Constitutional Rights: Part IV Section 16(3)
I found it interesting that in yesterday's news, SM Goh made a speech where he urged Singaporeans to avoid mixing only in enclaves of people with the same religion. He insightfully pointed out that Singaporeans becoming more religious could lead to people of the same faith mixing only with each other, which over time could result in "compartmentalisation of our society by religion".
More importantly, he reaffirmed the Government's commitment to a secular government which represents Singaporeans of "all beliefs, including those without a religion". As such, "public institutions or private organisations which receive public funding are not permitted to impose or advocate any religious belief or practice", and there are policies ensuring public housing estates and schools remain common secular spaces, "where nobody is made to feel uncomfortable whatever his colour or beliefs". [Emphasis mine]
Through a fortunate stroke of serendipity, I also came across this interesting nugget while looking for something else.
The Constitution of the Republic of Singapore states under Part IV [Fundamental Liberties] Section 16(3):
No person shall be required to receive instruction in
or to take part in any ceremony or act of worship
of a religion other than his own.
Don't ask me why I was poking around in our Constitution, but it is the supreme law of the land, and any law or any form of regulation that runs contrary to the Constitution shall automatically be void where the inconsistency is observed.
Over the years, I have had many friends from mission schools (I myself came from one). And while the vast majority of these friends were Christians themselves, I do have the occasional friend who hailed from a mission school... but was not a Christian, being a Buddhist or an atheist instead. Now it is no secret that in some mission schools, there are worship practices or religious instruction classes which are compulsory and part of the school curriculum. I once asked one of these friends what happened in her school when such services were conducted, and apparently, the school practice was that only Muslim students would be excluded from religious instruction classes or services, but otherwise, all other students-regardless of race, language or religion-were compelled to attend. In her school, they had a class called Chapel every Wednesday, where the school would gather for a religious service, and likewise, the only students who were allowed not to attend were Muslim students. I asked her why the disparity, and why were Buddhist or atheist students not allowed to excuse themselves, and she said they didn't ask why-that was just the rule.
I'm no constitutional lawyer, but to me, that practice seems to be in direct violation of Part IV Section 16(3).
From my own experience, in my school, what we had were 2 separate classes: RME (Religious & Moral Education), which was Catholic-based instruction on the teachings of the Catholic Church, and CME (Civic & Moral Education), which was not faith-based and specifically taught by non-Catholic teachers, who could be Muslim, Buddhist, or atheist. The important point to note was that the choice of which class to attend for the lesson was entirely up to the student. By default, of course, all Catholic students were expected to attend RME classes, but should a Catholic student choose to attend CME classes instead, that was his choice, and on no account were non-Catholic students compelled or pressured into choosing RME instead of CME.
Even in school services, like on Founder's Day, while it was a predominantly Catholic-based service, a key component of the session was a period of multi-religious prayer, where Protestant, Muslim, Hindu, Sikh, Buddhist, and Taoist students would lead a prayer in their own religion. And even though we had daily chapel masses, on no occasion was any student compelled into attending.
I think that SM Goh has already stated the Government's position-that those who have no religion shall be treated in the same way as though they had one, which means that for all practical purposes, atheism and agnosticism would be considered as 'religions'-and it is consistent with the position taken in the Constitution. If that is the case, would schools not have any authority upon which to make it mandatory for their students to attend any religious services which are not consistent with the student's own religion?
If anyone comes from a mission school, any input on your own experiences (or those of your schoolmates) would be helpful.
§ Technorati tags:
religion;
social commentary
More importantly, he reaffirmed the Government's commitment to a secular government which represents Singaporeans of "all beliefs, including those without a religion". As such, "public institutions or private organisations which receive public funding are not permitted to impose or advocate any religious belief or practice", and there are policies ensuring public housing estates and schools remain common secular spaces, "where nobody is made to feel uncomfortable whatever his colour or beliefs". [Emphasis mine]
Through a fortunate stroke of serendipity, I also came across this interesting nugget while looking for something else.
The Constitution of the Republic of Singapore states under Part IV [Fundamental Liberties] Section 16(3):
No person shall be required to receive instruction in
or to take part in any ceremony or act of worship
of a religion other than his own.
Don't ask me why I was poking around in our Constitution, but it is the supreme law of the land, and any law or any form of regulation that runs contrary to the Constitution shall automatically be void where the inconsistency is observed.
Over the years, I have had many friends from mission schools (I myself came from one). And while the vast majority of these friends were Christians themselves, I do have the occasional friend who hailed from a mission school... but was not a Christian, being a Buddhist or an atheist instead. Now it is no secret that in some mission schools, there are worship practices or religious instruction classes which are compulsory and part of the school curriculum. I once asked one of these friends what happened in her school when such services were conducted, and apparently, the school practice was that only Muslim students would be excluded from religious instruction classes or services, but otherwise, all other students-regardless of race, language or religion-were compelled to attend. In her school, they had a class called Chapel every Wednesday, where the school would gather for a religious service, and likewise, the only students who were allowed not to attend were Muslim students. I asked her why the disparity, and why were Buddhist or atheist students not allowed to excuse themselves, and she said they didn't ask why-that was just the rule.
I'm no constitutional lawyer, but to me, that practice seems to be in direct violation of Part IV Section 16(3).
From my own experience, in my school, what we had were 2 separate classes: RME (Religious & Moral Education), which was Catholic-based instruction on the teachings of the Catholic Church, and CME (Civic & Moral Education), which was not faith-based and specifically taught by non-Catholic teachers, who could be Muslim, Buddhist, or atheist. The important point to note was that the choice of which class to attend for the lesson was entirely up to the student. By default, of course, all Catholic students were expected to attend RME classes, but should a Catholic student choose to attend CME classes instead, that was his choice, and on no account were non-Catholic students compelled or pressured into choosing RME instead of CME.
Even in school services, like on Founder's Day, while it was a predominantly Catholic-based service, a key component of the session was a period of multi-religious prayer, where Protestant, Muslim, Hindu, Sikh, Buddhist, and Taoist students would lead a prayer in their own religion. And even though we had daily chapel masses, on no occasion was any student compelled into attending.
I think that SM Goh has already stated the Government's position-that those who have no religion shall be treated in the same way as though they had one, which means that for all practical purposes, atheism and agnosticism would be considered as 'religions'-and it is consistent with the position taken in the Constitution. If that is the case, would schools not have any authority upon which to make it mandatory for their students to attend any religious services which are not consistent with the student's own religion?
If anyone comes from a mission school, any input on your own experiences (or those of your schoolmates) would be helpful.
§ Technorati tags:
religion;
social commentary