Are our public holidays a historical legacy or not?
In October 2022, I filed a Parliamentary Question on whether the current slate of public holidays was a holdover from the colonial-era practice of allocating two holidays per ethnic group. The response from the Minister of Manpower was that it was the result of a decision, made in 1968, to reduce the number of holidays to stay competitive.[1]
He explained that each religious group was asked to give up a holiday each; as a result, Muslims gave up the Prophet Muhammad’s Birthday, Christians relinquished Easter Monday, while Hindus chose Deepavali over Thaipusam.[2] His response reiterated the government’s longstanding position, that the existing configuration of holidays was appropriate, and increasing them would indulge calls for a host of additional holidays, such as Lao-Tzu’s Birthday or Women’s Day.[3]
However, this response glosses over the important historical context for how these holidays came about in the first place. During the colonial period, the Straits Settlements—of which Singapore was part—allocated public holidays by ethnic group.[4] This was initially limited to the Chinese New Year, Hari Raya Puasa, and Thaipusam, but following a petition by the Malay and Indian communities to the then-Legislative Council, Hari Raya Haji and Deepavali were added.
This means that, if we accept how holidays were historically granted by ethnic group, then this original distribution—of two per group would have fair.[5] But holidays were added and removed due to self-government, our merger with Malaysia, and independence, such that the 16 public holidays in 1967 were no longer equally distributed.[6] Hari Raya Puasa was observed over two days, while Hari Raya Haji and the Prophet’s Birthday were also holidays. Easter weekend included Friday and Monday, alongside Christmas. Hence, when called to give up a holiday, the Indian community had to do so with a smaller number to begin with.
If the current configuration of holidays is due to religion, then the distribution is unfair
And what may be worse is that the responses by the government appear to suggest that the holidays that have been gazetted where chosen not so much for their ethnic linkages, but for their religious significance. If so, then the allocation of two per religion—Hari Raya Haji and Puasa, Good Friday and Christmas, the two days of Chinese New Year, and Deepavali and Vesak Day—may, on its face, seem fair.
Except, of course, Vesak Day—despite being the birthday of the Indian prince and acetic sage Siddhartha Gautama—is hardly celebrated by the local Indian community in Singapore at all, but more by Buddhists. In contrast, Thaipusam, despite its official nonrecognition as a holiday, remains a spiritually-significant and joyous affair for Hindus here.
Time to reinstate Thaipusam as a national holiday
In the debate surrounding the Holidays (Amendment) Bill in 1968—which rescinded Thaipusam as a holiday—then-Minister for Law and Economic Development E.W. Barker went as far as to suggest that “[i]f our island prospers, I am sure the Government will ask me to come back here and on that day it will be my pleasure to move amendments to increase the number of holidays”.[7]
Between 1968 and today, our GDP per capita has grown from a little more than $2,100 to more than $127,000,a close to sixty-fold increase. It is impossible that we have not prospered. It is time to call in that promise, made close to six decades ago, and reinstate Thaipusam as a national holiday.[8]
[1] Hansard (2022)95(69) Oct 3.
[2] Buddhists
[3] Hansard (2012)88(15): Feb 28.
[4] Radics, G.B. & V. Sinha (2018), “Regulation of Religion and Public Holidays: The Case of Tai Pucam in Singapore,” Asian Journal of Social Science 46(4–5): 524–48.
[5] There are other holidays unaffiliated with ethnicity, of course, such as New Year’s Day and National Day.
[6] RemSG (2015),“Then and Now, The Public Holidays of Singapore,” Remember Singapore, Feb 21.
[7] Hansard (1968)27(14): Aug 1.
[8] Is this proposal populist? I would hesitate to use this term, since, by definition, the appeal for reinstating Thaipusam would be most welcome by a small minority, rather than a popular majority, of Singaporeans. But perhaps calling for more national holidays is, itself, perceived as a populist move? I will stress, first, that this is ultimately a call for greater balance between the holidays of significance to each of the major religious groups. Second, as pointed out in the closing part of my speech, I am merely revisiting the implicit promise made by the then-Minister of Law that the decision for the number of holidays would be revisited once we have prospered.
