Maintenance of Religious Harmony Act
Encyclopedia
The Maintenance of Religious Harmony Act ("MRHA") is a Singapore
statute which, according to its long title
, provides for the maintenance of religious harmony, for the establishment of a Presidential Council for Religious Harmony ("PCRH"), and for matters connected therewith. The Act, which was passed on 9 November 1990 and came into force on 31 March 1992, empowers the Minister for Home Affairs
to make a restraining order against a person who is in a position of authority in any religious group or institution if the Minister is satisfied that the person has committed or is attempting to commit any of the following acts: causing feelings of enmity, hatred, ill-will or hostility between different religious groups; or promoting a political cause, carrying out subversive
activities, or exciting disaffection against the President
or the Government
under the guise of propagating or practising a religious belief. A restraining order may also be made against a person who incites
, instigates or encourages any religious leader or any religious group or institution to commit the above acts; or a person who is not a religious leader who causes or attempts to cause feelings of enmity, hatred, ill-will or hostility between different religious groups. A restraining order made against a religious leader may direct that he or she must obtain the permission of the Minister before addressing members of any religious group or institution, assisting or contributing to religious publications, or holding office in the editorial board or committee of such publications. Breaching a restraining order is a criminal offence.
The Minister must consult the PCRH before issuing a restraining order, and must inform the Council once an order is made. The Council is responsible for recommending to the President whether an order should be confirmed, cancelled or varied in some manner. If the Council's recommendations are contrary to the Minister's views on the matter, the President may act in his personal discretion in deciding whether to cancel or confirm the order. A restraining order cannot exceed two years in duration, but may be extended for periods not exceeding two years at a time. The Minister must review an order every 12 months or less. The Act declares decisions of the President, the Minister and the Council to be final and not subject to being called in question in any court.
Some concerns that have been raised about the MRHA include the lack of checks on the Minister's power to issue a restraining order; the difficulty of distinguishing between religious and political matters where moral and social issues are involved, which might be a particular problem for religions such as Islam
and Christianity
that have comprehensive worldviews
; and the lack of transparency of the PCRH's proceedings which are held in private. The consistency of the MRHA with Article 15
of the Constitution of Singapore
, which guarantees the right to freedom of religion
, has not yet been tested in court, though the Act may be a restriction on the right authorized by Article 15(4) as it can be regarded as a law relating to public order.
No restraining orders have yet been issued under the Act, but in 2001 the Minister for Home Affairs disclosed that the Government had been prepared to do so against a number of religious leaders who had mixed religion with politics or denigrated other faiths during incidents occurring in the 1990s.
statute allowing the Government
to act promptly and effectively to "nip the budding effects of inter-religious discord", by taking discreet steps to prevent what it perceives to be "factional political activity along racial-religious lines" from escalating into situations which threaten to harm the religious harmony currently enjoyed in Singapore.
to make a restraining order against any priest, monk, pastor, imam
, elder, office-bearer or any other person who is in a position of authority in any religious group or institution where the Minister is satisfied that the person has committed or is attempting to commit any of the following acts: causing feelings of enmity, hatred, ill-will or hostility between different religious groups; carrying out activities to promote a political cause, or a cause of any political party while, or under the guise of, propagating or practising any religious belief; carrying out subversive
activities under the guise of propagating or practising any religious belief; or exciting disaffection against the President
or the Government while, or under the guise of, propagating or practising any religious belief.
In addition to the persons mentioned above, under section 9(1) of the MRHA the Minister may also make an order against any other persons where the Minister is satisfied that (a) the person is inciting, instigating or encouraging any religious group or religious institution or any person mentioned in section 8(1) to commit any of the acts specified in that subsection; or that (b) the person, who is not one of the persons mentioned in section 8(1), has caused or is attempting to cause feelings of enmity, hatred, ill-will or hostility between different religious groups.
to restrain them from addressing orally or in writing any congregation, parish or group of worshippers or members of any religious group or institution on any subject, topic or theme as may be specified in the order without the prior permission of the Minister; to restrain them from printing, publishing, editing, distributing or in any way assisting or contributing to any publication produced by any religious group without the prior permission of the Minister; or to restrain them from holding office in an editorial board or a committee of a publication of any religious group without the prior permission of the Minister.
However, a restraining order made against other persons under section 9(1) may only restrain the person from addressing or advising any religious group or religious institution or any other member thereof; or making any statement or causing any statement to be made, whether orally or in writing, concerning or affecting the relations between that religious group or religious institution and the Government or any other religious group or religious institution.
Criminal sanctions may be imposed in the event of a breach of a restraining order. Such breaches may result in prosecution and, upon conviction, a maximum fine of S$
10,000 or imprisonment for up to two years or both. For second or subsequent offences, the maximum penalty is a fine of up to $20,000 or imprisonment for up to three years or both.
A copy of every notice, grounds and allegations of fact given under sections 8(4) and 9(4) must be given immediately to the Presidential Council for Religious Harmony ("PCRH"), which is then required to give its views on the proposed order to the Minister within 14 days of the date of the notice. The PCRH's views also have to be taken into consideration by the Minister in making the order.
Thereafter, any restraining order by made by the Minister under section 8 or 9 shall be referred to the PCRH within 30 days of the date of the order. The PCHR, having considering all the relevant grounds, facts or documents tendered by the Minister, and representations, if any, received by the Minister prior to making the order, recommends to the President whether the order should be confirmed, cancelled or varied in some manner, within 30 days of the receipt of the order and the necessary documents. Where necessary, the PCRH may invite the person against whom the order is made to be present for an oral examination.
The President is obliged to act on the advice of the Cabinet
. It is only when the Cabinet's advice is contrary to the PCRH's views that the President may act in his personal discretion to cancel or confirm the order, having first considered the PCRH's recommendations. In confirming an order, he may make such variations as he thinks fit. In exercising his discretion the President may, but is not bound to, consult the Council of Presidential Advisers. All orders made under sections 8 and 9 cease to have effect unless they are confirmed by the President within 30 days from the date the PCRH's recommendations are received by the President.
Any restraining order issued cannot exceed two years. However, an order may be extended before its expiration for a further period or periods not exceeding two years at a time. Any order made or extended is reviewable by the Minister every 12 months or less, with the date of the first review being not more than 12 months after the date the order was made or extended. The Minister may at any time revoke any restraining order.
Section 18 of the MRHA declares the decisions of the President, Minister and the Council to be final and not capable of being called in question in any court. Since the President's circumscribed veto is conditional on a disagreement between the Cabinet and the PCRH, there is a low probability of the original decision by the Minister being altered.
("PCMR"). Appointments last for three years, after which the members may be reappointed for between one and three years. Any appointment by the President is entirely a matter of his personal discretion and cannot be challenged in court.
At least two-thirds of the Council must be representatives of major religions in Singapore
. The term major religions is not defined in the Act. The remaining members must, in the opinion of the PCMR, have distinguished themselves in public service or community relations in Singapore.
All members of the PCRH must meet certain qualification requirements that are set out in the Act. They must be Singapore citizens
resident in Singapore who are at least 35 years old and not liable to the following disqualifications:
If these disqualifications apply after appointment, the disqualified member must vacate his or her seat. In addition, any member may voluntarily resign from the council by writing under his or her hand addressed to the Chairman.
As of 15 September 2011, there are 11 members on the PCRH. Of these, seven are representatives of major religions in Singapore. The Chairman is former Supreme Court judge Goh Joon Seng.
One commentator has expressed the view that certain features of the MRHA remove any transparency over the Council's proceedings, making it impossible to discover if it has been performing its duties satisfactorily and to hold them accountable for any lack of conscientiousness. For one, the secrecy of the PCRH's workings is protected by section 7 of the MRHA, shielding their conclusions and recommendations from public scrutiny. Secondly, the prevention of judicial review by section 18 of the Act means that explanations in court which can be publicly accessible later cannot be extracted. These control mechanisms and protective provisions of the Act are said to have cumulatively made it impossible to determine what religious behaviour is allowed or disallowed. On the other hand, it has been argued that without the interposition of judicial review, the Government is able to use the MRHA's nebulous nature to specify norms of acceptable interaction between religious communities as it seeks to "propagate an ethic of personal responsibility and intercultural tolerance".
, whereas the PCRH originates from the MRHA, an ordinary Act of Parliament.
The scope of the PCMR's duty is broader as it is required to consider and report on racial matters as well. Although both the PCMR and PCRH act as advisory bodies on certain matters, the contexts in which advice is given and the recipients of such advice are different. The PCMR advises Parliament on bills, subsidiary legislation, and statutes in force on 9 January 1970, drawing attention to any form of differentiating measures contained in them. The advice provided by the PCRH is to the President, on whether to confirm, vary or cancel a restraining order which the Minister for Home Affairs has issued. Therefore the PCMR's advisory role largely lies within the legislative process, while the PCRH renders advice on the exercise of executive power.
One final difference is that the PCRH is protected by an ouster clause in the MRHA, which prevents its decisions and recommendations from being judicially reviewed
in administrative or constitutional law. No such clause is found in the Constitution to protect the PCMR's discretion to take particular views or arrive at certain decisions. It is therefore unclear as to whether the acts of the PCMR are similarly shielded from the judicial review.
On 15 January 1990, the Maintenance of Religious Harmony Bill was introduced in Parliament by S. Jayakumar, the Minister for Home Affairs
. The second reading of the bill in Parliament took place on 22 February 1990. It was resolved in Parliament that the bill be committed to a Select Committee. However, Parliament was prorogued on 21 April 1990 and the bill and proceedings on it lapsed. Thus, parliamentary proceedings for the passing of the bill had to be started afresh. The bill was introduced for its first reading in Parliament once again on 12 June 1990. The second reading took place on 18 July 1990 and an identical resolution that the Bill be committed to a Select Committee was passed. The Bill was read for the third time and passed by Parliament on 9 November 1990. It came into force on 31 March 1992.
churches and organizations. Examples cited in the ISD report annexed to the white paper included tensions in August 1986 when Hindus
found posters publicizing a Christian
seminar pasted at the entrance to their temple, and when Christian missionaries distributed pamphlets to devotees going into temples along Serangoon Road
.
There were also two disputes in July 1988 and January 1989 involving the funerals of non-Muslims who had converted to Islam
. The non-Muslim families had wanted to cremate the bodies according to their respective non-Islamic religious rites, but a Muslim organization applied for court orders to claim the bodies and bury them according to Islamic rites. Both these disputes were eventually settled out of court.
, a Hindu mythological king, during a religious festival. This caused outrage among Tamil Hindus, who wanted to retaliate by staging a protest demonstration and threatened to retaliate by burning the effigy of Lord Ramachandra
. Intra-religious tensions among Christian groups surfaced after the distribution of pamphlets and booklets denigrating the Roman Catholic Church
and the Pope by some Protestants.
and others associated with him and their detention under the Internal Security Act
("ISA"), several priests spoke out against the arrests at masses, describing it as an injustice and an attack on the Church.
Several foreign Muslim theologians such as Imaduddin Abdul Rahim, Ahmed Hoosen Deedat
and Mat Saman bin Mohamed were banned from entering Singapore after they delivered lectures or speeches inciting the Muslim community in Singapore against the Government.
Following the reference of the bill to a Select Committee, amendments were made in response to the concerns raised. These were presented in Parliament in November 1990 at the Third Reading of the bill, during which it was eventually passed.
The Minister for Home Affairs pointed out that the Minister would not in practice make the decision in isolation from the rest of the Cabinet. Even so, amendments were made to the process of the decision to issue a restraining order. While the Minister would have power to make the order in first instance by issuing a notice to the individual, this order would have to be confirmed by the President within 30 days of the receipt of the report of the PCRH. The President would act on Cabinet's advice except where it was contrary to the PCRH's recommendation. These changes formalized the involvement of the Cabinet in the decision-making process and involved the President as an additional safeguard, thereby addressing the concern about the subjectivity of allowing the Minister to be the sole decision-maker. However, it was decided that the decision to issue a restraining order would remain non-justiciable and would not be subject to judicial review.
Another phrase in question appeared in clause 8(1)(b), which prohibited religious leaders or groups from promoting political causes. The concern raised was that some religious causes might be regarded as political causes, and that it was difficult to distinguish between the religious and the political where there were moral and social issues involved. In addition, religions which hold comprehensive worldviews
, such as Islam and Christianity, might fall afoul of this provision as such religions were seen as a code of life which encompassed everything else including politics. Thus, the freedom of these particular religious groups to practice and propagate their religion guaranteed by Article 15
of the Constitution might be curtailed.
Clause 8(1)(d) of the draft bill empowered the Minister to issue a restraining order against a person for "exciting disaffection against the President or the Government of Singapore". The lack of clarity on the definition of "exciting disaffection" also raised some concerns.
Eventually, several amendments were made to clause 8 of the bill. The changes included, inter alia, the deletion of the phrase prejudicing the maintenance of harmony in clause 8(1)(a) and establishing a nexus between the concept of exciting disaffection and the abuse of religion in clause 8(1)(d). These amendments sought to address concerns that the clause was too widely phrased.
Nonetheless, critics have submitted that the object of the statute – to separate religion from politics – is futile. To religions with holistic worldviews, the practice of faith will inevitably tread on issues falling within the broad, undefined meaning of politics under the Act.
It was ultimately decided that two-thirds of the members of the PCRH would be representatives of religious groups; and provision for the qualifications and disqualifications of Council members were included, which were modelled on the provisions of the PCMR. Other amendments included the provision for a quorum at meetings of the PCRH.
took place in May 1987, leading to the arrest of 16 alleged Marxist
conspirators. At the Second Reading of the bill in Parliament, it was noted that the bill had been drafted in June 1987, soon after the Marxist arrests. The Opposition Non-constituency Member of Parliament
Dr. Lee Siew Choh
alleged that the timing of the drafting indicated that the bill was "an attempt, a belated attempt by Government to justify the arrests of the so-called Marxists". In response, the Minister for Home Affairs
S. Jayakumar said the ruling People's Action Party
(PAP) had challenged Opposition parties to make the Marxist conspiracy an election issue before the September 1988 general election
, but this had not been taken up by them. The PAP had made this an election issue, and had received the people's mandate at the election. Lee then called for an immediate referendum
on the issue of the arrests.
of the Constitution guarantees the freedom of religion
. In particular, Article 15(1) provides for the right to profess and practise one's religion and to propagate it. However, such a right is qualified by Article 15(4), which states that the Article does not authorize any act contrary to any general law relating to public order, public health or morality.
The MRHA's constitutionality has not yet been tested in court. The Act prima facie
violates Article 15(1) since the imposition of a restraining order effectively inhibits a person's rights to profess, practise and propagate his or her religion. However, given Parliament's rationales for the enactment of the MRHA, it is likely that the Act amounts to a general law relating to public order. Thus, its constitutionality may be preserved by Article 15(4).
The term public order is not defined in the Constitution. In the High Court
case Chan Hiang Leng Colin v. Public Prosecutor (1994), Chief Justice
Yong Pung How
held: "I could not see how the concept of public order as envisaged under Art 15(4) is dissimilar to the notion of public peace, welfare and good order within s 24(1)(a) of the Societies Act []". This was later reiterated by Justice Judith Prakash in Chan Hiang Leng Colin v. Minister for Information and the Arts (1995).
This definition of public order is broad and, arguably, ambiguous. The MRHA falls comfortably within its purview, since the Act was passed with the aim of preventing people from causing feelings of enmity, hatred, ill will or hostility to arise between different religious groups. Thus, a person's expression of religion is guaranteed under Article 15(1), so long as it is not contrary to the MRHA.
criminalizes any act that has a seditious tendency
. This includes the publication of seditious materials, the utterance of seditious words, and the importing of seditious material. Seditious tendency is defined in section 3 of the Act and includes, among other things, a tendency to promote feelings of ill will and hostility between different races or classes of the population of Singapore. The Sedition Act and the MRHA are thus similar in that the purpose of both statutes is to maintain public order. Seditious words or acts tear the societal fabric, which manifests in the social evil of feelings of ill-will and hostility between different races. The enactment of the MRHA counters the problem caused by some "mischievous, irresponsible people ... [T]hough they may be few, they can cause great harm not to just one religious group but to the very fabric of our society."
However, there are also notable differences between the Sedition Act and the MRHA. The first relates to the consequences of violation. Under section 4 of the Sedition Act, an offender is criminally liable. In contrast, under the MRHA, the imposition of a restraining order does not per se carry criminal liability. It is only when this restraining order has been breached that criminal liability will attach to the offender. This difference reflects the varying approach towards disruption of public order – the punitive approach of the Sedition Act contrasts with the pre-emptive approach of the MRHA. Such an arrangement allows the Government to mount a calibrated response against perpetrators. If the Sedition Act was the only relevant statute in operation, it might result in disproportionately harsh action being taken against minor public order disturbances.
The second difference relates to the mischief that both statutes address. Tt is clear that the MRHA was meant to address mischiefs of a religious nature. In comparison, the Sedition Act encompasses a broader category of mischief. This is seen in section 3(1)(e), where only hostile actions relating to race and classes of people have a seditious tendency. Whether "classes of people" includes religious groups has yet to be directly commented on by the courts. However, the District Court
case Public Prosecutor v. Koh Song Huat Benjamin (2005) suggests that a perpetrator can be charged under the Sedition Act when the acts committed connote anti-religious sentiments. This effectively subsumes the mischief of the MRHA under the Sedition Act.
states:
A literal reading of the above provision shows clearly that the purpose of section 298A is to preserve public tranquility, and only to criminalize acts that incite racial and religious disharmony. This seems extremely similar to the objective of the MRHA. The only significant difference is that a violation of section 298A results in the commission of a criminal offence, while criminal liability attaches under the MRHA only when a restraining order has been breached.
The High Court has rejected "public tranquility" as a definition of public order. In Chan Hiang Leng Colin v. Public Prosecutor, Yong C.J. declined to adopt the test laid down in the Malaysian case Tan Boon Liat v. Menteri Hal Ehwal Dalam Negeri (1976), where public order was held to mean "danger to human life and safety and the disturbance of public tranquility". Instead, the expression "public peace, welfare and good order" was adopted. Does it follow that section 298A is not a general law relating to public order, and thus is unconstitutional since this restriction on the right to freedom of religion is not caught by Article 15(4)? It is also unclear whether there is any difference in the objective of the Sedition Act and section 298A. As of March 2011, no person had been charged under section 298A of the Penal Code.
The powers exercisable by the Minister for Home Affairs under the MRHA form a subset of the powers exercisable under the ISA. Section 8 of the ISA empowers the Minister, among other things, to detain a person without trial, to restrain the person's actions, and to prohibit the person from addressing public meetings or taking part in the activities of any association. The power to restrict publications under section 8(2)(b) of the MRHA is mirrored in section 20(1)(c) of the ISA which allows for the prohibition of subversive publications that are "calculated or likely to lead to a breach of the peace, or to promote feelings of hostility between different races or classes of the population".
Both the ISA and the MRHA have provisions that oust judicial review. The ouster clause in the ISA appears to be qualified, as it states:
Section 18 of the MRHA merely states: "All orders and decisions of the President and the Minister and recommendations of the Council made under this Act shall be final and shall not be called in question in any court." The extent to which these clauses prevent the courts from exercising judicial review remains somewhat unclear, as a 1999 High Court decision held on an obiter
basis that an ouster clause would not have the effect of barring the High Court from exercising judicial review "if the inferior tribunal has acted without jurisdiction or 'if it has done or failed to do something in the course of the inquiry which is of such a nature that its decision is a nullity'", such as acting in breach of the rules of natural justice
.
, which was holding its five-yearly World Methodist Conference in Singapore, issued a press statement criticizing provisions in the MRHA which permitted Singapore to "impose restrictions on officials or members of any religious group without recourse to the courts". The Committee also commended the Methodist Church in Singapore
("MCS") for raising questions about these provisions, and resolved that a group of council officers should remain in close contact with the MCS to monitor the Act's impact on religious freedom. Subsequently, the Council issued another statement in which it said that it "regrets the dissemination of information not approved by the council and apologises to members of the Singapore Methodist Church and its leaders for any grief, pain or embarrassment". On 30 July Bishop Ho Chee Sin, the head of the MCS, informed The Straits Times
that the Council had voted to modify the Executive Committee's resolutions. According to him, the Council did not object to the Act but expressed a desire to learn more about it. He also said: "The council is keen to learn more about religious harmony here, and how religious liberty, which is enshrined in the Singapore Constitution, can be promoted."
Four days before polling day of the 1991 general election
, Jufrie Mahmood
, a candidate for the Workers' Party of Singapore
, mentioned at a rally on 27 August 1991 that he opposed the MRHA which aimed to separate religion and politics. He said: "Now, the imams of mosques who deliver sermons must feel disturbed but they can't say a thing against Government policy for under the Maintenance of Religious Harmony law, if they touch on the issue of lewd movies, they can be in for trouble. That's the reason why I oppose." In response, the Minister for Community Development
Wong Kan Seng
said that there was nothing preventing religious leaders from advising their congregations not to watch R-rated films, and, in their individual capacity, it was open to them to write to the Ministry of Information and the Arts
to express their disapproval of such films. However, the Act prevented them from inciting their congregants to oppose the Government on the issue. Wong also said that Jufrie had mentioned imams to talk about a secular issue and incite Malay feelings against the Government.
In May 2001, the Minister for Home Affairs disclosed that the Government had been prepared to use the Act against a number of religious leaders who had mixed religion with politics or denigrated other faiths. These leaders had ceased their actions after warnings from the police and the ISD. One incident involved a Muslim religious leader who had urged Muslims to vote for Muslim candidates with deep religious beliefs at the 1991 general election; he was given a warning in 1992. In the same year, a Christian pastor was cautioned for using church publications and sermons to criticize Buddhism
, Taoism
and Roman Catholicism. In 1995, another Muslim religious leader was warned for having called a Hindu
belief that statues of Ganesha
could drink milk offerings
the work of Satan.
} ("white paper").
}. ("SA").
Singapore
Singapore , officially the Republic of Singapore, is a Southeast Asian city-state off the southern tip of the Malay Peninsula, north of the equator. An island country made up of 63 islands, it is separated from Malaysia by the Straits of Johor to its north and from Indonesia's Riau Islands by the...
statute which, according to its long title
Long title
The long title is the formal title appearing at the head of a statute or other legislative instrument...
, provides for the maintenance of religious harmony, for the establishment of a Presidential Council for Religious Harmony ("PCRH"), and for matters connected therewith. The Act, which was passed on 9 November 1990 and came into force on 31 March 1992, empowers the Minister for Home Affairs
Ministry of Home Affairs (Singapore)
The Ministry of Home Affairs is a ministry of the Government of Singapore responsible for public safety, civil defence and immigration. It is also known as the Home Team. It is headed by the Minister for Home Affairs....
to make a restraining order against a person who is in a position of authority in any religious group or institution if the Minister is satisfied that the person has committed or is attempting to commit any of the following acts: causing feelings of enmity, hatred, ill-will or hostility between different religious groups; or promoting a political cause, carrying out subversive
Subversion
Apache Subversion is a software versioning and a revision control system distributed under a free license. Developers use Subversion to maintain current and historical versions of files such as source code, web pages, and documentation...
activities, or exciting disaffection against the President
President of Singapore
The President of the Republic of Singapore is Singapore's head of state. In a Westminster parliamentary system, as which Singapore governs itself, the prime minister is the head of the government while the position of president is largely ceremonial. Before 1993, the President of Singapore was...
or the Government
Government of Singapore
The Government of Singapore is defined by the Constitution of the Republic of Singapore to mean the Executive branch of government, which is made up of the President and the Cabinet of Singapore. Although the President acts in his personal discretion in the exercise of certain functions as a check...
under the guise of propagating or practising a religious belief. A restraining order may also be made against a person who incites
Incitement
In English criminal law, incitement was an anticipatory common law offence and was the act of persuading, encouraging, instigating, pressuring, or threatening so as to cause another to commit a crime....
, instigates or encourages any religious leader or any religious group or institution to commit the above acts; or a person who is not a religious leader who causes or attempts to cause feelings of enmity, hatred, ill-will or hostility between different religious groups. A restraining order made against a religious leader may direct that he or she must obtain the permission of the Minister before addressing members of any religious group or institution, assisting or contributing to religious publications, or holding office in the editorial board or committee of such publications. Breaching a restraining order is a criminal offence.
The Minister must consult the PCRH before issuing a restraining order, and must inform the Council once an order is made. The Council is responsible for recommending to the President whether an order should be confirmed, cancelled or varied in some manner. If the Council's recommendations are contrary to the Minister's views on the matter, the President may act in his personal discretion in deciding whether to cancel or confirm the order. A restraining order cannot exceed two years in duration, but may be extended for periods not exceeding two years at a time. The Minister must review an order every 12 months or less. The Act declares decisions of the President, the Minister and the Council to be final and not subject to being called in question in any court.
Some concerns that have been raised about the MRHA include the lack of checks on the Minister's power to issue a restraining order; the difficulty of distinguishing between religious and political matters where moral and social issues are involved, which might be a particular problem for religions such as Islam
Islam in Singapore
About 15% of Singapore's population are Muslims. A majority of Malays are Sunni Muslims. Other adherents include Indian and Pakistani communities as well as a small number of Chinese, Myanmar Muslims, Arabs and Eurasians. 17 per cent of Muslims in Singapore are of Indian origin...
and Christianity
Christianity in Singapore
Christians in Singapore constitute approximately 17.5% of the population. In the 2000 Census, 4.8% of residents aged 15 years and older, identified as Catholic and 9.8% as 'Other Christians'.-History:...
that have comprehensive worldviews
World view
A comprehensive world view is the fundamental cognitive orientation of an individual or society encompassing the entirety of the individual or society's knowledge and point-of-view, including natural philosophy; fundamental, existential, and normative postulates; or themes, values, emotions, and...
; and the lack of transparency of the PCRH's proceedings which are held in private. The consistency of the MRHA with Article 15
Article 15 of the Constitution of Singapore
Article 15 of the Constitution of the Republic of Singapore guarantees freedom of religion in Singapore. Specifically, Article 15 states: "Every person has the right to profess and practise his religion and to propagate it."...
of the Constitution of Singapore
Constitution of Singapore
The Constitution of Singapore is the supreme law of Singapore and it is a codified constitution.The constitution cannot be amended without the support of more than two-thirds of the members of parliament on the second and third readings . The president may seek opinion on constitutional issues...
, which guarantees the right to freedom of religion
Freedom of religion in Singapore
Freedom of religion in Singapore is guaranteed under the Constitution. However, the Government of Singapore restricts this right in some circumstances. The Government has banned the Jehovah's Witnesses and the Unification Church...
, has not yet been tested in court, though the Act may be a restriction on the right authorized by Article 15(4) as it can be regarded as a law relating to public order.
No restraining orders have yet been issued under the Act, but in 2001 the Minister for Home Affairs disclosed that the Government had been prepared to do so against a number of religious leaders who had mixed religion with politics or denigrated other faiths during incidents occurring in the 1990s.
Function and operation
The Maintenance of Religious Harmony Act ("MRHA") is a SingaporeSingapore
Singapore , officially the Republic of Singapore, is a Southeast Asian city-state off the southern tip of the Malay Peninsula, north of the equator. An island country made up of 63 islands, it is separated from Malaysia by the Straits of Johor to its north and from Indonesia's Riau Islands by the...
statute allowing the Government
Government of Singapore
The Government of Singapore is defined by the Constitution of the Republic of Singapore to mean the Executive branch of government, which is made up of the President and the Cabinet of Singapore. Although the President acts in his personal discretion in the exercise of certain functions as a check...
to act promptly and effectively to "nip the budding effects of inter-religious discord", by taking discreet steps to prevent what it perceives to be "factional political activity along racial-religious lines" from escalating into situations which threaten to harm the religious harmony currently enjoyed in Singapore.
Prohibited acts
Section 8(1) of the MRHA permits the Minister for Home AffairsMinistry of Home Affairs (Singapore)
The Ministry of Home Affairs is a ministry of the Government of Singapore responsible for public safety, civil defence and immigration. It is also known as the Home Team. It is headed by the Minister for Home Affairs....
to make a restraining order against any priest, monk, pastor, imam
Imam
An imam is an Islamic leadership position, often the worship leader of a mosque and the Muslim community. Similar to spiritual leaders, the imam is the one who leads Islamic worship services. More often, the community turns to the mosque imam if they have a religious question...
, elder, office-bearer or any other person who is in a position of authority in any religious group or institution where the Minister is satisfied that the person has committed or is attempting to commit any of the following acts: causing feelings of enmity, hatred, ill-will or hostility between different religious groups; carrying out activities to promote a political cause, or a cause of any political party while, or under the guise of, propagating or practising any religious belief; carrying out subversive
Subversion
Apache Subversion is a software versioning and a revision control system distributed under a free license. Developers use Subversion to maintain current and historical versions of files such as source code, web pages, and documentation...
activities under the guise of propagating or practising any religious belief; or exciting disaffection against the President
President of Singapore
The President of the Republic of Singapore is Singapore's head of state. In a Westminster parliamentary system, as which Singapore governs itself, the prime minister is the head of the government while the position of president is largely ceremonial. Before 1993, the President of Singapore was...
or the Government while, or under the guise of, propagating or practising any religious belief.
In addition to the persons mentioned above, under section 9(1) of the MRHA the Minister may also make an order against any other persons where the Minister is satisfied that (a) the person is inciting, instigating or encouraging any religious group or religious institution or any person mentioned in section 8(1) to commit any of the acts specified in that subsection; or that (b) the person, who is not one of the persons mentioned in section 8(1), has caused or is attempting to cause feelings of enmity, hatred, ill-will or hostility between different religious groups.
Nature and effect of restraining orders
A restraining order made against officials or members of religious group or institution under section 8(1) may be made for the following reasons:to restrain them from addressing orally or in writing any congregation, parish or group of worshippers or members of any religious group or institution on any subject, topic or theme as may be specified in the order without the prior permission of the Minister; to restrain them from printing, publishing, editing, distributing or in any way assisting or contributing to any publication produced by any religious group without the prior permission of the Minister; or to restrain them from holding office in an editorial board or a committee of a publication of any religious group without the prior permission of the Minister.
However, a restraining order made against other persons under section 9(1) may only restrain the person from addressing or advising any religious group or religious institution or any other member thereof; or making any statement or causing any statement to be made, whether orally or in writing, concerning or affecting the relations between that religious group or religious institution and the Government or any other religious group or religious institution.
Criminal sanctions may be imposed in the event of a breach of a restraining order. Such breaches may result in prosecution and, upon conviction, a maximum fine of S$
Singapore dollar
The Singapore dollar or Dollar is the official currency of Singapore. It is normally abbreviated with the dollar sign $, or alternatively S$ to distinguish it from other dollar-denominated currencies...
10,000 or imprisonment for up to two years or both. For second or subsequent offences, the maximum penalty is a fine of up to $20,000 or imprisonment for up to three years or both.
Procedure
Before making any restraining order, the Minister must give notice to the person against whom the order is proposed to be made, as well as the head or governing body or committee of management of the religious group or institution, enclosing details of the grounds and allegations of fact in support of the restraining order, and allow the person to make written representations to the Minister. All written representations by the person must be made within 14 days of the date of notice from the Minister. The Minister shall then take the representations into consideration before deciding whether to make a restraining order.A copy of every notice, grounds and allegations of fact given under sections 8(4) and 9(4) must be given immediately to the Presidential Council for Religious Harmony ("PCRH"), which is then required to give its views on the proposed order to the Minister within 14 days of the date of the notice. The PCRH's views also have to be taken into consideration by the Minister in making the order.
Thereafter, any restraining order by made by the Minister under section 8 or 9 shall be referred to the PCRH within 30 days of the date of the order. The PCHR, having considering all the relevant grounds, facts or documents tendered by the Minister, and representations, if any, received by the Minister prior to making the order, recommends to the President whether the order should be confirmed, cancelled or varied in some manner, within 30 days of the receipt of the order and the necessary documents. Where necessary, the PCRH may invite the person against whom the order is made to be present for an oral examination.
The President is obliged to act on the advice of the Cabinet
Cabinet of Singapore
The Cabinet of Singapore forms the Government of Singapore together with the President of Singapore. It is led by the Prime Minister of Singapore who is the head of government...
. It is only when the Cabinet's advice is contrary to the PCRH's views that the President may act in his personal discretion to cancel or confirm the order, having first considered the PCRH's recommendations. In confirming an order, he may make such variations as he thinks fit. In exercising his discretion the President may, but is not bound to, consult the Council of Presidential Advisers. All orders made under sections 8 and 9 cease to have effect unless they are confirmed by the President within 30 days from the date the PCRH's recommendations are received by the President.
Any restraining order issued cannot exceed two years. However, an order may be extended before its expiration for a further period or periods not exceeding two years at a time. Any order made or extended is reviewable by the Minister every 12 months or less, with the date of the first review being not more than 12 months after the date the order was made or extended. The Minister may at any time revoke any restraining order.
Section 18 of the MRHA declares the decisions of the President, Minister and the Council to be final and not capable of being called in question in any court. Since the President's circumscribed veto is conditional on a disagreement between the Cabinet and the PCRH, there is a low probability of the original decision by the Minister being altered.
Composition
The Presidential Council for Religious Harmony comprises of a chairman and between six and fifteen other members appointed by the President on the advice of the Presidential Council for Minority RightsPresidential Council for Minority Rights
The Presidential Council for Minority Rights is a non-elected government body in Singapore established in 1970, the main function of which is to scrutinize most of the bills passed by Parliament to ensure that they do not discriminate against any racial or religious community...
("PCMR"). Appointments last for three years, after which the members may be reappointed for between one and three years. Any appointment by the President is entirely a matter of his personal discretion and cannot be challenged in court.
At least two-thirds of the Council must be representatives of major religions in Singapore
Religion in Singapore
Singapore is a secular multi-religious country due to its diverse ethnic mix of peoples originating from various countries. Most major religious denominations are present in Singapore....
. The term major religions is not defined in the Act. The remaining members must, in the opinion of the PCMR, have distinguished themselves in public service or community relations in Singapore.
All members of the PCRH must meet certain qualification requirements that are set out in the Act. They must be Singapore citizens
Singaporean nationality law
Singaporean nationality law is derived from the Constitution of Singapore and is based on jus sanguinis and a modified form of jus soli...
resident in Singapore who are at least 35 years old and not liable to the following disqualifications:
- Being mentally disordered and incapable of managing themselves or their affairs.
- Being insolvent or undischarged bankrupts.
- Having been convicted of an offence by a court in SingaporeJudicial system of SingaporeThe full Judicial power in Singapore is vested in the Supreme Court as well as subordinate courts by the Constitution of Singapore. The Supreme Court consists of the Court of Appeal and the High Court. The Court of Appeal exercises appellate criminal and civil jurisdiction, while the High Court...
or Malaysia and sentenced to imprisonment for not less than one year or to a fine of not less than $2,000, and not having received a free pardonPardonClemency means the forgiveness of a crime or the cancellation of the penalty associated with it. It is a general concept that encompasses several related procedures: pardoning, commutation, remission and reprieves...
. (Where a person has been convicted by a Malaysian court, he or she is not regarded as disqualified unless the offence is one which, if it had been committed in Singapore, would have been punishable by a Singapore court.) - Having voluntarily acquired the citizenship of, or exercised the rights of citizenship in, a foreign country, or having made a declaration of allegiance to a foreign country.
If these disqualifications apply after appointment, the disqualified member must vacate his or her seat. In addition, any member may voluntarily resign from the council by writing under his or her hand addressed to the Chairman.
As of 15 September 2011, there are 11 members on the PCRH. Of these, seven are representatives of major religions in Singapore. The Chairman is former Supreme Court judge Goh Joon Seng.
| Chairman | Goh Joon Seng, former Supreme Court judge |
| Members representing major religions in Singapore |
|
| Other members |
|
Function and powers
The PCRH has two main functions. First, and more generally, it is an advisory body to the Minister for Home Affairs on matters relating to the maintenance of religious harmony in Singapore that are referred to it by the Minister or by Parliament. Secondly, and more specifically, it advises the Minister as to whether restraining orders should be issued, confirmed, varied or cancelled, and the President as to whether such orders should be confirmed or cancelled.One commentator has expressed the view that certain features of the MRHA remove any transparency over the Council's proceedings, making it impossible to discover if it has been performing its duties satisfactorily and to hold them accountable for any lack of conscientiousness. For one, the secrecy of the PCRH's workings is protected by section 7 of the MRHA, shielding their conclusions and recommendations from public scrutiny. Secondly, the prevention of judicial review by section 18 of the Act means that explanations in court which can be publicly accessible later cannot be extracted. These control mechanisms and protective provisions of the Act are said to have cumulatively made it impossible to determine what religious behaviour is allowed or disallowed. On the other hand, it has been argued that without the interposition of judicial review, the Government is able to use the MRHA's nebulous nature to specify norms of acceptable interaction between religious communities as it seeks to "propagate an ethic of personal responsibility and intercultural tolerance".
Comparison with the PCMR
The general functions of the PCRH and PCMR are similar in that they may both consider and report on religious matters referred to them. However, the most immediate distinction between the PCRH and the PCMR is the source of each body's legal powers. The existence of the PCMR and its powers are derived from the Constitution of SingaporeConstitution of Singapore
The Constitution of Singapore is the supreme law of Singapore and it is a codified constitution.The constitution cannot be amended without the support of more than two-thirds of the members of parliament on the second and third readings . The president may seek opinion on constitutional issues...
, whereas the PCRH originates from the MRHA, an ordinary Act of Parliament.
The scope of the PCMR's duty is broader as it is required to consider and report on racial matters as well. Although both the PCMR and PCRH act as advisory bodies on certain matters, the contexts in which advice is given and the recipients of such advice are different. The PCMR advises Parliament on bills, subsidiary legislation, and statutes in force on 9 January 1970, drawing attention to any form of differentiating measures contained in them. The advice provided by the PCRH is to the President, on whether to confirm, vary or cancel a restraining order which the Minister for Home Affairs has issued. Therefore the PCMR's advisory role largely lies within the legislative process, while the PCRH renders advice on the exercise of executive power.
One final difference is that the PCRH is protected by an ouster clause in the MRHA, which prevents its decisions and recommendations from being judicially reviewed
Judicial review
Judicial review is the doctrine under which legislative and executive actions are subject to review by the judiciary. Specific courts with judicial review power must annul the acts of the state when it finds them incompatible with a higher authority...
in administrative or constitutional law. No such clause is found in the Constitution to protect the PCMR's discretion to take particular views or arrive at certain decisions. It is therefore unclear as to whether the acts of the PCMR are similarly shielded from the judicial review.
History of the MRHA
Enactment
The process leading up to the passing of the Maintenance of Religious Harmony Bill began with the publication in 1989 of a white paper entitled Maintenance of Religious Harmony. This white paper detailed the religious trends in Singapore, the need for legislation to maintain religious harmony, and the main features of the proposed legislation. Annexed to it was a report by the Internal Security Department (ISD) in which were compiled instances of the problems discussed in the white paper. The white paper was presented to Parliament on 26 December 1989.On 15 January 1990, the Maintenance of Religious Harmony Bill was introduced in Parliament by S. Jayakumar, the Minister for Home Affairs
Ministry of Home Affairs (Singapore)
The Ministry of Home Affairs is a ministry of the Government of Singapore responsible for public safety, civil defence and immigration. It is also known as the Home Team. It is headed by the Minister for Home Affairs....
. The second reading of the bill in Parliament took place on 22 February 1990. It was resolved in Parliament that the bill be committed to a Select Committee. However, Parliament was prorogued on 21 April 1990 and the bill and proceedings on it lapsed. Thus, parliamentary proceedings for the passing of the bill had to be started afresh. The bill was introduced for its first reading in Parliament once again on 12 June 1990. The second reading took place on 18 July 1990 and an identical resolution that the Bill be committed to a Select Committee was passed. The Bill was read for the third time and passed by Parliament on 9 November 1990. It came into force on 31 March 1992.
Social and political backdrop
There were several prevailing social and political conditions in the 1980s which prompted the introduction of the bill. These were detailed in the Maintenance of Religious Harmony white paper. First, there had been an increase in religious fervour and assertiveness among religious groups, which was part of a worldwide religious revival. This had led to an increase in inter-religious tensions. Secondly, intra-religious tensions had also been observed. Thirdly, several incidents had taken place suggesting that religious groups and leaders were entering the realm of politics.Inter-religious tensions
Inter-religious tensions were largely attributed to aggressive and insensitive proselytization by religious groups, mostly ProtestantProtestantism
Protestantism is one of the three major groupings within Christianity. It is a movement that began in Germany in the early 16th century as a reaction against medieval Roman Catholic doctrines and practices, especially in regards to salvation, justification, and ecclesiology.The doctrines of the...
churches and organizations. Examples cited in the ISD report annexed to the white paper included tensions in August 1986 when Hindus
Hinduism in Singapore
-Beginnings of Hinduism in Singapore:The early 19th century saw a wave of immigrants to Singapore from southern India, mostly Tamils, to work as coolies and labourers for the British East India Company in Singapore. These immigrants brought along their religion and culture from their homeland as well...
found posters publicizing a Christian
Christianity in Singapore
Christians in Singapore constitute approximately 17.5% of the population. In the 2000 Census, 4.8% of residents aged 15 years and older, identified as Catholic and 9.8% as 'Other Christians'.-History:...
seminar pasted at the entrance to their temple, and when Christian missionaries distributed pamphlets to devotees going into temples along Serangoon Road
Serangoon Road
Serangoon Road is a road from Little India to Boon Keng of Singapore . There is another road, from Woodsville Interchange to Sengkang called Upper Serangoon Road.Another way is via Jalan Besar and Bendemeer Road....
.
There were also two disputes in July 1988 and January 1989 involving the funerals of non-Muslims who had converted to Islam
Islam in Singapore
About 15% of Singapore's population are Muslims. A majority of Malays are Sunni Muslims. Other adherents include Indian and Pakistani communities as well as a small number of Chinese, Myanmar Muslims, Arabs and Eurasians. 17 per cent of Muslims in Singapore are of Indian origin...
. The non-Muslim families had wanted to cremate the bodies according to their respective non-Islamic religious rites, but a Muslim organization applied for court orders to claim the bodies and bury them according to Islamic rites. Both these disputes were eventually settled out of court.
Intra-religious tensions
Hostility between sub-groups under the same religious umbrella also became apparent in the 1980s. In October 1989, for instance, a Hindu sect called the Shiv Mandir burnt an effigy of RavanaRavana
' is the primary antagonist character of the Hindu legend, the Ramayana; who is the great king of Lanka. In the classic text, he is mainly depicted negatively, kidnapping Rama's wife Sita, to claim vengeance on Rama and his brother Lakshmana for having cut off the nose of his sister...
, a Hindu mythological king, during a religious festival. This caused outrage among Tamil Hindus, who wanted to retaliate by staging a protest demonstration and threatened to retaliate by burning the effigy of Lord Ramachandra
Rama
Rama or full name Ramachandra is considered to be the seventh avatar of Vishnu in Hinduism, and a king of Ayodhya in ancient Indian...
. Intra-religious tensions among Christian groups surfaced after the distribution of pamphlets and booklets denigrating the Roman Catholic Church
Roman Catholicism in Singapore
Roman Catholicism is practiced by about 4.6% of Singapore's populace, or about 210,000 people. Roman Catholicism is practiced by people of Chinese and Eurasian descent, along with a Filipino, Indian and European minority.- History :...
and the Pope by some Protestants.
Mixing of religion and politics
According to the ISD report, the mid-1980s also saw Catholic priests engaging in social activism and using Catholic religious gatherings and publications as platforms to comment on political issues. Following the arrest of Vincent ChengVincent Cheng (dissident)
Vincent Cheng is a Singaporean Catholic social worker who was detained without trial under the Internal Security Act for 3 years....
and others associated with him and their detention under the Internal Security Act
Internal Security Act (Singapore)
The Internal Security Act of Singapore is a law that allows the Singapore government to investigate security threats like international terrorism, foreign subversion, espionage and acts of violence or hatred using race or religion...
("ISA"), several priests spoke out against the arrests at masses, describing it as an injustice and an attack on the Church.
Several foreign Muslim theologians such as Imaduddin Abdul Rahim, Ahmed Hoosen Deedat
Ahmed Deedat
Ahmed Hussein Deedat was a Muslim writer and public speaker of Indian South African descent. He was best known for his numerous inter-religious public debates with evangelical Christians, as well as pioneering video lectures, most of which centered around Islam, Christianity and the Bible...
and Mat Saman bin Mohamed were banned from entering Singapore after they delivered lectures or speeches inciting the Muslim community in Singapore against the Government.
Concerns
During debates at the Second Reading of bill in Parliament in February 1990, many concerns were raised regarding various aspects of the bill. These concerns were categorized by the Minister for Home Affairs in his speech during the Third Reading of the bill as follows:- Concerns that the bill framed the Minister's powers in rather excessive terms, and calls for additional safeguards.
- Concerns that clause 8 of the bill, which set out the conduct that might lead to a restraining order being issued, had language which was subjective in nature and might give rise to difficulties.
- Concerns about the composition of the proposed PCRH.
Following the reference of the bill to a Select Committee, amendments were made in response to the concerns raised. These were presented in Parliament in November 1990 at the Third Reading of the bill, during which it was eventually passed.
Wide-ranging nature of Minister's powers
Concerns were expressed over the lack of checks on the Minister's power to issue a prohibiting or restraining order. It was suggested that the Minister's decision should be subject to judicial review or an appeal process since a decision made by a single minister could be fairly subjective, and if the decision-making power lay solely within the Minister's purview this might may fail to convince the public that any decision made was just and fair. Another suggestion raised in Parliament was to widen the purely advisory powers of the PCMR and grant it a more substantial power to act as a check and balance to the powers of the Minister.The Minister for Home Affairs pointed out that the Minister would not in practice make the decision in isolation from the rest of the Cabinet. Even so, amendments were made to the process of the decision to issue a restraining order. While the Minister would have power to make the order in first instance by issuing a notice to the individual, this order would have to be confirmed by the President within 30 days of the receipt of the report of the PCRH. The President would act on Cabinet's advice except where it was contrary to the PCRH's recommendation. These changes formalized the involvement of the Cabinet in the decision-making process and involved the President as an additional safeguard, thereby addressing the concern about the subjectivity of allowing the Minister to be the sole decision-maker. However, it was decided that the decision to issue a restraining order would remain non-justiciable and would not be subject to judicial review.
Clause 8
There were also concerns that the earlier drafts of the bill phrased clause 8, which listed the unacceptable conduct which could be subject to a restraining order, in broad and subjective terms. One of the phrases in question was causing feelings of enmity, hatred, ill-will or hostility in clause 8(1)(a) of the earlier draft of the bill. The view was taken that this was drafted in a subjective manner, suggesting that if any person felt offended this would be a sufficient ground upon which a restraining order might be issued. It was suggested that this clause should be phrased to suggest that the objective view of a reasonable person would be the standard adopted.Another phrase in question appeared in clause 8(1)(b), which prohibited religious leaders or groups from promoting political causes. The concern raised was that some religious causes might be regarded as political causes, and that it was difficult to distinguish between the religious and the political where there were moral and social issues involved. In addition, religions which hold comprehensive worldviews
World view
A comprehensive world view is the fundamental cognitive orientation of an individual or society encompassing the entirety of the individual or society's knowledge and point-of-view, including natural philosophy; fundamental, existential, and normative postulates; or themes, values, emotions, and...
, such as Islam and Christianity, might fall afoul of this provision as such religions were seen as a code of life which encompassed everything else including politics. Thus, the freedom of these particular religious groups to practice and propagate their religion guaranteed by Article 15
Article 15 of the Constitution of Singapore
Article 15 of the Constitution of the Republic of Singapore guarantees freedom of religion in Singapore. Specifically, Article 15 states: "Every person has the right to profess and practise his religion and to propagate it."...
of the Constitution might be curtailed.
Clause 8(1)(d) of the draft bill empowered the Minister to issue a restraining order against a person for "exciting disaffection against the President or the Government of Singapore". The lack of clarity on the definition of "exciting disaffection" also raised some concerns.
Eventually, several amendments were made to clause 8 of the bill. The changes included, inter alia, the deletion of the phrase prejudicing the maintenance of harmony in clause 8(1)(a) and establishing a nexus between the concept of exciting disaffection and the abuse of religion in clause 8(1)(d). These amendments sought to address concerns that the clause was too widely phrased.
Nonetheless, critics have submitted that the object of the statute – to separate religion from politics – is futile. To religions with holistic worldviews, the practice of faith will inevitably tread on issues falling within the broad, undefined meaning of politics under the Act.
Composition of the PCRH
Concerns were raised about how the members of the PCRH would be selected and who they would represent. The importance of the credibility of these members among their own religious groups and in the larger society was raised. There were also differing opinions as to whether non-religious persons should be made members of the PCRH. Another concern was that the the composition of the PCRH should be a fair representation of all the major religions in Singapore. It was pointed out that the diversity within religions such as Christianity made it difficult for fair representation and might lead to the exclusion of smaller and independent religious bodies.It was ultimately decided that two-thirds of the members of the PCRH would be representatives of religious groups; and provision for the qualifications and disqualifications of Council members were included, which were modelled on the provisions of the PCMR. Other amendments included the provision for a quorum at meetings of the PCRH.
Legislative justification for executive decisions?
The backdrop against which the MRHA was enacted has engendered suspicion that the Act was introduced for political reasons. Operation SpectrumOperation Spectrum
Operation Spectrum was launched on May 21, 1987 by Singapore's Internal Security Department using the Internal Security Act . 16 people were arrested for their involvement in what was described as a "Marxist conspiracy". On June 20, 1987, four of the original 16 were released and six more were...
took place in May 1987, leading to the arrest of 16 alleged Marxist
Marxism
Marxism is an economic and sociopolitical worldview and method of socioeconomic inquiry that centers upon a materialist interpretation of history, a dialectical view of social change, and an analysis and critique of the development of capitalism. Marxism was pioneered in the early to mid 19th...
conspirators. At the Second Reading of the bill in Parliament, it was noted that the bill had been drafted in June 1987, soon after the Marxist arrests. The Opposition Non-constituency Member of Parliament
Non-Constituency Member of Parliament
Non-Constituency Members of Parliament are members of the opposition parties who are appointed as members of the Parliament of Singapore even though they had lost in the parliamentary election....
Dr. Lee Siew Choh
Lee Siew Choh
Dr. Lee Siew Choh was a politician and medical doctor from Singapore. Initially a member of the People's Action Party , he became a leader of the breakaway Barisan Sosialis in 1961...
alleged that the timing of the drafting indicated that the bill was "an attempt, a belated attempt by Government to justify the arrests of the so-called Marxists". In response, the Minister for Home Affairs
Ministry of Home Affairs (Singapore)
The Ministry of Home Affairs is a ministry of the Government of Singapore responsible for public safety, civil defence and immigration. It is also known as the Home Team. It is headed by the Minister for Home Affairs....
S. Jayakumar said the ruling People's Action Party
People's Action Party
The People's Action Party is the leading political party in Singapore. It has been the city-state's ruling political party since 1959....
(PAP) had challenged Opposition parties to make the Marxist conspiracy an election issue before the September 1988 general election
Singaporean general election, 1988
General elections were held in Singapore on 3 September 1988. The result was a victory for the People's Action Party, which won 80 of the 81 seats...
, but this had not been taken up by them. The PAP had made this an election issue, and had received the people's mandate at the election. Lee then called for an immediate referendum
Referendum
A referendum is a direct vote in which an entire electorate is asked to either accept or reject a particular proposal. This may result in the adoption of a new constitution, a constitutional amendment, a law, the recall of an elected official or simply a specific government policy. It is a form of...
on the issue of the arrests.
Relationship with right to freedom of religion
Article 15Article 15 of the Constitution of Singapore
Article 15 of the Constitution of the Republic of Singapore guarantees freedom of religion in Singapore. Specifically, Article 15 states: "Every person has the right to profess and practise his religion and to propagate it."...
of the Constitution guarantees the freedom of religion
Freedom of religion in Singapore
Freedom of religion in Singapore is guaranteed under the Constitution. However, the Government of Singapore restricts this right in some circumstances. The Government has banned the Jehovah's Witnesses and the Unification Church...
. In particular, Article 15(1) provides for the right to profess and practise one's religion and to propagate it. However, such a right is qualified by Article 15(4), which states that the Article does not authorize any act contrary to any general law relating to public order, public health or morality.
The MRHA's constitutionality has not yet been tested in court. The Act prima facie
Prima facie
Prima facie is a Latin expression meaning on its first encounter, first blush, or at first sight. The literal translation would be "at first face", from the feminine form of primus and facies , both in the ablative case. It is used in modern legal English to signify that on first examination, a...
violates Article 15(1) since the imposition of a restraining order effectively inhibits a person's rights to profess, practise and propagate his or her religion. However, given Parliament's rationales for the enactment of the MRHA, it is likely that the Act amounts to a general law relating to public order. Thus, its constitutionality may be preserved by Article 15(4).
The term public order is not defined in the Constitution. In the High Court
High Court of Singapore
The High Court of the Republic of Singapore is the lower division of the Supreme Court of Singapore, the upper being the Court of Appeal. It consists of the Chief Justice of Singapore and the Judges of the High Court. Judicial Commissioners are often appointed to assist with the Court's caseload...
case Chan Hiang Leng Colin v. Public Prosecutor (1994), Chief Justice
Chief Justice of Singapore
The Chief Justice of Singapore is the highest post in the judicial system of Singapore. The Chief Justice is appointed by the President, chosen from candidates recommended by the Prime Minister. The present Chief Justice is Chan Sek Keong....
Yong Pung How
Yong Pung How
Yong Pung How, DUT . He was the former Chief Justice of Singapore, serving from 1990 to 2006. Prior to his judicial career, he was a lawyer, banker and senior government official...
held: "I could not see how the concept of public order as envisaged under Art 15(4) is dissimilar to the notion of public peace, welfare and good order within s 24(1)(a) of the Societies Act []". This was later reiterated by Justice Judith Prakash in Chan Hiang Leng Colin v. Minister for Information and the Arts (1995).
This definition of public order is broad and, arguably, ambiguous. The MRHA falls comfortably within its purview, since the Act was passed with the aim of preventing people from causing feelings of enmity, hatred, ill will or hostility to arise between different religious groups. Thus, a person's expression of religion is guaranteed under Article 15(1), so long as it is not contrary to the MRHA.
Sedition Act
The Sedition ActSedition Act (Singapore)
The Sedition Act is in Chapter 290 of the Statutes of Singapore. It was last revised in 1985.In September 2005, the Sedition Act was first used on individuals when three men, including a teenager, were charged for making seditious and inflammatory racist comments on the Internet.-Seditious...
criminalizes any act that has a seditious tendency
Sedition
In law, sedition is overt conduct, such as speech and organization, that is deemed by the legal authority to tend toward insurrection against the established order. Sedition often includes subversion of a constitution and incitement of discontent to lawful authority. Sedition may include any...
. This includes the publication of seditious materials, the utterance of seditious words, and the importing of seditious material. Seditious tendency is defined in section 3 of the Act and includes, among other things, a tendency to promote feelings of ill will and hostility between different races or classes of the population of Singapore. The Sedition Act and the MRHA are thus similar in that the purpose of both statutes is to maintain public order. Seditious words or acts tear the societal fabric, which manifests in the social evil of feelings of ill-will and hostility between different races. The enactment of the MRHA counters the problem caused by some "mischievous, irresponsible people ... [T]hough they may be few, they can cause great harm not to just one religious group but to the very fabric of our society."
However, there are also notable differences between the Sedition Act and the MRHA. The first relates to the consequences of violation. Under section 4 of the Sedition Act, an offender is criminally liable. In contrast, under the MRHA, the imposition of a restraining order does not per se carry criminal liability. It is only when this restraining order has been breached that criminal liability will attach to the offender. This difference reflects the varying approach towards disruption of public order – the punitive approach of the Sedition Act contrasts with the pre-emptive approach of the MRHA. Such an arrangement allows the Government to mount a calibrated response against perpetrators. If the Sedition Act was the only relevant statute in operation, it might result in disproportionately harsh action being taken against minor public order disturbances.
The second difference relates to the mischief that both statutes address. Tt is clear that the MRHA was meant to address mischiefs of a religious nature. In comparison, the Sedition Act encompasses a broader category of mischief. This is seen in section 3(1)(e), where only hostile actions relating to race and classes of people have a seditious tendency. Whether "classes of people" includes religious groups has yet to be directly commented on by the courts. However, the District Court
Subordinate Courts of Singapore
The Subordinate Courts of Singapore is one of the two tiers of the court system in Singapore, the other tier being the Supreme Court. The Subordinate Courts comprise the District and Magistrate Courts—both of which oversee civil and criminal matters—as well as specialised family, juvenile,...
case Public Prosecutor v. Koh Song Huat Benjamin (2005) suggests that a perpetrator can be charged under the Sedition Act when the acts committed connote anti-religious sentiments. This effectively subsumes the mischief of the MRHA under the Sedition Act.
Penal Code, section 298A
Section 298A of the Penal CodePenal Code (Singapore)
The Penal Code of Singapore sets out general principles of the criminal law of Singapore, as well as the elements and penalties of common criminal offences such as homicide, theft and cheating...
states:
A literal reading of the above provision shows clearly that the purpose of section 298A is to preserve public tranquility, and only to criminalize acts that incite racial and religious disharmony. This seems extremely similar to the objective of the MRHA. The only significant difference is that a violation of section 298A results in the commission of a criminal offence, while criminal liability attaches under the MRHA only when a restraining order has been breached.
The High Court has rejected "public tranquility" as a definition of public order. In Chan Hiang Leng Colin v. Public Prosecutor, Yong C.J. declined to adopt the test laid down in the Malaysian case Tan Boon Liat v. Menteri Hal Ehwal Dalam Negeri (1976), where public order was held to mean "danger to human life and safety and the disturbance of public tranquility". Instead, the expression "public peace, welfare and good order" was adopted. Does it follow that section 298A is not a general law relating to public order, and thus is unconstitutional since this restriction on the right to freedom of religion is not caught by Article 15(4)? It is also unclear whether there is any difference in the objective of the Sedition Act and section 298A. As of March 2011, no person had been charged under section 298A of the Penal Code.
Internal Security Act
The Internal Security Act was introduced in the 1940s primarily to "counter communist-sparked violence", and is one of the most controversial laws in Singapore. The sources of contention largely pertain to the wide powers conferred on the Government by the Act, and the lack of transparency and checks in the exercise of such discretion.The powers exercisable by the Minister for Home Affairs under the MRHA form a subset of the powers exercisable under the ISA. Section 8 of the ISA empowers the Minister, among other things, to detain a person without trial, to restrain the person's actions, and to prohibit the person from addressing public meetings or taking part in the activities of any association. The power to restrict publications under section 8(2)(b) of the MRHA is mirrored in section 20(1)(c) of the ISA which allows for the prohibition of subversive publications that are "calculated or likely to lead to a breach of the peace, or to promote feelings of hostility between different races or classes of the population".
Both the ISA and the MRHA have provisions that oust judicial review. The ouster clause in the ISA appears to be qualified, as it states:
Section 18 of the MRHA merely states: "All orders and decisions of the President and the Minister and recommendations of the Council made under this Act shall be final and shall not be called in question in any court." The extent to which these clauses prevent the courts from exercising judicial review remains somewhat unclear, as a 1999 High Court decision held on an obiter
Obiter dictum
Obiter dictum is Latin for a statement "said in passing". An obiter dictum is a remark or observation made by a judge that, although included in the body of the court's opinion, does not form a necessary part of the court's decision...
basis that an ouster clause would not have the effect of barring the High Court from exercising judicial review "if the inferior tribunal has acted without jurisdiction or 'if it has done or failed to do something in the course of the inquiry which is of such a nature that its decision is a nullity'", such as acting in breach of the rules of natural justice
Natural justice
Natural justice is a term of art that denotes specific procedural rights in the English legal system and the systems of other nations based on it. Whilst the term natural justice is often retained as a general concept, it has largely been replaced and extended by the more general "duty to act fairly"...
.
Assessment
The MRHA, the Sedition Act, section 298A of the Penal Code and the ISA all share an underlying objective: to maintain public order. The greatest disparity between the MRHA and the other pieces of legislation lies in the fact that the former provides for a much more benign resolution of issues. One commentator has said that there seems to be no apparent purpose for having a wide array of outcomes to choose from when dealing with the same mischief – religious disharmony. On the other hand, it might be argued that given a highly sensitive topic like religion, which incites deep feelings, an arsenal of options is vital so that an outcome best suiting the scenario can be tailored. Nevertheless, the MRHA, despite having the least severe consequences, has not yet been invoked.Developments
On 28 July 1991, the Executive Committee of the World Methodist CouncilWorld Methodist Council
The World Methodist Council, founded in 1881, is an association of churches in the Methodist tradition which comprises most of the world's Wesleyan denominations.- Extension and organization:...
, which was holding its five-yearly World Methodist Conference in Singapore, issued a press statement criticizing provisions in the MRHA which permitted Singapore to "impose restrictions on officials or members of any religious group without recourse to the courts". The Committee also commended the Methodist Church in Singapore
Methodist Church in Singapore
The Methodist Church in Singapore is the church that Methodists in Singapore belong to. The Church has 44 churches island-wide with more than 38,000 members, making it one of the largest Protestant denominations in Singapore. Its current bishop and head of the Church is Bishop Dr Robert M...
("MCS") for raising questions about these provisions, and resolved that a group of council officers should remain in close contact with the MCS to monitor the Act's impact on religious freedom. Subsequently, the Council issued another statement in which it said that it "regrets the dissemination of information not approved by the council and apologises to members of the Singapore Methodist Church and its leaders for any grief, pain or embarrassment". On 30 July Bishop Ho Chee Sin, the head of the MCS, informed The Straits Times
The Straits Times
The Straits Times is an English language daily broadsheet newspaper based in Singapore currently owned by Singapore Press Holdings . It is the country's highest-selling paper, with a current daily circulation of nearly 400,000...
that the Council had voted to modify the Executive Committee's resolutions. According to him, the Council did not object to the Act but expressed a desire to learn more about it. He also said: "The council is keen to learn more about religious harmony here, and how religious liberty, which is enshrined in the Singapore Constitution, can be promoted."
Four days before polling day of the 1991 general election
Singaporean general election, 1991
General elections were held in Singapore on 31 August 1991. The result was a victory for the People's Action Party, which won 77 of the 81 seats...
, Jufrie Mahmood
Jufrie Mahmood
Mohamed Jufrie bin Mahmood is a politician from Singapore. He was a prominent opposition political figure in the country in the 1980s and 1990s, when he stood in elections as a candidate for both the Singapore Democratic Party and the Workers' Party...
, a candidate for the Workers' Party of Singapore
Workers' Party of Singapore
The Workers' Party of Singapore is a centre-left opposition political party in Singapore. The party currently has six elected seats in Parliament, with the party's Secretary-General Low Thia Khiang, Chairman Sylvia Lim, Chen Show Mao, Muhamad Faisal Manap and Pritam Singh serving as Members of...
, mentioned at a rally on 27 August 1991 that he opposed the MRHA which aimed to separate religion and politics. He said: "Now, the imams of mosques who deliver sermons must feel disturbed but they can't say a thing against Government policy for under the Maintenance of Religious Harmony law, if they touch on the issue of lewd movies, they can be in for trouble. That's the reason why I oppose." In response, the Minister for Community Development
Ministry of Community Development, Youth and Sports
The Ministry of Community Development, Youth and Sports is a ministry of the Government of Singapore tasked with, from the government's point of view, building a "cohesive and resilient" society in Singapore.The MCYS often pursues vigorous social engineering campaigns of varying effectiveness and...
Wong Kan Seng
Wong Kan Seng
Wong Kan Seng is a politician from Singapore. A member of the governing People's Action Party , he served as the country's Deputy Prime Minister from 2005 to 2011...
said that there was nothing preventing religious leaders from advising their congregations not to watch R-rated films, and, in their individual capacity, it was open to them to write to the Ministry of Information and the Arts
Ministry of Information, Communications and the Arts
The Ministry of Information, Communications and the Arts is a ministry of the Government of Singapore...
to express their disapproval of such films. However, the Act prevented them from inciting their congregants to oppose the Government on the issue. Wong also said that Jufrie had mentioned imams to talk about a secular issue and incite Malay feelings against the Government.
In May 2001, the Minister for Home Affairs disclosed that the Government had been prepared to use the Act against a number of religious leaders who had mixed religion with politics or denigrated other faiths. These leaders had ceased their actions after warnings from the police and the ISD. One incident involved a Muslim religious leader who had urged Muslims to vote for Muslim candidates with deep religious beliefs at the 1991 general election; he was given a warning in 1992. In the same year, a Christian pastor was cautioned for using church publications and sermons to criticize Buddhism
Buddhism in Singapore
As of 2010, 33.6% of Singaporeans identified themselves as Buddhist. Adherents of Buddhism are mostly of the Chinese majority ethnic group, although small minorities of Sinhalese and Thai Buddhists do exist as well....
, Taoism
Taoism in Singapore
Taoism is adhered to by 8.5% of the entire population of Singapore. In general, nearly all adherents of Taoism in Singapore are associated with the mainstream Zhen Yi school...
and Roman Catholicism. In 1995, another Muslim religious leader was warned for having called a Hindu
Hinduism in Singapore
-Beginnings of Hinduism in Singapore:The early 19th century saw a wave of immigrants to Singapore from southern India, mostly Tamils, to work as coolies and labourers for the British East India Company in Singapore. These immigrants brought along their religion and culture from their homeland as well...
belief that statues of Ganesha
Ganesha
Ganesha , also spelled Ganesa or Ganesh, also known as Ganapati , Vinayaka , and Pillaiyar , is one of the deities best-known and most widely worshipped in the Hindu pantheon. His image is found throughout India and Nepal. Hindu sects worship him regardless of affiliations...
could drink milk offerings
Hindu milk miracle
The Hindu milk miracle was a phenomenon, considered by many Hindus as a miracle, which occurred on September 21, 1995. Before dawn, a Hindu worshipper at a temple in south New Delhi made an offering of milk to a statue of Ganesha. When a spoonful of milk from the bowl was held up to the trunk of...
the work of Satan.
See also
- Article 15 of the Constitution of Singapore Article 15 of the Constitution of SingaporeArticle 15 of the Constitution of the Republic of Singapore guarantees freedom of religion in Singapore. Specifically, Article 15 states: "Every person has the right to profess and practise his religion and to propagate it."...
- Declaration of Religious HarmonyDeclaration of Religious HarmonyThe Declaration of Religious Harmony of Singapore is a statement that affirms the importance of, and the commitment of Singaporeans towards, religious harmony...
- Freedom of religion in SingaporeFreedom of religion in SingaporeFreedom of religion in Singapore is guaranteed under the Constitution. However, the Government of Singapore restricts this right in some circumstances. The Government has banned the Jehovah's Witnesses and the Unification Church...
Legislation and related documents
. ("MRHA").} ("white paper").
-
- Second Reading of the Maintenance of Religious Harmony Bill, Singapore Parliamentary Debates, Official Report (22–23 February 1990), vol. 54, cols. 1047–1130 and 1143–1212.
}. ("SA").