Religious Diversity - how far have we come ?

This week, Straits Times reported on the findings of some surveys in a book launched by IPS called Religious Diversity in Singapore ( edited by Lai Ah Eng ) .

It was revealed that for some , inter-faith discourse is not something they partake in comfortably .

Some have written to criticise them .Let's not be too harsh- at least they are honest . How often do people tell the truth in surveys anyway . Most people usually just respond with politically correct answers . That's just sugar-coating .

( Addendum - go to http://www.tariqramadan.com/spip.php?article10290 on some ideas on how Inter-Faith Dialogues can be conducted constructively )

Intrigued by this discussion, thought I'd dust off an old paper on Religious Diversity I delivered in 2004 . Maybe I should write a follow-up one day , but for now, this is the paper in full -

CENTRAL SINGAPORE CDC SYMPOSIUM
“CELEBRATING UNITY IN DIVERSITY”

at Masjid Sultan Auditorium

12 December 2004



Challenges of Religious Diversity
in Singapore


A year before the destruction of the World Trade Centre’s Twin Towers in New York, the famous author on religion, Karen Armstrong, wrote in her book ‘The Battle for God’ (2000), that ‘religion has once again become a force that no government can safely ignore’. She was voicing out what several other commentators also felt. However, the world at large only realized this after 911. Why did it take such a massive and horrific tragedy to make so many governments all over the world sit up and act? Why have there been so many books published, articles written and experts born overnight?


What about the situation in Singapore? You be the judge. You must remember the stories that appeared in the Straits Times about the fears and prejudices that surfaced after the 911 and JI arrests. About the Indian man who could no longer wear a sarong in his neighbourhood. I do wonder whether he has gone back to wearing a sarong again. Most of you here today are from the grassroots organisations and I am sure you have many other examples to share.



Outline of Challenges in Singapore

As the first speaker today, I have the duty of painting the landscape of religion in Singapore. Not the theology of the religion, but a helicopter view of the place and treatment of religion in society. I have thus broken up this presentation into 3 parts – the relations between the State and society, inter-religious harmony and intra-community leadership.


State-Society

Article 15 of the Constitution of the Republic of Singapore guarantees every person the ‘right to profess and practise his religion and to propagate it’. The autonomy of each religious group ‘to manage its own religious affairs’ is enshrined in Article 15(3).

While there is no specific government ministry for religious affairs, there is an official Minister-in-charge of Muslim Affairs in the Cabinet. There is no similar position for other religions but does it mean other religions are not given equal weight?

It must be emphasized that the freedom is to “practise his religion’. What does ‘practise” mean? At the height of the tudung issue several years back, proponents of the tudung argued that not allowing schoolchildren to wear the tudung in school was unconstitutional, that is, against Article 15. After much hullabaloo, the matter never made it to Court and hence we do not have a judicial decision on this. But the issue illustrates how people have different interpretations as to what ‘practise” means.

What is my personal opinion? It is that we must differentiate between a fundamental principle (prayer) and the circumstances surrounding the action (place, volume). Does imposing restrictions and conditions impinge and obstruct anyone from completely practising his faith?

As an illustration, are Muslims here not allowed to pray, fast and perform the Haj? The attendances of government leaders at Iftar, Haj send-offs and other religious occasions are shows of support. But the State does impose conditions on the volume for the azan (call to prayer).

An analogy is with the restriction on joss-stick burning, usually during the Hungry Ghosts festival (7th Lunar month). It is not the burning of the joss-stick that is restricted but the place and size of the joss-sticks or the candles.

Similarly with Thaipusam, the procession venue, route and duration are controlled. But no one is barred from carrying the kavadi.

If I can cite one similarity, it is that all religious groups seem to have parking problems (albeit in different degrees) for their congregation near places of worship. The recent media reports about the authorities being asked to intervene involves the parishioners of a church in the Siglap area. This reminds us of the summonses for indiscriminate parking or causing obstruction which some mosque congregation may have received. Therefore, while the person’s personal right to pray remains inviolable, it is separate from his obligations to abide by the general laws of the country and he cannot use as an excuse that he broke the law in order to perform a prayer.


In short, the State fully recognizes the importance to respect the fundamental principles of every religion in Singapore but the application of such principles is juxtaposed with our local context. At the end of the day, the State has to decide what is in the greater national or public interest, no matter how loud the demands from any particular group.

Think about it for a while - is it not ironic that both the State and the tudung proponents put forward the same argument – that their stands for and against was based on national integration. It was the approach to national integration that was diametrically opposed to one another. The tudung proponents brought in the examples of the Sikhs wearing turbans. This is where one difference stands out.

For as long as anyone can remember, Sikhs have been wearing turbans in Singapore. But it is a comparatively recent phenomenom for the Muslims, just check the photo albums of your Muslim relatives or friends in the 1970s and even 80s. As the ultimate decision-maker, the State has to balance the demands of any one particular group with that of others and consider the level of familiarity of this issue amongst fellow Singaporeans as they are impacted as well.

We all know that the governance in Singapore is based on secular principles. At this point of time, let me focus on what is secularism. I can safely say this – not everyone share a common understanding on what secularism is. Some take the view that secular means “anti-religion” and some “no-religion”. So what is the Singapore position? The Singapore position is neither of the 2 – it is “religion-neutral”.

It is telling that during the debate on the draft Code of Religious Harmony 2 years ago, various religious groups were against the words “we are a secular society”. Finally, the words were changed to ‘we recognise the secular nature of our State”. From a draft Code, it was also amended into a Declaration of Religious Harmony. I am sure many of you have recited this pledge and some of you may even be carrying the cards in your wallets. Have you ever wondered about those 2 amendments?

The objections revealed a confusion over what is secularism. There is room for better understanding of the concept of secularism by society. This is critical as each group has its own unique demands and the refusal of any demand may lead to misunderstanding that government is “anti-religion” when it is in fact “religion-neutral”. When there is misconception of what is secular, than disgruntled members of any group can incite and polarize their own followers by misleading them that a policy is deliberately targetted against them (eg Madrasah issue).

The eventual Declaration reflects the balance between personal faith and neutrality of faith by the government. The State stays out of your personal choice in the faith you believe in, and you will notice that the Head of State and Government makes it clear through their festive greetings and attendances at religious functions, that no one faith is given higher-favoured status over another. This is especially so as we are unlike other nations who have an official religion enshrined in their Constitutions. We do not. Our position is that vis-à-vis the different religions, the State is neutral.

What is important for us all to realize is that whatever variations in meanings attached to concepts like “secularism”, they must be understood in our local context and backdrop. No two nations are the same. There are different nuances depending on the nation’s history (how long has the state become independent), make-up of society (whether mono or multi-religious) and philosophy.

Let us take the USA as an example of the role of religion in secular society. It openly declares itself in its Constitution as a secular state but it does have one of the most diverse and multi-religious populations in the world. This is symbolised in the American currency – a coin or note have the inscription - In God We Trust.

I had said earlier that the State strives for a balanced treatment between religions. But that may be too wide and sweeping a statement. One major area where we can assess the unique treatment of religion in Singapore is in the law.

The personal laws (ie Marriage, divorce, inheritance) in Singapore is secular-based. The enactment of the Women’s Charter in the 1960s overrode the practices and rituals of several religions and customs, for example, the polygamous marriages of non-Muslims. So while many Chinese couples still regard themselves as still unmarried until they have undergone the traditional tea ceremony, the State holds them as legally married once they have ‘ROM-ed’ (a phrase only recognized by Singaporeans and nowhere else in the world).

However, Muslims come under a separate personal law system under the Administration of Muslim Law Act. They even have their own Syariah Court which deals mainly with divorces. This unique situation is due to historical reasons but I must emphasise here that where the subject matter in dispute involves national policies, like a HDB flat or CPF, the Syariah court rulings must be in consonance with state law, ie. HDB/CPF conditions and policies or they will be rendered ineffective.

This was also seen in the recent Nuzriah case over the validity of a particular portion of a Muslim man’s will. I will not deal with the merits of that case here. Suffice to say that many Muslims were puzzled as to why it was the Civil Court which heard the case, even if it did take into account the expert views of religious scholars on Muslim law. The short answer here is simply that while the Syariah Court is empowered to issue an inheritance certificate, it does not have the jurisdiction to hear disputes on the actual disposition of inheritance.

The rationale for this is because while there can be differentiation in people’s marriage and divorce, you cannot do the same for properties that people leave behind. Properties have no race nor religion, and so the law of the land must apply. But this does not necessarily mean that Muslims cannot personally deal with properties in a manner which follows Muslim law.

The actual impact of religion on our laws is therefore clear. While it can mitigate one’s actions in a criminal case, it will not act as a complete defence. During the trial of the pastor Father Joachim Kang, Canon (Catholic) Law experts were brought in. Ultimately the case was decided on the Penal Code following the principle that every person is equal in the eyes of the law.

In practice, before the President gives his assent to any Bill which may have an impact on any religious group, he is advised by a Presidential Council of Minority Rights.


The challenges in state-society relations when it comes to religious diversity are therefore:

1. To manage a situation whereby one religion may be or is perceived to be treated differently by others;

2. To be vigilant to possible demands by other religions who may challenge why a specific religious group is treated differently – eg. why must Muslims be treated differently under HOTA.

3. How to respond to demands that the State give greater weightage to the views of religious groups, eg. in the Great Casino Debate?



Inter- Religious Communities
Let us now look at the next area, which is the current state of inter-religious relations and the role of the Government in this.

As stated earlier, the secular Government is non-partisan towards any particular religion. Recognising how sensitive a person is towards his own religion and beliefs, the State has carefully sought to neutralize the effect of religion on national policies. In the common arenas like national schools and community centers, there is an expressed prohibition of religious activities. Some argue that it is this that has led to a situation where many of us are not familiar with the principles and rituals of other religions apart from our own.

There has been a general heightening of awareness. It is obvious that since 911, inter-faith dialogues and visits to places of worship have mushroomed. Organisations like the IRO, which have been around for more than 30 years, now enjoy a higher profile. Groups such as the multi-national and multi-racial Mercy Relief have volunteers from all religious backgrounds. More collaborations amongst different groups, such as Buddhist Lodge and Jamiyah have flourished

On the whole, while there has been a gradual opening up on the discussion of religion but the level of discussion for the masses is still very somewhat at the superficial level of mainly recognizing rituals. The higher-debate seems to take place mainly at forums and sessions involving academics and religious elites amongst themselves.


Under the Maintenance of Religious Harmony Act, no proselytizing is allowed in schools. Therefore, no one can be forced or unduly influenced to convert or join any particular religion. However, with the resurgence of religion in the last few years (across all religions), how do we balance a genuine desire to share awareness of one’s religion with a possible underlying motive to bring new members as converts?

911 and Jemaah Islamiyah arrests exposed and indicated an over-simplification of inter-racial and inter-religious relations all these years. The government-initiated Inter-Religious Confidence Circles (IRCC) in every constituency kickstarted many activities on mutual understanding. What has been the impact three years on?

You will hear more on this from the other speakers.

It is well and good that all these organisations have moved forward so much amongst themselves but what about the outreach to individuals in the community? What about the media, as in TV? With the compartmentalization of vernacular channels along Channel 8, Suria and Vasantham, do we need to have a more radical change from a predominantly mono-racial portrayal to a more multi-ethnic and multi-religious society on these channels? Anak Metropolitan was an excellent example of how this can be done, with its very insightful treatment of people of different races and religions.


The challenge is therefore how to constantly have an accurate feel of the pulse of the level of integration or interaction? Some critics have demanded that since the State has spent so much resources on inter-religious harmony, let us know the cost-benefits. I would argue however that we cannot treat this as if we are dealing with economic performances. We cannot simply use numbers and figures. Just like how you cannot give marks to measure love and affection, how can you give a percentage score to inter–religious harmony? How reliable are the indicators – people eating together, representative proportion of people in an activity? The ultimate test is how members of society respond to one another in a time of crisis, such as SARS.


Another challenge is how to ensure that the desire to understand and respect, instead of just tolerate, one another, becomes internalized in the individual? Will the Declaration of Religious Harmony become mere words on a banner or card?



Intra-Religious Community

Within each religious group, there are bound to be differences in opinions and interpretations. In some religions, there is a hierarchical single authority for whom religious interpretations are unquestioned, as in the Pope. That is not the case in every religion and with each different sect or denomination, there could be a difference in interpretations.


The State policy is that it is best that each religious group come to its own consensus, if it wishes to, on specific issues like homosexuality. For example, when I was a member of the Censorship Review Committee, I recall reading several different viewpoints on issues like homosexuality and morality by separate Christian denominations. The State refrains from passing judgment based on theology. It is up to the particular religious group to come up with its own position, be it on casino or censorship.

The State does from time to time take advice from each religious group (through the Islamic Religious Authority of Singapore and The Hindu Endowment Board etc) on the sensitivities of any particular issue. MICA does consult members of specific religious groups before deciding to allow screening of controversial movies like Bukak Api and Passion of the Christ, or plays like Talak.

The challenge is how to ensure that within each group, differences of opinions are managed in a calm and non- confrontational manner and do not result in fissure and friction which could lead to battles for leadership of the flock? How receptive are the established religious elites in taking into account the views of non-theologians ? What will happen if different sects or denominations come into open conflict on a common issue?


More critically, how to ensure that the leaders, in particular those who studied in overseas theological institutes and who are heavily influenced by their stay in foreign countries, are able to place the practices they have witnessed in the backdrop of our local context. They must have a strong sense of appreciation and understanding of our own local history and multi-religious society before they attempt to import practices from other places.



Reflections

I will end this talk with the following questions for us all to reflect upon:

1. How much do we really value diversity? How deep is that a characteristic of the Singapore Identity?

2. How do we treat differences - do we see them as potential tension points or opportunities for greater understanding?




Ahmad Nizam Abbas
Central Singapore CDC Council Member
President, Mendaki Club