Maintenance of Religious Harmony Act
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, promoting a political cause, carrying out subversive activities, or exciting disaffection against the President or the Government under the guise of propagating or practicing a religious belief.
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.
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.
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.
The Maintenance of Religious Harmony Act ("MRHA")[5] is a Singapore statute allowing the Government to act promptly and effectively[6] 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.
[30] Since the President's circumscribed veto is conditional on a disagreement between the Cabinet and the PCRH,[31] there is a low probability of the original decision by the Minister being altered.
[43] 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.
[44] 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.
[45] 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".
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.
[49] 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,[34] which prevents its decisions and recommendations from being judicially reviewed in administrative or constitutional law.
[68] 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.
[85] 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".
[87] 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 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.
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.
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.
Seditious words or acts tear the societal fabric, which manifests in the social evil of feelings of ill-will and hostility between different races.
[108] 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.
]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.
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)?
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.
]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."
[110] 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.
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.
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.
[125] 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.
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.
