| |
The
Straits Times, Friday Matters, 5 Nov 04
Beware
of mixing religion and politics
By Chua Mui Hoong
IN THE end, evangelical Christians in the United States helped determine
that Mr George W. Bush would remain President. Culture war in America
Why George Washington would have lost out today PAP leadership renewal
to stay in tune with young Clinton tells Democrats 'Whining won't
get you votes' Ohio, the crucial, closely fought state, had 5.8 million
people who turned out to vote. Associated Press reports said a quarter
of them had identified themselves as born-again or evangelical Christians.
(That's in contrast to 'liberal' Christians who view as metaphor many
of the things evangelicals take as fact, such as the resurrection
of Christ and the notion that only Christians go to heaven.) This
pivotal bloc backed President Bush by a three-to-one margin: enough
to swing the state to Mr Bush, and give him the 20 electoral college
votes that clinched the presidency.
Will the religious lobby in Singapore one day amass electoral clout?
While not a homogenous group, with Buddhists, Catholics, Protestant
Christians, Hindus and Muslims among them, religious groups here can
become a voice for moral conservatism in Singapore, as they are in
the US. Which is not necessarily a bad thing. The danger comes if
any one group tries to impose on others its notion of what is right
and wrong. That's a very, very thin line to cross. Already, some groups
have tried to mobilise members on policy matters.
In July last year, there was an online campaign by a group of Christians,
urging fellow Christians to lobby their MPs, the Government and the
media against gay lifestyles. 'The battle lines are now drawn and
it is time for the Church in Singapore to rise up and make a stand,'
it said in rather charged language. This campaign followed news that
the Government was now open to hiring gay people even in sensitive
jobs. The group's militant tone did not draw much support, even from
fellow Christians. In fact, the National Council of Churches, representing
Anglicans, Methodists and Presbyterians, adopted a more moderate position.
While Christians consider homosexuality a sin, gay people should not
be despised nor discriminated against in jobs, it said.
The difference between the two positions is small, but vital. One
seeks to impose on others its view of what is right and wrong. (X
is a sin for all, and therefore anyone who engages in X should be
jailed or deprived of jobs, housing or whatever.) The other group
views something as wrong for adherents to its beliefs, but stops short
of wanting to ban everyone from doing it. (We consider X a sin, and
discourage anyone from doing it. But we cannot impose on others who
may not see X as a sin.)
When religious values enter public debate, that distinction is a crucial
one to make, to prevent intolerance.
One ongoing issue that polarises public opinion is the proposal
to build a casino in Singapore. The proposal is opposed by the National
Council of Churches, the Catholic Church and Pergas, the Singapore
Islamic Scholars and Religious Teachers Association. Each of these
groups has issued statements against the proposal - which is a legitimate
thing for any citizen to do. But so far, none has actively mobilised
its members to put pressure on the Government or MPs to scrap the
proposal. Nor has any group suggested that anyone who frequents a
casino should be punished or otherwise shunned. This is as it should
be, for religious groups must be mindful to exercise their influence
over their flocks with great care.
Fortunately for Singapore society, they usually mobilise them to do
good, such as helping the needy or taking part in worthy national
events. The Buddhist Singapore Soka Association, for example, is a
regular feature at National Day Parades, mobilising 1,000 people each
time. With their organisational capability, it's a small step from
there to mobilising members in order to sway a vote.
But wait, you say. Surely religious groups won't do that? Well, if
online gossip is to be believed, some churches have. There are allegations
of churches that mobilised members to support singing contestants
in the Singapore Idol contest this year, or the MTV Asia Awards last
year. I have my doubts as to the truth of these allegations. In any
case, there's nothing very sinister about mobilising friends - in
church or elsewhere - to support you.
The pertinent question here is: Might the day come when a religious
leader uses his influence over his flock not only to support a singing
contestant, but also to influence a political election? And will Singaporeans
accept that? Some churches here have more than 10,000 members. Not
all stay in the estate where the church is based, but probably a number
do. Catholic parishes, for example, draw thousands from a particular
neighbourhood.
All that translates into potential sway over elections at the constituency
level. I know some of these points may sound far-fetched to Singaporeans
used to an iron-curtain divide between religion and politics. After
all, we have a well-defined architecture that promotes religious harmony,
including the Maintenance of Religious Harmony Act, a volunteer-driven
Inter-Religious Organisation and a declaration on religious harmony
that pledges to keep the state secular and to 'grow our common space
while respecting our diversity'.
But as we become a more open, diverse, cosmopolitan society, issues
touching on lifestyle choices and morality will emerge. Singapore's
conservative groups, including the religious organisations, will certainly
want a say on those issues. Some have the potential to amass electoral
clout to make their views count.
Before that day comes, it will be good if Singaporeans can develop
some consensus on what is acceptable and what is not when it comes
to religious values influencing public issues. My own view is that
so long as Singaporeans can agree to disagree, we'll be able to negotiate
potentially polarising issues. Religious groups can focus on keeping
their own house in order (discourage fellow believers from doing something
considered immoral), and not throwing stones at the houses of others
(prevent others from doing something you consider immoral, but which
they think is fine). As long as that remains the consensus, multiracial,
multi-religious Singaporeans can live and let live together. E-mail
muihoong@sph.com.sg
|
|
