Do People Have The Freedom To Practise Their Religion?

There have been many cases where people are unable to convert to a religion of their choice, or forcefully made to convert into a particular religion, the latest concerning the case of Revathi Masoosai, a Muslim-born woman who converted to Hinduism after marrying a Hindu man, but got her official application to change her religion from Islam to Hinduism rejected by the Islamic Authorities of Malaysia.

Malaysia's law states that Muslims cannot marry non-Muslims but there is no issue over the conversion of religion. However, contradicting Syriah Court laws rule that Muslims cannot convert to another religion and anyone who apply to renounce Islam can be found guilty of apostasy, which is punishable by jail and a fine.

This is outright absurd for a country which boasts freedom to practise religion as well as religious pluralism, and cases like Mrs Revathi's are making worse the already strained race and religious relations in Malaysia, as well as getting the attention of international human right groups.

This is not the first time such a case has happened. In May, the country's Federal court rejected the appeal from Ms Lina Joy, a Malay woman who wanted to convert to Christianity, to have her religion changed to Christianity, reason being that she has to follow the existing laws and practices of her religion, which forbids conversion.

I am extremely disappointed that such cases have been happening in a democratic country like Malaysia, and I am puzzled by the fact that nothing has been done by the government so far to rectify the problem. It also comes to me as a shock that Islamic Authorities of Malaysia has been using unethical practices such as breaking up Muslim-converts' families, detaining these converts and make them perform actions forbidden by their converted religions.

According to Mrs Revathi's account, she was not allowed to return to her husband and had her child forcefully placed in the care of her Muslim parents. She was also made to undergo rehabilitation, which in actual fact was more like a prison than a "rehabilitation school". There, she was forced to attend Islamic religious classes, pray as a Muslim, wear a headskarf and eat beef, forbidden by Hindus.

As a religious organisation, where is the morality? Treating converts with contempt and make them do things against their will are already gross violations of human rights. What's more, this is an organisation of authority and is backed by the Malaysian government. This issue not only tarnished the Malaysian government's image and reputation, but is also a big step backwards for the country's democracy. Unless something is done soon to clear up the grey areas between state and religious laws, as well as to keep the Islamic Authorities' actions in check, I fear that one day Muslims who wish to convert have to live in obscurity to avoid the authorities, or in a far-fetched but possible scenario, non-Muslims might even be forced to convert to the state religion, which would signify the end of democracy for Malaysia.

Commentary

I refer to the the article " What really affects the ability of students to learn?" posted on http://aneworld.wordpress.com/, dated May 5 2007.

In the article, the author stated his belief that although schools affect the ability of students to learn to a certain extent, self motivation and positive attitude has a greater effect on the students' learning ability.

As quoted from the article, the reason why most people differentiate "top" schools from others is because these school equip their students with more knowledge other than those taught in textbooks, making the students more knowledgeable and a cut above the rest. Coming from one of these schools, I have to admit that I had undergone gruelling extra lessons on things that were not within examination syllabus and although I had a deeper insight into certain specific topics, I was unable to arrange my time solely for the revision of topics relevant to my examinations and as such, I did not do as well as I would have expected for my major examinations. Just like what was said in the article, I was at a disadvantage because I had to carry the burden of remembering other information whereas students from other schools had the luxury of spending their entire time on preparations for the examinations

I learnt that being in a well-known school did not guarantee me fantastic results, albeit the hard way and thus I would like to clear the misconceptions that all students from the "top" schools always do exceptionally well. However, I agree with the author that with ample self-motivation and the right attitude, we can succeed in whatever we do. The statistics provided in the article showed that students on financial aid tend to do better in school because they have the motivation to work hard and have the positive mindset. I think that anyone can do well even if they are not in top schools if they have the above two elements. For me, I try not to think of the past and instead look ahead and brace myself for future challenges. I embrace the positive attitude that I can succeed instead of lingering in learned helplessness. In addition, I am motivated to work hard and do well because I want to prove to myself and my peers that I am capable of succeeding in major examinations despite faltering in my previous one. Since I am equipped with the two aspects required as said in the article, I am confident that I can do well in my examinations and work.

This article has gave me renewed hope of succeeding in life and I hope that my efforts will eventually pay off.

Freedom of expression

Freedom of expression is the right of a person to speak or publish his own opinions without fear of punishment and interference from other organisation. In the first article, Singer believes that freedom of expression is the fundamental of democracy and thus should not be restricted. On the other hand, Szilagyi in the second article felt that even though people should not be deprived of the right to express their views and opinions freely, it is important that the people practise social responsibility and avoid sensitive issues that may potentially spark social unrest.

In my opinion, the latter should be adopted in Singapore, especially when we have cultural and religious pluralism in our multi-racial society. The reason why Singapore have come thus far, evolving from a small fishing village into a cosmopolitan city, is because all races and religions had been able to work together as one, working towards a common goal as one country instead of satisfying their own agendas. As quoted from Szilagyi,"What is more important for the democratic advancement of a society - to ensure the freedom of expression of all its citizens (within the limits marked by law) or to protect the collective interests of society?" I would choose the latter, as it is the collective interests of the society that ensures continual growth and prosperity of our country and not the freedom of expression of the people. In some countries where a greater emphasis is placed on freedom of expression of the people, there has been countless cases of insensitive articles published on a certain race or religion that sparked social unrest. This, i rather not experience in my life.

As much as i would like to have absolute freedom of expression, i understand that it cannot be accomplished together with the protection of collective interests of the society. I believe that the welfare of the country should come first and if we can maintain racial and relgious harmony among all our people at the expense of less freedom of expression, i would adopt it, rather than face with racial and religious tension and riots all the time and fearing for our own lives.

In Singapore, we are lucky to have races and religions which are more tolerant to sensitive issues but in order not to risk any chance of social unrest, the government has set strict laws which convict anyone intent of disrupting social harmony by making sensitive remarks. But more importantly, i think it is the social responsibility of all Singaporeans to refrain from abusing their freedom of expression to take a swipe at other races or religions so as to protect the collective interests of our society, lest a repeat of the 1964 racial riots.

Any form of punishment that is effective in maintaining law and order is justified. Do you agree?

All the time, we hear the phrase "get things done by hook or by crook" from our teachers and parents, but seldom do we feel the irony in it. For all the civics and moral education we receive, we are told to get the results regardless of what methods we use. That brings me back to today's topic, that is whether any form of punishment that is effective in maintaining law and order is justified.

There are concerns that many countries are so result-driven when it comes to maintaining law and order that they employ inhumane, cruel and degrading punishments. However, it is interesting to note that different countries have different perception of human rights and there is no single institution which can accurately define human rights and determine what is acceptable or not.

Take the examples shown on the video on crime and punishment. In Togo, suspects were made to dip their hands into boiling oil to determine the culprit. This may seem inhumane to the outside world but it is deemed perfectly acceptable to the locals. Furthermore, it is actually effective because the culprit eventually got caught. There are arguments that this punishment is unfair since the victims have to suffer too, and that is not backed with evidence of the crime. However, it was made clear that the permission of the victim was sought before the boiling oil comes in. Furthermore, it correctly identified the culpriti and the crime was uncovered. This might be more effective than the juridicary system in the west which is evidence-based and does not employ such "inhumane" methods. However, once again, it is all about the perception of cruelty.

Another example shown in the video is the shaming of criminals in Houston, America where convicts carry placards detailing their crimes and parade on streets. Some criticise that this punishment is degrading because it takes away human pride and subject them to ridicules and violence from the public. However, it is actually an effective method of deterring crime, perhaps even more effective than imprisonment. It was said in the video that crime rates fell and most of the convicts repented. As "degrading" as it might be, it is effective, and once again "degrading" is just a perception and is not a general view.

In conclusion, any form punishment that is effective in maintaining law and order and is generally accepted LOCALLY should be justified because at the end of the day, it is the law and order of the local area that is concerned, nothing to do with the outside world.

Uniform in schools: Case of common identity or loss of individual identity?

All schools providing education up to pre-university level, with the exception of polytechnics, require their students to don school uniforms so as to conform with the guidelines stipulated by the Ministry of Education (MOE). With so many arguments going on about whether uniforms should be made compulsory to be worn by students, let's take a look at both sides of the debate.

Advocates of the adoption of school uniform policies say that uniforms can promote school safety, improve discipline, enhance the learning environment and most importantly, instill a sense of common identity among students.. It promotes school safety because it allows staff to identify students among the crowd in the school, and thus intruders who do not belong to the school can be easily detected. It also instills discipline among students because students are carrying the image of the school when they are outside school in uniforms, and this prompts them to put up their best behaviour under the wary eyes of the public. Uniforms enhance learning environment because all students are equal when they don the same uniforms. For example, students are not able to wear branded clothes to school to flaunt their wealth, and thus poorer students will not feel inferior and will be able to concentrate better during lessons, instead of looking on at their peers' possession with envy. Lastly, uniforms promote a common school identity. This will make them feel more attached to the school and motivates them to do their best when they represent the school.

Despite all the positive qualities brought about by uniforms, there are also people who are against uniform policies. Their one and only major concern is that uniforms make them lose their individual identity. They are unable to be recognised and acknowledged by their names, but by their institutions their uniforms are representing. They also have no say when the uniforms do not suit them, such as the colour not complementing the skin colour or the cutting and shape not suiting the body shape and size. Hence, these people are unwilling to wear uniforms.

In my opinion, the advantages brought about by uniforms outweigh the disadvantages. However, i do agree that certain uniforms can be improved such that they look better on most students. Therefore, i am in support of uniform policies only if the uniforms can be modified or re-designed to look better.

Bring your own bags!

2nd May was "Bring Your Bag Day" which many supermarket chains, such as FairPrice, Sheng Siong, Carrefour, Cold Storage, Shop N Save, Giant Hypermart and Prime took part in. A survey conducted on 440 shoppers in 5 of the participating supermarket chains found that 44 per cent of shoppers brought their own bags, or bought reusable ones sold at the supermarkets while another 34 per cent paid 10 cents for each plastic bag they took, as a donation to the Singapore Environment Council for green projects. The remaining 22 per cent refused to pay for the bags.

That brings me back to my topic of bringing our own bags when go shopping. Singapore uses about 2.5 billion plastic bags a year - or about 625 bags per person each year. Most of these plastic bags are incinerated so they do not contribute to landfill. However, burning the bags releases cancer- causing dioxins and carbon dioxide and contributes to global warming. Therefore it was proposed that plastic bags be charged so as to reduce its consumption. In my opinion, this can only be at best a short term solution, the reason being that the plastic bags are priced too low to even make an impact on consumer's spending. What is more important I think, is to educate our people on the 3 "r"s - reduce, reuse and recycle.

Reducing the consumption of plastic bags will contribute less to global warming and air pollution as less of them will have to be incinerated. Imposing charges on plastic bags will only reduce consumption for a short period of time. To effectively reduce consumption over a long period of time, advertisements should be placed to educate the people. On top of that, supermarkets can give out less plastic bags, by placing more items in one bag.

Reuse. Currently, many households are already practising reuse of plastic bags. For example, waste materials and garbage are filled in these plastic bags and then disposed off cleanly. This constitutes a good hygiene practice and is the perfect example of reusing of plastic bags.

At the present state of technology, recycling of plastic bags are yet to to be made possible, but I am confident that in the near future they can be recycled just like other items such as drink cans and by then, we will be able to put these plastic bags into recycle bins for them to be recycled.

With the 3"R"s practised all the time in Singapore, we will be marching towards a cleaner Singapore rid of air pollution and less global warming.

You're 13? What's your bust size?

To find out whether men prowl Internet chatrooms and lure young girls into meeting them for sex, Straits Times reporter Cheryl Tan posed as a 13 year-old schoolgirl and received one indecent proposal after another. Even though she made it clear that she was merely 13, that did not deter the men from asking indecent questions such as "What's your vital statistics?" or making offers to meet up at hotels. Only 10 men dropped out of the conversations after knowing that the person they were talking to was a minor.

These men did not seem worried that, under the law, it is illegal to have sex with a girl under the age of 16. The punishment, according to Singapore law, for statutory rape is severe - the culprit will be jailed at least eight years and given a minimum 12 strokes of the cane. Despite this, the number of men reported to the police for having sex with underage girls has shot up over the last six years. Last year, the police received 217 reports of men who had sex with underage girls, almost double the 114 cases in 2001 and just last month, three men aged between 18 and 23 were in court for having sex with a minor. The girl was only 12.

This is a worrying trend, especially when number of cases seem to be doubling every few years. It is absolutely important to curb this problem before our societal and moral values get drowned in the tide of such promiscuous activities.

I suggest a three-pronged approach to solve this problem. Education, counselling and incapacitation.

Education. The government should enforce the civics and moral education curriculum in schools, making it a more substantial lesson instead of just a minor one when commpared to content-based subjects. Its importance should be highlighted and emphasised to the students. For example, issues such as morality as well as chastity should be properly discussed and teachers should provide the correct example for students to follow. As such, students will understand that it is not morally right to engage in any underage sexual activities, and that such actions will have serious repurcussions and dire consequences.

Counselling. This works for both the minors as well as the adults. Counselling help counsellors understand their rationale for engaging in such activities and when there is a wrong mindset, it can be rectified in time before they become chronic offenders. For example, many adults feel that there is nothing wrong with engaging in sexual activities with minors and vice versa. This mindset can be changed when counsellors explain to them the punishment for their actions as well as unwanted consequences such as pregnancy and STDs.

Lastly, incapacitation. This is for chronic offenders who simply cannot get a hold of their actions and thus will repeat their offence if not put on leash. It will thus be best for them to be stashed in some rehabilitation centres or prison to protect both them and the society. Currently, the law may be a little to lax on such offenders. It would be better for these offenders to be locked away for a longer period of time.

If these 3 structures are in place, I believe that number of cases of statutory rape will fall dramatically, and societal and moral values will not be lost among the people after all.