¹ In this paper I have decided to systematically capitalise the word “State” mainly because I capitalise the word “Church” and writing “Church and state” could have been interpreted as giving precedence to the Church over the State, which I do not. When used as adjectives, both words will not be capitalised.

² Administration of Muslim Law Act (Cap. 3, 2009 Rev. Ed. Sing.), hereinafter “AML4”.

³ For the limited or selective enforcement or implementation of Islamic law in Southeast Asian States, see Hooker, M.B., “Islamic Law in South-East Asia” 4(3) Aust. J. of Asian L. 213–231 Google Scholar. For a more detailed example in Indonesia, see Hooker, M.B. and Lindsey, Tim C., “Public Faces of Syariah in Contemporary Indonesia” 4(3) Aust. J. of Asian L. 259–294 Google Scholar. For the limited enforcement by the State of Hindu law in India, for example, see Menski, Werner F., Hindu Law – Beyond Tradition and Modernity (New Delhi: Oxford University Press, 2003)Google Scholar.

⁴ For the list of matters governed by Islamic law for Muslims in Singapore, see AMLA, supra note 2. The Singapore government and the Monetary Authority of Singapore (MAS) have also modified Singapore law since 1985 to allow for Islamic banking. For example, under s. 30(1)(d) of the Banking Act (Cap. 19, 1994 Rev. Ed. Sing.), the MAS can authorise banks to conduct specific types of business transactions and, in its r. 29, the MAS has authorised the type of commercial transactions mostly used in Islamic banking such as the murabaha (a sales contract used for the purpose of financing).

⁵ Rod Macdonald once wrote: “[L]egal pluralism is really not novel. Until the seventeenth century in Europe the idea of a territorial State (later associated more with blood than with geography in the phrase “nation-state”) claiming an exclusive capacity to regulate everyday activity would have been thought bizarre. Neither the Romans (with, inter alia, their conceptions of jus civile and jus gentium) nor the medieval kings of England (who tolerated both customary law of the realm and of localities, and divergent manorial, ecclesiastical and mercantile legal systems) claimed a monopoly on law and normativity. What is more, even into the nineteenth century, the legal and political élites of England and France, for example, did not see law as singular. That is, only with codification on the continent and with the Judicature Acts in common law jurisdictions did the image of a single, State-managed legal system begin to emerge.” Macdonald, Roderick A., “Metaphors of multiplicity: civil society, regimes and legal pluralism” (1998) 15 Ariz. J. Int'l & Comp. L. 69 at 74–75 Google Scholar.

⁶ For a broader definition of legal pluralism including its sociological and anthropological aspects, see Griffiths, J., “What is Legal Pluralism?” (1986) 24 J. Legal Pluralism 1 CrossRefGoogle Scholar. See also Merry, S.E., “Legal Pluralism” (1988) 22 Law & Soc'y Rev. 869 CrossRefGoogle Scholar. For law as culture, see Friedman, Lawrence M., The Legal System – A Social Science Perspective (New York: Russell Sage Foundation, 1975)Google Scholar.

⁷ Gary Bell, F., “Multiculturalism in law is legal pluralism – Lessons from Indonesia, Singapore and Canada” [2006] Sing. J. Legal Stud. 315 at 320–321, footnotes omittedGoogle Scholar.

⁸ “¹⁷ ‘Do not imagine that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets. I have come not to abolish but to complete them. ¹⁸ In truth I tell you, till heaven and earth disappear, not one dot, not one little stroke, is to disappear from the Law until all its purpose is achieved.’” (Matthew 5:17-18). Unless otherwise stated, passages of the Bible are quoted from the New Jerusalem Bible (Garden City, N.Y.: Doubleday, 1985)Google ScholarPubMed.

⁹ Mark 7:15 and 7:17-23.

¹⁰ Acts 15:28-29. See also Galatians 2:1-10.25

¹¹ In fact Paul had told the Corinthians to “²⁵ Eat anything that is sold in butchers’ shops; there is no need to ask questions for conscience's sake, ²⁶ since to the Lord belong the earth and all it contains.” I Corinthians 10:25-26.

¹² Romans 3:21-22, 27-29 and 31.

¹³ Luther famously said “Juristen, böse Christen” – “Lawyers are bad Christians”.

¹⁴ Apostolic Constitution Sacrae Disciplinae Leges of Pope John Paul II for the Promulgation of the new Code of Canon Law (25 January 1983), online: Vatican: The Holy See <http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/john_paul_ii/apost_constitutions/documents/hf_jp-ii_apc_25011983_sacrae-disciplinae-leges_en.html>.

¹⁵ Matthew 22:19-21. When Jesus was brought to the Roman Governor, Pontius Pilate, for a summary trial, the Roman Governor asked him whether he was a King to which Jesus replied “Mine is not a kingdom of this world; if my kingdom were of this world, my men would have fought to prevent my being surrendered to the Jews. As it is, my kingdom does not belong here.” (John 18:36). Later when Pilate reminded Jesus that he had life and death power over him, Jesus replied: “You would have no power over me at all if it had not been given you from above.” (John 19:11). Therefore Jesus is not here to create a Christian kingdom or State on earth and he therefore recognises the power of constituted authorities.

¹⁶ St. Paul, because he was a citizen of Rome, was entitled to be tried according to Roman Law (Acts 23:27). If we were to believe the New Testament in these matters, Paul was even entitled to be tried in Rome in front of an imperial court (Acts 25, 11-12).

¹⁷ For example, Can. 1290 states: “The general and particular provisions which the civil law in a territory has established for contracts and their disposition are to be observed with the same effects in canon law insofar as the matters are subject to the power of governance of the Church unless the provisions are contrary to divine law or canon law provides otherwise, and without prejudice to the prescript of can. 1547.”

¹⁸ The 1983 Code of Canon Law has 1752 canons (the usual abbreviation when referring to a canon is “Can. 1255”, for example).

¹⁹ Can. 1 of the 1983 Code of Canon Law states: “The canons of this Code regard only the Latin Church.”

²⁰ Codex Iuris Canonici, 1983. The Latin text is the only official and authentic version. In this paper I will be using the English translation prepared under the auspices of the Canon Law Society of America (Vatican: Libreria Editrice Vaticana, 1983), also available online at <http://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG1104/_INDEX.HTM>.

²¹ Can. 333 §1. “By virtue of his office, the Roman Pontiff not only possesses power over the universal Church but also obtains the primacy of ordinary power over all particular churches and groups of them. Moreover, this primacy strengthens and protects the proper, ordinary, and immediate power which bishops possess in the particular churches entrusted to their care.”

²² The archbishop is the metropolitan of an ecclesiastical province (can. 435). It gives him however very few powers over the other dioceses within the province (can. 436). The metropolitan gets to wear the pallium which is an ecclesiastical vestment (can 437). It would have been odd to have parts of Malaysia under the province of Singapore, and this is probably why Singapore is an archdiocese without suffragan dioceses.

²³ For historical reasons, the Code belongs to or is greatly influenced by the civil law tradition rather than the common law tradition. Therefore it shares many concepts with the civil law.

²⁴ Can. 475-481.

²⁵ Can 482-491.

²⁶ Constitution of the Republic of Singapore (1999 Rev. Ed.), hereinafter “the Constitution”.

²⁷ Administration of Muslim Law Act (Cap. 3, 2009 Rev. Ed. Sing.).

²⁸ Majelis Ugama Islam Singapura. The name of this organisation is in Malay only in this Act, which is otherwise in English. See s. 3 of the Administration of Muslim Law Act (Cap. 3, 2009 Rev. Ed. Sing.). MUIS’ website translates its name as “Islamic Religious Council of Singapore”.

²⁹ For example, in England, Re South Place Ethical Society [1980] 1 WLR 1565 Google Scholar, which states that an ethical society is not a religion and in the United States, United States v. Ballard, 322 U.S. 78, 64 S. Ct. 882, 88 L. Ed. 1148 (1944)Google Scholar, which held that beliefs need not be true to qualify as a religion.

³⁰ The so called “four walls theory” is thus explained: “When the four walls doctrine was invoked by Malaysian courts and adopted in 1994 by the Singaporean Chief Justice in Colin Chan v. Public Prosecutor, these decisions were each strategic moves to orientate future public law developments along an ‘autochthonous,’ localized, or indigenous track, particularly in relation to civil liberties jurisprudence. At the very least, the doctrine was invoked to insulate domestic cases from external influences especially when they were rights-expanding.” Li-ann, Thio, “Beyond the ‘four walls’ in an age of transnational judicial conversations – Civil liberties, rights theories, and constitutional adjudication in Malaysia and Singapore” (2005-2006) 19 Colum. J. Asian L. 428 at 431 Google Scholar.

³¹ Nappalli Peter v Williams v. Institute of Technical Education [1999] 2 SLR (R) 529 Google Scholar.

³² For a short official account of the so-called Marxist conspiracy consistent with the government's view of the events, see Jagjit Kaur, “Marxist Conspiracy”, online: Singapore Infopedia <http://infopedia.nl.sg/articles/SIP_1578_2009-10-31.html>, a copy of which is also kept by the author.

³³ Can. 287(2) and 672.

³⁴ Pontifical Council for Justice and Peace, Compendium of the Social Doctrine of the Church (Vatican: 2004 Libreria Editrice Vaticana, 2004) at para. 81.

³⁵ Under then Archbishop Yong “in a move to avoid conflict, Fathers Joseph Ho, Patrick Goh, Edgar D'Souza and Guillaume Arotcarena resigned from all positions in church organisations. Archbishop Yong later suspended them from their preaching duties and warned the clergy not to mix politics and religion. He also announced that the Catholic Centre for Foreign Workers would be shut down.” See Jagjit Kaur, “Marxist Conspiracy”, online: Singapore Infopedia <http://infopedia.nl.sg/articles/SIP_1578_2009-10-31.html>, a copy of which is also kept by the author.

³⁶ Article 15(4) of the Constitution.

³⁷ Internal Security Act (Cap. 143, 1985 Rev. Ed. Sing.).

³⁸ See also Chian Hiang Leng Colin v. Public Prosecutor [1994] 3 SLR(R) 209 Google Scholar which upheld the conviction of Jehovah's Witnesses who were in possession of publications of their Church banned under the Undesirable Publications Act (Cap. 338, 1998 Rev. Ed. Sing.).

³⁹ Companies Act (Cap. 50, 2006 Rev. Ed. Sing.).

⁴⁰ Societies Act (Cap. 311, 1985 Rev. Ed. Sing.).

⁴¹ In the list of Private Acts found in the Revised Statutes of Singapore, we can find the following ordinance as well the year of the version of the Revised Statutes edition in which it was published in parenthesis): Bishop of Singapore Ordinance [Anglican bishop] (Cap. 355, 1985), Brothers of St. Gabriel Ordinance (Cap. 356, 1985), Central Sikh Gurdwara Board Act (Cap. 357, 1985), Christian Brothers' Schools Visitor Ordinance (Cap. 358, 1985), Daughters of Charity of The Canossian Institute Incorporation Ordinance (Cap. 359, 1985), Franciscan Missionaries of the Divine Motherhood Ordinance (Cap. 362, 1985), Good Shepherd Nuns Ordinance (Cap. 363, 1985), Hindu Endowments Act (Cap. 364, 1994, amended by Act No. 42 of 2005 and Act No. 12 of 2010), Jewish Synagogue Ordinance (Cap. 365, 1985, amended by Act No. 42 of 2005), Little Sisters of the Poor Ordinance (Cap. 367, 1985), Methodist Episcopal Location Board Ordinance (Cap. 368, 1985), Missions Étrangères Ordinance (Cap. 369, 1985), Ngee Ann Kongsi (Incorporation) Ordinance (Cap. 370, 1985, amended by Act No. 42 of 2005 and Act No. 37 or 2007), Portuguese Missions Ordinance (Cap. 371, 1985), Presbyterian Church Ordinance (Cap. 372, 1985), Presbyterian Church of England Mission Ordinance (Cap. 373, 1985), Redemptorist Fathers Ordinance (Cap. 374, 1985), Roman Catholic Archbishop Act (Cap. 375, 1985), Saint Andrew's Mission Hospital Ordinance (Cap. 376, 1985), Salvation Army Ordinance (Cap. 377, 1985), Scheut Missions Ordinance (Cap. 378, 1985), Secretary of the Synod of the Diocese of Singapore Ordinance (Cap. 379, 1985), Society of Saint Maur Incorporation Ordinance (Cap. 381, 1985), and Treasurer of Presbyterian Church, Singapore Ordinance (Cap. 383, 1985). None of these Acts and Ordinances is recent, most having been originally adopted by the British, and it therefore seems that new religious groups must incorporate as corporations or societies under the general law. Please note that most of the statutes and ordinances mentioned above were also amended in 1997 to delete the words “Her Majesty the Queen, Her Heirs and Successors”, and the word “Crown”, usually from in the marginal notes, and substitute the words “the Government” and “Government”, respectively; see s. 6 and first Schedule of the Statutes (Miscellaneous Amendments) Act 1997 (Act No. 7 of 1997).

⁴² Roman Catholic Archbishop Act (Cap. 375, 1985 Rev. Ed. Sing.).

⁴³ Roman Catholic Bishop Ordinance (Cap. 314, 1955 Rev. Ed. S.S.).

⁴⁴ Interestingly, the preamble of the Roman Catholic Archbishop Act (Cap. 375, 1985 Rev. Ed. Sing.) gives a short history of the Catholic Church of Singapore:

“Whereas the Titular Roman Catholic Bishop of Malacca was incorporated under the Roman Catholic Bishop Ordinance (Chapter 314 of the 1955 Revised Edition) on 10th June 1910 in the territories formerly known as the Straits Settlements;

And Whereas by decree of the Holy See of Rome made on 20th May 1954 the Titular Roman Catholic Bishop of Malacca was raised to the dignity of Archbishop;

And Whereas by a further decree of the Holy See of Rome made on 25th February 1955 the Archdiocese of Malacca was divided and the territories consisting of the then Colony of Singapore and the State of Johore and the Settlement of Malacca became the Archdiocese of Malacca Singapore and jurisdiction over the Archdiocese of Malacca Singapore was conferred upon His Grace Michael Olcomendy, Archbishop of Malacca Singapore;

And Whereas the Right Reverend Michael Olcomendy was by a further decree of the Holy See of Rome made on 18th December 1972 appointed to be the Titular Roman Catholic Archbishop of the See of Singapore having jurisdiction over the Archdiocese of Singapore consisting of the territory of Singapore;

And Whereas it is desirable to incorporate the said Right Reverend Michael Olcomendy and his successors in office, and to vest in the Corporation so created all movable and immovable properties situate in Singapore now vested in the Titular Roman Catholic Bishop of Malacca.”

⁴⁵ Section 2(1) of the Roman Catholic Archbishop Act (Cap. 375, 1985 Rev. Ed. Sing.).

⁴⁶ Can. 377 §1. “The Supreme Pontiff freely appoints bishops or confirms those legitimately elected.

…

§5. In the future, no rights and privileges of election, nomination, presentation, or designation of bishops are granted to civil authorities.”

It should be noted that in the past, through some concordats, i.e. treaties between the Vatican and a particular State, some States were either consulted or given a role in the appointment of bishops. The Church no longer grants such a right to States. There has never been a concordat between the Vatican and Singapore.

⁴⁷ Section 2(3) of the Roman Catholic Archbishop Act (Cap. 375, 1985 Rev. Ed. Sing.).

⁴⁸ Section 5 of the Roman Catholic Archbishop Act (Cap. 375, 1985 Rev. Ed. Sing.).

⁴⁹ Section 2(3) of the Roman Catholic Archbishop Act (Cap. 375, 1985 Rev. Ed. Sing.) says (in part):

“2(3) ‘Successors in office’ shall be deemed to include either an Administrator Apostolic or a Vicar Capitular administering the affairs of the Archdiocese of Singapore in Singapore from the time when the office of the Titular Roman Catholic Archbishop of Singapore becomes vacant by the resignation or death of the holder for the time being or vacant for any other reason until the formal assumption of office by his successor. [emphasis added]”

⁵⁰ Can. 421.

⁵¹ I have been unable to obtain a full list of the religious orders of the Catholic Church and Catholic charities that have been incorporated. Beside the list of Private Acts provided above which lists many religious orders, one would have to check the registry of companies and or societies which could be a formidable task.

⁵² I thank Father John Paul Tan, OFM, who acts as defender of the bond in the ecclesiastical tribunal in Singapore, for his valuable insight.

⁵³ See online: Archdiocese of Singapore <http://www.veritas.org.sg/catholic_directory_group_detail.php?GroupID=284&TypeDesc=Archdiocese&pageTitle=Ecclesiastical%20Tribunal>.

⁵⁴ International Arbitration Act (Cap. 143A, 2002 Rev. Ed. Sing.), s. 13(2).

⁵⁵ For example, can. 1672 states “Cases concerning the merely civil effects of marriage belong to the civil magistrate…”.

⁵⁶ According to art. 226-13, Code pénal (French Penal Code) it is an offence for someone bound by professional secret, such as a priest, to reveal a secret. The offence carries one year in jail and a fine of €15,000. The professional secret of priest must also be respected during searches and seizures (art. 56 of the Code de procédures pénales, Code of Penal Procedure). See also the Circulaire relative au secret professionnel des ministres du culte et aux perquisitions et saisies dans les lieux de culte Bulletin Officiel du Ministère de la Justice n° 95 (1er juillet - septembre 2004), CRIM 2004-10 E1/11-08-2004, NOR: JUSD0430163C.

⁵⁷ For example, in Canada, see R. v. Gruenke, [1991] 3 S.C.R. 263, in Germany, art. 53(1)(1)Google Scholar of the German Code of Criminal Procedure (Strafprozeßordnung), 1987, and in the Philippines Google Scholar, Rules of Court of the Philippines, Rule 130, s. 24(d) as amended in 1989.

⁵⁸ See the International Criminal Court, Rules of Procedure and Evidence, U.N. Doc. PCNICC/2000/1/Add.1 (2000). Rule 73(3) states: “[T]he Court shall give particular regard to recognizing as privileged those communications made in the context of the professional relationship between a person and his or her medical doctor, psychiatrist, psychologist or counsellor, in particular those related to or involving victims, or between a person and a member of a religious clergy; and in the latter case, the Court shall recognize as privileged those communications made in the context of a sacred confession where it is an integral part of the practice of that religion.”

⁵⁹ Evidence Act (Cap. 97, 1997 Rev. Ed. Sing.).

⁶⁰ 1 Southwest L. J., 90 (N.Y. Ct. Gen. Sess. 1813), online: The RJ&L Religious Liberty Archive <http://www.churchstatelaw.com/cases/peoplevphillips.asp>.

⁶¹ Mockaitis v Harcleroad, 104 F.3d 1522; 1997 U.S. App. LEXIS 1274; 97 Cal. Daily Op. Service 602; 97 Daily Journal DAR 957 (USCA 9th Cir., 1997).

⁶² Email from Father Paul Staes, cicm, a copy of which is kept with the author.

⁶³ (Cap. 353, 2009 Rev. Ed. Sing.), which was originally Ordinance 18 of 1961.

⁶⁴ Section 8 of the Charter says: “8.―(1) A marriage may be solemnized by the Registrar or any other person to whom a licence to solemnize marriages under this section has been granted by the Minister.

(2) The Minister may grant a licence to any suitable person to solemnize marriages in Singapore.”

⁶⁵ In France it is a criminal offence for a religious minister or priest to celebrate a religious marriage without checking the document proving that the couple is already married under state law: Code Pénal, art. 433-21.

⁶⁶ A list of solemnisers of marriages is available at the website of the Registry of Marriages, online at <http://app.rom.gov.sg/reg_info/rom_interpreters.asp> and includes all Catholic priests as well as religious leaders of most religions in Singapore (again, a reminder that Islamic marriages are not regulated by the Charter).

⁶⁷ In Singapore, “grassroots leaders” is a term used to refer to people assisting the Member of Parliament or assisting the leaders of a political party in a given local community. The term is also sometimes used more broadly to describe people generally involved in their constituency.

⁶⁸ Section 23 of the Charter.

⁶⁹ Online: Registry of Marriages <http://app.rom.gov.sg/about_rom/rom_about.asp> (copy with the author).

⁷⁰ Employment of Foreign Manpower Act (Cap. 91A, 2009 Rev. Ed. Sing.), Employment of Foreign Manpower (Work Passes) Regulations, First Schedule, “Conditions of Work Permit”, Part IV, “Conditions to Be Complied with by Foreign Employee”, s. 8: “The foreign employee shall not go through any form of marriage or apply to marry under any law, religion, custom or usage with a Singapore Citizen or Permanent Resident in or outside Singapore, without the prior approval of the Controller, while the foreign employee holds a Work Permit, and also after the foreign employee's Work Permit has expired or has been cancelled or revoked.”, online: Ministry of Manpower <http://www.mom.gov.sg/Documents/services-forms/passes/WPSPassConditions.pdf> (copy with the author).

⁷¹ Can. 1137: “The children conceived or born of a valid or putative marriage are legitimate.”

⁷² Can. 1071 §1(2).

⁷³ Can. 1058.

⁷⁴ I should add that the regulation quoted at footnote 70 above, prohibits such a marriage between a foreign worker and a Singaporean or Permanent resident “in or outside Singapore…while the foreign employee holds a Work Permit, and also after the foreign employee's Work Permit has expired or has been cancelled or revoked. [emphasis added]” This provision seems to overreach. To prohibit the marriage in Singapore or abroad while the worker holds a work permit does make some sense since not entering into such a marriage is a condition of the work permit. Not permitting the marriage in Singapore after the work permit “has expired or has been cancelled or revoked” also makes some sense – one should not encourage the worker to try to extend his stay by getting married – in fact without a work permit, that worker should not even be in Singapore. However in my view, forbidding such a marriage abroad after the work permit “has expired or has been cancelled or revoked” seems to overreach. The foreigner who once held a work permit would be prevented from ever marrying a Singaporean abroad without the permission of the Controller even if there was no intent to ever come back to Singapore.

⁷⁵ Section 2 of the Charities Act (Cap. 37, 2007 Rev. Ed. Sing.) defines an “exempt charity” as “a charity specified in the schedule” and the schedule states that “the following institutions, so far as they are charities, are exempt charities within the meaning of this Act: (a) any university or educational institution, hospital or religious body established by an Act of Parliament;…”. Since the Roman Catholic Archbishop is constituted as a body corporate by an Act of Parliament, the Church is exempt from some parts of the Charities Act. Section 5(4) states for example that exempt charities do not have to register with the Commissioner of Charities.

⁷⁶ Chapter 34 of the Statutes of Singapore (2010 Ed. Sing.) which came into force on 1 March 2011.

⁷⁷ Section 25(1)(i) of the Charities Act.

⁷⁸ Section 25(14) of the Charities Act.

⁷⁹ It should be noted that in an earlier case, Re Seed Nigel John QC [2003] 3 SLR(R) 407 Google Scholar, Father Joachim Kang sought to have a Queen's Counsel appointed on account of the complexity of the case on account of the invocation of canon law. The request was denied. The case does not bring much light on the status of canon law in Singapore as it understandably focuses on the issue of whether the case is sufficiently complex to require the appointment of a Queen's Counsel.

⁸⁰ Paragraph 4 of the unpublished Grounds of Decision in Joachim Kang Hock Chai v. Public Prosecutor (“Grounds for Decision”), copy with the author.

⁸¹ Paragraph 27 of the Grounds for Decision.

⁸² Paragraph 19 of the Grounds for Decision.

⁸³ Chan Emily v. Kang Hock Chai Joachim [2005] 2 SLR(R) 236; [2005] SGHC 37.

⁸⁴ Ibid., para. 14.

⁸⁵ Ibid., para. 16.

⁸⁶ Amutha Valli d/o Krishnan v. Titular Superior of the Redemptorist Fathers in Singapore [2009] 2 SLR(R) 1091 Google Scholar; [2009] SGHC 35.

⁸⁷ Can. 1172 §1. “No one can perform exorcisms legitimately upon the possessed unless he has obtained special and express permission from the local ordinary [in Singapore, the bishop].

§2. The local ordinary [in Singapore, the bishop] is to give this permission only to a presbyter who has piety, knowledge, prudence, and integrity of life. [text in brackets added]”

⁸⁸ Amutha Valli d/o Krishnan v. Titular Superior of the Redemptorist Fathers in Singapore [2009] 2 SLR(R) 1091 at para. 45Google Scholar.

⁸⁹ Can. 803 §1. “A Catholic school is understood as one which a competent ecclesiastical authority or a public ecclesiastical juridic person directs or which ecclesiastical authority recognizes as such through a written document.”

⁹⁰ At time of printing, a list could be found online at: Archdiocesan Commission for Catholic Schools <http://www.accs.sg/School%20List.html>. Copy of the list kept with the author.

⁹¹ Such schools were notably forbidden in many communist countries.

⁹² In many secular countries, public financing of religious schools is often strictly prohibited, as is the case in the United States for example with very few exceptions. For a narrow exception to that rule in the United States see Agostini v. Felton, 117 S. Ct. 1997 (1997), in which a narrow majority of the Supreme Court ruled that public school teachers could teach some remedial classes on the premises of parochial schools, thus reversing an earlier decision (Aguilar v. Felton, 473 U.S. 402 (1985)Google Scholar). For examples of the tensions relating to religion in schools, including the financing of religious schools or religion in school, around the world, see Thomas, R. Murray, Religion in schools: controversies around the world (Westport, Conn.: Praeger, 2006)Google Scholar.

⁹³ The concept of ordinary is defined at can. 134. It includes all diocesan bishops, including the Archbishop of Singapore and for our purposes, we will equate the ordinary with the Singapore Archbishop even though in some circumstances an episcopal vicar, the superiors of some religious institutes may also be ordinaries etc.

⁹⁴ Can. 763. “Bishops have the right to preach the word of God everywhere, including in churches and oratories of religious institutes of pontifical right, unless the local bishop has expressly forbidden it in particular cases.” and Can. 764. “Without prejudice to the prescript of can. 765, presbyters [priests] and deacons possess the faculty of preaching everywhere; this faculty is to be exercised with at least the presumed consent of the rector of the church, unless the competent ordinary has restricted or taken away the faculty or particular law requires express permission.”

⁹⁵ Maintenance of Religious Harmony Act (Cap. 167A, 2001 Rev. Ed. Sing.), s. 8(2)(a). The minister may issue the restraining order when he is satisfied that a religious leader or preacher has committed one of the acts listed at s. 8(1):

“(a) causing feelings of enmity, hatred, ill-will or hostility between different religious groups;

(b) carrying out activities to promote a political cause, or a cause of any political party while, or under the guise of, propagating or practising any religious belief;

(c) carrying out subversive activities under the guise of propagating or practising any religious belief; or

(d) exciting disaffection against the President or the Government of Singapore while, or under the guise of, propagating or practising any religious belief.”

⁹⁶ “Fathers Joseph Ho, Patrick Goh, Edgar D'Souza and Guillaume Arotcarena resigned from all positions in church organisations. Archbishop Yong later suspended them from their preaching duties”, Jagjit Kaur, “Marxist Conspiracy”, online: Singapore Infopedia <http://infopedia.nl.sg/articles/SIP_1578_2009-10-31.html>, a copy of which is also kept by the author.