DECIDING PUBLIC POLICY: Facts outshine faith

May 28, 2009
DECIDING PUBLIC POLICY
Facts outshine faith

I DISAGREE with Nominated Member of Parliament Thio Li-Ann's assertion yesterday ('Secularism practised in S'pore 'does not exclude religion'') that religion is appropriate in the public sphere.

On the contrary, it is precisely because of Singapore's multi-religious nature that pure secularism in the public sphere is essential to ensure that no policies or public debates encroach on the beliefs or disbeliefs of any individual.

By basing an argument on one's religious views, one would essentially alienate the views of other Singaporeans who are of other religions or are non- believers.

Such an argument would be non-inclusive, narrow and, worst of all, belief- specific.

In a country where people of various religions and non-believers alike co- exist, it would be extremely unreasonable and self-centred to assert that a policy be implemented because of the beliefs of a single religion, especially if this policy contradicts the beliefs or principles of another group.

An argument about a policy or social issue should be made based on its own merits.

Instead of appealing to one's faith as the basis of arguing for or against a policy or law, one must instead appeal to the scientific, sociological or economic facts of the issue.

Only then can Singaporeans be confident that the policy was made with each citizen's secular interests in mind, and not as a form of favouritism towards one or a few religions.

In this way, pure secularism, with its clear separation of religion and politics, is the only rational option for a multi-religious country, to ensure every religion is free to practise in its own private space.

Religion-based arguments have no place in public debates about policies. Only logic and reason should dominate discourse in the public sphere.

Felicia Tan (Miss)

http://forums.delphiforums.com/sunkopitiam/messages?msg=28024.473