and anthropological interest from researchers in Singapore (Nilavu Mohd. Ali
1985; Sinha 1993) and Malaysia (Lee 1989; Lee & Rajoo 1987; Yeoh 2001).
Religious rituals amongst the Chinese and especially conversions from
Buddhism and Taoism to Christianity have been addressed by NUS-based
anthropologists (Tong 1988, 1989; Wee 1978). I have cited these selective
examples to make the important point that despite the absence of separate,
formally recognized ‘religious studies’ programs in Southeast Asia, there is no
vacuum in the field of academic studies of religion, which is by all accounts a
vibrant and dynamic scene.
Concluding thoughts
As I have highlighted, if one looks beyond and outside the model of ‘religious
studies’ as a separate, self-contained discipline, there is strong evidence for the
academic study of religion in universities across Southeast Asia. In fact, in some
discussions with those colleagues from Singapore, Malaysia, and the Philippines,
who research the category ‘religion’ and teach related courses, I have heard
the view expressed that to some extent ‘religious studies’ as a separate com-
ponent may not really be necessary but would only serve to duplicate or add
on to the intellectual work on religion already being done in various social
science and humanities departments. The logic is that analyses of religious
phenomena are not alien but rather have a sustained and vigorous presence in
Southeast Asia, having been institutionalized within universities in the region
for some time.
The crucial difference in establishing a ‘religious studies’ department or
program, these scholars argue, would be a structural shift in bringing together
a variety of disciplinary perspectives under one roof, all dedicated to the
informed, intellectual study of religion and religions from a secular perspective.
Others agreed that there were important gaps in the existing curricula vis-à-
vis the teaching of religion, for instance, the de-emphasis on methods and
methodologies for the study of religion, comparative religion or world religions,
but argued that these could be plugged without creating a ‘religious studies’
component.
The institutional and organizational framework vis-à-vis the field of religious
studies in the ten Southeast Asian countries is clearly under-developed. A
comparison with universities, both secular and theological, in North America,
Europe, Australia, and New Zealand is indeed revealing. In Southeast Asia,
the academic study of religion from a multidisciplinary, pluralistic perspective
encapsulating a variety of religious traditions does not seem to have been
formalized as an independent element in universities in the region. The data
compel one to say that in Southeast Asia an independent field of ‘religious
studies’ is perhaps in its embryonic stages in the few institutional locations
1111
2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
1011
1
2
3111
4 5 6 7 8 9
20111
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
30111
1
2
3
4
35
6
7
8
9
40111
42222
3
411
SOUTH AND SOUTHEAST ASIA
147
