Debated in Parliament on 3 Oct 2017.
Debate resumed
Mr Speaker, Sir, I thank Mr Christopher de Souza for moving this Motion. I thank Members for their views. Many constructive suggestions have been made, which my Ministry will study. I also thank the Members from the Workers' Party, many of whom have made very constructive suggestions and we will look at them.
I will set out the types of threats we face, our response, and what the Government and the community can do.
First, what are the types of terror threats that we face? If you look at world and regional events − Marawi, Rakhine in Southeast Asia and, of course, the Middle East, these attract would-be fighters and others who feel angry. If you look at the Southern Philippines, if the situation is not dealt with, it could become an operating base for fighters from the Middle East, who would go from this region and, eventually, they would then radiate out back into this region again, well-trained with fighting skills.
And that can take the problems in this region to a level very different from what it has been up to now. This general situation has been made much worse by the mixing of politics and religion in this region and the rise of politicians and religious leaders who openly advocate intolerance.
So, quite frankly, Sir, the direction, the trajectory of where this region is going is quite worrying. And sometimes I wish we can be more frank and share with the people of Singapore what we know. But both foreign policy considerations and security considerations make it very difficult to let everyone know what it is that we are facing. That is one type of threat: regional situation, world events.
The second is the release of radicalised prisoners. Mr de Souza spoke about it. Laws in this region and some countries allow prisoners to be released even before they are de-radicalised. They are free to plot and are capable of inflicting harm.
The third type of threat that we face, of course, is self-radicalisation. It happens in Singapore as well. Three Singaporeans have gone to the Middle East. You saw one of them recently in the video. Two of them brought their families. The number detained under the ISA has increased, as Mr de Souza pointed out. Since 2015, we have also picked up over 40 foreign workers, domestic helpers included, who have been radicalised online by ISIS propaganda.
There have been several calls for Singaporeans to copy attacks using vehicles, knives and day-to-day implements. We do not say much about this, but it is there. I do not know how many Members realised but, last year, we picked up someone who was intending to go off to the Middle East to fight. He was a driver of a large dump truck.
The fourth aspect of the problem is divisive preachings. It is an insidious threat which seeks to divide society along racial, religious lines and I will say more about it later.
In the context of these threats, what is our response? I will share three aspects.
First, deterrence and protection. I call it the kinetic aspect. How would the Police respond? What are the operational responses to terror attacks? We have spoken about it frequently. So, I do not intend to go into details. I think most Members will know. Secondly, yesterday, Parliament passed the Infrastructure Protection Bill. It hardens our infrastructure, our buildings. There is a cost to be paid and that cost is imposed on us by the terrorists. So, we have no choice. That is the first aspect of response.
The second is the community response, both to help prevent an attack and when an attack occurs, to deal with the aftermath. The community must, first of all, be made aware of the threats, to the extent that we can make them aware of it. They have to be prepared, know how to protect themselves, and must be able to mobilise the rest of the community and protect the community as a whole. And after an attack, we need to also mobilise people, make people come together to stand united. This is the key objective of SGSecure.
SGSecure was launched by the Prime Minister about a year ago. Today, we have nearly one million devices with the SGSecure app. Our officers have knocked on more than 400,000 houses. We have spoken with 220,000 households, about one in two. Members of Parliament who do house visits will know that ratio. We have had 38 Emergency Preparedness Days around Singapore in different constituencies, 16 Crisis Response Exercises in neighbourhoods, and visited and spoken at more than 160 schools.
All this was done within a year. I think the SGSecure team has done an outstanding amount of work, working with our partners − PA, the Ministry of Manpower (MOM), the Ministry of Communications and Information, the Ministry of Education, the Ministry of Culture, Community and Youth and the Ministry of Defence. But much more needs to be done and has to be done. In the context of speaking about communities, how do we deal with workplaces?
Ms K Thanaletchimi spoke about this, the importance of ensuring that companies are ready. I agree. We are trying to do so. We have enhanced the bizSAFE framework to help businesses be prepared in the case of an attack. We are encouraging companies to develop contingency plans if their premises come under attack. We have arranged for Safety seminars. We use the Safety and Security Watch Groups. This is focused on the members and employees. Last week, Deputy Prime Minister Teo launched the SGSecure Guide for Workplaces. By early next year, 150,000 of these guides would be sent out to workplaces. It is a partnership with MOM. MOM is taking an active role in this.
Next, we have to also consider building resilience in the community. After an attack, society needs to pull itself together and stay united. Mr de Souza called this "winning the psychological battle". This is the key part of SGSecure's work. Several Members have made this point − a united community is a key factor in defeating terrorism.
If you look at other countries, recent experience shows, once there is a terrorist attack, then there is heightened suspicion among communities. In the current climate, that almost inevitably means Islamophobia. London police collected data after the London Bridge attack this year. They noted a fivefold increase in Islamophobic attacks.
If you try and strengthen trust after an attack, it is too late. We need to strengthen cohesiveness and our unity now, do what we have been doing and add on to it. As Members have emphasised, this means going back to one of the fundamental principles of our society, which is multiracialism.
Let me spend a little bit of time because this is, in some ways, the essence of what I am going to say. Let us recall what Mr Lee Kuan Yew said at Independence, "We are going to have a multiracial nation in Singapore. We will set the example. This is not a Malay nation; this is not a Chinese nation; this is not an Indian nation. Everybody will have his place: equal; language, culture, religion."
Moving, inspiring, determined. That was the Singapore we worked for. That is the Singapore we want, and that is the Singapore we must work for.
It is useful to consider in context Dr Martin Luther King's famous "I have a dream" speech. That speech, as many Members might know, was made in 1963, two years before Mr Lee spoke, but I think we can save it in the same timeframe. To quote a few key parts of that speech, Dr King said, "I have a dream that my four children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the colour of their skin but by the content of their character. I have a dream that one day little black boys and black girls will be able to join hands with little white boys and white girls and walk together as sisters and brothers."
Dr King said this in America where a Judge had said, in 1965, "Almighty God created the races White, Black, Yellow, Malay and Red, and he placed them on separate continents... The fact that he had separated the races shows that he did not intend them to mix." This was from a Judge in 1965. In Dr King's America of 1963, he had to speak what he spoke about as a dream.
Mr Lee, in Singapore in 1965, spoke in determined tones as to what Singapore will be. It was a vision for which we were thrown out of the Federation. Fifty years later, it has become more of a reality. It is a reality we have worked for these 50 years. It is not a perfect reality, but we are on the right path. It is worth recalling this history, as we note the troubled race relations across the world.
We do not in Singapore have movements titled, "Black Lives Matter" or counter movements "Blue Lives Matter". Because for us, All Lives Matter. Terrorism, radicalisation, extremism, these challenges have to be met with the same dedication and resolve by us affirming the fundamental principle − multiracialism.
Sir, how far can we go in this direction? Mr Murali Pillai made some good points on this. We often hear this suggestion: why do we even need to talk about race? Can we not just say we are all Singaporeans? Or as the late Mr Rajaratnam said: let us have a homogenous Singaporean race.
I will make three points in this context. First, what is behind the ideal, the desire to do away with racial identity and create a single identity? Can that be achieved? Second, what is the reality of racial identities today? And third, how can we deal with them?
First, this idea of trying to do away with our individual racial identities. Can this be achieved? Many have thought this not possible. For example, Du Bois said, and I quote: "he who ignores or seeks to override the race idea in human history ignores and overrides the central thought of all history." Mr Rajaratnam would, of course, have been aware of this when he formed his own views. And Mr Rajaratnam took a different view. A noble ideal.
Looking at current trends, the kind of centrifugal forces that society is facing, including Singapore, online, there are different pulls and pushes. I think many will agree it is going to be challenging to achieve a homogenous race of Singaporeans in the near term. What we can realistically achieve is a strong national identity, a Singaporean identity, which will overlay our separate racial, religious identities, and that framework can create a vibrant society.
Second, what is the reality of race relationships today? Let me again, in this context, quote President Obama as to how he had seen it during his own journey. And I quote: "The emotions between the races could never be pure… whether we sort out our demons or salvation, the other race would always remain just that: menacing, alien and apart." I quote this to show that even in a country that is often held out as the model of democracy, this is how a successful African-American, a future President, saw race relationships at one point in time.
For us in Singapore, I think it is safe to say, we have generally moved quite far from seeing another race as "menacing, alien and apart." That is the measure of our success.
How have race relationships changed in the US in the course of the Obama Presidency? In a New York Times/CBS News poll in April 2009, a few months after he took office, 65% of Americans regarded race relations as generally good. This was 100 days after President Obama's inauguration. Of them, 59% of African-Americans, and 65% of white Americans thought race relationships were good.
The same poll, done seven years later, July 2016, last year, 69% of Americans believed race relations were generally bad; with only 26% saying they were generally good. That was a 40% drop between 2009 and 2016. That is the reality in most places. The fault lines are difficult to deal with in many countries.
How can we deal with racial and religious fault lines? We have never believed that a laissez-faire approach in creating a national identity for a multiracial society will work. We were activists in this respect. We have had an activist policy of fostering inter-religious and interracial harmony. Many examples: EIP, several Members have spoken about it, the building up of our neighbourhoods. Dr Tan Wu Meng raised the need to ensure that they have sufficient interaction in spaces in the new HDB estates. HDB, when they design, they safeguard spaces where the communities can gather. For new block designs, there are additional areas for interaction beyond the void deck, for example, precinct pavilions, three-generation playgrounds, roof-top gardens. There are dedicated spaces like community centres for people from different races to gather, bond. Our national school system, with English as the medium of instruction; National Service (NS). In fact, we are often accused of being too interventionist and too focused on race. I do not think one can be too interventionist in this context.
[Deputy Speaker (Mr Charles Chong) in the Chair]
It is useful to say what is now being said in other parts of the world with regard to race relations and integration. Let me quote Prime Minister Theresa May, who said in June of this year, and I quote: "…there is, to be frank, far too much tolerance of extremism in our country."
Some people would hold up Britain as a model of free speech, as the kind of country that perhaps achieves a good balance between being too strict and being too lax. But this is what the Prime Minister had to say: "…our country needs to come together to take out this extremism; and we need to live our lives not in a series of separated, segregated communities, but as one truly United Kingdom."
Has Britain gotten it right, the balance? Have we gotten it right? Are we repressive?
In May 2017, she said: "There is … a role for government to help people and build up organisations in society to promote and defend Britain's values and stand up to the extremists who want to undermine our values and impose their twisted beliefs onto the rest of us."
We go to Germany, Chancellor Angela Merkel said: German attempts to create a multicultural society had, I quote, "utterly failed". She was very frank. Since the 1960s, many Turkish citizens moved to Germany for work. They stayed in Germany. They started families. The assumption was that the new immigrants settling in Germany would, over time, naturally assimilate themselves. But what, in fact, happened was the creation of parallel, isolated societies. The German government is now playing a more interventionist role.
We have been fortunate that 50 years ago, our leaders had the foresight to deal with this problem without being clouded by ideology. They were practical. They were focused. And their ideology was, "we want everybody to be together", which is a noble ideology.
Other countries' experience reminds us that we have to continue to build on the strong foundations that our country has had. We have to continue to be activist. Ms Sun Xueling cited the Pew Research Centre study on religious diversity that Singapore is ranked top amongst 232 countries. Mr de Souza cited several studies.
I would say this though. I am usually careful of such studies and reports. They have ranked us sometimes at the top and sometimes at the bottom. You need to check the methodology and the people who do these reports. For example, if I could digress and make a point here: take the Reporters sans frontières' (RSF's) Reporters without Borders' ranking on press freedom. I have spoken about this before in 2009. In 2008, RSF ranked us 144 out of 173 countries, below Guinea, Sudan, Pakistan, amongst others. Thus, I pointed out in 2009, that at about the same time RSF came out with their report, the International Herald Tribune (IHT) had a news story on Guinea, in fact, it was one or two days before I made my speech. And IHT said that people were being gunned down by a "brutal military junta"; women were being raped on the streets. But in RSF's eyes, their press freedom was higher than ours.
And RSF, of course, continues to rank us poorly. In 2017, it ranked us 151 out of 180 countries, below countries like Guinea again; Gambia, where journalists were detained, media outlets shut down, Internet disconnected, international phone calls banned last year; South Sudan, where it was described as having one of the world's most serious refugee crisis, suffering the effects of a devastating civil war; Afghanistan is ranked ahead of us; Pakistan is ranked ahead of us. I would invite RSF to please go there.
So, we have to be discerning about these rankings and how they are done and what are the political objectives behind them. And sometimes, ignore them, when they are patently false and not hold them up as a mantra.
With that, I will say, we should be doing quite well in comparison with many other countries when it comes to religious diversity and guaranteeing religious minorities. And really, you do not need studies and reports. You look at our lived reality. What is the experience? Your experience, my experience, the experience of our people. We know the answer. We can agree on the whole that we are going in the right direction. But it is always work in progress. I think Mr Pritam Singh used that phrase in a similar context in his speech. Mr Gan Thiam Poh said that there is scope to improve our appreciation of other religious groups. I agree with him.
Let me move on to how do we encourage greater integration. Many Members − Ms Sun Xueling, Dr Tan Wu Meng, Mr Liang Eng Hwa and others, spoke about the importance of each one of us as individuals, doing our part.
Ms Sun Xueling called for all Singaporeans to take a small step forward, so that the distance among the races narrow. We need that. Singaporeans need to come together. They need to understand one another better; not drift apart and withdraw into our own racial and religious communities.
We have to create more common spaces. Mr Alex Yam said racial and religious harmony must go beyond tokenism. Yes. We need genuine acceptance, we need genuine respect, and to honour one another. It is important that every citizen feels part of this society and has a strong sense of belonging. We need to create common spaces, bring people together, facilitate interactions and build strong, meaningful relationships.
In this context, Assoc Prof Daniel Goh made some remarks on self-help groups. Let me share some personal experiences. I served as President of SINDA for I think five or six years. The ideal is, of course, that self-help groups should not exist and we should have race-neutral help groups. The reality: CDAC, MENDAKI, SINDA, Eurasian Association, they are able to mobilise more volunteers from the respective individual communities, get more support that way.
As SINDA President, I told SINDA, let us get more non-Indian volunteers. So, we went out on a recruitment drive. At the end of the day, we did get more non-Indian volunteers, but the percentage was 11%; 89% was still Indian.
It is a journey. We have some goals and ideals, but we also need to be realistic and practical, and mobilise the community along the different lines that mobilisation is possible and, at the same time, keep reminding ourselves that while we mobilise the community to help those who are less well-performing, we also remind them that they are Singaporeans and they should help everybody else.
And then, the self-help groups moved, provided tuition support for those of other races. They opened their doors after having started helping their own. And, of course, most of the load then goes on to CDAC because they have the most centres. So, again, it is something where the anchorage, the majority community, voluntarily takes on a greater share of the burden. It is not easy to achieve in most places. And the Government encouraged all of this.
Ten years ago, the four self-help groups came together with CDAC and they have OnePeople.sg. The name speaks for itself.
What Assoc Prof Daniel Goh spoke about, the approaches are already happening. Basically, the self-help groups and communal bodies are not mutually exclusive to fostering integration, if properly managed. The different challenges require different solutions. The education programmes that Assoc Prof Goh spoke about, they already exist. And I am sure Dr Janil Puthucheary, who heads up OnePeople.sg, would be happy to give the Member a briefing, so that he will have a better understanding of what they do. What we need is a greater understanding of what we already do in many areas.
Mr Leon Perera acknowledged that we are not a fully race-blind society. I think that is acknowledging the obvious. Channel NewsAsia surveys showed this last year and this year. Other surveys show that there is a line among the races. So, we might as well acknowledge that and then try and build bonds and a common identity. The Member made a number of other points about, for example, playing in common corridors. That, as I have mentioned earlier, was a deliberate Government policy of building HDB estates in a way which integrates people.
The Member also made a number of general statements, as I listened, and they seem to be almost everything that we are already doing. For example, have some controls on speech relating to race and religion and, at the same time, also create some space for talking about them. Indeed, I would be happy if Members see it that way. That is what we are doing.
And the Member said repression is not an answer. Exactly. And I can assure the Member and everybody else, like he quoted, Saddam Hussein is not a model for this Government. In Iraq, what you had was a minority suppressing the majority in the first place, quite brutally, and, now, what is being suggested is that the minority is being oppressed. That is not a model for us. Neither is Marshal Tito a model for us. Our model is the governance that Mr Lee Kuan Yew, Dr Goh Keng Swee, Mr S Rajaratnam and others provided. That is the model that we have taken. And that model, for example, allowed the Member, a person from a minority community to go from an HDB flat, playing with other races − a deliberate Government policy − to top schools and then to Oxford. And I believe the state paid for most of that. So, in a sense, Mr Leon Perera symbolises the success of Singapore's multiracial approach.
So, I agree with all the broad concepts from the general points that the Member has made. But governance has to go beyond generalities. You have to build the integrated communities in HDB estates. You have to make sure your schools are open for all races. You have to have the NS system. The hallmark of our predecessors was to take the general ideas and then successfully convert them into practical steps. And if we want to change any of that, let us have a care.
The Member said we need to focus on the day-to-day. Yes, we do. And I believe I have explained that. At the same time, let us not forget that symbolism and seats of power matter. For example, if every Cabinet Minister and every Member of this House were from one race, I think it will be a very different matter, would it not? And the Member accepts that, because he accepted that multiracialism is necessary in the corridors of power as well.
As for the point that the cure must not be worse than the disease, again, I accept that. It is a general statement. But also remember there are some aspects of the disease that look pretty terrible, like Iraq, like the massacres in the former Yugoslavia, like Syria. So, we share the same aspirations. We need to convert those aspirations into practical realities in a way which is doable in the context of Singapore.
Ms Rahayu Mahzam spoke about the Muslim-only launderette in Johor. Narrow-mindedness in the name of Islam seeks to drive a wedge between Muslims and non-Muslims. The owner was asked to stop that discriminatory practice or shut down. We would not want something like that in Singapore. The tendencies and the risks are there and we need to guard against them.
And I agree with some of the points made in this context by Mr Pritam Singh and Mr Muhamad Faisal Abdul Manap. Mr Pritam Singh said neighbours willing to be open-minded, live-and-let-live attitude. Precisely. That is what we need to encourage. And Mr Muhamad Faisal Manap talked about open-mindedness, respecting the differences of people and national values. Precisely.
Next, let me move on to religious teachers. There is also a problem if a religious teacher tells his followers that they cannot make friends with people of other faiths or an employer. Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, in this context, may I seek your permission to show a video, please?
Proceed, please. [A video clip was shown to hon Members.]
This religious leader was originally from India, he is in Zimbabwe. He used to come to Singapore regularly to preach. Three years ago, we banned him. There was some unhappiness, but I think Members will understand why. He said that "it is the biggest sin and crime for a Muslim to wish a non-Muslim Merry Christmas or Happy Deepavali", and I suppose the same goes for "Happy Chinese New Year". This is dangerous. Divisiveness. Our common space will shrink. And different segments of the community will drift apart.
So, we made no apologies for taking that approach, banning that. Because we cannot allow this sort of preaching to take hold in Singapore and gain followers. Taken to extremes, such preaching can have very serious consequences. For example, in 2016, a Muslim shopkeeper in Glasgow was stabbed by a fellow Muslim to death a day after he put up a Facebook posting wishing customers "Happy Easter". We need to be careful about foreign preachers who may not understand our context.
I agree with Mr Muhamad Faisal Manap that religious teachings must be aligned with our national values. Our religious bodies do draw on religious leadership from abroad. For example, MUIS has a Distinguished Visitors' Programme. Many distinguished Islamic scholars come and share their experiences. Likewise, for other religions. And that is to be welcomed. We did not say no to that. But it is important to be clear on the practices which will not work here and we have to be careful that we do not import the religious conflicts from other countries, even as we sympathise and offer help, where appropriate.
Mr Pritam Singh said our first loyalty should always remain to Singapore even if our common sense of humanity makes us feel for the plight of others in conflicts overseas. And I fully agree. We have to be careful not to import those religious conflicts here.
Mr Alex Yam, Ms Sun Xueling and other Members have said our Muslim community has taken the lead. They have put in place a code of ethics for religious teachers and, on the ground, Ms Rahayu Mahzam shared that members of the Muslim community actively speak out against extremist preachings. That reaffirms that Singapore Muslims object to the misguided teachings of ISIS.
Our National Council of Churches has spoken up against undesirable practices of foreign Christian preachers. Mufti Menk, whom Members saw in the video, was not the only preacher I banned. A few weeks ago, we banned two Christian preachers who had made several Islamophobic comments. The National Council of Churches came out after that. Those two preachers had been contacted by churches in Singapore. They were coming to speak, we said no. And the National Council of Churches came out and told all churches to be careful whom they invite. And that is good.
We do need to really look at our practices. Do they promote tolerance? Do they promote integration? Or do they tend to divide? We need to draw a clear line between what is acceptable and what is not acceptable. We have to develop our own style in the practice of religion, situated within the context of our multi-religious, multiracial society.
Mixing of religion and politics is another dangerous area and we need to guard against that because that is happening quite a bit around the region.
Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, may I seek your permission to have another video shown, please?
Proceed, please. [A video clip was shown to hon Members.]
This is Dr Zakir Naik, who will not come to Singapore, but you can assume that Mufti Menk and Dr Naik are all around the region preaching. And their videos are available. Many people go and buy them, including Singaporeans. But such is what is happening and they are feted and welcomed for their viewpoints.
So, you can imagine. You can have a sense of what is happening in this region. A religious leader telling people they cannot vote for someone of another religion. I think Singaporeans will say that is not acceptable. And if we allowed that kind of teaching in Singapore, you can easily imagine what else might be said by people. It will move on to race. If you are one race, you should vote for a person of that race. It happens in other places.
This is a broad canvas of the kind of problems we face, some of the challenges, the approaches we take. In concrete terms, what are we looking at in this context?
First, let me talk about restrictions on foreign preachers. Foreign preachers who do not share our values of religious harmony will not be allowed to preach in Singapore. I spoke about their possible influence earlier. As such an open society, we cannot avoid being influenced by external developments. But we have to try our best to insulate ourselves from overseas events and foreign doctrines which can do us serious harm. We are studying how we can tighten the process and ensure that such preachers do not come into Singapore to preach.
Second, hate speech. Social media emboldens some people to say terrible and evil things. Mr Murali Pillai and Mr Desmond Choo said such comments have the potential to inflame emotions and can go viral. There are laws today. We have used them. We are studying whether we need to move more quickly and have more options to deal with this particular issue appropriately and decisively when there is hate speech.
Third, prevention of radicalisation. Mr Murali Pillai and Dr Intan Mokhtar spoke on the importance of community actors − parents, spouses, teachers and youths − playing their part in identifying whether someone close to them is showing signs of radicalisation. There were constructive suggestions on how we can support these people to help. Minister Dr Yaacob Ibrahim has highlighted some of the current initiatives. We will study those suggestions and see how we can support them further.
Fourth, the Islamic College. Dr Yaacob spoke about this. The Singapore Islamic College, when set up, can train a new generation of religious teachers who will understand our multi-religious and multiracial context. We support what Dr Yaacob has said.
Fifth, dealing with segregationist teachings. Our religious groups and leaders are generally very supportive of our efforts to build and maintain religious harmony in Singapore. They know how important it is that our religions co-exist harmoniously and why we need to maintain our common spaces. Religion can, and has been, a source of strength for our society, but we must also watch out for exclusivist, intolerant practices because that can deepen our fault lines and weaken our entire society. I spoke earlier about this. So, we are reviewing the Maintenance of Religious Harmony Act to see how we can best deal with this issue.
Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, since 1965, we have come very far in terms of integration. But I think everyone would agree that we have not arrived, and one never knows whether there is such a thing as having arrived.
Singapore's approach, as I have sketched out, is to build a Singapore identity that can accommodate diversity and celebrate our different racial and religious identities whilst at the same time creating a broad common space that we all share as Singaporeans and can build our sense of solidarity as one nation. That is an ongoing journey. It has to be continuously adjusted and refined as circumstances evolve, both locally and internationally.
In that context, the stronger religiosity that we have been experiencing across all religions is a source of strength, as long as we get the framework right. And we have to pay close attention to this. Almost 15 years ago, I spoke in this House during the debate on the White Paper following the JI arrests. I shared my view that it is an ideological battle that has to be won, and it is incumbent on all of us, as Singaporeans, to first reach across racial lines to build stronger ties across communities, ties that bind us more closely. That is the only way to cut terrorism from its base. We have to win the fight for hearts and minds.
I said then that each of us must take a deep and honest look at ourselves, examine our attitudes, mindsets towards our Muslim brothers and sisters, and ask in our heart of hearts, do we respect and value them as Singaporeans, and accept them as equals? Or are we just being superficial and politically correct? Are we showing them, with sincerity, that we genuinely want to build deep links? That is vital. That will define where our society is headed and that will determine whether we are able to come together as one people to celebrate the rich diversity amongst us and be the stronger for it or be divided by the differences and allow suspicion and negativity to tear our society apart.
And I said that Muslim Singaporeans also have a duty to react in a way which will encourage closer ties. Freedom to practise a religion should not mean a total ban on the discussion of practices, which is similar to the point Mr Leon Perera made. That will hinder a healthy, economically productive life and active citizenry. It should allow us to discuss practices that impact on others in society. We must be prepared to debate this but handle it sensitively. Many of these points are still relevant 15 years later, today.
I will emphasise one of the points on terrorism. It is not tied to any one religion. The man who killed more than 50 people and injured several hundreds yesterday in Las Vegas, as far as I know, is not a Muslim. So, we have to be careful about linking, and I stand corrected, as this is what I heard Er Dr Lee saying —
I did not make that comment.
I see. I am sorry. Then, I apologise.
Anyway, I would say that we have to be careful about linking an entire religion to terrorism. Terrorism is not a threat that will go away anytime soon. It threatens our very existence as one of the most religiously diverse and harmonious societies in the world, where different religious faiths have been able to co-exist peacefully. We must resolve never to allow that and maintain the precious harmony that we have here.
As to the religious identity of that man, I based myself on what I read earlier in the morning but I stand corrected. Maybe I should say, "I do not know". Thank you, Sir. [Applause.]
PAPERCUTS