One morning this week, my editor pulled all of the interns into his office, and proceeded to ask us this question. Are you a Singaporean first, then a Chinese person, then a religious person, or is the order something that changes according to the situation?
And while he was engaging us in this discussion, it quickly became evident that some people were very religiously devout, to the extent that religion came before their identity as Singaporeans or Chinese. One of the interns brought up the example of how she would not offer joss sticks to her deceased grandfather because simply doing so was against her religious beliefs, and she would not compromise on her stand.
When the editor pointed out that offering joss sticks was simply an act of respect rather than a full-on subscription to the religion, she simply said that she would not wish to do something that would set a bad precedent in her religious community. When she was then asked to consult her pastor on whether such an act could be allowed on the grounds that it was not a form of worship, rather just simply a traditional Chinese rite, she said her pastor was open minded but she preferred not to debate it.
It was an example that showed how our youth are still not secure or knowledgeable enough in their religion to challenge it, preferring to let people in authority dictate the terms of their faith. I personally am of the opinion that one should challenge all aspects of a religion that one chooses to subscribe, because ultimately, a faith is something between yourself and God, and when you let someone else do the interpretation for you, the danger is that the person chooses to manipulate you, or simply force their own interpretation on you for their own purposes in the name of God.
Cynical perhaps, but I also find that when one debates the finer points of a faith, one becomes more secure, and able to explain these same finer points to another, which makes their case for their belief in one's faith more convincing. If I were to ask Muslims why they do not eat pork, or Christians on why they have pagan symbols like Christmas trees in their festivals, how many of them can actually give me a convincing answer according to the tenets of their faiths?
Debating a faith and becoming knowledgeable in it also makes one better at putting down false prophets, who often borrow the might and influence of the church to push their own selfish agendas.
Religion is something that is open to interpretation, yet fixed on archaic rules, often opaque and not open to debate because of subtle sensitivities mixed in with the emotions associated with religious fervour. Due to its nature, many brands of religion often surface, and the dominant brand is often one that is subscribed to because it has a powerful political or religious lobby behind it, as a look at history will quickly tell you. A good example would be the brand of Islam practiced in the Arab states, Wahabism, which is subscribed to by the Saudi state, the most powerful and influential of the Arab emirates.
So it brings the question of, in a certain period of time, which brand of a religion will be dominant? The more hardline and fundamental in times of crisis, or the more moderate in times of peace? Because people did not debate their faiths enough, or engage in a greater understanding of other faiths, the religious fervour and panic after the 911 attacks resulted in neo-conservatives seizing upon the fear of people to invade terrorists that were fuelled by "Islamic fundamentalism", when the real cause of the war is quickly becoming apparent as another type of fuel altogether, the crude black one that comes out of the ground.
There have been efforts to bridge that divide, with dialogues and inter-faith conventions set up. However, in the Straits Times earlier this week, there was an article on whether inter-faith religious dialogue was a farce, a matter of preaching to the converted, because the people attending these sessions tended to be more moderate. More worryingly, the dialogue at such conferences often skirts thorny issues, lacking any real depth, as prolonged discussion on how religions can co-exist while remaining true to their own faiths is not something that can be covered in a single dialogue, and faiths often pay lip-service to suggestions, promising to consider them but doing little to implement them.
And it is very worrying, because in secular Singapore, fault lines lie across the societal fabric, and the lack of discussion does not mean they don't exist, simply that they lie dormant waiting for the right incident to inflame them. Legislation is all fine and good when the judiciary and public institutions are in good working order, but in times of crisis when resources are truly tested, will they stand up to the same standards in defusing racial tensions? Bear in mind that sometimes, leaders in government are not secular either, even though they are elected to a secular system, and you see where problems might arise.
And in Singapore, the fault lines are well known, just not talked about. A friend of mine today pointed out that the Malay race is still not trusted within sensitive institutions in the military because for them, their religious loyalties may cause them to side with fellow Muslims rather than Singapore's cause in times of war. However, I believe that such loyalties are present in all the Abrahamic faiths, namely Christianity, Catholicism, Judaism, and Islam.
Why is it that we judge Muslims as having a conflict between the interests of the country and their religion, and yet not paint the other similar faiths with the same brush? Why is it that we judge them as being less able to make a rationalised decision as to which identity they choose to be according to the situation, when many Muslims I know are brilliant, moderate and extremely rational people?
It is fault lines like these that need to be debated and talked about, because pretending the problem doesn't exist is like having an ostrich with its head in the sand, unable to see the lion sneaking up on it.
A UN Special Rapporteur, Mr Githu Muigai, visited Singapore recently, and when he left, he made several comments on contemporary forms of racism, racial discrimination, xenophobia and related intolerance. While we do need to look carefully at his comments, because after all, he is a foreigner and not familiar with the more subtle aspects of our social mix, I disagreed with this statement from the Foreign Ministry.
"In the course of his press conference this afternoon Mr Muigai referred to restrictions in our laws such as the Penal Code and the Sedition Act and expressed the opinion that they may not as useful today as forty-five years ago. He called for greater openness in the public discussion of sensitive issues.
"Here we must emphatically disagree with Mr Muigai. Race, language and religion will always be sensitive issues in Singapore. This does not mean that they cannot be discussed, but a balance must always be struck between free expression and preservation of racial and religious harmony.
"This balance is only for the Singapore government to determine because only the Singapore government bears the responsibility should things go wrong. The UN bears no such responsibility and we see no reason to take risks for the sake of an abstract principle. We believe most Singaporeans agree with the government's approach."
How could they just claim that most Singaporeans agree with their approach? Did they ask us? While I agree that Singapore bears a "responsibility" to not inflame racial tensions, why are they so convinced that things will "go wrong" just because of a few debates? Do they really think that we are unable to think for ourselves, that good sense will not prevail despite the high level of education among the Singaporean citizenry? How long more do they want to continue spoonfeeding us the right way to think?
Free expression is not simply an "abstract principle", but a way to help people to think for themselves. If you don't have an opinion, it means you are not thinking. When you are not thinking or asking questions, you don't know enough to care. When that becomes too common, you get what you sowed - political apathy.
Who are you first, a citizen, before a member of your race and faith, or is your race or faith something that carries more weight than being a member of the citizenry? We are a young nation, lacking a strong national identity. Without debate, we might find it difficult to tell people why we identify ourselves as Singaporean, beyond the fact that we love our food, which is something any new immigrant can tell you.