A different opinion of secular humanism

A different opinion of secular humanism

I REFER to the the edited excerpt from Professor Thio Li-ann's speech on Wednesday, 'No 'bright line' between religion and politics'.

Prof Thio's statement that secular humanism 'dogmatically asserts the absence of God, without any empirical evidence' is incorrect. Secular humanists assert neither the absence or presence of God. Rather, their starting position is that, as the assertion of God is a positive one, the burden is on those who make that assertion to provide evidence to support their claim. In the absence of satisfactory evidence, the secular humanist view is that it is logical and reasonable to assume that God does not exist.

Individuals (whether religious or not) should have the right to express their views on issues in the public space. The question is whether arguments which are based on religious convictions can have any value if their claims cannot be justified on other grounds.

Tan Teck Howe

http://forums.delphiforums.com/sunkopitiam/messages?msg=28024.500

Reflecting one's spiritual view not the same as imposing one's religious sensibilities on others

Reflecting one's spiritual view not the same as imposing one's religious sensibilities on others

I REFER to Wednesday's article, 'No 'bright line' between religion and politics'.

I found it most unfortunate that Nominated MP Thio Li-ann is attacking secularism, and painting it as a gag on religious views in public square.

What Professor Thio fails to appreciate is that the issue is not about secularism (or atheism) versus religion. In a multi-racial and multi-religious Singapore, there are no uniform or generic 'religious views'. When a particular religion participates in public space, it does not do so not under a generic label ('religious') but under the label of a particular religion (for example, Christianity, Buddhism, Islam, Hinduism). Unless there is active participation and discussion by the many religious denominations, and a consensus reached by the collective group, no one particular group can claim to represent a 'religious view' of Singapore in general.

Thus, when Prof Thio pushes her religious view (for example, her objections to homosexuality which are shaped by her religious background), the public perception is not that she represents the religious view, but rather that she is imposing her Christian sensibilities on others.

With that context in mind, the reference to the Aware controversy was not, as Prof Thio put it, a view that 'religious groups should not get involved in secular organisation'. Rather, what was disconcerting about the incident was that it was a case of one particular organisation from one particular religion, pushing for one particular agenda, and subverting a publicly secular organisation on the quiet. In a plural society, such an act is dangerous, divisive and destabilising.

Any religious group which wishes to further its views based on its religious conviction must do so publicly, paying special attention to the sensitivities of other races and religions, and must invite other groups to participate in reaching a collective common ground. Failure to do so will surely invite censure and strong reaction from other quarters, religious or otherwise.

The Government is right to urge restraint and keep the political arena secular. This is not a gag on religious views, but rather an appreciation that in a multi-religious society like Singapore, there is no representative and uniform religious view and that any one religion wishing for greater participation in the public and political arena must do so responsibly and with great sensitivity to other religions, as well as the non-religious.

Lai Nam Khim

http://forums.delphiforums.com/sunkopitiam/messages?msg=28024.498

Disingenuous absence of a vital fact in NMP's speech

Disingenuous absence of a vital fact in NMP's speech

I REFER to the excerpt from the parliamentary speech by Nominated Member of Parliament Thio Li-ann on Wednesday, 'No 'bright line' between religion and politics'. I agree with Professor Thio that we cannot effect a clear separation of church and state because beliefs about religion, whether as religious values or as secularism, inform publicly voiced opinions.

However, the crux of the saga involving the Association of Women for Action and Research (Aware) was that its 'old guard' consisted of women who profess diverse religious beliefs. The 'new guard' executive committee members claimed they did not know about one another before their election, and yet they all hailed from a single, small church.

Had their assumption of power been left unchallenged, their religious beliefs would have severely compromised Aware's primary mission of addressing women's issues regardless of religious background.

To leave out this crucial fact in her parliamentary address while accusing newspapers of distorting and obscuring facts leaves Prof Thio appearing disingenuous, to say the least.

Tan Kok Kee

http://forums.delphiforums.com/sunkopitiam/messages?msg=28024.496

Militant secularism and takeover by stealth - what's the difference?

Militant secularism and takeover by stealth - what's the difference?

I REFER to the speech by Professor Thio Li-ann where she argued against 'militant secularism'. I would argue that the tactics adopted by Dr Thio Su Mien and her 'proteges' were no less militant. They undertook covert planning and a stealth takeover of Aware - tactics akin to those adopted by military strategists.

It may be worthwhile to note that people could be as much against these stealth takeover tactics as they are against the imposition of religion in a secular space.

Furthermore, Prof Thio's argument that the 'secular fundamentalists...are attempting to make religious faith a cause for embarrassment' is way off the mark. Many Singaporeans have come into the open to publicly and proudly declare their religious affiliations, yet they are opposed to the way the 'old new ex-Aware' committee mounted the takeover.

Leonard Lee

http://forums.delphiforums.com/sunkopitiam/messages?msg=28024.495

Family ties: NMP Thio's advocacy inappropriate

May 29, 2009
RELIGION, SECULARISM AND THE PRESS
Family ties: NMP Thio's advocacy inappropriate

AS A Singaporean who was abroad the entire time from when the news of the takeover of the Association of Women for Action and Research (Aware) broke to the extraordinary general meeting called by the old guard of Aware on May 2, I relied heavily on the traditional print media, mainly The Straits Times, as well as online and social media, to keep abreast of the saga as it unfolded.

With the Internet, anyone who felt that he had been portrayed unfairly in the media could put forward a different set of facts.

However, despite consciously looking out for an alternative set of facts from the group involved in the takeover, little information about the intent of the takeover and whether the old 'new- exco' members knew each other before the takeover was forthcoming from the parties concerned until The Straits Times reported what it had discovered during the course of its investigation.

Given that two of Nominated Member of Parliament (NMP) Thio Li-ann's relatives were closely linked to the saga (her mother, Dr Thio Su Mien, admitted playing the key role in bringing about the leadership change after monitoring Aware's affairs for a year, and her cousin-in-law Josie Lau was the 'new' Aware president for several weeks), it is highly inappropriate for the NMP to use her position in Parliament to address an issue in which she has a personal stake.

Tan Yen Ling (Ms)

http://forums.delphiforums.com/sunkopitiam/messages?msg=28024.493

PM'S SPEECH: More food for thought

May 29, 2009
PM'S SPEECH
More food for thought

YESTERDAY'S report, 'Parliament to get more diverse voices', left me pleasantly surprised by the wide range of changes to the electoral system announced by Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong in Parliament on Wednesday.

Although some may construe this as an ingenious gambit by the establishment to liberalise Singapore's political system with little risk to People's Action Party (PAP) dominance, the neutrals will deem it otherwise.

Most Singaporeans will see this as a magnanimous gesture by PM Lee to increase representation by non-PAP MPs to at least 10 per cent (nine opposition members), or 20 per cent if Nominated MPs are included.

This is a tacit recognition that we are all Singaporeans, whoever we vote for, and that a diversity of views is a strength and not a weakness.

To reduce scepticism further, I suggest the following:

# Set up an independent Electoral Commission comprising prominent Singaporeans, because the electoral system must not only be fair but must also be seen to be fair.

# Boundary changes should be made at least a year before any election to allow interested parties to work the ground.

# Avoid sheltering new PAP candidates in group representation constituencies as the heat of electoral battle is a prerequisite for any politician. Those without the stomach for a contest may not have the right stuff sought by the electorate.

# Instead of non-elected NMPs, consider substituting non-partisan independent candidates who are nominated by interest groups like the present six groups: business and industry; the professions; labour movement; social and community organisations; media, arts and sports; and tertiary education institutions; plus the newly mooted 'people sector'.

Two to three prospective candidates from each group should be shortlisted by a panel and the nine independent candidates should seek the electorate's vote on polling day. Such a format is better than the present NMP scheme, which lacks the people's mandate.

# Further liberalise the right of peaceful demonstration. We need more Singaporeans who are passionate about a wide range of issues and who are not afraid to show it.

Dr Huang Shoou Chyuan

http://forums.delphiforums.com/sunkopitiam/messages?msg=29775.8

• MAY 29, 2009

Temasek Portfolio Lost $39.91 Billion

By SE YOUNG LEE and COSTAS PARIS

SINGAPORE -- Singapore's state-owned investment company Temasek Holdings Pte. Ltd. lost 58 billion Singapore dollars (US$39.91 billion) from the end of March 2008 to November 2008, or a little over than half of its portfolio-value gains from the previous five years, the city-state's finance minister said.

View Full Image

Associated Press

Singapore's finance minister, Tharman Shanmugaratnam, shown in May, said a downturn in global equity markets contributed to Temasek's losses.

Tharman Shanmugaratnam, speaking in parliament, said Temasek's investment portfolio grew by S$114 billion during the market cycle from 2003 to 2007.

Temasek's portfolio-value fall from March to November 2008 was in large part due to the decline in value of investments in Singapore amid a sharp downturn in global equity markets, he said. He didn't disclose the fund's losses from the recent sale of its holdings in Bank of America Corp.

"Of the S$58 billion decline, S$32 billion was attributable to the drop in market value of just the 10 largest publicly listed Temasek-linked companies in Singapore," Mr. Tharman said.

He said share prices of these companies fell by about 41% on average from end-March to November.

Temasek-controlled companies in Singapore include Keppel Corp., the world's largest rig-builder; Singapore Airlines Ltd.; property developer CapitaLand Ltd.; and Singapore Telecommunications Ltd., Southeast Asia's biggest telecommunications operator by revenue.

Mr. Tharman said the S$58 billion fall also includes "all unrealized losses" including mark-to-market losses from Temasek's investment in Merrill Lynch.

He said the full-year accounts to end-March 2009 shouldn't be fundamentally different from the losses disclosed given the lack of major changes in global equity markets from the end of November to March of this year.

Temasek bought 14% in Merrill beginning in December 2007. Its stake was converted into shares of Bank of America following Merrill's acquisition by the U.S. bank in September.

Temasek said this month that it divested its entire stake in Bank of America during the first quarter of the year. Two people familiar with the matter said at the time that Temasek lost about US$4.6 billion from its original investment in Merrill.

"The sale of its [Bank of America] stake does not signify a shift in Temasek's investment orientation, from long term to short term," Mr. Tharman said. "Temasek may divest an investment, even at a loss, to get a better mix of risks for its overall portfolio or to position itself to take advantage of opportunities elsewhere."

He reiterated Temasek's earlier comments about the divestment, noting that the acquisition of Merrill by Bank of America meant a "different investment proposition" given the latter firm's "linkage to the broader U.S. economy" and that the risk-return environment had changed substantially.

"Temasek learned of the Bank of America-Merrill merger after all was said and done despite being one of Merrill's biggest investors with a 14% stake," one person familiar with the situation said. "They put money in an investment bank [Merrill] and suddenly found themselves owning part of a commercial bank [Bank of America]. They never wanted to be part of Bank of America."

Mr. Tharman said Temasek makes riskier investments compared with the Government of Singapore Investment Corp., which invests Singapore's foreign-exchange reserves, and in turn is expected to generate higher returns.

"While Temasek has performed better than many other large investors over this six-year market cycle, it is not realistic to expect it to outperform in every cycle," he said. "It is also not realistic to expect it to avoid losses on every individual investment, or losses on its overall portfolio when the markets go through sharp corrections."

http://forums.delphiforums.com/sunkopitiam/messages?msg=29876.1