If you read between the lines, this is the second rebuke in 2 days to the headmaster of Boon Lay Garden Primary School, who had tried to declare his school canteen an all-halal zone.

20 percent of the 1,700 pupils in Boon Lay Garden Primary School are Muslim
 

The day before, the ministry merely said the school should ensure that a "common space" be preserved. Although it sounded like a rebuke, it left open the question: What is meant by "common space"?

The issue arose when headmaster Wan Imran Woojdy wrote to all parents telling them that their children would not be allowed to bring non-halal food into the canteen. The school's security guard and discipline master would check lunch boxes to ensure pupils complied.

When contacted earlier yesterday, principal Imran said the rule forbidding non-halal food in the canteen had been in place since 2002, when all eight food stalls were certified halal by the Islamic Religious Council of Singapore (Muis).

He said that the school decided to enforce the rule as it had a new canteen contractor and had to get recertified by Muis.

'We decided to make the whole canteen halal to provide a common eating space for all our children, whatever their race,' he said.

'Our stalls provide all the different types of food -- Chinese, Indian, Malay and Western.'

-- Straits Times, 5 Feb 2008, School's
'halal zone' ruling causes stir

Naturally, parents were upset and some complained to the Ministry of Education. In response to these complaints and press queries, the ministry said the school was "in error" but gave a wishy-washy explanation of what that error was: "Schools will continue to ensure the preservation of common space for all pupils, and educate them on the multiracial and multi-religious nature of Singapore." [2] 

However, headmaster Imran too believed that his action was consistent with the aim of providing a "common space". He wanted to ensure that all pupils could buy food from all stalls in the canteen. What is wrong with that?

I'll come back to this point later, but let me dwell a bit on an interesting sequence of events as the story first broke.

Other than that wishy-washy first statement, the press didn't seem to have gotten more from the ministry. Instead, the reporter went to the certification body Muis, who clarified that they had only certified as halal the eight stalls in Boon Lay Garden Primary School, not the dining area. This seemed to suggest that the headmaster's error was simply in over-extending the halal zone from the stalls to the entire canteen.

The other school with all canteen stalls halal

Together with the Straits Times' reference to another school, Millennia Institute, having the same arrangement -- all stalls are halal-certified but not the dining area -- the story appeared to suggest that having all stalls halal would be an acceptable set-up, so long as the tables and benches were open to all.

It is not. And the later statement from the ministry, thankfully, points to the same view. The Straits Times reported that the headmaster has also sent out a further letter "apologising for the error and saying the children were free to bring and eat non-halal food."

"The school also said it was making arrangements to provide both halal and non-halal food in its canteen."

* * * * *

 
Let me now deal with the "common space" argument.

One can provide common space in many ways, but the headmaster's way violated a fundamental precept of a secular state: The state shall not require adherence to any religious requirement.

In the US, this is a constitutional principle, phrased as "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion." It is a good principle and it is essential to keeping the peace in any multi-religious society.

So while there are various ways to create common space, some ways are not permissible. Requiring conformity to a particular religion's standards, and certification (plus fee payment to) a particular religion's officials is definitely out of bounds.

Halal certification, moreover, has a number of other discriminatory consequences. Foodsellers must purchase their ingredients exclusively from halal-certified wholesalers. This discriminates against wholesalers with non-halal sources of supply. Stallholders must employ a certain quota of Muslim employees, and Islamic prayers must be chanted over the workspace at the beginning of the workday. The latter can be offensive to stallholders who are not Muslim. Hence, if the state, through one of its agents, e.g. a school principal, starts to enforce a halal rule, then the state becomes complicit in religious discrimination.

* * * * *

 
While so far I have argued against the state favouring any religion, I would also like to address the question of whether the state should always adopt a hands off stance with regard to religions and religious behaviour. Is it good enough that the state plays fair with all religions, but otherwise give religions free rein?

For example, is it justifiable for the state to refuse to accede to Muslim demands for the headscarf for Muslim pupils?

Can a state school stop someone from proselytising within its premises? Can it sack teachers who wear a face veil? Can it stop a teacher from introducing creationist ideas?

My answer is yes, yes, yes and yes. The principle I am relying on is this: Religion can be a threat to the state, and the state is free to take reasonable defensive measures.

I often worry that in Singapore, our official ideology tends to see religion as a kind of social good; a partner in shoring up the moralism that is held to be desirable. (To be fair, I should add that the actions of government leaders in the 1960s and 1970s tell a different story.)

Still, the official ideology opens the way to groups trying to foist their sectarian agenda onto the national one. After all, how can anyone not want greater "morality"? [3]

It will be to our peril if we are not alert to the fact that religion can have interests quite contrary to a state's. In harsher words: Religion can be an enemy of a state. The state's interests often include goals such as inclusiveness, equality, scientific objectivity, freedom for the individual to strive for his own happiness in his own way, and so on. A religion may prefer exclusivity, prioritisation of its members over outsiders, promotion of its founding myths (dismissing science and objectivity if need be), and a restriction of freedom in order to preserve itself and its aims and to coerce its members to conform.