Burmese in Burma; in Thailand, the Muslim south never sees eye to eye with the Buddhist Thais. Singapore too had once been susceptible to riots. The government has since constantly reminded us of our fragility and of going against the laws they have set in place to govern this peace.
But we are not there yet. Our peace sometimes feels like it could shatter anytime. What is the basis of our peace?
The shadowy presence of the Internal Security Act (ISA) is not forgotten by Singaporeans. Memories of Operation Cold Store and Operation Spectrum remind us of a government which will not hesitate to throw dissenters into jail – without trial. Then, there is also the Maintenance of Religious Harmony Act (MRHA). Implicit in the MRHA is the understanding that it is the role of the state to police ‘religion’ so as to maintain “religious harmony”. While the application of this law has not been as brutal compared to the ISA, the law in itself prevents any honest and open discussions of religions.
Our laws should not be used to forcefully bring about peace. Instead, they should foster the blossoming of each culture and religion. But have they done so?
In 2002, when four 6–year-old girls wore the tudung to school, the government stuck by its principle that schools represent a precious common space, where all young Singaporeans wear school uniform, as a daily reminder of the need to stand together as citizens, regardless of race, religion and social status. As the parents of the children persisted in their belief that faith is as important as education, the girls continued to wear their headscarves. The authorities had to ask them to leave. So instead of students learning about the importance of headscarves to the Muslims, they instead learn that wearing the ‘tudung is wrong’. Ironically, the Sikh boys are allowed to wear turban to schools.
Besides the laws, the government all too often preaches that our highly acclaimed economic progress could be destroyed by inter-racial conflict. This is something deeply embedded in our minds. It is definitely true, but the question is: Is our peace so fragile that we have to view race and religion as OB markers? Academics, social and religious activists all tread carefully when broaching the topic. I see a ‘nation’ of peace built on sand.
Religious activists alike have a pertinent role to play in our secular society. Stoking unsound religious fervour should be avoided at all costs and to point fingers and blame the different religions/ races for anything is repulsive. The basis for inter-religious peace is understanding.
When the Aware saga unfolded, the government took a hands-off approach but it made its point clear – Singapore remains a secular society. Mr Wong Kan Seng, Minister for Home Affairs, said, “Keeping religion and politics separate is a key rule of political engagement.” (ST: 15 May 2009) I believe, this is a way forward until the edifice of our peace has anchored.
I have to agree that we are increasingly colour blind, but not completely. It saddens me to still hear some Chinese parents threatening to give away their misbehaving young children to the ‘Ah nehs’, a derogatory term used to describe Indian Singaporeans here. It is also sad to hear the Prime Minister say, in November 2008, that he feels Singapore is not ready for a non-Chinese Prime Minister. ““Who votes for whom, and what makes him identify with that person… these are sentiments which will not disappear completely for a long time,” he said, “even if people do not talk about it, even if people wish they did not feel it.” (China Post)
This is an echo of what then-Deputy Prime Minister Goh Chok Tong said in the 80s: “’It is make-believe to pretend that race and language do not affect voter preference.” (Asiaone)
Does this not show the that ideology of multiracialism (and meritocracy, by the way) which we hold dear to be nothing but a façade – even after 44 years of “nation building”?
Open and honest discussions of contradictory topics of religion and culture are often shunned. I would agree that these topics are undeniably and potentially volatile and are possible causes for conflict. This however, should never be the reason to avoid talking about them. There have been inter-religious dialogues in Singapore and a recent participant of such a dialogue mentioned the need for ‘constructive disharmony’.
Despite all religions propounding the same moral rules, what we must achieve is to first understand the differences and second, to accept fellow Singaporeans in spite of their beliefs.
That is why racial and religious harmony is not just built upon tough laws and strict OB markers, but also on the active desire to engage people of other races and faiths.
—–
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
patriot (#51),
Did you watch the documentary “Human Chimps” (I think that was the name) on OKTO? It was a study of how Chimps differ from humans, despite showing many similarities. And the conclusion was that the major difference was the chimps’ inability to replicate actions of third-parties. That would explain the chimps’ inability to learn the human language, I think, more than some supposed innate linguistic tendency. And of course there is the issue of different vocal structures.
Arix:
Me loves watching documentaries, unfortunately I lack the power of retention and also an inability to digest and understand mathematical and scientific terms which hampers much of my understandings.
Apparently, we do differ in deciphering the nature of mankind versus other species and I will put it down as simply because we differ in some philosophical perspectives. An old guy like me has to depend on the understanding of words(language/semantic) to try to comprehend worldly matters and much less on scientific methods. Here I am truly handicapped as I have not much command of both, however, I do have some independent views from time to time which may differ from standard views.
And I am certainly one who will readily agree to disagree.
I thank You once more sincerely for the interactions.
patriot
pile of bs! PAP has obvious affection for a certain organized religion. “regardless” is not true.
truth (#54),
Really? Which one is that?
Me feels uneasy to post this at the Thread ‘God sneaks into our classrooms’. There seems no possible end to the Debate there.
Wonder if I can say that; when philosophical perspectives are not aligned, opinions naturally differ.
Live and let live, let us enjoy what we believe in, in our ownself. Surely, we need no affirmation or confirmation from others for our faith.
AND DEFINITELY no need to enforce ones’ faith onto others.
patriot
“If I tell Singaporeans – we are all equal regardless of race, language, religion, culture. Then they will say,”Look, I’m doing poorly. You are responsible.” But I can show that from British times, certain groups have always done poorly, in mathematics and in science. But I’m not God, I can’t change you. But I can encourage you, give you extra help to make you do, say maybe, 20% better.”
- Lee Kuan Yew, Success Stories, 2002
More at http://leewatch.info/quotes
Confucius teaching by Ps Kong Heehee below?
“Obey those who rule over you, and be submissive, for they watch out for your souls, as those who must give account. Let them do so with joy and not with grief, for that would be unprofi table for you. Hebrews 13:17
Hebrews 13:17 tells us that one practical outworking of obedience to God is by obeying the leaders who directly rule over you in church. By saying that, the Bible immediately establishes the fact that God expects us to be planted in a local church. Otherwise, how would that Scripture ever be fulfilled?
The word “church” is used 114 times in the New Testament. Considering that words like “repentance” appears only 58 times, “joy” 65 times, and “revival” once, church is therefore something very necessary according to the Bible. In fact, the church is the only one building project that Jesus is actively involved in. He says, “I will build My church, and the gates of Hades shall not prevail against it” (Matt. 16:18).
Of the 114 times that the word “church” is used in Scripture, only about 10 to 12 times is it used in reference to the universal body of Christ. For the majority of the times it was mentioned, the focus is squarely placed on the local church. As such, there can be no doubt of the importance of the local congregation in Christian living. Just look at Paul’s letters in the New Testament. He was always writing to a local church somewhere: Rome, Corinth, Galatia, Ephesus, Philippi, Colosse and Thessalonica. Without strong local churches, the harvest cannot be conserved, believers cannot be properly discipled and workers cannot be sent out into effective ministry.
One of the greatest challenges for a believer joining a church is to resolve in his mind once and for all that he is to OBEY his pastors and elders. Church leaders are positioned by the Lord to encourage, equip and empower the saints. Sometimes, in order to properly keep watch over their spiritual health, they have to exercise godly discipline much like parents to their children. God is never unreasonable. If you sincerely believe that God has planted you into a particular local church, then you need to be very ACCOUNTABLE to your leaders. If, for some reason, you feel you can’t OBEY your elders or deacons, then look for another congregation where you can.
Without proper discipleship from church leaders, your membership in God’s house would not be PROFITABLE (Heb. 13:17). One more thing: you also need to be SUBMISSIVE. That means OBEDIENCE must be done with a right attitude—with great willingness on your part. Remember: “If you are willing and obedient, you shall eat the good of the land” (Is. 1:19). So it is not simply going through the motion of doing as you are told, it is doing them with a joy and gladness of heart.”
You think our nation was built on similar principles?
Now where is the offering bag.