Decision to Refuse Entry to Foreign Religious Preachers

Sir, we hold a clear position on the preaching of religious intolerance and we draw a line on teachings that seek to divide our society along religious lines.

Second, we should also be clear that a foreigner's entry into Singapore is neither automatic nor a right. It is a privilege. It will only be granted if we assess that his entry will not harm Singapore's interests. In this context, the foreigner who wants to deliver a talk in Singapore, if the talk is related to religion, race or politics, he has to obtain a Miscellaneous Work Pass (MWP) from the Ministry of Manpower (MOM) because the issues are sensitive. MOM will consult other agencies in its assessment of MWP applications. Each application is assessed on its own merits, through a process.

From a security perspective, one of the principles is that a foreigner should not have antecedents of radical preaching and teachings. For example, if he has advocated violence or promoted segregationist, intolerant teachings that are inimical to our multiracial, multi-religious society, he will not be allowed in.

It is not material whether the previous comments were made in relation to Singapore or whether they intend to touch on these issues when they speak here. If they hold views that are inappropriate or unacceptable in our context, then it is not in our national interest to give them a platform in Singapore, whether to propagate their teachings or to build up their followings.

It is also not material to consider how large their following is in Singapore. We should be concerned even if a small number in Singapore take in their radical, intolerant or segregationist teachings. And we should not allow them to preach or speak here to spread these viewpoints amongst Singaporeans and build up anger amongst the different faiths.

Mr Zaqy Mohamad asked about the effectiveness of banning such foreigners, given the accessibility of digital platforms. There are obviously limits to the extent to which we can prevent access to such content, in particular, through the Internet. But this does not mean that we should make it even easier for such foreigners to spread their views more directly and personally to Singaporeans and build up a following here by allowing them to come into Singapore and giving them a physical platform. Preaching and grandstanding "live" and in person are quite different a proposition from doing so on the Internet.

I would like to thank the Minister for his reply. I have one supplementary question. I just want to know whether the Ministry engages these foreign religious preachers to give them an opportunity to explain themselves prior to the imposition of the ban or after the ban had been imposed, in a way to allow them to make an appeal against the ban.

Let us take someone who says, referring to Islam, communism and other societal problems, such as human trafficking, are referred to as "goliaths standing at our door". He had also described Allah as a false God, asked for prayers for those held captive in the darkness of Islam, refers to Buddhists as "tohuw people", which is a Hebrew word for lost, lifeless, confused and spiritually barren. Do you think we should invite him into Singapore and give him an interview? Let me know.

I started out by saying, often, it will be quite clear whether we should or we should not allow, and I gave you a passage. Let us say, a preacher says the following, he describes Islam, communism and other societal problems, including human trafficking, categorising all of them together, as "goliaths standing at our door", describes Allah as a false God, asks for prayers for those held captive in the darkness of Islam, refers to Buddhists as "tohuw people", which is a Hebrew word for lost, lifeless, confused and spiritually barren individuals, who can be saved by converting to Christianity. Do you believe we should invite him into Singapore and interview him, or should we ban him outright?

That is the approach we take.

I have a question on the issue of context. It is a tricky one because many scriptures of the various religions do deal with the non-believers, and many religious leaders and preachers have had to address this and speak on such topics when they are overseas. So, it may not be easy for them to align the speeches to the context of multiracialism or multi-religionism, to what we believe here in Singapore; we are an exception. So, how do you differentiate whether it is through their views or it is a context in which they were giving that speech or sermon in those countries? And how can we do more to help our own religious leaders to also counter such radical beliefs?

It has a number of different facets, if you look at it within Singapore, then you look at it outside of Singapore. Within Singapore, we are very clear on the framework. We have complete freedom of religion. We encourage the different faiths to carry on, you have seen the consequences, we are ranked one of the most religiously diverse societies in the world. So, we guarantee freedom of religion, including to the minorities and, in fact, we support them. Both Members of Parliament as well as officeholders turn up at many of these events. The line that we draw and, if you look at it, the Penal Code has legal provisions. The Maintenance of Religious Harmony Act has a framework. But essentially, if I were to identify one principle, do not do harm unto others, do not advocate violence, do not put down somebody else's religion. As long as you keep to that, propagate your faith.

That, I think, has seen us being an oasis of religious peace in a world that is highly troubled. So, when we look at foreign preachers, we would have to look at who is bringing them in, we will have to talk to them, and we will have to look at the context of their sayings. But on the whole, we take a fairly conservative approach in that whatever you have said elsewhere, if those represent your viewpoints, like what I just said, if someone calls Allah a false God and then he wants to come into Singapore and say, "Well, you know, that was in a different context", I think, nevertheless, it runs the serious risk of people following such a preacher, and then they go on to look at what else he has said elsewhere and the context is not always apparent to people to be understood. So, I think it is better for us to be careful.