ABSTRACT
Southeast Asian countries have, since independence, grappled with the issue of religious management. Many of them, especially in the Malay Archipelago, have attempted to bureaucratize Islam specifically, as they attempt to keep religion in check and/or harness it for political and nation-building purposes. This paper investigates how the state in Singapore has drawn the boundaries for Islam’s involvement in public affairs via this bureaucratisation. The attempt by the state to be the ultimate arbiter in Islamic affairs is primarily successful, though it is not without contestations. Due to the constricting nature of the political system, Muslim actors have largely tried to maximise their influence within the confines of what the state deems permissible either by not confronting the state directly or by overtly cooperating with it in some instances. Dissent towards the state-sanctioned version of Islam may arise in pockets, especially on social media, but it is limited both in scope and participation.
Disclosure statement
No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author.
Notes
1. Indeed, from the author’s personal observations attending sermons and classes in mosques, religious teachers today are far less willing to engage in ‘political’ issues such as the Palestinian conflict, American Foreign Policy, inter alia, as compared to a few years ago.
2. This is not to say that only liberals are involved in interfaith activism. The point made here is that liberal activists have chosen to pursue some causes over others, because of political realities.
3. The terms ‘liberals’ and ‘conservatives’ are undoubtedly contentious, and are not easily defined. As they are used in this paper, ‘liberals’ refer to Muslims who are more comfortable with challenging established norms and traditions held by the community, whereas ‘conservatives’ are those who prefer to uphold those norms.