25 Dec 2008 - The Straits Times Online Forum
I REFER to Mr Jonathan Lin's response to my online forum letter on Monday.
I appreciate his candour regarding my "diatribe" on how secularism has not provided a clear moral compass for societies at large. However, I fail to see which part of my letter caused him to conclude that we have failed as a society on "how its members treat one another, despite their differences". I certainly hope it was not because I had expressed my objections to euthanasia from the sanctity of life principle.
Secularism is generally the assertion that governmental practices or institutions should exist separately from religion or religious beliefs. Correspondingly, secular ethics make the assertion that human beings, through thought and logic, are capable of deriving normative principles of behaviour, outside of religion.
Nowhere in my letter did I espouse a universal or single moral compass for societies based on any particular religious belief. I had merely juxtaposed the euthanasia issue with the sanctity of life principle which emanates from the major religions practised in Singapore. Because secular ethics must obtain its inspiration from non-religious sources, Mr Lin's secular logic caused him to view euthanasia "solely around whether the freedom of choice is violated" and that "everyone is also entitled to live and behave in any way, including subscription to moral standards (or not), as long as others are not harmed".
This is exactly the poverty of secularism in its attempt to address the various moral issues confronting our societies.
If societies at large employ such secular mantras as a basis for legislative codification, then there is nothing to stop us - once we put the necessary safeguards in place - from decriminalising attempted suicides to legalising responsible drug usage, allowing abortions beyond the current 24-week limit as well as liberalising divorce laws and bio-medical research legislation.
Secularism is not the reason various religious groups can co-exist harmoniously in Singapore. By its own definition, secularism does no such thing. The religious harmony that we enjoy today is simply a case of pragmatism, tolerance and mutual respect shown by many in Singapore.
Participating in the euthanasia debate, opposing its legalisation and stating the possible ramifications of such actions do not equate to showing disrespect or having an intolerant attitude towards others holding alternative views. It is also certainly not a case of forcing one's belief on another.
Thursday, December 25, 2008
Wednesday, December 17, 2008
Euthanasia: Singaporeans ignore sanctity of life at their peril
17 Dec 08 - The Straits Times Online Forum
I WRITE to share my personal reflections on the special report on euthanasia by Ms Sandra Davie last Saturday ('Right to die... or right to kill?').
The first reflection is why the renewed debate on euthanasia is taking place now. Ms Davie pointed to the declining role of religion in politics and daily life as one reason for this renewed debate. This is an indictment that secularism and postmodernism have failed to provide a clear moral compass for societies at large. When one subscribes to a philosophy that denies the existence of objective truths, and that truth is a product of a person's culture, secular societies are left paralysed by the individual's clamour to decide his own fate. It also led to Ms Davie to conclude in her blog that 'there is no right or wrong in this issue'. This is indeed a profound statement from secularists. If this is the best that secularism can muster, then I suggest there should be no reason why Singapore society needs to be so uptight and queasy on this issue. As Ms Davie suggested in her blog, this issue just 'requires a full and informed debate'.
The second reflection is the question of sanctity of life in the euthanasia debate. It is disingenuous for doctors who take the Hippocratic Oath to 'do no harm', to oppose euthanasia and yet in the same breath, remain silent with regard to abortion. To objections that we will set ourselves on a slippery slope if Singapore legalises euthanasia, I would venture to suggest that we already started on the slippery slope in 1974 when the Government passed the Termination of Unwanted Pregnancy Act. Health Minister Khaw Boon Wan, in a parliamentary speech, said the Act was 'to provide for the safe termination of unwanted pregnancies by trained persons in appropriately equipped facilities. It is to safeguard the health and well-being of the woman who has, for various reasons, decided to terminate her pregnancy. This is intended to ensure that all children born in Singapore are wanted children, who will be properly cared for, and will have opportunities to develop to their full potential'. I suggest we consider Mr Khaw's advice regarding abortion to euthanasia by 'basing our decision purely on science so we take the emotion out of this particular subject'.
I am against euthanasia. Granted there are emotive, passionate and seemingly heart-rending reasons why it should be legalised, two wrongs do not make a right.
Sanctity of life has an 'in-your-face' logic that Singaporeans and societies at large choose to ignore at their peril.
I WRITE to share my personal reflections on the special report on euthanasia by Ms Sandra Davie last Saturday ('Right to die... or right to kill?').
The first reflection is why the renewed debate on euthanasia is taking place now. Ms Davie pointed to the declining role of religion in politics and daily life as one reason for this renewed debate. This is an indictment that secularism and postmodernism have failed to provide a clear moral compass for societies at large. When one subscribes to a philosophy that denies the existence of objective truths, and that truth is a product of a person's culture, secular societies are left paralysed by the individual's clamour to decide his own fate. It also led to Ms Davie to conclude in her blog that 'there is no right or wrong in this issue'. This is indeed a profound statement from secularists. If this is the best that secularism can muster, then I suggest there should be no reason why Singapore society needs to be so uptight and queasy on this issue. As Ms Davie suggested in her blog, this issue just 'requires a full and informed debate'.
The second reflection is the question of sanctity of life in the euthanasia debate. It is disingenuous for doctors who take the Hippocratic Oath to 'do no harm', to oppose euthanasia and yet in the same breath, remain silent with regard to abortion. To objections that we will set ourselves on a slippery slope if Singapore legalises euthanasia, I would venture to suggest that we already started on the slippery slope in 1974 when the Government passed the Termination of Unwanted Pregnancy Act. Health Minister Khaw Boon Wan, in a parliamentary speech, said the Act was 'to provide for the safe termination of unwanted pregnancies by trained persons in appropriately equipped facilities. It is to safeguard the health and well-being of the woman who has, for various reasons, decided to terminate her pregnancy. This is intended to ensure that all children born in Singapore are wanted children, who will be properly cared for, and will have opportunities to develop to their full potential'. I suggest we consider Mr Khaw's advice regarding abortion to euthanasia by 'basing our decision purely on science so we take the emotion out of this particular subject'.
I am against euthanasia. Granted there are emotive, passionate and seemingly heart-rending reasons why it should be legalised, two wrongs do not make a right.
Sanctity of life has an 'in-your-face' logic that Singaporeans and societies at large choose to ignore at their peril.
Tuesday, December 09, 2008
Double standards: In sedition case and DBS charity tie-up
9 Dec 08 - The Straits Times Online Forum
I READ with interest two seemingly unrelated reports last Friday, 'Couple go on trial for sedition' and 'DBS' charity tie-up draws flak'.
In the case of the sedition trial, while the authorities have rightly taken action to robustly maintain the fragile balance in the areas of race, language and religion, it is disheartening that this action is not applied universally to all. There seems to be a greater tolerance of 'attacks' on Christianity than other major religions.
We have these attacks in cinemas in The Da Vinci Code movie, where insinuations regarding the 'authority' of the Bible abounded and the central tenet of who Jesus is was questioned repeatedly. We have them in bookshops and community libraries as well. Richard Dawkins' book, The God Delusion, labelled the God of the Bible 'a vindictive, bloodthirsty ethnic cleanser; a misogynistic, homophobic, racist, infanticidal, genocidal, filicidal, pestilential, megalomaniacal, sadomasochistic, capriciously malevolent bully'.
As a Christian, I am not threatened by such 'attacks' and even welcome such opportunities it gives the Christian community to reflect on what and why we believe, thereby strengthening our faith. I do, however, wonder how the authorities would have responded if these 'attacks' were aimed at other religious groups.
In the case of the DBS charity tie-up case, a group of concerned activists has successfully forced DBS Bank to draw down its support of a local charitable organisation for fear of further negative publicity over a tenuous link the organisation may have had with its American parent, with its strong family-centric and corresponding pro-life and traditional family values.
It will not be long before these activists, bolstered by their success, start to target 'bigger' fish. Religion-based beneficiaries of other charity initiatives (for example, the President's Challenge), which do not conform to the activists' values, will be targeted. Mission schools will also be targeted since, in the views of these activists, public money should not be used to promote any religious viewpoint, subtle or otherwise.
The first incident intimated the seemingly differing treatment in Singapore towards religion in general, and Christianity in particular. The second incident demonstrated an increasingly disturbing trend by some in Singapore to forcibly remove all religious influences from society.
The potential ramifications of these two incidents, if left unchecked, will bode for an increasingly factious and polarised Singapore society.
I READ with interest two seemingly unrelated reports last Friday, 'Couple go on trial for sedition' and 'DBS' charity tie-up draws flak'.
In the case of the sedition trial, while the authorities have rightly taken action to robustly maintain the fragile balance in the areas of race, language and religion, it is disheartening that this action is not applied universally to all. There seems to be a greater tolerance of 'attacks' on Christianity than other major religions.
We have these attacks in cinemas in The Da Vinci Code movie, where insinuations regarding the 'authority' of the Bible abounded and the central tenet of who Jesus is was questioned repeatedly. We have them in bookshops and community libraries as well. Richard Dawkins' book, The God Delusion, labelled the God of the Bible 'a vindictive, bloodthirsty ethnic cleanser; a misogynistic, homophobic, racist, infanticidal, genocidal, filicidal, pestilential, megalomaniacal, sadomasochistic, capriciously malevolent bully'.
As a Christian, I am not threatened by such 'attacks' and even welcome such opportunities it gives the Christian community to reflect on what and why we believe, thereby strengthening our faith. I do, however, wonder how the authorities would have responded if these 'attacks' were aimed at other religious groups.
In the case of the DBS charity tie-up case, a group of concerned activists has successfully forced DBS Bank to draw down its support of a local charitable organisation for fear of further negative publicity over a tenuous link the organisation may have had with its American parent, with its strong family-centric and corresponding pro-life and traditional family values.
It will not be long before these activists, bolstered by their success, start to target 'bigger' fish. Religion-based beneficiaries of other charity initiatives (for example, the President's Challenge), which do not conform to the activists' values, will be targeted. Mission schools will also be targeted since, in the views of these activists, public money should not be used to promote any religious viewpoint, subtle or otherwise.
The first incident intimated the seemingly differing treatment in Singapore towards religion in general, and Christianity in particular. The second incident demonstrated an increasingly disturbing trend by some in Singapore to forcibly remove all religious influences from society.
The potential ramifications of these two incidents, if left unchecked, will bode for an increasingly factious and polarised Singapore society.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)