Theorising “Talk” about “Religious Pluralism” and “Religious Harmony” in Singapore, Vineeta Sinha
Vineeta Sinha discusses the passage of Singapore's Maintenance of the Religious Harmony (MRH) Act in 1990. In a small nation composed of multiple ethnic and religious groups, the government adopted a neutral stance toward all religions while insisting that none of them could stir up “ill feelings” toward the others or engage in subversive activities in relation to Singaporean society as a whole.
As Sinha points out, the rhetoric surrounding the passage of the MRH Act extolled a mythical past characterized by tolerance, respect, and nonviolence. By contrast, the contemporary era was portrayed as a time of imagined threats of religious-based terrorism and aggressive proselytization. These threats were variously associated with leftist Christian groups, Islamic fundamentalists, and Christian evangelists. Whether such threats were real or not, the legislation provided an occasion for the Singaporean government to reaffirm its policy of strict separation of church and state, even though, perhaps paradoxically, the Act was aimed against certain forms of religiosity that were deemed outside the social mainstream.Maintenance of the Religious Harmony Act: A Legislative Solution?
The 9th November 1990 is significant in the legislative history of Singapore. After more than five years of planning, debating, and deliberation, a Bill to maintain religious harmony was passed by the Singapore Parliament, bringing into effect the MRH [Maintenance of the Religious Harmony] Act. Singapore thus scored yet another ?first', becoming the only country in the world to have a law of this nature. Expectedly, this legislation generated discussions locally and critical sociological commentary from students of Singapore society, highlighting among other things, that this Act was devised to keep the realms of ?religion' and ?politics' separate, realms already pre-defined by the state in specific ways.
[Joseph B.] Tamney further states that “Clearly the target of the new law was leftist Christianity (and, to a lesser extent, Islamic fundamentalism). Both the ?Marxist conspiracy' and Christian evangelism awakened the leaders to the political threat of Christianity.”1 [...]How the Act Came into Being
Although the Act came into existence in 1990, different kinds of evidence, including a report prepared by the Internal Security Department (ISD) of Singapore in 1986, set into motion the chain of events that culminated in this unique piece of legislation. Among other details of religious life, the report noted the prevalence of inter-religious tensions in Singapore, coupled with a large-scale incidence of aggressive proselytisation and the exploitation of “religion for political and subversive purposes.”[16] [17] The Ministry of Community Development (MCD) then commissioned more detailed studies to investigate religious trends in Singapore. These reports, too, ?confirmed' some of the central findings of the ISD report.
In the face of such evidence the government felt that action was imperative to ensure religious harmony. [...]
Under this law, action can be taken against any religious leader, official or member of any religious group or institution, who causes ill-feelings between different religious groups or promotes a political cause or carries out subversive activities under the guise of propagating or practising any religious belief. The ?offender' is first issued with a restraining order, with notice, by the Minister of Home Affairs and has the right to make written representations to the Minister and the Presidential Council for Religious Harmony. The latter deliberates on both the order and the written representations of the concerned person and makes recommendations (confirming, cancelling or varying the restraining order) to the President. The President is the final arbiter. He may..
cancel or confirm the order and in confirming may make such variations as he thinks fit” (Section 11). A breach of the restraining order makes the person liable for conviction, which may lead to a fine or imprisonment or both.The State's Rationale for Legislation: Singapore Must be Multi-Religious In the Singapore State's discourse, religious tolerance is regarded as absolutely necessary for the prevention of religious polarisation and sectarian strife. Excessive religious fervour, missionary zeal, and religious assertiveness are considered undesirable. A situation of religious harmony is a matter of ?national pride', not to mention a good selling point in presenting Singapore as a haven of harmony in the midst of a region characterised by communal differences. The tie between political stability and religious tolerance and moderation is emphasised. The state has an obvious and pragmatic interest in ensuring that religious differences do not lead to conflict, which would be counter-productive to the socio-economic and political security of the nation.
Soon after its separation from Malaya, Singapore's ruling elite inherited a multi-religious republic and the responsibility of managing this pluralism. Given the close proximity of different religious communities, religion has been viewed as a sensitive subject and a source of potential social conflict, but nonetheless ?legitimate' and a necessary social feature. Yet, although seen to be potentially problematic, religious differences have not prompted the state to wish for a religiously uniform Singapore. In fact, government ministers consider the idea of a ?religiously homogeneous' Singapore society impossible and absurd. That Singapore is, and must continue to, be defined by diversity and plurality, in its ethnic, linguistic, and religious make-up, is entrenched in all public discussions of social life on the island. Yet, there is a stream of thinking that these irreconcilable differences must be negotiated.
With regard to religion, this is clear. According to BG Lee Hsien Loong, “We have to find some way to compromise practically what is impossible to reconcile theologically.”[18]In utterances like these, one notes a fairly serious and problematic admission: religious diversity cannot by itself ensure religious harmony. If anything, it is the reverse. The government's position is that religious diversity and religious differences have the potential to generate misunderstandings among religious communities, but this possibility must be prevented at all cost, through a rational, practical, common-sensical, tolerant approach. According to the Prime Minister, Goh Chok Tong,
I consider the racial and religious harmony as the most important bedrock of our society. If there is no harmony, there will be no peaceful, prosperous Singapore - as simple as that.4
The liberating aspect of the discourse on the MRH Act is that specific statements could be made about inter-religious relations, which were otherwise ?taboo.' The deliberations relating to the Act enable ?talk' of religious disharmony in a context where the overwhelming emphasis is on harmony, whereas inter-religious tensions are experientially real - and not entirely surprising. The Act also supplies a language that enables talk about religious conflict in a discursive context that celebrates religious pluralism, to the almost total denial of tensions. Further interesting is the idea that the tensions are ?new', ?recent', and somewhat anomalous in the otherwise peaceful trajectory of religious co-existence in Singapore since independence. [...] One notes a certain political romanticising (and imagining) of the ?good old days', the glorious, amicable, past of a multi-religious era. [...]
The government's rationale for introducing additional legislation to deal with possible religious disharmony was founded on the following reasons. Firstly, conditions internal to Singapore were cited.
The government noted a shift in religious sentiment from ?tolerant co-existence' to ?fervently held beliefs', visible in greater evangelical activity and religious revivalism among Christians, Muslims, and Buddhists. Further, specific instances were noted in which religion had been used as a front for carrying out political activities.... Secondly, government leaders referred to examples of ?other' societies that had been plagued by communal violence. India, Sri Lanka, Fiji, Lebanon, Northern Ireland, the Philippines, Iran, Iraq, Armenia, and Azerbaijan were cited as examples of how communal clashes occurred as a result of religious insensitivity and mixing religion with politics. Finally, the language of the Act alluded to the dangers, negative potentialities, and anticipation of an ?imagined' or ?anticipated' religiously disharmonious situation. According tothis logic, Singapore in 1990 continued to be multi-religious, but strewn with seeds of religious tension and disharmony. [...]
One question was whether the proposed Act would infringe the constitutional guarantee of religious freedom. In this discussion, the rights of the individual citizen and these of the collective citizenry confronted each other. While the Constitution guarantees individuals the liberty to practise and propagate religious teachings, including the right to proselytise, the sentiment was also expressed that ?absolute religious freedom' was neither possible nor desirable. Some members of the public called upon the government not only to ?check the activities of people and groups who proselytise in public', but also to ban public propagation of religious beliefs, because religion was a personal affair and should be practised in private.
1.10