Last month, the Institute of Policy Studies (IPS) published a paper titled “Moral Attitudes in Flux: Comparing Trends Across Religions in Singapore” (Working Paper 66). It measured moral attitudes across racial and religious lines, and compared its findings with similar surveys conducted in 2013 and 2018 to measure changes in attitudes on topics of family, sexuality and individual choice. 

The IPS researchers noted that views on issues such as pregnancy out of wedlock, premarital sex and cohabitation, and same sex-issues all saw “liberalising” trends, with more holding “permissive” views in 2024 as compared to earlier years. It also discussed “conservative” attitudes of various religious groups towards sexuality. 

What do terms like “liberal” or “conservative” mean?  

We unpack these concepts in this article.  

What is liberalism?  

In his seminal book On Liberty, 19^th century thinker John Stuart Mill articulated the classical statement in the liberal tradition, that “only purpose for which power can be rightfully exercised over any member of a civilised community, against his will, is to prevent harm to others.”  

“Over himself, over his own body and mind, the individual is sovereign,” Mill declared.  

All liberal traditions endorse the general idea that people ought to be free to determine their behaviour and lives as they see fit, so long as they do not violate others’ rights. It entails the toleration of different beliefs and diverse ways of life.  

Samuel Freeman, Avalon Professor in the Humanities Emeritus at the University of Pennsylvania, categorised the various liberal perspectives in a 2001 article.  

The first type of liberalism is “classical liberalism”, which typically emphasises freedoms from an economic point of view. Classical liberalism endorses the doctrine of laissez-faire (i.e. leaving things to take their own course without interference from government), on the basis that free market forces will lead to a just and efficient distribution of resources. However, interference from government is justified if it is intended to help uphold the institutions of market society (e.g. to correct a situation where there are unequal opportunities among individuals).  

The second is “high liberalism”. It takes things a step further, by arguing that there are many different things which are intrinsically good, and “no single way of life can encompass them all”. Instead, there are different ways of living which are “worth affirming for their own sake”.  

One area where high liberals differ from classical liberals is in the area of equality of opportunity. High liberals stress that formal equality of opportunity is not enough. Instead, society should help to even out inequalities – such as through education or even provision of universal healthcare – so that people are placed on an equal footing.  

The final is strand in the liberal tradition is “libertarianism”, which calls for maximum liberty, and that governments should minimise their interference with people’s lives. It argues that people ought to have absolute rights to accumulate, use, control and transfer rights in things. These things do not include only property, but also oneself, body and powers.  

Summary of Liberal Traditions 

Freeman does not consider libertarianism to be a liberal view. This is because, in his view, libertarianism rejects a key idea of liberalism, which is that “political power is a public power, to be impartially exercised for the common good”.  

He criticises libertarianism for rejecting some basic fundamentals of a liberal society. For example, Freeman criticises libertarians for advocating the right of private property owners to engage in “invidious discrimination”, such as by excluding or denying goods and services to people on the basis of race. 

What is conservatism?  

Social scientist Karen Stenner analysed the psychological predispositions of three kinds of “conservatism” in her 2009 article.  

The first is “status quo conservatism”. This refers to an enduring inclination to favour stability and preservation of the status quo over social change. People in this category prioritise social stability, and are averse to rapid changes.  

The second is “laissez-faire conservatism”, which reflects a persistent preference for a free market and limited government intervention in the economy. This is based on a preference for “laissez-faire economics”. Stenner argues that, “the more privileged one’s socioeconomic position – that is, the more one is favored by market distribution of economic rewards – the greater the objection to government intervention in the economy.” 

The final is “social conservatism”, which she prefers to call “authoritarianism”. According to her, this is “an enduring predisposition, in all matters political and social, to favour obedience and conformity (oneness and sameness) over freedom and difference.”  

She notices that authoritarians are very different from laissez-faire conservatives, who are actually opposed to government regulation. While she finds that there may be a “modest” alignment between authoritarians and status quo conservatives, she finds that this overlap is not always true. In certain times and places, status quo conservatives “will try to live with these things – racial diversity, civil liberties, moral freedom – if they are institutionalized, authoritatively supported, well-established traditions, or sources of social stability.” 

Stenner is most critical of authoritarianism, considering them to be the most “intolerant” group of the three. She writes that “authoritarians are truly the most changeable, the most readily malleable, the most easily exploitable, for better or worse. They are simple-minded avoiders of complexity far more than closed-minded avoiders of change.” 

Summary of Conservative Traditions

When reading Stenner’s analysis, it is important to be cautious about Stenner’s biases, particularly in equating “social conservatism” with “authoritarianism”. People can be socially conservative without being authoritarian or trying to impose obedience and conformity in a political sense.  

What about Singaporeans?  

Based on these frameworks, where do Singaporeans stand? 

In our next article, we will take a closer look at Singaporeans’ attitudes across a range of issues and circumstances, and find out of Singaporeans are “liberal”, “conservative” or something else.  

(Note: We would emphasise that the above concepts of “liberal” or “conservative” are only used for the purposes of analysis, from a philosophical or motivational perspective. In dialogues, we often find it unhelpful to label or dismiss people as “liberal” or “conservative”; instead, one should engage meaningfully with their views and perspectives.)