Assoc Prof Jamus Jerome Lim: In October 2022, I filed a Parliamentary Question on whether the current slate of national public holidays was a holdover from the colonial era practice of allocating two holidays per ethnic group. The response from MOM was that it was the result of a decision made in 1968 to reduce the number of holidays to stay competitive.
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. His response reiterated the Government’s longstanding position that the existing configuration of holidays was appropriate and that increasing them would indulge calls for a host of additional holidays, such as Lao Tzu’s birthday or Women’s Day. 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 a part, allocated public holidays by ethnic group. 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 been fair. But holidays were added and removed thereafter due to self-government, our merger with Malaysia and Independence, such that 16 public holidays in 1967 were no longer equally distributed.
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. What may be worse is that the responses by the Government appear to suggest that the holidays that have been gazetted were chosen not so much for the 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 and 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 Indian prince and ascetic 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 non-recognition as a holiday, remains a spiritually significant and joyous affair for Hindus here.
In the debate surrounding the Holidays (Amendment) Bill in 1968, which rescinded Thaipusam as a holiday, then-Minister for Law and Economic Development EW Barker, went as far as to suggest, “If 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.”
Between 1968 and today, our gross domestic product (GDP) per capita has grown from a little more than $2,100 to more than $127,000 – close to a sixtyfold increase. It is impossible to claim 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.
Ministry of Manpower
6 March 2025
https://sprs.parl.gov.sg/search/#/sprs3topic?reportid=budget-2612
The Minister of State for Manpower (Ms Gan Siow Huang): On supporting the well-being of workers in the workplace, I would like to thank all those who have raised suggestions. Ms Hazel Poa suggested increasing the number of public holidays by three days for Hari Raya, Thaipusam and Chinese New Year. Assoc Prof Jamus Lim asked for the inclusion of Thaipusam as a public holiday, echoing similar requests by other Members such as Mr Gan Thiam Poh in the past.
The current configuration of public holidays in Singapore is the outcome of careful deliberations and consultations with various religious groups at the point of Singapore’s Independence. Over the years, we have learnt to live harmoniously as a multi-ethnic and multi-religious society, with everyone making some compromises for the greater good. We encourage employers to make it possible for Singaporeans of all faiths to observe their respective religious festivals. Maintaining the current balance has served us well, and it continues to be the sensible approach for Singapore.
Assoc Prof Jamus Jerome Lim: On the call for the consideration of Thaipusam, I had cited in the conclusion of my cut former Minister EW Barker’s implicit promise to revisit our public holiday schedule should our economy prosper. Could I ask the Ministry if there are no economic conditions or no level of prosperity under which the Government will be willing to consider the schedule of public holidays?
Ms Gan Siow Huang: Chairman, as I said earlier, the decision on which public holidays to observe was only reached after very careful consultation with religious groups in Singapore in the past which, undoubtedly, required difficult decisions for the leaders from each faith to take. Any move to reinstate a festival, such as Thaipusam, as a public holiday, may invite competing claims from members of other communities, both religious and non-religious. Maintaining the current balance has served Singapore well and continues to be the sensible approach.
Regardless of the intervening years and the progress that we have made, this is a sensitive issue. We should not take Singapore’s economic progress for granted and look to introducing additional public holidays at every opportunity. And while we cannot designate all important festivals public holidays, there must be understanding and regard given for Singaporeans to observe occasions that are significant to them. That is why we urge all employers to show understanding and flexibility in this regard.
Ministry of Manpower
7 March 2025
https://sprs.parl.gov.sg/search/#/sprs3topic?reportid=budget-2619
Office of the Leader of the Opposition 