Legal framework on freedom of religion and actual application
Singaporeans enjoy substantial religious freedom, particularly within their own religious communities. Local law has codified this fundamental right, and political institutions enforce it. Freedom of religion—understood as the freedom to profess, practise, and propagate religious beliefs—is fully protected as long as the activities that derive from it are not contrary to public order, public health, or morality.
Singapore’s 1963 Constitution established the principle of religious freedom. Article 15 defines it as the right of everyone “to profess and practise his religion and to propagate it.” Each “religious group” has the right “to manage its own religious affairs; to establish and maintain institutions for religious or charitable purposes; and to acquire and own property and hold and administer it in accordance with law.”
Another principle or goal articulated in the Constitution is the maintenance of religious harmony, which was implemented in a law passed in 1990. This law authorises the Minister of the Interior to issue restraining orders against those within a religious group who incite hostility towards members of another religious group, or who promote political causes, carry out subversive activities, or encourage others to distance themselves from the government under the pretext of practising a religion. The restraining orders are discretionary. Refusing to submit to them can trigger legal action. Such orders must go before the chairman of the Council for Religious Harmony, a state body with the power to confirm, cancel or amend them. They have a theoretical duration of 90 days, although such orders can be extended at will by the council chairman.
The Penal Code prohibits “wounding the religious or racial feelings of any person”, as well as knowingly promoting “feelings of enmity, hatred or ill-will between different religious or racial groups.” The penalties include fines and detention.
Any religious group of more than 10 people must inform the government of its existence, especially if the group desires official legal status. Muslims constitute a special case; the Islamic Religious Council of Singapore (Majlis Ugama Islam Singapura, MUIS), established by the Ministry of Culture, administers all Islamic affairs in the city-state, including construction and management of mosques, halal certification, fatwas, and pilgrimages to Mecca.
Religious instruction is prohibited in public schools, although it is allowed in government-subsidised religiously affiliated schools outside of regular curriculum time and is allowed in private schools.
Despite the constitutional provision of religious freedom, occasionally the principle and practice thereof run up against the will of the authorities to maintain a high degree of control over civil society. The Maintenance of Religious Harmony Act of 1990 has been used against initiatives deemed likely to cause division and discord between religious communities, a laudable concern in a highly multicultural and multireligious society. However, problems arise when the authorities use this law to stifle political expressions that they deem deviant. The aforementioned Act has also been used to limit speech that the state deems sensitive to another religious group. The state therefore assumes the authority to impose restrictions on expressions of religion that it deems inappropriate.
Singaporean authorities continue to closely monitor Jehovah’s Witnesses. The group’s legal recognition was cancelled in 1972 as a result of their refusal to serve in the military, sing the national anthem, or recite the national pledge. In 1996, however, a ruling restored Jehovah’s Witnesses’ right to profess, practise, and propagate their beliefs, but only as individuals. Since then, the government has not prevented private meetings of Jehovah’s Witnesses but continues to ban all public meetings and to jail the group’s members for refusing to perform their military service. These “conscientious objectors” can face imprisonment for a period of 12–39 months.
The authorities are aware of the severity of this approach, but apparently do not want to open the door to more exemption requests.
Incidents and developments
Singapore has not lifted the 1972 organisational ban on Jehovah’s Witnesses, or the 1982 ban on the Unification Church, which the government labelled a “cult”. Singapore continues to imprison conscientious objectors, this despite their willingness to serve in alternative capacities that would still be beneficial to the country, as well as confronting pressure from the international community to accommodate their demand.
The ongoing COVID-19 pandemic has resulted in a rise in ethno-religious frictions, especially involving immigrants. The main subjects of concern to those identifying as “true blue Singaporeans” were Indian migrant workers and interracial couples. In some cases, people caught making racist remarks were given prison sentences and suspended from employment.
On 29th August 2021, during the National Day Rally, Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong stated that the government plans to pass a new racial harmony law which aims to “heal hurt, instead of leaving resentment.” This is one response from Singaporean authorities to the recent rise in ethno-religious incidents.
On 11th December 2021, a special Mass was held to mark the end of the year-long celebration of the Catholic Church’s 200-year presence in the country, entitled “Ignite and Shine with Faith” (or “Catholic200SG”). Prime Minister Lee, who was in attendance, expressed his appreciation for how Catholics are able to thrive and co-exist with other religions in Singapore’s multi-religious society.
On 18th May 2022, Singapore authorities denied entry to an Indonesian Muslim cleric and nine companions because of his “extremist and segregationist teachings, which are unacceptable in Singapore's multi-racial and multi-religious society”, and his denigration of other faiths. Indonesia protested against this action.
Prospects for freedom of religion
Although Singaporeans continue to enjoy significant religious freedom within their own religious communities, the authorities consistently restrict the freedoms of some religious groups, partly in the name of ethnic and religious harmony. For example, the State continues to adopt an uncompromising position towards Jehovah’s Witnesses as a consequence of their objection to military service. Yet it is also characteristic of Singapore to formulate and implement policies — such as the proposed introduction of a revised racial harmony law — that are designed to make it easier for the country’s diverse religious and ethnic communities to co-exist in peace, harmony, and relative freedom. The prospects for religious freedom remain positive.
Singapore