We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 16 April 2015
Prevailing discourse on multiculturalismi tend to focus on its merits in protecting the cultures and traditions of minority groups within the framework of the politics of accommodation. Less discussed are its implications on the rights and autonomy of members of the groups themselves who may be adversely affected by the arrangement. This paper attempts to fill the lacunae. It focuses on the problems arising from autonomy granted to the Muslim community of Singapore to determine its personal law, on some segments of the community. Unlike the rest of the citizens of Singapore, the Muslims are bound by their personal law in the domain of the family which they cannot relinquish as long as they remain Muslims. The system which began during the period of British colonial administration has remained ever since. Differences in the mechanisms as well as the orientation of social agencies in determining the Muslim law from those affecting the nonMuslims, invite unwarranted implications on the rights of Muslims, specifically. The problem is reinforced by the strong tendency of state actors to over-rely on dominant groups within the Muslim community in determining matters of Muslim law at the expense of competing ideas and orientation. The absence of choice of law for Muslims poses a predicament to those who do not wish to renounce their religion but maintain differences in perceptions of the Muslim law. This paper analyzes these problems in the arena of the Muslim law on marriage, divorce and inheritance. It also highlights how the arrangement has, in some instances, resulted in the exclusion of Muslims as a whole from the purview of specific national laws and influence policies affecting them against the preferences of the group's members. These issues have generally received scant attention, if at all, eclipsed perhaps by the greater focus on the merits of multiculturalism in protecting minority rights. Some plausible ways, in which the unwitting implications of legal pluralism on the members of the Muslim community can be addressed, taking into consideration both their right as members of the group as well as citizens of the state, are also discussed.
1 Shachar, Ayelet, Multicultural Jurisdictions: Cultural Differences and Women's Rights (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2001) at 1 CrossRefGoogle Scholar.
2 Ibid.
3 Administration of Muslim Law Act (Cap. 3, 2009 Rev. Ed. Sing.).
4 For a discussion on the background of the AMLA, refer to Singapore Parliamentary Debates, Official Report (13 December 1965) vol. 24 at cols. 1—42Google Scholar, Singapore Parliamentary Debates, Official Report (30 December 1965) vol. 24 at cols. 770-773Google Scholar, Singapore Parliamentary Debates, Official Report (17 August 1966) vol. 25 at cols. 237-247Google Scholar.
5 On the dynamics of Islamisation in Southeast Asia and its socio-cultural impact, read Majul, Cesar Adib, “Theories on the Introduction and Expansion of Islam in Malaysia” (1964) XI (4) Silliman Journal 335–397 Google Scholar.
6 Cammack, Mark, Young, Lawrence A. & Heaton, Tim, “Legislating Social Change in an Islamic Society” in Lindsey, Tim, ed., Indonesia Law and Society (N.S.W.: The Federation Press, 2008) at 292 Google Scholar.
7 As Sir Benson Maxwell explicated: “The laws of England wherever administered, respect the religions and customs of strange sects and nations to the extent to which the Charter requires that they shall be respected. If a Mohammedan marriage celebrated according to the religious ceremonies of the parties be valid, it is not because the Charter makes it so-for it makes no exception in favor of native contracts of any kind – but because the law of England recognizes it; similarly if a Mohammedan divorce be valid, it must be, not because there is anything in the Charter to make it valid, but because the law of England recognizes the right of a Mohammedan husband to dissolve the marriage contracted by him according to the Mohammedan law with a Mohammedan wife”. Ibrahim, Ahmad Mohamed, The Legal Status of the Muslims in Singapore (Singapore: Malaya Law Journal Ltd., 1965) at 10 Google Scholar.
8 Abdullah, Taufiq & Siddique, Sharon, Islam and Society in Southeast Asia (Singapore: ISEAS, 1986) at 321 Google Scholar.
9 Shachar, Ayelet, “The Thin Line between Imposition and Consent: A Critique of Birthright Membership Regimes and their Implications” in Minow, Martha, Breaking the Cycles of Hatred; Memory, Law and Repair (Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press, 2002) at 201–204 Google Scholar.
10 Mahmood, Tahir, Muslim Personal Law: the Role of the State in the Subcontinent (New Delhi: Vikas Pub House, 1977)Google Scholar.
11 Ibrahim, Ahmad, “The Administration of Muslim Law in South-east Asia” (1971) 13(1) Malaya Law Review 127–128 Google Scholar.
12 Ibrahim, Ahmad, The Legal Status of Muslims in Singapore (Singapore: Malayan Law Journal, 1965) at 12 Google Scholar.
13 For a discussion on this issue, refer to Singapore Parliamentary Debates, Official Report (30 December 1965) vol. 24 at col. 770Google Scholar; Singapore Parliamentary Debates, Official Report (17 August 1966) vol. 25 at cols. 239–247 Google Scholar.
14 Mackeen, Abdul Majeed Mohamed, Contemporary Islamic Legal Organisation in Malaya, Monograph Series, No. 13 (New Haven: Yale University, Southeast Asia Studies, 1969)Google Scholar.
15 The relevant provision recited that “the Government shall exercise its function in such manner as to recognize the special position of the Malays as the indigenous people of the State and accordingly it shall be the responsibility of the Government to protect, safeguard, support, foster and promote their political, educational, religious, economic, social and cultural interests and the Malay language”, see Constitution of the State of Singapore, 1963, Art. 89.
16 Chan, Heng-Chee & Evers, Hans-Dieter, National Identity and Nation Building in Southeast Asia (Singapore: University of Singapore, Dept of Sociology, 1972) at 15 Google Scholar.
17 Ibrahim, Ahmad Mohamed, The Legal Status of the Muslims in Singapore (Singapore: Malayan Law Journal Ltd., 1965) at 13 Google Scholar.
18 Yeger, Moshe, Islam and Islamic Institutions in British Malaya (Jerusalem: Magnes Press, 1979) at 94–184 Google Scholar.
19 The SYC has ceased to issue summons for maintenance of wives and/or children since 1963. See Djamour, Judith, The Muslim Matrimonial Court in Singapore (New York: The Athlone Press, 1966) at 170 Google Scholar.
20 For a discussion on the problems of traditionalism pertaining to Muslim, non-Muslim marriage in Singapore, refer to Rahman, Noor Aisha Abdul, “Muslim-non-Muslim Marriage in Singapore” in Jones, Gavin W., Leng, Chee Heng & Mohamad, Maznah, eds., Muslim-non-Muslim Marriage: Political and Cultural Contestations in Southeast Asia (Singapore: ISEAS, 2009) at 283–317 Google Scholar.
21 Shachar, Ayelet, Multicultural Jurisdictions: Cultural Differences and Women's Rights, supra note 1.
22 See online: <http://www.singstat.gov.sg/pubn/popn/c2010sr1/cop2010sr1.pdf>.
23 For a discussion on the background on the Malay community of Singapore, read Ahmad Ibrahim, The Legal Status of Muslims in Singapore, supra note 11. For some insights into the problems of essentialist understanding of community and culture in discourse on multiculturalism, refer to Roy, Oliver, “The Elusive Cultural Community” in Mortimer, Edward & Fine, Robert, eds., People, Nation and State: the Meaning of Ethnicity and Nationalism (London: I.B. Tuaris Pub, 1999)Google Scholar.
24 For a discussion on the traits of traditionalism, refer to Mannheim, Karl, Conservatism: A Contribution to the Sociology of Knowledge (London: Routledge, 1986)Google Scholar, Towler, Robert, The Need for Certainty: A Sociological Study of Conventional Religion (London: Routledge, 1984)Google Scholar, El Fadl, Khaled Abou, Speaking in God's Name: Islamic Law, Authority and Women (Oxford: One World, 2001)Google Scholar. On the impact of traditionalism on the administration on the Muslim law on divorce in Singapore, refer to Rahman, Noor Aisha Abdul, “Traditionalism and its Impact on the Administration of Justice; the Case of the Syariah Court of Singapore” in (2004) 5(3) Inter-Asia Cultural Studies 415–432 CrossRefGoogle Scholar.
25 For an account of the Muslim law of distribution, refer to Ibrahim, Ahmad, The Distribution of Estates According to Shafie Law (Singapore: Malayan Law Journal, 1976)Google Scholar.
26 For a detailed discussion on the arguments, refer to Singapore Legislative Assembly, Report of the Select Committee on the Muslims Bill (Singapore: A.G. Banfield, Govt. Printer, 1957)Google Scholar.
27 The problem reveals traits of the culturalist approach in understanding Muslims which was discussed in Roy, Oliver, Globalised Islam: In Search of the New Ummah (London: Hurst & Co., 2002) at 3–15 Google Scholar.
28 See for instance the arguments of Goode, W.A.C. Chief Secretary and Marshall, David, in Singapore Legislative Assembly Debates, Official Report (5 November 1956) vol. 2 at cols. 434-454Google Scholar.
29 Singapore Legislative Assembly Debates, Official Report, Muslims Bill (Report from Select Committee) (26 April 1957) vol. 2, at col. 1661Google Scholar.
30 Rahman, Noor Aisha Abdul, “The Muslim Religious Elite of Singapore” in Eng, Lai Ah, ed., Religious Diversity in Singapore (Singapore: IPS, LKY School of Public Policy, ISEAS, 2008) at 252 Google Scholar.
31 Critiques highlighted that apart from reducing the Muslims to being a passive community of receivers of organs and not their donors, it also tarnishes the image of Islam as a religion that fails to cherish essential humanitarian values and modern science beneficial to mankind. The compilation of the debates between MUIS and Alatas was first published in Berita Harian, the Malay daily. It formed the major content of the book by Alatas, Syed Hussein, Biarkan Buta (Singapore: Pustaka Nasional, 1974)Google Scholar.
32 The category of waris deemed lawful, adapted essentially from traditional Muslim law pertaining to marriage and inheritance further illustrates the absence of innovative thinking and contextual understanding of the issue.
33 [2004] 4 SLR(R) 756.
34 Online: <http://www.muis.gov.sg/cms/view.aspx?id=492> (accessed 30 October 2011). Since March 2012, the last condition, i.e., freeing a slave, has been removed from the fatwa.
35 Ibid.
36 [2009] 3 SLR(R) 439.
37 Tamrin, Khairiah Mohamed, “Court Ruling Timely and Praiseworthy” The Straits Times (30 March 2010)Google Scholar.
38 Muslim Religious Council of Singapore, Kumpulan Fatwa (Singapore: MUIS, 1991) at 16 Google Scholar.
39 Online: <http://www.un.org/womenwatch/daw/cedaw/reservarions.htm> (accessed 23 June 2011).
40 Article 2, CEDAW.
41 Brandt, Michele & Kaplan, Jeffrey A., “The Tension between Women's Rights and Religious Rights: Reservations to CEDAW by Egypt, Bangladesh and Tunisia” (1995) 12(1) J.L. & Religion 105–142 at 109-110CrossRefGoogle Scholar.
42 Rahman, Fazlur, “A Survey of Modernization of Muslim Family Law” (1980) 11(4) International Journal of Middle Eastern Studies 451–465 CrossRefGoogle Scholar, Anderson, Norman, Law Reform in the Muslim World (London: Athlone Press, 1976)Google Scholar and Mahmood, Tahir, Family Law Reform in the Muslim World (Bombay: N.M. Tripathi, 1972)Google Scholar are among many scholars who discussed the substantive reforms in the Muslim personal law that occurred during this period of legal development.
43 For some insights into this problem, read Mayers' argument, online: <http://www.nuigalway.ie/human_rights/reframing_Islam/Docs/Papers/mayer.pdfp.3> (accessed 1 June 2012).
44 Djamour, Judith, The Muslim Matrimonial Court in Singapore (New York: The Athlone Press, 1966) at 176 Google Scholar.
45 Mahmood, Tahir, Muslim Personal Law: the Role of the State in the Subcontinent, supra note 9 at 158.
46 Fyzee, Asaf, “The Muslim Wife's Right of dissolving her Marriage” (1936) XXXVIII (21) The Bombay Law Reporter Journal 113 at 123 Google Scholar.
47 Ahmad Ibrahim, The Legal Status of Muslims in Singapore (Singapore: Malayan Law Journal, 1965), supra note 11 at 64.
48 An-Naim, Abdullah A., “Shariah and Basic Human Rights” in Kurzman, Charles, ed., Liberal Islam: A Sourcebook (New York: Oxford University Press, 1998)Google Scholar; El Fadl, Khaled Abou, Speaking in God's Name: Islamic Law, Authority and Women, supra note 23; EngineerAsghar, Ali, The Quran, Women and Modern Society (New Delhi: Sterling Publishers, 1999)Google Scholar, Fyzee, Asaf, A Modern Approach to Islam (Bombay: Asia Publishing House, 1963)Google Scholar and Mahmood, Tahir, Family Law Reform in the Muslim World (Bombay: N.M. Tripathi, 1972) are useful contributions in this directionGoogle Scholar.
