MAINTENANCE OF RELIGIOUS HARMONY BILL

[Mr Speaker in the Chair]

Debate resumed.

The Senior Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Education (Encik Sidek bin Saniff): ( In Malay): Mr Speaker, discussing the White Paper on Maintenance of Religious Harmony requires an openness of mind and a deep sense of awareness. Syncretism and emotions must be cast away as far as we can, because what we are discussing is not an issue of ideology or philosophy alone. This concerns things that have always been very close to the heart of mankind, ever since the dawn of human history - the issues of race and religious belief. And in the Singapore context, the two are also inter-twined, because religious identity in Singapore is inherent in racial or community identity, and vice versa. This makes the issue even more sensitive and complex.

We can find examples in Lebanon, Northern Ireland, Sri Lanka, Fiji, South America, with its liberation theology movement, not to mention the Middle East and the Balkan countries. Conflict takes place between nationalistic idiosyncrasies and religious dogma. Religion and race are in constant friction and the heat has now begun to be felt in other countries too, including ours. This is even more apparent as we, in forging our own history, come out with new perspectives on things. First, for example, we decided that we are more inclined to the concept of Singapore as a "hotch-potch of different cultures" rather than a "melting pot". Second, we decided that every minority community, in particular the Malays and the Indians, must have representation in Parliament. This led to the creation of the GRCs.

The first concept, the hotch-potch of different cultures, has generally been found acceptable, as it would, at the end of the day, lead to the creation of one nation, the Nation of Singapore. But the second, the idea of GRCs, has met with some difficuly - as we have seen from the debate in this House - as it requires society to entrench communal or racial interests without accepting or succembing to communalism. This is a difficult separation, and hence the syncretists and those who fail to understand the issue continue to wallow in the muck of its political exploitation.

Why does this happen? I believe this is because we are haunted by our own successes. We have been relieved of political conflicts, whether communalist or communist-induced, and we are free of economic poverty. Besides, our educational standards have progressively improved. People have more questions to ask, examining the rationale and necessity of measures and policies. Economic comforts have given them the comfort of being able to venture into the world of intellectual analysis, and yet rationality and intellectual analysis require experience, something that cannot be achieved through high education alone.

At the same time, one reality that must be appreciated is that the solutions of the future change with the times. The "Club of Rome" made a unique conclusion in this regard when it said "The future is no more the simple continuity of today. It is the direct consequence of today." The measures we have taken through the White Paper and this Bill are, of course, based on the direct consequences of what is happening today. For we simply cannot solve the problems of today using yesterday's formulae, just as today's formulae cannot be used to solve the problems of tomorrow. Tomorrow and the future require tomorrow's formulae and approaches.

The White Paper and the Bill before us point to a problem and a formula for today and for tomorrow. But because they concern religion and were tabled by a Government that has openly declared itself secular, the wheels of history are now turning again.

Let us see how history viewed secularism and religion. I quote from the Encyclopaedia Britannica. What does it say about secularism? It says:

'A movement in society directed away from other-worldliness to this-worldliness. In the medieval period there was a strong tendency for religious persons to despise human affairs and to meditate on God and the after-life. As a reaction to this medieval tendency, secularism, at the time of the Renaissance, exhibited itself in the development of humanism, when man began to show more interest in human cultural achievements and the possibilities of fulfilment in this world. The movement towards secularism has been in progress during the entire course of modern history and has often been viewed as being anti-Christian and anti-religious. In the latter half of the 20th century, however, a number of theologians began advocating secular Christianity should be concerned not only with the sacred and the other world, but rather that man should find in the secular world the opportunity to promote Christian values. These theologians maintain that the real message of Jesus can be discovered and fulfilled in the everyday affairs of secular urban living.'

In the same context, the same developments took place, for example, in the Islamic world. During their rule, the Umayyads were considered to have very secular tendencies, because of its secular outlook when a new dynasty came into the picture the Abbasids, she revert back to closely follow the Caliphate or fundamentalists, though their fundamentalism was not the same fundamentalism understood by the West today. Their fundamentalism was based on equality, liberty, fraternity, social justice and toleration towards other faiths, and incorporated one principle enjoined in the Quran, that believers should not denigrate or, worse still, abuse other religions.

Let us see now how Muslims, specifically, view this issue of secularism today. In "Faces of Islam - Conversation and Contemporary Issues", edited by Zainuddin Sadar and Merry Wyn Davies, doubts and concerns were raised by the two participants over secularism. The first participant spoke of the "Secular Outlook" that distances itself completely from religious belief and belief in Divine-revealed science. He also asked those of traditional and religious outlook not to reject totally the importance of modern secular knowledge. He was not very comfortable with this artificial separation. The other writer was concerned that we might be trapped in the so-called "concept of tragedy".

Mr Speaker, this "concept of tragedy" arises in all probability because those entrusted with power misused their powers and the trust of the people. In Annex B, I quote Dr Amir Hasan Siddiqi in his book "Studies in Islamic History" who traced the problem to this.

The White Paper and the Bill are correct when they say that Islam and Christianity do not separate between religion and politics.

For Muslims, it has been said that "Islam is not a mere religious creed. It is not mere dogmas or tenets. It is a complete code of life". Prof. Gibb, in his book "Whither Islam" expressed his concurrence. And this concept brings with it the other fundamentals, such as the importance of truth, referred to by Dr Tay Eng Soon earlier, placing the rights of others above one's own rights, tolerance, neighbourliness and a sense of responsibility towards other religions.

And let us see how tolerance between religions was effected in ancient times - the tolerance that we are now discussing as if it no longer exists. I quote now what a Nestorian Bishop once said of Muslims who came to his land:

`These Tayites (ie the Arabs) to whom God has accorded domination in our days, have also become our masters; yet they do not combat at all the Christian religion: on the contrary, respect our priests and our saints and make donation to our churches and our convents.'

Something we would find strange today - non-Muslims feeling safe under the banner of Islam.

The question today is whether we can accept this White Paper and the Bill, which require, and I quote, that "Religion must be kept vigourously separate from politics" (page 1 of the White Paper). Can Muslims and Christians keep the two separate? There are divided views on this.

To answer the question, we have to analyze the White Paper and the Bill and scrutinize the track record of this secular government of ours. Firstly, I think these documents are directed at those who misuse religion and/or politics and they form a small segment of the society. This paper is tabled in order that the greater majority of us would be safe from the problems the small minority seeks to cause.

Secondly, in the more than three decades it has been in power, this Government has not shown itself to be anti-religion. In fact, it has been the very opposite. The progress achieved by religious groups and the proliferation of religious activities in Singapore are clear evidence of the positive attitude of the Government in this respect. Its appreciation of the contributions of religious adherents in Singapore cannot be denied.

At the same time, I am sure no one can fault the basic concepts and aims of the White Paper and the Bill: 1) that every religious group and its followers must respect and be sensitive to every other religious group in this multi-racial society; 2) that the choice of religion is the right of every individual and there must be no compulsion; 3) that religious leaders should not misuse their position and use their religious following as a political platform - if this happens, conflict would ensue, with dire consequences; 4) that the creation of the Presidential Council for Religious Harmony is aimed at forging harmony and reducing friction; it is a more appropriate measure compared with existing legislation such as the ISA.

I am sure, Mr Speaker, there are grey areas and areas of concern to the population in this, as in every issue. These matters should be raised as specific issues by adherents of every religious group when the Bill is deliberated by the Select Committee. For example, questions have been raised, and assumptions made, on the issue of cremation. Firstly, I do not think a comprehensive proposal on this would be made. If at all, I do not believe it would be directed at, say, the Muslims. Secondly, I believe Muslims would be able to come up with solutions to this problem. It involves the problem of our limited size. God willing, a suitable solution would be found that would not prejudice the laws of Islam and at the same time solve the problem faced by the Government.

Finally, Mr Speaker, and more fundamental to this discussion is the fear that there might one day be a government that misuses the powers under this Bill to such an extent that religious adherents would feel straitjacketed. I believe this will not be so, but two things can happen if this is ever the case.

Firstly, religious adherents can convey their views through channels leading finally to the government, say, through their Members of Parliament or privately. Or if the issues are more serious, they could perhaps join a political party or even form a political party and work under the existing ground rules, ie through the ballot box.

Secondly, if the government of the day happened to be really corrupt, ruling with an iron fist, oppressive, I think the final answer would be revolution. If the Eastern European peoples, who generally do not hold any religious belief, are able to bring down their unjust governments, I think it is impossible for the religious not to be able to do the same.

This is in line with the teachings of many religions, including Islam. Believers would only submit to the rule of a just government. Prophet Muhammad, for instance, once told his followers to go to Abyssinia to seek refuge under the protection of Emperor Negus, who was not a Muslim but, rather, a Christian. Why? Why would they go to a non-Muslim country where the king was not a Muslim king? Because that king was just, whereas the Qureish in Mecca, people of the same stock as the Muslims, people of the same homeland, were persecuting the Muslims. They were unjust and, eventually, the unjust must be taken to battle until justice was achieved for all, regardless of race or belief. This ideal was declared in the Medina Declaration, a very appropriate declaration for a multi-racial, multi-religious society, and it was welcomed by all the different communities of Medina then, including the Jews with their own religion, and the Christians.

The ignorance of a society used to inter-communal strife was thereby overcome. But today, we find this ignorance rearing its head again. The negligent, the forgetful nature that is inherent and synonomous to mankind has resurfaced all over the world. We are not free of its heat. If at all any fault is to be found, I think the fault is our own. We, the believers, we have forgotten what our religions really demand of us, to the extent that we become over-zealous trying to propagate our religions, thereby unwittingly bringing ourselves into an arena where we denigrate each other's beliefs. Of course, the consequences would be very grave indeed. We, the majority who are moderates, are unable to control the smaller segments of our groups who have gone out of line. Their over-zealousness has blotted out tolerance and the true sense of religious responsibility.

I think if we could appreciate all this, I am sure the White Paper and the Bill, once passed, would lead to all of us who profess a religion to conduct ourselves with equanimity and a high sense of toleration and understanding. Peace, God willing, would be achieved. Political stability would be sustained. Economic prosperity will be enhanced. Happiness will be gained.

Mr Speaker, I support the Bill.

The Minister for Foreign Affairs and Minister for Community Development (Mr Wong Kan Seng): Mr Speaker, Sir, I support this Bill for the simple reason that I believe in the right of all Singaporeans to practise the religion of their choice and the need for a person's religion or his freedom not to have one to be respected and not interfered with by another person. These are the cardinal principles for which religious harmony in Singapore has been preserved and if we need a law to protect this, then let us have the law.

Sir, although what I have just said may sound like truism to some, it is in fact the very danger that these principles may be violated that the Bill was moved. The recent events in Singapore have been well laid out in the White Paper, and the Minister for Home Affairs mentioned problems of religion versus religion, the problems of mixing politics and religions in several countries earlier on.

Allow me, Sir, just to discuss the events in two of these countries during the last few years to share with you the threat to a community when religion and the pulpit were used to arouse feelings and ended with the cause of religion serving political ends.

The first case took place on an island paradise that was once a model of social, political integration in the South Pacific. That island is Fiji. Its tourist promotion slogan was "The World As It Should Be". Pope John Paul, when he was there in 1986, proclaimed it as a symbol of hope in the world. He spoke seven months too soon. The takeover by a military man and Christian lay preacher, Colonel Rabuka, drew heavily on his religious supporters to kick out a democratically elected government.

The seed of the problem in Fiji was racial which coincidentally also split along religious lines. Native Fijians against Indian immigrants. Christians against Hindus and Muslims. Mosques and temples were fire-bombed. The radical Christian supporters of Colonel Rabuka wanted the Methodist religion installed as the state religion. On several Sundays, Fijians manned street barricades stopping traffic, fire-bombing offices and sugar mills, attacking anyone found working on the Sabbath. Such is the face of intolerance when racial and religious bigotry got mixed up. People die, peace is broken and a paradise destroyed.

The second case revolves around a mosque built more than 500 years ago in India. The Hindus believe that the site of the Babri Masjid in the northern Indian town of Ayodhya was the birthplace of the deity called Rama. The Muslims said that the Babri Masjid is the shrine to the Moghul Emperor Babar. The Hindus wanted to tear down the mosque to build a temple. 200 people lost their lives in bitter fighting. Thousands of Muslims and Hindus congregated near the site ready to kill one another. Hindu extremists used the temple issue as a rallying cry for rights for the majority Hindu population in India. They accused Mr Rajiv Gandhi's Congress Party of giving too many rights to the Muslims. The Muslims blamed the religious antagonism on Mr Gandhi. Criticisms against Mr Gandhi were levelled from the mosques during Friday prayers. Pakistan, India's Muslim neighbour, weighed in to support the Muslims. The case remains unresolved.

Among the many reasons that accounted for the fall of Mr Gandhi's government was the dissatisfaction by both parties to settle the dispute in their favour. In particular, in the state of Uttar Pradesh where Ayodhya is, the Congress Party, which won 83 out of 85 seats in the 1984 elections, only managed to get 15 seats. Now, the new government in Delhi is in a no-win situation. The government cannot satisfy both and will end up satisfying neither. There obviously, Sir, needs to be a compromise but this is unlikely when the positions of the two sides have been taken to the extreme.

Sir, I recall these two incidents to make three points.

Firstly, when religion is the cause of a dispute, the tone of the debate loses all temperance and rationality. Each individual, each group, cannot accept anything other than the complete vindication for its side since divine is involved; indeed, in some cases, evoked.

Secondly, the name of religion is often used to hide the real cause of a problem.

In each of these two cases, you can find the underlying economic and social causes, racial bigotry and indeed remembered hurts from many years ago behind the disputes.

Thirdly, the pronouncements by religious leaders or speeches in the name of the divine take on an authority beyond that of mortal man. The voice from the pulpit is a persuasive power. Whereas religious leaders are accepted as authorities in things holy, it is not entirely certain that they become authoritative in other matters as well.

Mr Speaker, Sir, both the Archbishop of the Catholic church and the Mufti stated that there should be a clearer definition of politics as many areas on religion and politics overlap. I have no problem with their statements. In many ways it is so.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I would like, however, to make this distinction. A doctor, a lawyer or even a priest, may wish to hold a particular political opinion. That is their right to do so as citizens of a state. But these opinions are important only in so far as they are the opinions of a citizen. The opinion should not take on a greater weight just because he is a doctor, a lawyer or a priest. As members of a profession, they have professional opinions which carry more weight in those areas than yours or mine. But they should, indeed they must, not use their position to espouse opinions to lend the opinion extra credibility. This is the concern, especially when the word comes from the pulpit and carries a divine ring.

Two weeks ago, Mr Speaker, Sir, the Evangelical Fellowship of Singapore held a forum to discuss this Bill. The next day the Straits Times published the comments of a pastor that disturbed me. The pastor was quoted as saying:

"The Bill would curb one's constitutional freedom to proselytise as most religions held the view that others 'are false or not as true as the one being preached'".

I am disturbed, Sir, that a religious leader can think that his constitutional right is curbed just because he is urged by the Government to be sensitive to assertive proselytisation.

Article 15 of the Singapore Constitution indeed guarantees the right to profess and practise one's religion and to propagate it. But a reasonable interpretation of this clause in the context of Singapore must be that a propagator has to take into account the sensitivities of the other religious groups. In fact, the Constitution explicitly states three caveats which govern this freedom.

One caveat is that the profession, practice or propagation of one's religion must not be contrary to any law relating to public order. Put in simple terms, one's freedom of action stops where one's neighbour's nose begins. As Dr Tay himself said earlier, freedom comes with responsibility.

The White Paper has captured the spirit of the conditions necessary for religious harmony in Singapore best. It stated that "so long as all Singaporeans understand that they have to live and let live, and show respect and tolerance for other faiths, harmony should prevail".

To achieve these conditions, therefore it is necessary to have this Bill.