Discussion can narrow divergent views
A LARGE majority of Singaporeans are aware of the seriousness of race and religious issues, and believe that the government has done enough to manage these divisions. However, fault lines have emerged on class, immigration and lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender (LGBT) rights, where more Singaporeans, especially those who are younger, want to see greater state involvement and public discourse.
These emerging issues, if mismanaged, are also seen to affect Singaporeans’ trust in the government the most, compared with race and religion. These and other findings from a study of public opinion on fault lines in Singapore, carried out by the
Institute of Policy Studies, were released earlier this week.
It is undeniable that Singapore has come a long way by legislating against racial and religious discord.
This was an essential but relatively painless effort because the vast majority of Singaporeans want to live in peace and harmony.
A combination of legislation and softer measures and communitylevel initiatives – including the Maintenance of Religious Harmony Act, and Inter-Racial and Religious Confidence Circles – has succeeded in preventing potential discord and wider conflict.
Importantly, deterrent laws and inclusive community platforms have worked together to create a broad and deep mainstream of public opinion. This mainstream rejects not only racial bigotry and religious violence and extremism, but also any attempt to dilute the secular character of the Singapore state by mixing religion and politics. A sturdy public consensus on racial and religious harmony underpins Singapore’s social fabric.
By contrast, there is less social consensus on LGBT issues, for example. That makes using legislation difficult, in particular any decision to repeal Section 377A of the Penal Code which criminalises consensual sex between men.
The demand for equal rights for LGBT people answers to the general logic of rights: Individuals and groups can enjoy only those rights which a majority in society is willing to grant them. In this case, the government can move only as fast as the general drift of public opinion will allow it to.
Similarly, class differences and immigration, which are driven by market and demographic forces, have to be managed carefully through calibrated executive intervention. Policy lurches could create more problems than they resolve.
Certainly, the government must respond to evolving public sentiment as it refines policies on social mobility and the entry of foreigners. What would help that process move forward is continued discussion of class, immigration and gender issues in society.
That way, there will be a better coming together of progressive opinion and conservative caution.
That would also then give the government a greater social mandate to move assertively on such fronts. — The Straits Times/ANN