AJ on Global Humanism Lessons From Singapore

Author(s): Scott Douglas Jacobsen

Publication (Outlet/Website): The Good Men Project

Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2024/10/23

AJ serves as a director and trustee of Humanists International. He is a founding trustee of the National Multifaith Youth Centre in the UK. He also serves as national coordinator of Young Humanists UK.. He can be seen on X, Instagram, Meta, LinkedIn, Humanism Now podcast, and his professional page–last interview too.

Scott Douglas Jacobsen: So, here’s another recap of the International Humanist Conference in Singapore, which was held alongside the Humanists International General Assembly, featuring prominent figures from the humanist movement. A notable name in youth humanism from the UK attended. AJ, what was your first impression of Singapore when you arrived? And what would you say was your main takeaway?

AJ: My first impression? I’ve visited Singapore several times before. I have family there, and in Malaysia, so it wasn’t my first time experiencing the culture. In that sense, it felt like coming home, with a sense of nostalgia. I hadn’t travelled to Singapore—or much at all—in the past five years.

It was refreshing to be on the road again and to reconnect with fellow humanist friends. The experience may not have been as new or surprising to me as it was for others. Still, I did appreciate the warm Singaporean welcome, generous hospitality, and positive, energetic way of speaking. The honesty in how Malaysians and Singaporeans express themselves resonates with me. The welcome from the humanist community in Singapore was fantastic.

In the lead-up to the conference, there were some concerns about government oversight, surveillance, and their interest in our activities—particularly about speaker visas—which might have conflicted with the human rights values held by many of us. While some concerns did come up, they didn’t overshadow the event. The immigration process was smooth, and the friendliness and dedication of the people immediately struck me.

As for my takeaway, I was particularly pleased that interfaith dialogue and harmony were central themes at this conference. The International Humanist Conference (hosted by Humanists Society Singapore) and the Humanists International General Assembly took place over the long weekend. Interfaith dialogue is a significant aspect of my Humanism and is why I joined the humanist movement. I am a humanist ambassador, someone who engages in dialogue with other faiths and beliefs rather than being inward-looking. Singapore embodies that spirit, and I left with renewed motivation and inspiration to continue my interfaith work. That message truly resonated with me.

Jacobsen: Did you participate in any speakers, workshops, or guided tours?

AJ: Yes, as a Humanists International board member, I was able to attend quite a few sessions. Certainly, the guided tour stood out to me. It continued the interfaith theme of Singapore. It was present every day of the event. The guided tour, including a workshop-style Q&A session, really stood out. There was also a demonstration of some interfaith work and deradicalization efforts. We visited a mosque as part of the cultural tour, so the tour/workshop combo was part of the same event.

The tour highlighted Singapore’s deep history, even though it’s quite a small place geographically. Different parts of the city reflect different aspects of its history. We visited a synagogue, though we didn’t go inside, and we also saw the old colonial British quarters, Indian areas with a history of Indian merchants, and the Malay and Chinese districts. For those on the tour visiting Singapore for the first time, it was an excellent way to showcase why Singapore places such a high value on interfaith harmony.

Singapore’s past includes violent conflicts between different groups, often stemming from colonial decisions. Singapore decided to set differences aside as a city-state and prioritize tolerance and coexistence. This is a great source of pride for Singaporeans, and that sentiment was very clear throughout the tour.

As part of the tour, we also visited a school where they emphasized that everyone in Singapore must learn English. Still, they also have to learn their native language, whether it’s Malay, Tamil, or Chinese. This reflects the pragmatic values of Singaporean society, which seeks unity through shared language and encourages a strong connection to individual cultural heritage.

It wasn’t anything new to me since my Indian family has been in Singapore for about 20 years. However, it was still inspiring to see it in practice. We could weave in the humanist and interfaith messages during the cultural tours.

Here’s an example of how they promote inter-religious harmony with government approval. We must acknowledge that the government sees the benefit, even for cynical economic reasons. Inter-religious harmony is beneficial because it doesn’t interfere with business and makes the environment more attractive for businesses. Singapore has thrived because of this approach. In that sense, there was a certain poignancy to it all.

Speaking as a UK resident, just a few weeks before I left, communal violence had broken out in certain areas. It became a national and international story, with fears of riots spreading to many cities. In the end, it didn’t escalate as feared, but the violence in one town caught the nation’s attention and shocked us. It reminded us of the society we’re living in post-Brexit.

So, we arrived in Singapore and took this cultural tour the next day. Our guide—a Singaporean—talked about the terrible riots they had in the past, with violence, bloodshed, and militaristic marches from different faith groups. The government had to make a decision and take the lead. They told the faith and cultural groups, “You’ll have a place, but it’s a place we define.” And that place was the same for every religion.

It was inspiring, though perhaps not perfect and too heavy-handed for those with Western sensibilities. Some might call it a manufactured or artificial harmony. Whatever it is, it works in Singapore in ways the UK model doesn’t. It was sobering, especially as someone with a British passport coming over and seeing this firsthand.

I should also mention the deradicalization workshop, which included visiting a mosque. It was a Sunni mosque right in the middle of Singapore, and it worked closely with the government and security services to deradicalize Singaporeans from various backgrounds—regardless of class, nationality, ethnic background, or even gender. Both males and females, even teenagers, who might have been radicalized online, are part of this effort. They focus on Muslims who have been drawn towards extremism or are showing sympathies for extremist ideologies.

That was particularly inspiring—their commitment to this work. We humanist guests to the mosque hit them with a few hard questions. You’re asking people to suspend their disbelief and believe in something without evidence, which in this case is Islam, even if it’s moderate Islam. So, it would be surprising if some people took their interpretations further. Isn’t it all part of the same path? This sparked quite a lively discussion between the humanist audience and the deradicalization staff at the mosque.

For someone like me, I run a Quran class, and I have many progressive Muslim friends. I also engage in interfaith dialogue with Muslims, studying the Quran, reinterpreting it, etc. That aspect of the conversation stood out to me as well.

Jacobsen: When it comes to the style of conversation within interfaith harmony work, as I know you’re very involved in that in the UK—particularly in orienting Humanism towards increasing tolerance, compassion, and advancing human rights—did you notice a difference in language use at the interfaith harmony workshop or presentation compared to the British context? They have similar goals. But do they use different means in terms of communication styles?

AJ: Yes. That’s something Britain can learn from. Of course, the two countries have slightly different personalities. Singaporeans communicate much more practically, matter-of-fact, and directly. They’re very down-to-earth. Brits, like Canadians, tend to beat around the bush more, with a lot of deference and politeness, often not directly saying what they mean.

Sometimes, that British approach can be beneficial. As Lincoln said, “The point of tact is not sharp.” But in Singapore, they can be quite sharp, yet it works because they’re clear that the sharpness is not about discriminating based on faith. It’s more about saying, “Look, we’re all Singaporeans.” They’ll lay down the law in a way that says, “If you act this way, we, as a society, have to object because that’s not what being Singaporean is about. It’s bad for business or bad for the nation’s goals.”

They emphasize how, 50 years ago, Singapore was seen as a backwater in the Malay Peninsula. Still, now it’s known globally for its intelligence, work ethic, financial power, and trade. They’ve achieved that by choosing a certain direction and pulling together as a society, creating a Singaporean identity.

The tour guide mentioned that this identity is a “manufactured” one. Being “Singaporean” didn’t exist long ago but was purposefully created. That identity has been actively embraced and is still alive and well today. It’s kept in the forefront. In contrast, in Britain, there’s more of a tendency to “coddle” people, so to speak—everyone wants to get along, and we’re often overly nice to each other. But here, things happen without too much government interference, while in Singapore, there seems to be more of a fear or respect for the government.

There’s a noticeable difference in how the two countries interact with their governments and the public. In Britain, it’s not seen in quite the same way.

Only some people agree with the government’s approach. Some people think the government is too soft on certainissues, like preaching. In contrast, others feel it’s overreaching, so they disengage entirely. 

The government’s backing of interfaith institutions in Singapore, especially the IRO (Inter-Religious Organization), gives these activities more credibility than those in the UK. In Singapore, government support lends interfaith work increased legitimacy, whereas, in the UK, the approach often feels a bit “kumbaya”—very soft, idealistic, and sometimes naive. We’re constantly grappling with nebulous concepts, especially in the post-Brexit environment, like “British values.”

What exactly are British values? How do we define them? And once we do, do we have the confidence to assert them and say, “These are British values. You either opt in or leave”?

Singapore is clear on this point—they’ve decided to enforce a strong social contract. In some ways, they’re almost forced to because of geographical limitations. There isn’t enough space in Singapore, so if you’re going to stay there, you must sign up for certain aspects of their social contract, which is rigidly enforced.

In the UK, it’s different, partly due to the long history of invasions, waves of immigration, and the post-colonial environment. Many young Brits don’t have the appetite to be forceful or demanding of the immigrant population. For these reasons, interfaith conversations in the UK don’t carry as much weight. They aren’t as respected, even by the government.

In Singapore, interfaith efforts are more successful because of the government’s support and the collective buy-in to the Singaporean identity. They can afford to be more direct. There’s a sense that interfaith work is part of building a great Singapore. They tell people, “This is why we’re here—get on board.” And people generally go along with it. In the UK, not so much.

Jacobsen: That’s an interesting analysis. Your commentary on Singapore’s interfaith work highlights its pragmatism. But it’s also about the broader approach to interfaith work, which is contextual nationally. Singapore’s history is different from Britain’s, and its geographic context and constraints are different, too. Both are wealthy, well-educated countries, but those geographic constraints place pressures on the type of country you can build and how you define national values. In Singapore, they’ve defined “Singaporean values,” and interfaith work is integrated into that framework. I agree with that analysis. What were the emotional highs and lows of the conference for you—not just the takeaways, but your feelings during the event?

AJ: One of the most memorable moments was Sunday, Friday, or Thursday. I am trying to remember the exact days, but before the official conference and the General Assembly began; they hosted a social night, which included a buffet dinner.Afterward, they had an open mic session—though it seemed spontaneous, it had some structure. Maybe the president of the humanist societies from Singapore and Malaysia would come up and speak, along with Andrew Copson and a few others. That part was planned.

Then, they asked, “Does anyone else have something to share?” because there was time left; and people didn’t want to head home immediately. What followed was almost an hour of performances. My fellow board member Roslyn Mould came out with an LGBTQ pride song, a rap, which she displayed on the projector while dancing around. She got everyone up and dancing, too.

It turned into an impromptu talent show. Peter Dankwa from Humanists International played an instrument—the harmonica.. People also read poetry. I loved that. People introduced themselves, and it felt like a gathering of ambassadors. Sudesh Ghoderao from India came up, and many ambassadors or leaders from their respective countries also spoke. It was nice and very spontaneous.

People voiced their concerns in a very open forum. It was so successful that we discussed it in the board meeting afterward and decided we should have more of these kinds of sessions. While we want things to be manageable, having an open mic format allows people to share freely. Some gave speeches about what was happening in their countries, while others performed or expressed gratitude.

There were discussions on various issues; someone even raised the topic of Israel and Palestine. A representative from Free Thought Lebanon spoke, which resonated with me. That may have been one of the emotional lows, especially when we passed resolutions on Afghanistan and Venezuela. The resolution on Venezuela could have been much stronger, but it passed nonetheless.

There wasn’t a voice from the members on the Israel-Palestine issue, and someone from the audience did raise that during the General Assembly, saying, “There’s an elephant in the room that we’re not addressing.” That was an area for improvement, and it was disappointing. But someone raised it during this unstructured open mic session before the conference officially began. People were nodding along, and giving a good reaction was a highlight, even if it still needed to be addressed formally with a resolution.

Jacobsen: How are you planning to incorporate some of the lessons from the General Assembly in Singapore into youth humanism globally once you’re back and settled, even though it might feel like months since you were at the conference?

AJ: Yes, time does always seem to run away from us. Seeing many young volunteers from the Singaporean Humanist Society and the Malaysian and Indonesian Humanist societies was very pleasing. It’s tough to be openly humanist or atheist in those countries, but having their presence was significant. The Malaysian society rejoined after dropping out, and this was the first time that the Indonesian group Humanesia was admitted as a member.

Now that we have those regional groupings in the informal WhatsApp community of Humanists Worldwide, I want to build on that, harness and elevate their voices, and make them more visible on Instagram, TikTok, or wherever they’re active. They’ve got a lot of enthusiastic volunteers.

In the past, I’ve done other interfaith work in Singapore from 2018 to 2019, meeting Baha’is, Sufi groups, Muslims, and Buddhists. This time, however, it felt like there was even more energy from Singapore and Malaysia, which we need to include here in the UK. Tapping into that, cross-promoting, and elevating their voices to energize British youth would be very welcome.

As the coordinator of Young Humanists in the UK, along with my colleague Nicole Shasha, I sometimes feel like we’retoo relaxed and lackadaisical. Our friends in Sweden say the same thing—they almost wish the Swedish Church was worse because things are too comfortable, making it hard to push Humanism forward without a clear “enemy.”

Connecting UK youth to Malaysian and Indonesian youth, especially in the context of major social issues like Israel-Palestine, could be a powerful opportunity. To return to the missing resolution on Israel-Palestine, while it was discussedinformally around the conference, it needed to be formally addressed with a resolution or official statement.

That’s a significant gap, especially when youth are looking to charities, NGOs, or global movements, especially those that put human rights and equality at the forefront. We need a clear stance on Israel-Palestine, whether from the board, the members, or even just individual humanist board members. Over the past year, I’ve tried to be active on TikTok and, in my capacity, speak out on the issue, but I feel we’re missing a massive opportunity to connect with the youth on what is one of the most important social justice issues of our time.

This issue could become as big as another Vietnam or Iraq war—arguably, it already is. Time will tell how history views it. That’s why it’s so important to address it. For example, one of the first questions our Indonesian friends asked before joining and after being voted in was, “What’s Humanists International (HI) doing? What’s the global humanist movement doing about Israel-Palestine?”

And we couldn’t point to anything concrete. That’s a major lesson to learn. I’ve been involved in personal activism on Israel-Palestine in one way or another since 2008. Still, I have yet to have the opportunity to link it with Humanism directly. I’d love to do that more, not only because it would energize and connect with youth here in the UK but also because it’s the right thing to do.

Jacobsen: AJ, how can people get in contact with you, read your work, or listen to your fabulous podcast?

AJ: Thank you! Yes, you can include a link to my website, alavari.info. All the links to my social media are there—TikTok is where I’ve been most active recently. The podcast Humanism Now will becoming  back shortly after the summer break. I help co-produce it and also join the guest panel on the podcast. It’s UK-based but has an international flavour.

I’d invite the audience to follow our work there!

Jacobsen: AJ, thank you very much for taking the time out. I appreciate it.

AJ: I appreciate you, too. Have a good one.

Jacobsen: Take care. Speak soon.

AJ: Excellent. Take care. Bye!

Last updated May 3, 2025. These terms govern all In Sight Publishing content—past, present, and future—and supersede any prior notices. In Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen is licensed under a Creative Commons BY‑NC‑ND 4.0; © In Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen 2012–Present. All trademarks, performances, databases & branding are owned by their rights holders; no use without permission. Unauthorized copying, modification, framing or public communication is prohibited. External links are not endorsed. Cookies & tracking require consent, and data processing complies with PIPEDA & GDPR; no data from children < 13 (COPPA). Content meets WCAG 2.1 AA under the Accessible Canada Act & is preserved in open archival formats with backups. Excerpts & links require full credit & hyperlink; limited quoting under fair-dealing & fair-use. All content is informational; no liability for errors or omissions: Feedback welcome, and verified errors corrected promptly. For permissions or DMCA notices, email: scott.jacobsen2025@gmail.com. Site use is governed by BC laws; content is “as‑is,” liability limited, users indemnify us; moral, performers’ & database sui generis rights reserved.