Lee Kuan Yew School of Public Policy – November 6, 2009

Managing Religious Harmony in Singapore

It is a privilege for me to make this presentation to you, the future leaders of respective countries who are enrolled here in this prestigious institution to study public policy. I trust your time here has been enriching and you are being well-equipped to provide leadership in your home countries in these challenging times.

I am reminded of this iconic figure of the Statue of Liberty in New York and its inscription:

Give me your tired, your poor
Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free
The wretched refuse of your teeming shores
Send these. – Emma Lazarus


We have at the mouth of Singapore River our own mythical Merlion this appeal:

Give me your geeks, your geniuses
Your PhD’s yearning for US research grants
The rich cream of your teeming shore
Oh pray do send these. Quick

Are you aware that you are the geeks and the geniuses and the rich cream from your countries. One of you may yet become the Prime Minister in the future.

It is recorded that the founding fathers, no mothers, of modern Singapore are Toh Chin Chye, Goh Keng Swee and Ong Pang Boon who are from Malaysia. S. Rajaratnam was from Ceylon/Sri Lanka. Devan Nair came from Kerala, India. Only Lee Kuan Yew was born in Singapore.

The Chief Minister from Penang, Malaysia observed recently that 40% of the specialist doctors working in government hospitals in Singapore are from Malaysia. To attract them back to Malaysia would de-stabilize the country. Most Malaysians like me are unwilling to renounce their citizenship while working and staying here as Permanent Residents.
Singapore’s early beginning was a tiny Malay fishing village. A small indigenous Orang Laut (People of the sea) also lived along the nearby coast, rivers and on smaller islands. Since the 5th century CE, businessmen travelling between China and India have been using this island for trade. Later, Singapore became a trading outpost of the ancient Buddhist kingdom of Srivijaya, which had its centre in Palembang, Sumatra, and influenced the region from the 7th to the 10th centuries.
In the 13th century, Srivijaya was overshadowed by the rise of Islam, and Singapore was brought under the influence of the Muslim empire of Malacca. Malacca, situated on the western coast of present-day Peninsula Malaysia, rapidly developed into a thriving free port and commercial centre.
In 1819, the British East India Company, led by Sir Stamford Raffles, established a trading post on the island, which was used as a port along the spice route. In 1824, the island was bought by the British East India Company and became a British colony.
Singapore has always been a nation of immigrants and continue to do so in attracting foreign talents like you. The people who immigrated here brought along with their gods and goddesses and spirits in their boats and housed them in shrines, mosques, temples and churches. They were the business entrepreneurs who came to trade and ordinary labourers indentured to work from the crowded and poorer countries around us. This situation continues till today but under tighter immigration controls. Places of worship for the Muslims, Buddhist, Hindus and Christian religions. The Christian religion came on the heels of the British colonial power and other European commercial interests. Later the Americans entered the scene and helped in the spread of Christianity.

Their religious footprints are left with these historic heritage church buildings like St. Andrew’s Cathedral related to the Church of England, the Armenian Orthodox Church, Wesley Methodist Church, English & Scottish Presbyterians on Prinsep Street. Initially Christian clergymen serve as Chaplains to the colonial officers and the expatriate Europeans. Later they reached out to the local population. The promotion of English education furthered the growth of the Christian Churches..

The Jewish presence was evident too and we have even a Jewish quarter along Mount Sophia Road where there remains some buildings marked prominently by the Star of David.

In checking the current population statistics of 2009 we find:
Singapore is a multi-religious country in a population of 4.99 million, of whom 3.73 million are Singaporean citizens and permanent residents (termed "Singapore Residents"). There are 3.2 million citizens. Around 51% of resident Singaporeans (excluding significant numbers of visitors and migrant workers) practice Buddhism and Taoism. Muslims constitute 15%, of whom Malays account for the majority with a substantial number of Indian Muslims and Chinese Muslims. About 14%, mostly Chinese, Eurasians, and Indians, practice Christianity - a broad classification including Catholicism, Protestantism and other denominations. Smaller minorities practice Sikhism, Hinduism and others, according to the 2000 census.
About 15% of the population declared no religious affiliation. The secular core in our society does not come from this group alone but from people of different faith communities who refrained or restrained from expressing religious views overtly in the public sphere.

Singapore is extremely conscious that it is a small country with limited natural resources and depend much upon human resource. The pre-occupation of our leaders is on economic development and we are prepared to trade off other social and cultural considerations. We are perceived to be Singapore incorporated and open for business. Therefore we have to grow our economy and control and manage other sectors of society.

Singapore jealously guards its secular nature and allows freedom of worship. They observe the separation between the sacred and the secular. It has been commented that Singapore has a highly unusual approach to issues of religious diversity and multiculturalism, adopting a policy of deliberately "managing religions" including Islam in an attempt to achieve orderly and harmonious relations between different racial and religious groups.
Even though we adopt secularism, Singapore does not discriminate against any religion. With the present religious resurgence almost all faith communities are flourishing. They are minding their own religious business. With vigilant watch of the secular government the religions are kept within their own confines of worshipping and teaching their own members about their religious traditions. We need to be mindful that we are not infected with religious fundamentalism from any religious group which seeks to dominate the common space. Hence the war on terrorism and Common Engagement Programme were launched and they were linked to the role of religion in secular Singapore and national security. .
No one religion has attained a position of dominance in Singapore except in the early days of colonialism. Christianity had a special relationship with the British colonial administration. In the struggle to be independent and to be free from the shackles of colonialism the faith communities, in contrast with other colonial countries, were not actively engaged in the fight for national independence.

Since independence in 1965 there is generally no religious conflict among the major faith communities in Singapore. Now and then the issue of proselytisation surfaces in terms of aggressive approaches to secure converts from other religions. Religious activities are conducted in faith-based schools but the question is about participation by students who belong to other religions. These are under control and the state is monitoring whether coercive and intrusive efforts are made to convert. Although the Religious Harmony Act is in place to remind us, no prosecution has really taken place specifically under the Act. Recently two persons were charged and convicted under the Sedition Act and Undesirable Publications Act for circulating fundamentalist Christian Chick Publications that cast a bad light on Islam. The case is under appeal.
Some religious materials and practices are banned in Singapore. The Jehovah's Witnesses, for example, are prohibited from distributing religious materials and are sometimes jailed for their conscientious refusals to serve in the Singaporean military.
Religion here is closely linked with ethnicity. Christianity and Islam cuts across ethnic lines. Singapore history is marred by two religious controversies. The Marie Hertogh case in 1950 over custody of a 13 year old Dutch girl who was adopted by a Malay family, and the overflow of the May 13 racial riots after a national election in Malaysia in 1969. The former was between Islam and Christians and the latter between Malays and primarily the Chinese.
Under the British colonial period there were attempts of integration and assimilation of the different races. We were encouraged to study the English language and imbibe Western culture. They had economic value and offer social mobility. But with globalisation we are moving in the direction of developing a pluralistic society.
May I cautiously move on to the past action of the government against the Christian groups who were involved in questions of social justice in the seventies and eighties. The events related to it are published in three recent publications. They are “Paths Not Taken: Political Pluralism in Postwar Singapore” edited by Michael D Barr &Carl A Trocki and published by National University of Singapore Press 2008; “That we may Dream Again” edited by Fong Hoe Fang and “Our Thoughts are Free” edited by Tan Jing Quee, Teo Soh Lung, & Koh Kay Yew published by Ethos Books 2009.
Lee Kuan Yew in a speech to an Asian Christian Conference in 1967 had recognized the role of religions in the struggle to move society “forward to progress and to a higher level of human life.” He even hoped that the Christian churches might contribute some real leadership to the role of nation building.
The Christian churches took him on his word. In 1969 a Christian ministry to urban industrial workers was developed. The Community Organization method of Saul Alinksy and others in Chicago was adopted. This is the same movement in which President Obama was related to in Chicago. The Jurong Industrial Mission and the Community Centre project in Toa Payoh were launched by the National Council of Churches. They sought to educate workers about their rights and residents about their responsibilities. It was an attempt to participate in nation building.
Soon the work met with government displeasure and the churches succumbed to the pressure and withdrew its endorsement and financial support. This brought their closure in 1973.
In 1987 the government in Operation Spectrum detained 22 religious workers without trial who were accused to engage in a Marxist conspiracy to “overthrow the government and establish a Communist state.” In fact there were mainly Christian students who were concerned with social justice issues and was rendering their services primarily to domestic maids and migrant workers. Some Catholic priests who were part of the Young Workers Movement were involved with the so-called conspiracy had to resign and left the country.
Nine detainees who were released was courageous enough the recant the confessions that had been extracted from them and spoke about the ill-treatment they received under detention and were subsequently re-arrested. All after varying years of detention without trial were released.
I was around and engaged during this critical period. I was a Council member of the National Council of Churches in Singapore and became the General Secretary of the Christian Conference of Asia, an ecumenical body forming a network of the NCC and churches in all the countries of Asia with the exception of the Middle Eastern countries but the inclusion of Australia and New Zealand. CCA had its office here and I was responsible in establishing it from 1973 and served for three full terms for a period of 12 years. But two years after I left and in connection with the events of Operation Spectrum the office was de-registered and the foreign staff members expelled from the country. I survived.
When you visited the Harmony Center you were informed it was inaugurated in 2006. Let me first explain that after September 11, the Muslim community was seeking to project a better image of Islam to the society. They then initiated the establishment of such a center for the purpose of disseminating information about Islam and to foster interfaith dialogue. I have participated in their events frequently in my personal capacity. They sensed how crucial it is to promote religious harmony. Leaders of different faiths were at the official inauguration but there should have been more participation from the faith communities in subsequent events. No other faith community has established similar Harmony centers even to serve their own followers to know more about other religions or to have dialogue with people of other faiths. Most of the initiatives on interfaith dialogue come from the Muslims. Islam is a minority religion and the fallout of 9/ll compelled the Muslim community to project a different image, one of peace and moderation rather than violence and extremism. The Muslim community is very interested in interfaith relations and dialogue and must be disappointed with the lukewarm response on a more serious level from all the other faith communities.
Other faith communities do not feel threatened and do not feel that they are being discriminated. They are comfortable in their individual religious zone. There is no siege mentality on the part of the religious communities. Generally there is goodwill among the religions. The faith communities live in splendid isolation, each able to maintain itself without the support of the other. But we cannot allow them to remain in their comfort zones be it in churches, mosques or temples tending only to its own business.
The government through the Ministry of Community Development and Youth & Sports and the Ministry of Home Affairs are encouraging more inter-faith activities through its One People programme and the Common Engagement Programme which deals more with security implications. They face the difficulties of drawing people out of their isolation or comfort zones.
Faith communities tend to be conservative and hold on to traditional beliefs and practices. Unfortunately each community believes it has the monopoly of religious truths and values and the only way to salvation. Hence the need to dialogue on religious issues is not essential and there is no felt need to relate with other faith communities.
In spite of the 60 years of the Inter-Religious Organisation in which I am a Council member for the past fifteen years we have not able to get the full support of current religious leaders particularly from the Protestant faith communities. Yet it was the leadership of the faith communities who founded the organization. The theological orientation shifted across the years and I watched the changes myself from an open liberal or progressive to a more close traditional conservative/fundamentalist and even extremist positions. In Christian circles it is the influence from the Religious Right from the United States. Religions did not attempt to integrate into the peculiar culture of the people and history of Singapore. They remain as foreign imports contrary to what Buddhism has done in China.
Some religious communities seek to inform one another about their faith and avoid issues that divide the communities. On the practical and social level there is much more interaction in the celebration of one another’s religious observances and festivities. They are still careful about the issue of conversion. A few conversions take place but kept under wraps. It seems that self-restriction is in place without too overt an evangelization or conversion programme.
With the increasing religiosity and the resurgence of traditional Asian religions there is the need for re-examination of our religious beliefs and values. With the open access to information more challenges are posed about the role of religion in society. In the period of secularization and the disenchantment with religious institutions serious questions are being asked. At the early stages there was the process of moving religion to the margins and become just a privatized faith with the hope that it will finally wither away. But there is as Chief Rabbi Jonathan Sacks has written persuasively a persistence of faith and religion is coming out enter the common space. The intra debate within each faith community itself has surfaced traditional and progressive divisions.
I personally welcomed this development and acknowledgment of diversity of religious beliefs. The call is to recognize differences and respect them. The process is to engage people who have different views in the expectation of finding common ground for the well-being of our community.
At one time the political leadership proclaimed that if one is to participate in the common space and deal with political issues it can be done only when he or she belongs to a registered political party. But lately with the AWARE saga the space has opened up for political views to be expressed other than from an exclusive political party base. If the profile of the religious population shows that only 15% declared no religious affiliation it is inevitable that the rest are members of their faith communities and are influenced by religious views on social and moral issues. Due to the multi-religious nature of the people it is important that we do not allow one religion to intrude, impose and dominate at the expense of the other religions. Each will have to come to share their views even though they may be different and reach agreement to function for the good of the society. That was the appeal of the Prime Minister in his National Day Rally speech. This is a significant step in the right direction. The fear is about religious fundamentalism, domination and extremism.
In the past there was comparative lack of opportunity for participation in the common space. There is no violent reaction from the faith communities on controversial social issues. Upon request from the State, they sent in their feedback on certain issues like abortion, stem-cell research, national service, birth control, organ donations, sexuality education and casino gambling. The conservative nature of our faith communities at present are against the somewhat progressive secular policy. Most of the time their representations were entertained and shelved and the proposed policy prevails even if it is at odds with the faith communities.
Howeveer a local theologian just recently called on Christians to be realistic about their role vis-a-vis society at large. It is beyond the ability of the Church to transform the world on a macro, societal level. This is something only God can achieve.

As for Christians, they are called merely to be witnesses of God’s justice and love in word and service, according to Dr Roland Chia, a professor of Christian doctrine at Trinity Theological College. Christians should realise that the social and political order is beyond their ability as humans to change and that “political and social engagement is not the quick way to usher in the Kingdom of God on earth”. In the end, the most important form of engagement Christians could engage in is by falling to their knees in prayer.
More than organising political and social movements in a vain attempt to transform the world, Christians should pray for God’s Kingdom to come on earth, the theologian said
On the contrary, people of faith who are committed to diversity and who respect differences should be encouraged not only to pray but to dialogue in seeking common values and working together to foster peace and harmony and ensure a good future for all our people.
More and much more could be done to protect the prevailing racial and religious peace by the religious, secular and political leadership. Much more interactions need to take place between the faith communities in different kinds of involvement. Much more interfaith dialogue and co-operative services are necessary in meeting human need. We are all called to promote and manage religious harmony.

The Religious and the Secular in Singapore

Asia Research Institute Roundtable "The Religious and the Secular in Singapore" November 24. 2009
Speakers: Prof Ten Chin Liew, NUS Philosophy Department
Dr Kenneth Paul Tan, LKY School of Public Policy Assistant Dean & Associate Professor in Political Science
Rev Dr Yap Kim Hao
Chair MS Lai Ah Eng, ARI Senior Research Fellow


Thank you for inviting me to this Roundtable on “The Religious and the Secular –divide or common space. Our presence and participation here is an indication of what common space is and could be. As a member of the one of the many Protestant Christian faith communities, I have traditionally and contemporaneously lived on the other side of the majority even in my own church and society. I expect that since I chose to be a Protestant – critical and protesting!

Let me first paint with a wide brush how this divide played up in Singapore according to my perceptions

Two weeks ago the book on the Fajar Generation was launched. Five political detainees from Operation Coldstore wrote the essays. The February 2, 1963 operation was authorised by the Internal Security Council which comprised representatives from the British Colonial, Malaysian Federal and Singapore governments. They drew the line that divided at least 111 which included key leaders of the opposition political party said to be pro-Communists from the rest of us and alleged subversive.

About five months ago two books authored by some who were detained without trial in Operation Spectrum was launched. The operation in May 21, 1987 netted 22 young Roman Catholic church and social activists and professionals, accused them of being members of a dangerous Marxist conspiracy trying to subvert the PAP-ruled government by force and replace it with a Marxist state. Prime Minister Lee Kuan Yew drew the line and tagged them as Marxists.

In September 3. 1994, Ms Catherine Lim a novelist published a political commentary, “The Great Affective Divide.” She argued that while Singaporeans respected the PAP’s efficiency and were grateful towards it for bringing Singapore economic success, they lacked any real affection or warmth for the party. This time PM Goh Chok Tong drew the line and castigated her and told her that if she wanted to voice her opinion on politics, she should join a political party.”

This year PM Lee Hsien Loong in his National Day Rally Speech in August 16 elaborated the issue that we are discussing today arising from the AWARE controversy. He posed the rhetorical question: You may ask, Does this mean that religious groups have no views, cannot have views on national issues? Or, that religious individuals cannot participate in politics? Obviously not. And obviously, he went on to say, many Christians, Hindus, Muslims, Buddhists participate in politics. In Parliament, we have people of all faiths. In the Cabinet too…The public debate cannot be on whose religion is right and whose religion is wrong. It has to be on secular, rational considerations of public interest - what makes sense for Singapore. PM Lee did not draw any line and blurred those that were drawn before.

But this was not the case of Rev Derek Hong of Church of the Saviour in Queenstown who was quoted to have preached on April 26 in his church at the height of the AWARE Controversy: “This is not a crusade against the people but there is a line that God has drawn for us, and we don’t want our nation crossing that line.” This dogmatic assertion is frightening.

In my humble opinion I strongly disagree with Hong’s view. My Jesus was obliterating the lines drawn by the scribes and Pharisees of His day - lines rigidly drawn between Jew & Greek, slave & free, male & female, and clean & unclean, sacred & profane. I don’t draw lines excluding others for I prefer to draw circles including all of God’s people.

I know my own Christian history where the Church especially after Emperor Constantine in 321 C.E. believes not only in what Peter Berger calls the “sacred canopy” but also the solid St Peter’s Dome that for a long time claims salvation only for the Catholics. It took Martin Luther and other leaders of the Reformation to remove the authority of the Pope and the responsibility for individuals to make their own interpretation of their sacred text. It promoted freedom and rationality leading to the Enlightenment and abolished the divine right of monarchs to rule. I stand in that tradition.

Across the years since the Enlightenment, secularization advanced rapidly and displaced the role of religion in public space and reduced it to a personal privatized faith. It drew dark solid lines between religion and politics, sacred and the secular. It erected walls between church and state. It proclaimed religions and politics don’t mix.

Secularization is sometimes credited with the paradigm shift in society following the emergence of rationality and the development of science as a substitute for superstition. Max Weber called this process, "the disenchantment of the world." What used to be the perception that everything is sacred and the world is populated by mysterious spirits and gods or controlled by the one God has become secular and the world managed only by man and woman, to be politically correct.

Most of the Western world has seen this secularization paradigm dominate political life. You therefore have a secular government that does not represent or privileged any particular religion. Some even opposed religion and want its total annihilation. Secular state is the norm in democratic countries where free elections are held. The individuals that make up the government and the civil society at large have the freedom to choose whatever religion they want. Because of this freedom, in a multi-religious world, there is a requirement for governments not to cause resentment or divisions by identifying itself with any particular religion. The well-known phrase proposing secular democracy as an ideal is Jefferson's "wall of separation between church and state."

Countries in the Islamic world continue to look at some form of a theocracy or give some constitutional status to Islam. Only Turkey has formally instituted the separation of mosque and state. It has enacted the removal of Islam from the constitution, and the abrogation of the sharia law. The status of Islam ranges from the Islamic Republic of Iran, which gives religion central position, to the rather minimal reference in the Syrian constitution, which says the laws of the state shall be inspired by the sharia. Saudi Arabia which does not have a written constitution still accords a very considerable place to religion and sharia .

Islam, like Judaism and Christianity, has a great potential to resist complete secularization for its religious tenets do not try to divorce itself from society and historical events. In this sense it does not share the non-historical, monastic and otherworldly orientation of Hinduism, Buddhism and other religions.

At the height of human arrogance the expectation was that there will be a withering away of religion and the proclamation that God is either a delusion as propagated by Richard Dawkins currently or by some Christian theologians that God is dead some years ago. This death announcement seems to be premature.

Basically, it is an issue of power in society. This is in accordance with Machiavelli's definition of politics as the "art of gaining and maintaining power. Or Max Weber's rendition, "striving for participation in power and influence, the distribution of power between states and within groups within a state."

Those in authority like religious leaders in the past want to consolidate the power in their own hands and pushed contenders of other faiths or those who do not agree and challenge their views aside as much as they could. So they rule by violence and conquest and assert control by force and detention. Even faith communities now continue to do that by terrorism and ex-communication.

Secularization is still prevalent and dominant. History shows the direction toward secularism in the age of modernity. But of late it also shows movements to desecularize and a resurgence of religious devotion. Without being limited largely to Western society there is room for other regions of the world to develop religiously in a new way. In the last decade a major religious resurgence is seen in different parts of the world from private to public faith although beginning with a conservative trend and even with a radical and extremist approach.

Peter Berger ironically propagated desecularization in his 1999 publication entitled: The Desecularization of the World.” Father Andrew Greeley, a prominent sociologist in his publication, “The Persistence of Religion,” discusses the desecularization of society. Even with the affluence we have achieved and the comfort that we enjoy man is in search of values and meaning and purpose in life. A re-enchantment of the world is taking place.

Jonathan Sacks, the Chief Rabbi of Britain and the Commonwealth published his 1990 Reith Lectures in BBC in the book “The Persistence of Faith: Religion, Morality and Society in a Secular Age.” If faith persists, then the virtues, institutions and communities associated with it can be recovered. He calls for the spiritualisation of society, not politisation or secularisation of religion. He claims that there is a role in charting our shared moral landscape, that sense of common good that we need if our communities are to have social cohesion. It is to temper competition with compassion, individualism with responsibility, and give the search for social justice its religious voice.


Sacks made this interesting observation: “God enters society in the form of specific ways of life, disclosed by revelation, mediated by tradition, embellished by custom and embodied in institutions. Faith lives not only in the privacy of the soul but in compassion and justice: the structures of our common life.”



Robert Bellah with reference to our concern for the environment and ecology warns us that damage to our social or moral ecology will destroy ourselves long before natural ecological disaster has time to be realized. He appeals for an end to war, genocide and political repression now.

Today, we are trying to define the rightful role of religions in secular society. We recognize there is a resurgence of religious faith even in Singapore. It is important to know what is the outcome and nature of this resurgence. If it is the kind of what we know as the Religious Right as demonstrated by the AWARE controversy, then we are going back to the days when lines were drawn to divide. If it is the resurgence of the use of violence like the Al Qaeda, then we are heading towards clashes of civilizations and religious wars to overthrow and displace existing structures. .

A pluralistic society needs a moral and cultural base. We need to view community as a series of environments in which we learn local languages of identity alongside a public language of collective aspirations. It needs communities where individuals can feel that that their values are protected and can be handed on to their children. And it needs an overarching sense of national community in which different groups are participants in a shared pursuit of the common good.



This can only be achieved when we have a truly open society. The circle I want to draw brings together the religions and secular. It is premised on an open and free society seeking continuous renewal process in each sector or smaller circles - religion, economics, civil and political – and interacting within itself and in the large circle. I call for circle of circles.



For this, I am indebted to the image provided by Johannes Althusius, a Dutch Calvinist humanist’s concept of a political model of “community of communities.” The different circles or communities are in symbiotic relationships committing themselves each to the other to “mutual communication of whatever is useful and necessary for the harmonious exercise of social life.”



Each circle can maintain its uniqueness and values which may be irrelevant to others but at the same share their concerns and commitments with other circles in an interactive process enriching one another an enhancing the life of the large circle. The circles will have conflicting interests but they also share common concerns and seek to grow or enlarge this common space. Yet we have to recognize and accept that pluralism or diversity is written indelibly into human history. We appeal to rationality and humaneness to order our pluralistic future.



Much will depend upon in our situation to the powerful and influential political circle which needs to lead by example of its willingness to risk and entertain opposing views and in their attitude towards all the other sectors. It calls for a radical change in our mind-set to engagement not containment, tolerance not condemnation. It calls for encouraging and maintaining a culture of freedom of expression and therefore promoting a climate of open and transparent discussion in all the circles in our society. It is expected that there are reasonable limits for the sake of decorum and for the cohesion of our community. It is the affirmation of diversity with respect for differences and the willingness to dialogue and working together for common values, seeking a common good and ensuring our common future. This is my hope.

Rev Dr Yap Kim Hao

LKY Institute of Public Policy – November 6, 2009
Managing Religious Harmony in Singapore

Statue of Liberty – Staten Island
Give me your tired, your poor
Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free
The wretched refuse of your teeming shores
Send these. – Emma Lazarus

Merlion of Singapore – Mouth of Singapore River
Give me your geeks, your geniuses
Your PhD’s yearning for US research grants
The rich cream of your teeming shore
Oh pray do send these. Quick

Are you aware that you are the geeks and the geniuses and the rich cream from your countries. One of you may become the Prime Minister in the future.

It is recorded that the founding fathers, no mothers, of modern Singapore Toh Chin Chye, Goh Keng Swee and Ong Pang Boon who are from Malaysia. Rajaratnam was from Ceylon/Sri Lanka. Devan Nair was from Kerala, India. Only MM LKY was born in Singapore.

The Chief Minister from Penang, Malaysia observed recently that 40% of the specialist doctors working in government hospitals in Singapore are from Malaysia. To attract them back to Malaysia would de-stabilize the country. Malaysians like me are unwilling to renounce their citizenship while working and staying here as Permanent Residents.

Singapore’s early beginning was a tiny Malay fishing village. A small indigenous Orang Laut (People of the sea) also lived along the nearby coast, rivers and on smaller islands. Since the 5th century CE businessmen traveling between China and India have been using this island for trade. Later, Singapore became a trading outpost of the ancient Buddhist kingdom of Srivijaya, which had its centre in Palembang, Sumatra, and influenced the region from the 7th to the 10th centuries.
In the 13th century, Srivijaya was overshadowed by the rise of Islam, and Singapore came under the influence of the Muslim empire of Malacca. Malacca, situated on the western coast of present-day Peninsula Malaysia, rapidly developed into a thriving free port and commercial centre.

In 1819, the British East India Company, led by Sir Stamford Raffles, established a trading post on the island, which was used as a port along the spice route. In 1824, the island was bought by the British East India Company and became a British colony.
Singapore has always been a nation of immigrants and continue to do so in attracting foreign talents like some of you. The people who immigrated here brought along with their gods and goddesses and spirits in their boats and housed them in shrines, mosques, temples and churches. They were the business entrepreneurs who came to trade and ordinary labourers who came to work from the poor and crowded countries around us. This process continues till today but under tighter immigration controls. They erected their places of worship for the Muslims, Buddhist, Hindus and traditional Christian religions. The Christian religion came on the heels of the British colonial power and other European commercial interests. Later the Americans entered the scene and helped in the spread of Christianity.

Their religious footprints are left with these historic heritage church buildings like St. Andrew’s Cathedral of then called Church of England, the Armenian Orthodox Church, Wesley Methodist Church, English & Scottish Presbyterians on Prinsep Street. Initially Christian clergymen serve as Chaplains to the colonial officers and the Europeans who worked here Later they reached out to the local population. The promotion of English education furthered the growth of the Christian movement.

It must be noted that the Jewish presence was evident too and we have even a Jewish quarter along Mount Sophia Road where there remains some buildings marked by the Star of David.

In checking the current population statistics of 2009 we find:
Singapore is a multi-religious country in a population of 4.99 million, of whom 3.73 million are Singaporean citizens and permanent residents (termed "Singapore Residents"). There are 3.2 million citizens. Around 51% of resident Singaporeans (excluding significant numbers of visitors and migrant workers) practice Buddhism and Taoism. Muslims constitute 15%, of whom Malays account for the majority with a substantial number of Indian Muslims and Chinese Muslims. About 14%, mostly Chinese, Eurasians, and Indians, practice Christianity - a broad classification including Catholicism, Protestantism and other denominations. Smaller minorities practice Sikhism, Hinduism and others, according to the 2000 census.
About 15% of the population declared no religious affiliation. The secular core in our society does not come from this group alone but from people of different faith communities who refrained or restrained from expressing religious views overtly in the public sphere.

Singapore is extremely conscious that it is a small country with limited natural resources and depend much upon the human resource. The pre-occupation of our leaders is on economic development and we are prepared to trade off other social and cultural considerations. We are perceived to be Singapore incorporated and open for business. Therefore we have to grow our economy and control and manage other sectors of society.

Singapore jealously guards its secular nature and allows freedom of worship. They try to observe the separation between the sacred and the secular. It actively engages in promoting religious harmony in order to ensure social stability and economic growth.

It has been commented that Singapore has a highly unusual approach to issues of religious diversity and multiculturalism, adopting a policy of deliberately "managing religions" including Islam in an attempt to achieve orderly and harmonious relations between different racial and religious groups.

No one religion has attained a position of dominance in Singapore. In the struggle to be independent and to be free from the shackles of colonialism the faith communities in contrast with other colonial countries were not actively engaged in the movement for national independence. Christianity has a special relationship with the British colonial administration and for obvious reasons kept itself out of the struggle.

Since independence in 1965 there is generally no religious conflict among the major faith communities in Singapore. Now and then the issue of proselytisation surfaces in terms of aggressive approaches to secure converts from other religions. Religious activities are conducted in faith-based schools but the question is about participation by students who belong to other religions.. These are under control and the state is monitoring whether coercive and intrusive efforts are made to convert. Although the Religious Harmony Act is in place to remind us, no prosecution has really taken place specifically under the Act. Recently two persons were charged and convicted under the Sedition Act and Undesirable Publications Act for circulating fundamentalist Christian Chick Publications that cast a bad light on Islam. The case is under appeal.

Some religious materials and practices are banned in Singapore. The Jehovah's Witnesses, for example, are prohibited from distributing religious materials and are sometimes jailed for their conscientious refusals to serve in the Singaporean military.

Religion here is closely linked with ethnicity. Christianity and Islam cuts across ethnic lines. Singapore history is marred by two religious controversies. The Marie Hertogh case in 1950 over custody of a 13 year old Dutch girl who was adopted by a Malay family, and the overflow of the May 13 racial riots after a national election in Malaysia in 1969. The former was between Islam and Christians and the latter between Malays and primarily the Chinese.

Under the British colonial period there were attempts of integration and assimilation of the different races. We were encouraged to study the English language and imbibe Western culture. They had economic value and social mobility. But with globalisation we are moving in the direction of developing a pluralistic society.

May I cautiously move on to the past action of the government against the Christian groups who were involved in questions of social justice in the seventies and eighties. The events related to it are published in three recent publications. They are “Paths Not Taken: Political Pluralism in Postwar Singapore” edited by Michael D Barr &Carl A Trocki and published by National University of Singapore Press 2008; “That we may Dream Again” edited by Fong Hoe Fang and “Our Thoughts are Free” edited by Tan Jing Quee, Teo Soh Lung, & Koh Kay Yew published by Ethos Books 2009.

Lee Kuan Yew in a speech to an Asian Christian Conference in 1967 had recognized the role of religions in the struggle to move society “forward to progress and to a higher level of human life.” He even hoped that the Christian churches might contribute some real leadership to the role of nation building.

The Christian churches took him on his word. In 1969 a Christian ministry to urban industrial mission was developed. The Community Organization method of Saul Alinksy and others in Chicago was adopted. This is the same movement in which President Obama was related to in Chicago. The Jurong Industrial Mission and the Community Centre project in Toa Payoh was launched by the National Council of Churches. They sought to educate workers about their rights and residents about their responsibilities. It was an attempt to participate in nation building.
Soon the work met with government displeasure and the churches succumbed to the pressure and withdrew its endorsement and financial support. This brought an end to its closure in 1973.

In 1987 the government in Operation Spectrum detained 22 workers without trial who were accused to a Marxist conspiracy to “overthrow the government and establish a Communist state.” In fact there were mainly Christian students who were concerned with social justice issues and was rendering their services primarily to domestic maids and migrant workers. Some Catholic priests who were part of the Young Workers Movement were involved with the so-called conspiracy had to resign and left the country.

Nine who were released was courageous enough the recant the confessions that had been extracted from them and spoke about the ill-treatment they received under detention and were subsequently re-arrested. All after varying years of detention without trial were released.

I was personally around and engaged during this critical period. I was a Council member of the National Council of Churches in Singapore and became the General Secretary of the Christian Conference of Asia an ecumenical body forming a network of the NCC and churches in all the countries of Asia with the exception of the Middle Eastern countries but the inclusion of Australia and New Zealand. CCA had its office here and I was responsible in establishing it from 1973 and served for three full terms for a period of 12 years. But two years after I left and in connection with the events of Operation Spectrum the office was de-registered and the foreign staff members expelled from the country. I am a survivor.

When you visited the Harmony Center you were informed it was inaugurated in 2006. Let me first explain that after September 11, the Muslim community was seeking to project a better image of Islam to the society. They then initiated the establishment of such a center for the purpose of disseminating information about Islam and to foster interfaith dialogue. I have participated in their events frequently in my personal capacity. They sensed how crucial it is to promote religious harmony. Leaders of different faiths were at the official inauguration but there should have been more participation from the faith communities in subsequent events. No other faith community has established similar Harmony centers even to serve their own followers to know more about other religions or to have dialogue with people of other faiths. Most of the initiatives on interfaith dialogue come from the Muslim side. Islam is a minority religion and the fallout of 9/ll compelled the Muslim community to project a different image, one of peace and moderation rather than violence and extremism. The Muslim community is very interested in interfaith relations and dialogue and must be disappointed with the lukewarm response to do it on a more serious level from all the other faith communities.
Other faith communities do not feel threatened and do not feel that they are being discriminated. They are comfortable in their private religious zone. There is no siege mentality on the part of the religious communities. Generally there is goodwill among the religions. The faith communities live in splendid isolation, each able to maintain itself without the support of the other. But we cannot allow them to remain in their comfort zones be it in churches, mosques or temples tending only to its own business.

Faith communities tend to be conservative and hold on to traditional beliefs and practices. Unfortunately each community believes it has the monopoly of religious truths and values and the only way to salvation. Hence the need to dialogue on religious issues is not essential and there is no felt need to relate with other faith communities.

Some religious communities seek to inform one another about their faith and avoid issues that divide the communities. On the practical and social level there is much more interaction in the celebration of one another’s religious observances and festivities. They are still careful about the issue of conversion. A few conversions take place but kept under wraps. It seems that self-restriction is in place without too overt an evangelization or conversion programme.

With the increasing religiosity and the resurgence of traditional Asian religions there is the need for re-examination of our religious beliefs and values. With the open access to information more challenges are posed about the role of religion in society. In the period of secularization and the disenchantment with religious institutions serious questions are being asked. At the early stages there was the process of moving religion to the margins and become just a privatized faith with the hope that it will finally wither away. But there is as Chief Rabbi Jonathan Sacks has written persuasively a persistence of faith and religion is coming out enter the common space. The intra debate within each faith community itself has surfaced traditional and progressive divisions.

I personally welcomed this development and acknowledgment of diversity of religious beliefs. The call is to recognize differences and respect them. The process is to engage people who have different views in the expectation of finding common ground for the well-being of our community.

At one time the political leadership proclaimed that if one is to participate in the common space and deal with political issues it can be done only when he or she belongs to a registered political party. But lately with the AWARE saga the space has opened up for political views to be expressed other than from an exclusive political party base. If the profile of the religious population shows that only 15% declared no religious affiliation it is inevitable that the rest are members of their faith communities and are influenced by religious views on social and moral issues. Due to the multi-religious nature of the people it is important that we do not allow one religion to intrude, impose and dominate at the expense of the other religions. Each will have to come to share their views even though they may be different and reach agreement to function for the well-being of the society. That was the appeal of the Prime Minister in his National Day Rally speech. This is a significant step in the right direction. The fear is about religious fundamentalism, domination and extremism.

In the past there was comparative lack of opportunity for participation in the common space. There is no violent reaction from the faith communities on controversial social issues. Upon request from the State, they sent in their feedback on certain issues like abortion, stem-cell research, national service, birth control, organ donations and casino gambling. The conservative character of our faith communities at present are against the somewhat progressive secular policy. Most of the time their representations were entertained and shelved and the proposed policy prevails even if it is at odds with the faith communities.

A local theologian just last Saturday has called on Christians to be realistic about their role vis-a-vis society at large. It is beyond the ability of the Church to transform the world on a macro, societal level. This is something only God can achieve.

As for Christians, they are called merely to be witnesses of God’s justice and love in word and service, according to Dr Roland Chia, a professor of Christian doctrine at Trinity Theological College. Christians should realise that the social and political order is beyond their ability as humans to change and that “political and social engagement is not the quick way to usher in the Kingdom of God on earth”. In the end, the most important form of engagement Christians could engage in is by falling to their knees in prayer.

More than organising political and social movements in a vain attempt to transform the world, Christians should pray for God’s Kingdom to come on earth, the theologian said.

People of faith who are committed to diversity and who respect the differences should be encouraged to dialogue in seeking common values and working together to foster peace and harmony and ensure a bright future for all people throughout the world.

I have said enough without getting into more trouble and causing more conflict. I am sorry I have not painted a rosy picture but candidly portrayed a colorful scene of the inherent rainbow society in Singapore

Lately, I have been challenged to reflect on sexual ethics. In terms of sex there is the tendency for us to “just do it” (it is just sex!) instead of first thinking over its consequences. It is to our advantage to be proactive and develop some guidelines concerning things sexual.

The breaking up of relationships resulted in emotional upheavals around us. The fallout of pain and agony should not surprise us. These happenings led me to informal discussions with people who are prepared to be engaged on the issue of sexual ethics and there are only a few. It is good and timely that these situations presented opportunities for us to reflect. The pressure of events has forced us to look more critically on sexual ethics in our community. It is all about sex in FCC in the direction of discovering meaning and purpose of sex in our lives. .

When I was requested to express my views on the article on “Sexual Ethics” I realise that I could not just simple state my views and rehearse them again. I need to probe also into recent publications on the subject to find my bearings and see whether I am on the right track in the current discourse on sexual ethics. I went to the library of Trinity Theological College and searched the catalogue under the search words “Christian sexual ethics.” I explored the following books which I found useful and I interacted with the writings in seeking clarity for my positions.

I want to share the titles of these books which I found stimulating:
1. Farley Margaret A, “Just Love: A Framework for Christian Sexual Ethics” (New York: Continum, 2006).
Ms Farley is Professor of Christian Ethics at Yale Divinity School since 1971. She is a feminist theologian and in her scholarly work she has researched the important writings on this subject with a vast bibliography.

2. Jordan, Mark D, “The Ethics of Sex” (Oxford: Blackwell Publishing, 2002). Mr Jordan is avante-garde on Postmodern theology and writes from a non-heterosexual and marginal perspective. In the penultimate page of his book, he wrote: “Who could have imagined two decades ago (since 1970) that an introduction to the Christian ethics of sex could be written by an ‘unrepentant homosexual’”?

3. Cahill, Lisa Snowle, (Sex, Gender & Christian Ethics” (Cambridge:Cambridge University Press, 1996). Ms Snowle is a Professor of Christian Ethics at Boston College. She wrote from the perspective of a Catholic feminist theologian.

4. Dominian, Jack & Montefiore, Hugh, “God Sex & Love” (London: SCM Press, 1989). Anglican Bishop Montefiore is a marital counselor and Senior Consultant at Central Middlesex Hospital. Roman Catholic Dr Dominian is a Senior Consultant Psychiatrist in the same hospital. Both speak as committed members of their churches and dare to differ from their official teaching.

5. Countryman, L. William, “Dirt Greed & Sex: Sexual Ethics in the New Testament and their implications for Today” (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1988). Dr Countryman is Professor of New Testament at the Church Divinity School of the Pacific in Berkeley.

In reading through this random selection of books I found all the authors are gay-affirming and they seem to agree on some common principles of sexual ethics. Some will emphasize more on certain aspects like the Catholic bishop who shared also the concept of natural law. Others are more progressive. Farley was able to draw all the issues together and provides a basic framework for our reflection. A comprehensive view of sexuality was discussed in order to bring clarity to specific problems of sex.

They all seem to speak about one Christian sexual ethics along the lines that they understand, interpret and communicate. There is one sexual ethic applicable for the gays and the straights. They make reference to the LGBT community but they do not privilege them. One ethics fits them all – gay or straight. This is important and we no longer say that any group needs special consideration. The difference is in sexual partners – same-sex or opposite sex. The same ethic applies to both.

The peculiar situation of the LGBTG is that they have to accept their sexual orientation and then along with the straights deal with sexual ethics. Indulging in sex does not necessarily lead to affirmation of gay identity. It may create greater confusion both in acceptance of sexual orientation and in sexual ethics. Gays are not naturally more promiscuous than the straights. Gay and straight identities are not socially constructed but naturally endowed. This is what is meant when we claim we do not choose to become a homosexual. It is not a choice but a recognition and acceptance of what is given.

The question that we have to ask is the source and authority for our Christian ethic. Traditionally, we have been told to accept the authority of the Bible. For we all too familiar with the refrain “The Bible tells me so.” Then we are confronted with the teaching of the official Church that has declared what is right and what is wrong by the majority of its leaders. But when we examine more closely we have to raise the questions about the way the Bible was formed or the manner in which the pronouncements of the Church were formulated. . The literal acceptance of these important documents is not adequate. They are in reality not revealed but interpretations of the revelations by the different human authors inspired by God. Sola Scripture is not sufficient.
In my seminary training since 1952 I have been exposed to critical study of the sources of authority. A scholar of Wesleyan or Methdist theology, Albert Outler in 1964 coined the term Wesleyan Quadrilateral for the sources in our study of theology and search for truth. The four distinctive sources in arriving at theological conclusions are:
· Scripture - the Holy Bible (Old and New Testaments)
· Tradition - the two millennia history of the Christian Church
· Reason - rational thinking and sensible interpretation
· Experience - a Christian's personal and communal journey in Christ
This quadrilateral has been widely accepted by recognized scholars and has filtered down to popular usage. Farley readily admits that her version parallels the Wesleyan Quadrilateral which she regards as fairly “standard” for most scholars for the study of Christian sexual ethics. She uses the terms Scripture, tradition, secular disciplines and contemporary experience.

These four sources are distinct but inter-related. We can no longer believe that the words of the Bible were dictated by God and the metaphorical story of the Ten Commandments were carved in stone tablets and brought down from Mount Sinai by Moses who met Yahweh at the top. People of faith have received what they in faith believed as God’s revelation of truth. They must have undergone the process of reasoning to come to their conclusions. The teaching of the Church was formulated by scholars and leaders through their critical study and reflection not only of the Bible passages. What they believe to be true has to be experienced in the life of the faithful individually and corporately in community. No one source can stand alone. It must interact with one another in trying to reach truth and understanding.

When we interpret the Bible and Tradition we must recognize that it is historically based and culturally bound. They cannot be absolute and universal truth for all people and all time. We have the obligation and responsibility to investigate how they can become relevant to our contemporary situations. We have already rejected the purity laws, slavery, racial discrimination, patriarchy and it is just a matter time before the teaching that homosexuality is a sin and abomination is cast into the shredder.

With sexual ethics in mind we must note that the Bible is primarily concerned with sex solely for procreation and the patriarchal model of sexual relationships. Women were generally under the control by men and regarded to be a piece of property to be used and transacted. The Jewish tribes were concerned with the perpetuation of their people as Chosen people and the continued dominance of the male members in society. Monogamous relationship for life was valued and promoted. Adultery was punishable by death of both partners.

The Jewish faith was concerned with the issue of holiness and purity and regard the material including the body as of less worth than the spiritual. There are those who even say that sexuality violates purity laws and there is much argument about what is clean and what is unclean. It also leads to feel that erotic pleasure is disgusting and that sex is dirty.

Sex is due to the fall.. Too easily is the acceptance even within the gay community that sex is original sin and fallen nature. It is then associated not only to the weakness of the temptress Eve but with the demonic and the idolatrous.

The New Testament is clear that there is the overarching command to love God and neighbour which includes the sexual lives of the people. Seeking justice and loving mercy is more important that pursuing sex. It was concerned with the reign of God in all human activity.

The community of faith in their critical reflection and interpretation of the words and events written down in the pages of the holy text which originally circulated as oral tradition form the official teaching of the Church.
As the Bible was influenced by the pagan religions around them, the teaching of the Church was impacted by Graeco-Roman culture and the other religious and cultural conditions prevailing then. Tradition is continuing and is not frozen to the past. Through our experiences and new thinking we correct old traditions, updating them and forming new ones. This process is a continuous one. New occasions teach new duties.

The Graeco-Roman culture accepted sex as a natural part of life. It was against incest, bigamy and adultery because they covet another person’s property. Both the Greeks and the Romans know about same-sex relations for they assumed that the male sex is bi-sexual. Concubinage, male and female prostitution, sexual use of slaves were accepted. Both men and women sought sex with partners other than their spouses. Only the brides were expected to be virgins. Male homosexuality was accepted but male passivity is questioned. Lesbian relationships did not receive positive support and seen as adultery because a woman is a property of her husband.

The Christian tradition inevitably changed in succeeding generations. The ancient philosophers were against bodily passion. But the use of reason in dealing with questions of morality was encouraged. Sex was good but gone bad due to the Fall. Virginity became a virtue and extolled.

The Early Church Fathers viewed sexual passion as an evil passion that must be brought under control. Even sexual intercourse outside marriage and without the purpose of procreation was regarded as sinful. Marriage is seen as a remedy for lust. Canon law was instituted on the principle that “all sexual activity is evil unless it is between husband and wife and for the sake of procreation. Generally then they took a negative and pessimistic view of sex.

In the Middle Ages the tradition of spiritual love and sexual pleasure came together and celibacy was challenged. Later Luther advanced the idea that marriage is not a hospital for incurables but a school for character and the importance of family life. Luther along with Calvin opposed divorce, premarital and extramarital sex and homosexual relations.

Sexual ethics must necessarily be affected by new information and new technologies. The secular disciplines of philosophy, psychology, sociology, science and arts are what we can regard as the rational source. We use reason and we experiment to gain knowledge.

Karen Armstrong recently commented: “Homo sapiens is also Homo religiosus. As soon as we became recognizably human, men and women started to create religions. We are meaning-seeking creatures. While dogs, as far as we know, do not worry about the canine condition or agonize about their mortality, humans fall very easily into despair if we don’t find some significance in our lives.”

Is it reasonable for us to believe that when human beings came out of the waters on the shores of life they were gifted with reason to comprehend and cope with their surroundings. In this condition filled with awe and wonder they constructed their religious systems. They looked at one another and found the differentiation of male and female gender. In the new and strange environment they sought companionship and driven my inner urges they found intimacy with their partners. Through the process of observation they discovered though in a primitive sense how new life emerged.

The powerful with sheer strength and plain possessions began to dominate the weaker ones to satisfy their natural desires including sexual urges. In organizing the tribes they discovered the value of family and community in child-rearing and protecting the group.

God has also gifted humankind with a moral sense of what is good and right and the freedom to choose. We find the authority embedded in religion as well. We entered into a whole range of experiences and reflected upon them. This process is continuing.

When we look at experience as a source of authority we recognize that the Bible is a record of the experience of the people of faith and the teaching of the Church is a record of the experience of the community of faith who at a specific time of history come to agreement, in this case, on sexual issues. All claim divine revelations but even then the revelations have to be processed by the use of reason and experience.

Farley offers further the concept of “just love.” She warns us about casually saying that love is the sufficient answer to all our sexual issues. We must be able to see the right kind of the expression of love. It must be true, good and just love. She places the emphasis on the principle of justice in our loving relationships. Her definition of love that is true and just, right and good as “true response to the reality of the beloved, a genuine union between the one who loves and the one loved, and an accurate and adequate affective affirmation of the beloved.”

She then listed specific norms for a “just sex.” Our sexual relationships need to serve the cause of justice. These are the principles or guidelines: 1. Do no unjust harm. 2. Free consent of partners. 3. Mutuality. 4. Equality. 5. Commitment. 6. Fruitfulness. 7. Social justice. All these come to play when we reasoned out our own version of sexual ethics to guide our actions.

With this interpretation of authority and framework for sexual ethics we now examine some of the problematic areas. .

What is sex? Much has been said that the sexual act between male and female is for the purpose of procreation. The created human body - male and female - come together to give birth to new life. This is the natural form of ensuring life to continue on earth knowing that death is inevitable to all. This is the case with animal life. We detect the strong drive for sex which is innate that leads to intense desire and performance of the sexual act for the purpose of creating new life.

Beyond reproduction, sex also provides intimacy and pleasure. According to Cahil, “Sexual pleasure as a bodily reality involves sexual drives and attractions, and their resolution through orgasm or to less genitally focused experiences of sexual satisfaction.” St Paul acknowledges the satisfaction of desire for intimacy as a valid reason for marriage. Sex in our time in contrast with the past is focused more directly on intimacy and pleasure than in reproduction. This is a positive value of sex being an integral part of the human person with freedom and responsibility to relate and enter into relationships with others. Sex is to be regarded as a good gift from God in creating us as sexual beings.

What do we have to say about open relationships? While it is true that we cannot be easily satisfied with a monogamous relationship and even managing one, how are we to cope with multiple relationships and managing more than one. The eruptions caused by breaking relationships of a couple without open relationships will just increase exponentially for those who work on open relationships. Strong emotions swirl around in relationships and they need to be controlled and regulated.

There are levels of relationships for intimacy and pleasure. It is different between friends and partners in committed and consensual relationships. What form of sexual acts come into play between friends and between partners?

Much has been said about marriage and family values. If open relationships is acceptable what does it mean for the sanctity of marriage of gays and straights, the stability of family life and the sustaining of community.

Is sex is just not a recreational activity that we indulge in as couples or in groups as casual sex? Sexuality is not just physical activity. Sexuality has physical, emotional, spiritual, personal and social dimensions. It is not a private activity in the secrecy of our bedrooms. It has social implications as to how we view sex and the kind of human community we form when sex is only physical and recreational. We can see the chaos in the more open and competitive community in the animal kingdom where physical prowess rules. We see it when the powerful and the rich are able to control and buy sex. Sex cannot be just individualistic and bodily. Sex which is good has turned bad. Good sex has to take into account the dimensions of the body, individual and the social. Sex seeks to gratify the person and interpersonal fulfillment. That will happen when sexual norms that we listed earlier are being applied

The key to an individual, gay or straight, is not sex but true love. We do not engage in sex and destroy life of the individual and community. Sexual love must also serve the cause of justice. It is not just sex or simply sex. It is sex that is just. Have good and just sex and enjoy it.

Venerable Gunaratana and I left for Sri Lanka Sunday November 7^th with over 50 pieces of accompanied baggage. All were transported by courtesy of Sri Lankan Airlines. The Airport Manager in Colombo met us and speedily urshered us through Immigration and Customs. Early Monday morning we took the five-hour ride to Kandy and directly to the Buddha Tooth Relic Temple. When the Buddha died, his body was cremated in a sandalwood pyre in India and his left canine tooth was retrieved from the funeral pyre. It was later taken to Kandy 371 C.E. where it is at present, in the Temple of the Tooth. It is viewed as a symbolic presence of Buddha and it is on this basis that offerings, rituals, and ceremonies are being conducted.. The Director of International Buddhist Affairs, Gamini Bandara, received us and in the evening we were given the rare privilege to ascend to the inner sanctum where the tooth is enshrined.

My last visit to Kandy was to attend my first international ecumenical conference in the early sixties upon the invitation of D.T. Niles. We met at the idyllic colonial hotel, Queen’s Hotel, built in 1895 alongside Kandy Lake and was the former Governor’s Mansion. It has since been rebuilt on this heritage site and is the “Raffles” in Kandy. .

The Chief Minister of the Central Province. Sarath Ekanayake, invited us to lunch at his Residence before the Special Public Event at the Buddhist Cultural Center honouring MP Basil Rajapaksa, the brother of President Rajapaksa. He is in charge of development in the Northern and Eastern Provinces in his office as Senior Advisor to the President. We met him and he told us that he has favourably considered our request for the establishment of an Interfaith Centre for Education and Peace in Vavuniya and has already informed the Government Agent there. The religious ceremony was in honour of the elevation to top leadership of a senior monk in a four-hour long ceremony. Maha Kuruna Society in Singapore donated 500 robes which we brought over and offered to the hundreds of monks gathered at the celebration.

After the Kandy event we proceeded to Anuandhrapura after another five-hour journey and reached the Army Headquarters near midnight where Major General Kamal Gunaratne had arranged for us to stay at their Guest House. Early at six we were saying our prayers at the foot of the Bodhi Tree which is reputed to be a sapling from the tree where Buddha had his enlightenment. It was brought over to Ceylon and planted in 288 B.C.E.

We visited the camp for the LTTE teenage soldiers in a re-education camp in Manik Farm. We had supplied them with chairs for the hall and erected sanitary facilities for them since our visit last September. Almost half the number have been released and there are only about 200 students. It is an encouraging sign.

We had an appointment with the Government Agent, Mrs P.S.M. Charles a Catholic, in Vavuniya and she has assured us of her support in acquiring a piece of government land for the building of our proposed Interfaith Centre for Education and Peace.

We then met individually with The Chief Buddhist Monk of Vavuniya, the Priest of the largest Hindu Temple, and priests leading the Catholic, Anglican and Methodist churches in the city. The Imam of the Mosque was not in his office when we visited the main mosque. In our conversations with these interfaith leaders who had been meeting for religious dialogue regularly we sensed their excitement of having such an innovative centre which could be used to further the cause for peace and reconciliation. Vavuniya is a unique town in the country where the numbers of devotees are almost equally balanced and there has been religious harmony.

We are of the view that this Centre for Education and Peace should be locally managed by this interfaith group of leaders. This is an opportunity for them to work together to render community services initially through education of English and Computer skills. We are targeting the O and A level students especially those who have been released from the IDP camps. We will offer computer training to them and upgrading others in the community in the use of new computer programmes.

The Centre will further the development of interfaith relations through the existing dialogue sessions of the leaders. It will be the base for educating the public about the different faiths and promoting other activities leading to religious harmony, reconciliation and peace.

Hopefully we want to be operational early in 2010 and we solicit your prayers and support.

The Church (not the Bible) discriminates against gays, says pastor

Friday, 13 November 2009, 11:51 pm | 3,200 views

Note:
Hi everyone. Please note that we have a “Random Posts” section. It highlights earlier articles which were published on TOC and which you may have missed. “Random Posts” is located at the bottom, after our Facebook Fans box. We hope you’ll find it useful.

Kelvin Teo

In this article the writer speaks to Reverend Doctor Yap Kim Hao, pastoral advisor to the Free Community Church (FCC), on his views about homosexuality and Christianity.

The AWARE saga earlier this year saw the Christian community torn apart by differing interpretations of homosexuality. While the most vocal of advocates were adamant that homosexuality in itself is a sin against the Christian faith, other moderates and liberals plead for a more inclusive understanding of Christianity.

Reverend Doctor Yap Kim Hao represents the liberal point of view. He earned his Master of Divinity and Doctor of theology degrees from the Boston University School of Theology. Rev Dr Yap was consecrated the 1st Asian Bishop of the Methodist Church in Singapore and Malaysia in 1968 and was made the Visiting Professor of World Christianity at Perkins School of Theology, Southern Methodist University.

The FCC is not recognized by the National Council of Churches in Singapore because of its controversial stance towards homosexuality. It does not ostracise against gays, and is probably the only church in Singapore that does not treat homosexuality as a sin. Furthermore, the reputation of the FCC as a gay group has rendered the church unable to register as a legitimate organization. To circumvent regulations, the church has registered itself as a company, and worship sessions are considered private gatherings [1].