K Shanmugam
Singapore
“Bank accounts are frozen when there is reason to suspect that the bank accounts are involved in illicit activities, including money laundering activities.”
“The Singapore Police Force does not track the requested data. Distinguishing artificial intelligence (AI)-generated content typically requires more detailed forensic examination which may not be necessary in every investigation and may also not be conclusive as to whether AI-generative tools were used.”
“The Building and Construction Authority’s Code on Accessibility provides baseline requirements for accessible and inclusive buildings. It stipulates a minimum width of 1.5 metres or 1.8 metres for primary accessible routes, depending on the building type.”
“The Road Traffic (Motor Vehicles, Driving Licence) Rules under the Road Traffic Act set out the scope of the medical assessment required for motorists aged 65 and above who wish to retain their driving licences.”
“When a Police report has been made, the Police will investigate to determine if a criminal offence has been committed. If there is reasonable suspicion that a case is scam-related, the Police can direct online service providers to restrict Singapore users' access to the relevant online activity under the Online Criminal Harms Act.”
“Through intelligence sharing and coordinated enforcement actions, the cross-border operation disrupted a transnational drug trafficking syndicate and downstream drug trafficking activities, with the UK arresting seven persons so far and further investigations underway.”
The complete record
Every one of 4,552 lines we hold for K Shanmugam, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 50 of 92.
“I think my speech was clear as to what I said. I will have them send a copy of my speech to the Member. And I had not suggested that the Member's question was absurd, but I had said any suggestion would be absurd.”
“I would not suggest that of your question.”
“And we in this House should stand against that.”
“Mr David Rockefeller, the chairman of Chase Manhattan, told Prime Minister Lee in May 1971 that the bank had a standing rule of not lending money to newspapers. Yet, here, they lent money. He claimed that Hendrik Kwant, the manager in Singapore, did not know of this standing rule and approved the overdraft to the Singapore Herald. Our intelligence agencies concluded that American intelligence had a significant role in these operations and that this was a foreign influence operation and the motive was to create a weapon that would shape public opinion as a pressure point and also to create an outlet that would be anti-communist against the Soviets and against communist activities in this region. So, you can see it is equal opportunity. It is not just one country or another. And, of course, the Nominated Member of Parliament would be aware of the Hendrickson affair. We all meet with foreign diplomats. There is nothing with it. But when a foreign diplomat engages Singaporeans and encourages them to form a political party and run, that crosses well beyond what diplomats are entitled to do. If you look at the Political Donations Act, that sets out the restrictions. If you look at the Newspaper and Printing Presses Act (NPPA), that sets out a number of restrictions and I can name you other legislation. But the key point is politics, and Singapore should be for Singaporeans. It can be maintained without saying, "Therefore, we cannot interact with people outside of Singapore". Of course, we must! Whether it is in business or in the academia or in politics, we must keep track, interact and understand what is going on and have deep relationships. But that is different from taking money from people or allowing people to influence operations.”
“Certain categories of jobs, certain categories of operations, media, are commonly used as vectors. You need to look at it very carefully and you cannot say, "Oh, we need to interact with the people from overseas and, therefore, it is okay." It is not okay to go and take money to run a foreign country's agenda in Singapore. Let me tell Members about the Singapore Herald. English newspaper, started in July 1970, used as a tool for foreign interference in the 1970s. Its editorials played up issues relating to, for example, National Service, that it should be done away with. It was making losses, this newspaper. The supposed shareholders were a former Chief Minister of Sabah, a Hong Kong businesswoman and a foreign bank. Then Prime Minister Lee and Foreign Minister Rajaratnam met with the Hong Kong businesswoman, Aw Sian, and Singapore Herald's managing director, Jimmy Hahn, as well as the editor, Ambrose Khaw. They met in City Hall. Mr Lee asked them about the finances of the paper. Aw Sian gave the initial financing of $500,000. She said she had no knowledge of the financial standing of the paper. She said that the $500,000 was her money. So, Mr Lee Kuan Yew asked her, if you know nothing about the newspaper and you do not know how it is doing, how come you are sending this money in, if it was your money? You are a veteran business person. She apparently gave the money on the basis of three receipts and had no control over the Singapore Herald. There were considerable doubts on the part of our intelligence agencies and the local Chase Manhattan branch gave overdraft facilities to the Singapore Herald and that was contrary to Chase Manhattan's policy.”
“This was an English language daily. It was launched in July 1966. A local businessman, Aw Kow – he is son of one of the Tiger Balm brothers. He wanted to own a newspaper. He wanted money. He approached senior officials of a news agency from communist China – it was based on Hong Kong – for money. The news agency was a state-owned organisation. Aw was given loans totalling HK$6 million with very friendly interest rates and repayment terms. The Eastern Sun faced financial problems soon after it began operations. The communist officials injected another HK$1.2 million with an added condition that Aw appoint their representative as adviser to the newspaper and Aw agreed to that. The Eastern Sun was also known to undertake non-journalistic functions at the direction of the People's Republic of China government, such as de facto diplomatic representation, support and cover for People's Republic of China intelligence officials, and the senior officials whom Aw approached were, in fact, undercover intelligence agents of communist China. The Government exposed this in May of 1971. The Eastern Sun's senior editorial staff resigned en masse. The newspaper ceased publication a few days later. The Eastern Sun was a case of black ops. It was an attempt by communist China to capture and manipulate the local media, ultimately to influence public opinion and create a political situation favourable to their own interests. Communists even allowed the newspaper to take an anti-communist line. As the former Prime Minister Lee Kuan Yew pointed out, this reflected their long-term approach and patience so that, ultimately, they have an agent, they have an institution of influence. So, you have to identify different aspects.”
“I think what the Nominated Member of Parliament has said is one part of it. Let me try and put a perspective to that. First, the current law is that in certain categories, there is no foreign influence allowed whatsoever. For example, in order to be a Member of Parliament – obvious. Equally, Members of Parliament, political parties are not allowed to take donations from foreign agencies, other foreigners. So, the Nominated Member of Parliament's point does not quite deal with the issues. You have got to identify the risks. Certain types, certain categories of positions, organisations like political parties which seek to contest and represent the viewpoints of Singaporeans must not accept money from foreign institutions, and it is no answer to say, "Oh, you should not prevent Singaporeans from engaging with international opinions." There is nothing to prevent politicians, political parties from engaging with foreign parties, but you cannot take money from them. You need to identify what it is that we are speaking about. Then, in certain other areas, for example, newspapers, we do not allow foreigners to control or fund newspapers. That is in the Newspaper and Printing Presses Act (NPPA). Again, the reason is obvious. But if I were to put it in broader terms, we want to keep foreign influence out of our political environment, not allow foreigners to influence our own political processes and we have crafted a series of laws over the years. I think Singaporeans accept that and the quotes that I gave you would show to you that the Americans accept that as well. I do not think that is really arguable. How that should be applied in specific cases, we can always discuss. Let me give Members some specific examples. Let me talk about the Eastern Sun.”
“I have attached a short list of quotes made at that hearing that the Nominated Member of Parliament may find useful and, with your permission, Mr Speaker, may I ask the Clerk to distribute those handouts?”
“The Nominated Member of Parliament has also asked about controlling the employment of foreigners in organisations involving media, communications, outreach. I assume she is referring to my statement on 25 September at the Foreign Interference Tactics and Countermeasures Conference. I will say we have to look at the issue from a broader perspective, for example, the nature of the organisation, the confidence that we can have that the employees are likely to be immune to foreign influence, that there are controls, and also our own ability to identify any possible foreign influence. I will next address Nominated Member of Parliament Walter Theseira's questions. He asked about the facts behind the concerns expressed at that Conference. The facts which led to me as well as others expressing concerns can be found in my speech as well as in the presentations made by some of the other speakers. A transcript of the speech is on my Home Ministry's website and I have asked my officers to send a link of it to the Nominated Member of Parliament. I have also asked my officers to send him the material that was presented at the Conference. On the second part of the Member's question, I think the Nominated Member of Parliament may have misunderstood what I have said. It is not all foreign influences that we seek to avoid. We seek to deal with, for example, foreign influences that seek to disrupt our society, weaken our country, affect our foreign policy. This cannot come as a surprise. Every country seeks to protect itself. Again, my speech sets that out. I will also refer as an example to some of the statements made at the congressional hearings held on 7 December 2018, 24 July 2019 and 26 September 2019 in the United States.”
“First, on Ms Anthea Ong's questions, say, you push a foreign country's or a specific party's agenda to subvert your own country, the position is clear. You are acting against Singapore's national interests. Often, this is done for money; sometimes, for other reasons. I am not sure you can do this, identify this by specific criteria. It really depends on what is actually done, what actually happens. The cases of Eastern Sun and Singapore Herald are illustrative. On the second part of Ms Anthea Ong's question, as the Nominated Member knows, no such general lists have been published about organisations and individuals who may potentially be subject to foreign influence. In fact, I am a little perplexed by the question because how do you make a comprehensive list of all people who may potentially be recruited by foreign agencies or be subject to foreign influence? When I put it in those terms, you can see that the point is quite absurd. In foreign countries, even Members of Parliament have been recruited by foreign agencies. So, it will be quite meaningless to publish such lists. Whether we should identify specific areas which are more likely to be vectors for foreign influence and have some better way of managing those risks – given that the environment is changing – that is a different issue. Of course, there are specific jobs that already have requirements for security clearances for these and other reasons. If action is, in fact, taken against a particular individual or organisation, the case often becomes public. This will be so unless there are national security reasons not to reveal the details. The Nominated Member will be aware, for example, of the case involving Mr Huang Jing. There have been other examples as well.”
“Mr Speaker, please allow me to take Question Nos 12 and 13 from Ms Anthea Ong and Assoc Prof Walter Theseira together.”
“As at 31 December 2018, there were 535 cases where applications for Protection Orders (POs) were filed. POs were granted in 213 cases. Expedited Protection Orders (EPOs) were granted in 193 cases. There were about equal numbers of male and female applicants who obtained POs and EPOs in these cases. Out of the 322 cases where POs were not granted, 213 cases had applications for POs withdrawn. The applications in the remaining cases would have either been dismissed, struck off or were still pending as at 31 December 2018. It would have required a very intensive process to identify the different types of harassment. The Courts do not have the manpower resources to do that. The Courts are introducing technology. That will take some time. Once that is done, it may become easier to find some categorisation for types of harassment.”
“Different segments of the population fall prey to different scam types. E-commerce scam victims were mainly from the younger age groups – those below 35 years old – mirroring the demographic that is more likely to shop on e-commerce platforms, such as Carousell, which accounted for a significant number of scam cases. For loan and investment scams, there was no age group that was particularly vulnerable. The majority of credit-for-sex scam victims were young adults between the ages of 20 and 30. In Internet love scams, the victims were more likely to be middle-aged, with most victims being between the ages of 30 and 50. As for China "officials" impersonation scams, the distribution of the ages of the victims used to be quite evenly spread out. However, in recent years, we see these scammers targeting younger victims, with most of the victims in the first half of 2019 being young adults below the age of 30. The Police have been working closely with the National Crime Prevention Council to raise public awareness on scams. These include outreach efforts to schools and institutes of higher learning. For example, the Police launched the "Young Police Buddy" initiative in December 2018, aimed at raising crime awareness, including scams, amongst primary school students. An anti-scam make-a-thon was organised on 23 September 2019 and 3 October 2019, tapping on the creativity of participating tertiary students to design solutions to tackle e-commerce scams.”
“A Singaporean can sponsor his or her legally adopted foreign child for Singapore Citizenship. He or she will have to submit an online application via Immigration and Checkpoints Authority's (ICA's) website and provide supporting documents, such as the child's birth certificate and adoption papers. Citizenship applications usually take around six to 12 months to process. A point to note is that a successful adoption does not guarantee that the child will be granted Singapore Citizenship. All citizenship applications are assessed on a range of criteria, including the circumstances of the applicant and the family, as well as the Government's policies, including on marriage and parenthood.”
“Will-writing services are not restricted solely to lawyers and are not a regulated activity under the Legal Profession Act1. This accords with the approach in other jurisdictions, such as Britain. People who wish to make a will have a range of choices. They may write the will themselves or seek the help of a will-writing service provider. Those who envisage their assets being distributed or managed in a complex manner can engage a lawyer to assist with drafting the will. The Legal Aid Bureau also offers legal assistance in the drafting of wills to Singapore Citizens and Permanent Residents of limited means. We do not maintain statistics on the provision of will-writing services. We encourage the public to deposit information on their wills with the Wills Registry, which is a confidential registry maintained by the Public Trustee. Doing so will make it easier to locate the will in future.”
“These include training frontline counter staff to spot scam victims, and displaying crime advisories prominently at the counters and automated teller machines. These efforts have helped prevent at least 77 scam cases involving more than $160,000 in 2019 so far. But public education remains the key. A discerning public is our best defence. No amount of Police resources will be enough to stop scams, because the Police are alerted only after the crime, and the scammers constantly evolve their methods. In fact, the primary responsibility for stopping this increasing trend of scams should lie with all of us. If we are more sceptical of incredulous inducements promised by scammers, transact only on reliable platforms, and develop a habit of checking with the actual authorities when approached by dubious entities purporting to be Government officials, fewer of us would fall prey. To this end, the Police partner the National Crime Prevention Council (NCPC) to raise public awareness. For example, there is a regular "Scamalert" segment on "CrimeWatch" dedicated to educating the public on scams. A Scamalert.sg website was launched in 2014 to inform members of the public on the latest scam types. The website has had over 1.2 million visits to date. In 2016, the Police and NCPC launched an Anti-Scam Helpline (1800-722-6688) for the public to seek scam-related advice. Direct mailers containing scam-related information are also regularly sent to households in Singapore. Everyone should play a part in the fight against scams. Members of the public are urged to stay vigilant and report possible scams promptly to the Police.”
“ASC works closely with the three major local banks – the Development Bank of Singapore, Overseas-Chinese Banking Corporation and United Overseas Bank – to freeze suspicious bank accounts that are detected to be involved in scams, and impede fund transfers involving such accounts. These bank accounts can be frozen within a few days of notification – typically within a day, actually – which is an improvement over the previous process where banks could take up to a month to comply. Second, working with digital platforms to introduce scam prevention measures and disrupt scammers’ activities. One example is the introduction of scam prevention measures by Carousell on its platform, which include scam advisories and "Caroupay", a form of escrow payment which holds money paid by buyers until the sale is acknowledged by both buyers and sellers. Third, working with telecommunications companies to swiftly terminate mobile lines used by scammers. In the first three months of the ASC's operations, 1,632 e-commerce and loan scam reports involving S$3.8 million were referred to ASC. ASC managed to freeze 1,286 bank accounts and recover around S$1.25 million, about 33% of the amount lost. The third approach is to work closely with various stakeholders in the fight against scams. For example, the Police actively work with print, online, radio and television broadcast media, as well as through the Police’s own social media channels, to raise awareness of typical scams and especially new scams. Business operators can also help by preventing, deterring and detecting crimes at their business premises. The Police have been working with stakeholders, such as convenience stores, remittance agencies and banks, to raise their awareness and help develop scam prevention measures.”
“In the first half of 2019, for the top 10 types of scams, there were 3,591 Police reports lodged, with losses totalling $83.1 million. Compared to the same period last year, this was a 40% increase in both the number of reports and amount cheated. The Police take a multi-pronged approach to tackling scams. First, strengthen our capabilities to investigate and bring the perpetrators to justice. As many scams are perpetrated by foreign syndicates, the Police set up the Transnational Commercial Crime Task Force (TCTF) in October 2017. TCTF works closely with foreign law enforcement agencies to crack down on foreign syndicates targeting Singaporeans. Since its set-up, TCTF has worked with the Royal Malaysia Police and the Hong Kong Police in six joint operations on Internet love scams reported in the three jurisdictions, solving about 270 cases involving S$27.6 million. In April 2019, two Nigerian scammers, who operated Internet love scams targeting Singaporeans, were arrested in Malaysia and brought to Singapore to face charges. This was the first time that overseas-based suspects involved in Internet love scams have been arrested and sent to Singapore for prosecution. As for e-commerce scams, the Police set up an E-Commerce Fraud Enforcement and Coordination Team (E-FECT) in November 2018. Since its formation, E-FECT has arrested 54 e-commerce scammers and solved more than 920 e-commerce scams. Second, we want to act quickly to disrupt scammers’ operations and mitigate victims’ losses. To strengthen our ability to do so, the Police’s Commercial Affairs Department set up the Anti-Scam Centre (ASC) on 18 June 2019. ASC is focused on the following three actions. First, the swift freezing of bank accounts.”
“We do have measures in place to screen foreign workers. However, the security screening can only pick up those with prior records. Individuals may also become radicalised after they have been in Singapore. We cannot just depend on screening. We have to stay vigilant, to identify and take actions against individuals who pose a threat to Singapore's security. Our security agencies also work closely with their foreign counterparts, exchange intelligence to help uncover threats. The community also has a role to play. Family members, friends, colleagues and employers are best placed to notice possible signs of radicalisation and they should come forward if they suspect that someone they know might be involved in terrorism-related activities. Tell-tale signs include a change of behaviour and when the person starts to espouse extremist ideologies. The Ministry of Home Affairs (MHA) works closely with the Ministry of Manpower (MOM) in this area. MOM issues advisories to employers of foreign domestic workers to educate them on indicators to look out for in someone who may be radicalised or be involved in terrorism-related activities. MHA also worked with MOM to incorporate a counterterrorism module in the Settling-In Programme for new foreign domestic workers. The module teaches new foreign domestic workers what they should and should not do, how they can look out for tell-tale signs of radicalised individuals, and the Police hotline to call.”
“I thank the Member for his comments and I will say this. We have extensive discussions with the religious leaders, both my Ministry but also the Government leaders, including the Prime Minister with the Christian leaders, the Catholic leaders, the Muslim leaders, the Mufti, Hindu Endowments Board. It has never been said to me in the terms that Mr Manap put it today. Everyone would say their personal views will be, can be, influenced by religion. Many in Cabinet, many Members of Parliament are deeply religious. We do not hide that. But when you make your decisions, you cannot put aside your religious self but you must take into account everybody else and you act neutrally; and you take the position for the benefit of all Singaporeans, even if you believe that that may not be consistent with your religious beliefs. That is a consistent position. When we meet with the Muslim leaders, when we meet with the Muslim clerics, when we meet with the Mufti, then we meet with the Christian leaders, they understand that, they accept it and they say that is the only way in which we can proceed with governing Singapore and living in Singapore, not just for us as a Government but for them as religious leaders. So, Mr Manap has introduced a new element in that process today. I think that is something for him, and others around him, to think about. [(proc text) Question put, and agreed to. (proc text)] [(proc text) Bill accordingly read a Second time and committed to a Committee of the whole House. (proc text)] [(proc text) The House immediately resolved itself into a Committee on the Bill. – [Mr K Shanmugam.] (proc text)] [(proc text) Bill considered in Committee; reported without amendment; read a Third time and passed. (proc text)]”
“I am sorry that I left out answering that question. Lots of questions from lots of people. But if I may say this, the man was charged. The Member is asking whether he can now be charged here under section 17E. There are a number of requirements – mens rea of knowledge and intention and so, one has to go and look at the facts. I do not know enough of those facts to be able to tell the Member whether he could have been charged here. Potentially, but it depends on the facts.”
“Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I think we, as a people here, should be very careful making public statements about what behaviour we expect from religious leaders. I am the Minister for Home Affairs, Minister for Law, and I can tell Members what the law is and what should not be done. Beyond that, I think those are matters where we certainly can talk to the religious leaders in a private setting. But I do not think I should be commenting publicly on how I want religious leaders to behave and what standards they ought to meet.”
“Sorry, by the way, Qadri is much more recent. I do not think it had taken place in 1990.”
“I can assure Mr Pritam Singh that that remains my underlying belief – that relationship should be structured on the law and the rule of law, and exceptions should be carefully considered. This is not a new exception we are making. We are keeping to the exception that was made, but even since my speech in 1990, a further structure was set up. The structure was not a judicial process per se, but a separate independent review process, going up all the way to the President. I think that strikes the right balance.”
“We are putting the extraterritorial clause, but I think the Members would recognise it is not easy to go and find these people. These are the facts. These things are all around us. The influences are there. Some people will be influenced. And I do not think I want to mislead anyone. We will do our best, but that does not mean that we can keep everything out.”
“Actually, yes. Okay, my apologies, left out here. I have four questions. I think the Member asked how the CRI would be administered practically and, more specifically, the sort of activities the Ministry has in mind. I think we will have to consult the religious groups on the appropriate activities and some of them could include private or public apologies, speaking with the religious leaders of the affected community to better understand their views. I think the Member also asked about the repercussions of genuine oversights for disclosure of donations. Some of them may also not have, as the Member said, adequate resources to dedicate for such disclosures. The Bill provides for a defence of due diligence where people can ensure that they took reasonable steps, exercised due diligence to ensure that they met the requirements. And we will work with the religious groups on the implementation of these requirements and will give them short-term exemptions where required. The Member also asked whether there is going to be a help desk or resource centre to educate and assist religious groups. The CA which will be set up, we will work with the religious groups to see how we can assist, but we are also limited in our manpower. This is something that has to be dealt with, with some element of commonsense. The Member asked about foreign donations received by non-registered local religious groups which are affiliated with international religious organisations. The MRHA requirements would apply to all these religious groups, regardless of whether they are incorporated, registered, or not.”
“I am not sure that Ms Sylvia Lim is asking me any specific question.”
“Would you agree that religion should be kept separate from politics in Singapore?”
“Perhaps Mr Manap can be given a final opportunity to answer the question I just asked.”
“Mr Manap, I am entitled to ask you, based on that, a further clarification: do you believe that religion should be kept separate from politics in Singapore?”
“I think I am asking you, would you be prepared to answer honestly? Do you believe religion should be kept separate from politics?”
“Yes, forget about that particular part. I am just asking you: do you believe that religion should be kept separate from politics?”
“Mr Manap, in this clarification and discussion, I do not think that we are going anywhere because we are going around in circles. Either your words mean something – (a) or (b). Do you believe, I ask you for the final time, religion and politics should be kept separate? A simple answer would do.”
“And if someone were to say religion cannot be separated from politics and it covers all aspects of life, and therefore it should impact on Government's policy formulation as well. It must follow from what you say; that this comes through, surely.”
“Thank you. So, if a religious leader or Muslim religious leader comes out and says, "Islam covers all aspects of life and, therefore, Muslims must vote for Muslims". I suppose that follows, does not it, based on your position?”
“So, every aspect of life would include politics, right? Is that not the natural conclusion? You just said every aspect of life must be covered by religion. So, that would include politics.”
“Maybe, please explain, Mr Manap, what do you mean by religion and politics here? Can you explain? You said religion cannot be kept out of politics. What do you mean exactly?”
“Yes, Sir. I understood the second one has been a quote that the Member is making and I gave my points, just to clarify on that. There are other religious texts which also, if read out of context – I am not saying you are reading the Quran out of context. I do not want to discuss or debate Quran. I am not an expert. But other religious texts that if you read them out of context, a literal reading could suggest that non-believers should be dealt with harshly. But we need to be careful in Singapore how these things are preached and brought about. I believe that, for example, in Singapore, when people refer to the Old Testament, they would do it with context and sensitivity. That is what the Christian preachers tell me, that they will do it with sensitivity and they will take a lot of care. That is one. Second, I think it might be easier to just cut to the chase and maybe tell me, do you accept the principle of separation between religion and politics or do you not accept it? Because, by referencing to other religions, if everybody starts saying we do not accept the separation of religion and politics in Singapore, do you accept that there will be severe consequences? And that is why, in this country, we have always brought the religions together. But we have also said there has got to be a separation. So, perhaps, just to be clear, does the Member accept the principle or does he not accept the principle?”
“And fundamentally, our people trust the Government to keep to this and to apply the rules fairly. The MRHA comes in, gives powers to the Government to step in where necessary. Our people know that, they appreciate that. We are religiously diverse, yet live in harmony. That is not a natural state of things. We have had nearly 30 years of the MRHA. The most powerful point, as I have said earlier about the MRHA, we have never had to use it. Once in a while, we have to go and talk to some religious leaders. But our public approach, setting the norms, our speeches, policies, holding the ring neutrally, fair approach, constant positive engagement with religious groups and swift action taken, together with the MRHA and other laws, have created the current situation in Singapore. All of these and more have meant that we have managed to create a framework of positive norms and values for our society. Sir, I think I have answered all the questions. Thank you. [Applause.]”
“These video clips were available on his church's website. We spoke with him, he apologised publicly to the religious leaders of the affected communities. In 2017, in a slightly different context, Imam Nalla made a supplication during a Friday prayer in a mosque that we thought was unacceptable. The international context was also different. He was charged under the Penal Code, fined $4,000. He, too, apologised to the community. But we have had relatively few incidents. Why? Because norms have been shaped and values have been shaped. Does that mean we do not practise our religions? There are many religious people in this House and outside. In fact, the Institute of Policy Studies survey shows that Singaporeans are very deeply religious. But that does not prevent us from having harmony. Assoc Prof Walter Theseira said that the indiscriminate use of the law would create contention rather than consensus. We agree. And if Members look, the law has been there for 27 years, and it has not been used once. We try, as best as we can, to deal with the issues with wisdom and commonsense. Some people say, "This Government has done so; how do we trust future governments?" I think that is the constant paradox about Singapore. It requires good governance for the country to succeed. The way each of the situations was dealt with – wisdom, commonsense. We draw lines in the sand, reinforced positive norms and they made our society stronger. It is not just MRHA that has helped to keep religious harmony in Singapore. It is a whole series of policies, approach and, most crucially, that a significant majority of our people accept, subscribe, support these policies and they want religious harmony. It is a core value of our country.”
“The formulators of the original MRHA had greater experience, knowledge and foresight than I had. When I spoke, I recall that the current Prime Minister responded to me though he did not refer to me. But after that, in my all youthful innocence, I was not convinced. I will say that openly. But in the nearly 30 years since MRHA was enacted, we look around us – Al-Qaeda, ISIS, communal violence in Myanmar, Sri Lanka and more. There are disputes between all major religions across the world, and abuse of major religions by politicians and religious leaders. Through this, we stand proud, a beacon of religious tolerance and social harmony. We need to ask ourselves why. Why have we been spared? My opening speech sets out the principles we have applied, the policies we have put in place and how they have all worked together to help keep religious harmony. The MRHA tries to balance different methods of resolving disputes. The RO is pre-emptive, to stop the spread of speech or material that can cause widespread harm. It is also used to curb malicious foreign influence. The CRI is a community-based tool. We use this in situations where the person and the offended community are willing to meet to mend relations. Prosecution is used in serious cases, where the person incites violence or his conduct poses a threat to the public peace and order of Singapore. In such cases, criminal sanctions are appropriate to deter others from similar conduct. It also provides for severe punishments to reflect the person's culpability and conduct. Has our approach worked? Members answered the question. We have had some incidents of religious disharmony. How did we deal with them? Nine years ago, we had a Christian pastor Rony Tan. He made offensive remarks against Buddhism and Taoism.”
“The trial process can often deepen the fault lines and encourage others to do the same. It can even be counterproductive; the alleged offenders become martyrs for their communities, inflaming tensions even more. I will give Members a couple of examples. You look at the Bali bomb attacks in October 2002. The mastermind was put on trial, said the Court verdict was not in line with Islamic teachings. He used his trial repeatedly to condemn the United States (US), its President, Israel, calling them the world’s terrorists. He promised to write a book on jihad. It inflamed passions. Did it make things better or worse? Another example – Mumtaz Qadri. He was the bodyguard of Mr Salman Taseer, a politician with relatively liberal viewpoints in Pakistan and an outspoken critic of the blasphemy laws. Mumtaz Qadri murdered Salman Taseer, the person he was to protect, claiming it was his religious duty to do so. Qadri was hailed as a hero by some Islamist groups. Thousands of activists turned up during the trial to show their support during the trial. Supporters in 2011 threw rose petals on the armoured vehicle carrying Qadri away from the court, all beamed throughout the world and all over Pakistan. When he was executed, crowds took to the streets to protest. These are the real-world consequences. In 1989, I was quite innocent of these ways of the world – how people actually behave, how they can abuse the legal process. If I believe today what I believed in 1989, then I would not be standing here tabling this Bill. I took an active role in conceptualising and working through this Bill. I believe it to be right for our country and that belief has much to do with what has happened in the last 27 years.”
“He had the sole discretion to decide on the Prohibition Order. The President was not involved in the issuance or review of the Order. The current process for the RO has incorporated the recommendations of the Select Committee. It renamed the Prohibition Order to an RO. The Minister must send the proposed RO to the PCRH. The PCRH then makes recommendations to the President, who can then decide whether to confirm, vary or cancel the RO. So, under the current process, the Minister is not the sole approving authority on the RO. There are checks. But in addition to the above, there is a deeper philosophical point. It is about what I said just now about the balance of powers among the Executive, other institutions, including the Courts, institutions like the President, the PCRH and, of course, individual members of the public. Mr Pritam Singh paid what I think is a compliment by a reference to my speech in 1990, no doubt, so as to make me explain myself. So, let me say this frankly and completely openly. In 1990, when I spoke on this, when the MRHA was first put to Parliament, I was a young, common law-trained lawyer with four years of experience and a few months in politics. My view was that the legal process was able to resolve all disputes and that was the most suitable approach. About 30 years later, with experience and perspective, I have come to realise that this does not always hold true. Is the use of the legal process the best way to deal with all religious issues in society? How about a firebrand preacher who is unrepentant and not remorseful? By going to the Courts, you may be able to deal with the preacher. But what of communal relations and the underlying sentiments of the community?”
“Ms Anthea Ong talked about the inclusion of atheists in interfaith dialogues. These are important and valid suggestions. The law sets out the broad parameters of behaviour, but it cannot be the sole driving force to change behaviour. We do need the community to come in to ensure that deep and strong bonds are built between and within faiths. Mr Saktiandi Supaat asked how employers can look out for radicalisation of domestic workers. I believe the Parliamentary Question reply has dealt with this. Finally, let me deal with the points raised by Mr Murali Pillai on section 18 of the MRHA. He says the Courts should act as a safeguard against abuse of powers. The Member will note that section 18 of MRHA is not a total ouster of the Courts’ ability to review decisions or recommendations. The Court can review decisions and orders under MRHA for some narrow grounds – legality or errors of law. He referenced my speech made in the Second Reading of MRHA in 1990. I had a running bet with my people on two things, whether anyone will raise it and no one wanted to take that bet because they expected somebody to raise it. And, second, who will raise it first. Let me recap the process of the MRHA in 1990. In 1989, the Government tabled a White Paper setting out the threats to religious harmony and introduced the Maintenance of Religious Harmony Bill. The Bill was debated extensively in Parliament and referred to a Select Committee, which made recommendations to improve the Bill. One of the key recommendations made by the Select Committee was the amendment of the issuance process of the ROs. Before the Bill was considered by the Select Committee, it was called the Prohibition Order. The Minister was required only to have regard to the recommendations by the PCRH.”
“The IRCC leaders are trained. They can be called upon to mediate in incidents which can impact on social cohesion. For private family disputes, such as those highlighted by Ms Irene Quay, the religious leaders work closely with Government agencies to try and find an amicable solution. Other than mediation, a number of Members – Prof Yaacob Ibrahim, Ms Joan Pereira, Mr Gan Thiam Poh, Ms Irene Quay, Mr Terence Ho – have talked about the importance of education for members of the public and for our young people. These are important suggestions. Their suggestions also provide a reply to Mr Desmond Choo’s query on how the Government can better bring about awareness among the youths that some discourse is inappropriate in our context. MOE’s curriculum currently inculcates in students values of living harmoniously in our multi-religious context through subjects, such as Character and Citizenship Education and Social Studies. The Ministry of Culture, Community and Youth also has the following programmes to foster better understanding and appreciation of different religions and cultures in Singapore. One is Broadening Religious/Racial Interaction through Dialogue and General Education (BRIDGE) that seeks to provide safe spaces and opportunities for the public to engage in open and facilitated conversations on sensitive topics. Another is Ask Me Anything, Common Senses for Common Spaces and IRCC interfaith dialogues. Different community platforms can help to build and encourage religious harmony in different parts of society. Mr Douglas Foo talked about the tripartite partnership – Government, employers and workers. Ms Irene Quay talked about expanding the membership of the IROs to include more members of different faiths.”
“Inevitably, if you allow religion to play a significant role in politics, then those who are part of the majority religion must have the biggest say, or plurality, at least, will have the biggest say. Do you think the position of religious minorities will be better or worse? He quoted what an Islamic scholar might say. What if a text in another religion is critical of all other religions and it tells its followers that non-believers should be shunned? How would Mr Faisal Manap feel if these were the views of the religion of the majority or the plurality, and that comes into politics? So, for an elected Member of Parliament in this House to say, "I do not accept the principle of separation of religion from politics", I think it is very, very surprising. If you say it is not possible to draw bright lights, that the line will be fuzzy, that is different. It is what I have said. But, anyway, I see your position and I will leave the Chamber with those statements ringing in my head, that you reject the principle of separation of religion from politics. Many Members have provided suggestions on how we can resolve disputes arising from different religious beliefs. Mr Gan Thiam Poh asked if MHA could consider having a mediation team to resolve disputes. Ms Irene Quay suggested forming a group of official and religious mediators. These groups already exist. One of them is the National Steering Committee (NSC) on Racial and Religious Harmony chaired by Minister Grace Fu. The religious leaders on the NSC broached the idea of a Commitment to Safeguard Religious Harmony to counter segregationist behaviours. In addition to the NSC, we have the IRCCs. They are local-level interfaith platforms. They are in every constituency and they seek to promote racial and religious harmony.”
“But those comments do not arise from these amendments. The Government's position has been set out. Different countries follow different approaches. Some even in Europe create a lot of obstruction, for example, on the building of mosques and the practice of Islam. They threaten Muslims, there is Islamophobia. We, in Singapore, take the opposite approach. Here, as I said earlier, the Government allocates land for the building of mosques, only for Muslims. That approach is not taken for any other religion. For other religions, you got to bid for the land. So, this is done without tender and makes the access to the practice of Islam easily accessible. We have set our case very strongly against Islamophobia. We have made it very clear. If we see any such practice, we will move. Earlier, a gentleman was sent to prison and caned for writing on a Mass Rapid Transit wall certain derogatory remarks about Muslims. We protect religious communities, including religious minorities. The third point the Member makes, that he does not agree with the principle of separation of religion and politics. That is what I heard. I was surprised. I asked for confirmation that that is, indeed, what he said and my people say that it is, indeed, what he said. It is a very surprising statement. It is a very serious statement and a statement with serious implications. And it contradicts everything that we hold as central and important in Singaporee and it is a fundamental value. If we went out and asked Singaporeans, I think they will be quite shocked. Let me tell Mr Faisal Manap, assuming that I heard him right, if we do not separate religion from politics, then whose religion comes into politics?”
“For example, foreign influence that undermines religious tolerance among different religious groups and that can present a threat to public peace and order in Singapore, and that is consistent with Article 15. Moving on to a query on section 16F that states that an RO has effect despite other written laws. So, what does that mean? It is in very, very limited circumstances, but let me give an example. I talked about foreign influence through corporations, companies. Section 145(5) of the Companies Act says there should be at least one director – it is a provision known to all lawyers – who is ordinarily resident in Singapore. But supposing we issue an RO because we believe that that company, that person, is subject to foreign inference. So, despite section 145(5) of the Companies Act saying that you need at least one person who is resident in Singapore, the RO will take precedence over section 145(5). That is the context. So, section 16F is to ensure that the religious group cannot refuse to comply with an RO for such reasons. Let me turn to Mr Faisal Manap. He made three points. First, he gave a specific illustration and asked whether that would be a breach. First of all, I would like to ask him if that statement is hypothetical or whether it is actual and whether it has actually been made. But I will, secondly, tell him that on the specific illustration, the substantive law is broadly similar. If you look at section 17F and compare it with sections 298 and 298A of the Penal Code, which I am sure he is very familiar with, you will see that it is broadly, not that different. It will depend on what is the intent of the person saying it and the way and purpose for which the statement was made. The Member made a second point on issues relating to the practice of religion.”
“And if they did not support it and made their lack of support public in the way they talked about the casinos and the way they talked about online gambling, it would be no different from how they had reacted earlier on other occasions, if they had said "We do not support this". I do not think we can completely deny them the right to express some views on some pieces of legislation. At the same time, both parties must understand that the language must be one of mutual respect and does not cross over into being partisan and political. Ms Sylvia Lim spoke about religious leaders making statements during elections – "vote wisely", "vote for stability" and so on – again, I think the principles ought to be: be careful, be temperate, be wise. I agree that for the good of Singapore, we do not want religious leaders to get into the arena and become partisan. But I cannot see that any lines have been crossed so far. A lot of care has to be exercised by the religious leaders if they choose to make statements. And that is in the interest of everyone. The Member had a couple of technical questions. One, how the RO is consistent with Article 15 of the Constitution because the RO seeks to constrain some rights. Article 15(4) of the Constitution, which she may not have seen, states that the freedom of religion does not authorise any act contrary to any general law relating to public order, public health or morality. So, the Constitution itself recognises that there can be some constraints on the freedom of religion. The grounds on which the RO can be issued to religious groups are in the circumstances that are set out.”
“If you will see, December 2010, October 2016 on the casinos and gambling. They were quite clear. This is the National Council of Churches of Singapore: "We speak against the building of a casino in Singapore. Casinos undermine values. The Council urges the Government to review this decision. The family and social fabric of our nation is currently not strong enough." And if you see, Singapore Islamic Scholars and Religious Teachers Association (PERGAS), October 2016, this is regarding online gambling: "PERGAS would like to voice its concern regarding the Government's approval of online gambling. Gambling is strictly prohibited in Islam. Erosion of moral values within the community." I can refer to other examples. But Members can see that they were quite uncomfortable. They expressed their discomfort. It was published in the media. The Government did not tell them "You should not be expressing your views". I think that answers Ms Sylvia Lim's questions. Should we have told them that they are not to comment? This, again, would suggest not practical to draw very clear bright lines. Needs to be dealt with with sensitivity, understanding and some care. For MRHA, there were substantive consultations with the religious groups. It relates to them. They expressed their views. Religious leaders in Singapore know they should not be engaging in general political discourse. So, again, approaching this without a party lens, the questions are: what is good for Singapore and what is doable? MRHA, obviously, they will comment and it is understandable that they comment.”