On the surface, this appears to be a rehash of last year’s 377A debate. In fact,

Dr Tommy Koh’s arguments for repeal

can be reused almost word for word, if you had not already disposed of them for failing to spark joy:

1. ‘Sin does not equal crime’

2. ‘Singapore is a secular society’

Singapore is—after all—still a ‘secular’ society, and the distinction between sin and crime remain pertinent as ever.

However, these arguments seemed to have persuaded no one who wasn’t already in favour of repeal. Even though they came from an elder statesman and were published in the Straits Times to great fanfare, it was barely two months later when the NCCS was once again in the news. This time, for expressing their ‘disappointment’ over the lack of Christ in Christmas—leading to the same recriminations and bitterness on all sides.

What gives?

For non-religious Singaporeans like myself, the instinctive reaction is to see such ‘complaints’ as an attempt by evangelicals to undermine Singapore’s secularism. This, I believe, is simplistic and incorrect. The problem arises because there are many different types of secularism, often with conflicting ideas about the role of religion in society.

Enter Ethos Institute (™) for Public Christianity—a Christian think tank formed by NCCS*, Trinity Theological College, and The Bible Society Of Singapore, for the express intention of providing a ‘Christian perspective on contemporary issues’. Like all think tanks, they publish articles and working papers, many of which are useful for understanding the recent controversies.

In Ethos’ view, secularism does not mean the removal of religious views or dogmas from the public sphere as Dr Tommy Koh would suggest.

Quite the opposite, in fact.

They argue that religion can participate in the so-called ‘public square’ because secularism, as Ethos’ Dr Brian H Thomas defines it, advocates a “non-sectarian state which neither promotes nor penalises religious adherence … where the religious identity and place of each individual and community in the public square is regarded as legitimate, yet without that conferring any kind of public advantage over another.”

Dr Roland Chia, a Professor of Christian Doctrine at Trinity Theological College and a Research Advisor for Ethos, concurs in one of his many commentaries. In his article ‘A Sin Or A Crime – On Legislating Morality’, he writes that: “But the institutional separation between religion and the state, enshrined in the Maintenance of Religious Harmony Act of 1990, does not banish religion altogether from the public square. Neither does it prohibit faith communities from commenting on moral and social issues that affect their members.”

In other words, secularism should not de-legitimise purely faith-based religious arguments or frameworks in the public conversation. It merely ensures that no individual group (religious or otherwise) enjoys a privileged position. All viewpoints are free to compete in a ‘marketplace of ideas’.

This position is very similar to Professor Thio Li-Ann’s well-publicised opposition to “liberal, militant secularism, which seeks to exclude all religiously influenced views from law and public policy debate.”

Such secularism is not only ‘undemocratic’ but also detrimental to ‘viewpoint diversity’ because religious or non-religious perspectives have a right to participate in public debate. (Likewise, the Catholic Church of Singapore states: “A secular society does not mean that religion has no place, or that religion cannot inform public discourse.”)

This is contentious, but it becomes even more so when we get into the details. If religion does belong in the public sphere, then what are the boundaries governing faith-based public involvement?

Some writers, like Dr Thomas, argue that religious perspectives have their place in the public conversation, but civil servants/bureaucrats have no right to espouse their beliefs on ‘the public’s time or dime’.

Others, like Dr Roland Chia, advocate for something more aggressive.

In ‘Normalizing Homosexuality: How Should Christians Respond?’ (Nov 2018), he calls on Christian civil servants to take action and “try to prevent the promotion of radical views on sexuality or the gay lifestyle. This includes, for example, granting licenses to operate explicitly gay bars or clubs or to organise big public events that promote the LGBT cause.”

In a similar vein, they should also “try to prevent the publication of materials for public consumption if there is cause to believe that they are either based on dubious science or promoting liberal theories about sexuality.”

Christian politicians, in a similar vein, have an essential role to play in “preventing the normalisation of homosexuality”. Though they operate in a secular environment, Dr Chia states that, “Christian politicians must have the courage to make such arguments even in the face of domestic pressures and global trends.”