Comments by DPM Wong Kan Seng in response to media queries related to AWARE
16 May 2009
Comments by DPM and Minister for Home Affairs Wong Kan Seng in response to media queries related to AWARE
15 May 2009
Homosexuality
The Government’s position on this issue is clear. It was stated by the PM in Parliament on October 2007, and it has not changed. In his speech, PM said that Singapore is basically a conservative society and the conventional family, a heterosexual stable family, is the norm and the building block of our society. However, we recognise that homosexuals are part of our society. They have a place in our society and are entitled to their private lives. This is the way the majority of Singaporeans want it to be – a stable society with traditional, heterosexual family values but with space for homosexuals to live their private lives and contribute to the society.
The Government was not going to be pressured into changing its position on homosexuality before the takeover of AWARE. Nor does the Govern­ment intend to change its position now that the old guard has recaptured AWARE.
The debate on Sec 377A of the Penal Code showed how the homosexuality issue polarised our society. Advocates on both sides were passionate and vocal. In the recent AWARE tussle, homosexuality was clearly a major issue to both sides. This is unproductive and divisive.
Our society will not reach consensus on this issue for a very long time to come. The way for homosexuals to have space in our society is to accept the informal limits which reflect the point of balance that our society can accept, and not to assert themselves stridently as gay groups do in the West.
We live in a diverse, multi-racial and multi-religious society. Every group, whether religious or secular, has to live and let live, to exercise restraint and show mutual respect and tolerance. If any group pushes its agenda aggressively, there will be strong reactions from the other groups.
AWARE
Many Singaporeans were exercised by the leadership tussle in AWARE, and have expressed their views, for and against, in our newspapers and on the Internet.
The Government has been very careful in its comments, especially before the EOGM, as it did not want to be misunderstood as taking sides. Who controls AWARE is not important to the Govern­ment. As I said, Govern­ment policy on homosexuality is settled, and will not change as a result of lobbying by pressure groups.
However, the Government was worried about the disquieting public perception that a group of conservative Christians, all attending the same church, which held strong views on homosexuality, had moved in and taken over AWARE because they disapproved of what AWARE had been doing. This raised many qualms among non-Christians, and also among Christians who believed that this was an unwise move in a multi-racial, multi-religious society. It was much more dangerous because now religion was also getting involved, and it was no longer just the issue of homosexuality.
I was grateful therefore that Dr John Chew of the National Council of Churches of Singapore (NCCS) issued a clear statement that the NCCS does not condone churches getting involved in the AWARE dispute. Leaders of different religious faiths have also come out to reinforce the NCCS message. Their statements provided clear guidance to their followers. I felt it was important for me to endorse the NCCS statement publicly, and explain the Govern­ment’s deeper concerns. Had it not been for these sober statements from religious leaders, we would have had serious problems.
Rules Of Engagement
Religious individuals have the same rights as any citizen to express their views on issues in the public space, as guided by their teachings and personal conscience. However, like every citizen, they should always be mindful of the sensitivities of living in a multi-religious society.
All religious groups will naturally teach their followers to follow the precepts of their scriptures, to do good and to contribute to their society. The groups will naturally have views on social and moral issues. But we are not a Christian Singa­pore, or a Muslim Singa­pore, or a Buddhist or Hindu Singa­pore. We are a secular Singa­pore, in which Christians, Muslims, Buddhists, Hindus and others all have to live in peace with one another. This calls for tolerance, accommodation, and give and take on all sides.
If religious groups start to campaign to change certain government policies, or use the pulpit to mobilise their followers to pressure the government, or push aggressively to gain ground at the expense of other groups, this must lead to trouble. Keeping religion and politics separate is a key rule of political engagement.
Political Arena Must Be Secular
Religious groups and individuals who hold deep religious beliefs are often active in social issues, and make important contributions to the well-being of our society. Individuals who commit themselves to social or public service are often motivated by their religious convictions. And many religious groups do good work serving people in need, regardless of religious affiliations. We welcome that. They set the moral tone of our society, and are a source of strength in times of adversity.
However, our political arena must always be a secular one.Our laws and policies do not derive from religious authority, but reflect the judgments and decisions of the secular Government and Parliament to serve the national interest and collective good. These laws and public policies apply equally to all, regardless of one’s race, religion or social status. This gives confidence that the system will give equal treatment and protection for all, regardless of which group one happens to belong to.
Calm Down and Move On
I think the AWARE episode showed clearly how passions and emotions naturally run high when it concerns an issue or cause salient to people’s beliefs or interests. The EOGM was an emotional meeting with many heated exchanges. It was not a model of calm deliberation and patient consensus building. Both sides must now calm down and move on.
Impact On Civil Society
Singa­poreans are becoming more educated and informed, and we are opening up more space for people to express alternative views. I have no doubt that we will see more tussles between people holding different points of view, often anchored in their personal convictions and beliefs, on issues which they consider vitally important.
Many different communities share this tiny island. If our diversity is not to become a source of weakness, we must manage such disagreements in a responsible and balanced manner. We can articulate our views passionately without denigrating others; we can agree to disagree without being disagreeable.
The Government has to maintain order, and hold the ring impartially. It encourages the development of civic society, and gradual widening of the OB markers. But it will not stand by and watch when intemperate activism threatens our social fabric.
The Internet
The need to behave responsibly applies no less to those who participate on the Internet. The fact that the Internet offers a measure of anonymity to an individual should not change who he is as a person and how he conducts himself. Ultimately he remains no less accountable for the consequences of his action in cyberspace as he does in the physical world. The two realms are part of the common social reality of our lives today.
Observing Balance And Moderation
I do not believe that those who are against homosexuality are afraid to speak out. However, I would caution restraint on both sides, for and against. We must not import into Singa­pore the culture wars between the extreme liberals and conservatives that are going on in the US.
On the whole, our religious communities have played a positive role in our society. The maturity of our religious leaders and the restraint and sense of responsibility of their followers have helped to make this a communally peaceful society. We must keep it that way by observing the rules of engagement.
This applies also to the media. The media plays an important role reporting on the issues, the groups and the personalities involved. They need to do so dispassionately and impartially. MICA had analysed the volume, tone and objectivity of the coverage of the AWARE episode, and found it wanting in some respects. Some of the coverage was excessive and not sufficiently balanced.
There were indeed important issues at stake, such as the proper limits for religious activism. But the AWARE episode was surely not the most important challenge facing Singapore, deserving such extensive and even breathless coverage. Whatever happened in AWARE was not going to change Singapore, or the Government’s social policy.
Journalists should not get caught up in the stories they are reporting, however exciting the stories may be.
MICA has given this feedback to the editors.
The Straits Times - Religious heads welcome Govt's position
15 May 2009
They agree with need to embrace diversity and its stand on gays
By Zakir Hussain
RELIGIOUS leaders have welcomed comments by Deputy Prime Minister Wong Kan Seng on the role of religious groups in the public sphere, and on the issue of homosexuality.
They reacted positively to Mr Wong's call for religious groups to be mindful of wider sensitivities when engaging in the public square.
The National Council of Churches of Singapore (NCCS), an umbrella body for key Protestant groups, noted that it will 'continue to engage responsibly in our society in a way that expresses our common concerns and aspirations for our nation'.
In a statement signed by vice-president Robert Solomon, who is also the Bishop of the Methodist Church here, the NCCS noted that DPM Wong's comments meant that Christians and churches were not 'precluded from engaging in public square issues within the rules of engagement'.
'The DPM states some of these rules and welcomes the participation of individuals and communities in matters related to the well-being of our society,' he noted.
He added that churches had been and would continue to be active in providing community services and share their resources for the well-being of fellow Singaporeans.
Dr Solomon also said Mr Wong's 'pertinent comments on some of the shortcomings of the media (in covering the Aware saga) must be noted and welcomed'.
'The press has a responsible role to preserve public order,' he said.
Pastor Tan Ye Peng of the City Harvest Church, an independent church, said religious leaders 'have a big responsibility to ensure that their followers abide by the law of the land'.
'That major religions can be practised freely in Singapore is a privilege. If this freedom is abused, it will not bode well for either the religious group or the country,' he said.
Leaders of other faith groups also welcomed Mr Wong's comments.
Venerable Kwang Phing, secretary-general of the Singapore Buddhist Federation, said religious leaders had to bear in mind that they are in a multiracial, multi-religious society.
He said: 'We are pleased and fortunate that we live in a nation that treats all races and religions fairly and equally, and that gives us freedom to speak on social issues. However, this should not be used as a tool to pursue one's political aims under the cover of religion.'
Mr Alami Musa, president of the Islamic Religious Council of Singapore (Muis), said Mr Wong's remarks provide 'good guidance on how Singaporeans should embrace diversity and make it work to our advantage'.
'It is a good reminder about how religious and secular groups should function within the limits of the secular state, and how they should operate within the context of a diverse society,' he said.
Religious leaders were also pleased with DPM Wong's reiteration that the Government had not changed its stand on homosexuality.
This means not relaxing the laws on gay sex, while recognising that homosexuals are part of society and entitled to their private lives.
Dr Solomon said: 'The majority of Singaporeans, including Christians and people of other faiths, hold to the traditional heterosexual family values that the Government has promised to preserve in our society. This is important if we want to maintain harmony and confidence in our society.'
He also noted the Government's assurance that lobbying by gay groups against its position on homosexuality was not going to change its policy.
'The message calls for people to accept this position and not push lifestyles or values that will only cause strong reactions and disrupt the harmony in our society,' he said.
Mr Alami, head of Muis, which overseas local mosques, also welcomed Mr Wong's assurance on this front. He said: 'I am appreciative of the fact that he has re-stated the government's unchanged position on homosexuality. That reflects the conservative nature of our society.'
Note : No reproduction or downloading of this Singapore Press Holdings (SPH) article is allowed in any medium. Permission has to be obtained from SPH.
The Straits Times - 'Questionable takeover but crucial service'
15 May 2009
THE Bishop of the Anglican Church in Singapore issued a pastoral letter last weekend explaining in greater detail his stand on the involvement of some Anglican women in the recent leadership tussle at women's advocacy group Aware.
Dr John Chew said the tactics they used to gain office raised issues of ethics and propriety, even if they did not contravene Aware's Constitution.
At the same time, however, they performed a 'crucial service' by alerting Singapore society to what was being taught in some sexuality education classes in schools. 'An alarm has been sounded on the promotion of revisionist sexuality norms,' noted the May 10 letter. 'The Ministry of Education has taken commendable corrective action as a first response.'
In his letter, Dr Chew said he believed 'mainstream society at large would be grateful for the continued contribution and vigilance of the Christian community to the moral fabric and social well-being of our society.' However, the church 'should also be prepared that there will always be those who would not' be grateful and will use all kinds of ways to express their disagreement.
In his letter, Dr Chew also referred to an April 30 statement he issued as president of the National Council of Churches of Singapore (NCCS) to say that churches should stay out of the Aware tussle.
He noted that the statement led to some 'disquiet' among Christians, who sought greater clarification on where the church stood on where to draw the line between the religious and the secular.
Explaining, Dr Chew said the church recognised that in the arena of social discourse and engagement in a secular, multi-faith society, 'there needs to be appropriate rules of engagement and language of discourse' to preserve the harmony and cohesiveness of a Singapore, which has 'inherent fault-lines'.
The April 30 statement was made primarily 'to allay public perception and quell social disquiet with potential undesirable consequences that the church as an organised body was planning and driving the process of change in Aware, which was not true', wrote Dr Chew.
This 'was critically necessary at that particular point of time in the development of events and heightened tensions'.
He explained that this was why he stated categorically that the church as a public and responsible institution was not involved in the matter, and that the pulpit was not to be used for such goals.
However, he pointed out, the statement did note that this did not preclude individual Christians from contributing in matters of social concern, or churches from being involved in public square discussions 'within the rules of engagement in a multi-religious society'.
'Thus (it) does at the same time affirm and safeguard the church's and the Christian's legitimate and constructive role... in engaging social issues in the public square,' he added.
In his letter, Dr Chew also commented on the 'takeover' actions by some members of the church 'who sought to re-direct Aware to its formative objectives'.
Although their actions did not contravene Aware's Constitution, they 'nevertheless raised ethical and propriety difficulties and challenges even in the minds of many Christians'.
'While one may not agree with the way they went about fulfilling their social responsibility in correcting the perceived dangerous direction the civil organisation was taking, we must all remain committed as members of the same diocesan flock to provide a loving environment to care for and pray with them,' he wrote.
Responding to questions from The Straits Times late last night, Dr Chew said the letter was written to parishioners who are in one way or another affected by this episode to 'help them to understand why the church is taking this stand'.
He said: 'It is really to help people understand and encourage them in recognising that we are in a unique situation in our multiracial context.
'But at the same time, we want to encourage them, as concerned citizens, to do their part in a way which is appropriate and which will be well-received.'
Note : No reproduction or downloading of this Singapore Press Holdings (SPH) article is allowed in any medium. Permission has to be obtained from SPH.
The Straits Times - Religious groups must be mindful of differing views, says DPM
15 May 2009
By Jeremy Au Yong & Zakir Hussain
THE Government yesterday spelled out rules of political engagement for religious groups as it broke its official silence on the recent leadership tussle at the Association of Women for Action and Research (Aware).
In a detailed response to questions from The Straits Times, Deputy Prime Minister Wong Kan Seng said religious individuals have the same rights as other Singaporeans to express their views on public policy issues, but they should be mindful that they live in a multi-religious society where the views of others may be different from theirs.
'If religious groups start to campaign to change certain government policies, or use the pulpit to mobilise their followers to pressure the Government, or push aggressively to gain ground at the expense of other groups, this must lead to trouble.
'Keeping religion and politics separate is a key rule of political engagement,' he said. He also warned that while the Government 'encourages the development of civil society', 'it will not stand by and watch when intemperate activism threatens our social fabric'.
Mr Wong's remarks come two weeks after the end of a tumultuous time for women's advocacy group Aware. The saga began on March 28 when new members, many of whom attend the Anglican Church of Our Saviour, seized nine of the 12 positions on the executive committee. Their stated motive: To return Aware to its 'original' purpose, as they saw it as having veered towards promoting a gay and lesbian agenda.
On May 2, the new exco was ousted in a rowdy extraordinary general meeting (EGM) attended by thousands.
In his response to The Straits Times, Mr Wong reiterated that the Government's stand on homosexuality has not changed, nor will it be changed by the Aware saga.
That position, he noted, was outlined by Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong in Parliament during the October 2007 debate on whether or not to decriminalise gay sex.
Both sides campaigned vigorously over whether or not to repeal Section 377A of the Penal Code. In the end, the Government decided to leave the law alone.
Mr Wong said: 'In his speech, PM Lee said Singapore is basically a conservative society and the conventional family, a heterosexual stable family, is the norm and the building block of our society. However, we recognise that homosexuals are part of our society. They have a place in our society and are entitled to their private lives.
'This is the way the majority of Singaporeans want it to be - a stable society with traditional, heterosexual family values, but with space for homosexuals to live their private lives and contribute to the society.'
He regretted that homosexuality had emerged as an issue during the Aware saga, saying this was 'unproductive and divisive'.
He said: 'Our society will not reach consensus on this issue for a very long time to come. The way for homosexuals to have space in our society is to accept the informal limits which reflect the point of balance that our society can accept, and not to assert themselves stridently as gay groups do in the West.'
DPM Wong, who is also Home Affairs Minister, added: 'Who controls Aware is not important to the Government. Government policy on homosexuality is settled.'
Urging restraint and tolerance, he said Singapore must not import the culture wars between the extreme liberals and conservatives that are going on in the United States.
The call for restraint was a recurring theme in Mr Wong's five-page response.
He called on the pro- and anti-gay groups, religious and secular groups, supporters of both the old and new guard of Aware, and civil society at large, to show restraint. 'Every group, whether religious or secular, has to live and let live, to exercise restraint and show mutual respect and tolerance. If any group pushes its agenda aggressively, there will be strong reactions from the other groups,' he stressed.
The mainstream media came in for its share of exhortation, with Mr Wong calling on it to report 'dispassionately and impartially' the groups and personalities involved.
'The Aware episode was surely not the most important challenge facing Singapore, deserving such extensive and even breathless coverage,' noted Mr Wong, adding that journalists should not get caught up in the stories they report.
Turning to the role of religious leaders, Mr Wong praised an earlier statement by Dr John Chew of the National Council of Churches of Singapore (NCCS) urging churches against getting involved in the Aware dispute.
He said he was glad that leaders of other religions came out to reinforce the NCCS message.
'Had it not been for these sober statements from religious leaders, we would have had serious problems,' he said.
Explaining the Government's decision to make an official statement, he noted that there were many qualms among Singaporeans about the Aware takeover being motivated by religion. The involvement of religion made the dispute more dangerous as it was no longer just a matter of homosexuality, he said.
'The Aware episode showed clearly how passions and emotions naturally run high when it concerns an issue or cause salient to people's beliefs or interests,' he noted.
His message for both sides: 'Calm down and move on.'
Note : No reproduction or downloading of this Singapore Press Holdings (SPH) article is allowed in any medium. Permission has to be obtained from SPH.
NCCS' reply to media query on DPM’s statement
14 May 2009
The National Council of Churches of Singapore (NCCS) appreciates and welcomes DPM Wong’s helpful comments and observations.
DPM Wong’s statement that the government’s position on the issue of homosexuality articulated in 2007 by the PM has not changed is reassuring to the majority of Singaporeans and will be welcomed by them. The NCCS supports the stand of the government. The majority of Singaporeans, including Christians and people of other faiths hold to the traditional heterosexual family values that the government has promised to preserve in our society. This is important if we want to maintain harmony and confidence in our society.
The government has also stated that lobbying against this position is not going to change its policy. I think the message calls for people to accept this position and not push lifestyles or values that will only cause strong reactions and disrupt the harmony in our society.
The NCCS Statement on the AWARE issue expressed concern that religion was
unnecessarily dragged into the debate, and here the DPM’s pertinent comments on some of the shortcomings of the media must be noted and welcomed. The press also has a responsible role to preserve public order.
The NCCS Statement specifically clarified that churches should not get involved in the internal matters of a secular organisation like AWARE. However it also clarified that this did not preclude individual Christians and churches from engaging in public square issues within the rules of engagement. I think the DPM states some of these rules and welcomes the participation of individuals and communities in matters related to the well-being of our society.
Our participation must be for our common good and take the multi-religious and multi-racial nature of our nation into consideration so that engagement will always be within accepted norms. It is in this sense that the NCCS has added its voice in recent public square issues such as medical ethics and the IRs. In the issue of homosexuality, the churches have also articulated their position. In fact in this particular issue, the majority of Singaporeans, regardless of race or religion have a common conservative view. It would not be helpful to single out Christians in this regard. It is more an issue between the majority of Singaporeans and a minority with different views rather than between the church and others. More so than this is the fact that churches have been actively involved in providing community services and sharing their resources in providing for the wellbeing of our fellow citizens and nation. We will always be committed to this cause.
When the NCCS issued its statement, church leaders also contacted leaders of other faiths to help explain our position and to hear their views and to deal with possible misunderstandings or concerns if any. In Singapore there are many platforms for religious leaders to build understanding and to maintain good relations. The NCCS welcomes this and will continue to engage responsibly in our society in a way that expresses our common concerns and aspirations for our nation.
Bishop Dr Robert SolomonVice-President, National Council of Churches of Singapore
RELIGION AND POLITICS IN SINGAPORE
The Straits Times - The roles for faith-based groups
By Chua Mui Hoong
16 May 2009
THAT religion and politics should not mix has become an article of faith in multi-ethnic, multi-faith Singapore.
Race and religion remain faultlines in Singapore's diverse society. But in fact, religion and politics do mix in Singapore - though always in carefully modulated, controlled ways.
The Constitution enshrines the principle of non-discrimination towards all the races and religions. At the same time, the secular state recognises the special position of the Malay-Muslim community, and upholds a separate system of laws governing marriage and family issues for Muslims.
Race is also entrenched in politics in the group representation constituency concept, with at least one MP in each GRC from a minority race.
When Singaporeans talk about religion and politics not mixing, therefore, it is within the broad parameters that acknowledge the racial and religious diversity inherent in Singapore society, and within the broad consensus that some degree of race-conscious policy (like the ethnic quota in public housing) is desirable for Singapore - so as to preserve multi-racial peace and foster integration. Within this broad framework, the Singapore state is committed to having a secular public arena.
The issue of religion and politics came to the fore recently.
In March, a group of Christian women from the same church took over the reins of secular women's group Aware, before being ousted in a heated extraordinary general meeting this month.
The episode threw into relief the need for clearer rules of engagement for faith-based groups to take part in public square discussions and activism.
The Government made known its view on the matter on Thursday, in response to wide-ranging questions from The Straits Times on issues arising from the Aware incident.
In his replies, Deputy Prime Minister and Home Affairs Minister Wong Kan Seng took pains to reiterate Singapore's commitment to a secular public arena. His statements mark an important milestone in clarifying just where the parameters are on the proper relationship between religious groups and social or political causes.
He stressed the broad values that should undergird all public square discussions and activism, including by religious groups: mutual respect, restraint, tolerance, accommodation and give and take.
Beyond these reminders of core values, the Government also made it clear that religious individuals are welcome to take part in public discussions, like any other citizen. This statement was swiftly welcomed by religious leaders.
This is a position consistent with past documents on the subject, such as the White Paper on the Maintenance of Religious Harmony Act.
In addition, Mr Wong laid out the broad framework for religious groups to engage in public square issues.
First, their participation in welfare activities, such as helping people in need, is welcome.
This may sound commonsensical, but it is important for the Government to state this explicitly, given the emotions churned up against religious groups in the aftermath of the Aware saga.
Singapore's approach towards religious-based welfare groups is welcoming and accommodating, rather than exclusionary. Unlike in the United States, where views are divided on whether faith-based groups should get state funding, in Singapore, many charities run by or affiliated to religious groups do receive state funding. Many are also Institutions of a Public Character, their donations receiving tax breaks from the state. Few Singaporeans have an issue with this practice.
What if a religious group goes beyond social assistance, to public debate and lobbying? Given the growing fervour of faith-based groups - their desire to proselytise and engage in public advocacy for their point of view - it can be assumed that religion-based social activism will grow.
On speaking up on public interest issues, the Government took a nuanced stand. On the one hand, it recognised that religious groups will have views on social and moral issues and will want to take part in public discussions on these.
But what if faith-based groups go beyond public debate and engage in grassroots lobbying? What if they engage in direct lobbying - MPs, say, or the Government - to change laws?
Without quite proscribing lobbying, DPM Wong warned: 'If religious groups start to campaign to change certain government policies, or use the pulpit to mobilise their followers to pressure the Government, or push aggressively to gain ground at the expense of other groups, this must lead to trouble. Keeping religion and politics separate is a key rule of political engagement.'
As of now, this appears to be where the informal OB (out of bounds) markers are drawn for religious groups: Taking part in discussions is okay; lobbying can cause trouble - so be very careful.
While some may decry the dearth of a clear set of rules on lobbying, such ambiguity in fact leaves room for civil society groups to test, adjust and evolve.
And indeed, it is unclear what the aftermath of the Aware saga is. Some believe the episode reinforces Singapore's secularism, and reduces the space for religious groups to engage in social activism. Others think it creates a new precedent for religious-based groups to engage in civil society activism and to jostle for power in secular organisations.
When it comes to faith-based groups engaging in civil society, the Government's role is to be the referee and the enabler - the one who gets agreement on the rules from relevant parties, then gets out of the way for players to engage, while casting a watchful eye in case temperatures rise too high.
The Government's statement this week stresses the basics of respect and tolerance, and sounds a note of caution against intemperate lobbying by religious groups in Singapore's multi-religious society.
But the line between religion and civil society is one drawn in ink, not etched in stone - and subject to revision. The effort to foster multi-religious peace in Singapore is ongoing, and as the events of recent weeks show, never complete.
