Religion in Singapore Singapore’s government has been applauded for its approach to attracting business and fostering social harmony, while simultaneously censured for being too restrictive and even dictatorial in its approach to public policy. Media coverage on the topic of religion in Singapore has been varied in both its tone and the sources from which it is derived; news media stationed outside of Singapore’s boundaries have depicted a largely positive view of interfaith relationships, while domestic media outlets have stressed the unrest caused by religious divisions amongst Singaporeans.
Historically, Singapore was known as a port-city with an “entrepôt” style economy, primarily due to its proximity to major South Asian, commodity-exporting countries. Today, Singapore’s favorable tax laws continue to make it a central figure in the South Asian economic landscape. Singapore is a country of roughly 5.5 million people and, due to economy and geography, is a culturally diverse city-state. Primarily Chinese, Indian, and Malaysian peoples comprise Singapore’s citizenry, with western businessmen representing a small sliver of the population and a large portion of the country’s wealth.
Religious diversity within Singapore remains high; an estimated 83% of the population subscribes to a religious belief system. There are five predominant faiths within the country, with no one comprising more than 30% of the population. In aggregate, members of Buddhism, Christianity, Islam, Taoism, and Hinduism constitute 99.153% of all religious practitioners. Not surprisingly, the government of Singapore has realized the importance of maintaining a neutral position and ensuring no one religious group acquires political or social dominance over another; Singapore’s political stability has been the driving force behind foreign investment and national prosperity. In the article “Kurup: Malaysia looking at Singapore's model of national unity”, written by R. Bernama and published on Malaysia’s Star Online news site, the author describes statements made by Malaysian Ministry official Joseph Kurup during an official visit to Singapore. Although Kurup states that Malaysia is successful at fostering a culture of acceptance, the article suggests that Singapore is the pinnacle of religious harmony; implying that even a relatively pluralistic society such as Malaysia could stand to benefit from mimicking Singaporean policies. Bernama highlights Kurup’s fascination with Singapore’s achievement in the creation of multi-faith places of worship by quoting Kurup as having said “‘The centre is a place for them for interfaith dialogue to make people understand, appreciate, and respect about the religion so that they do not hurt each other.”’ Additionally, Bernama states that “Kurup said his visit together with religious leaders were to familiarize them with what Singapore is doing in promoting national unity and religious harmony.” The article is completely free of any mention of cultural conflict or governmental repression of religious rights, and Bernama’s selected quotation of Kurupt goes so far as to suggest that the Singaporean model is integral in preventing religious violence and societal unrest. In his article “If not handled carefully, these fault lines can pull Singapore apart,” Straits Times author Wong Kim Hoh illustrates the delicate truce between members of different religious groups by highlighting an incident of conflict between Buddhists and Muslims at a government housing block. Hoh intends to create within the reader, presumably a Singaporean citizen, a sense of urgency regarding the religious divides within the country by quoting PM Lee Hsien as having said “'We have discussed potential fault lines in our society between rich and poor, between Singaporeans and new arrivals. But the most visceral and dangerous fault line,' he said, 'is race and religion.'” Hoh continues to allude to the conflict at the housing block, suggesting to the reader that such incidents are bound to happen with more and more frequency unless the religious tension is more sternly address by the government. From the tone of the article, the reader infers that Singapore is on the brink of religious conflict, the onus of responsibility for religious pluralism rests with Singapore’s political leaders, and the most effective way of handling the issue is through further restriction of religious displays; in essence, a forceful reiteration of Singapore’s secular policy towards religion.
In her article “Singapore 'not immune to religious tensions', says Shanmugam,” Straits Times author Rachel Chang first describes the racial and religious tensions plaguing neighboring countries Myanmar, Thailand, and the Philippines. She structures the article in such a way as to depict Singapore as a stable nation with a strong government and few instances of religious strife. However, she alludes to the potential for social conflict stemming from Singapore’s multi-faith population and a resurgence of religious “culture wars.” While she emphasizes the sensibilities of the majority of Singaporeans, she acknowledges the fact that many young Singaporeans are becoming increasingly religious and protective of their religious rights; she states “This is no longer the case today, not just among older people but also for young, religious Singaporeans.”
When comparing the inclinations of the three articles, it was evident that the viewpoints expressed were representative of three different ideological leanings. While Chang, Hoh, and Bernama each acknowledge the need for religious harmony, and the strife that exists abroad, only Chang and Hoh’s articles address the issues currently embroiling Singapore. Hoh’s passage is clearly the most pessimistic, as he focuses exclusively on the documented instances of religion-fueled disturbances. Considering the article was published in a Singaporean paper, his intention seems to be to instill a sense of fear within the Singaporean population; imploring them to support a government imposed crackdown on religious freedoms and reinforce the secularism outlined in the Singaporean constitution. Conversely, Bernama’s article makes no mention of any underlying religious tension in Singapore, but instead portrays Singapore as the apex of pluralism within a multi-faith society. It seems to me that his depiction of the situation is intentionally positive because of the Malaysian audience to which the article is directed; it would make little sense for Malaysian officials to seek advice on how to create religious harmony from a society that is becoming increasingly susceptible to cultural divisions. Comparatively, Chang’s article is the most neutral of the three, as it addresses the relative calm among Singapore’s religious population, while simultaneously recognizing the trend towards religious protectionism by practitioners. Presumably, her article is not meant to persuade so much as inform; it is absent of any political ideology and stresses the need for awareness, yet is not so presumptuous as to encourage swift legislative action. The subject of religion in Hoh’s piece is portrayed as a danger to the stability of Singapore’s government, and a burden on the wellbeing of the general population. His article seems to be targeted toward the 17% of the population that does not identify as religious, because it disregards the infringements on religious freedoms that his proposed solutions would inevitably cause. Chang’s article depicts the subject of religious as a fixed aspect of Singapore’s culture, and one that must be respected by the government. She doesn’t disregard the potential for conflict that may arise from religious disagreements, but she isn’t so quick to demand a complete prohibition of religious displays. Finally, Bernama’s article takes a polar opposite stance to that of Hoh when he glosses over the fissures in Singapore’s religious wellbeing. Religion isn’t depicted as a particularly unifying force, but one that is ever-present and has the potential to be destructive; hence the need for a social policy that reflects that of Singapore. In summation, the issue of religion in Singapore is not static one. The multitude of different belief systems requires a neutral stance from the government. However, the sheer number of practitioners illustrates the need for a certain degree of freedom for religious demonstrations and celebrations; the government needs to be vigilant and at the same time accommodating to its citizenry. Simultaneously, religious and non-religious Singaporeans alike need to put their beliefs in perspective with the country in which they live; the dominance of any one group is simply not compatible with a secular government, and they must be careful to rectify their rights to believe with the rights of others to not believe.

Works Cited
Bernama, R. "Kurup: Malaysia looking at Singapore's model of national unity." . The Star

Online, 5 Mar. 2014. Web. 11 Apr. 2014.

<http://www.thestar.com.my/News/Nation/2014/03/05/Kurup-msia-looking-at-spore-

unity/>.

Chang, Rachel. "Singapore 'not immune to religious tensions' says Shanmugam." . The Straits
Times, 5 Dec. 2013. Web. 11 Apr. 2014. <http://www.straitstimes.com/the-big- story/case-you-missed-it/story/singapore-not-immune-religious-tensions-says- shanmugam-201312>.

Hoh, Wong Kim. "If not handled carefully, these fault lines can pull Singapore apart ." . The

Straits Times, 17 Aug. 2009. Web. 11 Apr. 2014.

<http://www.singaporeunited.sg/cep/index.php/News-Room/PM-warns-of-religious-

fault-lines>.