This incident, in the case of Amy Cheong and her infamous post on Facebook about void deck weddings, provide an opportunity. First off, it is easy to bay for blood. "Sack her!" many demanded. "Send her to jail!" Even I felt a strange, unexplainable desire to see the Sedition Act used again - something I had to give some thought about. Our reactions baying for blood is not justice, nor is it merciful, and hardly humble at all. After all, like what some have pointed out (and quoted from Avenue Q which is just in town) - everyone is a little bit racist. We have to remember justice and legality do not mean the same thing. I personally think that the law is unhelpful - punishing someone for making a racist remark only drives racism into hiding. Some people have commented that Amy Cheong was stupid in making those remarks of Facebook. Does that mean that if she made those remarks offline, in front of people who agreed with her, that makes her remarks ok? We need to have open conversations about how racism if we are to deal with these deep seated ideas. Very often, these values are passed down to us from our seniors and our peers. Just because we may have friends of (even good friends!) other races does not mean that we cannot, at times, make racist comments. Just like having gay and lesbian friends doesn't mean someone is not homophobic, or having women friends (and even a wife) doesn't mean someone will not say something that is sexist.

One thing I have learnt is this - if we ever are to grow and mature as a people, we need to address issues and attack the issues, rather than addressing people and attacking people. I don't know Amy Cheong. I don't know if she was complaining because she was nursing her baby, and the noise is preventing her baby from resting. Everything - really everything - is based on assumptions. The idea that she is elitist, that she is privileged, are all based on assumptions. There may be other issues that are really bothering her, and the noise from the void deck wedding just triggered her off.

Instead of calling her names, perhaps we need to address the problem itself. Can we be more tolerant of others, who may be different from us? Is it possible to feel joyful with those celebrating their wedding, instead of griping about the noise? Chinese funerals are often noisy too, and especially at night when the rituals are conducted. How do those in the neighbourhood (and even the police) handle the noise? They empathize. They mourn with those who mourn. Could we be more tolerant and understanding of the different predicaments people are in? And if we are not able to understand, can we enter into conversation with the other person to find out more, instead of calling the police, or resorting to violence or complaining to some authority.

What is the issue here? One thing that is evident is that there is a disturbing trend emerging in Singapore. There is a sense of entitlement. Is it emerging from how a generation has been brought up? There was a time when children shared their toys. As Singapore grew more affluent, to stop children from fighting over toys, many parents take the easy solution - buy each child a toy. No need to share their toys, no need to fight over their toys. But I wonder if there is a lost learning opportunity here. So now we have children with a sense of entitlement. What kind of adults will they grow up to be?

Some children do not realize that while they get to have their own toys, there are those who do not grow up in as privileged a background. Not only do they have to share what they have, very often, they don't even have toys to play with. They have to imagine. They have to make use of what they have - whether it is using paper to make aeroplanes, or kitchen utensils to play masak masak. They don't have parents who can afford remote control aeroplanes or a toy kitchen. Children need to be taught that having toys (or having better toys) - what they have - doesn't mean that they are in any way better than the children who don't. And not having something doesn't mean they are any less. This is the problem in our consumerist culture - we are taught the exact opposite. Advertising, marketing all tell us we are not good enough until we have whatever they are trying to sell to us. I hope that one day, we will ban all advertising that is directed at children.

No, calling someone a racist, a homophobe, a sexist, a elitist won't change them. But pointing out to them how they are doing is racist, homophobic, sexist or elitist would at least help begin a conversation and hopefully a journey of transformation. And no, firing her would not solve the problem.

Miak Siew is the Executive Pastor at the Free Community Church. This article was first published on his website.

Still, the unease does not go away. There is something there, in the underbelly of our society. There are signs of this in recent times. So far, our response is to condemn such behaviour, bay for some blood to be spilt, voice how we embrace our diversity, and move on - until the next ugly episode blows up.

Race is something which we have been taught – nah, beaten into our consciousness – by the Government never to even talk about, or question, or to raise issues with regards to it. Each race will take care of its own and its own problems. We thus have the ethnic self-help groups. Everyone stays in his own corner, take care of his own. The others should not intervene. This is how we deal with race and religious matters. Keep them separate, keep them tucked away. Label them as racial issues and everyone gets the signal to keep their heads down, their tongues tied and their eyes closed, along with their minds. And then when the next Amy Cheong incident happens, we regurgitate the learned reaction.

And so we grew to be ultra-sensitive whenever someone even whispers anything remotely racist or racially sensitive. We have not matured to see that sometimes the best way to handle such matters is, in fact, to take the opportunity to talk, to discuss, to inform, to correct, to enlighten. As we’ve been taught, we prefer not to engage, but to bury – get the government to step in with its clenched fist, make a police report and let’s see blood spill. That will teach everyone how to behave. We haven’t gotten very far from the big stick-wielding society of the past.

But are we ready to talk about race?

That is a question which no one can answer, actually. So it is a red herring. The real question is: should we not give ourselves a chance to talk about race issues? I think we should and we can.

Early in September, we did just that. Thanks to the Singapore Democratic Party (SDP). Its forum, titled “The future of Singapore - Do Malays have a part?”, saw an honest, open and passionate exchange of views between the panellists and audience members, which were made up of people of different races. It was indeed an historic event. But more than that, it showed that we need to give ourselves a chance to discuss and talk openly about what concerns our people, no matter what races they may be.

It was also telling, to me, that the authorities had tried to scuttle the event, insisting with the organisers that a permit was required for it. Thank goodness that good sense prevailed and the forum went ahead.

While the Government is concerned, and rightly so, about the potential fall-out if views on such matters were to be openly and honestly shared, it should not also mean that it is better to bury them.

So, while we may comfort ourselves that the Amy Cheong episode is “an isolated case”, the truth is that the underlying perception which she apparently held is not hers alone. Indeed, there have been whispers among some quarters that the Malay community is being marginalised, discriminated against and looked down on by the rest of our society. And that the influx of foreigners – especially the folks from China and India – has further marginalised the Malay community.

Do we want these views to simmer underneath?

Ms Cheong’s views, contrary to what the prime minister feels, are not an isolated case, in my opinion. Hers is just an accidental, if you will, expression of what lies underneath. And such perceptions and views, erroneous as they are, are nonetheless being held by not a few.

What then are we to do?

Well, the suggestions are not new. There has to be a fundamental mindset shift – among those in authority, especially – towards the minority communities here in Singapore, especially towards the Malays. But how do we do this? For one, policies which discriminate or are seen to discriminate, or which are distrustful of the Malays need to be relooked.

An example is the policy towards them in the Singapore Armed Forces. Second, the ethnic quota system adopted and practised by the HDB. We could also consider abolishing the ethnic self-help groups and integrate them into one which caters to all, as Singaporeans. We could stop the practice of highlighting the race of students who do well in schools. When you tell everyone a student is the first president scholar in 40 years, you’re also sending a subtle message that the Malays can produce only one scholar in 40 years because “they are not as smart as the other races.” Worse still is for the Minister in Charge of Muslim Affairs to say, with regards to the president scholar, that his “achievement shows it is possible for the Malay-Muslim community to produce talented individuals.” Why should this surprise anyone, or even be brought up? Again, the subtle, unconscious message is that the Malay community is somehow deficient so much so that we have to highlight these achievements of theirs not because they are Singaporeans but because they are Malays. Why do we not do the same for the majority Chinese Singaporeans?

We should consider removing the GRC system in our political system. As expressed by a panellist at the SDP forum, some may have a lower regard or respect for minority-race MPs because of the group representation constituency (GRC) system through which they become MPs. Malay MPs, he says, are seen as riding on or needing to ride on the coattails of other more capable non-Malay candidates to help them into Parliament.

In short, we should not lie to ourselves that incidents like Amy Cheong’s are “isolated” cases. They did not emerge out of a vacuum. And we, as a society, owe it to ourselves to take an honest look at what lies underneath.

But most of all, we owe it to those among us who are not of the majority. Celebrating diversity does not mean we set aside what may be uncomfortable to discuss. It means we embrace that which may be uncomfortable and see if we can address these concerns.

The lesson from Amy Cheong thus is not how we have or can shut-up another insensitive person. The lesson should be that we need to go beyond wielding the big stick, or ride on the lynch mob of public opinion running at a high.

The lesson is that we need to learn how to talk to each other. And while we're in the midst of a National Conversation, is there a better time or opportunity than now to do this?

Prime Minister, when a person says ‘I’m working too hard, I need to slow down,’ it’s probably not because they don’t grasp the reality of the challenges we face, or just want to slack, it’s because they are burning out.

And considering how hard we work, our level of productivity is disproportionately low. This issue is nothing new. It has been swirling around for ages, most recently heated up again by debates over low wages and low birth rate.

The factors that hinder our productivity have been well aired: inefficient systems, too much administrative work, poorly scoped out jobs, ineffective management approaches, budgets that are too cheap—and a clock-watching work ethic that pressures people to linger in the workplace, even if their work is done, just to be seen in the workplace, because that somehow is supposed to mean that they are better employees, even if they are really on Facebook.

A person who leaves ‘on the dot’ is viewed as leaving ‘early’ in some organisations - so time-keeping at work becomes about proving your worth and loyalty by working overtime for the sake of it. Which of course completely misses the point.

So, no, I don’t think we need to work harder. But we definitely need to work better and smarter, and dispense with the outdated parts of our work culture. We want value and quality - good ideas, good attitudes, results, motivation - not just sheer labour and servitude.

Performance needs to be calibrated so that a person’s contribution is measured by the standard of what they do, and not just how close they have kept their nose to the grindstone.

And we need to trust our workers. Trust that they are essentially responsible, professional people who will do their job and take some pride in it. If they’re not, get rid of them. But don’t hire someone and then treat them like a five year old. Because if that’s how a person needs to be managed, then why were they hired in the first place? They’re not someone you want on your team.

Working smarter and creating a smarter work culture can go a long way to help Singapore face the tough times that may lie ahead - and be good for society too. The average worker will produce better stuff, function at a higher level, and achieve more with less - which should make us better competitors in the corporate world, and leave us with more time for the important things in life, like our families.

So please don’t tell an already stretched-thin and wage-depressed workforce to work harder. We’d do better to focus our attention on how to help our workers improve the quality of their working life, so they work better, last longer and are better positioned to rise to the challenges ahead.

So, while decriminalising employers who fail to buy medical insurance premium for workers appears to short-change workers, however, Mr Tan clarified in the same speech that such administrative infringement may yet attract a jail term as well for the "failure to bear the cost of upkeep and maintenance of Work Permit holders, including medical treatment".  This is indeed reassuring.

Such negligence by errant employers when workers fall ill or suffer injuries inevitably result in loss of man hours and lower productivity, in addition to adverse effects on the morale and well-being of the workers.  Unlike Singaporeans, foreign workers do not have subsidised medical care and healthcare benefits and when they have fully utilised their insurance coverage, they are left vulnerable. HealthServe seesk to meet this gap by providing basic medical services at nominal rates.

Secondly, it is felt that the maximum fine of $6,000 imposed on persons involved in the illegal importation of workers are grossly disproportionate relative to the huge profits syndicates make.

Syndicate leaders are essentially businessmen who take risks for profits.  Based on anecdotal accounts, foreign workers each pay between S$6,000 to S$10,000 to obtain employment in Singapore.

Assuming an average of ten workers, syndicates probably make profits in the range of $50,000 to $90,000 a month.

Illegal importation causes harm to many foreign workers who are deceived into incurring onerous debts.  Their passports are retained unlawfully the moment they arrive.  They are subject to psychological abuse in the form of harassment and because of fear of flouting local laws willingly submit to living and working in slave-like conditions under unwarranted threats of severe criminal punishment.

Thirdly, the presumption clause for submitting a forged or false certificate and the onus on workers to prove their innocence, does not have a harmful and abhorrent effect on society and hence, unjustifiable.

Common sense tells us that responsible employers would do due diligence in assessing the authenticity of the educational certificates submitted by the worker or his agent as they are running legitimate businesses and could ill-afford to hire workers with dubious educational backgrounds.

In the case of labour trafficking, foreign workers who apply for employment through agencies is likely (if they are aware of such forgery) to be under duress, lied to or placed under unconscionable pressure to allow the agency or employer to proceed with the work permit application.  To be sure, submitting of forged certificates is an act that should not be condoned.

There have been anecdotes of workers hired for simple service jobs who later discovered that their agents had submitted post-graduate certificates without their knowledge.  In these cases, it should have been obvious to the employer that the agent or the worker has forged certificates.

In fact, HealthServe has helped a Nepalese worker caught in such an unfortunate quandary.  A Masters degree was submitted without his knowledge to apply for an "S" pass but he worked in an HDB coffee shop slogging 18 hours daily until his employer owed six months salary arrears. After he reported his employer to the MOM, he was barred from having a temporary work pass permit as he is not from an approved source country.

He was denied access to dignified work.  He could not recover any money despite the court ruling in his favour.  He had no money to send home. All his dreams of providing for his family were shattered.  He went home a frustrated and broken man, empty-handed. [Read the story here: How the system failed this worker.]

Presumptions may be defended, as in the Misuse of Drugs Act, on the grounds that the misuse of drugs has an abhorrent effect on society while, on the other hand, the submitting of forged certificates clearly do not.  Besides, by reason of parity against crimes such as rape or murder where such presumptions do not exist, it is unreasonable to have a presumption for a less morally repugnant offence.  The said presumption is therefore unjustified.

Furthermore, it is unlikely that such a presumption would be a deterrent because in reality, foreign workers would not have known of or understood its significance.  Innocent foreign workers might not be linguistically able to explain the circumstances of their employment application. The outcome would then be a high rate of questionable convictions.

It is important for the MOM therefore, to exercise discretion from prosecuting cases where the intent of forgery is not manifestly clear, or where strong mitigating factors are present.  At the same time, the MOM needs to recognise that for many of the low-income foreign workers, the circumstances of their employment are tainted with fraud, duress or pressure from various other sources.  More often than not, the worker is the victim in a much larger, oppressive scheme.

The writer is involved in accessing and developing community health resources for vulnerable migrants, disadvantaged local poor and needy.

This incident, in the case of Amy Cheong and her infamous post on Facebook about void deck weddings, provide an opportunity. First off, it is easy to bay for blood. "Sack her!" many demanded. "Send her to jail!" Even I felt a strange, unexplainable desire to see the Sedition Act used again - something I had to give some thought about. Our reactions baying for blood is not justice, nor is it merciful, and hardly humble at all. After all, like what some have pointed out (and quoted from Avenue Q which is just in town) - everyone is a little bit racist. We have to remember justice and legality do not mean the same thing. I personally think that the law is unhelpful - punishing someone for making a racist remark only drives racism into hiding. Some people have commented that Amy Cheong was stupid in making those remarks of Facebook. Does that mean that if she made those remarks offline, in front of people who agreed with her, that makes her remarks ok? We need to have open conversations about how racism if we are to deal with these deep seated ideas. Very often, these values are passed down to us from our seniors and our peers. Just because we may have friends of (even good friends!) other races does not mean that we cannot, at times, make racist comments. Just like having gay and lesbian friends doesn't mean someone is not homophobic, or having women friends (and even a wife) doesn't mean someone will not say something that is sexist.

One thing I have learnt is this - if we ever are to grow and mature as a people, we need to address issues and attack the issues, rather than addressing people and attacking people. I don't know Amy Cheong. I don't know if she was complaining because she was nursing her baby, and the noise is preventing her baby from resting. Everything - really everything - is based on assumptions. The idea that she is elitist, that she is privileged, are all based on assumptions. There may be other issues that are really bothering her, and the noise from the void deck wedding just triggered her off.

Instead of calling her names, perhaps we need to address the problem itself. Can we be more tolerant of others, who may be different from us? Is it possible to feel joyful with those celebrating their wedding, instead of griping about the noise? Chinese funerals are often noisy too, and especially at night when the rituals are conducted. How do those in the neighbourhood (and even the police) handle the noise? They empathize. They mourn with those who mourn. Could we be more tolerant and understanding of the different predicaments people are in? And if we are not able to understand, can we enter into conversation with the other person to find out more, instead of calling the police, or resorting to violence or complaining to some authority.

What is the issue here? One thing that is evident is that there is a disturbing trend emerging in Singapore. There is a sense of entitlement. Is it emerging from how a generation has been brought up? There was a time when children shared their toys. As Singapore grew more affluent, to stop children from fighting over toys, many parents take the easy solution - buy each child a toy. No need to share their toys, no need to fight over their toys. But I wonder if there is a lost learning opportunity here. So now we have children with a sense of entitlement. What kind of adults will they grow up to be?

Some children do not realize that while they get to have their own toys, there are those who do not grow up in as privileged a background. Not only do they have to share what they have, very often, they don't even have toys to play with. They have to imagine. They have to make use of what they have - whether it is using paper to make aeroplanes, or kitchen utensils to play masak masak. They don't have parents who can afford remote control aeroplanes or a toy kitchen. Children need to be taught that having toys (or having better toys) - what they have - doesn't mean that they are in any way better than the children who don't. And not having something doesn't mean they are any less. This is the problem in our consumerist culture - we are taught the exact opposite. Advertising, marketing all tell us we are not good enough until we have whatever they are trying to sell to us. I hope that one day, we will ban all advertising that is directed at children.

No, calling someone a racist, a homophobe, a sexist, a elitist won't change them. But pointing out to them how they are doing is racist, homophobic, sexist or elitist would at least help begin a conversation and hopefully a journey of transformation. And no, firing her would not solve the problem.

Miak Siew is the Executive Pastor at the Free Community Church. This article was first published on his website.

So a flat owned by a Chinese must be sold to another Chinese; Indian to Indian; Malay to Malay  - if “the ethnic proportion or SPR [Singapore Permanent Resident] quota or both have reached the block/neighbourhood limit, [the] buyer will not be allowed to buy a flat which will lead to an increase in that ethnic proportion and/or SPR quota.” (HDB website.) This ensures that Chinese/Malays/Indians don’t gravitate towards each other and form their own neighbourhoods because god knows what will happen when people of the same race come together.

And because this policy says that the racial quotas of HDB estates must reflect the overall ethnic proportions of our population—which is majority Chinese—it also means that every single HDB estate in Singapore becomes, in the words of some, ‘a Chinese enclave’; which presents a load of racial issues of its own—especially if you are not Chinese.

If you ask me, this is awfully racist.

Clearly we can’t be trusted to live as civilized citizens within our own communities; because we’ll plot, scheme, poison each other’s minds and start riots. And clearly all of Singapore’s riots in the past—which led to the setting up of EIP—were due to people’s race and ethnicity; and nothing to do with the politics or social injustices of the time. Or so it seems.

This policy assumes negative traits of people based solely on their race; and that the problems that stem from ghettos (re: enclaves) populated mainly by people of a single race are a result of their race, not social, economic or political problems.

So as a result we have race-less HDB estates, where different races live next door to each other, but don’t really integrate; and who have to keep their cultural practices mainly to themselves because to express them openly might be to annoy their non-Chinese/Malay/Indian neighbour. And, as the Amy incident illustrates, people do get annoyed sometimes.

A Singaporean theatre director I once interviewed protested against this, saying that real multiculturalism happens when different communities are allowed to come together in a natural, organic way. This might mean living in their own neighbourhoods, where they have their own businesses, schools and places of worship. Where they express and celebrate their cultures—their food, their music, their festivals, their languages and dress—with all the sounds, tastes and smells in their full glory, spilling into shared spaces or onto the streets. Like in Little India; or the Chinatowns in many other parts of the world.

And that’s ok.

Integration doesn’t have to mean that different races all have to live in same block of flats. It can mean different neighbourhoods co-existing. It doesn’t have to mean we tone down our cultures and have public spaces that are neutral or bland—because that is not ‘harmony’, that is sterilization. Integration can mean each community having spaces to call its own, where they can cook up a storm or have mega-weddings knowing that their neighbours are of the same ilk.

As radical as this idea might sound in Singapore now, this was in fact exactly how we lived for well over a hundred years—in peace and harmony, no less. The Chinese in Chinatown, the Indians in Serangoon, the Malays and Arabs in Kampong Glam, the Eurasians and Peranakans in Katong. Different communities had their neighbourhoods, and everyone more or less got along and even helped each other out.

The instability we experienced in the pre- and post-independence periods was very painful but in the bigger picture, quite brief; and should not invalidate the way different races lived in harmony for many, many years before that. And, like I mentioned, the strife was largely due to the unique political situation of that time, and should not be blamed on different races not being able to get along.

This is not to romanticize the past or say racial tensions and sensitivities never existed; it’s to point to a model of multiculturalism and racial harmony that is more authentic and truer to the way ethnic communities live, function and thrive.

I would love to see a Malay HDB estate, a Chinese HDB estate, an Indian HDB estate. That, for me, would be what makes us truly Singaporean.

The last I saw her in person was 2006 in Johor Bahru at the Hyatt Hotel. Due to her frail health, she had since decided not to trouble herself with any journey outside Singapore. In her usual jovial self, she warned me back then not to attend her funeral. It was then my 30th anniversary of exile in the UK. She was then 96 years old, and it was obvious that she did not foresee any political changes in her lifetime to enable me to return to the land of my birth. How could I contradict her observation?

Only in extreme exceptional circumstance would a mother warn her own flesh and blood not to attend her death bed, and she was no ordinary mother. When I was imprisoned in Singapore following a politically inspired frame-up charge in 1974, she responded by going to the University of Singapore Students’ Union to make a donation.

Her passing away is an occasion to celebrate as she had informed me since her late 80s that she prayed each day for Buddha to take her away peacefully while she was still in good health. Her wishes are now fulfilled.

She is a great mother, grandmother and great-grandmother. Regrettably, I am unable to send her off on her last journey, although she delivered me to this world.

My wife Chew Beng Lan, my son Xialun and I light these two red candles to celebrate her life.

Tan Wah Piow

9th Oct 2012 . London

---------------------

Chinese translation:

点燃红蜡烛

纪念我的母亲纪锦珍

我的母亲纪锦珍女士于2012年10月9号在新加坡平静而祥和的安然离世，享年102岁。

感谢先进的现代技术，使我在她生命的最后几天，得以见证了她躺在医院里，亲戚们环绕在她的床边的情形。虽然她可以紧紧握住她的其他孩子们，儿媳妇们和孙儿们的手，但是却无法握住我的手。她希望通过摆在她面前的Skype传输的图像能够看到我。当我叫了一声“妈妈，我是华彪，我很抱歉，我不能在那里。”的时候，她睁开了她的眼睛。

2006年在柔佛州新山的凯悦酒店里，我最后一次见到了我的母亲。由于她年事已高，所以决定不再到新加坡之外的地方去旅行。以在她一贯特立独行，享受自我的性格，她当时就警告我不要参加她的葬礼。那是我在英国流亡的30周年之际。她当时九十有六，已是鲍背之年，显然她没有见到任何政治形势的变化，能够让我在她的有生之年可以回到我出生的那片土地。我又怎么能违背她明察秋毫的警示？

只有在极端特殊的情况下，一个母亲才会警告她自己的亲生骨肉，不要前去参加她的葬礼。她不是一个普通的母亲。1974年当我在新加坡遭到了政治陷害身陷囹圄的时候，她身体力行，到新加坡大学学生会去作出捐赠。

她的逝世是一个庆祝满足了她的愿望的机会。在她八十多岁的耄耋之年她就告诉过我，她每天祷告，愿佛主能够让她在她福寿安康的时候平安的驾鹤仙去。现在她的愿望已经得到了满足。

她是一个伟大的母亲，祖母和曾祖母。遗憾的是，虽然她把我带到了这个世界，我却不能送她她最后一程。

我的妻子周孟兰，我的儿子夏伦和我一起点燃这两柱红色的蜡烛，谨以此庆祝她的一生。

陈华彪  于伦敦    2012年10月10日

While the content of the MHA's statement adds nothing new, what is surprising is the stance it appears to adopt by taking upon itself the apparent insult of being disrespected on behalf of the Archbishop when the latter has not even mentioned anything like that at all.

It is surprising how the MHA's statement is akin to what a Catholic Church Council might make to protect the honour and reputation of His Grace and then follow it up with a rebuke to the recalcitrant for attempting to drag the Church into sensitive matters of a political nature.

This statement would not be unusual if it was made by the Church Council.  By doing so, one wonders if the MHA is keeping religion and politics separate?  Or, has the MHA overstepped its boundary unwittingly by assuming an ecclesiastical representation it should not have done?

Still, the unease does not go away. There is something there, in the underbelly of our society. There are signs of this in recent times. So far, our response is to condemn such behaviour, bay for some blood to be spilt, voice how we embrace our diversity, and move on - until the next ugly episode blows up.

Race is something which we have been taught – nah, beaten into our consciousness – by the Government never to even talk about, or question, or to raise issues with regards to it. Each race will take care of its own and its own problems. We thus have the ethnic self-help groups. Everyone stays in his own corner, take care of his own. The others should not intervene. This is how we deal with race and religious matters. Keep them separate, keep them tucked away. Label them as racial issues and everyone gets the signal to keep their heads down, their tongues tied and their eyes closed, along with their minds. And then when the next Amy Cheong incident happens, we regurgitate the learned reaction.

And so we grew to be ultra-sensitive whenever someone even whispers anything remotely racist or racially sensitive. We have not matured to see that sometimes the best way to handle such matters is, in fact, to take the opportunity to talk, to discuss, to inform, to correct, to enlighten. As we’ve been taught, we prefer not to engage, but to bury – get the government to step in with its clenched fist, make a police report and let’s see blood spill. That will teach everyone how to behave. We haven’t gotten very far from the big stick-wielding society of the past.

But are we ready to talk about race?

That is a question which no one can answer, actually. So it is a red herring. The real question is: should we not give ourselves a chance to talk about race issues? I think we should and we can.

Early in September, we did just that. Thanks to the Singapore Democratic Party (SDP). Its forum, titled “The future of Singapore - Do Malays have a part?”, saw an honest, open and passionate exchange of views between the panellists and audience members, which were made up of people of different races. It was indeed an historic event. But more than that, it showed that we need to give ourselves a chance to discuss and talk openly about what concerns our people, no matter what races they may be.

It was also telling, to me, that the authorities had tried to scuttle the event, insisting with the organisers that a permit was required for it. Thank goodness that good sense prevailed and the forum went ahead.

While the Government is concerned, and rightly so, about the potential fall-out if views on such matters were to be openly and honestly shared, it should not also mean that it is better to bury them.

So, while we may comfort ourselves that the Amy Cheong episode is “an isolated case”, the truth is that the underlying perception which she apparently held is not hers alone. Indeed, there have been whispers among some quarters that the Malay community is being marginalised, discriminated against and looked down on by the rest of our society. And that the influx of foreigners – especially the folks from China and India – has further marginalised the Malay community.

Do we want these views to simmer underneath?

Ms Cheong’s views, contrary to what the prime minister feels, are not an isolated case, in my opinion. Hers is just an accidental, if you will, expression of what lies underneath. And such perceptions and views, erroneous as they are, are nonetheless being held by not a few.

What then are we to do?

Well, the suggestions are not new. There has to be a fundamental mindset shift – among those in authority, especially – towards the minority communities here in Singapore, especially towards the Malays. But how do we do this? For one, policies which discriminate or are seen to discriminate, or which are distrustful of the Malays need to be relooked.

An example is the policy towards them in the Singapore Armed Forces. Second, the ethnic quota system adopted and practised by the HDB. We could also consider abolishing the ethnic self-help groups and integrate them into one which caters to all, as Singaporeans. We could stop the practice of highlighting the race of students who do well in schools. When you tell everyone a student is the first president scholar in 40 years, you’re also sending a subtle message that the Malays can produce only one scholar in 40 years because “they are not as smart as the other races.” Worse still is for the Minister in Charge of Muslim Affairs to say, with regards to the president scholar, that his “achievement shows it is possible for the Malay-Muslim community to produce talented individuals.” Why should this surprise anyone, or even be brought up? Again, the subtle, unconscious message is that the Malay community is somehow deficient so much so that we have to highlight these achievements of theirs not because they are Singaporeans but because they are Malays. Why do we not do the same for the majority Chinese Singaporeans?

We should consider removing the GRC system in our political system. As expressed by a panellist at the SDP forum, some may have a lower regard or respect for minority-race MPs because of the group representation constituency (GRC) system through which they become MPs. Malay MPs, he says, are seen as riding on or needing to ride on the coattails of other more capable non-Malay candidates to help them into Parliament.

In short, we should not lie to ourselves that incidents like Amy Cheong’s are “isolated” cases. They did not emerge out of a vacuum. And we, as a society, owe it to ourselves to take an honest look at what lies underneath.

But most of all, we owe it to those among us who are not of the majority. Celebrating diversity does not mean we set aside what may be uncomfortable to discuss. It means we embrace that which may be uncomfortable and see if we can address these concerns.

The lesson from Amy Cheong thus is not how we have or can shut-up another insensitive person. The lesson should be that we need to go beyond wielding the big stick, or ride on the lynch mob of public opinion running at a high.

The lesson is that we need to learn how to talk to each other. And while we're in the midst of a National Conversation, is there a better time or opportunity than now to do this?

Singapore is a multi-religious society. The different religious groups have their own deeply-held beliefs and precepts. While we accept and respect this diversity of religious teachings, we have seen many examples of other countries where religious differences have caused deep social divides and conflict. If one religion pushes hard to have its tenets and views adopted by society at large beyond its own adherents, others will push back, sometimes even harder.

This dynamic is accentuated if a religious group engages in politics, or if a political group uses religion to further its cause. Other religious groups will feel compelled to also enter the political arena to further their own causes or rival claims. Tensions will rise and social harmony can break down.

Hence, we need to maintain a clear line between politics and religion in Singapore. Our politics and policies must serve all Singaporeans, regardless of race, language or religion. The Government must not take sides with any religious group when making policies. If politicians use the religion card for their own political purpose and agenda, and seek to sway voters through religious appeals, it will sow the seeds of division in our society, and undermine the inter-religious and social harmony we have painstakingly built.

To guard against the dangers of mixing politics and religion, Parliament enacted the Maintenance of Religious Harmony Act in 1990. The Act created the Presidential Council for Religious Harmony to help the Government decide on matters pertaining to religious harmony. The current Council is chaired by a retired Supreme Court judge. It comprises members who represent the major religions in Singapore and other members who have distinguished themselves in public service or community relations. Religious representatives form the majority of the Council. Should any individual or group seek to embroil any religious group or use a religious office to further its political agenda, Government will take firm action to protect our religious and social harmony.

Mr Speaker, Sir, religious groups are an important part of our society. They make important contributions to social harmony and nation building. The Government appreciates the positive role of religious groups in our secular state, and their understanding and acceptance of the need to keep religion and politics separate. At the same time, Government understands and respects that religious groups have deeply-held views which they wish to express and to be given due consideration. There are established formal and informal channels for them to do so.

Government and religious leaders meet regularly on public occasions such as community functions, religious events and activities under our national Community Engagement Programme. Government and religious leaders also regularly meet privately, individually or in groups. Both Government and religious leaders know that when sensitive issues arise that they wish to discuss in confidence, they can do so candidly behind closed doors. This approach has worked well. These interactions help to build mutual understanding and trust, and have enabled our religious leaders to become valued and vital partners of the Government in maintaining religious harmony in Singapore.

Mr Laurence Lien (Nominated Member): Sir, I would like to thank the Deputy Prime Minister for his comprehensive answer. I have to declare that I am a Catholic Christian and driven very much by my faith. And it is in this context that I have raised this question. I think we can understand that we live in a multi-religious society and we need to be mindful that religions do not impose their religious tenets and views on the other members of the population. My question is do we see only the downsides of what religious institutions and organisations and religious people can offer? Can we not see them as a resource because most religions do look at the common good, and do want to further the common good in society and work towards achieving that for the nation? Many people are religiously driven and they have views influenced by religion. Can we not harness that a lot more to help us in the work? This sometimes can be perceived to cross over to the political arena because politics is not just about the political regime, choosing political leaders and policies. It is also about shaping the political discourse, influencing the population --

Mr Speaker: Mr Lien, can we keep to the supplementary question, please?

Mr Laurence Lien: Yes, Sir. Can we consider these other aspects that religion and religious institutions can offer?

Mr Teo Chee Hean: Mr Speaker, Sir, first of all, I appreciate Mr Lien’s clear articulation that he feels that politics and religion should be kept separate. If I understood him correctly, that was his opening position. I appreciate that very much because that is the position which the Government takes as well. But we do appreciate the good work that religion does in our society. Mr Lien is a Catholic, and he has declared that. I myself am not Catholic, but my whole family has been educated in Catholic schools, and we appreciate that very much. And the reason is a very simple one – Catholic schools provide good education with good values and they have been able to keep their practice of religion and their mission to provide education quite separately. I have never had an occasion, for example, in Catholic schools where they had tried to convert me, and I appreciate that very much. They teach me what their precepts are, but they have never tried to convert me.

As with all mission schools in Singapore, there is a clear separation between the education mission and what the Ministry of Education supports and funds, and what they are allowed to do in schools with the students. They cannot proselytise to the students. They cannot try to convert them, but they can continue to provide good values education for their students. In schools, we recognise that there are many religious organisations, whether they are Buddhist, Christian or others, and they provide a very useful social function. There is also a divide – a clear line – between education mission, which is for all, and the religious beliefs, precepts and practice which then have to be kept on a separate track.

So, Sir, we certainly do appreciate the contributions that religions make to Singapore. In fact, we encourage that, but we also know that we should keep them separate so that we maintain religious harmony and social harmony in Singapore.

Mr Laurence Lien: Sir, I would like to make a point of clarification. My views are a bit more nuanced. They are not clear, not so black and white. Of course, in certain instances, religion should not cross the boundaries, but my question is for the Deputy Prime Minister to consider that, in some cases, a separation of religion from politics is not entirely reasonable.

Mr Teo Chee Hean: Sir, the position is very clear between that of an individual practising his religion and carrying through the practice of his religion and his beliefs into his own personal decisions. And that is quite different from getting religious groups involved in politics. I think those are two quite different things and that, in fact, as Mr Lien has suggested, is a nuanced position, and not very different from Mr Lien’s. I think we need to keep that separation; otherwise once religious organisations get involved in politics, we then run the danger of having a clash. With many religious groups entering into the political arena, or political groups seeking to use religious groups to further their political agenda, we then begin to have a problem.

Mr Hri Kumar Nair (Bishan-Toa Payoh): Mr Speaker, I declare I am a Catholic as well. I thank the Deputy Prime Minister for his answer. I wonder if I could get some clarification on a recent event. Could the Deputy Prime Minister explain or tell the House whether he had any discussions with the Archbishop on the subject of the event organised by Function 8 and, if so, what transpired during those discussions?

Mr Teo Chee Hean: Mr Speaker, Sir, I will be happy to do so. As I have explained earlier in my reply to Mr Lien, Government leaders meet religious leaders regularly to build mutual understanding and trust. I have met Archbishop Nicholas Chia from time to time over the years and several times since I was appointed as the Minister for Home Affairs last May. Last year, I hosted him and a small group of Catholic leaders for lunch so that I could understand better the issues that concern the Catholic community in Singapore. I also visited the Archbishop in hospital when he unfortunately fractured his leg last August. There was no publicity or fanfare for these meetings. The Archbishop knows that any time he needs to discuss any sensitive issue with me he can see me in private. Likewise, I would have no hesitation to share my concerns honestly and openly with him if I felt the need to do so.

Sir, it was in this spirit that I asked to meet Archbishop Nicholas Chia on 30 May 2012, together with the Chairman of the Presidential Council for Religious Harmony, Mr Goh Joon Seng. I wanted to understand better the context to the Archbishop’s letter to the organisers of an organisation which calls itself F8, which was going to stage a political event scheduled for 2 June at the Speakers’ Corner. I was anxious to avoid any misunderstanding between the Government and the Catholic Church. When we met, I explained my concerns to Archbishop Chia. The Archbishop stated very clearly that the Catholic Church has always maintained a position that it does not wish to be involved in political activities, and that the Church wants to work closely with the Government and does not wish to set itself on a collision path with the Government. I was greatly reassured by the Archbishop’s comments, as they were consistent with his record of service throughout his 11-year tenure as leader of the Catholic Church in Singapore. He has consistently shown that he values religious harmony and appreciates the importance of separating religion and politics in our local context. He has also worked hard to forge inter-religious understanding and harmony, reflecting his strong belief in this fundamental basis of our social harmony. It also became clear from the discussion that, firstly, the Archbishop had intended the letter as a private communication to the F8 organisers. And secondly, on reflection, the Archbishop felt that the letter did not accurately reflect his views on the subject and if used in a manner he did not intend might inadvertently harm our social harmony. Archbishop Chia then decided on the same day to send a second letter to the F8 organisers to withdraw his earlier letter. The F8 organisers acknowledged the Archbishop’s request and, according to the Archbishop, returned him his original letter.

Sir, those who know Archbishop Chia well and the type of person he is, and his contributions to Singapore over the decades, will certainly know that he is not one who would endanger social harmony in Singapore. The position he took in withdrawing the letter was consistent with his words and deeds throughout his leadership of the Catholic Church and as a respected religious leader in Singapore. Mr Goh Joon Seng who was at the meeting, in his capacity as Chairman of the Presidential Council for Religious Harmony, is a retired Supreme Court judge who knows the Archbishop professionally and personally. They have served together on the Presidential Council for Religious Harmony for 10 years and have been friends, I am told, for some 50 years. Mr Goh also is a Catholic himself and he knew that it was not in character for Archbishop Chia to do anything that would entangle the Church in politics.

Sir, although I may not know Archbishop Chia as well as Mr Goh, I have had interactions with him on several occasions. Through my conversations with the Archbishop, we have established mutual understanding and share the desire to respect the religious beliefs of the various communities in Singapore while upholding the wider interests of all Singaporeans and of Singapore.

Mr Speaker: Asst Prof Eugene Tan, last question.

Asst Prof Tan Kheng Boon Eugene (Nominated Member): Sir, I would like to ask the Deputy Prime Minister whether he could clarify on what he means by religious leaders engaging in politics. For example, if a religious group were to take the view that the Government could do more for the poor, would that amount to engaging in politics? We also know of faiths such as Christianity and Islam, which do not draw the distinction between the private and the public realms. I think this could give rise to concerns as to whether there has been a restriction on what people of faith could engage in.

Mr Teo Chee Hean: Mr Speaker, Sir, I think I have tried to answer that question which Asst Prof Eugene Tan has brought up in a different way. It is not very different from the question that Mr Lien has brought up. On an individual basis, individuals in Singapore are free to exercise their political rights as individuals. But when you bring an organisation, like a religious organisation, into politics or when political parties or people with a political agenda start to use religion to further that agenda, then you begin to have a serious problem.

If one religion enters into the political arena in that way, or allows itself to be used in the political arena in that way, then other religions may do so as well, and then we have the possibility of breakdown in social harmony along religious lines. That is very dangerous for society. But as I have said, religious groups do play very important and useful social functions through their social arms. Many of them have charity arms. Many of them run education institutions, welfare homes, old-age homes, and these certainly are very welcomed, and these are expressions of their own beliefs and precepts, and we welcome those. But those need to be kept separate from a political agenda of getting the religious organisation as an organisation involved in a political agenda. And I think Asst Prof Tan can see the difference between the two.

Prime Minister, when a person says ‘I’m working too hard, I need to slow down,’ it’s probably not because they don’t grasp the reality of the challenges we face, or just want to slack, it’s because they are burning out.

And considering how hard we work, our level of productivity is disproportionately low. This issue is nothing new. It has been swirling around for ages, most recently heated up again by debates over low wages and low birth rate.

The factors that hinder our productivity have been well aired: inefficient systems, too much administrative work, poorly scoped out jobs, ineffective management approaches, budgets that are too cheap—and a clock-watching work ethic that pressures people to linger in the workplace, even if their work is done, just to be seen in the workplace, because that somehow is supposed to mean that they are better employees, even if they are really on Facebook.

A person who leaves ‘on the dot’ is viewed as leaving ‘early’ in some organisations - so time-keeping at work becomes about proving your worth and loyalty by working overtime for the sake of it. Which of course completely misses the point.

So, no, I don’t think we need to work harder. But we definitely need to work better and smarter, and dispense with the outdated parts of our work culture. We want value and quality - good ideas, good attitudes, results, motivation - not just sheer labour and servitude.

Performance needs to be calibrated so that a person’s contribution is measured by the standard of what they do, and not just how close they have kept their nose to the grindstone.

And we need to trust our workers. Trust that they are essentially responsible, professional people who will do their job and take some pride in it. If they’re not, get rid of them. But don’t hire someone and then treat them like a five year old. Because if that’s how a person needs to be managed, then why were they hired in the first place? They’re not someone you want on your team.

Working smarter and creating a smarter work culture can go a long way to help Singapore face the tough times that may lie ahead - and be good for society too. The average worker will produce better stuff, function at a higher level, and achieve more with less - which should make us better competitors in the corporate world, and leave us with more time for the important things in life, like our families.

So please don’t tell an already stretched-thin and wage-depressed workforce to work harder. We’d do better to focus our attention on how to help our workers improve the quality of their working life, so they work better, last longer and are better positioned to rise to the challenges ahead.

In fact, a kinder, gentler and more gracious society was the aim of the Goh Chok Tong Government. And before that, a courteous society was the goal of the Lee Kuan Yew administration. The National Courtesy Campaign was started in 1979 and ran till 1997 when it was replaced by the Singapore Kindness Movement.

It has thus been 33 years – and here we are once again talking about building a “kinder society” in 2030. It makes one wonder what has happened to those 33 years of campaign, millions of dollars poured into it, and the numerous man-hours of effort and time accorded to the long-running and ongoing campaign.

But really, as Alex wrote,

“Lawrence Wong may be misreading — underestimating — the mood if he thinks that kindness and graciousness is all there is to our longings. He may think that all it takes is for some way to be found to graft these two attributes onto the already-successful PAP model for Singapore. He cannot be more wrong. It goes much deeper. People want a dismantling of the siege mentality, and the subjugation of economics. The desired measure is not “progress” or GDP growth, but quality of life.”

Indeed, if we fixate ourselves on the superficials of how a kinder society can come about, we would be wasting again our time, effort and resources on chasing a shadow. For undergirding a kind society are principles and beliefs which span the range of diversity in a society.

And it is these principles and beliefs which we should be looking at and talking about in the National Conversation. Sadly, what we have seen so far are superficial discussions on what we want in 18 years. [Ok, I wasn’t among those who took part in the discussions although I was invited to. I can only judge from news reports about them.] Every person I have spoken to so far about this National Conversation has either been negative about it, or is neutral - that is, uninterested. No one has indicated any excitement about this national dialogue, or what has transpired so far with it. And mind you, some of these people are those from the establishment itself.

Let’s put it bluntly. The conversation is boring, uninspiring, stale, superficial and the discussions – so far – look like what school-going children would be asked to do in a classroom. I mean, seriously. Imaginary newspaper headlines trumpeting “bumper crops” from our rooftop farms in 2030? And a kinder society in 2030? Haven’t we been wanting this for 33 years now?

But here’s the thing. If you ask anyone what kind of country they want Singapore to be in 2030, all you will hear are positive visions and ideas. It is all well and good but wouldn’t it be more important to look at the fundamentals which hold our society together, the foundational principles and beliefs we ought to have, rather than specific ideas of what we should have? If we know what principles and beliefs our society should stand on, then the rest of it will be built from that – by the people, bottom-up and not top-down as it has always been, and it seems in danger of continuing to being so.

Here are some of the thing we should instead be talking about:

- Should citizens be accorded inalienable, inviolable, unequivocal rights clearly laid out in our Constitution? What should these be?

- How can our political system be tweaked or changed to better reflect our beliefs expounded in our National Pledge?

- What is society’s role in caring for the less fortunate? What principles and beliefs should inform policies in the social welfare area?

- Do citizens have a right to information? How far should this right extend to? Should we manifest this right in concrete terms by way of a Freedom of Information Act, for example?

- Should we continue to have a media which is monopolised by two government-linked and government-controlled entities?

The point is that there are many more important and fundamental issues we should be looking at. And this is necessarily so if one is talking of what makes a society in 20 years and beyond. Rooftop farms will come and go but the principles which undergird what we do, what we believe and what kind of society we are will remain.

I have been supportive of the National Conversation initiative when it was first announced. However, almost 2 months since then, I am thoroughly disappointed with how it is turning out. This is one of the reasons why I declined the invitation to be involved in the last discussions at the National Library. It would, I thought, be a waste of time. And indeed, from the looks of it, it would have been.

One would tend to agree with Alex – that the PAP is incapable of change. The way the entire National Conversation is being conducted shows that the party is still bent on the superficial and the cosmetic, and is stuck in the old ways of doing things.

The National Conversation seems to be nothing more than a fact-gathering exercise, as filmmaker Martyn See said, for the PAP to craft its next general election manifesto.  It is a view apparently shared by Alex as well.

“As many readers will no doubt have sensed,” Alex wrote, “this ‘national conversation’ that the government has launched is in many ways the first phase of the 2016 election campaign. It is an exercise for the PAP to find out what voters want, so that they have plenty of time to craft a new campaign message.”

It ties in with what Prime Minister Lee said after the general election last year, that his government did not “correctly interpret” ground sentiments feedbacked to it by its own grassroots channels. So, perhaps this National Conversation is the government trying to get “direct” feedback from the people, instead of going through its grassroots channels, lest the ground sentiments be not “correctly interpreted” again.

Some have argued that the conversation is indeed a preparation for the PAP’s 2016 election campaign by pointing to the fact that the PAP has even gone to the length of excluding opposition members from being on its committee, for example.

Whatever it is, National Conversation or not, the PAP Government seems unable to effect the changes which Singapore desperately needs. The Government seems to be heading down the same path as before – and taking Singapore along with it.

I agree with Alex when he said that “a change of leader would be welcome too", come the next elections. In fact, in any other country, if a prime minister were seen to fail in one or two major policies, he would either be asked to resign or would be voted out of office. In Singapore, we have seen major failings in several areas. Singaporeans are familiar with these – immigration, housing, birth rate, income inequality.

Perhaps it is time for us Singaporeans to ask the one question few have dared to ask: Is it time we considered a new leader for our country?

I feel it is.

But we would suggest that a WikiCity.sg scenario need not be the outcome of a collapse of trust in public institutions and the resultant paralysis in government. It can instead be embraced as a positive vision for Singapore.

Read the full article by Donald Low and Cherian George on IPS Commons: http://ipscommons.sg.

So a flat owned by a Chinese must be sold to another Chinese; Indian to Indian; Malay to Malay  - if “the ethnic proportion or SPR [Singapore Permanent Resident] quota or both have reached the block/neighbourhood limit, [the] buyer will not be allowed to buy a flat which will lead to an increase in that ethnic proportion and/or SPR quota.” (HDB website.) This ensures that Chinese/Malays/Indians don’t gravitate towards each other and form their own neighbourhoods because god knows what will happen when people of the same race come together.

And because this policy says that the racial quotas of HDB estates must reflect the overall ethnic proportions of our population—which is majority Chinese—it also means that every single HDB estate in Singapore becomes, in the words of some, ‘a Chinese enclave’; which presents a load of racial issues of its own—especially if you are not Chinese.

If you ask me, this is awfully racist.

Clearly we can’t be trusted to live as civilized citizens within our own communities; because we’ll plot, scheme, poison each other’s minds and start riots. And clearly all of Singapore’s riots in the past—which led to the setting up of EIP—were due to people’s race and ethnicity; and nothing to do with the politics or social injustices of the time. Or so it seems.

This policy assumes negative traits of people based solely on their race; and that the problems that stem from ghettos (re: enclaves) populated mainly by people of a single race are a result of their race, not social, economic or political problems.

So as a result we have race-less HDB estates, where different races live next door to each other, but don’t really integrate; and who have to keep their cultural practices mainly to themselves because to express them openly might be to annoy their non-Chinese/Malay/Indian neighbour. And, as the Amy incident illustrates, people do get annoyed sometimes.

A Singaporean theatre director I once interviewed protested against this, saying that real multiculturalism happens when different communities are allowed to come together in a natural, organic way. This might mean living in their own neighbourhoods, where they have their own businesses, schools and places of worship. Where they express and celebrate their cultures—their food, their music, their festivals, their languages and dress—with all the sounds, tastes and smells in their full glory, spilling into shared spaces or onto the streets. Like in Little India; or the Chinatowns in many other parts of the world.

And that’s ok.

Integration doesn’t have to mean that different races all have to live in same block of flats. It can mean different neighbourhoods co-existing. It doesn’t have to mean we tone down our cultures and have public spaces that are neutral or bland—because that is not ‘harmony’, that is sterilization. Integration can mean each community having spaces to call its own, where they can cook up a storm or have mega-weddings knowing that their neighbours are of the same ilk.

As radical as this idea might sound in Singapore now, this was in fact exactly how we lived for well over a hundred years—in peace and harmony, no less. The Chinese in Chinatown, the Indians in Serangoon, the Malays and Arabs in Kampong Glam, the Eurasians and Peranakans in Katong. Different communities had their neighbourhoods, and everyone more or less got along and even helped each other out.

The instability we experienced in the pre- and post-independence periods was very painful but in the bigger picture, quite brief; and should not invalidate the way different races lived in harmony for many, many years before that. And, like I mentioned, the strife was largely due to the unique political situation of that time, and should not be blamed on different races not being able to get along.

This is not to romanticize the past or say racial tensions and sensitivities never existed; it’s to point to a model of multiculturalism and racial harmony that is more authentic and truer to the way ethnic communities live, function and thrive.

I would love to see a Malay HDB estate, a Chinese HDB estate, an Indian HDB estate. That, for me, would be what makes us truly Singaporean.

Singapore is a multi-religious society. The different religious groups have their own deeply-held beliefs and precepts. While we accept and respect this diversity of religious teachings, we have seen many examples of other countries where religious differences have caused deep social divides and conflict. If one religion pushes hard to have its tenets and views adopted by society at large beyond its own adherents, others will push back, sometimes even harder.

This dynamic is accentuated if a religious group engages in politics, or if a political group uses religion to further its cause. Other religious groups will feel compelled to also enter the political arena to further their own causes or rival claims. Tensions will rise and social harmony can break down.

Hence, we need to maintain a clear line between politics and religion in Singapore. Our politics and policies must serve all Singaporeans, regardless of race, language or religion. The Government must not take sides with any religious group when making policies. If politicians use the religion card for their own political purpose and agenda, and seek to sway voters through religious appeals, it will sow the seeds of division in our society, and undermine the inter-religious and social harmony we have painstakingly built.

To guard against the dangers of mixing politics and religion, Parliament enacted the Maintenance of Religious Harmony Act in 1990. The Act created the Presidential Council for Religious Harmony to help the Government decide on matters pertaining to religious harmony. The current Council is chaired by a retired Supreme Court judge. It comprises members who represent the major religions in Singapore and other members who have distinguished themselves in public service or community relations. Religious representatives form the majority of the Council. Should any individual or group seek to embroil any religious group or use a religious office to further its political agenda, Government will take firm action to protect our religious and social harmony.

Mr Speaker, Sir, religious groups are an important part of our society. They make important contributions to social harmony and nation building. The Government appreciates the positive role of religious groups in our secular state, and their understanding and acceptance of the need to keep religion and politics separate. At the same time, Government understands and respects that religious groups have deeply-held views which they wish to express and to be given due consideration. There are established formal and informal channels for them to do so.

Government and religious leaders meet regularly on public occasions such as community functions, religious events and activities under our national Community Engagement Programme. Government and religious leaders also regularly meet privately, individually or in groups. Both Government and religious leaders know that when sensitive issues arise that they wish to discuss in confidence, they can do so candidly behind closed doors. This approach has worked well. These interactions help to build mutual understanding and trust, and have enabled our religious leaders to become valued and vital partners of the Government in maintaining religious harmony in Singapore.

Mr Laurence Lien (Nominated Member): Sir, I would like to thank the Deputy Prime Minister for his comprehensive answer. I have to declare that I am a Catholic Christian and driven very much by my faith. And it is in this context that I have raised this question. I think we can understand that we live in a multi-religious society and we need to be mindful that religions do not impose their religious tenets and views on the other members of the population. My question is do we see only the downsides of what religious institutions and organisations and religious people can offer? Can we not see them as a resource because most religions do look at the common good, and do want to further the common good in society and work towards achieving that for the nation? Many people are religiously driven and they have views influenced by religion. Can we not harness that a lot more to help us in the work? This sometimes can be perceived to cross over to the political arena because politics is not just about the political regime, choosing political leaders and policies. It is also about shaping the political discourse, influencing the population --

Mr Speaker: Mr Lien, can we keep to the supplementary question, please?

Mr Laurence Lien: Yes, Sir. Can we consider these other aspects that religion and religious institutions can offer?

Mr Teo Chee Hean: Mr Speaker, Sir, first of all, I appreciate Mr Lien’s clear articulation that he feels that politics and religion should be kept separate. If I understood him correctly, that was his opening position. I appreciate that very much because that is the position which the Government takes as well. But we do appreciate the good work that religion does in our society. Mr Lien is a Catholic, and he has declared that. I myself am not Catholic, but my whole family has been educated in Catholic schools, and we appreciate that very much. And the reason is a very simple one – Catholic schools provide good education with good values and they have been able to keep their practice of religion and their mission to provide education quite separately. I have never had an occasion, for example, in Catholic schools where they had tried to convert me, and I appreciate that very much. They teach me what their precepts are, but they have never tried to convert me.

As with all mission schools in Singapore, there is a clear separation between the education mission and what the Ministry of Education supports and funds, and what they are allowed to do in schools with the students. They cannot proselytise to the students. They cannot try to convert them, but they can continue to provide good values education for their students. In schools, we recognise that there are many religious organisations, whether they are Buddhist, Christian or others, and they provide a very useful social function. There is also a divide – a clear line – between education mission, which is for all, and the religious beliefs, precepts and practice which then have to be kept on a separate track.

So, Sir, we certainly do appreciate the contributions that religions make to Singapore. In fact, we encourage that, but we also know that we should keep them separate so that we maintain religious harmony and social harmony in Singapore.

Mr Laurence Lien: Sir, I would like to make a point of clarification. My views are a bit more nuanced. They are not clear, not so black and white. Of course, in certain instances, religion should not cross the boundaries, but my question is for the Deputy Prime Minister to consider that, in some cases, a separation of religion from politics is not entirely reasonable.

Mr Teo Chee Hean: Sir, the position is very clear between that of an individual practising his religion and carrying through the practice of his religion and his beliefs into his own personal decisions. And that is quite different from getting religious groups involved in politics. I think those are two quite different things and that, in fact, as Mr Lien has suggested, is a nuanced position, and not very different from Mr Lien’s. I think we need to keep that separation; otherwise once religious organisations get involved in politics, we then run the danger of having a clash. With many religious groups entering into the political arena, or political groups seeking to use religious groups to further their political agenda, we then begin to have a problem.

Mr Hri Kumar Nair (Bishan-Toa Payoh): Mr Speaker, I declare I am a Catholic as well. I thank the Deputy Prime Minister for his answer. I wonder if I could get some clarification on a recent event. Could the Deputy Prime Minister explain or tell the House whether he had any discussions with the Archbishop on the subject of the event organised by Function 8 and, if so, what transpired during those discussions?

Mr Teo Chee Hean: Mr Speaker, Sir, I will be happy to do so. As I have explained earlier in my reply to Mr Lien, Government leaders meet religious leaders regularly to build mutual understanding and trust. I have met Archbishop Nicholas Chia from time to time over the years and several times since I was appointed as the Minister for Home Affairs last May. Last year, I hosted him and a small group of Catholic leaders for lunch so that I could understand better the issues that concern the Catholic community in Singapore. I also visited the Archbishop in hospital when he unfortunately fractured his leg last August. There was no publicity or fanfare for these meetings. The Archbishop knows that any time he needs to discuss any sensitive issue with me he can see me in private. Likewise, I would have no hesitation to share my concerns honestly and openly with him if I felt the need to do so.

Sir, it was in this spirit that I asked to meet Archbishop Nicholas Chia on 30 May 2012, together with the Chairman of the Presidential Council for Religious Harmony, Mr Goh Joon Seng. I wanted to understand better the context to the Archbishop’s letter to the organisers of an organisation which calls itself F8, which was going to stage a political event scheduled for 2 June at the Speakers’ Corner. I was anxious to avoid any misunderstanding between the Government and the Catholic Church. When we met, I explained my concerns to Archbishop Chia. The Archbishop stated very clearly that the Catholic Church has always maintained a position that it does not wish to be involved in political activities, and that the Church wants to work closely with the Government and does not wish to set itself on a collision path with the Government. I was greatly reassured by the Archbishop’s comments, as they were consistent with his record of service throughout his 11-year tenure as leader of the Catholic Church in Singapore. He has consistently shown that he values religious harmony and appreciates the importance of separating religion and politics in our local context. He has also worked hard to forge inter-religious understanding and harmony, reflecting his strong belief in this fundamental basis of our social harmony. It also became clear from the discussion that, firstly, the Archbishop had intended the letter as a private communication to the F8 organisers. And secondly, on reflection, the Archbishop felt that the letter did not accurately reflect his views on the subject and if used in a manner he did not intend might inadvertently harm our social harmony. Archbishop Chia then decided on the same day to send a second letter to the F8 organisers to withdraw his earlier letter. The F8 organisers acknowledged the Archbishop’s request and, according to the Archbishop, returned him his original letter.

Sir, those who know Archbishop Chia well and the type of person he is, and his contributions to Singapore over the decades, will certainly know that he is not one who would endanger social harmony in Singapore. The position he took in withdrawing the letter was consistent with his words and deeds throughout his leadership of the Catholic Church and as a respected religious leader in Singapore. Mr Goh Joon Seng who was at the meeting, in his capacity as Chairman of the Presidential Council for Religious Harmony, is a retired Supreme Court judge who knows the Archbishop professionally and personally. They have served together on the Presidential Council for Religious Harmony for 10 years and have been friends, I am told, for some 50 years. Mr Goh also is a Catholic himself and he knew that it was not in character for Archbishop Chia to do anything that would entangle the Church in politics.

Sir, although I may not know Archbishop Chia as well as Mr Goh, I have had interactions with him on several occasions. Through my conversations with the Archbishop, we have established mutual understanding and share the desire to respect the religious beliefs of the various communities in Singapore while upholding the wider interests of all Singaporeans and of Singapore.

Mr Speaker: Asst Prof Eugene Tan, last question.

Asst Prof Tan Kheng Boon Eugene (Nominated Member): Sir, I would like to ask the Deputy Prime Minister whether he could clarify on what he means by religious leaders engaging in politics. For example, if a religious group were to take the view that the Government could do more for the poor, would that amount to engaging in politics? We also know of faiths such as Christianity and Islam, which do not draw the distinction between the private and the public realms. I think this could give rise to concerns as to whether there has been a restriction on what people of faith could engage in.

Mr Teo Chee Hean: Mr Speaker, Sir, I think I have tried to answer that question which Asst Prof Eugene Tan has brought up in a different way. It is not very different from the question that Mr Lien has brought up. On an individual basis, individuals in Singapore are free to exercise their political rights as individuals. But when you bring an organisation, like a religious organisation, into politics or when political parties or people with a political agenda start to use religion to further that agenda, then you begin to have a serious problem.

If one religion enters into the political arena in that way, or allows itself to be used in the political arena in that way, then other religions may do so as well, and then we have the possibility of breakdown in social harmony along religious lines. That is very dangerous for society. But as I have said, religious groups do play very important and useful social functions through their social arms. Many of them have charity arms. Many of them run education institutions, welfare homes, old-age homes, and these certainly are very welcomed, and these are expressions of their own beliefs and precepts, and we welcome those. But those need to be kept separate from a political agenda of getting the religious organisation as an organisation involved in a political agenda. And I think Asst Prof Tan can see the difference between the two.

There is Pek, a man who makes his life as bland as it can be, who removes from it any trace of colour, emotion or personality, and also tries to erase his wife. Then there is Chris the drummer, who lives an accelerated life in a haze of sex and lust, only to find it screeching to a halt; Ah Pin, the retired prison officer, grapples with the emptiness and futility of life, and decides to walk away, never to return; Melanie a writer finds words inexplicably disappearing from her manuscript; and Dominic who is drowning in debt and has to contend with strangers showing up at his flat asking for a 10th floor that doesn’t exist.

As each story comes to an end, questions linger in the air. Questions that stir the imagination and leave one feeling on the edge—of life and death, of sanity and insanity, of a realm in which the logic of this world no longer applies, or of a moment in which everything changes—looking into the lives, and vanishing points, of the characters.

Publichouse.sg: Three hundred people vanish without a trace every year in Singapore. To get under the skin of this book you researched these missing persons. How did you feel, looking at their photos and wondering about their lives?

Felix Cheong: To say I was haunted by these people is an understatement! I would focus on the missing people with an intriguing detail that seemed to suggest a back story, something left unfinished or unsaid. Then I would work my way back. For instance, Ah Pin, in ‘Life Sentence’, is based on an elderly man who disappeared after he told his wife he was going downstairs to buy newspapers. For weeks, I kept looking at his picture, wondering why he disappeared, what his life was like before and after. Slowly, I assembled a character based on this. I would even dream of him, waking up with a eureka moment about why he did what he did. In a way, it’s literary forensics.

Publichouse.sg: Your book isn’t about these real-life people or their histories though. It explores absences, unanswered questions, voids and spaces in-between the real and unreal, the living and the dead. Why did you choose to write about this?

Felix Cheong: Vanishing Point explores themes I have previously explored in my poetry. I think these voids, spaces in-between the real and unreal and the living and the dead are creatively provocative because in our day-to-day existence, we hide them, don’t talk about them, do our best to ignore them.

Publichouse.sg: The supernatural occurs in a few stories. Why is this so prevalent in Singapore writing?

My stories are not so much suffused with the supernatural as the surreal and the absurd. There is no ‘ghost’, as it were, in any of the stories. Even Wong, in ‘True Singapore Ghost Story’ (a tongue-in-cheek spoof of Russell Lee’s bestselling books), is not really a ghost but a zombie who has lost the will to live, having bought into the whole Singapore narrative of meritocracy and found himself shortchanged by it.

Publichouse.sg: There is no redemption in many of the stories. Your characters fall off the edge, disconnect themselves or die in mysterious circumstances. Were you drawn to these types of endings?

Felix Cheong: Well, there is redemption, in some fashion, in ‘Melanie & Molly’, as both characters realise at the end that they have to learn how to be true to themselves. I wrote this story specially for my wife, Georgette, because she felt that the collection was getting too bleak.

It’s a misconception that writers force a certain kind of ending on their characters. Character is destiny. Once I’ve picked the characters and set the scenario, they write and will their own outcome, their own endings. For instance, in ‘In the Dark’, Pek is so obsessed with white and cleanliness (a political metaphor) that he literally cannot see the woods for the trees. In his worldview, nothing else matters but to clean spots, clear up mess. So he even turns his wife white, erasing her. For me to engineer another ending would have been out of character for him.

Publichouse.sg: What was it like to write prose after being so accustomed to writing poetry?

Felix Cheong: As I did when I wrote my two young adult novels in 2006–2007, I had to learn how to walk again. Poetry and prose require different skills—the former needs the ability to crystallise an emotion or thought succinctly, the latter the ability to embed and flesh out a believable character in a story.

The language part came first and was easier; I could pen a turn of phrase that cut a character to the quick. But the storytelling part came in later, after much heaving and shoving. In fact, I had to leave the manuscript alone for more than six months so that I could unlearn some of my poetry writing habits. Thankfully, at some point, the two skills came together.

Publichouse.sg: When you write a book, do you every worry about how it will sell?

Felix Cheong: I would be lying if I said I didn’t care. Every writer worries, of course, about sales, though that doesn’t necessarily drive the motivation to write. My philosophy has always been: Do it well, do it honestly, and the book will find its audience.

Vanishing Point will be launched on 10 Nov; Festival Pavilion, Campus Green, Singapore Management University; 3:30–4:30pm. Admission is free.

Topics:

Extent and limits of freedom of expression and speech under the Singapore constitution

Non- legal constraints in navigating the online world

Lessons from past prosecutions and the defamation laws in Singapore

Smart engagement without getting into unwanted trouble

Speakers' profile:

Dr Jack Tsen-Ta Lee is an assistant professor of law at the School of Law, Singapore Management University (SMU). He graduated from the National University of Singapore in 1995 and practised for about six years as a litigator, before completing an LLM at University College London in 2003 on a British Chevening Scholarship. In 2012, he was conferred a PhD for research into the interpretation of bills of rights by the University ofBirmingham. He joined SMU in 2008 where he teaches and researches constitutional and administrative law, and also has an interest in the law of cultural property and heritage. He was a 2009 Lee Foundation Fellow for Research Excellence, and won the School of Law’s Most Promising Teacher Award for 2010–2011. He is presently a member of the Law Society of Singapore’s Public and International Law Committee.

Peter Cuthbert Low is the past president of the Singapore Law Society, and is a litigation lawyer. His areas of practice includes defamation law. And, over the years, he has represented clients in high-profile defamation lawsuits including those taken out by Lee Kuan Yew, Lee Hsien Loong and other PAP leaders against defendants such as the Far Eastern Economic Review and opposition politicians Tang Liang Hong and Dr Chee Soon Juan. He was also appointed counsel for the Law Society’s prosecution of blogger Gopalan Nair for posting inappropriate statements concerning the Singapore judiciary.

Cherian George is an associate professor at the Wee Kim Wee School of Communication and Information, Nanyang Technological University, where he researches media and censorship, among other issues. He is also a member of the Media Literacy Council.

Choo Zheng Xi is a litigation lawyer. He co-founded socio-politico website The Online Citizen in 2006. Zheng Xi specializes in criminal defence litigation and writes extensively on issues relating to law reform and public policy.

Moderator's Profile:

Ravi Philemon is a blogivist - an activist with a blog. He has championed several social causes, including the call for parity in public transportation for persons with disability, and for appropriate shelter for the homeless. He is one of the founders of the socio-political discussion platform, 'onlineloffline'.  Ravi Philemon is also a member of National Solidarity Party.

Other information: Admission free. Donation will be collected to defray cost of organising event.

In fact, a kinder, gentler and more gracious society was the aim of the Goh Chok Tong Government. And before that, a courteous society was the goal of the Lee Kuan Yew administration. The National Courtesy Campaign was started in 1979 and ran till 1997 when it was replaced by the Singapore Kindness Movement.

It has thus been 33 years – and here we are once again talking about building a “kinder society” in 2030. It makes one wonder what has happened to those 33 years of campaign, millions of dollars poured into it, and the numerous man-hours of effort and time accorded to the long-running and ongoing campaign.

But really, as Alex wrote,

“Lawrence Wong may be misreading — underestimating — the mood if he thinks that kindness and graciousness is all there is to our longings. He may think that all it takes is for some way to be found to graft these two attributes onto the already-successful PAP model for Singapore. He cannot be more wrong. It goes much deeper. People want a dismantling of the siege mentality, and the subjugation of economics. The desired measure is not “progress” or GDP growth, but quality of life.”

Indeed, if we fixate ourselves on the superficials of how a kinder society can come about, we would be wasting again our time, effort and resources on chasing a shadow. For undergirding a kind society are principles and beliefs which span the range of diversity in a society.

And it is these principles and beliefs which we should be looking at and talking about in the National Conversation. Sadly, what we have seen so far are superficial discussions on what we want in 18 years. [Ok, I wasn’t among those who took part in the discussions although I was invited to. I can only judge from news reports about them.] Every person I have spoken to so far about this National Conversation has either been negative about it, or is neutral - that is, uninterested. No one has indicated any excitement about this national dialogue, or what has transpired so far with it. And mind you, some of these people are those from the establishment itself.

Let’s put it bluntly. The conversation is boring, uninspiring, stale, superficial and the discussions – so far – look like what school-going children would be asked to do in a classroom. I mean, seriously. Imaginary newspaper headlines trumpeting “bumper crops” from our rooftop farms in 2030? And a kinder society in 2030? Haven’t we been wanting this for 33 years now?

But here’s the thing. If you ask anyone what kind of country they want Singapore to be in 2030, all you will hear are positive visions and ideas. It is all well and good but wouldn’t it be more important to look at the fundamentals which hold our society together, the foundational principles and beliefs we ought to have, rather than specific ideas of what we should have? If we know what principles and beliefs our society should stand on, then the rest of it will be built from that – by the people, bottom-up and not top-down as it has always been, and it seems in danger of continuing to being so.

Here are some of the thing we should instead be talking about:

- Should citizens be accorded inalienable, inviolable, unequivocal rights clearly laid out in our Constitution? What should these be?

- How can our political system be tweaked or changed to better reflect our beliefs expounded in our National Pledge?

- What is society’s role in caring for the less fortunate? What principles and beliefs should inform policies in the social welfare area?

- Do citizens have a right to information? How far should this right extend to? Should we manifest this right in concrete terms by way of a Freedom of Information Act, for example?

- Should we continue to have a media which is monopolised by two government-linked and government-controlled entities?

The point is that there are many more important and fundamental issues we should be looking at. And this is necessarily so if one is talking of what makes a society in 20 years and beyond. Rooftop farms will come and go but the principles which undergird what we do, what we believe and what kind of society we are will remain.

I have been supportive of the National Conversation initiative when it was first announced. However, almost 2 months since then, I am thoroughly disappointed with how it is turning out. This is one of the reasons why I declined the invitation to be involved in the last discussions at the National Library. It would, I thought, be a waste of time. And indeed, from the looks of it, it would have been.

One would tend to agree with Alex – that the PAP is incapable of change. The way the entire National Conversation is being conducted shows that the party is still bent on the superficial and the cosmetic, and is stuck in the old ways of doing things.

The National Conversation seems to be nothing more than a fact-gathering exercise, as filmmaker Martyn See said, for the PAP to craft its next general election manifesto.  It is a view apparently shared by Alex as well.

“As many readers will no doubt have sensed,” Alex wrote, “this ‘national conversation’ that the government has launched is in many ways the first phase of the 2016 election campaign. It is an exercise for the PAP to find out what voters want, so that they have plenty of time to craft a new campaign message.”

It ties in with what Prime Minister Lee said after the general election last year, that his government did not “correctly interpret” ground sentiments feedbacked to it by its own grassroots channels. So, perhaps this National Conversation is the government trying to get “direct” feedback from the people, instead of going through its grassroots channels, lest the ground sentiments be not “correctly interpreted” again.

Some have argued that the conversation is indeed a preparation for the PAP’s 2016 election campaign by pointing to the fact that the PAP has even gone to the length of excluding opposition members from being on its committee, for example.

Whatever it is, National Conversation or not, the PAP Government seems unable to effect the changes which Singapore desperately needs. The Government seems to be heading down the same path as before – and taking Singapore along with it.

I agree with Alex when he said that “a change of leader would be welcome too", come the next elections. In fact, in any other country, if a prime minister were seen to fail in one or two major policies, he would either be asked to resign or would be voted out of office. In Singapore, we have seen major failings in several areas. Singaporeans are familiar with these – immigration, housing, birth rate, income inequality.

Perhaps it is time for us Singaporeans to ask the one question few have dared to ask: Is it time we considered a new leader for our country?

I feel it is.

But we would suggest that a WikiCity.sg scenario need not be the outcome of a collapse of trust in public institutions and the resultant paralysis in government. It can instead be embraced as a positive vision for Singapore.

Read the full article by Donald Low and Cherian George on IPS Commons: http://ipscommons.sg.