October 30, 2007 How meanings can change.
Travelling on Nicoll Highway at near sun-down, I turned to my friend and thanked him for the ride. Exhausted, I retreated into silence. I’m supposed to be having some good time, afterall I’m on holiday. A breakaway from so much of silly and shocking public statements I lament over back home. Yet, there I was, unwanting.
377A debate and the rewriting of pluralism (Insight: The Straits Times, October 27) I confess that it was ‘…the rewriting of pluralism’ that caught my interest. In any case, I found myself reading a response to Nominated Member of Parliament, Thio Li-Ann’s Two Tribes Go To (Culture) War. Admittedly, I am not just about ready to plunge into a debate on Penal Code 337A, but some of Thio’s trenchant rewriting of secularism and pluralism warrants some serious thoughts.
“As law has a moral basis, we need to consider which morality to legislate…religious views are part of our common morality. We separate religion from politics but not religion from public policy. That would be undemocratic. All citizens may propose views in public debate, whether influence by religious or secular convictions or both, only the government can impose a view by law.”
Thio wrote elsewhere: “Democratic pluralism welcomes every view in public discussion, but does not commit the intellectual fallacy of saying every view is right. The goal is to ascertain the right view for the circumstances”.
If this is true, when viewed in the context that the government being the sole authority to impose a view by law, the result can be worrisome. Is the government a non-religious entity by itself? The right view for the circumstances; who’s view?
- 4 comments
- Posted under thoughts
Permalink #
maytaglady
said
Thios quote about ‘Democratic pluralism’ is almost entirely lifted from another source. I have reverse redacted her source. thioliann.blogspot.com
Permalink #
lianghin
said
thanks maytaglady, for pointing it out to me.
Permalink #
petrina7
said
…a few issues arise from this discussion.
one – taking the point that government is the sole authority to impose a view by law, this raises the issue of government paternalism. how far is it relevant today?
two – the debate on homosexuality and morality started way back, and it appears that we have not made much progress from there.
we did this in law school, and the names of hart and devlin come t o mind. and john stuart mill, of course.
i think i can go on forever, drop me a line if you want to discuss this further. which reminds me, didn’t you say you were agreeable to corresponding by email?
Permalink #
jet
said
“All citizens may propose views in public debate, whether influence by religious or secular convictions or both, only the government can impose a view by law.”
when i look at this statement, i feel that i have to keep in mind whether the government is imposing a view by law or just “dictating” it. it is saddening to see that our country(govenment) has become less pluralistic and averse to public opinions these days. while it is true that the government represents the public in the general sense,i am afraid that “the right view for the circumstances” is potentially stained by political agendas and motives.
i think the government should offer some apology or justification while making statements.
democracy in malaysia is going no where.