In 1988, the film The Last Temptation of Christ, directed by Martin Scorsese and based on a 1953 Nikos Kazantzakis novel of the same name, was banned from being screened in Singapore.

The ban came after religious leaders from the Christian, Catholic, and Muslim community found contents of the film objectionable, as explained, in Dec 1988, by then-Permanent Secretary (Information) Lai Choon Seng.

According to Wikipedia, the movie depicts "the life of Jesus Christ and his struggle with various forms of temptation including fear, doubt, depression, reluctance and lust. This results in the book and film depicting Christ being tempted by imagining himself engaged in sexual activities, a notion that has caused outrage from some Christians."

In response to this development, former Foreign Minister, Senior Minister and founding PAP member S Rajaratnam wrote in to The Straits Times expressing his view on the matter. At the time of his letter, he had retired from politics.

Here's a reproduction of what he said on Nov. 23 1988:

Why religious hysteria must not be placated

Why, it may be asked, am I persisting in what is turning out to be a spirited monologue between me and the censors responsible for banning Nikos Kazantzakis' The Last Temptation?

The banning of a memorable book which the vast majority of Singaporeans have ignored for some 30 years without serious damage to their health and mind is unlikely to bring Singapore crashing down.

The worst that can happen, from the censor's point of view, is that, should the ban be ever lifted, there would be a stampede to borrow or buy the book.

The best that can then happen is that, in diligently searching through the novel for the dirty bits that do not exist, many Singaporeans would have, for the first time in their lives, read from cover to cover a masterpiece of modern literature.

So my persistance is not over the banning of one book but concern over the cast of mind and motive that led to the banning.

This anxiety has been reinforced by Mr Koo Tsai Kee's response on Nov 12 to my first letter. I find Mr Koo's reply far more disturbing than that of Mr John Lee (ST, Nov 12). In the latter case, I was broadcasting FM while Mr Lee was radiating on a wave length beyond the range of earthly intelligence.

Mr Koo, on the other hand, is a highly intelligent man, not least of all because of his description of my first letter on the band "as a brilliant piece of expose which makes for compelling reading". (Editor's note - we are not sure if Koo Tsai Kee is the same Minister of State who entered politics in 1991 and retired in 2011).

Circuitry haywire

My inflated ego soared higher still when he tried to shame our censors by stating that the fact that "the movie and book were not banned in the West in spite of a hue and cry from predominantly Christian societies bears witness to the triumph of sanity over hysteria".

He then goes on: "If anything the misrepresentations should be exposed. I sincerely believe we are intellectually the poorer because of it (the ban)."

So far so good. We were both operating on FM. Then suddenly I lost Mr Koo. He was inexplicably operating on a wave length well beyond the reach of known human intelligence.

His circuitry suddenly went haywire. He says that nevertheless "I empathise with the sentiments of my Christian friends" in the interests of what he calls "racial and religious cohesiveness" - race and religion unspecified.

He, therefore, "grants our censors ... the privillege" of ensuring that, out of regard for the sensitivities of the hysterical, other thinking Christians and non-Christians should "suffer some intellectual deprivation".

In other words, "racial and religious cohesiveness" can best be ensured in Singapore by enforcing as a matter of law, what on the basis of Mr Koo's own analysis is the triump of the hysterical over the sane - Christian and non-Christian.

I would have thought the best way of ensuring racial and religious harmony would be by compelling the hysterical minority to "empathise" with the sane majority.

This is what Western Christian and even non-Christian countries with also a multiplicity of religions and races have had the courage to do in the face of the baying of the hysterical over this book.

And as far as I know, no religious wars have erupted as a result of the courageous stand. On the contrary, placating religious hysteria is the surest way of encouraging religious intolerance and, therefore, of religious civil wars.

Yet a non-Christian and Asian Singapore applies the opposite remedy.

I do not propose in this letter to back my statement by adducing a wealth of evidence, except to point that, today, there are so many racial and religious wars on a global scale as to justify regarding this phenomena as the rule rather than the exception.

That is why when on the day of my retirement from official politics I was asked by the reporters what my future concerns for Singapore were, I unhesitatingly said: "The danger of racial and religious conflicts".

Personal encounter

The reason why Singapore has so far been an exception to what is becoming a world-wide rule is that this Government had the courage always to be on the side of sanity against the intolerance of the hysterical.

Singaporeans would be foolish to think for one moment that they have some divine immunity against religious shootouts.

I would like to back this statement with a personal encounter.

I was recently on a holiday in an Asean country. I was visited by a niece of mine on her way to a girl guide campfire sing-song. I remarked that during my boy scout days I enjoyed such campfires.

"Not any more uncle", she said, with a wry smile.

"Why not?"

"Nowadays we have sing-songs but without campfires", she said wistfully.

"Why?"

"Because", she said, "some minor religious sect considers singing around a campfire fire-worshipping and therefore offensive."

The girl guide officials were advised in the interests of racial harmony and in the interests of "empathy" for the intolerant to dispense with the bonfire.

A triumph of hysteria over sanity, right?

As my niece walked away, I wished with all my heart that, for her sake, sanity had won over hysteria instead.

Some context to the 'hysteria'

For the uninitiated, "hysteria" is defined in the dictionary as an "excessive or uncontrollable emotion, such as fear".

Rajaratnam had written earlier to ST on Nov 5 1988, commenting that the book by Kazantzakis should not have been banned.

His statement held even more weight as Rajaratnam himself was Singapore's first Minister for Culture.

He noted that the book had been "leading a happy though lonely existence in our libraries for some 30 years without scaring the life out of our moviegoers or our ever watchful censors".

He said that the only reason it got banned was because of a sudden panic raised by the people in the West, and that hysteria got transferred to Singapore.

In his own words, "Singaporeans having neither seen the film nor read the book have reciprocated by staging a panic - a remarkable instance of instantaneous long distance transfer of hysteria from West to East".

His words still applicable 28 years later

A Facebook post which reproduces the letter "Why religious hysteria must not be placated" was first circulated in July 2014, which coincides with the National Library Board's removal of three children's books from the Children's Section - Tango Makes Tree, Who's In My Family? and the White Swan Express.

The same post has seen a resurgence in the past week following Catholic Archbishop William Goh's message to Catholics in Singapore regarding Madonna's concert in Singapore.

Top image from National Archives of Singapore

If you like what you read, follow us on Facebook and Twitter to get the latest updates.