Debate over leaders’ personal religious beliefs and public duties

Should political leaders and senior civil servants keep their personal religious beliefs separate from their public roles?

That was a question raised by Mr Perry Tan in a letter to the press on 9 October.  (See here: “Leaders should continue religion-neutral politics”.)

In his letter, Mr Tan referred to Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong’s “Rules of Prudence” reminder which the latter had sent to Members of Parliament (MP) from his party after the party’s emphatic victory in the September general election.

PM Lee stressed to the MPs the importance of humility, integrity, the separation of business and politics, and financial prudence.

Mr Tan applauded PM Lee’s reminder but observed that “surprisingly, there was no mention of separation between religion and politics.”

“As an open, cosmopolitan city with an ethnically and religiously diverse populace, Singapore is especially susceptible to the combustible concoction of religion and politics,” Mr Tan wrote in his letter to the TODAY newspaper.

He added:

“It would be prudent for political leaders and senior civil service officers to be reminded of secularism as one of Singapore’s core governance principles. If they subscribe to any faiths, it is especially crucial to draw a line between their personal beliefs and professional work, so that policymaking and politics do not become hostage to religious polarisation.”

Referring to examples around the world where he said the mixture of religion and politics has led to strife among peoples of the countries involved, Mr Tan said “an unequivocal reminder to separate religion from politics would do much to reinforce public trust in the religious neutrality of Government, and buffer Singapore from the perils of religious polarisation.”

Mr Tan said that “a multi-religious society with politicians who are too public about their faiths may even encourage electoral behaviour where voters support candidates whose faiths are aligned to theirs, resulting in divisive politics.”

However, Mr Darius Lee, who also wrote to the TODAY newspaper the next day, on 10 October, disagreed with Mr Tan’s views. (See here: “Politicians entitled to live consistently with their beliefs.”

“While a political representative has a duty to prefer the interests of the electorate over his own, he ought not to sacrifice his conscience to his constituents,” Mr Lee said.

Mr Lee was of the view that “like everyone else, public officials are entitled to live with integrity, and to practise and propagate in public what they profess in private.”

“This remains subject to public order, public health or morality in accordance with Article 15 of the Constitution,” Mr Lee said. “They should be permitted to peacefully abstain or object if they are unable to discharge their duties in good conscience.”

Mr Lee added that while he shared Mr Tan’s view “that we live in a world torn by religious tensions and extremism”, he believes that “the real issue is the fundamentals of one’s beliefs.”

“The more people believe in the ideology of terrorist group Islamic State, which promotes the murder, rape and torture of innocent people, the darker the world will become,” Mr Lee explained. “But the more people commit to the principles of truth, justice and mercy, the brighter the light will shine.”

Mr Tan’s response to Mr Lee’s letter was sent to the TODAY newspaper but it has not been published.

In that letter, Mr Tan said Mr Lee’s position on the matter – that political leaders or civil service officers should practice and propagate their religious beliefs in public as they would in private – “is highly problematic, especially in a religiously diverse polity like Singapore.”

Mr Tan pointed to the make-up of the different religious groups in Singapore.

“With such an extent of diversity, politicians who propagate their religious beliefs in public not only risk alienating citizens who do not share the same faith, they would inevitably be sowing the seeds of divisive politics.”

He also said that “it is erroneous to think of a political leader as lacking in integrity if he does not act in accordance to his personal religious beliefs when discharging his public duties, because his foremost responsibility is to the secular state and his entire electorate, and not his religious constituent.”

“It takes a high level of self-awareness, maturity and professionalism to be able to differentiate between personal religious beliefs and public duty and to separate the two,” Mr Tan said. “This separation is possible and many of our public sector leaders, past and present, have done it.”

He added:

“While it is true religion can be a positive force in society, it can similarly bring about much mischief if mixed with politics. If a person confuses Parliament with the pulpit, then it would be better for him to retreat from public service, because the seeds of religious polarization once sown, are notoriously hard to uproot.”

Here is Mr Tan’s response to Mr Lee in full, which has not been published by TODAY:

Responsible to separate personal faith from public duties

I refer to “Politicians entitled to live consistently with their beliefs” (Oct 10).

The writer suggests that political leaders or civil service officers should practice and propagate their religious beliefs in public as they would in private. This position is highly problematic, especially in a religiously diverse polity like Singapore.

First, it is useful for us to be reminded empirically of Singapore’s religious diversity. The 2010 census showed that Singapore’s religious breakdown is as follows: 33% Buddhism; 18% Christianity; 11% Taoism; 15% Islam; 5% Hinduism; 0.7% Others and 17% No Religion.

With such an extent of diversity, politicians who propagate their religious beliefs in public not only risk alienating citizens who do not share the same faith, they would inevitably be sowing the seeds of divisive politics.

When one champions for a politician who shares the same faith to have the liberty to propagate the faith in public office, one has to consider if he would feel disenfranchised when another politician of a different faith does likewise.

It is erroneous to think of a political leader as lacking in integrity if he does not act in accordance to his personal religious beliefs when discharging his public duties, because his foremost responsibility is to the secular state and his entire electorate, and not his religious constituent. It takes a high level of self-awareness, maturity and professionalism to be able to differentiate between personal religious beliefs and public duty and to separate the two. This separation is possible and many of our public sector leaders, past and present, have done it.

There is no lack of examples of socio-political strife, tragedy and wars when religion and politics are thrown into a blender. In Myanmar, a Buddhist-Muslim conflict has resulted in riots, religious persecution and deaths. In the US, Right Wing Christianity has resulted in political impasses on issues such as abortion, birth control, sex education, same-sex marriage, etc – on occasion, these standoffs escalate into unfortunate incidents like firebombing of abortion clinics and hate crimes towards persons of alternative sexualities. In India, the politicization of Hinduism has led to political polarization along religious lines and occasional violence. The horrors of the Islamic State is well known and needs no elaboration.

History reminds us that the Crusades during the Middle Ages brought centuries of death and destruction to the Christians and Muslims, with some of the historical baggage still evident today. Europe learnt a terrible lesson and wisely separated the Church and the State since.

While it is true religion can be a positive force in society, it can similarly bring about much mischief if mixed with politics. If a person confuses Parliament with the pulpit, then it would be better for him to retreat from public service, because the seeds of religious polarization once sown, are notoriously hard to uproot.