In the letter “Maintenance of Religious Harmony Act key to peace here” (April 28), the writer cited the Act as the key to peace here.
In Malaysia (which has no equivalent to our Act), a dominant religious group managed successfully to restrict the use of particular expressions in the holy books of other faiths.
Members of the same group recently protested against the display of religious symbols of other faiths.
We must have also read the painful story of Ms Deepa Subramaniam. She won custody of her child in a Civil Court but was powerless to stop her Muslim husband from abducting the child, with police inaction motivated and guided by religious partiality.
India is another example. The sale and consumption of beef is now banned for everyone, whether Hindu or not, in the Maharashtra state.
In Singapore, there is the religious harmony Act. What is unclear is how one could critique such events as bigotry without potentially running afoul of the Act, as all it may take is for one person to take offence.
True tolerance is achieved when everyone can discourse on his or her faith, or lack thereof, without persons resorting to violence or lodging police reports at the first hint of disagreement, and without the need for laws to compel all parties to get along with one another.
