Talk:Religion in Singapore

Untitled

Needs copy/style editing, and much amplification (including effects of modernization) Dpr 04:15, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Islam in Singapore

http://www.brockwells.com/cheap-flights-to-Singapore.htm accordin to this website, Islam is the second largest religion. Not christianity. All other websites say the same thing.

As far as I can tell, the original source for those figures is http://www.lonelyplanet.com/worldguide/destinations/asia/singapore?v=print. That site plagarises without attribution. The current wiki article states that the figures are from the 2000 census, so you have to change the wording to reflect the new source.(or remove attribution to the old). --Dodo bird 00:18, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Chinese residents

In the first paragraph, it is written that 76 percent of the population is Chinese. Do you mean that they're of Chinese origin, or that they have dual citizinship. Or maybe you mean to say that they are not citizens of Singapore (in which case, they shouldn't count in the country's religion statistics in the first place).

Chinese in race, not nationality.--Dodo bird 00:20, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

someone start the hinduism one!

! --User_talk:Dangerous-Boy

Restrictions

Please refer to the book entitled "Ritual is Theatre, Theatre is Ritual" by Dr Margaret Chan of SMU. gabo guys —Preceding unsigned comment added by 115.187.249.131 (talk) 06:04, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

http://www.smu.edu.sg/news_room/press_releases/2006/20060503.asp

The content of the book, albeit claimed to be extract from her PhD research with Royal Holloway University, is however of low academic quality (strictly to the standards required of a PhD researcher). A debate on her publication ensued in a local Toaist forum sintua.com under the title "Ritual is Theatre, Theatre is Ritual".

http://sintua.com.sg/forum/viewforum.php?f=11&topicdays=0&start=100

The topic attracted 153 postings and 2390 viewers before the thread was locked. The author of the book purportedly participated in the said forum through her photographer.

Chen LongFa 07:23, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

"...there has recently been a local publication that incessantly attacked Taoism under the pretext of academic research and yet escaped the brunt of fire."

Any article(s) to verify? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 137.132.3.7 (talk) 14:52, August 28, 2007 (UTC)

Taoism not a major religion?

I feel perplexed at this statement in the article, "Although Taoist temples and shrines are abundant in Singapore, it has nevertheless not been officially included as a major religion for a number of reasons." Does anyone know what a 'major religion' in his definition is? As it is, Taoism is included in the Inter-Religious Organisation of Singapore (IRO) http://www.iro.org.sg/website/declaration.html so I really wonder what this comment about Taoism not being a major religion is about?

The border between Taoism and Buddhism is really blur in Singapore because many people practise Taoism but declare themselves as Buddhists. --Silverelf (talk) 16:20, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Tolerant 2011

I added Template:Dubious to statements:

• "religious tolerance is promoted by the government"
• "racial and religious harmony have been the top priority of the governing institutions"

Both have waited about or more than a year for references, and there seems reason to doubt the point itself and the existence of usable references. --AuthorityTam (talk) 16:07, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

JWs

Though JWs are Christian, they are not such a comparitively large group of Christians to warrant starting the Christianity section with a comment that JWs are the only Christian group not present in Singapore, nor is it necessary in the lead. The ban of their activities is still mentioned in the article in an appropriate section. Additionally, it is not the case that there are no JWs in Singapore, only that their work there is under ban. Clearly if there are JWs in prison in Singapore, then there are JWs in Singapore.

Individual cases of JW arrests are not necessary in this article, and a 'See also' link to the relevant article has been added instead.--Jeffro77 (talk) 10:12, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

It's surprising to see a Wikipedia acting as apologist for an intolerant regime. Despite what he or the Singapore public relations department may pretend, Singapore does not merely ban the "work" of Jehovah's Witnesses. Rather, Witnesses are not even permitted to meet together even in small groups (see that among the examples the editor above chose to hide) and Witnesses may not have any Witness literature items in their possession (see that also among the examples the editor above chose to hide). Furthermore, students revealed as Witnesses in Singapore have been and at any time could be expelled from school and have other opportunities withdrawn – all without performing any supposed "JW work".--AuthorityTam (talk) 13:27, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

Note that excessive elaboration—which I have removed—is beyond the scope of this article, and is present in the linked article. The accusation of "apologist for an intolerant regime" is noted, and is incorrect, inappropriate, and irrelevant.--Jeffro77 (talk) 13:41, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

The Watch Tower Society has specifically referred to "the work" of Jehovah's Witnesses being banned in Singapore, and the implication therein is that such a ban prohibits all of the religious group's activities. (1991 Yearbook of Jehovah's Witnesses, p. 201; Our Kingdom Ministry, March 1972, p. 4) It is unclear why the specific wording that "their work there is under ban" (which has only been used here at Talk and not in the article) would cause offense, and the wording is not an endorsement of decisions of the Singaporean government or of any other group. For students to be "revealed as Witnesses in Singapore", there must necessarily be Witnesses in Singapore. The statement, it is not the case that there are no JWs in Singapore, only that their work there is under ban is not an estimation of the degree of hardship faced, but a simple statement of fact.--Jeffro77 (talk) 13:49, 7 January 2011 (UTC)