Connect with us

Commentaries

NLB and the erosion of our secular morality

Published

10 years ago

on

By Donald Low
The National Library Board’s (NLB) decision to remove and pulp the three children’s books deemed to offend Singapore’s “pro-family” norms has reignited the age-old contest between Church and State, and more specifically in Singapore’s context, the role of private morality in public policy and how the state should adjudicate between competing conceptions of morality in society.
Many view the current debate in starkly binary terms – a contest between a religious or conservative majority and a liberal minority that represents a small but vocal segment of society. According to this binary view, those who claim to be pro-family are naturally assumed to support the withdrawal of the offending children’s books.
Yet in all my conversations in the last few days with former and current civil servants (many of whom held or are holding senior positions), I was surprised to find that not a single one of them supported NLB’s decision. None of them, as far as I know, are enthusiastic supporters of the Pink Dot movement or view the rights of LGBTs as an important issue for the government to address. Many of the civil servants I spoke to were also Christians who would readily say that they subscribed to “family values”. But all of them were deeply disturbed (even offended) by NLB’s decision, not just by the decision to remove the books, but also by its underlying rationale and what it says about the kind of public service we’re becoming.
In my conversations with them, I very quickly realised that as professionals in government, they were applying a secular morality – rather than their own private (or religious) morality – to assess decisions that affected the common good. The purpose of this essay to make explicit their line of moral reasoning, and to argue that this secular morality, which I share, is the only way for the state in Singapore to arbitrate between competing (moral) claims.
So why did my civil service friends find NLB’s decision offensive to their secular morality? In my mind, there were at least three breaches of our secular morality.
Fairness and Non-discrimination
First and perhaps most importantly, the decision to withdraw the books violated the public service principle of fairness and non-discrimination. This principle holds that the state should not discriminate against anyone, and deny them access to public services, on account of their beliefs, religious convictions (or lack thereof), and life choices.
This principle of non-discrimination is why in spite of the government’s pro-family stance, public sector doctors do not deny treatment to unwed pregnant women, teenage mothers, people who have contracted HIV through casual sex, and many others whose life choices public officials may find disagreeable on a personal level. In these instances, I think we can agree that it would be wrong for a public sector doctor to refuse to serve these patients and to tell them that they can obtain the services from the private sector on the grounds that the government has not banned such services.
I recall facilitating a discussion between a group of young civil servants and the late Dr Balaji Sadasivan, who at the time was the Senior Minister of State for Health. Dr Balaji was asked if Christian gynaecologists in the public sector should have the right to refuse to perform abortions. Dr Balaji was aghast at the suggestion and proceeded to lecture the young civil servant who had asked the question on the distinction between private beliefs and public morality. His bottom-line: if you don’t agree with the non-discrimination principle of the public sector, join the private sector.
Now, some may argue that there is a substantive difference between library books and essential healthcare services. They are wrong. While library books are not a matter of life and death, it cannot be the case that simply because they are less important to the well-being of individuals (a questionable assumption, especially for people who aren’t ill), it is legitimate for the state to practise discrimination. But I do think that this argument – that it’s only children’s books which are at stake here – is part of the reason why NLB probably thought it was all right to remove the books. After all, nobody would really get hurt. This view, even if understandable, is flawed. For if we allowed “non-essential” services like library books to be provided on a discriminatory basis, when do we know that something is essential and should be provided to all?
A different objection to the non-discrimination principle holds that the state has already made a decision to promote certain values and life choices, say traditional families and family values. This promotion does not just take the form of hectoring by government leaders, but also the provision of material incentives and benefits for such families (think of the baby bonus) which may not be provided to people who do not conform to the state’s life choices. In addition, Section 377A which is clearly discriminatory remains on our statutes. So why should we find discrimination with respect library books objectionable?
The first response to this argument is that liberals like me do in fact object to children of single parents not having the same benefits as children of traditional families. We also object to Section 377A on principle.
But even if one didn’t object to the state’s preferential treatment of traditional families and the continued existence of Section 377A, one should still object to NLB’s decision. In the case of the library, its very purpose and the very nature of its service preclude it from being used as an instrument to serve any particular political or religious ends. Public agencies like the Ministry of Social and Family Development were set up to promote the institution of the family. It can therefore enact policies designed to benefit individuals whose choices conform to the state’s normative ideals. The same cannot be said of NLB. The very purpose of a national library is to open minds and broaden the horizons of all. Its ethos must be one of tolerance, intellectual discourse, and neutrality with respect to people’s life choices (as long as those choices don’t harm others). Libraries should not be required to promote any particular conception of the good that the state chooses. What has happened – the destruction of books by a library – is a perversion and overturning of that ideal. NLB has undermined its very own purpose. It can no longer be considered a library; it is only masquerading as one by having the form (a building with books) but not its essence (a beacon of knowledge).
Misguided Moral Equivalence
The second breach of secular morality that upset my civil service friends was the implied moral equivalence between the claims of the people who wanted to remove the books and those who wanted them to still be there.
It is sometimes pointed out – by government and others – that society today is more diverse and pluralistic and that the state has a more difficult job “balancing” between competing demands and interests. The unspoken assumption here is that the claims of those clamouring for more rights – say for the LGBT community or for alternative families – have to acknowledge the equally valid claims of those who want to deny them these rights.
But there is a clear moral difference between the two groups. One group is seeking acceptance for itself; the other is seeking to deprive the first group of a place in our common spaces. The analogy I would use here is that of blacks not being allowed to use public water fountains in the old American south. That was a deliberate exclusion of people for who they are – this exclusion can be of people, their voice, and yes, their books in public spaces. It is discrimination pure and simple. It is one group saying to another group that they are lesser members of society. There is no morality or moral equivalence to speak of. If it is wrong to discriminate on the basis of race and gender, why would it be ok to do so on the basis of sexual preferences? We might as well also pulp books with mixed race families.
Occasionally, as in the NLB saga, the government points out that both sides hold their views strongly, as if to suggest that the rightness of an argument corresponds to how much fervour and conviction people invest in it. This is bad reasoning – the validity of an argument has nothing to do with the strength with which its believers hold it.
On other occasions, the government says that the majority of Singaporeans are conservative and do not approve of alternative, non-traditional families. That may be a valid political consideration. But it is certainly not a valid moral consideration. Just because more people subscribe to a fallacious argument does not make it right. A few hundred years ago (and until more recently in South Africa), religion also sanctioned racial discrimination. It was wrong just like the current crop of homophobic zealots is wrong.
Misapplication of Community Norms
The third reason my civil service friends were so upset by the NLB’s decision was the argument that its decision was consistent with, and sanctioned by, “community norms”. This appeal to community norms is not, in and of itself, wrong. But it is grossly inadequate as a guide for public policy. Community norms are not the only yardstick by which to assess governmental decisions and actions. As argued above, fairness, non-discrimination and equal regard for all are far more important considerations. So even if some people’s life choices violated community norms, we do not deny them public services. If this were not so, community norms would provide us the reason to do all sorts of heinous things to minorities who offend the majority. Indeed, I find it extremely ironic that some fundamentalist Christians and Muslims would appeal to the community norms argument. They should know that their own histories are replete with examples of state-led persecution against them, justified by what the majority wanted.
A second problem with the appeal to community norms is that it ignores the possibility that there are contesting, even contradictory, norms at stake. In this instance, NLB’s decision to remove the books on the grounds that it offended society’s pro-family sensibilities bump up against at least two other sets of norms. The first set of norms is that of tolerance and respect for diversity and differences. We celebrate Singapore’s 50th year as a nation in 2015. One of our greatest achievements as a country is the generally accommodating, tolerant, live-and-let-live attitude the vast majority of Singaporeans take towards people not like us. In a contest between our pro-family norms and our norms of inclusion and respect for diversity, I would have thought the latter was far more valuable and important for maintaining social harmony.
I would also argue that the pro-family norms go against the grain of NLB’s own professional ethos and mission. Institutions are not just organisations providing a transactional service. For an organisation to also be an institution, it must have its own professional norms and values, a sense of mission, and integrity of purpose – all of which outlast any individual leader in the organisation. These institutional norms and values are permanent and timeless.
In the case of NLB, I would have assumed that one of the professional values it holds dear is that it is a neutral platform for society to access as wide and diverse a range of knowledge as possible. Another professional norm that the NLB should hold dear is that it is bastion of learning, knowledge and enlightenment. For such an august institution, with such an honourable mission and worthy professional norms, to cave in to ignorance and intolerance – even if it were the majority that is ignorant and intolerant – must be deeply disappointing to anyone who has ever served in a public institution.
TOC thanks Donald Low for allowing us to reproduce his facebook note in full

Related Topics:
Continue Reading
Click to comment
Subscribe
Notify of
0 Comments
Newest
Oldest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments

Commentaries

Lim Tean criticizes Govt’s rejection of basic income report, urges Singaporeans to rethink election choices

Lim Tean, leader of Peoples Voice (PV), criticizes the government’s defensive response to the basic living income report, accusing it of avoiding reality.

He calls on citizens to assess affordability and choose MPs who can truly enhance their lives in the upcoming election.

Published

1 year ago

on

15 September 2023

By

SINGAPORE: A recently published report, “Minimum Income Standard 2023: Household Budgets in a Time of Rising Costs,” unveils figures detailing the necessary income households require to maintain a basic standard of living, using the Minimum Income Standard (MIS) method.

The newly released study, spearheaded by Dr Ng Kok Hoe of the Lee Kuan Yew School of Public Policy (LKYSPP) specifically focuses on working-age households in 2021 and presents the latest MIS budgets, adjusted for inflation from 2020 to 2022.

The report detailed that:

  • The “reasonable starting point” for a living wage in Singapore was S$2,906 a month.
  • A single parent with a child aged two to six required S$3,218 per month.
  • Partnered parents with two children, one aged between seven and 12 and the other between 13 and 18, required S$6,426 a month.
  • A single elderly individual required S$1,421 a month.
  • Budgets for both single and partnered parent households averaged around S$1,600 per member. Given recent price inflation, these figures have risen by up to 5% in the current report.

Singapore Govt challenges MIS 2023 report’s representation of basic needs

Regrettably, on Thursday (14 Sept), the Finance Ministry (MOF), Manpower Ministry (MOM), and Ministry of Social and Family Development (MSF) jointly issued a statement dismissing the idea suggested by the report, claiming that minimum household income requirements amid inflation “might not accurately reflect basic needs”.

Instead, they claimed that findings should be seen as “what individuals would like to have.”, and further defended their stances for the Progressive Wage Model (PWM) and other measures to uplift lower-wage workers.

The government argued that “a universal wage floor is not necessarily the best way” to ensure decent wages for lower-wage workers.

The government’s statement also questions the methodology of the Minimum Income Standards (MIS) report, highlighting limitations such as its reliance on respondent profiles and group dynamics.

“The MIS approach used is highly dependent on respondent profiles and on group dynamics. As the focus groups included higher-income participants, the conclusions may not be an accurate reflection of basic needs.”

The joint statement claimed that the MIS approach included discretionary expenditure items such as jewellery, perfumes, and overseas holidays.

Lim Tean slams Government’s response to basic living income report

In response to the government’s defensive reaction to the recent basic living income report, Lim Tean, leader of the alternative party Peoples Voice (PV), strongly criticizes the government’s apparent reluctance to confront reality, stating, “It has its head buried in the sand”.

He strongly questioned the government’s endorsement of the Progressive Wage Model (PWM) as a means to uplift the living standards of the less fortunate in Singapore, describing it as a misguided approach.

In a Facebook video on Friday (15 Sept), Lim Tean highlighted that it has become a global norm, especially in advanced and first-world countries, to establish a minimum wage, commonly referred to as a living wage.

“Everyone is entitled to a living wage, to have a decent life, It is no use boasting that you are one of the richest countries in the world that you have massive reserves, if your citizens cannot have a decent life with a decent living wage.”

Lim Tean cited his colleague, Leong Sze Hian’s calculations, which revealed a staggering 765,800 individuals in Singapore, including Permanent Residents and citizens, may not earn the recommended living wage of $2,906, as advised by the MIS report.

“If you take away the migrant workers or the foreign workers, and take away those who do not work, underage, are children you know are unemployed, and the figure is staggering, isn’t it?”

“You know you are looking at a very substantial percentage of the workforce that do not have sufficient income to meet basic needs, according to this report.”

He reiterated that the opposition parties, including the People’s Voice and the People’s Alliance, have always called for a minimum wage, a living wage which the government refuses to countenance.

Scepticism about the government’s ability to control rising costs

In a time of persistently high inflation, Lim Tean expressed skepticism about the government’s ability to control rising costs.

He cautioned against believing in predictions of imminent inflation reduction and lower interest rates below 2%, labeling them as unrealistic.

Lim Tean urged Singaporeans to assess their own affordability in these challenging times, especially with the impending GST increase.

He warned that a 1% rise in GST could lead to substantial hikes in everyday expenses, particularly food prices.

Lim Tean expressed concern that the PAP had become detached from the financial struggles of everyday Singaporeans, citing their high salaries and perceived insensitivity to the common citizen’s plight.

Lim Tean urges Singaporeans to rethink election choices

Highlighting the importance of the upcoming election, Lim Tean recommended that citizens seriously evaluate the affordability of their lives.

“If you ask yourself about affordability, you will realise that you have no choice, In the coming election, but to vote in a massive number of opposition Members of Parliament, So that they can make a difference.”

Lim Tean emphasized the need to move beyond the traditional notion of providing checks and balances and encouraged voters to consider who could genuinely improve their lives.

“To me, the choice is very simple. It is whether you decide to continue with a life, that is going to become more and more expensive: More expensive housing, higher cost of living, jobs not secure because of the massive influx of foreign workers,” he declared.

“Or you choose members of Parliament who have your interests at heart and who want to make your lives better.”

Continue Reading

Commentaries

Political observers call for review of Singapore’s criteria of Presidential candidates and propose 5 year waiting period for political leaders

Singaporean political observers express concern over the significantly higher eligibility criteria for private-sector presidential candidates compared to public-sector candidates, calling for adjustments.

Some also suggest a five year waiting period for aspiring political leaders after leaving their party before allowed to partake in the presidential election.

Notably, The Workers’ Party has earlier reiterated its position that the current qualification criteria favor PAP candidates and has called for a return to a ceremonial presidency instead of an elected one.

Published

1 year ago

on

5 September 2023

By

While the 2023 Presidential Election in Singapore concluded on Friday (1 September), discussions concerning the fairness and equity of the electoral system persist.

Several political observers contend that the eligibility criteria for private-sector individuals running for president are disproportionately high compared to those from the public sector, and they propose that adjustments be made.

They also recommend a five-year waiting period for aspiring political leaders after leaving their party before being allowed to participate in the presidential election.

Aspiring entrepreneur George Goh Ching Wah, announced his intention to in PE 2023 in June. However, His application as a candidate was unsuccessful, he failed to receive the Certificate of Eligibility (COE) on 18 August.

Mr Goh had expressed his disappointment in a statement after the ELD’s announcement, he said, the Presidential Elections Committee (PEC) took a very narrow interpretation of the requirements without explaining the rationale behind its decision.

As per Singapore’s Constitution, individuals running for the presidency from the private sector must have a minimum of three years’ experience as a CEO in a company.

This company should have consistently maintained an average shareholders’ equity of at least S$500 million and sustained profitability.

Mr Goh had pursued eligibility through the private sector’s “deliberative track,” specifically referring to section 19(4)(b)(2) of the Singapore Constitution.

He pointed out five companies he had led for over three years, collectively claiming a shareholders’ equity of S$1.521 billion.

Notably, prior to the 2016 revisions, the PEC might have had the authority to assess Mr Goh’s application similarly to how it did for Mr Tan Jee Say in the 2011 Presidential Election.

Yet, in its current formulation, the PEC is bound by the definitions laid out in the constitution.

Calls for equitable standards across public and private sectors

According to Singapore’s Chinese media outlet, Shin Min Daily News, Dr Felix Tan Thiam Kim, a political analyst at Nanyang Technological University (NTU) Singapore, noted that in 2016, the eligibility criteria for private sector candidates were raised from requiring them to be executives of companies with a minimum capital of S$100 million to CEOs of companies with at least S$500 million in shareholder equity.

However, the eligibility criteria for public sector candidates remained unchanged. He suggests that there is room for adjusting the eligibility criteria for public sector candidates.

Associate Professor Bilver Singh, Deputy Head of the Department of Political Science at the National University of Singapore, believes that the constitutional requirements for private-sector individuals interested in running are excessively stringent.

He remarked, “I believe it is necessary to reassess the relevant regulations.”

He points out that the current regulations are more favourable for former public officials seeking office and that the private sector faces notably greater challenges.

“While it may be legally sound, it may not necessarily be equitable,” he added.

Proposed five-year waiting period for political leaders eyeing presidential race

Moreover, despite candidates severing ties with their political parties in pursuit of office, shedding their political affiliations within a short timeframe remains a challenging endeavour.

A notable instance is Mr Tharman Shanmugaratnam, who resigned from the People’s Action Party (PAP) just slightly over a month before announcing his presidential candidacy, sparking considerable debate.

During a live broadcast, his fellow contender, Ng Kok Song, who formerly served as the Chief Investment Officer of GIC, openly questioned Mr Tharman’s rapid transition to a presidential bid shortly after leaving his party and government.

Dr Felix Tan suggests that in the future, political leaders aspiring to run for the presidency should not only resign from their parties but also adhere to a mandatory waiting period of at least five years before entering the race.

Cherian George and Kevin Y.L. Tan: “illogical ” to raise the corporate threshold in 2016

Indeed, the apprehension regarding the stringent eligibility criteria and concerns about fairness in presidential candidacy requirements are not limited to political analysts interviewed by Singapore’s mainstream media.

Prior to PE2023, CCherian George, a Professor of media studies at Hong Kong Baptist University, and Kevin Y.L. Tan, an Adjunct Professor at both the Faculty of Law of the National University of Singapore and the NTU’s S. Rajaratnam School of International Studies (RSIS), brought attention to the challenges posed by the qualification criteria for candidates vying for the Singaporean Presidency.

In their article titled “Why Singapore’s Next Elected President Should be One of its Last,” the scholars discussed the relevance of the current presidential election system in Singapore and floated the idea of returning to an appointed President, emphasizing the symbolic and unifying role of the office.

They highlighted that businessman George Goh appeared to be pursuing the “deliberative track” for qualification, which requires candidates to satisfy the PEC that their experience and abilities are comparable to those of a typical company’s chief executive with shareholder equity of at least S$500 million.

Mr Goh cobbles together a suite of companies under his management to meet the S$500m threshold.

The article also underscored the disparities between the eligibility criteria for candidates from the public and private sectors, serving as proxies for evaluating a candidate’s experience in handling complex financial matters.

“It is hard to see what financial experience the Chairman of the Public Service Commission or for that matter, the Chief Justice has, when compared to a Minister or a corporate chief.”

“The raising of the corporate threshold in 2016 is thus illogical and serves little purpose other than to simply reduce the number of potentially eligible candidates.”

The article also touches upon the issue of candidates’ independence from political parties, particularly the ruling People’s Action Party (PAP).

It mentions that candidates are expected to be non-partisan and independent, and it questions how government-backed candidates can demonstrate their independence given their previous affiliations.

The Workers’ Party advocate for a return to a ceremonial presidency

It comes as no surprise that Singapore’s alternative party, the Workers’ Party, reaffirmed its stance on 30 August, asserting that they believe the existing qualifying criteria for presidential candidates are skewed in favour of those approved by the People’s Action Party (PAP).

They argue that the current format of the elected presidency (EP) undermines the principles of parliamentary democracy.

“It also serves as an unnecessary source of gridlock – one that could potentially cripple a non-PAP government within its first term – and is an alternative power centre that could lead to political impasses.”

Consistently, the Workers’ Party has been vocal about its objection to the elected presidency and has consistently called for its abolition.

Instead, they advocate for a return to a ceremonial presidency, a position they have maintained for over three decades.

Continue Reading

Trending