2024ETHOSSeminar-WebsliderBSS
ETHOSBannerChinese11
1007102024FeatureWS_2September2024_BiblicalJustice
10CredoWS_21October2024_ReligiousVoicesinthePublicSphere
10CredoWS_7October2024_ReadingMeditatingHearingandDoing
902092024PulseIVFFrozenEmbryosareChildrenWS
SpecialWS_1August2024_WhatisCriticalSocialJusticeAnAnatomyofanIdeology
NCCS50thCommemorativeBook
ETHOSBannerChinese
previous arrow
next arrow

November 2021 Pulse

2020 marks the thirtieth anniversary of the Maintenance of Religious Harmony Act, a unique piece of legislation passed by Parliament that addresses the relationship between religion and the secular state in Singapore. The Act came about as a result of the arrest of Catholic lay worker Vincent Cheng and his associates in 1987 for allegedly plotting a Marxist conspiracy to overthrow the state.

In his 1987 National Day Rally Speech, then Prime Minister Lee Kuan Yew famously promulgated the separation of religion and politics, in anticipation of the legislation, with these famously memorable words: ‘Churchmen, lay preachers, priests, monks, Muslim theologians, all those who claim to divine sanctions of holy insights, take off your clerical robes before you take on anything economic or political.’

Although the Act advocates an ‘institutional’ separation of religion and politics, as Mr Lee’s 1987 statement made clear, some have interpreted it as sanctioning the total exclusion of religious voices from public debate. Their perspective corresponds to trends evident in certain Western societies that aggressively push for the ‘privatisation of religion’ and its expulsion from the public square.

But as Geoffrey Levey has argued persuasively, this narrow and militant form of secularism that sees itself as being in constant and unrelenting ideological opposition to religion is patently unhelpful. In fact, this ‘negative’ secularism, as Levey calls it, distorts our received understanding of ‘what the secular state was, is and should be.’

In recent years, scholars like Tariq Madood from the University of Bristol have been advocating a moderate secularism that does not see itself at odds or in conflict with religion.

One of the central characteristics of moderate secularism, according to Madood, is the inclusion of religious identities and organisations in the public realm, not their marginalisation or ostracisation. In addition, moderate secularism also debunks the old myths associated with its narrower and more dogmatic instantiations, such as the notion of secular neutrality and the (mostly contrived) private / public divide.

In many ways, in moderate secularism, we find a more mature and realistic assessment of the role of religion in society (including its political life) in the wake of the demise of the secularisation thesis. It recognises the significance of religion in people’s lives and the incredulity of the notion of a ‘private’ religion. As Linda Woodhead has pointed out: ‘A religion which is never expressed does not exist; once it is expressed it is communicative and public.’

In addition, unlike its more fundamentalistic cousin, moderate secularism is not as forgetful of the contributions that religion has made – and continues to make – in society. Consequently, moderate secularists have been advocating that political authorities and society in general should encourage the broadening of the role of religion in the civic and political affairs of the nation.

For example, the prominent secular philosopher, Jürgen Habermas, in his more recent writings eschews what he calls ‘an overly narrow, supposedly secularist definition of the political role of religion in the liberal frame.’ He argues that the secular state has ‘an interest in unleashing religious voices in the political public sphere and in the political participation of religious organisations as well.’

In agreement with Habermas, Bhikhu Parekh adds that the silencing of religious arguments in the public square can ‘deprive political life’ in two ways: (1) with regard to the unique insights that religion can offer and (2) the moral energies that religions can mobilise for justice and the common good.

Happily, the secularism embraced by the government in Singapore is of this ‘moderate’ variety Acknowledging the multi-religious nature of our society, the government, although secular, is not dismissive of significance religion in the lives of individual citizens and its value in society.

Professor Jayakumar, who was Minister for Law and Home Affairs when the Act was passed by Parliament, was at pains to emphasise this point when explaining the state’s attitude towards religion embodied in the legislation. While the government is not pro- any religion, he said, it is not ‘anti- any religion’ either. ‘It believes religion should be a positive factor in society,’ he adds.

Scholars such as Linda Woodhead and Bhikhu Parekh have taken a further step. Not only do they acknowledge the positive role of religion in society, they have also argued that secularism itself can benefit from authentic and constructive dialogue with religion.

Religion, they insist, can prevent modern secularism from becoming illiberal and undemocratic. Secularism, Woodhead maintains, must not only welcome religious criticism but also opposition because ‘it keeps it on its toes; reminds it of its inbuilt limitations; and prevents it from becoming illiberal.’

In welcoming religion and taking seriously its contributions to society, secularism must also come to terms with its own inadequacies and its indebtedness to religious traditions. For example, secularism is unable to supply the requisite moral vision towards which society should strive but must rely on liberal values which are parasitic on the Judeo-Christian tradition. In addition, by welcoming the contributions of religion, the modern secular state shows itself to be truly inclusive and thusly truly democratic.

But there is still another way in which secularism can benefit from creative interaction with religion.

Religion can warn secularism against what Woodhead calls a ‘political messianism’ and detach it from an ‘easy alliance with doctrines of inevitable progress.’ In other words, religion can provide the necessary and timely critique of and corrective to the distorting triumphalism and progressivism to which modern secularism is inherently predisposed.

Simply put, there is a profound sense in which religion – especially Christianity – can keep both society and the modern secular state sane.


Dr Roland Chia is Chew Hock Hin Professor at Trinity Theological College (Singapore) and Theological and Research Advisor of the Ethos Institute for Public Christianity.