Even today, religious influence on public policy is a highly contentious topic. Most recently, this was highlighted in the petition that sparked the Watain debacle, a clear case of civil activism that was founded upon religious beliefs.

Many Christians—even those who agreed that Watain was dangerous, harmful, offensive, and ban-worthy—were uncomfortable with the conspicuousness of the religious activism and subsequent cancellation of the concert. They would have preferred that the concert be allowed to go on, sparing their personal faith from involvement and interrogation in the ensuing public fracas.

In this way, religion’s role in the civic arena is still shaped by the public shaming that some of its adherents (The Nine) received a decade ago by taking over a non-religious organisation. However, as proven by the Watain petition, the proliferation of internet access has added a new cyber-dimension to the public domain; a dimension where loud, active voices echo further than in the traditional media of yore.

In this new era, one does not have to take over AWARE to make the news. A computer, keyboard, and change.org account are all they need.

Ultimately, however, the end result of this activism/action/inaction/inadequate action is decided by the largest stakeholder in Singapore society: the government. Like a supermassive black hole, the centralised government leaves an impression so large in the social fabric of Singapore that every individual, religious and secular group is sucked into the whorling orbit.

In the wake of the AWARE saga, Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong made the following comments at 2009’s National Day rally, explaining the government’s choice to intervene in the events that took place (sentences were selected from a longer speech):

“We hold the ring so that all groups can practice their faith freely without colliding … [Our common space] has to be neutral and secular because that’s the only way all of us can feel at home in Singapore … [The saga] risked a broader spillover into relations between different religions.”

These comments elucidate the three principles that govern the government (cough cough) on matters of religious sensitivity.

Firstly, the government is always in charge; the ‘We’ at the start of our national pledge does not mean ‘we, the people of Singapore’, but ‘we, the government elected by the people of Singapore’. The government’s role is to be the ultimate arbiter of the public sphere, no questions asked.

Secondly, the government’s intervention is always secular, not religious. Often, however, this manifests in the protection of non-secular religious considerations; this is because the government has a secular desire to maintain public order by not allowing religious groups to get too worked up over religious considerations, so it tacitly accedes to these beliefs.

Thirdly, and perhaps most importantly, the government only chooses to intervene when any given conflict becomes a clash between different religions. This indicates that the government does not see a need to intervene on behalf of secular groups. In the case of the AWARE saga, perhaps the government feared that it was generating anti-Christian sentiment, and a possible resurgence of that sentiment amongst other religious groups, therefore decided to step in.