Laws and religion
A friend pointed out an issue to me.
Law is supposed to be free of religious overtones. There should be a seperation of state and religion. So why is bigamy prohibited? On what secular grounds is bigamy wrong?
What i decided to find was well, if that was true. Are our laws actually supposed to be drafted on the principle of Secularism. If so, then what will be the definition of right and wrong?
The problem with secularism is not that it isn't just, in many ways, it is more just then religion, the problem is it lacks a common marker. It is, an inefficient and potentially biased estimator of the true mean.
The issue here is that if laws are written on the basis of secular rights, the basic rights of humans and all that, where will it come from? Where do we obtain a piece of paper declaring the rights of human beings, the rights that transcend time and societies spread across the world.
I cannot find an answer. Laws that are written on secularism have to have a basis somewhere. In a inherent moral codes written into the minds of man? Or in a written generalisation of the religious codes that exist today.
Personally, i go for the second. Laws should be secular in the sense that people are not treated differently on the basis of religion. Laws cannot be secular in the sense that they are based on religious codes.
But anyway i was searching online for singapore constitution. This is interesting:
Article 152 Minorities and Special Position of Malays
(1) It shall be the responsibility of the Government constantly to care for the interests of the racial and religious minorities in Singapore.
(2) The Government shall exercise its functions in such manner as to recognize the special position of the Malays, who are the indigenous people of Singapore, and accordingly it shall be the responsibility of the Government to protect, safeguard, support, foster and promote their political, educational, religious, economic, social and cultural interests and the Malay language.
Article 153 Muslim Religion
The Legislature shall by law make provision for regulating Muslim religious affairs and for constituting a Council to advise the President in matters relating to the Muslim religion.
(from http://www.oefre.unibe.ch/law/icl/sn00000_.html#A152_)
So muslims have a special place in the eyes of the state. What really interests me would be to know two things. Do the muslims claim that right in situation? And more importantly are muslims who do claim such a right faring better off than others who do not claim?
Why is it that Malays have that special seat in the country? In many ways, i do not htink there is a visible manifestation of that privilege. So why was that article written in out constitution? It endangers the government should there be any attempt for any group to exploit that legislature. Double edged sword.
Singapore in many cases is a paradoxical society. Our national language is Malay, but our parliment is conducted in English. Our first language is English, while our anthem is in Malay. We have a national language but four offical languages. Malays are the indigenous people, yet i do not think we have a 'bumiputra' culture.
It is interesting when you learn what you do not know. That we are a chinese majority country with a far greater similarity to countries with indigenous people being a minority (i.e, US, NZ, AUS,) Yet we do not suffocate them nor allow them to claim special rights. We do however, give them the provision to.
Law is supposed to be free of religious overtones. There should be a seperation of state and religion. So why is bigamy prohibited? On what secular grounds is bigamy wrong?
What i decided to find was well, if that was true. Are our laws actually supposed to be drafted on the principle of Secularism. If so, then what will be the definition of right and wrong?
The problem with secularism is not that it isn't just, in many ways, it is more just then religion, the problem is it lacks a common marker. It is, an inefficient and potentially biased estimator of the true mean.
The issue here is that if laws are written on the basis of secular rights, the basic rights of humans and all that, where will it come from? Where do we obtain a piece of paper declaring the rights of human beings, the rights that transcend time and societies spread across the world.
I cannot find an answer. Laws that are written on secularism have to have a basis somewhere. In a inherent moral codes written into the minds of man? Or in a written generalisation of the religious codes that exist today.
Personally, i go for the second. Laws should be secular in the sense that people are not treated differently on the basis of religion. Laws cannot be secular in the sense that they are based on religious codes.
But anyway i was searching online for singapore constitution. This is interesting:
Article 152 Minorities and Special Position of Malays
(1) It shall be the responsibility of the Government constantly to care for the interests of the racial and religious minorities in Singapore.
(2) The Government shall exercise its functions in such manner as to recognize the special position of the Malays, who are the indigenous people of Singapore, and accordingly it shall be the responsibility of the Government to protect, safeguard, support, foster and promote their political, educational, religious, economic, social and cultural interests and the Malay language.
Article 153 Muslim Religion
The Legislature shall by law make provision for regulating Muslim religious affairs and for constituting a Council to advise the President in matters relating to the Muslim religion.
(from http://www.oefre.unibe.ch/law/icl/sn00000_.html#A152_)
So muslims have a special place in the eyes of the state. What really interests me would be to know two things. Do the muslims claim that right in situation? And more importantly are muslims who do claim such a right faring better off than others who do not claim?
Why is it that Malays have that special seat in the country? In many ways, i do not htink there is a visible manifestation of that privilege. So why was that article written in out constitution? It endangers the government should there be any attempt for any group to exploit that legislature. Double edged sword.
Singapore in many cases is a paradoxical society. Our national language is Malay, but our parliment is conducted in English. Our first language is English, while our anthem is in Malay. We have a national language but four offical languages. Malays are the indigenous people, yet i do not think we have a 'bumiputra' culture.
It is interesting when you learn what you do not know. That we are a chinese majority country with a far greater similarity to countries with indigenous people being a minority (i.e, US, NZ, AUS,) Yet we do not suffocate them nor allow them to claim special rights. We do however, give them the provision to.
posted by W | Saturday, September 10, 2005
2 Comments:
according to my SS module last sem, that article was put in to appease the surrounding malay communities when Singapore broke off from Malaysia...whether or not it has actually fulfilled that article, i'm not in a position to say anything =)
It definately was put in there to make the surrounding people happy. Now the question is, the tradeoff between sovereignty versus survival.
Post a Comment
<< Home