MP Alex Yam earned applause from Catholics for defending Archbishop's right to speak, but...

Will he create pressure for his non-Catholic MPs to support their own religious leaders in future?

Martino Tan| February 24, 09:08 PM

Catholic Archbishop William Goh has made the news by expressing the Catholic Church’s grave concerns about American singer Madonna’s “Rebel Heart” concert in Singapore on Sunday, Feb. 28, 2016.

In a note addressed to Catholics, which was posted on the website of the Roman Catholic Archdiocese of Singapore, Goh reminded Catholics that it was their “moral obligation not to support those who denigrate and insult religions, including anti-Christian and immoral values promoted by the secular world”.

The Church also clarified in a follow-up statement on Wednesday that the Archbishop's comments were made in response to appeals and letters from members of the faithful for direction with regard to Madge's known use and denigration of religious symbols like the nun's habit and the cross.

In particular, the archdiocese said, "To those who disagree with the Church’s moral stand, we respect their views since they do not share our faith in Christ and His gospel".

Enter Marsiling-Yew Tee GRC MP Alex Yam, who is a Catholic.

Apart from his posts on grassroots activities, Yam has been sharing a number of Catholic-related posts recently, such as Ash Wednesday (a Catholic day of observance), his wedding anniversary, and his son's baptism.

Yam was concerned with some of the comments online in reaction to the statement by Archbishop Goh and decided to put things in perspective.

The post had received more than 1,000 FB likes and had been shared in the Facebook groups of Catholics.

I'>
read with concern some of the comments online in reaction to the statement issued by His Grace Archbishop William Goh...

Posted by Alex Yam on Monday, February 22, 2016

 

1. Now here's why what Alex Yam said makes sense:

There are several reasons why his Facebook post is well-founded. He was right to point out —

i) The moral obligation of the Archbishop as the leader of his faith: Archbishop William Goh has the obligation as the leader of the Catholic Church in Singapore to "teach, govern and sanctify the local church". Furthermore, he was doing so in the context of the faith that Catholics need to follow.

ii) The importance of symbols: If the national flag is burned, there are laws to safeguard against the act.

Madonna's overseas performance for instance had included a segment called Holy Water, featuring pole-dancing nuns and large crosses. This segment was not allowed by the Media Development Authority (MDA). But Yam also highlighted that "ultimately the artiste may decide on the stage whether or not a song will be on the set".

Praying with my Holy Water gang in Edmonton! ❤️#rebelheartour

A photo posted by Madonna (@madonna) on

 

iii) The freedom of speech for both parties: Yam said that if a person is a true advocate of freedom of speech and expression, one's freedom of expression (Madonna's) must be allowed to be met with an equally robust and equally free response by those who disagree (Archbishop Goh's and other Catholics's). One cannot state that his/her views qualify as free speech but a counter-argument (people lambasting the Archbishop for quelling artistic expression) does not.

 

2. But yet, we must point out that the tension between speaking up as a private citizen and as a public figure cannot be ignored. 

As an MP, Yam derives his position of influence from the Marsiling-Yew Tee GRC constituents who voted for him, whether they are Catholic or non-Catholic.

This is different from Archbishop Goh's role — it is Goh's duty to lead Catholics in Singapore, whom he was chosen to lead and serve in the first place.

Yam, on the other hand, is elected to represent the interests of his constituents — which may or may not necessarily align with his own personal ones.

Therefore, it is not ideal if Yam were to "parrot" Goh's teachings to his constituents (Yam didn't, in this instance). However, making a pronouncement like this, while presumably in his personal capacity (Yam the Singaporean), and posting it publicly to his Facebook page, will inevitably be read as Yam the MP saying so. And we're not sure what he's saying is indeed representative of all the people he represents in his Yew Tee ward.

Former Straits Times editor Bertha Henson once commented that she always "felt slightly disturbed when public figures go 'private' on social media", like telling people how their day went and how Ministers took to social media to make policy pronouncements.

Indeed, some Singaporeans may get uncomfortable when they perceive that a public and a political figure like Yam is using social media to assert a value that is based solely on his faith (from Yam's post: "I take counsel from the leadership of my faith to remind me that my freedom comes with equal responsibility, so that within my own actions, I stand guided").

As the late U.S. senator Edward Kennedy once said in a speech on religious tolerance,

"The separation of church and state can sometimes be frustrating for women and men of religious faith. They may be tempted to misuse government in order to impose a value which they cannot persuade others to accept. But once we succumb to that temptation, we step onto a slippery slope where everyone’s freedom is at risk...Let us never forget: Today’s Moral Majority could become tomorrow’s persecuted minority."

Yam mentioned the importance of symbols.

It is also symbolic for an MP who comes out strongly to defend his Catholic leader's statements, in that it tells the public that he is influenced and guided, possibly first and foremost, by his religious leader.

And here's the key point we're getting to: if Yam's actions, while without a doubt completely well-intentioned, unwittingly create pressure for other MPs from different faiths to also assert their viewpoints strongly in defence of their religions, there will be less space for Singapore to uphold a multi-racial society. And that's what most of us hold dear in our harmonious country — the ability to practice our own faiths freely and without judgement or persecution from others.

As Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong said in his speech at the President's Address,

"[O]ur political system must encourage multi-racial and secular politics, not racial or religious politics. It has got to encourage political parties to seek broad-based, multi-racial consensus, and pursue moderate policies in the interests of all Singaporeans, regardless of race, language, or religion. It has to discourage parties from forming along racial and religious lines, or championing the interests of one race or religion over others, whether it be a majority or a minority group in our society. Minority Singaporeans must have the confidence that they will not be marginalised, or shut out, or discriminated against. Every Singaporean must have the confidence that he has a place in Singapore."

And, if we might add, with so many Catholics rallying behind Yam's position online, the concern may also arise that an MP's faith could possibly become a point of key consideration for the electorate in future.

This is definitely not a fault line that Singaporeans should gravitate towards.

 

3. Singapore's brand of secularism must be treated with care as it evolves

Singapore is a secular country and Article 15 of the Constitution guarantees freedom of religion in Singapore.

Our secularism is not merely "negative", like the United States, where it is aimed at protecting religion from government interference.

As academic Cherian George noted in a commentary, Singapore's secularism "treats all religions with respect, but keeps them at arm’s length from the state".

Importantly, George said that it is "not a system of blind neutrality". This means that "accommodations are made here and there".

Yam is brave to go beyond political correctness to assert what he believes is right in his own moral view and in the faith he believes in.

And one can appreciate that the separation of religion and state does not mean an absolute separation between moral principles and political influence.

However, Singapore as a multi-racial and multi-religious society, owes much to our national instinct for tolerance, diversity and reason.

Will there be more give than take in a public debate on moral issues? When we apply religious values to such a discussion, will we respect the integrity of public debate and stick to facts?

Each generation of Singaporeans, as it seeks to advance the common good, will need to address questions related to the ethical foundation for which political choices are made.

But how much should politics mix with religion im such discourses? Because it will be seductive for opportunistic politicians to turn to religion to win votes.

With increasing religiosity among some Singaporeans, this is the challenge faced by Singaporeans in post-SG50 Singapore.

 

Top photo from Alex Yam Facebook page.

If you like what you read, follow us on Facebook and Twitter to get the latest updates.

If you like what you read, follow us on Facebook, Instagram, Twitter and Telegram to get the latest updates.