Credo
21 October 2024
The Singaporean government announced in 2022 that they will repeal Section 377A of the Penal Code. Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong broke the news at that year’s National Day Rally and immediately spurred a deluge of comments and statements. Christian denominations and their leaders, for one, voiced their response to the repeal along with their views on the wider issue of marriage and family. However, their voice was not entirely welcomed. A recurrent retort that I encountered then both on social media and in personal conversations questions the legitimacy of their voice. It asserts that Singapore is a secular state, so concomitantly, religion and religious voices should stay out of the public sphere. But is this claim valid?
The first half of that assertion is true – Singapore is indeed a secular state. While this secularity is not hardcoded in our Constitution, the 1966 Constitutional Commission Report does describe Singapore as a “democratic secular state”. Furthermore, our history and practice since then have shown a commitment to this secular democracy. Political and legal authority are based on democratic processes and the Constitution, not divine revelation or legitimacy bestowed by a religious figure.
Moreover, a line has been drawn between religion and politics. Religious groups and their leaders are not allowed to subvert, hijack, or usurp political authority. Neither should they assert undue influence on the political processes or government decisions. One main reason for this is Singapore’s religious diversity. A 2014 Pew Research Centre report ranked Singapore as the most religiously diverse county in the world. The state must therefore remain religiously neutral to ensure fairness and equitability to all its citizens regardless of their religion, if any at all, so that public and social order maybe upheld.
But does this mean that religion and religious voices are disbarred from the public sphere? Not at all. Singapore’s secularism is not of the militant or fundamentalist variety that seeks the complete removal of religion from the public domain. The secularism here is more moderate, practical, and reasonable. It has variously been termed as accommodative secularism or pragmatic secularism, although we should note that the government has never committed itself to a singular term or definition.
Evolved within our own context, Singapore’s model of secular democracy allows religious voices to participate in public discourse whether on national matters, social issues, or public policies. Yet this allowance does not mean that their voice is privileged or beyond criticism. It is just one voice amongst many in the public sphere. Such an approach is in line with the more participatory and consultative stance that the government has been taking towards public policy decisions. Citizens and social groups have been more actively engaged in the political processes as a recognition of a maturing and more educated electorate.
That being the case, a crucial distinction must be made. Singapore’s commitment to secular democracy means that religious concerns do not form the central consideration in government decisions even though they are heard. Take, for example, the debate on casinos in 2005. Many groups, especially religious ones, voiced their concerns about it through the public consultation process. Nonetheless, the government decided to go ahead with it because of its economic benefits. Their final decision was clearly based on secular and public considerations. However, the final decision also included many policy mitigations that were based on public feedback, especially those of religious leaders. This process displayed both a commitment to a secular state ideal and yet also a willingness to allow religions a voice in society.
But why has Singapore chosen such an approach? Is it not easier to banish religion from the public sphere altogether? While this might be expedient, such a demand is unrealistic. It is unfair and untenable to ask the religious citizen to draw a dichotomy between their public civic self and their deepest convictions, that is, their religious convictions. This point was astutely made in the 1989 Maintenance of Religious Harmony White Paper. It wrote that it is “neither possible nor desirable to compartmentalise completely the minds of voters into secular and religious halves, and ensure that only the secular mind influences his voting behaviour”. This was reiterated by Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong (PM Lee) in his 2009 National Day Rally speech. He recognised that religious beliefs are “part of you … your individual, your personality”. It will naturally inform and guide us even when we approach national issues.
This articulates an important truth worth underscoring. Religion is a personal affair, but it is not a private affair. Religion has a definite public dimension to it because it fundamentally informs our worldview. It has bearing on our values and impacts the way we view all things. The religious citizen’s opinion will naturally have some measure of religious grounding, whether implicit or explicit. Moreover, a democracy entails that they can voice that opinion in the public sphere. This is why religion cannot be expelled from the public sphere.
This resurgence or rediscovery of religion in society is not unique to Singapore. It has also led thinkers such as Jürgen Habermas and Charles Taylor to posit that we are now living in a post-secular age. Against the Western secularization thesis, religion has not faded into the margins of society as the private beliefs of individuals regardless of how modern or rational a country is. Religion remains a clear facet of life in many societies. This is certainly true of Singapore. The Department of Statistics’ 2020 population census showed that 80% of Singaporean profess a religious affiliation. But more than that, Singaporeans are also taking their faiths more seriously. This observation was made by PM Lee in 2015 at the 66th anniversary of the Inter-Religious Organisation. In his opinion, this increased religiosity was a positive trend as “religious faiths are strong anchors for good morals and caring communities”. Clearly, religion is here to stay.
In sum, we could say that Singapore is both a secular state and a religious society. This has led to a pragmatic modus vivendi in which religion is afforded a voice in society. Still, while its voice may be heard, the government remains neutral, and its considerations for policy decision remain secular. Untidy as the state of affairs may seem, it gives credence to both the need for social harmony and the reality of its citizens’ religious beliefs, even if at first glance the two aims might appear seemingly at odds. Social harmony is upheld through state neutrality and the separation of religion from politics. Yet at the same time, its citizens’ religiosity is affirmed by not separating religion from the society.
Or, to put it simply, to answer the question posed at the beginning of this piece, religious voices are allowed in the public sphere – and indeed have been recognised to be a boon for the society at large.
