Maintenance of Religious Harmony (Amendment) Bill

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, 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 you 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 the 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. 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.

She 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 is in the circumstances that are set out. For example, foreign influence that undermines religious tolerance between 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 Restraining Order 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.

He made a second point on issues relating to the practice of religion. 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 face 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 an MRT wall certain derogatory remarks about Muslims. We protect religious communities including religious minorities.

The third point he 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 Singapore and it is a fundamental value. If we went out and asked Singaporeans, I think they will be quite shocked.

Let me tell Mr Manap, assuming that I heard him right, if we do not separate religion from politics, then whose religion comes into politics? 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 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 Chambers 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 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 Inter-Racial and Religious Confidence Circles (IRCCs). They are local-level inter-faith platforms. They are in every constituency and they seek to promote racial and religious harmony. 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, Ms Pereira, Mr Gan, 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 youth 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.

MCCY also has the following programmes to foster better understanding and appreciation of different religions and cultures in Singapore. One is BRIDGE (Broadening Religious/Racial Interaction through Dialogue and General Education) that seeks to provide safe spaces and opportunities for the public to engage in open and facilitated conversations on sensitive topics. And another is Ask Me Anything, Common Senses for Common Spaces and IRCC inter-faith 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. Ms Anthea Ong talked about the inclusion of atheists in inter-faith 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 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 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 the MRHA is not a total ouster of the Courts’ ability to review decisions or recommendations. The Court can review decisions and orders under the MRHA for some narrow grounds – legality or errors of law. He referenced my speech made in the Second Reading of the 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. 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 Restraining Order has incorporated the recommendations of the Select Committee. It renamed the Prohibition Order to a Restraining Order. 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 between the Executive, other institutions including the Courts, institutions like the President, the PCRH and, of course, individual members of the public.

Mr 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? The trial process can often deepen the fault lines and encourage others to do the same. It can even be counter-productive – the alleged offenders become martyrs for their communities, inflaming tensions even more.

I will give you 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, 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.

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. 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 IPS 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 you 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 common sense. 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, common sense. We draw lines in the sand, reinforced positive norms and they made our society stronger. It is not just the 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. 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 has 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.]

Sir, I would like to clarify the point made by the Minister about my speech earlier. Basically, I just want to touch on two points. The first one would be, the Minister mentioned that, in my speech, I mentioned that I disagree. Maybe, I would like to reiterate my speech in Malay and I would actually translate to English.

For that particular paragraph, I will read as full: "Tuan, satu lagi prinsip Akta ini adalah memisahkan agama dan politik. Saya kurang setuju dengan prinsip ini". That means, I do not fully agree with the principle. "Sebagai seorang muslim", as a Muslim, "Islam difahami sebagai satu cara kehidupan atau A Way of Life" being taught, we learn that Islam is a way of life, of which Islam encompasses every aspect of life, including politics and way to do politics.

And I actually continued by saying that I understand that Christianity also believes the same, of which religion cannot be separated from politics.

So, I am not so sure he mentioned that he counter-checked with that particular someone on that particular sentence of mine, whether he checked with the same person, the content, in the context of what I have spoken about for this point; rather than just one particular sentence and the Minister tends to choose to amplify by saying that I totally disagree with this principle.

Secondly, I think he misunderstood my point. I did not say that I quote from a preacher who says those who believe Jesus as the Son of God will end up in hell fire. I mentioned that it is a quote from the Quran. It has been cited by the preacher. So, two clarifications.

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, do you accept the principle or do you not accept the principle?

Sir, I believe I have mentioned it clearly when I provided my clarification. I think the Minister needs to look in what context I am saying this principle which I may not fully agree. As I mentioned, I would like to highlight that —

I need to do so. Sorry, sorry, Sir. I said that as a Muslim, we learn Islam and we accept Islam as a way of life. I am putting into that context. So, I am not so sure what is the issue with me saying that, in the context of me as a Muslim which, in a way, cannot fully agree, in terms of the principle of the separation of religion and 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?

Sir, I said that, as a Muslim, Islam is a way of life. It encompasses every aspect of life. That is what I meant that, me, as a Muslim, I cannot separate the two entities of politics and religion. I hope I made it clear.

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.

Yes, I did say that.

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?

Sir, I disagree with that. I did mention in my speech that we should not use religion for the benefit of politics. It is clearly stated in my speech.

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.

Sir, I believe in terms of the policies that are actually related to religion, as what we are discussing currently, even the Minister has to consult religious groups, right? So, there is an element of – especially in these policies – the element of being intertwined between politics and religion, which cannot be separated.

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.

Sir, when the Minister seeks clarification based on my speech, not focusing on one particular issue that he is asking right now; so, my speech already clearly stated that —

Yes, forget about that particular part. I am just asking you: do you believe that religion should be kept separate from politics?

Sir, to cut it short, can you please refer to the Hansard for the speech that I delivered?

I think I am asking you, would you be prepared to answer honestly? Do you believe religion should be kept separate from politics?

I do not wish to be engaged in such a debate because as I mentioned just now, it is clearly stated in my speech. I believe that your clarification, Minister, is directed to my speech. And I have clearly mentioned in my speech my stand as a Muslim which I see: Islam is a way of life; in the process, in every aspect of life including politics.

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?

Would you agree that religion should be kept separate from politics in Singapore?

I do agree that religion needs to be kept aside, or apart from politics, so that religion will not be used to gain personal benefit or to benefit any political party.

Yes, Mr Deputy Speaker, I was attempting to intervene to just make clear what the position has to be in Singapore, as a minority Member of the Parliament for any party. You represent not just members of your own community. You represent members of other faiths. I think the only way to move forward is to accept that there has to be a certain degree of understanding towards other faiths and move forward in a way which accepts that we must be mindful of introducing religion into politics.

I think where Mr Manap is coming from is faith. And in his faith, it is a value system; I believe the Christian faith is similar. But I think ultimately for a Member of Parliament of any political party in Singapore, I think it is important that you remember that you have to represent the interest of every community, not just yours.

Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. If I may make two points. First, I would like to thank the Minister for answering the questions which I posed which I find quite helpful. And I think I should also clarify why I asked the question about Article 15.

Now, of course, I did not overlook Article 15(4) and what it provides and in a sense the Minister’s answer was predictable. But I felt it was important to put it on record, as a point of reference later on, to make it clear that the Parliament did consider this point and it was debated.

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 common sense.

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.

If I may ask, the fifth one was: we are witnessing a rise of many charismatic and fanatic preachers who have built massive followers in tens of millions online, they are passing divisive values and teachings. How can we safeguard Singaporeans from having access to such contents on social platforms, given the introduction of the extraterritorial clause in this Amendment Bill?

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.