H. E. Heng Chee Chan
Ambassador
Embassy of the Republic of Singapore
3501 International Place, NW
Washington, DC 20008
April 20, 2002
Your Excellency:
Recent world events have made it extremely important that
governments with minority Muslim populations insure the
safety, well-being and constitutional rights of these minorities.
In particular, the freedom to exercise one’s religion
is a fundamental constitutional right that must be protected
in these difficult times. The recent prohibition of the
wearing of the Islamic headscarf, or tudung, as imposed
upon female students by the government of Singapore, violates
this right. It also threatens the right of the Muslim minority
in Singapore to equal access to education, and damages community
relations.
In the past, similar restrictions on religious dress by
the governments of France and Turkey resulted in massive
setbacks in the education of many citizens. Since Muslim
women often place priority on their religious requirements,
these restrictions effectively prohibited them from attending
educational institutions. Furthermore, these bans have increased
tension along religious lines and have created conflict
between the people and their governments. With this in mind,
it is ironic that Singapore’s government describes
its ban on the headscarf as a means of encouraging racial
and religious integration, as it will surely have the opposite
effect on society.
Racial and religious integration cannot be properly achieved
at the expense of the constitutional freedoms of minorities.
Attempts that are insensitive to such minority are neither
democratic, nor constitutional. They hail back to an age
of hegemony, where it was important to homogenize a diverse
population by imposing on it the views of a more powerful
(or majority) group. These days have ended with the death
of colonialism, and the rise of constitutional democracies.
Despite recent setbacks, we continue to live today in an
age that celebrates diversity and respects difference. The
intolerant decision of the Singapore government is thus
not only unconstitutional but, furthermore, its historical
and civilizational premises are obsolete.
More specifically, there has been no evidence whatsoever
proving that the wearing of the Islamic headscarf will impede
national unity, as has been alleged. Rather, it is a very
visible expression of religious belief that will inculcate
familiarity and toleration of cultural and religious differences
among children from a young age. This is more likely to
foster, rather than disrupt, social harmony.
The actions by your government have received much criticism
from neighboring countries with majority Muslim populations,
as well as Muslim and human rights organizations throughout
the world. The perpetuation of such repressive policies
will surely damage Singapore’s credibility in the
eyes of its neighbors and other Muslim nations. It will
also raise Muslim citizens’ fears regarding their
other liberties associated with the practice of their religion.
In a country where racial and religious differences continue
to be issues of concern, the current restrictions can only
promote greater prejudice based on these differences.
Singapore’s Prime Minister has based his defense
of the government’s regulation of the Islamic headscarf
on his consultation with experts on Islam, pointing out
that pre-pubescent Muslim girls are not required to dress
in a manner that covers their entire bodies and heads. However,
many girls reach puberty during their primary school years
and, thus, consider themselves no longer excused from this
requirement. More importantly, it is the parents’
right to educate their children about their religion and
to raise them in such a manner that they will understand
and practice their religion upon reaching maturity. The
prohibition of the wearing of the Islamic headscarf is an
infringement on these fundamental rights.
Furthermore, under Islamic law, Muslim parents have a religious
duty to educate their children. This duty is based on the
Qur’anic exhortation of knowledge and the Prophetic
hadith (statement) that seeking knowledge is the duty of
every Muslim, whether male or female. By prohibiting Muslim
girls from wearing the tudung, your government has not only
effectively denied the girls equal access to your educational
system, but also eliminated the parents’ ability to
fulfill all their religious duties at the same time, and
hence abridged their constitutional freedom of exercise.
Given that there is no overriding state interest to justify
such prohibition, the prohibition appears arbitrary and
harmful to the Muslim minority as well as violative of their
constitutional rights.
It is unfortunate that the mufti of Singapore was placed
in the difficult position of having to issue an opinion,
or fatwa, to his community based on the Islamic juristic
principle of choosing the lesser of two evils. The two evils
he had to choose between are: abandoning the Islamic duty
of educating Muslim girls vs. abandoning the girls’
religious practice of wearing a tudung. He rightly opted
for education. Given this state of affairs, the government’s
capitalization on this fatwa to justify its discriminatory
practices is reprehensible. For, both religious freedom
and acquiring an education are the people’s fundamental
rights.
Both the individual’s freedom of religion and right
to education are clearly protected in many international
documents. Adopted in 1966, the International Covenant on
Civil and Political Rights (CCPR) clearly states:
"Everyone shall have the right to freedom of thought,
conscience and religion. This right shall include freedom
to have or adopt a religion or belief of his choice, and
freedom, either individually or in community with others
and in public or private, to manifest his religion or belief
in worship, observance, practice and teaching".
This article also states, “No one shall be subject
to coercion which would impair his freedom to have or to
adopt a religion or belief of his choice.” Furthermore,
The State Parties to the present Covenant undertake to have
respect for the liberty of parents and, when applicable,
legal guardians to ensure the religious and moral education
of their children in conformity with their own convictions.
(CCPR, Article 18)
The Convention on the Rights of the Child (CRC), adopted
in 1989 and ratified by Singapore in 1995, clearly states,
“States Parties shall respect the right of the child
to freedom of thought, conscience and religion” and
“shall respect the rights and duties of the parents
… to provide direction to the child in the exercise
of his or her right in a manner consistent with the evolving
capacities of the child.” (CRC, Article 14) It also
recognizes the child’s right to education, stating
in Article 27 that this right is to be achieved “progressively
and on the basis of equal opportunity,” with primary
education “compulsory and available free to all.”
Furthermore, Article 29 calls for this education to prepare
the child for “responsible life in a free society,
in the spirit of understanding, peace, tolerance, equality
of sexes, and friendship among all peoples, ethnic, national
and religious groups and persons of indigenous origin.”
Finally, Article 30 of this Convention declares:
"In those States in which ethnic, religious or linguistic
minorities or persons of indigenous origin exist, a child
belonging to such a minority or who is indigenous shall
not be denied the right, in community with other members
of his or her group, to enjoy his or her own culture, to
profess and practice his or her own religion, or to use
his or her own language."
The Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination
against Women of 1979 (CEDAW), also ratified by Singapore
in 1995, notes the “economic, social, cultural, and
political rights” proclaimed by the Universal Declaration
of Human Rights. This includes the Universal Declaration’s
Article 18, which states, “Everyone has the right
to freedom of thought, conscience and religion; this right
includes freedom…in public or private, to manifest
his religion or belief in teaching, practice, worship and
observance,” and Article 26, which addresses everyone’s
right to education. CEDAW goes on to emphasize that, “States
Parties shall take all appropriate measures to eliminate
discrimination against women in order to ensure to them
equal rights with men in the field of education” (CEDAW,
Article 10).
As an organization supporting Muslim women in the United
States of America and the world, we at Karamah feel that
the ban by the government of Singapore on the tudung symbolizes
a new attitude of hostility towards religious diversity.
It also constitutes a dangerous step towards a policy of
internal political hegemony that does not shy away from
infringing upon fundamental minority rights.
The tudung ban clearly violates the civil rights of Singapore
citizens and the democratic values of the nation. With its
beautiful combination of various races, cultures, and religions,
Singapore is in an ideal position to promote tolerance and
respect between peoples. It is the view of Karamah, however,
that any suppression of peoples’ religious beliefs
will not only prevent this development of tolerance and
respect, but will also lead to greater conflict that will
ultimately serve to undermine the democratic principles
upon which the Republic of Singapore is based.
Sincerely,
Azizah Y. al-Hibri, J.D., Ph.D.
Executive Director
KARAMAH: Muslim Women Lawyers for Human Rights
