I refer to Mr Pravin Prakash's The intolerance of tolerance which was also edited and published in the Voices section, 14th April issue of Today. It offers an intriguing and fresh perspective on handling the pertinent issue of racial harmony in Singapore. Mr Prakash suggests that the entire notion of tolerance is destructive as it portrays those "tolerated" as being in the wrong. However, I would point out a few problems in the "acceptance" approach that he advocates as a solution to the impermanence of tolerance.
First, it is impossible for acceptance, or, for that matter, tolerance, to be implemented as an absolute. Unfortunately, it is unclear if Mr Prakash advocates acceptance as an absolute, universal rule regarding all aspects of race and religion. On the other extreme, he could merely be putting it forward as a starting point for practices involving more practical details regarding only race. Adopting the former would open up a huge can of worms. Not only is tolerance itself not an absolute, universal rule, trying to apply "acceptance" as Mr Prakash defines it would be very incongruent with religion. At present, tolerance is merely a principle, not an absolute rule, as can be seen from how the government has banned certain religious groups such as Jehovah's Witnesses on the grounds that they refused to swear oaths of allegiance and participate in National Service. And there is nothing really wrong with this, as one can only expect governments to support those who support the state. At the same time, people would be hard-pressed to tolerate, or even accept, the destructive and violent beliefs of certain cults, showing that neither tolerance nor acceptance can be established as a universal, absolute rule. Thankfully, I don't think Mr Prakash is attempting to advocate such a situation.
Secondly, having then established that acceptance can not be a universal rule, we can only consider the possibility of acceptance being used as a principle and ideal that we must work towards. However, once religion is brought into the equation, it becomes very hard to expect people to accept. Most of the major religions including the three abrahamic religions are monotheistic, believing the existence of one God while denying the existence of others. Atheism denies the existence of any deities. If one believes in a monotheistic religion or is an atheist, then how is one to celebrate differences and give mutual admiration? While secularists may dismiss the relevance of religion, the problem becomes worse when you consider that in many cases, religion defines one's sense of justice. If a Muslim believes that women should not have the equal rights as men, we cannot accept that. Some (including other Muslims) would oppose that on grounds of universal human rights, some on the grounds of biology, some on the grounds of morality, justice and the principle of Lex Talonis and its extension, The Golden Rule, while others on the grounds of their own religious beliefs. I would oppose such at argument on the basis of the biology, that though men and women are physiologically and to an extent psychologically different, this difference does not call for the drastic curtailing of rights that some Muslims advocate, as well as the fact that the Bible establishes the equality of all humans. Hence once we bring certain religions into the equation and by extension society's and individuals' sense of morality, acceptance in the light of differences becomes impossible without undermining one's own identity and beliefs, the preservation of which is a tenet of maintaining racial and religious equality.
This greatly limits the scope of practicality of an acceptance principle as it may compromise anyone's, including the state's, concepts of right and wrong. If I believe that because I am rich or I have a certain surname that it is acceptable for me to kill people I don't like, it would be impossible for society to accept me, and rightly so. If I believe that homosexuality is unacceptable, does that mean that I must compromise my sense of right and wrong to accept homosexuals? And if I do, then why do others not accept my belief that homosexuality is wrong? Acceptance as a rule poses risk to distinct racial and religious identities, which are in a way a right of freedom of belief. It would mean that Singapore must move closer to the "melting pot" model that America has followed.
Third, there is an inherent possibility for a self-contradictory issue when we embrace acceptance. Should we accept those who are not accepting of others? Due to self-contradiction, acceptance can only applied selectively. But who and what define and limit acceptance? Acceptance itself cannot be used as justification for an action; some other reason is need to justify the need for acceptance or lack thereof. However, once these "other reasons" become the crucial justification, why stick to a notion of acceptance when it would be more logical to simply evaluate the specific differences between races and judge when they should be accepted or resolved based on their specific merits?
Last, I really don't find any issue with the word "tolerance". Personally, I don't see many issues of justice as a deontological or utilitarian rule-based right and wrong, so when the word "tolerance" is used, I don't see any negative connotation. At this point, however, much of the definition comes down to one's personal worldview, so an easy resolution would be to define a new word and use that.
Laying aside the fact that this entire argument may be based on a flawed understanding of the terms "tolerance" and to a lesser extent, "acceptance", it remains that ensuring racial and religious harmony is a pertinent issue in today's society. Apart from the status quo and its variations which are in effect in many developed countries, which I think have so far been relatively effective in preventing unnecessary conflict and discord, there are, I believe, only two real solutions, both of which have huge drawbacks. The first is isolation, where people of different races and religions must live in complete isolation, and intergroup interactions moderated by experienced, well trained and informed mediators or completely by proxy. However, for the small but significant rifts in society, this is still very much overkill. The second is state indoctrination of a specific, arbitrary religion or non-religion. The end result is in some ways similar to the first solution, but the process different. However, beside compromising the rights of humans, it would be difficult, costly, and possibly bloody. As such, I think that in matters regarding race and religion, the current principle of tolerance is sufficient.
Possibly the real issue in the racially insensitive outburst that Mr Prakash refers to is only one of anger management. Had Ms Lai Shimun restrained herself for perhaps only a few minutes instead of immediately tweeting her anger, I am certain she would not be receiving flak today. People tolerate annoying neighbours, colleagues and bosses everyday for reasons other than race or religion. If we were extend the restraint that we exercise around these people to issues of race and religion, I believe we will find that we can live those that are different without compromising our own identities.
No comments:
Post a Comment