IPS Forum on Religious Diversity in Singapore
Part 1 of 3: Part 1; Part 2; Part 3

I attended this forum which accompanied the launch of the book of the same name, Religious Diversity in Singapore, which was edited by Lai Ah Eng. It consisted of 3 groups of 2 chapter presentations and one Q&A session each.

I will be almost exclusively summarising (as opposed to commenting on) what was presented. Although a report of what was presented, it will not be written in reported speech; personal comments will be clearly demarcated, like so [Ed: Foo bar].


Session I: The Landscape of Diversity


Religious Trends and Issues in Singapore
Assoc Prof Tong Chee Kiong
Department of Sociology, NUS

Statistics on religion have been collected in Singapore since 1831 (IIRC, or some other early date in the 19th century), with a gap between 1931 and 1980. However, they are somewhat inaccurate - during the census religion is determined by asking the Head of the Household, yet his children may not be of the same religion as he and/or his spouse.

Many self-declared Buddhists are really Taoists, due to the syncretic nature of Chinese religio, yet the number of Taoists has declined over time.

Contrary to the stereotype of Christianity being a young religion, between 1990 and 2000 there was actually a drop in the number of Christians aged 15-24 years. Instead there were many conversions among older people.

Religious Competition characterises the period from 1980-2000. Buddhists proselytised and repackaged their religion as a response to Christianity. The same happened with Taoism, with Taoists saying it wasn't about superstition and reaching out to the English community. This has been part of an intellectualisation of religion, probably due partly to Religious Knowledge being in the school curriculum in the 80s.

Religious diversity is seen mainly among the Chinese, though 65% of Chinese are still Buddhist/Taoist. Most Chinese-educated Chinese are not Christians, but university-educated Chinese are disproportionately so (about 1/3); the percentage of Chinese Christians rises with educational level (interestingly, across races, from the figures I glimpsed, non-religiosity similarly correlates with educational level). Ditto for socio-economic status and housing types - there is a class cleavage in religious belief.

The 2010 census will probably show religious change has stabilised. Christianity and Buddhism will have grown but at a much slower pace. There will probably be a rise in spiritual humanism in Singapore, with the popularity of religious sects emphasising spirituality and not religion. These groups cross ethnic and religious boundaries. For example, Christians might join a neo-Buddhist group because of its commitment to love.


Toleration and Interaction
Prof Ten Chin Liew
Department of Philosophy, NUS

To create and sustain religious diversity, society cannot just talk about common grounds between religions. There is a huge cost to people with religious convictions to endorse people of other religions. It is a fact that there're fundamental differences between different religions, as well as between religious people and atheists.

In recent years there has been a rise in militant atheism. [Ed: This seems to be misdiagnosed, almost entirely because of Richard Dawkins, Sam Harris and Christopher Hitchens' books - but the publishing of books isn't a good sign of popular belief. Furthermore, "militant" atheism, with its unsavory overtones, isn't quite accurate. Advocating a stance is not the same as imposing it on people or persecuting people who don't share it. Sticks and stones may break my bones, but...]

Religion is the basis of many people's identity. It's not fair to keep exploring common ground because sometimes there's no common ground.

In the history of the fight for religious tolerance, people fighting for it were not pluralists or religious relativists (i.e. believing all religions were the same, or as good, or as valid). For example: John Locke and Roger Williams. They were convicted Christians, but preached tolerance. They could accommodate others despite having profound disagreements with them, and thinking their were profoundly wrong (and they themselves right).

Why?

Some version of the Golden Rule was applied; a negative version: "Do not do unto others what you would not have others do to you". Despite disapproving of what others do and believe, they acknowledged that reasonable people can disagree.

I had an Uncle who a relative said went mad. At 2am, when the neighbor's dog barked, he would go to the kitchen and bang on pots. I said he was perfectly sensible - this was an application of the Golden Rule.

So we should go beyond toleration, which is too passive. One's religious and political identities are different. On a political level we can agree with people whose religious values we do not share, and collectively endorse things like meritocracy, and so encourage diversity.


Q&A

Q: Indians are also very diverse. There're Indian Hindus, Muslims and Christians.

Why are you skeptical about finding common religious ground? All great religions have common values.

A: The Chinese are the most diverse. Malays are homogenous. Indians are less diverse, and the big difference is that most Indian conversion happened in India, not in Singapore. >90% of religious conversion (people not being born into the religion they currently have) is among the Chinese.

A: You can find common ground, but the common ground hides vast differences, e.g. on the divinity of Christ, the afterlife. They surface everywhere: family, social relations, biotechnology.

In the 60s a Bishop claimed that the fundamental belief of Christians was shared by non-theists. But if you repudiate Christ and reduce Christianity to ethical beliefs, and a narrow set of them at that, you cannot explain the difference between religions.

A Catholic nun once claimed her religion was the same as the others. He asked her why she was Catholic, then, and she said it was due to historical reasons. He then said she was not Catholic because she did not hold the necessary fundamental beliefs.

Q: The problem is not non-application of the Golden Rule, but monopolisation of power/economic resources and their linkage to religion, e.g. Northern Ireland: Protestants are rich. So you shouldn't identify power with a religious group.

A: You need to provide the opportunity for interests to develop, because religious people have non-religious interests. Link these interests across religions. Religion is not the only centre of one's identity.

Q: Religion and ideology intersect, e.g. some Christians are for social justice and some are right wing. At some point could the divisions become between ideologies within religions rather than just across religions?

A: Laws should not be religiously-based. Lord Devlin pointed out that laws in England were Christian in origin, but they were not currently justified by Christian arguments.

Q: There're Muslims from South Asia and Buddhists from Sri Lanka. Indians in Singapore are diverse.

In spiritual humanism, people increase their areas of faith. There's a trend to atheism. Militant atheism is almost a faith.

It's easier to find common ground in the Abrahamic faiths. We should avoid strife. Dialogue needs authenticity.

A: We should allow religious differences in ideas, but regulate their context to avoid conflict. Don't let aside ideas on who is intrinsically right or wrong.

Popper said that ideas are our troops. They can die, but we survive. We kill others' ideas, but not them.