Singapore

Singapore is a city-state of 5.7 million inhabitants.[ref]https://www.singstat.gov.sg/modules/infographics/population[/ref] Known for its rich cultural diversity, the island nation is considered to be among the most religiously diverse nation in the world.[ref]https://www.pewforum.org/2014/04/04/global-religious-diversity/[/ref]

Singapore became an independent and sovereign state in 1965, after leaving the Federation of Malaysia, of which it had been a member for 2 years before its departure.[ref]https://eresources.nlb.gov.sg/history/events/dc1efe7a-8159-40b2-9244-cdb078755013#27[/ref] Prior to that, Singapore was a trading post of the British Empire for over a 100 years. Today, Singapore is a parliamentary constitutional republic, known for the conservatism of its leaders and its strict social controls. The country has been governed by the People’s Action Party since independence in 1965.

Constitution and government Education and children’s rights Family, community, society, religious courts and tribunals Freedom of expression advocacy of humanist values
‘Blasphemy’ is outlawed or criticism of religion (including de facto ‘blasphemy’ laws) is restricted and punishable with a prison sentence
Preferential treatment is given to a religion or religion in general
There is state funding of at least some religious schools
Some religious courts rule in civil or family matters on a coercive or discriminatory basis
Expression of core humanist principles on democracy, freedom or human rights is somewhat restricted
Official symbolic deference to religion
Some concerns about political or media freedoms, not specific to the non-religious
Concerns that secular or religious authorities interfere in specifically religious freedoms
Constitution and government
Preferential treatment is given to a religion or religion in general
Official symbolic deference to religion
Education and children’s rights
There is state funding of at least some religious schools
Family, community, society, religious courts and tribunals
Some religious courts rule in civil or family matters on a coercive or discriminatory basis
Freedom of expression advocacy of humanist values
‘Blasphemy’ is outlawed or criticism of religion (including de facto ‘blasphemy’ laws) is restricted and punishable with a prison sentence
Expression of core humanist principles on democracy, freedom or human rights is somewhat restricted
Some concerns about political or media freedoms, not specific to the non-religious
Concerns that secular or religious authorities interfere in specifically religious freedoms
Use of Conscientious Objection clauses resulting in the denial of lawful services to women and LGBTI+ people
Religious or ideological instruction is mandatory in all or most state-funded schools with no secular or humanist alternative
Insufficient information or detail not included in this report
Insufficient information or detail not included in this report

Countries: Kazakhstan

The state is secular, with separation of religious and political authorities, not discriminating against any religion or belief
Insufficient information or detail not included in this report
No fundamental restrictions on freedom of expression or advocacy of humanist values
Insufficient information or detail not included in this report

Countries: no countries relate to this boundary condition

No condition holds in this strand
No condition holds in this strand

Countries: Andorra

No condition holds in this strand
Religious courts or tribunals rule directly on some family or ‘moral’ matters; it is legally an opt-in system, but the possibility of social coercion is very clear
No condition holds in this strand

Countries: no countries relate to this boundary condition

Localised or infrequent but recurring and widespread social marginalisation or prejudice against the non-religious

This condition is unusual in that it is applied in cases where there is some social discrimination, but it is not pervasive or nationwide. This condition is applied when there is sufficient background evidence to warrant the assertion that discrimination is not anomalous but widespread, and this condition may be applied for example even where if there is no legislative discrimination or where the non-religious may have legal recourse against such discrimination. However, societal discrimination (i.e. discrimination by peers, as opposed to state or legal discrimination) is not easily measured, and for this reason the Report does not currently have similar more severe boundary conditions to capture higher levels of social discrimination per se. In principle these may be introduced in future. However, we consider that countries with actual higher levels of social discrimination against the non-religious will generally already meet other higher level (more severe) boundary conditions under this thematic strand.

Countries: Botswana, Greece, Serbia, United States of America

The dominant influence of religion in public life undermines the right to equality and/or non-discrimination

Applied when the influence of religion on public life undermines others’ rights, such as SRHR, women’s rights, LGBTI+ rights.

May be applied when the influence is overt (i.e. when religious laws are applied to undermine others’ rights) or covert (i.e. where religious pressure groups exert influence to affect policy)

Countries: Andorra, Antigua and Barbuda, Armenia, Bahamas, Belize, Bolivia, Brunei Darussalam, Congo, Democratic Republic of, Croatia, Cuba, Dominica, Dominican Republic, El Salvador, Eswatini, Fiji, Gambia, Ghana, Guatemala, Guinea, Hungary, Iran, Italy, Jamaica, Jordan, Liberia, Lithuania, Mexico, Moldova, Montenegro, Mozambique, Nicaragua, North Macedonia, Oman, Paraguay, Qatar, Romania, Russia, Saint Lucia, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, Saudi Arabia, Senegal, Slovakia, Solomon Islands, Sri Lanka, Suriname, Timor-Leste (East Timor), Trinidad and Tobago, Ukraine, Zambia

The non-religious are persecuted socially or there are prohibitive social taboos against atheism, humanism or secularism
Complete tyranny precludes all freedoms of expression and thought, religion or belief

Applied when overriding acts of oppression by the State are extreme, to the extent that the question of freedom of thought and expression is almost redundant, because all human rights and freedoms are quashed by authorities.

Countries: North Korea

Expression of core Humanist principles on democracy, freedom and human rights is brutally repressed
Expression of non-religious views is severely persecuted, or is rendered almost impossible by severe social stigma, or is highly likely to be met with hatred or violence
There is significant social marginalisation of the non-religious or stigma associated with expressing atheism, humanism or secularism
Religious or ideological indoctrination is utterly pervasive in schools
There is a nominal state church with few privileges or progress is being made toward disestablishment

Countries: Bulgaria, Norway, Peru, Rwanda

The non-religious are barred from some government offices (including posts reserved for particular religions or sects)
‘Apostasy’ is outlawed and punishable with a prison sentence

Countries: Bahrain, Comoros, Jordan, Kuwait

‘Apostasy’ or conversion from a specific religion is outlawed and punishable by death
Some religious courts rule in civil or family matters on a coercive or discriminatory basis
Religious authorities have supreme authority over the state

Countries: Iran

State legislation is partly derived from religious law or by religious authorities
Preferential treatment is given to a religion or religion in general

This condition is applied where there are miscellaneous indicators that organs of the state offer various forms of support for a religion, or to religion in general over non-religious worldviews, suggesting a preference for those beliefs, or that the organs of that religion are privileged.

Countries: Albania, Algeria, Andorra, Antigua and Barbuda, Argentina, Australia, Austria, Bahamas, Belize, Bhutan, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Brazil, Burundi, Canada, Cape Verde, Chile, Colombia, Croatia, Cyprus, Czech Republic, Denmark, Dominican Republic, Equatorial Guinea, Eritrea, Ethiopia, Finland, Germany, Ghana, Guatemala, Guyana, Haiti, Iceland, India, Indonesia, Ireland, Israel, Italy, Jamaica, Japan, Kuwait, Kyrgyzstan, Liberia, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Madagascar, Malawi, Malaysia, Mali, Malta, Mauritania, Mauritius, Montenegro, Mozambique, Nepal, New Zealand, Nigeria, North Macedonia, Oman, Panama, Paraguay, Peru, Philippines, Poland, Qatar, Romania, Rwanda, San Marino, Serbia, Seychelles, Sierra Leone, Singapore, Slovakia, Solomon Islands, Sri Lanka, Tajikistan, Tanzania, Timor-Leste (East Timor), Tunisia, Turkey, Tuvalu, United Kingdom, Vanuatu, Venezuela, Zimbabwe

There is a pattern of impunity or collusion in violence by non-state actors against the nonreligious
State-funded schools provide religious education which may be nominally comprehensive but is substantively biased or borderline confessional
Religious or ideological instruction in a significant number of schools is of a coercive fundamentalist or extremist variety

This condition highlights countries where schools subject children to fundamentalist religious instruction with no real opportunity to question fundamentalist tenets, or where lessons routinely encourage hatred (for example religious or ethnic hatred). The wording “significant number of schools” is not given a rigid quantification (sometimes the worst-offending schools are unregistered, illegal, or otherwise uncounted); however the condition is not applied in cases where only a small number of schools meet the description and may be anomalous, as opposed to being indicative of a widespread problem.

Countries: Bangladesh, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia

State legislation is largely or entirely derived from religious law or by religious authorities
Anomalous discrimination by local or provincial authorities, or overseas territories
Religious or ideological instruction is mandatory in at least some public schools (without secular or humanist alternatives)
‘Blasphemy’ or criticism of religion is outlawed and punishable by death
Government figures or state agencies openly marginalize, harass, or incite hatred or violence against the non-religious
Government authorities push a socially conservative, religiously or ideologically inspired agenda, without regard to the rights of those with progressive views
It is illegal to advocate secularism or church-state separation, or such advocacy is suppressed
Prohibitive interreligious social control (including interreligious marriage bans)
Quasi-divine veneration of a ruling elite is enforced, or a single-party regime holds uncontested power, subject to severe punishment
Legal or constitutional provisions exclude non-religious views from freedom of belief
It is illegal to register an explicitly Humanist, atheist, secularist or other non-religious NGO or other human rights organization, or such groups are persecuted by authorities
There is a religious tax or tithing which is compulsory, or which is state-administered and discriminates by precluding non-religious groups
The non-religious are barred from holding government office
Some concerns about children's right to specifically religious freedom

This condition may apply if specifically religious education, religious materials, or specific religious denominations are so tightly controlled that children are in fact over-protected from exposure to religion and are likely unable to explore or construct their own worldview in accordance with their evolving capacities. This condition helps us to classify states (perhaps with secular constitutions) which have criminalized specifically religious beliefs or practices. This condition is not applied if the restricted beliefs or practices are found to be outlawed due to their being of an extremist variety. While this condition does not directly reflect discrimination against non-religious persons or non-religious ideas, it does represent an overall threat to freedom of thought, conscience, religion or belief; such restrictions could spill over to affect non-religious beliefs later; and they pose a risk of backlash against over-zealous secular authorities or even against non-religious individuals by association.

Countries: China, Congo, Democratic Republic of, Cuba, Equatorial Guinea, Ethiopia, Guinea, Guyana, Italy, Kazakhstan, Laos, Madagascar, Mexico, North Macedonia, Romania, Serbia, Tajikistan, Togo, Turkmenistan, Uzbekistan, Zimbabwe

It is illegal or unrecognised to identify as an atheist or as non-religious
It is made difficult to register or operate an explicitly Humanist, atheist, secularist or other non-religious NGO or other human rights organization
Legend
 
Severe Discrimination
Systemic Discrimination
Mostly Satisfactory
More information about rating table

Constitution and government

The Constitution includes provisions for freedom of speech, assembly and association. Freedom of religion is protected: “Every person has the right to profess and practise his religion and to propagate it.”[ref]https://sso.agc.gov.sg/Act/CONS1963[/ref] (Art. 15, Constitution) Parliament can restrict these freedoms in the event of concerns about national security, public order or morality.

While there is no state religion, the Constitution also does not explicitly express the doctrine of secularism. The Constitution claims to adopt an “accommodative secularism” approach. The government has been known to the ban activities of some religious groups, whose beliefs have been deemed as having the potential to threaten public order.[ref]https://www.upi.com/Archives/1996/01/18/Singapore-3-religious-groups-banned/1762821941200/[/ref]

Despite the constitutional claim to provisions for freedom of association and assemblies, associations with 10 or more persons, including religious groups, are required to register with the Ministry of Home Affairs, under the Registry of Societies.[ref]https://www.ifaq.gov.sg/mha/apps/fcd_faqmain.aspx?qst=hRhkP9BzcBImsx2TBbssMsxu7lqt6UJK70a1wAEVmyew5CDFpjTO1wQskwGvpowYiTLD930%2BRUQ0ErEdNp0%2FXwAXQItVMS%2BuBkSqvoelWSOrhRC3to2kczFzQ%2BmhsTnYHUmRtP1Ge5pV6zSU4h4EVw%3D%3D#FAQ_4457[/ref] A restraining order can be issued against any person in a position of authority within a religious group or institution if the Minister of Home Affairs ascertains the person causes feelings of enmity or hostility between different religious groups, promotes political causes, carries out subversive activities, or excites disaffection against the government under the guise of practising religion under the Maintenance of Religious Harmony Act.[ref]https://sso.agc.gov.sg/Act/MRHA1990[/ref]

According to New Humanist, the non-religious do not have specific protection:

“Neither is there any legal bar against offending those who are not religious or are sceptical of religious claims, or indeed against proselytising or imposing one’s religious views on the non-religious. Non-believers seem to be fair game for religious proselytisation, as well as ridicule and abuse.”[ref]newhumanist.org.uk/articles/4104/secularism-in-singapore[/ref]

Judicial independence in Singapore is protected by the Constitution, however, the government’s overwhelming success in court cases raises questions about judicial independence, particularly because lawsuits against voices of dissent, opposition politicians and parties often drive them into bankruptcy. It is unclear whether the government pressures judges or simply appoints those who share its conservative philosophy.[ref]206.155.102.64/country,,,,SGP,,53b2b8aa8,0.htm[/ref]

Education and children’s rights

The government does not permit religious instruction in public schools, although it is allowed in the country’s 57 government-aided, religiously affiliated schools. Religious instruction is provided outside of regular curriculum time; students have a right to opt out and be given alternatives.[ref]206.155.102.64/country,,,,SGP,,53d9071714,0.html[/ref]

Family, community and society

Belief demographics

The census of 2015 recorded 18.5% of Singapore residents as non-religious.[ref]https://www.singstat.gov.sg/-/media/files/visualising_data/infographics/ghs/highlights-of-ghs2015.pdf[/ref] The organization “Humanist Society (Singapore)” (a member organization of Humanists International) is well established.

“Over the years, the government and sociologists have noticed a slow, subtle rise in the level of irreligiosity among Singaporeans, but they did not take much notice of it. Academic literature and government speeches suggest a deeper concern over inter-religious relations, the danger of extremism and State-religion relations.”[ref]humanist.org.sg/about/our-history/[/ref]

Buddhism, Taoism, Islam, Christianity and Hinduism are Singapore’s principal religions. Singapore is the most religiously diverse country in the world, according to a study by the Pew Research Center.[ref]pewforum.org/2014/04/04/global-religious-diversity/[/ref]

Family law

Under the Administration of Muslim Law Act, Muslims have the option to have their family affairs governed by Islamic law, “as varied where applicable by Malay custom.” Under the law, a sharia (Islamic law) court has non-exclusive jurisdiction over the marital affairs of Muslims, including maintenance payments, disposition of property upon divorce, and custody of minor children.

LGBTQ+ Rights

A Singapore Supreme Court ruling on 30 March 2020 dismissed appeals to overturn a law that criminalises same-sex relations between consenting adult men, upholding the colonial-era anti-gay laws, a major setback for equal rights in Singapore.[ref]https://www.supremecourt.gov.sg/news/case-summaries/ong-ming-johnson-v-attorney-general-and-other-matters-2020-sghc-63[/ref]

Freedom of expression, advocacy of humanist values

Singapore’s media environment is highly controlled. Self-censorship among journalists is common, there are curbs on online content, and private ownership of satellite dishes is not allowed. The government may prohibit the importation of undesirable publications.

In October 2019, the government implemented the Protection from Online Falsehoods and Manipulation Act (POFMA),[ref]https://sso.agc.gov.sg/Act/POFMA2019?TransactionDate=20191001235959[/ref] a law claiming to combat online misinformation that threaten public interests. The law prohibits – both within Singapore and abroad – from knowingly using the internet to communicate to individuals in Singapore any “false statement” that is likely to influence elections, diminish confidence in the government, “incite feelings of enmity, hatred or ill-will”, or be “prejudicial to” Singapore’s security or foreign relations, public health, public safety, public tranquillity or public finances. Under POFMA, information that is identified as “false” must be corrected following official advice. The law has been criticised for its many vague and overly broad provisions that could be used to restrict a wide range of speech protected by international human rights law.[ref]https://www.article19.org/resources/singapore-new-law-on-online-falsehoods-a-grave-threat-to-freedom-of-expression/[/ref]

The government maintains that racial sensitivities and the threat of Islamist terrorism justify draconian restrictions on freedoms of speech, but such rules have been used to silence criticism of the authorities.

‘Blasphemy’ law

Chapter XV of the Singaporean Penal Code relates to “offences relating to religion”. The main ‘blasphemy’ law is Article 298.[ref]https://www.icj.org/wp-content/uploads/1972/09/Singapore-Penal-Code-1872-2011-eng.pdf[/ref]

Article 298 states:

“Whoever, with deliberate intention of wounding the religious feelings of any person, utters any word or makes any sound in the hearing of that person, or makes any gesture in the sight of that person, or places any object in the sight of that person, shall be punished with imprisonment for a term which may extend to one year, or with fine, or with both.”

The chapter relating to religious offenses also includes paragraphs criminalizing defiling a place of worship, disturbing a religious assembly, and trespassing on burial places and places for worship with the intent to insult the religion of others each punishable by a prison term, fine or both.

In October 2019, the Parliament approved amendments to the Maintenance of Religious Harmony Act (1990) to overcome challenges presented by the internet and social media, and alleged foreign interference in Singapore. It is reported that the amended act will prohibit insulting religion, wounding the religious feelings of others or inciting hostility, ill-will or hatred between local religious groups.[ref]https://sg.news.yahoo.com/amendments-to-singapores-religious-harmony-law-approved-by-parliament-131819535.html[/ref] The punishment for the offense is up to five years imprisonment, a fine, or both and will cover offenses committed overseas as well as in Singapore. The amendments to the Maintenance of Religious Harmony Act (1990) will revoke articles relating to religious offenses enshrined in the Penal Code.

Reports indicate that the amendments would make it easier to prosecute religious leaders, as they are in a position to influence and mobilize followers, and it is believed that they, therefore, should be held to a higher standard.[ref]https://www.uscirf.gov/sites/default/files/USCIRF%202020%20Annual%20Report_Final_42920.pdf[/ref]

Moreover, the Undesirable Publications Act,[ref]https://sso.agc.gov.sg/Act/UPA1967[/ref] seeking to prevent the “importation, distribution or reproduction of undesirable publications”, can be used to further limit freedom of expression in the name of religion. Article 4 states that a publication is objectionable if it depicts religion in a manner that can cause “enmity, hatred, ill-will or hostility” between religious groups. Any person who makes, reproduces, imports or sells publications deemed objectionable under the Undesirable Publications Act can be liable to a fine up to $5,000 (approximately $3,670 USD), a prison term up to twelve months, or both.

Freedom of Assembly

Public assemblies and processions, including religious ones, are regulated by the Public Order Act. The legislation stipulates that prior to any assemblies and processions in public places, comprising two or more persons or where members of the public are invited, organisers are required to apply for a permit, giving notice about the intended event. The Act is enforced by the Singapore Police Force and failure to comply may result in criminal charges.[ref]https://sso.agc.gov.sg/Act/POA2009[/ref]