A brief note on Article 15(2)

Recently I been looking at Article 15(2) of the Consitution and wondered what it is all about. A word of warning, my intepretation here is largely based on a literal reading of Article 15(2). My conclusion from reading Article 15(2) is that the use of public reason in determining public policy is very important. Here it goes:

Article 15(2) in essence prevents state taxation for the purposes of a religion that one does not subscribe to. (See possible exceptions in footnotes)

(2) No person shall be compelled to pay any tax the proceeds of which are specially allocated in whole or in part for the purposes of a religion other than his own.

This means there is no compulsion of others for the purposes of a religion by way of financial penalties in Singapore. The state cannot compel a member of one religion to support financially the religion of another person. This is a very important protection of the individual and is a secular guard against the tyranny of having to financially support someone's else beliefs, or for that matter, anyone's belief at all.

One might ask, if religion sucessfully determines (say wholly) a particular public policy, can I object and not pay taxes based on Article 15(2)? As an illustration, say Religion Pasta has successfully petitioned to Parliament based on their own religious rules that all children age 7 should wear a blue jacket. State funds have then been allocated to the Ministery of Education to buy blue jackets to compel all children to wear a blue jacket. For clarification sake, there appears to be no reason for this public policy save for the Religion Pasta rulebook that all children must wear blue jackets when they are of age 7 years.

This appears to be a “purpose of religion” under Article 15(2) and one might have a good argument that taxes cannot be so compelled to buy blue jackets from anyone save of those who subscribe to Pastafarianism. After all, why should I pay for someone's else religious beliefs?

From this reading of Article 15(2), the Constitution invites people to use what John Rawls calls “public reason” when discussing policy changes. It is fair and promotes peace and good order as hurting a person's pocket against his beliefs does little good to his temper. It is also neutral between religions and belief systems.

---------


Note: It appears that Public Reason is getting to be more and more and controversial. I think it was previously contrasted with religious reasoning but it appears that some critics are suggesting that liberal conceptions of the good life are not neutral (“public reason”) either. All this is rather confusing really.

FN1: It is probably important to note that it allows the state to compel a member of one religion to support financially the religion of that person. Hence, it is possible to impose, in Malaysia for example, a tax on Muslims to support their religion.

FN2: Another exception will probably be the Malay minority. Article 152(2) provides

The Government shall exercise its functions in such manner as to recognise the special position of the Malays, who are the indigenous people of Singapore, 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.

As most Malays are Muslims, it is likely that their “religious... interests” will be read as the interests of Muslims in Singapore.