I recently encountered the statement, ‘The PAP dictates who teaches Islam, how, and where,’ attributed to a former ISA detainee now residing in Australia. The remark appears within the context of his broader dissatisfaction with the PAP government.
In my views, Religion does not exist in a vacuum. When left entirely unregulated, religious authority can become fragmented, politicised, or coercive, with real consequences for social cohesion. Some form of oversight is therefore not about controlling belief, but about managing impact.”
Recently, I participated in a closed-door dialogue organised by Wild Rice and facilitated by Imran from the Dialogue Centre. One participant commented that ARS felt irrelevant, and several others nodded. This made me wonder: Do people fully understand why ARS exists?
As a Malay who is not Muslim but who grew up in a religious environment, I actually see the rationale very clearly. I remember Lee Kuan Yew once said that to counter extremism, we must start with the teachers. Growing up, I underwent all the religious obligations expected of a Malay-Muslim girl.
One thing that stayed with me was how some religious teachers spent a significant amount of time condemning non-believers. This form of teaching does not build spiritual depth it builds fear, suspicion, and division. And this is not a Singapore-specific problem.
In the UK, undercover investigations into several mosques and madrasahs revealed teachings that were openly hostile to secularism, democracy, and multiculturalism. These issues arose not because the state intervened too much, but because it intervened too late.
This is what ARS seeks to prevent. ARS ensures that Islamic educators in Singapore do not promote teachings that fracture society or undermine coexistence. It is a safeguard, not a restriction.
If figures like Noor Deros were deregistered under the Asatizah Recognition Scheme (ARS), this should be understood in terms of safeguarding social harmony rather than political interference. Regulatory frameworks such as ARS are not about controlling belief, but about managing the social impact of religious teachings. Abolishing such mechanisms risks empowering unchecked religious authority, which history has repeatedly shown can do more harm than good.
Beyond this, I strongly support the formation of the Islamic College of Singapore (ICS), which recently signed an MOU with SUSS. This is an excellent development. ICS provides a local, academically rigorous pathway for Islamic higher education.
Singapore's madrasah students now have the option of pursuing Islamic studies locally without needing to study in countries where values around secularism, pluralism, and interfaith coexistence differ sharply from Singapore’s social model. And this leads me to a broader reflection.
More than ten years ago, I read an article by Sayyid Ḥusayn al-ʿAṭṭās that has stayed with me. He observed that Singapore’s approach to Islamic discourse tended to be cautious that Singapore would watch how Malaysia or Indonesia responded to certain issues before taking its own position. This caution was rooted in the sensitivities of being a Muslim minority state surrounded by larger Muslim-majority neighbours.
But in my view, that era has passed. Singapore no longer needs to follow Malaysia or Indonesia. In fact, Singapore is now uniquely positioned to lead Islamic discourse in the region not by imposing anything, but by demonstrating a model where Islam thrives without coercion, politicisation, or moral policing.
Singapore has quietly achieved what many Muslim thinkers argue for:[a] an Islam that coexists confidently with secular governance,
[b] a Muslim community that practises freely without fear,
[c] institutions that uphold academic rigour and ethical teaching,
[d] religious diversity handled with maturity,
[e] and freedom of conscience that includes the right to remain, question, or leave. This is rare in the Muslim world. It is something worth protecting and perhaps even something worth sharing. With the establishment of ICS, this potential becomes even more exciting.
If ICS matures academically and remains rooted in Singapore’s values of inclusivity and critical inquiry, it could one day become a leading centre of Islamic learning in Southeast Asia perhaps even the Al-Azhar of the region. I say this half in jest, but also with genuine conviction.
Singapore has the stability, intellectual environment, and interfaith culture necessary to nurture such an institution. In light of all this, the claim that the PAP “dictates who teaches Islam, how and where” fails to reflect reality.
Singapore is not suppressing Islam. Singapore is cultivating a healthy, confident, and well-guided Muslim community one that is fully capable of contributing to regional Islamic scholarship in its own right.
November 2025
