-
Advocacy Theme
-
Tags
- Abortion
- Adoption
- Caregiving
- CEDAW
- Disability
- Domestic Violence
- Domestic Workers
- Harassment
- Healthcare
- Housing
- International/Regional Work
- Maintenance
- Media
- Migrant Spouses
- Migrant Workers
- Muslim Law
- National budget
- Parental Leave
- Parenthood
- Polygamy
- Population
- Race and religion
- Sexual Violence
- Sexuality Education
- Single Parents
- Social Support
- Sterilisation
- Women's Charter
Keep state and religion separate
October 2nd, 2018 | Letters and op-eds, LGBTQ, News, Views
This post was originally published as an excerpt in The Straits Times on 2 Oct 2018.
We thank Professor Tommy Koh for speaking up clearly and firmly on the vital need for Singapore to draw a clear line between religion and our secular state.
I and my fellow founders and past presidents of the Association of Women for Action and Research (Aware) – Dr Kanwaljit Soin, Ms Constance Singam and Ms Dana Lam – strongly agree with the points made by Prof Koh in his commentary (Section 377A: Science, religion and the law; Sept 25).
He said: “There is an important point which I wish to make to the Christian and Islamic authorities. I would respectfully remind them that Singapore is a secular state. It is not a Christian country or a Muslim country. It is not the business of the state to enforce the dogmas of those religions. In Singapore, there is a separation between religion and the state. Church leaders and Islamic leaders should respect that separation.”
Almost a decade ago, in March 2009, this line was crossed when a group of fundamentalist Christian women took over Aware, which is a secular organisation, to push their religious agenda. We countered their action by calling for an extraordinary general meeting (EGM) where we regained control of Aware with a two-thirds majority vote.
We were able to win back Aware because hundreds of Singapore women, appalled by what had happened, signed up as Aware members in the weeks before the EGM and then turned up at the meeting to cast their vote for us. There was no doubt in their minds that a religious agenda should not be imposed on a secular organisation.
As key stakeholders of a secular organisation that was once taken over by a religiously motivated group, we are keen to see a clear separation between what is religious and what is secular. We are troubled that religious considerations continue to be held up as grounds for maintaining the antiquated law of Section 377A of the Penal Code.
A secular state should not be inspired by religion when formulating laws and policies for all.
Margaret Thomas (Ms)
President
AWARE