Debated in Parliament on 7 Oct 2019.
Thank you, Deputy Speaker. Minister, just one clarification on the point you raised at the end about the position you took in 1990. Actually, I think it was an eminently sensible position.
Of course, I do not have the benefit of 30 years of being in this House, and having been in MHA for many, many years now to take a different position. But I do distinctly remember in his speech, the Minister spoke about the concern of that individual in Pakistan, Qadri, who took advantage, basically, of that whole judicial process by bringing more attention to his cause.
Minister did mention in his speech in 1990 that there is always the prospect of modifying judicial procedures and processes to deal with that sort of a problem. It was just one sentence if I remember correctly.
But I think the important point is the separation of powers doctrine, the idea that every man or woman in the country has the opportunity to go before a Court of law to examine what they have been accused of. I think that is important. And I hope as we move forward and the effectiveness of this Bill is assessed, that the Government consider that repeatedly at every stage because that is important.
I can assure Mr Pritam Singh that that remains my underlying belief – that relationship should be structured on the law and the rule of law, and exceptions should be carefully considered. This is not a new exception we are making. We are keeping to the exception that was made, but even since my speech in 1990, a further structure was set up. The structure was not a judicial process per se, but a separate independent review process, going up all the way to the President. I think that strikes the right balance.
Assoc Prof Walter Theseira.
Sorry, by the way, Qadri is much more recent. I do not think it had taken place in 1990.
Assoc Prof Walter Theseira.
Mr Deputy Speaker, would the Minister agree that religious leaders should have some care when characterising the behavior of Singaporeans who do not quite meet the moral standards of the religion, especially with respect to family life. And if so, what would be an ideal standard of care, especially in cases where the characterisation might be offensive or hurtful?
Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I think we as a people here should be very careful making public statements about what behaviour we expect from religious leaders.
I am the Minister for Home Affairs, Minister for Law, and I can tell you what the law is and what should not be done. Beyond that, I think those are matters where we certainly can talk to the religious leaders in a private setting, but I do not think I should be commenting publicly on how I want religious leaders to behave and what standards they ought to meet.
Ms Anthea Ong.
Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. Minister, I actually also have a question that you might have unwittingly left out. At the beginning of my speech, I asked about the new provisions – I think the provision is section 17E(1) and (2) – and I cited the example of 2016 when a Singaporean man threatened to open fire on a Facebook comment, and the Facebook community is a religiously based one. So, now that we have these new provisions, would something like this come under that as an offence under the new provisions?
I am sorry that I left out answering that question. Lots of questions from lots of people. But if I may say this, the man was charged. The Member is asking whether he can now be charged here under section 17E. There are a number of requirements – mens rea of knowledge and intention and so, one has to go and look at the facts. I do not know enough of those facts to be able to tell you whether he could have been charged here. Potentially, but it depends on the facts.
Mr Irshad, do you have a new clarification? We should not be in debate; this is clarification time.
I do not have a new clarification, but I am very troubled by what was shared in the conversation between Minister Shanmugam and Member of Parliament Faisal Manap. Sir, I just want to put across a point that I felt that was needed to be said.
Meaning you want to say something?
That is right.
You can seek a clarification of the Minister’s speech, but you are not in a position to make a personal statement unless it relates to yourself.
Perhaps I would like to put it across as a clarification for the Minister and then I will ask a question and propose the point.
What is your point of clarification?
From what I understand from Member of Parliament Faisal Manap's —
No, no, no. Ask the Minister for clarification on his speech.
Minister, you mentioned very clearly you wanted a clarification from the Member of Parliament that religion has to be separate from politics. And I fundamentally agree with that point. However, what I felt is that I think it has to be explicitly mentioned and to be made clear that, as a Muslim, you can have any personal view and opinion whether you believe that religion is also encompassing as part of your faith and your lifestyle. That is fine. Fundamentally, that is fine.
But as a nation, I think we have to understand that we have to have a secular country. As a secular nation, we cannot impose our religious values on the common spaces of everybody. And in regards to that, would it be worthwhile, perhaps, engaging the religious body to drive across this point and to educate them that our secular space as a country has to be safely guarded and has to be guarded fundamentally, and that any religious values that we espouse in terms of religion as a way of lifestyle and so on, that can be held as a personal view.
I thank the Member for his comments and I will say this. We have extensive discussions with the religious leaders, both my Ministry but also the Government leaders, including the Prime Minister with the Christian leaders, the Catholic leaders, the Muslim leaders, the Mufti, Hindu Endowments Board. It has never been said to me in the terms that Mr Manap put it today.
Everyone would say their personal views will be, can be, influenced by religion. Many in Cabinet, many Members of Parliament are deeply religious. We do not hide that. But when you make your decisions, you cannot put aside your religious self but you must take into account everybody else and you act neutrally; and you take the position for the benefit of all Singaporeans, even if you believe that that may not be consistent with your religious beliefs.
That is a consistent position. When we meet with the Muslim leaders, when we meet with the Muslim clerics, when we meet with the Mufti, then we meet with the Christian leaders, they understand that, they accept it and they say that is the only way in which we can proceed with governing Singapore and living in Singapore, not just for us as a Government but for them as religious leaders.
So, Mr Manap has introduced a new element in that process today. I think that is something for him, and others around him, to think about.
Question put, and agreed to.
Bill accordingly read a Second time and committed to a Committee of the whole House.
The House immediately resolved itself into a Committee on the Bill. – [Mr K Shanmugam].
Bill considered in Committee; reported without amendment; read a Third time and passed.
PAPERCUTS