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 6 of 92.
“The installation of anti-bird netting on building facades does not require Singapore Civil Defence Force's approval nor a submission by a Qualified Person. However, the Fire Code does require the anti-bird netting to be made using materials of limited combustibility and its installation must not contravene Fire Code requirements. The prevailing industry standards for materials of limited combustibility are stated in the Fire Code.”
“The Implementation Directive requires Meta to strengthen Facebook's measures against impersonation scams. This includes enhancing measures to stop and/or prevent the publication of photos and videos of key Government office holders used in scam advertisements, remove accounts, profiles and/or business pages that impersonate these office holders, and prioritise the review of end user reports from Singapore on such advertisements, accounts, profiles and/or pages. The the Online Criminal Harms Act (OCHA) Competent Authority will assess Meta's compliance after it submits the relevant documentation by 31 October 2025. We will consider imposing similar requirements on other online platforms depending on the scam situation.”
“From 1 January 2020 to 31 December 2024, there has been a general increase in Drug Rehabilitation Centre (DRC) and Community Rehabilitation Centre (CRC) admissions. During this period, an annual average of 2,000 inmates and 35 inmates were admitted to the DRC and CRC respectively. The DRC is currently operating at about 76% of its capacity, and the CRC at about 28%. Etomidate was listed as a Class C controlled drug under the Misuse of Drugs Act 1973 from 1 September 2025. Those who are caught for etomidate consumption for the third or subsequent time will be admitted to the DRC for treatment and rehabilitation if they are 16 years of age or older. As of 1 October 2025, no one has been admitted to the DRC for etomidate abuse. The Singapore Prison Service monitors the capacity utilisation of its institutions closely and will ensure that it has sufficient capacity and resources to accommodate new admissions. This includes resourcing for its in-house rehabilitation programmes, such as psychology-based correctional programmes, family programmes, pro-social support programmes and religious counselling. Following their release, DRC inmates who are etomidate abusers will undergo a supervision regime in the community, overseen by the Health Sciences Authority. The Ministry of Health closely monitors admissions into the regime and its capacity utilisation, and works with community partners to ensure that it can continue to deliver quality reintegration and rehabilitation support.”
“At the community level, the Police and Singapore Civil Defence Force also work with the Safety and Security Watch Group, which includes religious organisations to conduct security surveys, share best practices and deliver training on building safety and security awareness. That said, the social harmony we enjoy today is a result of not just our strict laws and enforcement, but also our policies and programmes to expand the common space. For instance, the Racial and Religious Harmony Circles strengthen intercultural and inter-religious understanding in our communities through community celebrations, dialogues and learning journeys. Following the Al-Istiqamah Mosque incident, leaders of various faith communities made statements condemning the incident and expressing solidarity with the Muslim community. Members of the Serangoon Harmony Circle gathered to show support for their Muslim neighbours. In a statement, they reminded us that “an attack on one religion is an attack on us all”. It should not be taken for granted, and we must continue to work at it; that our various communities come together, and stand shoulder to shoulder, whenever one of us faces problems, gives us a measure of confidence in the resilience of our society to threats to our racial and religious harmony.”
“My reply will also address Mr Zhulkarnain's question for tomorrow's sitting, on measures to deter incidents that may provoke racial or religious disharmony. [Please refer to "Measures to Detect and Deter Incidents That May Provoke Racial or Religous Disharmony", Official Report, 15 October 2025, Vol 96, Issue 8, Written Answers to Questions for Oral Answer not Answered by End of Question Time section.] I believe Members have asked their questions with the Al-Istiqamah Mosque incident in mind. This is the case where a 61-year-old Chinese man was charged in court on 27 September 2025 for allegedly having sent pieces of pork by mail to several mosques. The Ministry of Home Affairs (MHA) takes a very serious view of incidents that threaten Singapore's racial or religious harmony. We have a robust legal framework that sets clear boundaries of unacceptable conduct. This includes the Penal Code, the Maintenance of Religious Harmony Act and the Maintenance of Racial Harmony Act. If we receive specific information on threats linked to places of worship, the Police will take appropriate action, including investigations and stepping up security measures such as the frequency of patrols in the vicinity of the place of worship. In the last two years, the Police had investigated into about 25 cases of race- and religion-related offences annually. Upstream, as part of the SGSecure movement, the Ministry of Culture, Community and Youth works with the Police and other partners to strengthen religious organisations' crisis response capabilities.”
“As of end September 2025, there were about 42,000 Permanent Residents (PRs) who have been outside of Singapore for a continuous period of more than 180 days. This is about 8% of the total PR population. The Immigration and Checkpoints Authority does not track the number of PRs who have been in Singapore for fewer than 183 days, or any number of days for that matter, in any given period.”
“The Traffic Police (TP) does not track data on accidents involving delivery riders, but this is a group of interest as they spend a lot of time on our roads. TP will consider engaging the platform companies to get their data to help us better understand the driving or riding habits of their workers. We will then consider if we need additional interventions or campaigns, in addition to TP, the Singapore Road Safety Council and Land Transport Authority's existing public education and engagement efforts. When traffic accidents involving injury occur, TP and the Ministry of Manpower may investigate and enforce against errant parties under the Road Traffic Act and Workplace Safety and Health Act respectively. The laws and penalties apply to all road users.”
“In the first half of 2025, the Traffic Police (TP) dealt with about 730 cases of jaywalking, a 4% increase compared to the same period last year. There were nine fatal accidents involving pedestrians who jaywalked in the first half of 2025, compared to seven in the same period last year. Between January 2024 and September 2025, TP conducted 25 elderly-focused road safety events and about 640 pedestrian-related ones, reaching more than 100,000 people. These outreach events emphasise the importance of using designated crossing points, staying alert to traffic conditions and avoiding distractions, such as mobile devices, while crossing the road.”
“From 2021 to 2024, on average, there were 1,489 road accidents annually involving motorists who are foreign Work Pass holders, of which 15 on average were fatal. This constituted 22% of all road accidents and 13% of all fatal accidents during that period.”
“So, there are a variety of things that the Government is doing and also, is constantly analysing. But we always welcome ideas on how we can do this better and if they are workable, we will consider. 3.24 pm”
“There are two different parts. I think, Sir, Mr Singh also knows what he said about PAS, when there was a clear and categorical rejection of PAS' endorsement, so I do not want to keep repeating myself. When it came to PAS, after the Prime Minister called for it, there was a clear rejection of the endorsement. We unequivocally reject, and we do not need their support. When it came to Noor Deros, it was all about, "Well, it does not mean that we are going to carry on with his policies. It does not mean who is he, and so on." But the crucial point is, it is very easy to have said "we reject". Anyway, I think the point has been made, but more important is what is for the future. As regards ways of engaging, what I would say is, what we have done so far has worked very well. At the same time, to say that we have achieved the best possible way of doing things is a road to disaster, because you need to be constantly alert to changing circumstances. And we read the surveys, just as Mr Singh does and Mr Low does, and others do. We all have our different interpretations. I do not necessarily agree with all the interpretations he puts forward. But on many issues, demographically, there are different viewpoints, and it is important to analyse them carefully, not jump to conclusions. What are the reasons for these diverse viewpoints? On some issues, the younger people are more nationalistic and more Singaporean compared with older generations. And we find that younger Singaporeans are less prone to foreign influence, compared with some demographics in the older generation. So, there are these variances and what influences are working on them. Often, we find that these are influences from outside of Singapore.”
“I am glad to hear that, except that it was not done for this election. Deros' endorsement on the basis of race and religion was not rejected during the last GE. We hope that going forward, it will be rejected unequivocally and immediately. What was done was to say, we do not know who he is, you know, he is a nobody, and we have made no promises, agreements or commitments. Which is very different from a rejection. And Mr Singh knows what a rejection sounds like, because he was clear and unequivocal after the Prime Minister called for a clear rejection. He rejected PAS' endorsement, but he never rejected – neither WP nor Mr Singh ever rejected – Deros' endorsement of WP's Malay candidates, nor quite crucially, Deros' endorsement of Mr Faisal Manap for Tampines.”
“I think we need to be very clear, Sir. WP never rejected Deros' views, I think, never rejected his endorsement, never rejected him saying, "Vote for Mr Faisal Manap over Minister Masagos." WP rejected passes, overtures and endorsements through Mr Pritam Singh's rally speech. On Deros, the most that was said was that we made no commitments, promises or agreements. And then, during subsequent doorstops, Mr Singh made various statements about Deros being a nobody. But Mr Singh can let me know if ever there was a rejection of Deros's endorsement of WP's candidates, a clear rejection.”
“So, in Singapore, a lot of that goes on, that constant linkage and the interactions between Government, community leaders, religious leaders, MPs on the ground. That is Singapore's another secret sauce. That is why we succeed so far. But as Mr Low points out, some of the statistics for the younger generation are slightly different. We have to look at that. We will look at that, but there are many reasons for it, among which is the role of the Internet and external influences which are coming in, and people now forming tribes on the net among themselves and not forming relationships and communities on the ground. And therefore, it becomes more difficult to reach out to them and get them to buy in into shared values, because their shared values are with their own net communities. That is also happening. So, these studies are going on. And also, with regard to the Malay community and as Ms Hazlina said and the Member have alluded to, I said they were the victims, meaning they were being the targets. But they were bigger and they rose, they did not allow themselves to become victims. They rose above it and they dealt with it.”
“Sir, on the points relating to Mr Pritam Singh and the WP and Mr Faisal Manap, I have said what I needed to say. Listening carefully to Mr Pritam Singh, he does not say Mr Faisal Manap did not know. He does not say that the WP Malay/Muslim candidates did not know. So, anyway, it is obvious that they know about Mr Deros. They went to meet Deros. What was discussed? As I said, we do not know. Deros put out his posts. We have talked about it. I think Mr Pritam Singh agrees it should have been responded to clearly. I think we leave it at that. In terms of the framework and guidelines, there is one set of hard framework and guidelines in the law. Then, there is common sense and the way we have applied. And frankly, it has not been too bad in Singapore. Most people have kept to that framework of one of trying to achieve consensus, trying to achieve a common ground and increase the common space. And in my speech, I have given some indicators. You do not need to pull back on the substance, but remember, it is a multiracial society, you have demands, others have demands too. Think about it and then see what is a give-and-take approach. But that does not mean you ought to allow yourself to be discriminated against. You should not agree or keep quiet when there is racism. But in terms of demands for the community, what do you want? What can others ask? Remember, in a democracy, everyone can demand. So, what is reasonable? How do we mediate these? And if you leave it for a free-for-all, the domination will be by the majority community. So, we need politicians to be actually in there as leaders to try and give a framework, and bring good sense to these discussions and guide. And not just politicians, but community leaders, religious leaders.”
“Are the younger people less accepting? Is there an issue? I think that is something that should be looked at. But the answer then is not to jump immediately to models which have failed miserably everywhere else. The answer is to say, how do we reach these people. How do we get them to come and talk? These so-called curated fora, all it means is, a safe place is created, different people with different views come together. Moderators come in. They discuss. It is hard-hitting, and it is on substance. Nobody pulls their punches, but they are respectful. And as I said earlier, there is nothing to stop Mr Low or anyone else from organising more of such on their own terms, as long as they do not insult any race or religion and hopefully, they will encourage people to be more respectful. But the answer is not to do away with the Maintenance of Racial Harmony Act or Maintenance of Religious Harmony Act. That is a false solution. That simply means that you are colonised in your minds. I am not saying Mr Andre Low is, but I frequently read from, often foreigners, telling us, advising us on how we should run our country, and among that would be you should not have all these laws. I say, look at yourself first before you prescribe to me.”
“I thank the Member for the clarification. As I listen to him, and I think it is a point he might have made in his maiden speech as well, all these fora that the Government talks about are curated, they are not "real" fora, real fora is where people come and they can speak whatever they like. We have many examples of such real fora. Look around the world. The US, they have such fora. Are we colonised in our mind so much that we have to continue to hark back to these theories which have failed all around the world? What has happened in the US? What has happened in the UK, where they have all these fora that the Member has refer to? What has happened in France? What has happened in Germany? Go look at the statistics. The far right in Germany is getting into power. The far right in France is now getting into power, too. Because when you allow such free-flowing expressions without any kind of legal framework, what is going to happen? Identity politics. What will be the identity politics in Singapore? I am Chinese, you are Chinese. Vote for me. Why do you want to vote for that Malay or that Indian? So, you have the GRC systems. You have the Maintenance of Racial Harmony Act. Why do not we look at what we have and objectively ask, is it better than what is there elsewhere? That is our first question. Is our situation better than what you see in the US, in Europe and in many Asian countries? Yes? No? If the answer is yes, what has worked. Something has worked. I have listed the things that have worked. Is it perfect? No. I said it is work-in-progress. Perhaps, it will always be work-in-progress because of the deep-seated human emotions. And I think it is very pertinent then to say how are the demographics working out. Is there a difference?”
“There will always be attempts to divide us, both from outside and from within, and it is up to us, each one of us, to be standing strong against it and, essentially, our society has to be given the immunity. Immunity comes from these discussions. And when the Leader of the Opposition stands up and says he agrees, then I think the immunity increases.”
“Sir, thank you. I would say, two, or maybe three parts to this. The first is, to do what we have done up to now, eschew race-based politics in the mainstream, do our best and what we do every weekend, go down to the ground as MPs, have events which bring in all the different races together. Continue with all the policies that you see in the Annex, including the Ethnic Integration Policy, our races mixed in integrated schools and other areas, and continue to make sure our legal framework protects everyone and give everyone the confidence. That is important. Of course, everyone must feel, regardless of race, language or religion, that they are participating in the economic progress and in the social progress of Singapore. The second is when there are attempts to play the race card or the religious card, I think we have to be clear and we have to stand firm, which is why I said, it would have been far easier for me not to make the Statement and just move on. But I think something good is achieved in setting out a clear framework and heartening to hear Mr Singh say, "Yes, we could have been clearer on Deros." On timing, to me, every day matters. He says he disagrees, but I am sure, on reflection, he will agree that during campaign, it should just have been immediate, the moment it comes out, a response. So, I think we have achieved some degree of common ground, and we hope that through Statements of this nature, serious discussions in Parliament, our understanding increases. Every Member of Parliament here goes away with a better understanding of the framework. You will be able to talk to your grassroots leaders, to your residents and also put the points across. This is what matters in Singapore. And going forward, we have to continue with that.”
“Yes, I will agree with that description and that is, in fact, what I said as well, maybe not as elegantly as the Member.”
“Sorry. Can I invite the Member to repeat the question, because I missed part of it? I am sorry.”
“I ask the Member not to put words in my mouth. I would say I would invite the WP to tell me – would they take the position that we ought to be censoring and objecting to every article on politics in Singapore by any foreigner and would that apply to all the international journals? If Mr Tiong's position is that, and that we should similarly take down all posts by any foreigner, and if we put forward legislation to that effect, if WP would support it, then we will talk about it.”
“I thank the Member for this question because different people ask this. I think it arises from a misunderstanding of the law. There are a variety of people who have commentaries running on Singapore. The Economist comments on politics in Singapore. The New York Times runs articles on Singapore. The South China Morning Post runs articles on Singapore. And Michael Petraeus is not the only person who is a foreigner who runs commentaries, sometimes for the Government, sometimes against the Government, sometimes favouring the WP. We can cite various people who favour the WP who are foreigners. That does not amount to being within the definition interfering with our local politics. If we took that definition, every day we will be doing nothing but taking down and trying to object to various international journals. Hundreds of articles appear, hundreds of posts appear. It is not the Government's business to be going and censoring all of this, nor is it going to be possible. But if there is a specific attempt to interfere in the elections and if "Critical Spectator" has put out any such post, I would welcome Mr Tiong to send it to us and we will take a look at it. As far as I know, there is not one, but I could be mistaken because I do not follow his posts and nothing has been sent to me.”
“It is also individual responsibility. But my speech should not be understood as saying, "Oh, you cannot speak about race or religion or discrimination or racism". The way to deal with those is to speak about it, but do so, have a care, do so sensibly.”
“But I am not speaking today because of the incidents relating to the mosque, just in case Members get that impression. The sequence for my speech today is, as I have said: after the President's speech, this is the first occasion. And it is a speech that seeks to set out the framework and fundamentals – first, to remind ourselves; and second, to guide us for the future, for all political parties, so that we accept what is precious in Singapore and we say we will protect it. On safe spaces for minorities or for anyone, really, I mentioned it in my speech. There are various fora, there are young people, unions, other associations, grassroots, a variety of formats where these issues can be raised. Safe spaces. Nobody pulls punches on the substance of things, but they are respectful of each other. Beyond that, if people want to organise fora on their own, they are welcome to do so and discuss these issues. All we ask is: first of all, do not attack other religions or races, because that will breach the law and we will enforce the law. Two, be respectful and take the approach of "give and take". Because if you push with only your views, then others too, will push with only their views. Remember that we are in a multiracial, multi-religious society, so approach it with common sense and give and take. And within that framework, it does not mean that you must accept discrimination, you must accept racism. You are entitled to bring it up. And in fact, recently, legislation has been put in place that protects minorities and others from having their employment terminated for the wrong reasons, including that of race or religion. So, the Government will continue doing it in terms of protecting everyone, in trying to create a bigger common space.”
“Sir, on why now, I have explained. During the elections, the Government issued a statement through MHA and ELD. The Prime Minister spoke as Prime Minister, the highest level of intervention. And he said what our principles ought to be, and he set out and asked political parties to make clear their position. And that had some impact. After that, the President's speech mentioned it, the importance. Then, the Prime Minister again spoke during the Debate on the President's speech. As I said in my Ministerial Statement, why are we repeating this over and over again? Because it is fundamental. Without an agreement on this basic point, Singapore will not survive. It is existential. Which is why I have pitched my speech as one that I hope all sides can agree on, as Singaporeans, and learn from, for the future. That is very important – how do we deal with such incidents in future? I think responsibility means doing that well. After the Prime Minister's intervention in the Debate on President's speech, this is the earliest opportunity. This is an important issue. This is the earliest opportunity. We decided that it should be dealt with in Parliament. And I am speaking in Parliament at the earliest possible opportunity. So, that answers "why now?" On the incident relating to pork, the items of meat being sent to various mosques, the matter is under investigation. Members know that somebody has been charged. Members would have heard me say that we take this very seriously; it is not acceptable. And we will deal with it very stiffly in terms of the charging position that we take and decisions that are taken from the Government side. Then, the Attorney-General's Chambers (AGC) will have to independently look at it. And what happens in Court, that is for the Courts to decide.”
“But when we advocate for the concerns of the Malay/Muslim community or any other community, we must ensure that our advocacy is conducted responsibly in a manner that upholds Singapore's unity. So, just as the Government's policies benefit the Malay/Muslim community, they must also benefit all other Singaporeans, and there is a distinction between advocating for the legitimate needs of a community versus pitting the different racial and religious groups against each other or calling on Singaporeans to vote along racial and religious lines. The latter is what causes division. Take Deros as an example. He is entitled to his opinions, ideas and suggestions, regardless of how absurd these were. But what was troubling was his call for Singaporean Malay/Muslims, to vote along racial and religious lines for specific candidates. As I said in my speech, if you go down this route, if you go down the route that Mr Damanhuri has advocated and Deros is advocating, who will benefit? The largest groups will be the ones that all political parties will cater to. Who will suffer? Not the Chinese. And that will be the road to Singapore's ruin. Because, ultimately, the Chinese will also suffer because we will not remain a country in the way we are. Everyone will suffer. So, when raising issues that relate to particular racial or religious community, the tone matters, the setting matters. We have to adopt a give-and-take approach. Avoid a zero-sum mentality. Avoid casting every issue as an ideological battle where no compromises can be made. Otherwise, we risk reducing our common space and inviting pushback from other communities. And never insult or belittle any racial or religious group, or attempt to pit certain groups against others.”
“Sir, I think it is perfectly acceptable for political parties, candidates, politicians to say that their policies will benefit a specific community. In fact, if you look at my Ministerial Statement, one of the key points is that this Government's policies over the last 60 years have benefited the minorities: Malays, Indians and others. And that if we had followed the norms set in other places in the world, minorities would have been in a far worse position. So, it is entirely possible for a PAP politician to go and say the PAP is the best party to protect minority interest or protect Malay/Muslim interest, to protect Indian interest. It is perfectly possible to say that. And it is perfectly possible for someone to counter and say that is not correct. If you look at the Malay/Muslim community, it has been a long-standing commitment of the PAP government to support and uplift the Malay/Muslim community. It dates back to pre-Independence, to the days of Mr Lee Kuan Yew, and successive Prime Ministers have reiterated this fundamental commitment. That is why our Constitution recognises the special position of Malays. It states that it shall be the responsibility of the Government to protect, safeguard, support, foster, promote their political, educational, religious, economic, social and cultural interest, and the Malay language. So, it is entirely acceptable to say or contradict that one of the Government's key policies is the upliftment of the Malay/Muslim community. There is nothing wrong with advocating ways to advance a particular community or discussing legitimate community concerns.”
“Sir, I think we should be clear. I was not singling out any particular community. Our Malay/Muslim community during this GE was a victim of these tactics. They did not ask for these provocations nor did they support these tactics. They share the same strong commitment as any other community, to Singapore's multiracial, multi-religious approach. The Malay/Muslim community has stayed calm in spite of the deliberate attempts to rile up racial and religious sentiments among the community. This time, these people whom I have mentioned targeted the Malay/Muslim community. Previously in other GEs, the Chinese community has been targeted. Those who play identity politics do not just target one community. In fact, one thrust of my speech is that if we go down this road of identity politics, everyone will be targeting the Chinese community for obvious reasons. So, after the statement by the Government was issued, MHA and ELD and the Prime Minister's press conference, many members of the Malay/Muslim communities spoke up to affirm their support for a multiracial Singapore. In every society there will be an attempt to draw invidious comparisons to mobilise different communities. As I have said in my Ministerial Statement, we have seen this in many countries and that is what was being tried in this GE – to divide Singaporeans. The attempts included the attempts by PAS. And we can see how societies are getting increasingly divided. So, let us continue to stay firm to our principles and avoid the pull of identity politics. But certainly, it is not the Malay/Muslim community that is targeted. They are the victims.”
“I think Mr Singh is confusing two different issues, Sir. The MHA-ELD statement talked about foreign interference. It also dealt with a separate issue: religion and politics. In response, the WP statement dealt with religion and politics, and said no agreements, commitments or promises had been made. On PAS, it said something else, and then I have referred to what Mr Singh said in his doorstop and further at the rally. So, let us keep the two separate. Let us not confuse the two. On Deros, MHA-ELD statement does talk about religion and politics. It does not mention Deros, but it says religion and politics ought not to be mixed. And as I said, the WP knows, I mean, it is Noor Deros. They met with him and he made all these demands, he made all these calls. I think Mr Singh has said yes, it could have been clearer, instead of just saying no agreements, promises or commitments. It should have said we reject his demands; we rejected it when we met him. I do not know. I hope his demands were rejected when there was the meeting. We rejected his demands when we met him. We reject his demands now. This is completely unacceptable. That is all that I am saying and I think it is not a very difficult thing to agree to. Let us not confuse that with the PAS statement. On the PAS statement, I said it started out a little equivocal, then the doorstop, it became clearer, and after the Prime Minister gave his press conference at night, it was quite clear by Mr Singh. So, keep the two separate. The Government dealt with the two different issues, both through the MHA-ELD statement, though it did not mention Deros, and through the Prime Minister's press conference.”
“So, we need to be mindful of that, because it can be politicised. Maybe Mr Singh is welcoming of a phone call to say this is not on, but I can imagine a number of other political parties might say, you are trying to threaten me in the middle of a GE. So, we need to be very careful. So, the statements were clear, but carefully drafted. That is the MHA-ELD statement and the Prime Minister decided to come out and say it because this is fundamental for Singapore. So, how could it be any clearer? He said it. He said, reject this; reject identity politics, reject foreign interference. So, we did do it. If Mr Singh is talking about a specific reach-out to WP, we will think about it. But let us all commit, in the first place, to saying we all understand, under no circumstances is this acceptable and we will be clear in future.”
“Sir, we will certainly consider Mr Singh's suggestion. But what I would like is a more unequivocal acceptance of responsibility. If there is any asymmetry of information, it is that WP had all the information because neither the Government nor the PAP met with Mr Deros. I mean, however the meeting took place, Mr Deros met with five of the Member's candidates, including the Member's Vice Chairman. He said whatever he said. Until today, I do not know what was said. I only know what he reports as having been said and I know that nothing has been said by WP about what transpired other than that no promises, commitments or agreements were made. So, yes, there is an asymmetry of information – and that is, WP knows what happened; we do not. We only know what Deros has put up. And even with that asymmetry of information, knowing what we did, it strikes us and it seems to me to strike anyone, that this is not acceptable. And if it is not acceptable, for example Mr Singh issued a clear and unequivocal rejection of PAS' interference. He knew enough to say that he is, as Mr Low described him, "a politician who understands politics". He was able to do that after the Prime Minister called for a clear rejection. He never did that, and WP never did that about Deros. Let us just say that is why we waited for the elections to be over, emotions to come down, and we make the Statement. As I said, I was not going to go into this level of detail, we draw a line, we move forward as one Singapore. In future, if these things happen, the framework hopefully is clear enough, we all accept and move ahead. If you want the Government to tell you what to do and what not to do in the middle of the elections, the Government is also mindful of being seen to interfere with individual political parties.”
“This is not an attempt to try and confuse the public. The PAP can reach out to a whole variety of parties including PAS and the United Malays National Organization (UMNO), and around the region in Indonesia and other places. That is part and parcel of understanding what is going on around the world. That is very different from accepting a foreign endorsement of our candidates. If PAS had endorsed the PAP candidates of any race, I think this House, knowing as it does our philosophy, can be sure that we will have rejected it immediately. So, let us not confuse these issues. Let us stick to what we are talking about here. One is Deros' endorsement of WPs' Malay candidates, leading clearly into an identity politics situation; and the other, PAS' endorsement of WPs' Malay/Muslim candidates. That is what we are talking about. And we are talking about how do you respond to that. I hope we can agree and move on.”
“Thank you, Sir. Sir, let us keep the two separate. On Deros, I think listening to Mr Singh, he agrees that it should have been and could have been clearer. And let us just remember the person meeting Deros was the Vice Chairman of the party, a CEC member, a very senior leader, he was meeting Deros together with all the WP Malay candidates. So, let us just take responsibility for it and agree that the statement that came out was not unequivocal. It should have been clearer. And I think Mr Singh agrees that it should have been clearer. There should have a clear rejection of Deros' demands. There should have been a rejection of Deros' support for WP's Malay candidates. There should have been a rejection of his support for Mr Faizal Manap. It was not done immediately and when it was done, it was done without a clear rejection. What did we learn from this? Based on what Mr Singh agrees, in future, we need to be very aware and we need to be clear when we make our rejections. So, I thank him for that. The Government should be more active, I think is Mr Singh's second point. I think we all have to work on this together, but that can only come about if we all agree on the fundamentals. The Government issued the statement, MHA. The Prime Minister made an extraordinary move because it was so important, and he came out and spoke in public during the GE, and said this is not acceptable. And I think that then prodded WP into making clear statements on PAS but not so much on Deros. On the relationship between the PAP and PAS, Sir, there are a number of political parties in Singapore: PAP, WP, SDP, the Progress Singapore Party. Mr Singh knows that they all have interactions with various political parties around the world. So, let us not seek to confuse these issues.”
“Thank you for reminding me. Sir, I thank Mr Singh through you. I do not want to go into future hypotheticals. As for the past, the Government decided to take the approach that it has done, which is to issue a statement through MHA and ELD, and then make this Ministerial Statement. What might happen in the future, we will assess the facts of each case.”
“It is really what each of us is responsible for and what responsible conduct means. When your Vice Chairman is meeting together with the slate of candidates and there are these demands, you do not need to be told by the Government, really. I hope we can agree on these basic points.”
“Look, Mr Low Thia Khiang has described Mr Singh as "a good politician", meaning a politician who understands politics. Mr Low said this last year. So, the lack of clear response, a vague response must have been a deliberate choice based on a calculation of interests. I am just taking it point by point, as a series of logical conclusions, that there is some benefit in keeping it less clear and that Deros can swing some votes. Those who understand politics will know this. This is not rocket science. That sort of calculation may bring some short-term benefits. And whatever I say about Deros also goes for PAS. But as I said, long-term damage to our country. It goes against our National Pledge, it goes against our multiracial ideals. So, being true to our pledge has to go beyond citing it during GE rallies. It must mean putting it in practice even when it is difficult to do so. Sincere belief requires acting true to the words of the pledge, even when it may cost some votes. So, I will not go into any of this detail. I refrain from saying all of this bluntly in my speech. The main purpose of my speech was to say, let us come together, keep faith with our fundamentals of multiracialism and not play identity politics. My hope and the purpose of my speech is that we will learn from what had happened, move forward as one people, Singaporeans together, agreed on the fundamentals; close ranks when people like Deros and foreign parties like PAS try to divide us and say and agree that we will reject such attempts immediately and clearly, even if we may calculate them to be in our short-term political interest. Let us just be clear today, we do not need to refer to the POFMA office, we do not need to refer to the Government or say the Government did not tell us.”
“He said he would canvas support for the WP, if the WP agreed to his demands and said that people should vote for Mr Faisal Manap, and this was after meeting Mr Faisal Manap and the WP's Malay candidates. Mr Faisal Manap was and is the Vice Chairman of the WP and, if I am not wrong, probably a Central Executive Committee (CEC) member as well. Mr Faisal Manap and others need the POFMA office to tell them about their meeting with Deros and his posts? Then, there is a larger point, a more substantive point, which I have alluded to. The statement was issued on 26 April, the WP statement. As I said earlier, it did not reject Deros' position that he would ask Muslims in Singapore to vote along racial and religious lines, nor did it reject Deros' support for its anchor in Tampines, Mr Faisal Manap. Instead, what it said is that no commitments, promises or agreements had been made to Deros. That is something that you might find lawyers drafting for each other. You do not see that in political statements, which ought to be clear and unequivocal. And I think Mr Singh, if I heard him correctly, conceded that the statement could have been clearer, and I thank him for that. So, it should have been squarely stated that we are rejecting all of this. When there is no clear response, it raises questions. And if you look at it logically, do we agree that what Deros said was serious? Obviously, yes. I think all of us, regardless of party affiliation, would agree to that. Do we agree that it required a clear and immediate rejection without any qualification and it was important to do so? Listening to Mr Singh just now, I think he accepts that. Can the lack of a clear rejection of Deros' statement be an oversight?”
“Sir, I think Mr Singh has confused two different issues. The first is on Deros. And in my Statement, I said that the WP statement did not reject Deros' very serious conduct in asking Muslims here to support the WP on racial and religious grounds, and asking voters in Tampines to vote for Mr Faisal Manap. I hope after the Statement we can at least have common ground that what Deros did was unacceptable. And if there is common ground that that was unacceptable, then it should have been responded to immediately. And it should have been an unequivocal rejection of what Deros said. Second is foreign influence. I said that the initial statement by WP was not clear, but it got clearer when Mr Singh gave his doorstop, and then, it became quite clear after the Prime Minister had specifically called on political parties to make their position clear. Mr Singh then clearly, unequivocally, rejected PAS' statements during the rally. So, on I did not say that either Mr Singh or the WP had made their position clear on Deros, it should have been made clear. I am not quite sure why there is a reference to the POFMA office or MHA or the Government, or this suggestion of should the Government have communicated with a political party in the middle of the GE. Look, we are now here talking about Deros' meeting with the WP's Malay candidates. According to Deros, he met with all of the WP's Malay candidates. That means Mr Faisal Manap and four others. Assume that was known, Deros put up his posts on 23 and 24 April, Nomination Day and the second day. Deros talked about his meeting with the WP. He talked about his demands.”
“You might think that it might have appeared an attractive option to some of our Pioneer Generation of Malays – get some land and remain a member of the majority in Tanah Melayu. But not a single Pioneer Generation Malay took up the offer. They chose to stay in Tanah Singapura instead and build a home here. We owe them so much. If they had left, we would not have remained in multiracial country as we are now. Also, if the Chinese majority had, at that point, refused to listen to Mr Lee, then we would not be the multiracial country that we are today. So, let us remain faithful to the hopes and dreams and aspirations of our Pioneers. Thank you, Sir. [Applause.] 2.03 pm”
“During the recent debate on the President's address, the Prime Minister again urged all political parties to conduct politics with seriousness, with integrity and a deep sense of responsibility. So, why do we keep repeating these points over and over again? It is because these fundamental principles are central to the very existence of Singapore. We decided that we should state our position formally, robustly and unequivocally at the highest forum in our country – Parliament. The peace and harmony in our society have been the foundation for the progress we have achieved. Since Independence, Singapore has been transformed – the physical environment, the economic opportunities, the jobs available and the standard of living. Our people's lives have improved, regardless of their race, language or religion. All communities have benefited, including the minorities. They have done well, not only compared to where they started out, but also compared to other communities in our region. Our multiracial model has worked and we must not heedlessly and irresponsibly put it at risk. Generations of Singaporeans have carried the torch onward. There is much more to be done to achieve the ideals of our pledge. But it is clear, looking around the world, that we can only achieve that if we steer clear of identity politics. Finally, Sir, may I recall something from our history that few here will remember. On the very day Mr Lee Kuan Yew pledged that this will not be a Malay nation, Chinese nation, Indian nation, and that all will be equal, then-Malaysian Prime Minister Tunku Abdul Rahman said that he had asked the Johor State government to set aside 10 acres of land for any Malay in Singapore who wished to leave the newly independent country.”
“And so, I decided to make the Statement at the earliest opportunity after the Opening of Parliament. The main purpose of this Ministerial Statement is to set out: one, our fundamentals on which I hope there will be agreement; two, a clearer understanding on how we hope politicians and political parties will conduct themselves in future should these issues arise again. We must learn from what has happened. As Parliamentarians, we may debate and disagree on many things, but I hope that we can all commit to handle issues of race and religion in a responsible and sensible manner, and to uphold the integrity of Singapore's secular politics. Sir, from time to time, we will have candidates professing that they or their party better represents and serves a specific racial, religious or some identified group. That is entirely understandable as long as it does not get into identity politics. And we need to exercise caution that one does not get into the other. We need to exercise caution on how these points are made. In the recent GE, Deros, Mr Damanhuri, have gone too far. Other instances will be less clear. We need to handle them with care and good sense. Most important, we need deep commitment to our ideals. My Statement builds on a series of recent Government statements and speeches. During the election, MHA and ELD issued a strong statement warning against bringing race and religion into politics. The Prime Minister also stressed that we are all Singaporeans first, regardless of our backgrounds. In the recent President's address, the President reminded us that we can never take our unity for granted and must guard it zealously.”
“We highlighted and strongly criticised some of these instances of racial and religious politics during the GE. But we decided not to take immediate action against those who were transgressing. But we cannot allow such actions to take root, because they corrode our democracy and tear our social fabric. That deals with my second point, on recent troubling incidents which sought to bring race, religion into politics. Sir, my third and final point was on why bringing in race and religion into politics will bring bad outcomes for Singapore. Sir, I am not going to go into detail on that. Through the course of this speech, I have explained why that will be bad for Singapore and Singaporeans. It is obvious – if we do not take a firm stand, some foreign countries, including those not in our immediate neighbourhood, who must have been watching our GE very carefully, will be tempted to play on ethnic sympathies to influence our politics; and all our major communities are capable of being influenced from external sources. Sir, in conclusion, our approach to race, language and religion has been largely successful. Our brand of multiracialism is not only the bridge that brings Singaporeans of all races and religions together. But it is the crux of our being as an independent nation and our continuance as a successful country. Now that the elections are over and emotions no longer run as high, I make this Ministerial Statement to remind ourselves as Singaporeans about the framework and fundamentals that have allowed Singapore to succeed. It is not the first time this House is discussing this issue, but events during the recent GE warrant this being raised again. It is too serious a matter, existential for Singapore, for us to simply let it slide.”
“All religions provide guidance on important aspects of life. So, inevitably, there will be areas where faith and public issues overlap. The Government recognises this complexity and how our identity is interwoven out of our faith, our ethnicity, our language and our culture. In a multicultural society, a pragmatic approach of give-and-take is necessary. People are free to practise their faiths and express views on politics and political issues, influenced by their private religious convictions. But we need to be mindful. This must be done in a manner that is respectful of other religions. The public, political debate must be conducted and decided on a secular basis and there must be give-and-take on all sides. All political parties need to be absolutely clear. Religion must not be misused for political purposes. It must never be brought into election campaigns. Without this shared restraint, destructive competition for power and influence between the different groups can only follow. The same logic applies to race. Our society is structured such that every community gives up something for the common good and every community has progressed, as the nation has progressed. If any community pushes for its interests without consideration for the other communities, then a pushback can be expected. We need to think of our Singaporean identity as fundamental and we each have to give up something to strengthen the shared Singaporean identity. And so, when there are threats to our social cohesion, or attempts to bring race and religion into partisan and electoral politics, this Government must and will act, consistent with the principles it has upheld over the last 60 years. Statements like those from Deros and Mr Damanhuri in the last GE cannot go unaddressed.”
“The governing party itself has eschewed identity politics and fought against attempts to rile up the different ethnic communities. It has set out the fundamental ideals on how our society should be structured. And it has managed to convince most Singaporeans to accept those ideals. Meanwhile, from time to time, various parties, candidates, have tried to stir up the Chinese and Malay communities. Because of the PAP government's political dominance, these efforts have not been successful. The PAP has been the dominant political force, so, it has been able to bear the political cost of fighting against such sentiments. Making this Statement here today, it would actually have been easier to leave all of these unsaid. But this Statement has to be made in the country's interests. The situation is a dynamic one. It is not permanent. If future generations of political leaders on all sides see such identity politics gaining traction, then they will be pressured and tempted to themselves engage in it too. You know what will happen then. It is a one-way street to ruin. So, people like Mr Damanhuri should be more honest with their constituents. Their brand of politics will only work as long as the dominant political force, whether it is the PAP or another party in Singapore, rejects identity politics. But if people like Mr Damanhuri succeed, then the serious risk is that more and more politicians on all sides will go for identity politics. And then, Singapore will suffer. We will experience the same conflicts and divisions we see unfolding elsewhere in the world. So, the dangers of politicising race and religion are clear. But that is not to say that race and religion on the one hand and politics on the other hand, are incompatible.”
“We hope that, in future, political parties will immediately reject any such attempt to interfere in our political process. If this is not done immediately, clearly and unequivocally, it will give rise to questions and confusion. We therefore hope that, in future, political parties will immediately reject – and especially, when such interference is made on the basis of race and religion. I will now move on to another incident during the GE. Mr Damanhuri Abas was a Singapore Democratic Party (SDP) candidate. He had made attempts to get support along racial lines. At an SDP event, Mr Damanhuri accused the PAP Malay MPs of failing to represent the Malay community and ignoring their issues. He claimed that more opposition Malay MPs were needed to raise Malay issues in Parliament. In an interview posted on social media, Mr Damanhuri stated that Malay community issues had not been resolved for 60 years under PAP rule. He called for the Malay voters to vote against the PAP, framing it as an issue of upholding Malay dignity. Dignity is a euphemism. What Mr Damanhuri means is more Malay "rights", more advocating for "Malay" issues, more Malay separateness. In a separate podcast, he said meritocracy is selectively applied. He rehashed these arguments again in rally speeches, this time in Malay. Mr Damanhuri's rhetoric is deceptive. What he is effectively doing is trading off the long-term welfare of the Malay community and our country for his immediate political gain. This is a slippery and dangerous path that will invite a strong reaction from other races in future elections. So far, the situation has been broadly stable because the Government has anchored our country on our ideal of multiracialism.”
“And therefore, it is incumbent on all political parties to decisively reject any attempts by foreigners to influence our election, especially on the grounds of race and religion. The WP issued a statement on 26 April. I had also referred to this earlier, in the context of Deros. There are two concerns with WP's statement: first, on the timing; and second, on the substance. On timing, foreign influence is a serious matter. It is even more serious in the middle of a campaign. So, given the gravity of the matter, it would have been better if WP had issued its statement immediately, without waiting until after MHA-ELD had issued their statement. On the substance, the WP statement did not clearly reject foreign influence, or the foreign endorsement of its candidates. What it said was that the WP had no control over what others said. After the WP statement was issued, Mr Pritam Singh made further statements on 26 April. At a doorstop interview, he said that he stood behind the message in MHA-ELD's statement. That made WP's position clearer. Then, finally, at a rally speech later that evening, which took place after the Prime Minister's press conference, Mr Singh went further and gave the WP's clearest statement on the matter. He said that he categorically rejected the involvement of any foreign elements whatsoever in Singapore's domestic politics; and two, that WP does not need the support of any foreign element. It would have been better if WP had said this right from the start, responding directly and promptly to what the PAS leaders had said. WP did so after Prime Minister had called on all parties to make their position on foreign influence clear; and clearly and categorically reject foreign endorsements of their candidates.”
“This is why all of this reminded some of us, of the first 10 months when Singapore was part of Malaysia. I mentioned this earlier. In those 10 months, between September 1963 and June 1964, the ultras managed to work up sentiments to such an extent that race riots broke out in Singapore. In Dr Goh Keng Swee's words following the 1964 riots, he feared that "Humpty Dumpty had fallen off the wall and could never be put back again." Fortunately, it was only our union with Malaysia which could not be put back together, not our multiracial country, Singapore. But do not forget. It took us decades to repair the damage; decades for the scars to heal. This history is seared into some of us and it is also seared into some Malaysians, but for very different reasons. So, we knew the Government had to call it out. When the PAS leaders openly supported a political party in Singapore on racial and religious grounds and in the middle of a GE, and when the political party in question had not responded. Thus, the MHA-ELD statement I referred to earlier, was issued. It spoke about foreigners attempting to influence the elections. Access to the posts by the PAS politicians was disabled. The Prime Minister also spoke about this, in his press conference on 26 April. Foreigners targeting Singaporeans, asking them to vote on racial and religious lines. That crosses a red line. The Prime Minister called on all political parties to: one, make their stand clear on foreign influence; and two, clearly and categorically reject foreign endorsements of their candidates. The PAS politicians were championing one set of Malay/Muslim candidates against another set of Malay/Muslim candidates. Unfortunately, the truth is that such attempts will have some impact.”
“Establishing this common understanding on how such issues must be dealt with in future is one of the key reasons for this Ministerial Statement. Let me now turn to the contest in Tampines group representation constituency (GRC) in the last GE. As I said earlier, WP fielded Mr Faisal Manap in Tampines to contest against the PAP team led by Minister Masagos. That the Malay/Muslim vote, in particular, was being targeted was obvious, not just to Singaporeans, but pertinently, also obvious to Malaysian observers. Malaysian politicians from the Parti Islam Se-Malaysia (PAS) jumped in. They saw an opening and urged Singaporeans to vote along racial and religious lines. PAS' national treasurer, Iskandar Abdul Samad, expressed support for WP's Mr Faisal Manap. PAS Selangor Youth chief, Mohamed Sukri Omar, reposted a social media post stating that PAP's Malay/Muslim Members of Parliament (MPs) cannot be trusted. More than 60 years ago, Malaysian politicians said the same things about PAP Malay/Muslim leaders then. PAS is an Islamist party. Its goal is to Islamise society in Malaysia. It has persistently pushed for the adoption of Shariah law and penalties. Does anyone, whether in here or outside, seriously believe that PAS is supporting WP's Malay/Muslim candidates in Singapore because PAS cares for Singaporeans? Does anyone believe that PAS has Singaporeans' best interests at heart? Does anyone believe that PAS subscribes to Singapore's multiracial, multi-religious model? Statements by PAS leaders have clearly shown otherwise. In 2024, for example, the PAS President said that Mr Lee Kuan Yew's strategy of fielding candidates from diverse ethnic backgrounds had led to Malay political influence diminishing in Singapore.”
“And that the WP was committed to the principle that religion and politics should be kept separate. The statement did not categorically reject Deros' call on Muslims in Singapore to vote along racial, religious lines, nor did it reject Deros' support for its anchor in Tampines, Mr Faisal Manap. If we accept that identity politics has no place in Singapore, then a clearer and more immediate response was called for. For example, something along these lines would have been much clearer: "that Deros set out various demands, based on his religious beliefs; he said that he would ask Muslims to vote for candidates who accepted his demands; he asks Muslims to vote for the WP candidates if the WP agreed to his demands; he also said that he endorses Mr Faisal Manap in Tampines, because Mr Faisal is a more vocal champion of Malay/Muslim issues. The WP rejects his attempts to influence the Malay/Muslim community, based on religion and race, just as we reject his endorsement of Mr Faisal Manap, based also on religion and race. That is completely unacceptable. We rejected it when he told us and we reject it now.” This is what is needed to be said. It is one way of putting it. Any other form of words, conveying the same points, could also have been used. But it should have been squarely stated immediately after Deros issued his statement on 23 April, without letting the matter drag. Mr Pritam Singh did follow up on 26 and 27 April at media interviews to say that Deros' endorsement does not mean WP will carry forward his policies. But we hope that in future, if such incidents occur, there will be a more immediate, forthright and unequivocal response, given by political parties.”