Public policy shouldn't be dominated by a religious viewpoint, but should be informed by it

Public policy shouldn't be dominated by a religious viewpoint, but should be informed by it

I REFER to Thursday's letter by Ms Felicia Tan, 'Facts outshine faith'. First, I agree that in a multireligious, multiracial yet secular society in Singapore, we must strive to be inclusive where every voice is given an opportunity to be heard; no one group, religious or otherwise, should dominate or exclude another; and all should work together for the common good of Singapore and not for self-interest.

However, I find Ms Tan's argument incongruent in that, while she argued for inclusiveness, her conclusion is rather exclusive. It is true that no religion should dominate society in terms of imposing its beliefs on others and there should be no 'form of favouritism', but Ms Tan has just shown favouritism to 'logic and reason', whatever that means. An atheistic world view is as religious as a theistic one and worse, when it is bigoted. The key is how does one not become bigoted and dominating, but works for the common good in the midst of diversity.

I also find Ms Tan too quick in concluding that offering one's religious view would 'essentially alienate the views of other Singaporeans who are of other religions or are non-believers'. This need not be so. Yes, that will happen when one chooses to be bigoted, dominating or imposing, but to say that the religious point of view is to be excluded, society would be poorer for that. Religions have provided the moral fibre of society, given resilience in time of crisis and often motivated good works, as evident in the many humanitarian thrusts provided by various religious groups in Singapore and abroad.

While public policy should not and must not be dominated by religious points of view, it should be informed by it. Finally, public policy, as Ms Tan said, 'should be made on its own merit'.

David Ho

http://forums.delphiforums.com/sunkopitiam/messages?msg=28024.516