VIEW: The Singapore model of religious pluralism —Ishtiaq Ahmed
Courtesy to "Daily Times"
On the whole, Singapore’s approach to prevent radicalisation of society
is to actively engage with the religious communities, maintain close
link with their organisations and allow unrestricted religious freedom
to them, yet put limits to such freedom when national interest is
adversely affected
In this essay I would like to share with
the readers the very positive views on the Singapore model of religious
pluralism that I formed during my recently completed 3-year stay in that
country. The religious composition of the 4.8 million-strong Singapore
population is currently as follows: 42.5 percent Buddhist, 14.9 percent
Muslim, 14.6 percent Christian, 8.5 percent Taoist and 4 percent Hindu.
There are more than a million foreigners who also work in Singapore.
Singapore bases it policy of religion on the assumption that most of its
population is deeply religious. Such a disposition must be respected,
but on a non-discriminatory basis. Therefore, constitutional measures as
well as public policy must ensure that the multi-religious and
multi-ethnic character of society is expressed fairly and peacefully. In
symbolic terms it has meant that religious festivals of all the major
communities are public holidays.
The state does not interfere
with the beliefs of its citizens and each individual is free to practise
his/her faith. What the state has done, instead, is to ensure that no
religious community is involved in politics. Politicisation of religion
is considered the major threat to the Singapore model of religious
pluralism. The state monitors and regulates religious freedom on the
realistic assumption that religious harmony cannot be taken for granted.
It has to be maintained through a diverse range of government inputs
including pre-emptive measures to see to it that social cohesion and
harmony are not jeopardised.
More crucially, while the
constitution provides for absolute religious freedom, including the
right to convert to another religion, the government maintains an
important distinction between belief and action. The position taken is
that whereas beliefs pertaining to spiritual values and principles are
to be enjoyed by all without interference by the state, the citizens and
foreigners are to be held accountable for actions they may claim were
inspired by their beliefs. Any action, including verbal action that sows
discord among the citizens, can be legitimately prohibited. Therefore,
the government curtails and constrains religion-inspired actions that
adversely affect the integrity and security of the state and subvert
peace and harmony among the various religious communities.
Thus
several measures have been undertaken to ensure that religious freedom
is not abused to preach hatred or incite violence against other
religious and ethnic groups. Under the Sedition Act, it is clearly laid
down that it is an offence “to promote feelings of ill-will and
hostility between races or classes of the population of Singapore”. In
2005, three bloggers were convicted under the Sedition Act for posting
anti-Muslim comments.
The principle is that communal harmony and
peace are paramount and enjoyment of human rights can be qualified and
restricted with a view to maintaining communal amity Thus, The Satanic
Verses by Salman Rushdie was banned because the book was considered
scurrilous to Islam. The government also banned Martin Scorsese’s ‘The
Last Temptation of Christ’ because Christian sentiments were hurt by it.
Such proactive monitoring of freedom of religion and expression has
earned Singapore the reputation of an authoritarian regime, but the
government defends its policies by arguing that the overall advantages
from such regulation of freedoms has been greater than the disadvantages
of selectively restricting some freedoms.
Although secular laws
regulate public life in Singapore, religious law applies to the personal
affairs of members of the various communities. With regard to Muslims,
marriage, divorce and inheritance are regulated by shariah injunctions.
However, neither polygamy nor child marriage is permitted. In adopting
such policy, the government takes the position that that religious law
should not adversely affect the status and rights of any section of a
religious community.
On the whole, Singapore’s approach to
prevent radicalisation of society is to actively engage with the
religious communities, maintain close link with their organisations and
allow unrestricted religious freedom to them, yet put limits to such
freedom when national interest is adversely affected. In this
connection, the government overruled the wearing of headscarves by minor
Muslim girls in government schools, asserting that all children must
wear the same uniform and learn to mix with each other. However, at
university level, Muslim girls are free to wear the headscarf. The
assumption is that as grownups they have consciously chosen to wear the
headgear and, therefore, it is an expression of free choice by a person
who has already been groomed to appreciate and internalise the
Singaporean approach to multiculturalism.
The question now is:
how is such a model relevant for a 96 percent Muslim-majority state such
as Pakistan? First of all, the 4 percent minorities out of 170 million,
means nearly seven million non-Muslims. Moreover, the 96 percent Muslim
population comprises different sects and sub-sects. Therefore, it is
equally relevant that the state should adopt such constitutional
provisions and public policy that ensure that all religious and
sectarian groups enjoy full religious freedom, but none is privileged to
impose its dogma or beliefs on others. This is only possible if
Pakistan becomes a secular state. I do not understand why its Muslim
identity would be compromised if the state becomes a neutral protector
of all communities. Given the religiously motivated terrorism that is
now endemic in Pakistan, it is imperative that the state remains neutral
on the matter of belief of its citizens.
As a concrete measure, I
would propose that all places of worship in Pakistan — Muslim and
non-Muslim — should be brought under direct state control. The priests
who work in them should become state employees drawing a government
salary. Their function should be strictly to lead prayers and nothing
more. There should be a complete prohibition on fatwas by the clerics.
Instead an official fatwa or among non-Muslims, if there is any such
practice, a corresponding ethical edict should be presented to the
worshippers. In these official statements derived from religious
sources, emphasis should be on promoting communal harmony and voluntary
work to serve people in need. I am sure the Quran, Bible, Gita and other
holy books have enough material to support peace and harmony, and
social service to humanity.
State control of religion may sound
authoritarian, but Singapore is a brilliant example of freedom of
religion being sharply distinguished from abuse of religion for
preaching hatred of others and thus undermining national solidarity and
unity.
The writer is a Professor Emeritus of Political
Science, Stockholm University. He is also Honorary Senior Fellow of the
Institute of South Asian Studies, National University of Singapore. He
can be reached at billumian@gmail.com
In : Ishtiaq Ahmed
Notes