A brief note on Article 15(2)

Recently I been looking at Article 15(2) of the Consitution and wondered what it is all about. A word of warning, my intepretation here is largely based on a literal reading of Article 15(2). My conclusion from reading Article 15(2) is that the use of public reason in determining public policy is very important. Here it goes:

Article 15(2) in essence prevents state taxation for the purposes of a religion that one does not subscribe to. (See possible exceptions in footnotes)

(2) No person shall be compelled to pay any tax the proceeds of which are specially allocated in whole or in part for the purposes of a religion other than his own.

This means there is no compulsion of others for the purposes of a religion by way of financial penalties in Singapore. The state cannot compel a member of one religion to support financially the religion of another person. This is a very important protection of the individual and is a secular guard against the tyranny of having to financially support someone's else beliefs, or for that matter, anyone's belief at all.

One might ask, if religion sucessfully determines (say wholly) a particular public policy, can I object and not pay taxes based on Article 15(2)? As an illustration, say Religion Pasta has successfully petitioned to Parliament based on their own religious rules that all children age 7 should wear a blue jacket. State funds have then been allocated to the Ministery of Education to buy blue jackets to compel all children to wear a blue jacket. For clarification sake, there appears to be no reason for this public policy save for the Religion Pasta rulebook that all children must wear blue jackets when they are of age 7 years.

This appears to be a “purpose of religion” under Article 15(2) and one might have a good argument that taxes cannot be so compelled to buy blue jackets from anyone save of those who subscribe to Pastafarianism. After all, why should I pay for someone's else religious beliefs?

From this reading of Article 15(2), the Constitution invites people to use what John Rawls calls “public reason” when discussing policy changes. It is fair and promotes peace and good order as hurting a person's pocket against his beliefs does little good to his temper. It is also neutral between religions and belief systems.

---------


Note: It appears that Public Reason is getting to be more and more and controversial. I think it was previously contrasted with religious reasoning but it appears that some critics are suggesting that liberal conceptions of the good life are not neutral (“public reason”) either. All this is rather confusing really.

FN1: It is probably important to note that it allows the state to compel a member of one religion to support financially the religion of that person. Hence, it is possible to impose, in Malaysia for example, a tax on Muslims to support their religion.

FN2: Another exception will probably be the Malay minority. Article 152(2) provides

The Government shall exercise its functions in such manner as to recognise the special position of the Malays, who are the indigenous people of Singapore, and accordingly it shall be the responsibility of the Government to protect, safeguard, support, foster and promote their political, educational, religious, economic, social and cultural interests and the Malay language.

As most Malays are Muslims, it is likely that their “religious... interests” will be read as the interests of Muslims in Singapore.

Random thoughts on the usual things

377A outcome

I have heard that two of my friends who are gays will like to leave Singapore if they can. At least one of them is a very nice person and I hate that he might feel this way.,etc. These two gays friends could well be representative of how Singaporean gays in general feel (not sure about that). Some of those who like to leave will eventually do so. The inability to pursue one's version of happiness without being labeled a criminal is one thing, a stream and barrage of torrid and unwarranted abuse in the public arena is another. One is somewhat institutional - the other, deeply personal. IF the state does not want our smart, intelligent, creative, educated Singaporeans to have another good reason to leave the country...I think they probably need to do more than say "there is space." Getting insulted so badly is psychologically rather scarring, especially when the state seems to be siding with those doing the 'insulting'. Sadness.

Put it this way. People who oppose the repeal really have no where else to go to find such a law in place. Lets face it, there are few modern countries left in this world who have such a law. On the other hand, those who are gay have lots of 'first world' countries to go to.


Religion and Public Reason

I will like to know how does one "reason" that gays are immoral or perverse without resorting to religion. The word from nature is at best ambiguous and likely to show that there are lots of homosexual activity in the animal kingdom. It is also not considered a medical illness, and little evidence sexuality can be "changed". Have not heard any "public reason" save for appeal to authority (say Kant)

The NIL religion

Apparently lots of Singaporeans belong to the Nil Religion. Census 2000 actually puts this figure at 14.8 percent. This figure has probably has decreased since the NIL religion type since it is probably fertile grounds for conversion but it probably is still huge. In the year 2000, there were more people who were NIL religion than Christians, and just a little less than the number of Muslims (14.9 percent). Surely one should consider the feelings of such a group of people in any debate when religious voices grow too strong.

Warick University

I also just learn that one of the reasons why Warick University did not come to Singapore was because of legislation against gays. Well, as Molly Meek puts it, it just does not make sense to send students to be labeled as criminals. Well, no big deal. Just a few million dollars. What's that education hub thing again? Perhaps it is no big deal during the voting process of whether to bring Warick to Singapore but if you know liberals, I am sure the fact that legislation like 377/A represents real regression. Besides, how many gays voted during the process?

Buddhism and Singapore Buddhists

I will like to know why the Singaporean Buddhists I speak to don't seem to really understand what Buddhism is. Well, at least their version seem to depart quite a bit from what Wikipedia describe Buddhism to be. Do Buddhists believe in a Hell/God/a pantheon of deities? How does Buddhism actually 'spread' in Singapore?

Stomp: Singapore Seen

Random Singaporeans doing random acts like not giving up their seats in trains have their photos taken of all the time it seems. Then there are also the usual photos of Public Display of Affections of varying degrees. The above acts are not illegal. Who are these people who photograph other people doing legal acts which they find "uncomfortable"? I think that taking photos of people who are not in any official capacity "without their knowledge or permission" when they are not doing anything illegal (or for evidence in a trial) is far worse than not giving up seats. In that sense, I find every Stomper who took a photograph of an act which is not illegal without the knowledge of the people (who are not in some official capacity) far more disgusting than their victims. Those Stompers who do so clearly lack basic respect for other human beings. Perhaps its about time schools teach what underlies respect and not rules.

Sunshine Empire

Why do so many Singaporeans buy into Sunshine Empire? I have seen the terms, the plan, and in my opinion, it has the characteristics of a Ponzi scheme. I actually wrote about this company (and how shifty the terms offered were) about 1 year ago on another blog (already closed) and to my amazement it is growing in strength. Gone were the days of grainy presentation though. Now apparently, it is all Hi-Tech and in many countries. Still the same old idea though. The only difference it is now on MAS investor alert list. High time if you ask me.

Casual Sex and Love

I have always thought that the fact that Casual sex as is name suggest should be casual and no love should be involved. Recently learn (not through experience) that it is not as simple.

TED: Rev. Tom Honey

I almost entirely agree with him.

A response to "a quiet contemplation"

a paragraph contemplated

The often-invoked Hobbesian basis why we protect race and religion from dangerous speech is that we as society will suffer terribly if we do not do so. There shall be riots, it is said. Society will be lost. It shall crumble. This can be seen, some in power say, in our historical account. Hobbes had said it simply enough. Without these laws there will be “Bellum omnium contra omnes” – “the war of all against all”. That is a proposition I grudgingly accept (recognizing its potential as censorship rather than ensuring peace). In the debate about gay rights, such similar arguments have been offered. The argument is that removing 377A somehow will hurt the family unit especially children. I started writing this post because of a reaction to FearfullyOpinionated's ("FO") Post “A Quiet Contemplation”.

"What is our approach towards homosexual issues? What is our own approach towards our opponents in the homosexuality debate? Do you really think Christian-bashing will further your cause or actually cause your opponent to harden their stance? Do you think that since none of us are engaging in any physical violence, any and everything we say, we type and we blog is fair game? Do you think this issue will be solved by arguments, or even online petitions? Do you think the intolerance of the intolerant is in itself not guilty of intolerance?”


Let us first examine the last line of this paragraph where "intolerant" appear 3 times.

Do you think the intolerance (1) of the intolerant (2) is in itself not guilty of intolerance? (3)”

The (2) intolerant in this context clearly refer to those who oppose the repeal of 377A. Let us look closely at this. How are they "intolerant"? A basis by which conservative groups have argued that gay activity ought to be prohibited has often been the Hobbesian one (above). Such an argument will only be considered intolerant (2) if one accepts that tolerance should encompass the more modern and liberal notion that we should tolerate private choices and practices (377A practices in this instance) and that they ought to be legal. This means (2) intolerant must be judged from a liberal standard for that question to be sensible at all.

And if that is the case then - the question understood in this light will be:
Do you think the intolerance of the (illiberal) intolerant is in itself not guilty of intolerance? This is a circular question but not objectionable per se. But the preceeding lines in FO's paragraph suggest that "Christian-bashing", "type", "blog", "arguments", "online petitions" might be part of this "intolerance". From a liberal standard however, ‘arguments’, ‘online petitions’ and “mere speech” promoting the repeal of 377A does not necessarily count as intolerance of the intolerant.

The refusal to define what standard of intolerance one has adopted and what counts for intolerant in FO's opinion makes it impossible to argue cogently about the accusations made of those who sign petitions and argue online. In other words, when it is asked "Is it intolerance to be intolerant about the intolerant"?" - the reply should simply for from a liberal perspective should be "it is intolerance. BUT one is not intolerant by making arguments and online petitions per se from this perspective.

When liberals say "I am going to be intolerant (A) about the intolerant (B)" - I think they usually mean (B) intolerant to be intolerant of those inciting violence (See Karl Popper for the chief proponent of this view) which if you ask the average dude like myself, is not "intolerance" but simply humanity. The intolerance for intolerance (B) is a very serious philosophical issue altogether but not specifically relevant in this regard. Is anyone askin' for violence in our context? Increasingly though, liberals are asking for more than this but thats a huge topic.

(Karl Popper argued, "We should therefore claim, in the name of tolerance, the right not to tolerate the intolerant. We should claim that any movement preaching intolerance places itself outside the law, and we should consider incitement to intolerance and persecution as criminal, in the same way as we should consider incitement to murder, or to kidnapping, or to the revival of the slave trade, as criminal.")

If there was “Christian-bashing” however (and one notes FO's emotive choice of word “bashing”) then it might fail the liberal tolerance that we should tolerate other people’s private choices. However, I think that almost everyone puts up in Singapore with religion in our lives although it is full of flaws because we know it’s none of our business. In fact, most of us positively celebrate it. In fact, I think the pluralism in our nation should be more widely celebrated and not confined to the state boring divisions. Nobody I think is asking from the Repeal-Camp that private religious choices be interfered with...

Unlike FO, I don’t see that there is “Christian-bashing” per se unless it is his opinion that religion should be accorded such a place that truth cannot be said of it – a position which will far surpasses the liberal notion of tolerance. There is bashing of "anti-gay" positions if you like. That is equally objectionable in the liberal schema. In other words, private choices do not necessarily differentiate religion and opinions about sandwiches (while admitting that we do care more about religion than sandwich usually). If religion is inconsistent etc, what is wrong with pointing it out under the liberal perspective? That sandwich might taste good to you but it cannot be blue and green at the same time, ya? But sure, you are free to choose to say and believe it is blue and green. But if it is the Hobbesian notion of tolerance that is really being subscribed to in the first place, then it will be 'rich' to go through the question of the “tolerance” of the intolerant in the first place.

FO wrote in his comments to a (my) question to show evidence of "intolerance":


"I suspect you want me to discuss at depth what I consider to be "tolerance" and "intolerance". I am unfortunately not prepared to, nor inclined to, have such a discussion at this point in time. I think it matters little to the point I was trying to make. I am not interested (in this post at least) in the truth-value of propositions used in arguments for or against the repeal of 377a, but the emotive effects these propositions have on their opponents. "

If one choose only to focus on "the emotive effects" without regard to what types of "tolerance" we are talking about and truth value - as I discussed earlier, one is reverting to a Hobbesian discourse (above). My analysis is that FO is simply arguing a Hobbesian-variety 'tolerance' in the very first place which is not markedly different from the position of what he calls "opponents" adopts. I don't like this splitting of camps thing but if there is a splitting of camps, can it be said rightly that they are "opponents" from FO's perspective. Or does FO simply belong to what he calls "opponents" but attempts to adopt an "objective" perspective?

If one wishes to clinically observes the emotive effects these propositions have on the "ultra-conservatives", I can assure you that feelings of outmost revulsion have been involved. It really depends on how one sees the real question. If it is, "Should people be free to choose their own sexual lifestyle without interference from the state?" it is less bad. "Should gays be allowed to do what they want and corrupt our children and family?" then one can surmise the reactions. And for crying out loud, if anybody will harm members of my family and children, I will be rather quick to insist that they shall not be tolerated.


------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Other points which I wanted to talk about but will not fit properly in the article:
_______

For the argument about "hearts and mind" (See FO's article, link above), the usual argument is that the laws (377a) cannot change people's sexuality or the minds of people and that is why we should scrap it. (The argument used in FO's post comes from another angle)

I suggest that people read Locke’s “A Letter Concerning Toleration” if they are interested in Tolerance. And because Locke is a Christian, and one of the greatest Christians of all time, those who think that because they are Christians and should therefore oppose efforts to repeal 377A should read his letter and think about it seriously.

Here are some other links for those who rather not read that excellent letter:

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/locke/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_Letter_Concerning_Toleration

(Add: I realise I might be assumed to be a one who "accepts" what is said by Locke" or that I suggest that he is right. This is not the case because you should judge him for his merits. I suggest him because I think the letter clearly set out the one of the ideas of "tolerance" we have today. I will also like to think that Locke must be read as a person who wrote in the 17th century and we should forgive his flaws.)

------

In the interest of disclosure: I signed the online letter to the PM with my full name. I am embarrassed to say I did not sign the petition that is to be put to the Parliament. I had the occasion to. One gay friend said he will come to my house right away (and we do not stay that nearby) just so that I will sign his copy of the petition. But I told him, as I planned to, to go down to one of the locations to sign. Then I got lazy. I know there are those who "are disgusted" or "not impressed" that I signed the open letter online (yeah - i do know people like those) . I feel sorry for those who think like that - it is simply a belief I have that an archaic law that is hardly used that is unequal that is the constant battleground between liberals/conservatives should be abolished - and honestly, I know the petition won't work - but a lot of those people are upset because they think that gays are an aberration in the first place and desire that "morality" reign supreme and are shocked/displease that people actually come out and say they disagree. Please, we (and gays) do exist.

The retention of 377A is clearly a waste of time on everyone's part. The legislature if they were braver will have not attracted so much heat now. Now with another petition Keep 377A, it is becoming a political hot potato.

-------

I ask to be criticized not for my views, but for the reasons why I hold my views. And if those reasons are wrong and no longer support my view, then they naturally must change. But this is not the case for all. That is why I have not tried to change the views of those who oppose the repeal of 377A and I will not do it. Some of these opponents of the repeal treat with contempt discourse. That is not the fatal fault. Some will often rather you lose your liberty to speak. But even that is not their fatal fault. The fatal fault is that they will rather use propaganda and slogans, the power of the frown, the invocation of the "majority", loud-hailers and emotions, fear-mongering , appeal to emotions - rather than reason.

Not in Jesus Camp

But what if they took over

If you are like me, you might feel that religious voices, especially Christian voices, in recent years have been embolden. A senior Paster of a Church, Derek Hong, in Singapore has suggested that gays are out to destroy churches. Then just at city hall, a poster within a glass building (a church property) facing the public reads, "Are they making a monkey of you?". Such suggestions imply that those who believe that gays should be accorded equal treatment, that those who believe that evolution is a theory that best explains where we comes from, are somehow 'wrong'. And sometimes the churches are even provocative. There was this sign hanging outside a church, very visible to all taking the mass public transport system that screamed "Homosexuals can change."

On the other hand, religion also have a very special place in Singapore. There are laws protecting them even against satire. Although charges against the Singaporean blogger who placed caricatures of Jesus Christ was dropped, the 21 year old was warned. He had faced a maximum of three years in prison and a fine of 5000 Singapore dollars under the Sedition Act.

But to certain religious leaders, the law should be used in such cases. In a Straits Times Report (June 18, 2006). Father John-Paul Tan, parish priest of the Church of St Mary was reported as saying "The right to free speech stops when it begins to hurt the religious sensitivities of others." The key word is religious. The Anglican Bishop John Chew had this to say, 'We cannot say that just because the West has allowed these pictures to be freely available, we should accept them.'

And Dr. Thio Li-Ann, now an NMP in Parliament, was reported to have said, "Given that 80 per cent of Singaporeans subscribe to some kind of religious faith, it is not conducive to denigrate any faith." Ted Young, writing for Trevvy, described Dr Thio Li-Ann as having "alleged that the gay community has an organised agenda". She was also said to have "implied that Singapore's newspapers were populated by biased liberals, whose unfair reporting paint the conservative Christians as homophobic fundamentalists, while portraying the pro-gay camp as progressive", during a forum organized by Focus on the Family. Focus on the Family is a controversial organisation which have been promoting social conservative public policy in the US.

Following in the Footsteps of United States?
Is Singapore following the footsteps of the United States, where a strong and vocal religious right seek to tap into the conservative middle for political gain and to influence public policy? Are we having our own "Jesus Camp" in Singapore? Is religion threatening the secular nature of state?

I doubt it. Abortion laws are still relatively liberal. The Singapore Government decision to open up two IRs and the embracing of biotechnology (and all its moral hazards) reflects that any vocal and religious right voice will be yet unable to overcome the pragmatic-utilitarian-survivalist mindset of many leaders. Even the founding father, Lee Kuan Yew, decided that gays are natural. At the same times, gays parties and gay runs are still banned. The state has yet to make any comments on evolution, but one can hazard that Lee Kuan Yew, a man who have spoken quite a bit about culture and genes, should be a shoo-in for one who accepts the underlying premise of evolution.

It will still be a few years more before public policy is monopolized by any religious agenda. Yet, demographics in Singapore is ripe for such a scenario. A large group of older and socially conservative Chinese, Indians, and Muslim population can easily support a strong and vocal social conservative religious leaders and public policy. This I think is an obstacle to progress. More so, for individual non-believers, it might mean further alienation and demonization.

There is no equivalent of the British Humanist Association in Singapore. Atheist associations in the United States, while literally struggling against a rabid Christian Right in United States, still manages to provide organisation and comfort. September 11, has unlike in Singapore, been a showcase for many an American, that religion can be really bad. Nearly 50 percent of British people think that their government pay too much attention to religious leaders. Books which debunk the claims of Christian empirical claims and claims of being forces of good are best sellers in both UK and US. Secular organisation have exploded (in numbers) as a counter-reaction to religious forces which have taken it upon themselves to lobby their government for their respective agendas. Singapore have no such equivalent secular organisation.

There is perhaps no need to. But I wonder, do Singaporean non-believers need such an institution to protect themselves against the scenario where religion starts to dominate public policy?

1. History of Homosexuality in Singapore http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_homosexuality_in_Singapore_(2000s)
2. Derek Hong's Sermon's about Homosexuality
http://yawningbread.org/arch_2007/son-788a.mp3
http://www.coos.org.sg/sermons/files/sermonMP3/200708190830n.mp3
3. Straits Times Report, June 18 2006, Divided News over Police Checks on Bloggers, Zakir Hussain
4. Trevvy Article ( Prominent Gay Opponent appointed to Singapore Parliament) http://www.trevvy.com/scoops/article.php?a_id=94&c_id=3
5. Found a picture of the "Are they making a monkey of you" sign which is at ST Andrew's Cathedral from Fresh Brainz : Creationists are Here