Science As An Impetus For Change Towards A Better World

Science, being a body of knowledge that is based on empirical observation and logical deduction, has always prided itself as the light of reason which illuminates the darkness of ignorance shrouding the world. It is a catalyst of change and the impetus for technological advancement.

As the most important prerequisite for technological improvements, science undoubtedly has a far-reaching influence and plays an important role in society. Enhanced understanding of the various phenomena in nature has enabled us to create a multitude of devices and machines to improve our lives. Indeed, without science, technological marvels such as the now ubiquitous computers, mobile phones, air-conditioners and countless other devices which we have taken for granted would not have been possible, let alone construct skyscrapers and entire cities. Advances in medical science have also given us a plethora of medicine and vaccines in our battles against diseases and extending the average lifespan of humans. Yet in the same breath, science has also led to the invention of the machinery of modern warfare and weapons of mass destruction such as nuclear, chemical and biological weapons. A scientifically-inspired technological society is thus not necessarily a better world.

Blindly supporting science without a moral compass would only lead to more problems. What is needed in the face of the mounting challenges in the 21st century is a science that is bold and creative, yet ethical, compassionate and inclusive. For too long we have narrowly focused on utilising science for the betterment of the human race alone, even to the extent of neglecting the environment we live in. We have exploited animals for research on human diseases, deforested vast swathes of land, polluted the environment and destroyed the natural habitats of countless creatures in our quest to gather ever more resources to feed our insatiable consumerism. Who are we to proclaim ourselves as masters of nature and that it is our right to exploit the environment and other sentient beings for our sole benefit? We have misused the name of science in our misguided pursuit of improving our quality of life. Such a cold and egocentric kind of science is untenable in the long run. It is time to rethink our place in the universe and treat all sentient beings as equals.

Nevertheless, in a world griped by numerous grave problems such as global warming, climate change, pandemics, wars, impending oil, food and water shortages, science remains our best hope of solving them. Green technology, a field which I am personally interested in, holds the promise of ameliorating environmental problems such as global warming and pollution. Clean, renewable alternative sources of energy such as solar, wind and hydroelectric power will not only help avert the impending energy crisis due to declining reserves of non-renewable fossil fuels, but also shift the balance of the control of energy resources away from the hands of a few countries to the rest of the world, paving the way towards a more level global playing field and peaceful world where wars would no longer have to be waged over oil.

More than merely being a driver of technological improvement, science is also a candle in the dark which shines the path towards a more enlightened future. Science serves as a bulwark against blind faith and dogmatic mysticism. Entrenched ways of thinking and an aversion to trying out new ideas are impediments to alleviating the problems we face. The essence of science lies in the openness to new ideas and willingness to modify or discard old theories and ways of thinking in favour of more productive ones which are consistent with empirical observation, coupled with a healthy dose of scepticism and relentless scrutiny. Adopting such an attitude in tackling the global problems looming before us would enable us to find efficacious solutions. To quote the late astronomer and populariser of science, Carl Sagan, “Science by itself cannot advocate courses of human action, but it can certainly illuminate the possible consequences of alternative courses of action.”

The onslaught of progress and wave of change is inevitable. Instead of trying to resist it, we should embrace science as an impetus for change. Science is like a double-edge sword; it has the potential to do much good and help us build a better world, but if misused, it can spawn more problems and lead to deleterious consequences. What is clear is that science alone will not be the answer to all our problems. Science has to be checked by ethics and an appropriate amount of regulation. Unbridled pursuit of science and technology is dangerous, but so too is an overdose of moralistic or religiously-guided regulation which would only stifle the progress of science as well as our chance of finding solutions to tackle the problems we all face.

Safeguarding Secularism in Singapore

With the increasing religiosity in our society, pockets of self-righteous religious zealots who seek to impose their beliefs on others have also engendered. This is a cause for concern, for it threatens one of the fundamental tenets on which our society is built upon – secularism. It is not a fluke that Singapore has managed to come thus far and maintain racial and religious harmony. Rather, our harmonious multiracial and multi-religious society, which is the envy of many countries, is due largely to the fact that we have ensured secularism to be the prevailing tenor of our society. It is with this conviction with which I disagree with NMP Dr Thio Li-ann’s parliamentary speech “A Recipe for Disharmony”, in which she mentioned that “…militant secularism is an illiberal and undemocratic vice in seeking to gag religious views in the public square and so to privilege its atheistic values, as in communist state.” That Dr Thio made the speech not long after the AWARE saga seemed to imply that she has directed much of the vitriol to those were against the old ‘new guard’ exco of AWARE, though she did not explicitly mention this in her speech.

For those who have not been following the news, the AWARE saga started in April this year when a group of Christians hailing from the same church took over leadership of AWARE (a secular voluntary welfare organisation) by getting fellow church members to sign up as new members and vote the former in through sheer numbers. It is no surprise that the use of such underhand tactics to gain leadership of a secular civil group in Singapore has resulted in a public backlash. The old ‘new guard’ of AWARE led by Ms Jocie Lau claimed to champion for mainstream values such as ‘anti-gay’ notions. Nevertheless, the fact that her team only comprised of people from her faith and church begs the question of their true agenda. If what they were really pushing for were mainstream values, should they not have found it prudent to include people of other faiths and free-thinkers as well? Surely there is no dearth of capable people from other faiths in Singapore? The reticence of Ms Lau and her team in announcing their goals and directions for AWARE after gaining leadership only served to add to the public unease. It was even more astounding that Ms Lau had the temerity to suggest that the press harboured hidden motives in its reporting of the story when she and her team resorted to stealthy tactics of gaining control in an organisation and then keeping mum about their motives. People who live in glass houses should not throw stones. Minister for Community Development, Youth and Sports, Dr Vivian Balakrishnan, has mentioned the importance of having a ‘rainbow coalition’, which means including people from various faiths and races, in political and civil activist groups which claim to be secular. Doing so would be far more effective in allaying public unease about the ability of the organisation to ensure that a plurality of voices and opinions of those from other faiths and races would also be heard and considered in the decision-making process, as compared to mere rhetoric.

It would be naïve to believe that religious tensions in Singapore are completely non-existent. The public backlash following the AWARE saga has showed us how easy it is to stress the fabric of our society’s cohesiveness. We need to exercise caution when dealing with matters of religion in the public sphere. Religious leaders must also be prudent when addressing their followers and not misuse the pulpit like what Pastor Derek Hong, from the same church as Ms Lau and the rest of the old ‘new guard’ exco of AWARE, did when he called on his fellow church members to rally behind Ms Lau and her team. While I agree with Dr Thio that “religiously-informed views” can contribute positively to public debate, we must not condone any self-righteous mentality by any particular religious group. No religious group should unilaterally claim that it alone represents the mainstream and impose its ideology and beliefs on others. Only then can we ensure a pluralistic society where religious freedom is the order of the day; a society where no one would be coerced into subscribing to beliefs and convictions imposed by others. It is reassuring to know that the various religious leaders in Singapore have readily come forth to express their commitment in upholding secularism in our society after the AWARE saga.

Incidents such as the AWARE saga serve as a timely reminder for us that politics and religion should be segregated instead of being conflated. Parents, schools and religious leaders have to inculcate in their children the importance of having respect towards those from other faiths. Only when the various religious groups discard the notion that their religion is the one and only one ‘right’ religion, or to paraphrase Obama in his recent speech in Cairo that “the measure of one’s faith (is not) based on the rejection of other faiths”, can true respect for each other’s faiths engender. Otherwise, the religious harmony which we have will only be skin deep and go no further than mere religious tolerance, without much understanding of the other faiths; it would only exist as a façade under which mindsets harbouring religious superiority and self-righteousness would take hold, and this would be the real “recipe for disharmony”.