Abstract
In Singapore’s move towards independent nationhood and a new political identity, there was no effort to disconnect from the administrative practices and legal mechanisms introduced and instituted during British colonial rule. This is true for the administration of Hindu and Muslim religious and charitable endowments as well. With the end of colonial rule some pieces of legislation1 were revised, reformulated and even repealed, but it is a puzzle as to why the Mohammedan and Hindu Endowments Ordinance (MHEO) was not scrutinized for a similar fate.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Notes
- 1.
According to Bartholomew, several legal documents, including the Republic of Singapore Independence Act of 1965, allowed for laws enacted for the Straits Settlements (SS), the Colony of Singapore, the Federation of Malaya and Malaysia to apply to Singapore post-1965 as well (Bartholomew 1972).
- 2.
It is further intriguing that we witness significantly different responses of local Hindu communities to the presence of these ‘government’ bodies in Singapore and Penang. In Penang, in the 1980s, some sectors of the Hindu community called for the Penang Hindu Endowments Board (PHEB) to be dissolved, and for the Hindu Endowments Act (HEA) to be repealed, given their colonial origins. The assertion was that both the Board and the Act were not only redundant, but also unconstitutional in violating the principle of non-interference by a secular state in matters of religion and, thus, the principle of religious freedom. It is indeed interesting that no such discussions have occurred in Singapore, a difference that needs to be theorized.
- 3.
In the case of Islam, a new act of Parliament—the Administration of Muslim Law Act (AMLA)—came into effect in 1968 and allowed for the establishment of a statutory body known as the Majlis Ugama Islam Singapura (MUIS), also known as the Islamic Religious Council of Singapore.
- 4.
See Section (2) of AMLA of 1999, for the functions of MUIS:
It shall be the function and duty of the Majlis—
-
(a)
to advise the President of Singapore in matters relating to the Muslim religion in Singapore;
-
(b)
to administer matters relating to the Muslim religion and Muslims in Singapore including any matter relating to the Haj or halal certification;
-
(c)
to administer all Muslim endowments and funds vested in it under any written law or trust;
-
(d)
to administer the collection of zakat and fitrah and other charitable contributions for the support and promotion of the Muslim religion or for the benefit of Muslims in accordance with this Act;
-
(e)
to administer all mosques and Muslim religious schools in Singapore; and
-
(f)
to carry out such other functions and duties as are conferred upon the Majlis by or under this Act or any other written law.
-
(a)
- 5.
- 6.
It is interesting that in a recent case, the SHEB did not come forward to ‘take over’ the management of Sri Siva Krishna Temple in the face of concerns about its ‘governance and administration’ (25 February 2010, The Straits Times), something that is within its jurisdiction, legally speaking. Instead, the SHEB brought its concerns about the management of temple to the attention of the Ministry of Community Development Youth and Sports (MCYS), which then instructed the Commissioner of Charities to carry out a formal enquiry under the Charities Act. Currently, the enquiry is underway and the temple continues to function. It has been noted that ‘This is the first Hindu temple and the ninth case to be investigated by the Commissioner’s office’ (ibid.).
- 7.
Singapore Parliament Report, No. 4, Session No. 1, Volume No. 37, Sitting No. 15, Sitting Date 22.3.1978. ‘Budget, Ministry of Social Affairs’.
- 8.
Ibid.
- 9.
Minutes of SHEB meeting, 28 February 1978.
- 10.
Singapore Parliament Report, No. 4, Session No. 1, Volume No. 37, Sitting No. 15, Sitting Date 22.3.1978. ‘Budget, Ministry of Social Affairs’.
- 11.
Ibid.
- 12.
Singapore Parliament Report, No. 4, Session No. 1, Volume No. 37, Sitting No. 15, Sitting Date 22.3.1978. ‘Budget, Ministry of Social Affairs’.
- 13.
The minutes of the SHEB meeting held on 4 May 1977 report a joint meeting of the two Boards on 27 April 1977.
- 14.
The members who sat on this joint committee were, in fact, drawn from the existing constituency of the HEB. The minutes of the SHEB meeting held on 9 November 1978 convey the following information:
The Board agreed that the Chairman, Secretary and three members of the Board should be appointed to the Joint Committee of the Hindu Endowments Board and the Hindu Advisory Board.
- 15.
Singapore Parliament Report, No. 4, Session No. 1, Volume No. 37, Sitting No. 15, Sitting Date 22.3.1978. ‘Budget, Ministry of Social Affairs’.
- 16.
The CPF is a social security savings scheme for Singaporeans. Compulsory monthly deductions are made from citizens’ salaries towards this to which the government also contributes a percentage. The actual contribution made by citizens and government varies over time. While the funds are primarily for use after retirement, some of it can also be deployed for mortgage payment on housing loans, education and medical care.
- 17.
Ibid.
- 18.
‘The Singapore Indian Development Association (SINDA) is a self-help group (SHG), formed in August 1991 to address the pressing educational and socio-economic issues facing the Indian community in Singapore’ (http://www.sinda.org.sg/about.htm). The view was that the duplication of roles should be avoided, something that could happen if the SHEB took on more activities in the realm of education and welfare, whereas the province of the HEB was defined to lie in Hindu religious and charitable activities.
- 19.
Kenneth Tan (2010, 342).
- 20.
As far as I have been able to establish, the HAB does not seem to have been established for Malacca. Certainly, neither the HEB nor the HAB has a presence in Malacca today. The Malaysian Hindu Sangam has a branch in Malacca and is the body that co-ordinates the affairs of the Hindu community therein.
- 21.
This reflects an instance of SHEB collaboration with non-SHEB temples. The seven temples are Murugan Hill Temple (Bukit Panjang), Sri Sivan Temple (Geylang East), Sri Siva Durga Temple (Potong Pasir), Sri Vairavimada Kaliamman Temple (Toa Payoh), Sri Muneeswaran Temple (Queenstown), Darma Muneeswaran Temple (Serangoon North) and Siva Krishna Temple (Woodlands).
- 22.
The significance of this publication is articulated thus on the SHEB’s website:
‘Through the publication, the Board was able to promote greater awareness of Hinduism, Hindu customs and practices. The magazine also served as a channel of communication between the Board and the community. Special emphasis was made to carry information on educational issues. In its 16 year history the publication has succinctly captured the many exciting happenings in the Hindu community and at the various Hindu temples in Singapore. Many interesting articles from previous issues have been archived at this website to help future generation of Hindus in Singapore to not only understand the history of the Board and local temples but the local Hindu culture too.’
- 23.
Second reading of the Hindu Endowments Act (Amendment) Bill, MCYS.
(http://app1/mcys.gov.sg/MCYSNews/2ndReadingofHinduEndowmentsActs.aspx accessed on 14 June 2010).
- 24.
Ibid.
- 25.
Ibid.
- 26.
The amendments include the following: (a) to repeal and re-enact Section 21 of the Act (to provide the Board with the broader mandate to also expend its income to conduct social, cultural and educational activities which are deemed by the Board to be for the public benefit); (b) to introduce a new Section 17A (to expand the powers of the Hindu Endowments Board to allow it to form companies directly and enter into joint ventures which are not confined to property development); (c) to amend the existing Section 24 (to revise the penalties and fines for non-compliance and non-co-operation with the Board); and (d) to introduce a new Section 34A (to remove personal liability for Board members except in cases of gross negligence) (ibid.)
- 27.
Some members of the PHEB recently visited the SHEB offices in Singapore. When I visited Penang in July 2007, members of the PHEB shared that they were extremely impressed with the SHEB and its style of management, a model that some said they would like to adopt for the Penang Board.
- 28.
‘Hindu priests to conduct similar rituals,’ The Straits Times, 10 December 2009, B 8.
- 29.
Ibid.
- 30.
Ibid.
- 31.
Admittedly, the concern with regularizing performance of temple rituals has been expressed only recently and it would be premature to speculate on its outcome. However, the very possibility of such an articulation merits scrutiny and is worth mentioning.
- 32.
One persistent issue relates to the non-declaration of Tai Pūcam, as a public holiday.
- 33.
http://app1.mcys.gov.sg/MCYSNews/FinancialIrregularitiesSriSivaKrishnaTemple.aspx, acces-sed on 31 July 2010.
- 34.
The report notes that ‘This is the first Hindu temple and the ninth case to be investigated by the commissioner’s office’ (25 February 2010, The Straits Times).
- 35.
http://app1.mcys.gov.sg/MCYSNews/FinancialIrregularitiesSriSivaKrishnaTemple.aspx, acces-sed on 31 July 2010.
- 36.
Ibid.
- 37.
According to the Singapore Census of 2000, the number of Hindus is 99,904.
- 38.
This is the Arulmigu Murugan Temple in Jurong East.
- 39.
These are the Srinivasa Perumal Temple, Sri Mariamman Temple, Sri Sivan Temple and Sri Vairavamida Kaliamman Temple.
- 40.
Two examples are the thondarkal (volunteer group) and the bhajan (devotional songs) groups.
- 41.
This is the Lakshminarayan Temple in Race Course Road, which caters primarily to the Bihari, Uttar Pradeshi and Hindu Punjabi communities.
- 42.
The following are good illustrations: The Sri Sivan Temple, the Srinivasa Perumal Temple and the Durga Temple in Potong Pasir—all of which are popular with Sindhi and Punjabi Hindus and Uttar Pradeshis and Biharis as well. Apart from this broad North–South difference, other regional, temples also display communal variations. For example, the Krishnan Temple in Waterloo Street is patronized primarily by Malayalees and caters to the needs of the Malayalee community. The Thandayuthabani Temple has historically been associated with the Chettiar community, and the Senpaga Vinayagar Temple in Ceylon Road finds strong Ceylon Tamil Hindu participation.
- 43.
Sinha (2005).
- 44.
This is only a select list of festivals observed in Hindu temples. ‘Navaratri’ is literally ‘nine nights’ and is dedicated to the mother goddess Durga; ‘Krishna Jayanti’ is the birthday of the Hindu god Krishna; ‘Sivaratri’ literally means ‘the night of Siva’ and is celebrated in honour of the Hindu god Siva; ‘Thai Ponggal’ is a harvest festival popular with the Tamil community; ‘Holi’ is a spring festival celebrated by Hindus; ‘Dussehra’ celebrates the victory of Rama over the demon-king Ravana; ‘Ram Navmi’ celebrates the birth of Rama and ‘Vinayagar Chaturthi’ marks the birthday of the elephant god Ganesha.
- 45.
For example, apart from organizing religious classes and bhajan sessions, many temples now provide instruction in Indian dance and music, offer free or highly subsidized tuition for children at various levels of study (including the very popular Tamil-language classes), organize art lessons, yoga and meditation classes, together with computer courses and aerobic lessons, blood donation drives, and render legal advice. All of these activities are conducted within the temple grounds.
- 46.
Kho (1980, 71–72).
- 47.
By and large, these safeguards have ensured that communal tensions have not been allowed free and irresponsible expression, even though they may be present. The measures, many of which are punitive (such as warnings, fines and imprisonment), have indeed served the function of deterrence as the island is marked by the absence of explicit racial and religious strife.
- 48.
Hill (2001).
- 49.
- 50.
Indeed on several occasions, some of these laws have been invoked and applied to religious groups and their practices. Some examples include the deregistration of the Jehovah’s Witnesses under the Societies Act in 1972. Other religious groups that were served with deregistration notice include the Hare Krishna group, the Unification Church in 1982 and The Moral Home Society in 1990. In the case of the Jehovah’s Witnesses, the various publications of the group were banned under the Undesirable Publications Act. These steps were undertaken as the activities of these groups were contrary to both national interests and ‘public order, public health or morality’. Finally, the event that sparked great public interest and scrutiny was the detention of 22 individuals under the Internal Security Act in 1987. These individuals, some of whom were Catholic social workers, were allegedly involved in a ‘Marxist Conspiracy’ to overthrow the government and establish a Marxist state.
- 51.
In April 2008, a Singaporean couple, Ong Kian Cheong and Dorothy Chan Hien Leng, both Christians, were charged with sedition after they distributed pamphlets that portrayed Islam negatively. It is interesting that the couple was charged under the Sedition Act and not the Maintenance of Religious Harmony Act.
- 52.
Additionally, to date no convictions have been reported under the Maintenance of Religious Harmony Act, which was enacted amidst much fanfare in 1990.
- 53.
Here Asad’s discussion of the ‘secular’ as a relational concept is relevant.
- 54.
The ‘take over’ of Association for Women for Action and research (AWARE) in 2009 by a group of professional Christian women was an attempt to claim an existing secular space for voicing religious concerns about a sexuality education programme run by AWARE in local schools. The women from the Church of Saviour criticized the presentation of homosexuality as a normal, alternative sexuality option in neutral modes.
- 55.
In relation to the AWARE incident the Archbishop John Chew, who is also the President of the National Council of Churches of Singapore (NCCS), reiterated the normative position in Singapore about keeping religion out of politics. He also reminded Christian pastors abut the proper use of the pulpit and remarked that religion should not be a part of these discussions about homosexuality.
- 56.
Dinham et al. (2009, 2).
- 57.
Chua (1985).
- 58.
Kong (2006, 909).
- 59.
Eugene Tan (2004, 88).
- 60.
1 June 2010, The Straits Times.
- 61.
Under the Charities Act, the Commissioner ‘has the power to suspend, remove or appoint additional charity trustees to ensure proper governance and administration of the charity and to protect the charitable resources’ (ibid. A 8). Recently, the COC has been involved in scrutinizing nine other charities, including the Sri Siva Krishna Temple, the Singapore Association for the Visually Handicapped, the Ren Ci Hospital and Medicare Centre and the Youth Challenge.
- 62.
In any case, groups like the NCCS and IRO lack the legal authority to regulate and discipline any financial misdemeanors or indiscretions, and their role is largely symbolic and ceremonial.
- 63.
- 64.
In a related development, the Urban Renewal Authority (URA) and MCYS have recently issued ‘a set of guidelines on the limited and non-exclusive use of commercial spaces for religious activities’ (http://app1.mcys.gov.sg/MCYSNews/CommercialSpacesReligiousActivities.aspx, accessed on 31 August 2010). According to the existing guidelines, sites defined as ‘commercial’ are also seen as secular spaces for use by all, whereas religious activities are to be conducted only in dedicated spaces defined as ‘places of worship’. The new stipulations make possible for religious groups to use commercial spaces in ‘limited and non-exclusive’ modes. These apply to the use of auditoriums, function halls, convention centres and cinemas (http://app1.mcys.gov.sg/MCYSNews/CommercialSpacesReligiousActivities.aspx, accessed on 31 August 2010).
- 65.
‘Into the light’, The Sunday Times, 29 August 2010, Prime p. 6.
- 66.
Ibid.
- 67.
Ibid.
- 68.
Ibid.
- 69.
In fact it can be argued that some of these groups exist today precisely because of state efforts (through the 1980s and 1990s) which eliminated options for religious practices (like séances and rituals associated with spirit mediums) to occur legitimately in places of worship. This ritual domain has not disappeared but has had to find alternative sites where it can be perpetuated.
- 70.
Some examples include the various restrictions on religious processions on foot, the relocation and removal of places of worship for urban renewal initiatives (Wee 1989), restrictions on publication and distribution of religious literature that could create disharmony, and restrictions on and regulation of religious broadcasting (Kong 2006) via the media.
- 71.
Chong (2010).
- 72.
See Rodan (2003) and Tanaka (2002).
- 73.
Trocki (2006, 137).
- 74.
Chua and Kwok (2001, 91).
- 75.
Asad (2003, 200).
- 76.
Benjamin (1987).
- 77.
Benjamin (1988, 20).
- 78.
Chong (2010, 595).
- 79.
Ibid. 596.
- 80.
Weber (1958).
- 81.
See Part II, Section 5 of the Miscellaneous Offences (Public Order and Nuisance) Act.
- 82.
Kong (2005).
- 83.
Ibid.
References
Asad, T. (2003) Formations of the Secular; Christianity, Islam, Modernity. Palo Alto, CA: Stanford University Press.
Bartholomew, G. W. (1972) ‘Introduction.’ In Tables of the Written Laws of the Republic of Singapore 1819–1971, compiled by Elizabeth Srinivasagam, and the staff of the Law Library, University of Singapore. Singapore: Malaya Law Review, University of Singapore.
Benjamin, G. (1987) ‘Notes on the Deep Sociology of Religion.’ Working Paper Series, No. 85. Singapore: National University of Singapore, Department of Sociology.
Benjamin, G. (1988) ‘The Unseen Presence: A Theory of the Nation-State and its Mystifications.’ Working Paper Series, No. 91. Singapore: National University of Singapore, Department of Sociology.
Chua, B. H. (1985) ‘Pragmatism of the People’s Action Party Government in Singapore: A Critical Assessment.’ Southeast Asian Journal of Social Science, 13(2): 29–46.
Chong, T. (ed.) (2010) Management of Success: Singapore Revisited. Singapore: Institute of Southeast Asian Studies.
Chua, B. H. and K. W. Kwok, (2001) ‘Social Pluralism in Singapore.’ In Robert W. Hefner (ed.) The Politics of Multiculturalism: Pluralism and Citizenship in Malaysia, Singapore and Indonesia. Honolulu, HI: University of Hawaii Press, pp. 86–140.
Dinham, A., R. Furbey and V. Lowndes (eds.) (2009) Faith in the Public Realm; Controversies, Policies and Practices. Bristol: The Polity Press.
Hill, M. (2001) ‘The Singapore State’s Response to Religion: From Co-optation to Legislative Control.’ Religion-Staat-Gesellschaft, 2(27): 271–88.
Kong, L. (2001)‘Mapping ‘New’ Geographies of Religion: Politics and Poetics in Modernity.’ Progress in Human Geography, 25(2): 211–33.
Kong, L. (2005) ‘Religious processions: Urban politics and poetics.’ Temenos: Finnish Journal of Religion, 41(2): 225–49.
Kong, L. (2006) ‘Religion and spaces of technology: Constructing and contesting national, transnation and place.’ Environment and Planning A, 38: 903–918.
Presler, F. A. (1987) Religion Under Bureaucracy. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Sinha, V. (2005) A New God in the Diaspora; Muneeswaran Worship in Contemporary Singapore. Singapore: SUP and NIAS.
Tamney, J. (1996) ‘The Religious Studies Experiment.’ In J. Tamney (ed.) The Struggle over Singapore’s soul: Western Modernization and Asian Culture. New York, NY: Walter de Gruyter, pp. 25–56.
Tan, K. (2004) ‘The Legal and Institutional Framework and Issues of Multiculturalism in Singapore.’ In Lai Ah Eng (ed.) Beyond Rituals and Riots; Ethnic Pluralism and Social Cohesion in Singapore. Singapore: Institute of Policy Studies, pp. 98–113.
Tan, K. P. (2010) ‘Pragmatic Secularism, Civil Religion and Political Legitimacy in Singapore.’ In Michael Heng Siam-Keng and Ten Chin Liew (eds.) State and Secularism: Perspectives from Asia, Singapore: World Scientific, pp. 339–58.
Tan, K. Y. L. (2002) ‘The Legal and Institutional Framework and Issues of Multiculturalism in Singapore.’ In Lai Ah Eng (ed.) Beyond Rituals and Riot; Ethnic Pluralism and Social Cohesion in Singapore. Singapore: Eastern University Press, pp. 98–113.
Trocki, C. (2006) Singapore: Wealth, Power and the Culture of Control. London: Routledge.
Weber, M. (1958) ‘Bureaucracy.’ In Hans H. Gerth and C. Wright Mills (trans. and eds.) From Max Weber: Essays in Sociology. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
Singapore Parliament Report, No. 4, Session No. 1, Volume No. 37, Sitting No. 15, Sitting Date 22.3.1978. ‘Budget, Ministry of Social Affairs.’
Kho, E. M. (1980) ‘Religion and state in Singapore, 1959–1978.’ Academic Exercise, Department of History, National University of Singapore, pp. 71–72.
Shiau, D. V. H. (2004) ‘Contrary to Public Order, Public Health or Morality: The Conditions of Religious Freedom in Singapore.’ Assignment, Faculty of Law, National University of Singapore
Wee, V. (1989) ‘Secular state, multi-religious society: The patterning of religion in Singapore.’ Paper for presentation at Conference on Communities in Question: Religion and Authority in East and Southeast Asia, 2–10 May 1989, Hua Hin, Thailand.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2011 Springer Science+Business Media B.V.
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Sinha, V. (2011). Religion, Law and Bureaucracy. In: Religion-State Encounters in Hindu Domains. ARI - Springer Asia Series, vol 1. Springer, Dordrecht. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-007-0887-7_7
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-007-0887-7_7
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Dordrecht
Print ISBN: 978-94-007-0886-0
Online ISBN: 978-94-007-0887-7
eBook Packages: Humanities, Social Sciences and LawPhilosophy and Religion (R0)