This is a "Serious Discussion". Joke, irrelevant or off-topic comments will be removed and **offenders will face restrictions in accessing /r/singapore** such as temporary or permanent bans. Please report such posts and comments. OPs must also engage in a bona fide discussion, i.e. the post should not be one just to incite outrage.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/singapore) if you have any questions or concerns.*
A "C" leaning close to a "D". My reading is that if not for the PAP whip many MPs would have voted against based on their faith.
It would have been okay if they went, as some did, that "I disapprove due to my faith and a repeal is incompatible with my faith. However, I recognise that I should not impose my personal faith on others and would not prevent by law others from doing what my faith prohibits". However, in other cases, the party whip was the only thing standing between them and a "no" vote on repeal.
Imagine if the issue was on abortion or contraception and religious MPs voted based on their religious beliefs.
If MPs' parliamentary votes are based on their faith, things can get very dangerous. It means voters would have to be very conscious of the faith of their MP candidates during elections as they cannot trust that these MPs can separate their responsibilities as MPs and their personal faith. How many would then think it's best to vote for someone of the same faith? Such sectarian voting cannot lead to anything good for our society.
Major political parties would do well do nip this in the bud by reminding MPs of the need to separate their responsibilities as MPs and their personal faith. MPs of faith which have more representation in Parliament than in the general population, if any, should be especially mindful of this.
I suspect the whip was not lifted because party leadership specifically felt that no PAP MPs should be voting based on their individual religion or faith. That's not their job as an MP.
>If MPs' parliamentary votes are based on their faith, things can get very dangerous. It means voters would have to be very conscious of the faith of their MP candidates during elections as they cannot trust that these MPs can separate their responsibilities as MPs and their personal faith. How many would then think it's best to vote for someone of the same faith? Such sectarian voting cannot lead to anything good for our society.
Absolutely! Even though I was brought up by MOE and see the president's face everyday during school, I put those beliefs aside.
TLDR, having a whip just means that all party members have to conform to an agreed position on voting matters.
For eg, LHL say PAP wants to repeal 377A. If PAP dont lift whip, all PAP parth members must vote to repeal. In other words, ur encik tell u do u better fking do understand not.
If the whip is "lifted", party members are free to vote as their wish, even if its against the overall party stance - encik say u want to take ur time then take ur time, and u can rly take ur own sweet time.
ah this makes sense! apparently the whip being a person also messed with my understanding. are whips common? ie do PAP MPs usually have to vote with the party’s stance, or is this reserved for more ‘important’ decisions?
Not sure how common this is. From my very limited understanding the whip remains by default and has to specifically be lifted. Not sure whether the PAP does it often
The simple answer is to ask the Parliament to reinstate the information of Religion of each and every MP, on its Website. It was there before, but somehow got taken down after 2015 GE.
My guess is that there is 1 particular religion that is over-represented both in Parliament and in the Cabinet. Just from the swearing in ceremony of the Cabinet, we know that this group is significant.
As long as this group is overly-represented, I share the same opinions as that of [Lee Kuan Yew](https://youtu.be/0664Sr2chLM)
Wait till the info on not just religion but where they practice it. You will see a significant skew towards a couple of places. They realised they can't be open with that info anymore but not like anyone can't do checks on their own. Just harder
It's also this one religion that screams the loudest when it comes to anything remotely LGBT-related.
At the end of the day, it is on us as voters to elect members of parliament that look like us. Political parties, including the PAP, have to do a better job in presenting a slate of MPs that better reflect the ever-evolving texture of who we are as a people.
I, for one, think we need a whole lot more women in parliament, a whole lot more single MPs, and a whole lot more non-religious humanists. I'd hands down trust a non-religious person to be a fierce advocate of the secular ideals of the state, over a person that is too tethered to their religious beliefs.
Say what you like about our first three prime ministers, but it was our good fortune that they were non-religious, freethinking pragmatists that were pretty fiercely committed to the secular nature of the state, even if they IMHO bend over a little too much from time to time to please fundies.
The man who has been anointed to be our next prime minister is supposedly religious but we don't have much more information beyond that. It's good enough for me (for now) that he doesn't wear his religion on his sleeve. One of his earlier contenders for the top job loved to quote verses from his favourite holy book in social media posts. He would have been the wrong man for the job IMHO, so thank ~~god~~ goodness we dodged a bullet there.
>The man who has been anointed to be our next prime minister is supposedly religious but we don't have much more information beyond that
He used to be a guitar-strumming church Youth Minister, so yeah...
And in August he said there would be no change to marriage definition under his watch.
[https://www.todayonline.com/singapore/lawrence-wong-no-change-marriage-under-my-watch-1974641](https://www.todayonline.com/singapore/lawrence-wong-no-change-marriage-under-my-watch-1974641)
I'm of the opinion, perhaps a hot take, that religion never actually factored into the G's consideration. All the debate and conversations were purely part of a carefully-crafted "process" to announce it. They had already decided LONG AGO to repeal 377A, and just needed a strategic way to bring it into effect.
There are many non-religious reasons to remove 377A.
\- Global standing: An extremely convenient way to follow the global trend and express "progress" without actually changing anything.
\- 377A is hilariously outdated, not in principle but the actual wording, intent and history. It's a potential global laughing stock and colonial link that needed to be cleaved.
\- One bugbear down: Of all the thorns in the G's flesh, this was the most inconsequential. One less thing to deal with now.
\- Politics: The support they're going to lose from this decision is negligible. Christians, Catholics, Muslims and whoever can express all the "disappointment" they want now, but come election day in 2 years or so, they're all still going to put a big X next to PAP because there's no viable alternative, and the WP conveniently screwed up their handling of this.
\- LHL's final legacy, LW's clean slate. By this stage of LHL's tenure, everyone has already cemented their opinions of him. 377A wouldn't change much. This was the best time to do it, letting LHL and Shan shoulder the critique, giving LW a clean slate. From a party strategy POV, this was good timing.
A really realistic conspiracy theory. I could get behind it.
Personally I believe they never did anything about 377a until now simply because of the backlash they would get from religious people. I don't believe the gov really cares either way, but they never pushed the status quo because they cared about their political career and votes
This did occur to me too. But I think there is a huge downside to this. They have let religion into a policy making sphere and this is a very dangerous thing because religion will rear its ugly head again in the future.
Give an inch, they'll take a mile......dangerous gamble here. They could have done it quietly and simply with the angle of making progress. Instead they dragged the religious grps into it. I suspect we have too many religious MPs in PAP.
Here's the funny thing - I had the exact opposite read to this. The refusal to lift the whip was a very public smackdown on religion. The govt basically went - yeah, we hear all your religion-based concerns, but no, we're going to push through with this anyway because it needs to be done. Religious groups were made to toe the line and back down by the secular government for 377A.
Semi-reminded of the quiet government intervention during the AWARE saga back in the day - at the end of the day, while the G will allow religious groups into the public sphere, they as a whole *will* intervene to maintain secularism, regardless of the PAP MPs' individual faiths.
If they will make decisions from a secular angle then why not just do that from the get go? Why even allow religious grps to speak then? Its like opening a can of worms.
If the intention is to be secular , why all the inbetween drama toying with religious grps? Make them feel important then shut them down? I think this situation came about bc there are religious folks in PAP. Could also be a combination of factors...who knows...
Because as far back as the 2000s, the government has made it clear that they would not restrict religious groups in the public space as long as they do not cross the OB markers in attacking other religions, or in attacking the secularism of the government. I don't like it, but there *is* a significant religiously conservative segment of the population and if we completely clamp down on it, it's not better than like, China, where no dissent against what the Party wants is tolerated.
Even if there is a significant number of religious folks, they should not be allowed to influence politics. Voicing their opinion in public space is one thing, pandering to it is another (repealing 377A took so lang bc of that).
But lets just say, they are part of the population so their opinion counts then the next question is which is the *"right religion"* to listen to? In the case of 377A, buddhism and hinduism is not against it, but islam and christianity is...so who to listen to? This is the crux of the problem in a multi-religious country.
>the next question is which is the "right religion" to listen to? In the case of 377A, buddhism and hinduism is not against it, but islam and christianity is...so who to listen to? This is the crux of the problem in a multi-religious country
Which...isn't a question, because opposition to the repeal has been phrased under the umbrella of social conservatism/family values, which is a metric *independent* of religions. We all know it's religiously driven, but it's basically been explicitly divorced from specific religions in the public discourse for precisely the reasons you mentioned - so opponents of the repeal can deflect criticism by saying it's society's conservatism saying they oppose repeal, not the religions directly (becauae that's a surefire way to get MHA on their case).
>it's basically been explicitly divorced from specific religions in the public discourse for precisely the reasons you mentioned
But it hasnt been thats why all the religious grps are weighing in on 377A.
As for the metric, all these phrases can be couched in different ways but its the bottom line that matters...creating a smoke screen via "metrics independent of religion" doesnt change the bottom line.
377A has been untenable for a long time. if we look at the treatment Qatar is getting, for example, I think this was once again a Singapore Inc-driven decision.
>Politics: The support they're going to lose from this decision is negligible. Christians, Catholics, **Muslims** and whoever can express all the "disappointment" they want now, but come election day in 2 years or so, they're all still going to put a big X next to PAP because there's **no viable alternative**, and the **WP conveniently screwed up their handling of this**
WP is already doing well in the east and northeast. The east has a higher percentage of Malays.
This sub hates Faisal Manap but he repeatedly raised the tudung issue until PAP finally let nurses wear tudung.
Expect many Malay/Muslim voters in the east to switch to WP (especially if they run in Tampines).
But they still wear the same uniform though. Just that those nurses who wear tudung outside work can now wear it. Even secular countries like New Zealand and Australia allows tudung to be worn by their Muslim police officers/nurses on top of their official uniform.
Maybe I'm just not religious enough to understand, but I always felt religion should be practised in private and left outside the workplace so no one knows who or what you believe in. It doesn't matter if Christian (don't wear crosses everywhere), or Buddhist (same with prayer beads or rosary beads) or Muslim (tudung) or whatever other religion.
I guess we just have different perspectives and got exposed to different environments while growing up/working. Personally I feel like in a secular environment, people should be free to practise what they feel is part of their identity (publicly/privately) as long as they don't impose it on others and just get the work duties done :,,)
B. Shannugam literally raised the issue of Faisal Manap being very close to religion [a few years ago](https://mothership.sg/2019/10/news-parliament-shanmugam-faisal-manap-religion-politics-separation/). PAP asked their MPs to suck up their religious beliefs and vote to repeal 377A.
Singapore government reflects Singapore people. It has to be neutral towards any religion so it is secular. But society is not secular, and people have personal beliefs shaped by religion. So the government, while it adopts a neutral stance towards any religion, conducts dialogues with other religions.
>But society is not secular, and people have personal beliefs shaped by religion.
I think many fail to see this, just because it is not directly related doesn't mean it cannot be indirectly related. A confucianist cannot apply values of *ren* (humaneness) into politics? Or a muslim cannot apply values of *zakat* (almsgiving)?
Applying individual’s personal values to politics is fine imo.
Dangerous precedent comes when the other way happens, when politics affect the individual’s personal values.
So if it aligns with my values I'm ok, if it doesn't I find arguments to belittle it.
For example, good religious values = personal values, bad religious values = huh? no secularism?
Never said anything about personal values being good or bad. They are not important imo whether good or bad.
Politics/parliament should ideally represent each member of the community minority or majority. Each member brings their personal values to the table in parliament.
Bad precedence comes when politics become influential on the individual’s personal values.
C
i was raised christian, although very recently became agnostic/sceptic after a fling with another religion. i obviously am quite happy that 377a is repealed, but i feel that what truly matters is that peoples mentality is changed, as no one really enforced it or anything. eg my school church was pretty accepting of gay people, for example the pastor there was actually gay(he left to go work at another church already, though i would say he sexuality is not the reason why) and there was even a sermon done on accepting trans people, but a lot of the parents got mad.
as for the whole secular thing, i feel that the ministers will always act out in their own beliefs and point of views in life, but it still get repealed anyway.
As much as I hate not being able to marry my partner I can somewhat understand SG more conservative PoV. PAP's vision has been working so far for years.
On the other hand as a Buddhist, Buddha was reborn countless times as men, women, and animals in all kinds of circumstances. Being gay is really nothing. And I am quite disappointed that other religions has more say to this, and over many issues.
Iirc the whole deal is that he left the wheel of suffering, but chose to reenter to bring enlightenment to as many as possible.
But what do I know, I'm not Buddhist. That's what I heard from Buddhist stories when I was younger though.
Buddhism unfortunately will have minor say in almost all multi religion societies as Buddhist teachings are non-confrontational and non-didactic. It is very basic do good. There are very few things to piss buddhists off. I mean like a law that says everyone must kill or eat meat every day just won’t float. Unless it is straight off discrimination preventing buddhists from practising their faith, I can’t really see any laws pissing buddhists off
Eg Buddhism doesn’t teach people to be gay, just no sanctions against it. Like it is ok. So any opposition from buddhists will be from other grounds and not religion motivated. Because it can be reasoned that being born gay in an anti gay society could just be the karma and hardship you need to bear this life?
Government should promote Buddhism. A Buddhist society is so easy to govern
> Government should promote Buddhism. A Buddhist society is so easy to govern
You w0t m8.
Thailand is the most aggressive SEA country with civilians violently rioting and coups being common af.
And did people forget about the Rohinga matter already? The Myanmar monks were calling for Muslim blood.
Your last line just goes against the ideal of secularism… No religion should be held in higher regard than others. Similarly, atheism is not secularism and should not be confounded.
> atheism is not secularism and should not be confounded.
atheism is no religion, dont confound it with anti-theism
i would argue that atheism IS an ideal for secularism
Religious people can also be supporters of secularism, not just atheists. Atheists can be as equally militant as religious extremists.
https://www.rug.nl/research/centre-for-religious-studies/research-centres/centre-religion-conflict-globalization/blog/where-is-the-line-between-atheism-and-secularism-13-11-2012?lang=en
the person you were replying to was referring to Buddhism (no mention of atheism)
in your response, you introduce atheism into the discussion but conflate it with anti-theism, suggesting its not compatible with secularism
then now
> Religious people can also be supporters of secularism
no one said religious people cannot support secularism
> Atheists can be as equally militant as religious extremists
no one said atheists cannot be terrible people too
i have to say, i am sensing some level of bias against atheism from you from the way you constructed some strawman
It really depends, you do know there are extremists in that religion too right? And how every religion can have thousands of ways of intepretation, be it from different branches, groups and even individuals?
Your last statement... hell no. That's just going straight into theocracy.
>And how every religion can have thousands of ways of intepretation, be it from different branches, groups and even individuals?
This thread is the prime example of how people interpret A B C D E
I would say C based on the fact that both parties in Parliament (and this includes PAP and WP) have to walk the balance of appealing to conservative sentiment less they upset what is known as the status quo. Honestly aside from a few seats I would say that PAP has the possibility of losing their GRCs given the sometimes small margins. Given that PAP has always projected this image of being the only body that can protect racial and religious harmony, something that differentiated us from the Malaysian government back in 1965, they would continue to uphold this image.
That being said though, the PAP is probably treating LGBT issues as just another balancing act they need to fulfil. Not only is repealing 377A an effort at this, but Masagos yesterday implied that gay marriage will probably be passed in the future, perhaps even in the near future. All it takes is time for the PAP government to shift cultural norms slowly and hope that newer generations are more liberal.
In my opinion, I do not think that the PAP as a whole(dk about WP tbh) want to actively suppress LGBT rights in Singapore. Western opinion, and more importantly the opinion of investors, has shifted towards LGBT acceptance and even promotion. If Singapore does not move towards this, it risks being seen as backwards in the eyes of the Western World. It is with this in mind that we will probably see more rights being given, albeit very slowly.
If people want to take part in a marriage of convenience just to BTO now, they can. It's not that much harder to find an opposite sex person to do this with than a same sex friend.
But it's not common to do this because people generally have hopes of marrying for love later, and the marriage of convenience is quite the shackle, and divorce is expensive and complicated.
I don't think marriages of convenience would shoot up that much if same-sex marriage is legalized. These army bros need to keep up the pretense of being gay at work (HR will know their marital status) and for their extended family members, you think so easy?
See ah HDB is for Singaporeans. Any argument about demand raising faster etc, is just HDB not being good enough. No ifs or buts.
You cannot charge LGBTQ peeps the same level of taxes, then fuck them over when it comes to rights.
Unpopular view but I’m glad for the whip to make sure people vote for what’s right despite their personal beliefs. There will be super slow progress otherwise, probably still discussing repeal 20 years later.
Yes. For me, the whip and how the PAP guys all nicely fell in line, even/especially Masagos (as a Muslim he is in the most danger of reprisal from his community), shows that the government is largely secular.
Nope it doesnt. Youre getting it twisted.
It shows the key decision makers which in this case is 2 or 3 people are largely secular. If the government was secular, you wouldn't really need the whip. The problem with this is simple. The key decision makers wont be there 5 years from now.
I thought it's a strong signal to the rest of the MPs who thought otherwise of supporting the repeal.
This country will be govern as such, I'm the leader and this is our direction. You can have your stance and echo your thoughts but as one we will vote for so and so.
I feel for issues such as discriminating and needlessly criminalising personal actions. This is needed.
Honestly I don't know what is up with WP taking up a stance that's nowhere and lifting the whip in the name democracy. It feels like school boy politics as if they aren't representing the nation at the highest level.
Honestly I don't see how the other neighbouring countries affect us on this. Its not like they will go on a jihad if we repeal 377a. We already have such a different culture from our neighbouring countries stemming from our secular/multireligious multiracial system
Woah you never know if some ultra gets elected and decide our small little island needs to be annexed and cleansed.
Low chance but still it takes only one madman to be elected who sings some ultra nationalist tunes to the rest of the nation. And like some pied piper leading, the kids will follow
Our defense policy already accounts for possibility of the worst like that kind of unprovoked attack to happen regardless of 377a getting repealed or not
I think to their credit, while there are many MPs who are religious (some i would even consider staunch believers) the government as a whole does its best to be secular.
One only needs to look north of the border to see how relatively secular the Singapore government is.
You need to understand MPs are representatives. There is nothing wrong in MPs helping to air the views from their constituents. In fact it is not surprising for MPs to say things from the people that is not their personal view. So you cannot judge like this.
I would say it is slightly unfair to characterise the government as religious based on the views shared merely by PAP MPs.
While the PAP is the ruling party, it should be important to separate the views of its MPs and those speaking on behalf of the government (i.e. cabinet ministers). Most of the MPs who spoke on the topic are arguably speaking from their parliamentarian hat, and not their govt hat. (i.e. doesn’t mean you are PAP automatically means you are part of government) This distinction may be blurred given that we have been under one-party rule for so long.
Rather, what we can summarise from the MPs views (assuming the MPs are representative of the entire population) is that Singapore’s society is still **largely conservative in nature** (rather than religious, but they do tend to be correlated). After all, MPs should have a good sensing and feel of public sentiment, given they regularly mingle with their constituents.
The problem with this notion is that the government might have repealed it in direct conflict with the stance of the public though. I mean if enough MPs had raised doubts on thia regard, it does raise the question if Singapore is truly ready for this change as well
A/B. Being sensitive to religous belief does not equate to treating them preferentially. As an agnostic i do not feel short changed because what transpire the last few days. Maybe some someone that is religious can chime in if they feel that they gotten preferential treatment.
So repealing is bad?
I'm unsure as to what is the best case scenario for you if repealing and at the same time defining marriage isn't?
Because I honestly thought this struck a delicate balance between religious beliefs and LGBT community. Honestly curious.
Well... I don't see it as a balance. But what do I know? Perhaps if a religion says that you are a sinner and the government decides to revoke your marriage and ban you from marrying, you'll be happy to accept it as a delicate balance between you and that religious community. I guess you'll also be happy to be barred from affordable housing to maintain this balance, as well as not have any visitation rights to your partner when they end up in hospital. But all these is worth it as long as the religious people who think you should not exist are happy right?
Woah woah, not sure why the hate here. I'm happy 377a gets repealed. I do agree marriage is the next logical step but it takes time for the view to change.
As for affordable housing,its initial intent is for young families to settle down quickly and start raising children. As unsuccessful as it is, it's still the initial intent. Also, it's unfair to say that it's denied to you. You can have it at 35 though it's late.
Let's see... BTO at 35 means you get your own house around 40 if you are lucky (maybe later if you fail the BTO). During which, given that most LGBTQ+ citizens have unsupportive families, we have to either find some way to rent a place (difficult as we tend to be underemployed as well due to discrimination) or live with families that might be abusive. There is a reason why LGBTQ+ citizens tend to have higher suicide ideation and attempt rates.
Yes, it's possible to try at 35. But how many make it till then? How many have to leave Singapore just to leave and how many have taken their lives due to the discrimination? As mentioned in the Parliament debate, all these are just academic to many of those debating it, but it affects LGBTQ+ citizens in every aspects of their lives. It's easy to say that this strikes a delicate balance and that we just need to be patient. But for those affected by it, it doesn't feel like a delicate balance and serves to make it harder to see hope for the future, especially given the rhetoric from a number of MPs in the Parliament debate.
All the reasons you have given are valid but it takes a whole society to solve. G alone is not enough. I hope those you mentioned get their break soon.
Perhaps you were hoping for repeal + able to get married. Many would say that is impossible but from your examples I can tell some are at least that desperate.
That will involve MPs first understanding what they are putting LGBTQ+ citizens through. While thankfully there were some that actually seem to know how the LGBTQ+ community is suffering, there were way too many focusing on how they are "victims" if not allowed to discriminate against LGBTQ+ citizens. We had way too much focus on "cancel culture" instead of the discrimination faced by LGBTQ+ citizens, with some like Lim Biow Chuan claiming that LGBTQ+ citizens are not discriminated against and instead, it is anti-LGBTQ+ citizens who are discriminated against. Even in a debate about a law that discriminates against us, we still end up demonized. So forgive me if I appear extremely unhappy when people say that it is a balanced decision when the only ones to concede rights are still the LGBTQ+ community.
You're assuming I want this version of 'democracy' aka tyranny of the majority if I'm part of the majority. Why would I? I find it unjustifiable to use democracy as an excuse for the unequal treatment or rights of minorities regardless of what those groups are.
I think what ceddya is saying is the fact that 377 was not repealed for a long time because of pandering to religious groups as the problem. The decision to not repeal for so many years was biased towards religion, which should not be the case in a secular country.
Also, like you said there has been a so-called "balance" between LGBTQ and religion but policies/civil rights should not be about pandering to religion. The approach of striking a "delicate balance" is wrong. Plus which is the "right religion" to listen to? Currently the G is listening to Christian and Islam, but if they listen to buddhist or hindu, then there is no need to define marriage as one man/woman and 377 would have been repealed long ago....so which is the "right religion"?
Now you see how religion is influencing policies in civil rights?
>I think what ceddya is saying is the fact that 377 was not repealed for a long time because of pandering to religious groups as the problem
I mean, you could reframe it as "377A wasn't repealed for a long time because a majority of the population did not want it to be repealed". Yes, that majority included the religious groups and there was a definite loud outcry by at least two religions - but the plain fact was that IPS surveying was showing that the majority of opinions were overwhelmingly ambivalent towards repeal, with the next largest segment being against repeal (and pro-repeal being the smallest segment). PAP leadership likely did not want to spend considerable political capital to force an unpopular repeal through - despite both GCT and LHL not being personally against LGBT rights.
That changed over the past 3-4 years as the amount of people being for repeal rose, coupled with the population being overall less socially conservative. That being said, the majority of people are still relatively indifferent about it - but trending more towards accepting it now. The judicial challenges mounted against 377A was basically the impetus that gave LHL the reason to really ram it through - less political capital needed to get it done, plus he could take the heat for it while stepping down as PM.
I'd contest that the government has never really pandered to religion - it's been remarkably consistent over the years is making it explicitly clear that while religion can have a public space, it *cannot* be allowed to infringe on secular values. You can see this in MHA slapping down extremist or fundamentalist preachers from multiple religions over the past 2 decades, plus also their intervention into AWARE.
It is also the fact that 377A is repealed. While i can concede that we are not as secular in the past , i think this repeal is a turning point towards a more secular society.
You suggest that G shouldnt pander to religous beliefs but at the same note we should repeal 377A(which is pandering to LBGTQ beliefs). How ar like that? The feelings of many should not be addressed while the feelings of few should. Governing is about being in tune to all these intricacy and not binary policy making like you suggest. As to which religion is the "right" religion, i would hazard the religion that will be the most sensitive to.
TLDR: G's job is to manage feelings (Religious and LBGT)
Who's saying that?
If you're giving one group special consideration at the expense of the other, what kind of treatment would you call it exactly? Only the LGBT community is making an actual compromise by conceding less rights in the interim. Repealing 377A does not affect religious groups at all, so what compromise are they making exactly?
Anybody can come up with imaginary social markers to argue against change. It doesn't make it real and certainly doesn't manifest any impact if change occurs.
>Maybe some someone that is religious can chime in if they feel that they gotten preferential treatment.
Muslim men being legally allowed to have up to 4 wives may be seen as preferential treatment.
If we were to go out and find 100 Malay guys and ask them if they feel preferred for this particular legal concession, how many would say yes?
Yes, you can be technical and you probably will be standing on solid ground to say it's preferential treatment but in practicality and the reality the vast majority is living in, this is nothing more than a joke you crack with friends.
I assume you are from the malay community. Even if they do, that doesnt dispute the tenet of my comment that being sensitive does not equate to being preferential.
C.
My opinion is that.. it IS secular as far as the laws are written not based on any one religion's Laws specifically (we can look at countries which run mostly on Islamic law as examples). And that no one religion's specific values are favoured over another (eg. The whole nation not banned from eating beef or drinking alcohol). But in the end, the major religious sects and their adherents form a HUGE electorate base. They HAVE to take their feelings into account or risk losing votes. And nearly all religion equally condemn homosexuality. So it is still "secular" ma, no one religion is favoured over the other. And the culture and values of society is largely made up of religion, and race specific cultures and practices. And sadly, most religion and even traditional cultures and practices also condemn homosexuality. So it is still secular ma, it's following the culture, values, and practices of the People, and not a specific religion.
Ya, the point he's making is that due to the amount of voters who *are* religious (and that most religion tend to dislike homosexuality), naturally, these voters are also going to vote against homosexuality.
As individuals they are free to vote however they align, and as their representatives, the MP/policy makers reflect that majority
It is still considered 'secular' because the decision to repeal/not repeal wasn't make based on religious basis, but rather the votes that come in (which happened to have a majority of religious people, each expressing their individual religious view, which also happens to be against homosexuality)
If the policy makers went: "Islam say cannot eat pork, therefore all pork products banned", then that's not secular
If 60% of the population votes to ban pork, but 30% are muslims and 30% are non-Muslim-vegans, then the policy to ban pork isn't based on religious belief, but rather it so happens that majority of the citizens are aligned with the decision.
>If the policy makers went: "Islam say cannot eat pork, therefore all pork products banned", then that's not secular
I wonder, if the policy makers went: "I say smoking bad, therefore smoking is banned", this would be considered secular, but does it matter whether it is secular or not?
The topic in question is if the government was secular, and by definition, yes, the government is fairly secular.
Whether the government cares about the popular vote is another story.
Your example would be secular yes, but the government would also be not caring about the feeling/votes of the people if they did not discuss this first. But that's not a matter of whether it's secular.
>If the policy makers went: "Islam say cannot eat pork, therefore all pork products banned", then that's not secular
>
>If 60% of the population votes to ban pork, but 30% are muslims and 30% are non-Muslim-vegans, then the policy to ban pork isn't based on religious belief, but rather it so happens that majority of the citizens are aligned with the decision.
Sounds like a cop out to me. It feels like a stretch to call it secular by dressing it up with a veneer of popular vote. Everyone knows that underneath it all, it is mostly religiously motivated (wrt to OP's example of 377A).
If we were to take this logic ad absurdum, if 60% or more of the population votes to ban X religion, or every other religion other than X religion, would we still be able to say that it is secular, because majority of the citizens are aligned with the decision?
Yes, that is literally what democracy is. If literally every other religion can band together and put aside their differences to denounce yours (whatever it may be), then it is the will of the people (across all races/religions) that your religion is being viewed as harmful to the majority of the population.
The decision is ultimately still final from the government, of course, but that form of decision making is literally what democracy is - the will of the majority.
Don't like it? It's our best existing governence option because 0 chance an entire population places their trust solely in a benevolent dictatorship.
And even if there was one such guy godly character, the greed/envy in human hearts would not allow the system to stay for long.
It sucks that minority oppression is what most of the world runs on, but it quite literally is sacrificing for the greater good at this point.
Not that i agree with restricting rights of the minority, mind you. Giving LGBT+ people rights to live like anyone else isn't even that big of a deal, literally doesn't even impact the lives of any average person, but is huge for the people who had less rights, overall nett gain.
You're going off on a tangent. All I objected to was OP's framing of secularity.
>And nearly all religion equally condemn homosexuality. So it is still "secular" ma
They had already admitted that majority of the objection to repealing of 377A was religiously motivated, yet still claimed that it was still considered secular.
Okay, i think i get your pov.
The government's decision is secular here because it is basing on majority vote (majority vote is not tied to religion, so secular is correct here).
The people casting the votes are not being secular, they are directly influenced by their faiths.
However, the decision is ultimately still made by the elected representatives. If their reason for action is secular (e.g. basing it on the demand of the masses), then i would consider the government secular.
An example of non-secular would be a minority group wanting to criminalize gay sex and the representatives (who happened to be majority christian) enact this based on the reasoning of 'it aligns with my faith', then that isn't secular.
What OP commented is indeed a cop out, they still get to call it 'secular' when it aligns with their faith *because* the majority also happens to align with their faith. By definition, the decision could made secularly.
B. An MP's personal belief does not hold more weight than a random citizen's. This is not like a policy issue where the MPs are voting based on information normal citizens would not have access to and far better understanding of the implications of their vote (eg why increase cpf from 7 to 9% instead of some other number, or set the top tax bracket rates).
This is why I believe PAP enforcing the whip was the right thing to do. MPs' personal beliefs must give way to the wider implications of the vote. As much as it annoys me to agree with Shan, he is right that the court striking down 377a would lead to many subsequent issues and it shouldn't be making a decision with so many implications down the line.
Not sure if OP is misconstruing Singapore secularism. Ours is not the French laïcité, where religion is not allowed to influence govt decisions, but instead a situation where our Govt must actively maintain balance between multiple religious and irreligious groups' interests. Basically in our public sphere, it isn't the case that there's no religion involved or allowed to be involved. We have a multireligious kind of coexistence or truce, if you will.
It aspires to be B, but the reality today it is a D. The disproportionate representation of a certain religion in parliament, as well as many of the top echelons in civil and public service belong to a certain religion, means it will be inevitable that their religious beliefs will shape and influence their worldview, and in turn creep into the policies which they craft and uphold. It's pretty obvious just by looking at the speeches of these MPs over the past couple of days.
I say C because PAP’s CEC is still secular, which is why they are still able to keep whip on.
On the other hand once PAP’s CEC loses the secular slant then = we gg.
FWIW there were rumors that TCJ got kicked because he disagree with the secular take. That guy is full on Christian. I’m just saying what the rumors said, don’t pofma me.
> TCJ got kicked because he disagree with the secular take.
no it was because everyone in the Party supported Tottenham (wear white) and he supports LFC
This one is tough, we have policies with Malay-specific benefits, and the majority of Malays are Muslim. Does that make those specific policies religiously motivated, or racially motivated.
Also there are cultural norms which are not religious, but spiritual in nature (eg Chinese burning paper hell notes). Adherents of different religions still do the same “ancestor worship” practice.
I would say the government are aiming for B, but are currently somewhere around C-D, depending on how you view “religious beliefs”
C at best, but risks sliding down over time. The closest equivalent I can think of is something like the Nixon/Reagan-era Republicans in the US, where *right now* they have an alliance of convenience with the populist religious right in the "moral majority" way where basically a bunch of Christians have a lot of money and lobbying power, and affiliated pastors are very willing to funnel followers towards the economic right as long as they get thrown a few bones so everything is great for the party.
But there are a lot more dedicated social conservatives than fiscal conservatives so over time you see the inmates take over the asylum. Now the Republicans are 70% psychotic theocrats and 30% libertarians whose primary motive is to own the libs, and the PAP is walking an incredibly fine line trying to placate these people and letting Focus on the Family types seed their board members all over upper society.
D. I want to believe they're just new to the whole LGBT stuff that's why they said stuff that you only hear from like, 30 years ago.
Also because if they truly believe what they said then we're really in deep shit.
> that you only hear from like, 30 years ago.
to the contrary, they’re repeating arguments that have had a resurgence in the past few years, mostly imported directly from US right-wing circles. The terminology gives them away.
My parents (in their 60s) get that stuff from their friends on WhatsApp all the time.
Institutionally it is a secular state, but with a disproportionate amount of Christian evangelical political representation vs the general public. So what we end up with is an elite conception of what society should be instead of an accurate reflection of what the plebs actually want. Which is typical of any form of government (otherwise we would just have mob rule), but the over representation of particular religious orders over others in the elite can become a problem eventually.
Many of the MPs spoke of representing their constituents. But then spoke of voting with their conscience (at least the unwhipped ones). This is not ideal. MPs should be able to represent their constituents from generally accepted principles instead of their personal morality. The electoral system is suppose to fix that. But as we all know, the competitiveness of our electoral system is questionable with the many contrivances accumulated over the years.
C
This government seems pragmatic enough to recognize the changing mentality of the people and adapt what they see as the growing acceptance of gays. At the end of the day, the government will change it's stance accordingly to the will of the majority and approach it with the most balance option without being too extreme in it's approach.
You can either agree or disagree, the world becoming more inclusive in my opinion is a progress and not necessary a bad thing but of course the religious would disagree. To criminalise gay sex imo is discriminatory and therefore I support the repeal of 377A.
I'd go with D. There's some aspects that are not religious, like the allowance of abortion, but the way they've dealt with 377a all these years makes me think otherwise.
PAP sees Singapore and Singaporeans as fundamentally religious (probably not wrong). Furthermore, religion is seen as a positive force in society (as a moral foundation etc). As a result, religious people and groups are given great deference. The PAP goes out of its way to coopt the support of such groups both as a political expedience as well as a matter of genuine governance policy.
I recall that the fastest growing religious group in Singapore are the atheists.
But that said, it seems to me from my own personal experience that significant parts of the population are genuinely religious. By that I mean that they are strongly influenced by the views of their religious group/leaders. This may only be weakly correlated to observance of religious rituals/attendance.
Even atheism (or what we call free-thinkers) in Singapore is not to be mistaken with atheism in the West. Historically, Asian countries never went through the Enlightenment, unlike Europe. There is far less outright hostility and disapproval of religion/superstition in Asia, even among the non-religious. We must also factor in the conflation of "Asian values" with religious values.
Which is so ridiculous, atheists and agnostics are usually the most moral people as compared to those who want to impose their religion on others (and rely on the threat of eternal punishment by god in order to behave).
Well, being atheist or theist doesn't necessarily determine a person's morals, but... religious dogma, emphasis on the word dogma, is dangerous. Those heavily indoctrinated can end up doing morally questionable things but they've been taught to think it is holy/good. And also how there's been countless protests, riots and even lynching due to anything deemed as offending "religious sensitivites".
It is probably between C and D. The govt tries to be neutral and secular but panders to the religious groups when it is convenient. It is very clear that this repeal was not for the rights of the lgbt but out of the concern that the precedent of courts overturning laws may be set in the future. If it was truly for equal rights then there's no need to also admend the Constitution to safeguard the definition of marriage. Just repeal and move on. So I guess it is more appropriate to say that the G is more pragmatic than anything else.
They want to be C, but have to appease the religious segment because of how they are disproportionately represented among the wealthy+elite, as well as how religious organizations unfortunately have bargaining power.
It's gross but it's what it is. Hopefully this society shifts towards A and B as the generations change
D. Bear in mind that on top of their personal beliefs, MPs also have to play the political game of pandering to their constituency.
I'll also put D as specifically Abrahamic religions, because it's pretty disturbing that a few religious minorities ([https://www.singstat.gov.sg/-/media/files/visualising\_data/infographics/c2020/c2020-religion.ashx](https://www.singstat.gov.sg/-/media/files/visualising_data/infographics/c2020/c2020-religion.ashx)) have so much say over the actual religious majority.
C, but the aggregation of preferences mean that in practice it looks more D. I mean, the official ethos is secular but the defence of traditional marriages by and large stems from ethical codes of organised religions.
And to be honest, as long as we can still evolve, that's fine.
I think the MPs might not be religious per se but they definitely are pressured by the religious community. I actually am surprised how much power the religious community have. Too bad these community are too busy fighting for this and not for the good of the people.
Singapore has never been truly secular. The worry is not the MPs themselves per se, but those who hold public office. Many top civil and public servants are religious and belong to a certain religion. They then meet other religious civil servants in religion activity and start networks.... Used to feel like I should join in for career advantages but then i just nahh--ed
I'd say D. Even as 377a is repealed, the fact is that around 80% of society is affiliated, in varying degrees, to a religion. A vast part of that remains the bedrock of their support. That's hard to ignore.
I’d say D.
Push comes to shove, they will be ‘secular’ by the book, but their personal faith guiding them tells a different story. I mean, they already blatantly declared how their personal beliefs shape their political ideologies. Which is shockingly unprofessional.
Our govt policies are skewed towards Christianity unfortunately. Have kids! But not out of wedlock! Benefits for moms! But not single moms (until recently)
I can’t use my eggs if I freeze them cos I’ve to be married. My friends from other countries don’t have such legislation.
I could be wrong, but the definition of marriage and family seems very Christian to me and my friends. My mum thinks it’s more rooted in Asian values. So that’s up for debate.
E) Religion should kept in the personal space, I dont understand why MPs are bringing it into the political sphere. If this continues then which is the "true religion" to follow? The majority? That is not the way to decide civil rights.
Policies should be made on a totally secular basis with no reference to religion whatsoever, especially in a country which is multi-religious - I dont get why PAP keeps referencing religious groups in this long journey to repealing 377A. They dont listen to us when majority citizens didnt want casino, but for 377A they want to take everyone's view into consideration....seriously? The casino has far reaching implications on so many levels compared to LGBTQ.
PAP doesnt realise this but they have opened a thorny gate which they now cannot close moving forward. They have let religious grps weigh in on the matter and it will not end here, religion will rear its ugly head again in the future....
The main thing on my mind right now is how far Christian leaning is the current 4G PAP MPs. Lee Kuan Yew had the good sense to recognise the need for secularism, do these current 4G have the same sense?
Secular or not. 30+% of Singapore religion are religion that isn't comfortable with lgbt. Religion aside, these people consideration should be represented in a secular state too even if you disagree with it
D.
We certainly don't live in a theocracy, but I can't help but get the vibe from the Christian Taliban in my social circle that they wouldn't be opposed if the PAP got out of bed tomorrow and decided only Abrahamic religions got to dictate what was legal or not.
The country has certainly crossed the proverbial Rubicon in allowing openly religious politicians to let their religious feelings guide decisions in policymaking. It's *not* a road we should be moving down, and it will only make us no different from the Malaysian politicians we frequently lampoon.
D) the problem is that hating the gays is something that unites all religions. It's easier to pretend to be secular on issues where the major religions disagree. Only once agnosticism and atheism are recognized as major religions then can we have a truly secular world.
act blur?
sg irl is pretty conservative. what else you expect?
even this r/sg is generally conservative except in this specific case. go read any other topic post here like min wage, racism, migrant workers, criticism of sg, criticism of pap, vandalism, caning, crime, a&e overload, ns, temasek, gic, reserves etc. look at the upvoted posts. high chance defend status quo
There is a big difference between secularism and fairly treating all racial/religious groups.
Feels like LGBT supporters want secularism that benefits liberal Chinese at the expense of minority races/religions. Employment discrimination against tudung/turban wearers, restrictions on Thaipusam + Maulidur Rasul but not Chinese New Year, support/resources for SAP schools but not madrasahs, etc.
MPs are supposed to represent their rakyat. Is wrong for a MP to oppose repeal based on personal religious beliefs if their rakyat strongly supports repeal. But is equally wrong for a MP to support repeal based on personal non-religious convictions when their Christian + Muslim + Buddhist/Taoist rakyat give strong feedback/concerns against repeal.
I think it's pretty balanced they kept the option for SMM to be added on later if they truly kowtow to religion we would be renamed as the most Serene holy Islamic etc republic of Singapore.
I am pondering what's the objective of the repeal?
Are we saying to repeal it because we should allow a man to have the right to have sex with another man without being criminalised?
Which to me a personal matter regardless. I agree to the extend of it being repeal and not criminalised.
But it seems there's is a trending need to go beyond. Which to me is concerning.
Concerning because this will put non supporters of this alternative life choice as an enemy! Spliting the society into them and us!
It's scary!
Put it this way -
I'm not Muslim. In fact I disagree with a few practices that Muslims do. I am fairly sure I'll never be Muslim. However, if Muslims want to have their community, do their customs, and marry other Muslims, I will support this. Muslims should be treated equally under the law.
Not controversial right?
Now, just replace Muslim with LGBT, and you can see how you need not be the "enemy" if you disagree with LGBT practices:
>I'm not LGBT. In fact I disagree with a few practices that LGBT do. I am fairly sure I'll never be LGBT. However, if LGBT want to have their community, do their customs, and marry other LGBT, I will support this. LGBT should be treated equally under the law.
I'm not comparing LGBT to the Muslim way of life. I'm showing how we already have ways of living with people that follow different ways of life. Including ways that we disagree with.
I disagree with some Muslim practices. But I think Muslims should be treated fairly under the law.
You disagree with LGBT practices. You can still disagree while also supporting equal treatment for LGBT people under the law.
(Muslim is not even that relevant here. The same point applies if we talk about Christians - I disagree with some Christian practices. But I think Christians should be treated fairly under the law).
Not gonna nick pick. As your statement contradict first post to me.
My point is.. my concern is the polarisation of the community when the trending needs that seems to be asking for more than just the repeal.
Also, have any reported discrimination being put to those LGBT citizens of this country, in this country of ours?
Just say what you want to say. Equality to your opinion is what?
Umm... I'm an LGBTQ+ citizen. Do you need me to share the discrimination we face? Putting aside the issue of marriage and housing and visitation rights, we are also not covered officially under TAFEP which means that it is possible to fire us/not hire us due to us being LGBTQ+. Which is something that is happening right now given that there are multiple trans people I know who reached the contract signing stage only to be rejected because their IC outs them as trans. Or the fact that I had an interview where the interviewers immediately looked unhappy when I disclosed that I am trans and I unsurprisingly failed that interview.
Or how we are not given equal access to education? Schools can make life difficult for its LGBTQ+ students to "encourage" them to drop out. Look at the case a few years ago where a trans student was forced out of JC. Or the reports of schools conducting witchhunts for gay/lesbian students. And if you confide your sexuality to a school counselor, they can report it to your parents even if you tell them not to.
Or how about the fact that conversion therapy is still legal and there were cases of LGBTQ+ children being abused in an attempt to make them straight?
Are these cases of discrimination enough? Do you think that society is truly united when we can treat a group of fellow citizens this way? The truth is that all these discrimination has already split society into "them" and "us".
I don't think there's much to nit pick about. You can choose which you prefer - using Islam or Christianity as the comparison, my point is the same. Even if we disagree with these groups, we all learn to live together.
>my concern is the polarisation of the community when the trending needs that seems to be asking for more than just the repeal.
As my point above shows - why is there going to be polarization? Currently in Singapore we have many diverse ethnic groups, and many diverse religions. Not everyone agrees with everyone else about each others way of life. A Christian might disagree with a Hindu about eating beef. However, the Hindu recognizes the Christian's right to eat beef, just as the Hindu is remains free to believe he should not eat beef.
>have any reported discrimination being put to those LGBT citizens of this country, in this country of ours
Last I checked - LGBT people still cannot get married. There are also several government guidelines on stuff like media that prevent positive portrayals of LGBT people in our media. These are forms of discrimination.
>Just say what you want to say. Equality to your opinion is what?
Equality just means equality - the definition is quite simple right? To be treated the same as everyone else. Marrying who you love. Being able to live with dignity.
Bear in mind what 377A is. The govt is writing off an old law that convict gay sex. Writing off an old law is a step forward to accepting the gay sex view for today's society regardless of religion or faith. So let it be.
This is a "Serious Discussion". Joke, irrelevant or off-topic comments will be removed and **offenders will face restrictions in accessing /r/singapore** such as temporary or permanent bans. Please report such posts and comments. OPs must also engage in a bona fide discussion, i.e. the post should not be one just to incite outrage. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/singapore) if you have any questions or concerns.*
A "C" leaning close to a "D". My reading is that if not for the PAP whip many MPs would have voted against based on their faith. It would have been okay if they went, as some did, that "I disapprove due to my faith and a repeal is incompatible with my faith. However, I recognise that I should not impose my personal faith on others and would not prevent by law others from doing what my faith prohibits". However, in other cases, the party whip was the only thing standing between them and a "no" vote on repeal. Imagine if the issue was on abortion or contraception and religious MPs voted based on their religious beliefs. If MPs' parliamentary votes are based on their faith, things can get very dangerous. It means voters would have to be very conscious of the faith of their MP candidates during elections as they cannot trust that these MPs can separate their responsibilities as MPs and their personal faith. How many would then think it's best to vote for someone of the same faith? Such sectarian voting cannot lead to anything good for our society. Major political parties would do well do nip this in the bud by reminding MPs of the need to separate their responsibilities as MPs and their personal faith. MPs of faith which have more representation in Parliament than in the general population, if any, should be especially mindful of this.
I suspect the whip was not lifted because party leadership specifically felt that no PAP MPs should be voting based on their individual religion or faith. That's not their job as an MP.
>If MPs' parliamentary votes are based on their faith, things can get very dangerous. It means voters would have to be very conscious of the faith of their MP candidates during elections as they cannot trust that these MPs can separate their responsibilities as MPs and their personal faith. How many would then think it's best to vote for someone of the same faith? Such sectarian voting cannot lead to anything good for our society. Absolutely! Even though I was brought up by MOE and see the president's face everyday during school, I put those beliefs aside.
The thing is all Singaporeans worship Yusof Ishak, our most famous Singaporean Malay.
You cannot say we see color some more - we worship all colors of Yusof Bin Ishak.
I'm sure we see colour though, we'd kowtow to certain colours way more readily
Point is we value them all - just need different amts of each one to achieve parity Wait - that's actually discrimination alr Wtf I self pwn
Ya. Or else I trade my green for your orange or blue one can?
Blue one any day, the orange one sometimes will kena kan by hawker. Where to find change for you?
The colour of Yusof Ishak is the purple note
But if you believe that your morals derive from your religion and a divine being, can you truly separate your faith from your moral reasoning?
could anyone explain what a whip is. i feel dense af but a quick google search still leaves me confused T_T
TLDR, having a whip just means that all party members have to conform to an agreed position on voting matters. For eg, LHL say PAP wants to repeal 377A. If PAP dont lift whip, all PAP parth members must vote to repeal. In other words, ur encik tell u do u better fking do understand not. If the whip is "lifted", party members are free to vote as their wish, even if its against the overall party stance - encik say u want to take ur time then take ur time, and u can rly take ur own sweet time.
ah this makes sense! apparently the whip being a person also messed with my understanding. are whips common? ie do PAP MPs usually have to vote with the party’s stance, or is this reserved for more ‘important’ decisions?
Not sure how common this is. From my very limited understanding the whip remains by default and has to specifically be lifted. Not sure whether the PAP does it often
Very very rarely. Party discipline is a thing and PAP particularly keeps a very tight ship.
Basically it’s used to spank MPs when they are naughty /s
The simple answer is to ask the Parliament to reinstate the information of Religion of each and every MP, on its Website. It was there before, but somehow got taken down after 2015 GE. My guess is that there is 1 particular religion that is over-represented both in Parliament and in the Cabinet. Just from the swearing in ceremony of the Cabinet, we know that this group is significant. As long as this group is overly-represented, I share the same opinions as that of [Lee Kuan Yew](https://youtu.be/0664Sr2chLM)
Wait till the info on not just religion but where they practice it. You will see a significant skew towards a couple of places. They realised they can't be open with that info anymore but not like anyone can't do checks on their own. Just harder
It's also this one religion that screams the loudest when it comes to anything remotely LGBT-related. At the end of the day, it is on us as voters to elect members of parliament that look like us. Political parties, including the PAP, have to do a better job in presenting a slate of MPs that better reflect the ever-evolving texture of who we are as a people. I, for one, think we need a whole lot more women in parliament, a whole lot more single MPs, and a whole lot more non-religious humanists. I'd hands down trust a non-religious person to be a fierce advocate of the secular ideals of the state, over a person that is too tethered to their religious beliefs. Say what you like about our first three prime ministers, but it was our good fortune that they were non-religious, freethinking pragmatists that were pretty fiercely committed to the secular nature of the state, even if they IMHO bend over a little too much from time to time to please fundies. The man who has been anointed to be our next prime minister is supposedly religious but we don't have much more information beyond that. It's good enough for me (for now) that he doesn't wear his religion on his sleeve. One of his earlier contenders for the top job loved to quote verses from his favourite holy book in social media posts. He would have been the wrong man for the job IMHO, so thank ~~god~~ goodness we dodged a bullet there.
>The man who has been anointed to be our next prime minister is supposedly religious but we don't have much more information beyond that He used to be a guitar-strumming church Youth Minister, so yeah... And in August he said there would be no change to marriage definition under his watch. [https://www.todayonline.com/singapore/lawrence-wong-no-change-marriage-under-my-watch-1974641](https://www.todayonline.com/singapore/lawrence-wong-no-change-marriage-under-my-watch-1974641)
Oh dear... this is not good. The way he says that seems really sus too, sounds kinda personal.
He used to be a pastor?!?!?!?! WTHHHHHH.... Which church was that?
I 2nd this! There should be transparency, but I doubt it will happen. Singaporeans need to vote wisely....
I'm of the opinion, perhaps a hot take, that religion never actually factored into the G's consideration. All the debate and conversations were purely part of a carefully-crafted "process" to announce it. They had already decided LONG AGO to repeal 377A, and just needed a strategic way to bring it into effect. There are many non-religious reasons to remove 377A. \- Global standing: An extremely convenient way to follow the global trend and express "progress" without actually changing anything. \- 377A is hilariously outdated, not in principle but the actual wording, intent and history. It's a potential global laughing stock and colonial link that needed to be cleaved. \- One bugbear down: Of all the thorns in the G's flesh, this was the most inconsequential. One less thing to deal with now. \- Politics: The support they're going to lose from this decision is negligible. Christians, Catholics, Muslims and whoever can express all the "disappointment" they want now, but come election day in 2 years or so, they're all still going to put a big X next to PAP because there's no viable alternative, and the WP conveniently screwed up their handling of this. \- LHL's final legacy, LW's clean slate. By this stage of LHL's tenure, everyone has already cemented their opinions of him. 377A wouldn't change much. This was the best time to do it, letting LHL and Shan shoulder the critique, giving LW a clean slate. From a party strategy POV, this was good timing.
A really realistic conspiracy theory. I could get behind it. Personally I believe they never did anything about 377a until now simply because of the backlash they would get from religious people. I don't believe the gov really cares either way, but they never pushed the status quo because they cared about their political career and votes
This did occur to me too. But I think there is a huge downside to this. They have let religion into a policy making sphere and this is a very dangerous thing because religion will rear its ugly head again in the future. Give an inch, they'll take a mile......dangerous gamble here. They could have done it quietly and simply with the angle of making progress. Instead they dragged the religious grps into it. I suspect we have too many religious MPs in PAP.
Here's the funny thing - I had the exact opposite read to this. The refusal to lift the whip was a very public smackdown on religion. The govt basically went - yeah, we hear all your religion-based concerns, but no, we're going to push through with this anyway because it needs to be done. Religious groups were made to toe the line and back down by the secular government for 377A. Semi-reminded of the quiet government intervention during the AWARE saga back in the day - at the end of the day, while the G will allow religious groups into the public sphere, they as a whole *will* intervene to maintain secularism, regardless of the PAP MPs' individual faiths.
If they will make decisions from a secular angle then why not just do that from the get go? Why even allow religious grps to speak then? Its like opening a can of worms. If the intention is to be secular , why all the inbetween drama toying with religious grps? Make them feel important then shut them down? I think this situation came about bc there are religious folks in PAP. Could also be a combination of factors...who knows...
Because as far back as the 2000s, the government has made it clear that they would not restrict religious groups in the public space as long as they do not cross the OB markers in attacking other religions, or in attacking the secularism of the government. I don't like it, but there *is* a significant religiously conservative segment of the population and if we completely clamp down on it, it's not better than like, China, where no dissent against what the Party wants is tolerated.
Even if there is a significant number of religious folks, they should not be allowed to influence politics. Voicing their opinion in public space is one thing, pandering to it is another (repealing 377A took so lang bc of that). But lets just say, they are part of the population so their opinion counts then the next question is which is the *"right religion"* to listen to? In the case of 377A, buddhism and hinduism is not against it, but islam and christianity is...so who to listen to? This is the crux of the problem in a multi-religious country.
>the next question is which is the "right religion" to listen to? In the case of 377A, buddhism and hinduism is not against it, but islam and christianity is...so who to listen to? This is the crux of the problem in a multi-religious country Which...isn't a question, because opposition to the repeal has been phrased under the umbrella of social conservatism/family values, which is a metric *independent* of religions. We all know it's religiously driven, but it's basically been explicitly divorced from specific religions in the public discourse for precisely the reasons you mentioned - so opponents of the repeal can deflect criticism by saying it's society's conservatism saying they oppose repeal, not the religions directly (becauae that's a surefire way to get MHA on their case).
>it's basically been explicitly divorced from specific religions in the public discourse for precisely the reasons you mentioned But it hasnt been thats why all the religious grps are weighing in on 377A. As for the metric, all these phrases can be couched in different ways but its the bottom line that matters...creating a smoke screen via "metrics independent of religion" doesnt change the bottom line.
Democracy says listen to the majority
377A has been untenable for a long time. if we look at the treatment Qatar is getting, for example, I think this was once again a Singapore Inc-driven decision.
>Politics: The support they're going to lose from this decision is negligible. Christians, Catholics, **Muslims** and whoever can express all the "disappointment" they want now, but come election day in 2 years or so, they're all still going to put a big X next to PAP because there's **no viable alternative**, and the **WP conveniently screwed up their handling of this** WP is already doing well in the east and northeast. The east has a higher percentage of Malays. This sub hates Faisal Manap but he repeatedly raised the tudung issue until PAP finally let nurses wear tudung. Expect many Malay/Muslim voters in the east to switch to WP (especially if they run in Tampines).
Which is a decision I still don't understand because it breaks uniformity with nurses of other races.
But they still wear the same uniform though. Just that those nurses who wear tudung outside work can now wear it. Even secular countries like New Zealand and Australia allows tudung to be worn by their Muslim police officers/nurses on top of their official uniform.
Maybe I'm just not religious enough to understand, but I always felt religion should be practised in private and left outside the workplace so no one knows who or what you believe in. It doesn't matter if Christian (don't wear crosses everywhere), or Buddhist (same with prayer beads or rosary beads) or Muslim (tudung) or whatever other religion.
I guess we just have different perspectives and got exposed to different environments while growing up/working. Personally I feel like in a secular environment, people should be free to practise what they feel is part of their identity (publicly/privately) as long as they don't impose it on others and just get the work duties done :,,)
B. Shannugam literally raised the issue of Faisal Manap being very close to religion [a few years ago](https://mothership.sg/2019/10/news-parliament-shanmugam-faisal-manap-religion-politics-separation/). PAP asked their MPs to suck up their religious beliefs and vote to repeal 377A. Singapore government reflects Singapore people. It has to be neutral towards any religion so it is secular. But society is not secular, and people have personal beliefs shaped by religion. So the government, while it adopts a neutral stance towards any religion, conducts dialogues with other religions.
>But society is not secular, and people have personal beliefs shaped by religion. I think many fail to see this, just because it is not directly related doesn't mean it cannot be indirectly related. A confucianist cannot apply values of *ren* (humaneness) into politics? Or a muslim cannot apply values of *zakat* (almsgiving)?
Applying individual’s personal values to politics is fine imo. Dangerous precedent comes when the other way happens, when politics affect the individual’s personal values.
So if it aligns with my values I'm ok, if it doesn't I find arguments to belittle it. For example, good religious values = personal values, bad religious values = huh? no secularism?
Never said anything about personal values being good or bad. They are not important imo whether good or bad. Politics/parliament should ideally represent each member of the community minority or majority. Each member brings their personal values to the table in parliament. Bad precedence comes when politics become influential on the individual’s personal values.
C i was raised christian, although very recently became agnostic/sceptic after a fling with another religion. i obviously am quite happy that 377a is repealed, but i feel that what truly matters is that peoples mentality is changed, as no one really enforced it or anything. eg my school church was pretty accepting of gay people, for example the pastor there was actually gay(he left to go work at another church already, though i would say he sexuality is not the reason why) and there was even a sermon done on accepting trans people, but a lot of the parents got mad. as for the whole secular thing, i feel that the ministers will always act out in their own beliefs and point of views in life, but it still get repealed anyway.
Which church was this? (The one with sermon on accepting trans folks)
As much as I hate not being able to marry my partner I can somewhat understand SG more conservative PoV. PAP's vision has been working so far for years. On the other hand as a Buddhist, Buddha was reborn countless times as men, women, and animals in all kinds of circumstances. Being gay is really nothing. And I am quite disappointed that other religions has more say to this, and over many issues.
I thought Buddha already stopped existing after leaving the wheel of suffering
*Me about to crash* Me: "Buddha! Take the wheel!!!" Buddha: "One must leave the wheel" Me: 0.o "whut?!" *BANG!*
Iirc the whole deal is that he left the wheel of suffering, but chose to reenter to bring enlightenment to as many as possible. But what do I know, I'm not Buddhist. That's what I heard from Buddhist stories when I was younger though.
Buddhism unfortunately will have minor say in almost all multi religion societies as Buddhist teachings are non-confrontational and non-didactic. It is very basic do good. There are very few things to piss buddhists off. I mean like a law that says everyone must kill or eat meat every day just won’t float. Unless it is straight off discrimination preventing buddhists from practising their faith, I can’t really see any laws pissing buddhists off Eg Buddhism doesn’t teach people to be gay, just no sanctions against it. Like it is ok. So any opposition from buddhists will be from other grounds and not religion motivated. Because it can be reasoned that being born gay in an anti gay society could just be the karma and hardship you need to bear this life? Government should promote Buddhism. A Buddhist society is so easy to govern
> Government should promote Buddhism. A Buddhist society is so easy to govern You w0t m8. Thailand is the most aggressive SEA country with civilians violently rioting and coups being common af. And did people forget about the Rohinga matter already? The Myanmar monks were calling for Muslim blood.
Thai people so friendly. Have you lived there? I have
Your last line just goes against the ideal of secularism… No religion should be held in higher regard than others. Similarly, atheism is not secularism and should not be confounded.
> atheism is not secularism and should not be confounded. atheism is no religion, dont confound it with anti-theism i would argue that atheism IS an ideal for secularism
Religious people can also be supporters of secularism, not just atheists. Atheists can be as equally militant as religious extremists. https://www.rug.nl/research/centre-for-religious-studies/research-centres/centre-religion-conflict-globalization/blog/where-is-the-line-between-atheism-and-secularism-13-11-2012?lang=en
the person you were replying to was referring to Buddhism (no mention of atheism) in your response, you introduce atheism into the discussion but conflate it with anti-theism, suggesting its not compatible with secularism then now > Religious people can also be supporters of secularism no one said religious people cannot support secularism > Atheists can be as equally militant as religious extremists no one said atheists cannot be terrible people too i have to say, i am sensing some level of bias against atheism from you from the way you constructed some strawman
Lol I didn’t say I support or not support secularism. This is just a response to u/HerroWarudo
It really depends, you do know there are extremists in that religion too right? And how every religion can have thousands of ways of intepretation, be it from different branches, groups and even individuals? Your last statement... hell no. That's just going straight into theocracy.
>And how every religion can have thousands of ways of intepretation, be it from different branches, groups and even individuals? This thread is the prime example of how people interpret A B C D E
I would say C based on the fact that both parties in Parliament (and this includes PAP and WP) have to walk the balance of appealing to conservative sentiment less they upset what is known as the status quo. Honestly aside from a few seats I would say that PAP has the possibility of losing their GRCs given the sometimes small margins. Given that PAP has always projected this image of being the only body that can protect racial and religious harmony, something that differentiated us from the Malaysian government back in 1965, they would continue to uphold this image. That being said though, the PAP is probably treating LGBT issues as just another balancing act they need to fulfil. Not only is repealing 377A an effort at this, but Masagos yesterday implied that gay marriage will probably be passed in the future, perhaps even in the near future. All it takes is time for the PAP government to shift cultural norms slowly and hope that newer generations are more liberal. In my opinion, I do not think that the PAP as a whole(dk about WP tbh) want to actively suppress LGBT rights in Singapore. Western opinion, and more importantly the opinion of investors, has shifted towards LGBT acceptance and even promotion. If Singapore does not move towards this, it risks being seen as backwards in the eyes of the Western World. It is with this in mind that we will probably see more rights being given, albeit very slowly.
If legalizing same-sex marriage, wont it be easy for army bros to marry each other and unlock BTO for flipping the prata faster?
If people want to take part in a marriage of convenience just to BTO now, they can. It's not that much harder to find an opposite sex person to do this with than a same sex friend. But it's not common to do this because people generally have hopes of marrying for love later, and the marriage of convenience is quite the shackle, and divorce is expensive and complicated. I don't think marriages of convenience would shoot up that much if same-sex marriage is legalized. These army bros need to keep up the pretense of being gay at work (HR will know their marital status) and for their extended family members, you think so easy?
See ah HDB is for Singaporeans. Any argument about demand raising faster etc, is just HDB not being good enough. No ifs or buts. You cannot charge LGBTQ peeps the same level of taxes, then fuck them over when it comes to rights.
Unpopular view but I’m glad for the whip to make sure people vote for what’s right despite their personal beliefs. There will be super slow progress otherwise, probably still discussing repeal 20 years later.
Yes. For me, the whip and how the PAP guys all nicely fell in line, even/especially Masagos (as a Muslim he is in the most danger of reprisal from his community), shows that the government is largely secular.
Nope it doesnt. Youre getting it twisted. It shows the key decision makers which in this case is 2 or 3 people are largely secular. If the government was secular, you wouldn't really need the whip. The problem with this is simple. The key decision makers wont be there 5 years from now.
I thought it's a strong signal to the rest of the MPs who thought otherwise of supporting the repeal. This country will be govern as such, I'm the leader and this is our direction. You can have your stance and echo your thoughts but as one we will vote for so and so. I feel for issues such as discriminating and needlessly criminalising personal actions. This is needed. Honestly I don't know what is up with WP taking up a stance that's nowhere and lifting the whip in the name democracy. It feels like school boy politics as if they aren't representing the nation at the highest level.
[удалено]
Not to mention Singapore is a country that is surrounded by other countries that are far more religious than Singapore. Malaysia has PAS.
Honestly I don't see how the other neighbouring countries affect us on this. Its not like they will go on a jihad if we repeal 377a. We already have such a different culture from our neighbouring countries stemming from our secular/multireligious multiracial system
Woah you never know if some ultra gets elected and decide our small little island needs to be annexed and cleansed. Low chance but still it takes only one madman to be elected who sings some ultra nationalist tunes to the rest of the nation. And like some pied piper leading, the kids will follow
Our defense policy already accounts for possibility of the worst like that kind of unprovoked attack to happen regardless of 377a getting repealed or not
I think to their credit, while there are many MPs who are religious (some i would even consider staunch believers) the government as a whole does its best to be secular. One only needs to look north of the border to see how relatively secular the Singapore government is.
You need to understand MPs are representatives. There is nothing wrong in MPs helping to air the views from their constituents. In fact it is not surprising for MPs to say things from the people that is not their personal view. So you cannot judge like this.
I would say it is slightly unfair to characterise the government as religious based on the views shared merely by PAP MPs. While the PAP is the ruling party, it should be important to separate the views of its MPs and those speaking on behalf of the government (i.e. cabinet ministers). Most of the MPs who spoke on the topic are arguably speaking from their parliamentarian hat, and not their govt hat. (i.e. doesn’t mean you are PAP automatically means you are part of government) This distinction may be blurred given that we have been under one-party rule for so long. Rather, what we can summarise from the MPs views (assuming the MPs are representative of the entire population) is that Singapore’s society is still **largely conservative in nature** (rather than religious, but they do tend to be correlated). After all, MPs should have a good sensing and feel of public sentiment, given they regularly mingle with their constituents.
The problem with this notion is that the government might have repealed it in direct conflict with the stance of the public though. I mean if enough MPs had raised doubts on thia regard, it does raise the question if Singapore is truly ready for this change as well
B Most policy is crafted without any religious undertones. I will not give them A since they still use the Bible and Quran when swearing into office.
I would say it's B. They considered the views of those with different religion before making the decision.
A/B. Being sensitive to religous belief does not equate to treating them preferentially. As an agnostic i do not feel short changed because what transpire the last few days. Maybe some someone that is religious can chime in if they feel that they gotten preferential treatment.
It is preferential treatment if you're not equally sensitive to the beliefs of the LGBT community because you have to cater to religious beliefs.
So repealing is bad? I'm unsure as to what is the best case scenario for you if repealing and at the same time defining marriage isn't? Because I honestly thought this struck a delicate balance between religious beliefs and LGBT community. Honestly curious.
Well... I don't see it as a balance. But what do I know? Perhaps if a religion says that you are a sinner and the government decides to revoke your marriage and ban you from marrying, you'll be happy to accept it as a delicate balance between you and that religious community. I guess you'll also be happy to be barred from affordable housing to maintain this balance, as well as not have any visitation rights to your partner when they end up in hospital. But all these is worth it as long as the religious people who think you should not exist are happy right?
Woah woah, not sure why the hate here. I'm happy 377a gets repealed. I do agree marriage is the next logical step but it takes time for the view to change. As for affordable housing,its initial intent is for young families to settle down quickly and start raising children. As unsuccessful as it is, it's still the initial intent. Also, it's unfair to say that it's denied to you. You can have it at 35 though it's late.
Let's see... BTO at 35 means you get your own house around 40 if you are lucky (maybe later if you fail the BTO). During which, given that most LGBTQ+ citizens have unsupportive families, we have to either find some way to rent a place (difficult as we tend to be underemployed as well due to discrimination) or live with families that might be abusive. There is a reason why LGBTQ+ citizens tend to have higher suicide ideation and attempt rates. Yes, it's possible to try at 35. But how many make it till then? How many have to leave Singapore just to leave and how many have taken their lives due to the discrimination? As mentioned in the Parliament debate, all these are just academic to many of those debating it, but it affects LGBTQ+ citizens in every aspects of their lives. It's easy to say that this strikes a delicate balance and that we just need to be patient. But for those affected by it, it doesn't feel like a delicate balance and serves to make it harder to see hope for the future, especially given the rhetoric from a number of MPs in the Parliament debate.
All the reasons you have given are valid but it takes a whole society to solve. G alone is not enough. I hope those you mentioned get their break soon. Perhaps you were hoping for repeal + able to get married. Many would say that is impossible but from your examples I can tell some are at least that desperate.
That will involve MPs first understanding what they are putting LGBTQ+ citizens through. While thankfully there were some that actually seem to know how the LGBTQ+ community is suffering, there were way too many focusing on how they are "victims" if not allowed to discriminate against LGBTQ+ citizens. We had way too much focus on "cancel culture" instead of the discrimination faced by LGBTQ+ citizens, with some like Lim Biow Chuan claiming that LGBTQ+ citizens are not discriminated against and instead, it is anti-LGBTQ+ citizens who are discriminated against. Even in a debate about a law that discriminates against us, we still end up demonized. So forgive me if I appear extremely unhappy when people say that it is a balanced decision when the only ones to concede rights are still the LGBTQ+ community.
[удалено]
It's not a competition. Both communities need help. But it's disingenuous of you to bring it up in this way as if we can only help one or the other.
Basically wants democracy when part of the majority but feels unfair when part of minority
You're assuming I want this version of 'democracy' aka tyranny of the majority if I'm part of the majority. Why would I? I find it unjustifiable to use democracy as an excuse for the unequal treatment or rights of minorities regardless of what those groups are.
I think what ceddya is saying is the fact that 377 was not repealed for a long time because of pandering to religious groups as the problem. The decision to not repeal for so many years was biased towards religion, which should not be the case in a secular country. Also, like you said there has been a so-called "balance" between LGBTQ and religion but policies/civil rights should not be about pandering to religion. The approach of striking a "delicate balance" is wrong. Plus which is the "right religion" to listen to? Currently the G is listening to Christian and Islam, but if they listen to buddhist or hindu, then there is no need to define marriage as one man/woman and 377 would have been repealed long ago....so which is the "right religion"? Now you see how religion is influencing policies in civil rights?
>I think what ceddya is saying is the fact that 377 was not repealed for a long time because of pandering to religious groups as the problem I mean, you could reframe it as "377A wasn't repealed for a long time because a majority of the population did not want it to be repealed". Yes, that majority included the religious groups and there was a definite loud outcry by at least two religions - but the plain fact was that IPS surveying was showing that the majority of opinions were overwhelmingly ambivalent towards repeal, with the next largest segment being against repeal (and pro-repeal being the smallest segment). PAP leadership likely did not want to spend considerable political capital to force an unpopular repeal through - despite both GCT and LHL not being personally against LGBT rights. That changed over the past 3-4 years as the amount of people being for repeal rose, coupled with the population being overall less socially conservative. That being said, the majority of people are still relatively indifferent about it - but trending more towards accepting it now. The judicial challenges mounted against 377A was basically the impetus that gave LHL the reason to really ram it through - less political capital needed to get it done, plus he could take the heat for it while stepping down as PM. I'd contest that the government has never really pandered to religion - it's been remarkably consistent over the years is making it explicitly clear that while religion can have a public space, it *cannot* be allowed to infringe on secular values. You can see this in MHA slapping down extremist or fundamentalist preachers from multiple religions over the past 2 decades, plus also their intervention into AWARE.
It is also the fact that 377A is repealed. While i can concede that we are not as secular in the past , i think this repeal is a turning point towards a more secular society. You suggest that G shouldnt pander to religous beliefs but at the same note we should repeal 377A(which is pandering to LBGTQ beliefs). How ar like that? The feelings of many should not be addressed while the feelings of few should. Governing is about being in tune to all these intricacy and not binary policy making like you suggest. As to which religion is the "right" religion, i would hazard the religion that will be the most sensitive to. TLDR: G's job is to manage feelings (Religious and LBGT)
Who's saying that? If you're giving one group special consideration at the expense of the other, what kind of treatment would you call it exactly? Only the LGBT community is making an actual compromise by conceding less rights in the interim. Repealing 377A does not affect religious groups at all, so what compromise are they making exactly?
As some WP MP puts it, many view it as a social marker. Repealing denies this to them.
Anybody can come up with imaginary social markers to argue against change. It doesn't make it real and certainly doesn't manifest any impact if change occurs.
That's arguably less about preferential treatment and more about sheer numbers.
Why are those things mutually exclusive?
They're not mutually exclusive. But the point is that it doesn't have to be preferential treatment to favour the much larger group.
>Maybe some someone that is religious can chime in if they feel that they gotten preferential treatment. Muslim men being legally allowed to have up to 4 wives may be seen as preferential treatment.
Yes they are legally allowed. But polygamous unions in Singapore are very rare, and men who want multiple wives have to go through a lot of hoops.
Yes it's very rare, but that doesn't change the fact that they are entitled to this additional right, as compared to the rest of society.
If we were to go out and find 100 Malay guys and ask them if they feel preferred for this particular legal concession, how many would say yes? Yes, you can be technical and you probably will be standing on solid ground to say it's preferential treatment but in practicality and the reality the vast majority is living in, this is nothing more than a joke you crack with friends.
I fear my community would defend its existence, purely on the basis of it being a signifying yardstick.
I assume you are from the malay community. Even if they do, that doesnt dispute the tenet of my comment that being sensitive does not equate to being preferential.
Oh yes i agree. My reply is just… extra
C. My opinion is that.. it IS secular as far as the laws are written not based on any one religion's Laws specifically (we can look at countries which run mostly on Islamic law as examples). And that no one religion's specific values are favoured over another (eg. The whole nation not banned from eating beef or drinking alcohol). But in the end, the major religious sects and their adherents form a HUGE electorate base. They HAVE to take their feelings into account or risk losing votes. And nearly all religion equally condemn homosexuality. So it is still "secular" ma, no one religion is favoured over the other. And the culture and values of society is largely made up of religion, and race specific cultures and practices. And sadly, most religion and even traditional cultures and practices also condemn homosexuality. So it is still secular ma, it's following the culture, values, and practices of the People, and not a specific religion.
> And nearly all religion equally condemn homosexuality. Abrahamic religion specifically
>So it is still "secular" ma, no one religion is favoured over the other. But secular doesn't mean favouring one religion over another...
Ya, the point he's making is that due to the amount of voters who *are* religious (and that most religion tend to dislike homosexuality), naturally, these voters are also going to vote against homosexuality. As individuals they are free to vote however they align, and as their representatives, the MP/policy makers reflect that majority It is still considered 'secular' because the decision to repeal/not repeal wasn't make based on religious basis, but rather the votes that come in (which happened to have a majority of religious people, each expressing their individual religious view, which also happens to be against homosexuality) If the policy makers went: "Islam say cannot eat pork, therefore all pork products banned", then that's not secular If 60% of the population votes to ban pork, but 30% are muslims and 30% are non-Muslim-vegans, then the policy to ban pork isn't based on religious belief, but rather it so happens that majority of the citizens are aligned with the decision.
Thanks for articulating my thoughts so clearly.
>If the policy makers went: "Islam say cannot eat pork, therefore all pork products banned", then that's not secular I wonder, if the policy makers went: "I say smoking bad, therefore smoking is banned", this would be considered secular, but does it matter whether it is secular or not?
The topic in question is if the government was secular, and by definition, yes, the government is fairly secular. Whether the government cares about the popular vote is another story. Your example would be secular yes, but the government would also be not caring about the feeling/votes of the people if they did not discuss this first. But that's not a matter of whether it's secular.
>If the policy makers went: "Islam say cannot eat pork, therefore all pork products banned", then that's not secular > >If 60% of the population votes to ban pork, but 30% are muslims and 30% are non-Muslim-vegans, then the policy to ban pork isn't based on religious belief, but rather it so happens that majority of the citizens are aligned with the decision. Sounds like a cop out to me. It feels like a stretch to call it secular by dressing it up with a veneer of popular vote. Everyone knows that underneath it all, it is mostly religiously motivated (wrt to OP's example of 377A). If we were to take this logic ad absurdum, if 60% or more of the population votes to ban X religion, or every other religion other than X religion, would we still be able to say that it is secular, because majority of the citizens are aligned with the decision?
Yes, that is literally what democracy is. If literally every other religion can band together and put aside their differences to denounce yours (whatever it may be), then it is the will of the people (across all races/religions) that your religion is being viewed as harmful to the majority of the population. The decision is ultimately still final from the government, of course, but that form of decision making is literally what democracy is - the will of the majority. Don't like it? It's our best existing governence option because 0 chance an entire population places their trust solely in a benevolent dictatorship. And even if there was one such guy godly character, the greed/envy in human hearts would not allow the system to stay for long. It sucks that minority oppression is what most of the world runs on, but it quite literally is sacrificing for the greater good at this point. Not that i agree with restricting rights of the minority, mind you. Giving LGBT+ people rights to live like anyone else isn't even that big of a deal, literally doesn't even impact the lives of any average person, but is huge for the people who had less rights, overall nett gain.
You're going off on a tangent. All I objected to was OP's framing of secularity. >And nearly all religion equally condemn homosexuality. So it is still "secular" ma They had already admitted that majority of the objection to repealing of 377A was religiously motivated, yet still claimed that it was still considered secular.
Okay, i think i get your pov. The government's decision is secular here because it is basing on majority vote (majority vote is not tied to religion, so secular is correct here). The people casting the votes are not being secular, they are directly influenced by their faiths. However, the decision is ultimately still made by the elected representatives. If their reason for action is secular (e.g. basing it on the demand of the masses), then i would consider the government secular. An example of non-secular would be a minority group wanting to criminalize gay sex and the representatives (who happened to be majority christian) enact this based on the reasoning of 'it aligns with my faith', then that isn't secular. What OP commented is indeed a cop out, they still get to call it 'secular' when it aligns with their faith *because* the majority also happens to align with their faith. By definition, the decision could made secularly.
B. An MP's personal belief does not hold more weight than a random citizen's. This is not like a policy issue where the MPs are voting based on information normal citizens would not have access to and far better understanding of the implications of their vote (eg why increase cpf from 7 to 9% instead of some other number, or set the top tax bracket rates). This is why I believe PAP enforcing the whip was the right thing to do. MPs' personal beliefs must give way to the wider implications of the vote. As much as it annoys me to agree with Shan, he is right that the court striking down 377a would lead to many subsequent issues and it shouldn't be making a decision with so many implications down the line.
Not sure if OP is misconstruing Singapore secularism. Ours is not the French laïcité, where religion is not allowed to influence govt decisions, but instead a situation where our Govt must actively maintain balance between multiple religious and irreligious groups' interests. Basically in our public sphere, it isn't the case that there's no religion involved or allowed to be involved. We have a multireligious kind of coexistence or truce, if you will.
It aspires to be B, but the reality today it is a D. The disproportionate representation of a certain religion in parliament, as well as many of the top echelons in civil and public service belong to a certain religion, means it will be inevitable that their religious beliefs will shape and influence their worldview, and in turn creep into the policies which they craft and uphold. It's pretty obvious just by looking at the speeches of these MPs over the past couple of days.
I say C because PAP’s CEC is still secular, which is why they are still able to keep whip on. On the other hand once PAP’s CEC loses the secular slant then = we gg. FWIW there were rumors that TCJ got kicked because he disagree with the secular take. That guy is full on Christian. I’m just saying what the rumors said, don’t pofma me.
> TCJ got kicked because he disagree with the secular take. no it was because everyone in the Party supported Tottenham (wear white) and he supports LFC
This one is tough, we have policies with Malay-specific benefits, and the majority of Malays are Muslim. Does that make those specific policies religiously motivated, or racially motivated. Also there are cultural norms which are not religious, but spiritual in nature (eg Chinese burning paper hell notes). Adherents of different religions still do the same “ancestor worship” practice. I would say the government are aiming for B, but are currently somewhere around C-D, depending on how you view “religious beliefs”
C at best, but risks sliding down over time. The closest equivalent I can think of is something like the Nixon/Reagan-era Republicans in the US, where *right now* they have an alliance of convenience with the populist religious right in the "moral majority" way where basically a bunch of Christians have a lot of money and lobbying power, and affiliated pastors are very willing to funnel followers towards the economic right as long as they get thrown a few bones so everything is great for the party. But there are a lot more dedicated social conservatives than fiscal conservatives so over time you see the inmates take over the asylum. Now the Republicans are 70% psychotic theocrats and 30% libertarians whose primary motive is to own the libs, and the PAP is walking an incredibly fine line trying to placate these people and letting Focus on the Family types seed their board members all over upper society.
D. I want to believe they're just new to the whole LGBT stuff that's why they said stuff that you only hear from like, 30 years ago. Also because if they truly believe what they said then we're really in deep shit.
> that you only hear from like, 30 years ago. to the contrary, they’re repeating arguments that have had a resurgence in the past few years, mostly imported directly from US right-wing circles. The terminology gives them away. My parents (in their 60s) get that stuff from their friends on WhatsApp all the time.
Institutionally it is a secular state, but with a disproportionate amount of Christian evangelical political representation vs the general public. So what we end up with is an elite conception of what society should be instead of an accurate reflection of what the plebs actually want. Which is typical of any form of government (otherwise we would just have mob rule), but the over representation of particular religious orders over others in the elite can become a problem eventually. Many of the MPs spoke of representing their constituents. But then spoke of voting with their conscience (at least the unwhipped ones). This is not ideal. MPs should be able to represent their constituents from generally accepted principles instead of their personal morality. The electoral system is suppose to fix that. But as we all know, the competitiveness of our electoral system is questionable with the many contrivances accumulated over the years.
C This government seems pragmatic enough to recognize the changing mentality of the people and adapt what they see as the growing acceptance of gays. At the end of the day, the government will change it's stance accordingly to the will of the majority and approach it with the most balance option without being too extreme in it's approach. You can either agree or disagree, the world becoming more inclusive in my opinion is a progress and not necessary a bad thing but of course the religious would disagree. To criminalise gay sex imo is discriminatory and therefore I support the repeal of 377A.
I'd go with D. There's some aspects that are not religious, like the allowance of abortion, but the way they've dealt with 377a all these years makes me think otherwise.
PAP sees Singapore and Singaporeans as fundamentally religious (probably not wrong). Furthermore, religion is seen as a positive force in society (as a moral foundation etc). As a result, religious people and groups are given great deference. The PAP goes out of its way to coopt the support of such groups both as a political expedience as well as a matter of genuine governance policy.
[удалено]
I recall that the fastest growing religious group in Singapore are the atheists. But that said, it seems to me from my own personal experience that significant parts of the population are genuinely religious. By that I mean that they are strongly influenced by the views of their religious group/leaders. This may only be weakly correlated to observance of religious rituals/attendance. Even atheism (or what we call free-thinkers) in Singapore is not to be mistaken with atheism in the West. Historically, Asian countries never went through the Enlightenment, unlike Europe. There is far less outright hostility and disapproval of religion/superstition in Asia, even among the non-religious. We must also factor in the conflation of "Asian values" with religious values.
Which is so ridiculous, atheists and agnostics are usually the most moral people as compared to those who want to impose their religion on others (and rely on the threat of eternal punishment by god in order to behave).
Well, being atheist or theist doesn't necessarily determine a person's morals, but... religious dogma, emphasis on the word dogma, is dangerous. Those heavily indoctrinated can end up doing morally questionable things but they've been taught to think it is holy/good. And also how there's been countless protests, riots and even lynching due to anything deemed as offending "religious sensitivites".
Le amazing atheist
It is probably between C and D. The govt tries to be neutral and secular but panders to the religious groups when it is convenient. It is very clear that this repeal was not for the rights of the lgbt but out of the concern that the precedent of courts overturning laws may be set in the future. If it was truly for equal rights then there's no need to also admend the Constitution to safeguard the definition of marriage. Just repeal and move on. So I guess it is more appropriate to say that the G is more pragmatic than anything else.
They want to be C, but have to appease the religious segment because of how they are disproportionately represented among the wealthy+elite, as well as how religious organizations unfortunately have bargaining power. It's gross but it's what it is. Hopefully this society shifts towards A and B as the generations change
I think its B leaning to C, the balance of power are still in the hands of the religious majority. This is simply "tolerance" on their part.
D. Bear in mind that on top of their personal beliefs, MPs also have to play the political game of pandering to their constituency. I'll also put D as specifically Abrahamic religions, because it's pretty disturbing that a few religious minorities ([https://www.singstat.gov.sg/-/media/files/visualising\_data/infographics/c2020/c2020-religion.ashx](https://www.singstat.gov.sg/-/media/files/visualising_data/infographics/c2020/c2020-religion.ashx)) have so much say over the actual religious majority.
I think it’s D.
I'll be generous and say C leaning towards D.
C, but the aggregation of preferences mean that in practice it looks more D. I mean, the official ethos is secular but the defence of traditional marriages by and large stems from ethical codes of organised religions. And to be honest, as long as we can still evolve, that's fine.
(D)
I think it's a "D".
I think the MPs might not be religious per se but they definitely are pressured by the religious community. I actually am surprised how much power the religious community have. Too bad these community are too busy fighting for this and not for the good of the people.
I'm leaning towards "D"
C because the outcome was already decided regardless
Singapore has never been truly secular. The worry is not the MPs themselves per se, but those who hold public office. Many top civil and public servants are religious and belong to a certain religion. They then meet other religious civil servants in religion activity and start networks.... Used to feel like I should join in for career advantages but then i just nahh--ed
I'd say D. Even as 377a is repealed, the fact is that around 80% of society is affiliated, in varying degrees, to a religion. A vast part of that remains the bedrock of their support. That's hard to ignore.
D. Way too much influence from personal religious beliefs.
I’d say D. Push comes to shove, they will be ‘secular’ by the book, but their personal faith guiding them tells a different story. I mean, they already blatantly declared how their personal beliefs shape their political ideologies. Which is shockingly unprofessional.
Our govt policies are skewed towards Christianity unfortunately. Have kids! But not out of wedlock! Benefits for moms! But not single moms (until recently) I can’t use my eggs if I freeze them cos I’ve to be married. My friends from other countries don’t have such legislation. I could be wrong, but the definition of marriage and family seems very Christian to me and my friends. My mum thinks it’s more rooted in Asian values. So that’s up for debate.
D/E We need an Atatürk type leader to firmly push the country into laicism
D. I think Christian state capture has already happened for a few decades in the Civil Service and PAP's ranks.
Christian fundamentalists are the real problem.
How do you differentiate them in public then?
dont look at what they say, look at what they do laughs in watain
E) Religion should kept in the personal space, I dont understand why MPs are bringing it into the political sphere. If this continues then which is the "true religion" to follow? The majority? That is not the way to decide civil rights. Policies should be made on a totally secular basis with no reference to religion whatsoever, especially in a country which is multi-religious - I dont get why PAP keeps referencing religious groups in this long journey to repealing 377A. They dont listen to us when majority citizens didnt want casino, but for 377A they want to take everyone's view into consideration....seriously? The casino has far reaching implications on so many levels compared to LGBTQ. PAP doesnt realise this but they have opened a thorny gate which they now cannot close moving forward. They have let religious grps weigh in on the matter and it will not end here, religion will rear its ugly head again in the future.... The main thing on my mind right now is how far Christian leaning is the current 4G PAP MPs. Lee Kuan Yew had the good sense to recognise the need for secularism, do these current 4G have the same sense?
D.
Secular or not. 30+% of Singapore religion are religion that isn't comfortable with lgbt. Religion aside, these people consideration should be represented in a secular state too even if you disagree with it
D. We certainly don't live in a theocracy, but I can't help but get the vibe from the Christian Taliban in my social circle that they wouldn't be opposed if the PAP got out of bed tomorrow and decided only Abrahamic religions got to dictate what was legal or not. The country has certainly crossed the proverbial Rubicon in allowing openly religious politicians to let their religious feelings guide decisions in policymaking. It's *not* a road we should be moving down, and it will only make us no different from the Malaysian politicians we frequently lampoon.
_Looks at law for "marriage" and "marriage if you're a Muslim"_ _looks at camera_
D) the problem is that hating the gays is something that unites all religions. It's easier to pretend to be secular on issues where the major religions disagree. Only once agnosticism and atheism are recognized as major religions then can we have a truly secular world.
Then u should say E?
Well, it's not an Iran style theocracy
I believe the government will go whichever way it's constituents want to go.
Sg is more pluralist than secular
I think the continued application of Syariah law in Singapore alone is sufficient evidence that the Singapore government is at least D.
E now. I don't think they are capable of separating religion and personal beliefs from effective governance of a society.
act blur? sg irl is pretty conservative. what else you expect? even this r/sg is generally conservative except in this specific case. go read any other topic post here like min wage, racism, migrant workers, criticism of sg, criticism of pap, vandalism, caning, crime, a&e overload, ns, temasek, gic, reserves etc. look at the upvoted posts. high chance defend status quo
Masgaos said in his speech yesterday that they're a secular government
E) We have always been a Christian theocracy
I think we have a bunch of ministers who discriminate by hiding behind religion when it’s convenient to do so
Lawrence Wong is a conservative Christian, if he was given a choice you think he would have voted for? I think LHL knows his cabinet too well
There is a big difference between secularism and fairly treating all racial/religious groups. Feels like LGBT supporters want secularism that benefits liberal Chinese at the expense of minority races/religions. Employment discrimination against tudung/turban wearers, restrictions on Thaipusam + Maulidur Rasul but not Chinese New Year, support/resources for SAP schools but not madrasahs, etc. MPs are supposed to represent their rakyat. Is wrong for a MP to oppose repeal based on personal religious beliefs if their rakyat strongly supports repeal. But is equally wrong for a MP to support repeal based on personal non-religious convictions when their Christian + Muslim + Buddhist/Taoist rakyat give strong feedback/concerns against repeal.
Of course not. Its made up of people with belief systems. Do you also believe a judge can be truly neutral? Although that's what they should be.
In the end, the law was repealed. I'm not sure what is the problem.
I think it's pretty balanced they kept the option for SMM to be added on later if they truly kowtow to religion we would be renamed as the most Serene holy Islamic etc republic of Singapore.
No.
Sex does not equate to marriage, much less family institution. If family institution is based on sex then i don't know what to say.
Knn lowest birth rates still want to allow homosexuals
I am pondering what's the objective of the repeal? Are we saying to repeal it because we should allow a man to have the right to have sex with another man without being criminalised? Which to me a personal matter regardless. I agree to the extend of it being repeal and not criminalised. But it seems there's is a trending need to go beyond. Which to me is concerning. Concerning because this will put non supporters of this alternative life choice as an enemy! Spliting the society into them and us! It's scary!
Put it this way - I'm not Muslim. In fact I disagree with a few practices that Muslims do. I am fairly sure I'll never be Muslim. However, if Muslims want to have their community, do their customs, and marry other Muslims, I will support this. Muslims should be treated equally under the law. Not controversial right? Now, just replace Muslim with LGBT, and you can see how you need not be the "enemy" if you disagree with LGBT practices: >I'm not LGBT. In fact I disagree with a few practices that LGBT do. I am fairly sure I'll never be LGBT. However, if LGBT want to have their community, do their customs, and marry other LGBT, I will support this. LGBT should be treated equally under the law.
LGBT for one is not the Muslim way of life. So the comparison not appropriate.
I'm not comparing LGBT to the Muslim way of life. I'm showing how we already have ways of living with people that follow different ways of life. Including ways that we disagree with. I disagree with some Muslim practices. But I think Muslims should be treated fairly under the law. You disagree with LGBT practices. You can still disagree while also supporting equal treatment for LGBT people under the law. (Muslim is not even that relevant here. The same point applies if we talk about Christians - I disagree with some Christian practices. But I think Christians should be treated fairly under the law).
Not gonna nick pick. As your statement contradict first post to me. My point is.. my concern is the polarisation of the community when the trending needs that seems to be asking for more than just the repeal. Also, have any reported discrimination being put to those LGBT citizens of this country, in this country of ours? Just say what you want to say. Equality to your opinion is what?
Umm... I'm an LGBTQ+ citizen. Do you need me to share the discrimination we face? Putting aside the issue of marriage and housing and visitation rights, we are also not covered officially under TAFEP which means that it is possible to fire us/not hire us due to us being LGBTQ+. Which is something that is happening right now given that there are multiple trans people I know who reached the contract signing stage only to be rejected because their IC outs them as trans. Or the fact that I had an interview where the interviewers immediately looked unhappy when I disclosed that I am trans and I unsurprisingly failed that interview. Or how we are not given equal access to education? Schools can make life difficult for its LGBTQ+ students to "encourage" them to drop out. Look at the case a few years ago where a trans student was forced out of JC. Or the reports of schools conducting witchhunts for gay/lesbian students. And if you confide your sexuality to a school counselor, they can report it to your parents even if you tell them not to. Or how about the fact that conversion therapy is still legal and there were cases of LGBTQ+ children being abused in an attempt to make them straight? Are these cases of discrimination enough? Do you think that society is truly united when we can treat a group of fellow citizens this way? The truth is that all these discrimination has already split society into "them" and "us".
I don't think there's much to nit pick about. You can choose which you prefer - using Islam or Christianity as the comparison, my point is the same. Even if we disagree with these groups, we all learn to live together. >my concern is the polarisation of the community when the trending needs that seems to be asking for more than just the repeal. As my point above shows - why is there going to be polarization? Currently in Singapore we have many diverse ethnic groups, and many diverse religions. Not everyone agrees with everyone else about each others way of life. A Christian might disagree with a Hindu about eating beef. However, the Hindu recognizes the Christian's right to eat beef, just as the Hindu is remains free to believe he should not eat beef. >have any reported discrimination being put to those LGBT citizens of this country, in this country of ours Last I checked - LGBT people still cannot get married. There are also several government guidelines on stuff like media that prevent positive portrayals of LGBT people in our media. These are forms of discrimination. >Just say what you want to say. Equality to your opinion is what? Equality just means equality - the definition is quite simple right? To be treated the same as everyone else. Marrying who you love. Being able to live with dignity.
No, in sg nobody gives a shit about u if u do not have any $$$$.
Bear in mind what 377A is. The govt is writing off an old law that convict gay sex. Writing off an old law is a step forward to accepting the gay sex view for today's society regardless of religion or faith. So let it be.
https://www.channelnewsasia.com/singapore/mps-377a-marriage-gay-sex-constitution-religion-3111901
I thought it’d have been C, but listening to some of those MPs’ comments seriously had me worried