March 26, 2026

From the implementation of contact tracing technologies to media campaigns, such as comedic musical skits to address concerns about vaccine safety for older individuals, the Singapore government undertook extensive measures to control the spread of COVID-19. Despite these initiatives, online concerns about vaccine safety and efficacy found an audience, leading to the rise of an anti-vaccination sentiment in Singapore. One of the prominent anti-vaccination groups, named ‘Healing the Divide’, founded by Iris Koh, organised events promoting alternative COVID-19 approaches and questioned official vaccination policies.  

In ‘Conservative Christianity, Anti-Vaccination Activism, and the Challenge to Secularism in Singapore’ (The Law & Ethics of Human Rights, 2024), Associate Professor Daniel P. S. Goh (NUS Sociology and Anthropology) explores the rise of anti-vaccination sentiment in Singapore, particularly within conservative Christian circles. He finds that while religiously conservative sources from US-based Christian Right discourse influenced local vaccine hesitancy, local activism strategically took on a secular, nationalistic tone due to Singapore’s legal separation of religion and politics. 

Through anti-vaccination activism on platforms like Telegram, groups like ‘Healing the Divide’ fostered a community that challenged and undermined mainstream public health strategies. These groups circulated content that borrowed scientific language to critique vaccines, highlighting the purported risks of mRNA technology or advocating for alternative treatments like ivermectin. Scientifically dubious claims from US conspiracy websites were disseminated, with explicit religious messaging replaced by notions of democratic rights and public good, aligning with Singapore’s secular identity.  

A/P Goh reveals a complex relationship between religious conservatism and vaccine hesitancy, noting the division among conservative Christians regarding submission to state vaccination policies. This split was exemplified by two prominent conservative pastors who promoted diametrically opposed views. Interestingly, this internal division weakened religious mobilisation but pushed activists towards secularist anti-government stances.  

While foreign ideologies inspired local vaccine hesitancy, Singapore’s legal frameworks inadvertently spurred new forms of activism. By reframing religious activism in secular terms, conservative groups have tested the boundaries of Singapore’s regulatory approach to religion and public discourse. Consequently, the boundaries of Singapore’s state-defined secularism have shifted as religious perspectives are asserted through less overt means. As Singapore’s secular model grapples with an evolving landscape where faith-based ideas influence public debate indirectly, it faces the challenge of balancing freedom of expression with the maintenance of public health efforts. 

Read the article here.