Race and Religion

1.04 pm

The Coordinating Minister for National Security and Minister for Home Affairs (Mr K Shanmugam): Thank you, Sir. The purpose of this Ministerial Statement is to reiterate the fundamentals of our approach to race, religion and language, and its application in the political context.

I will cover three areas in this Statement. First, the background to our approach to race, language and religion. Second, recent incidents where race and religion were brought into politics. And third, why if we go down this path, it will lead to bad outcomes for Singapore and Singaporeans.

Sir, let me begin by setting out the historical backdrop to our nation-building journey. After the Second World War, many former colonies became independent countries. Many had a dominant ethnic group. In some countries, this group made up an absolute majority. In other countries, the dominant ethnic group was the largest minority. Many of these countries chose the language of the dominant ethnic group to be the official language of their new nations. Sri Lanka and Malaysia are two examples. This is the approach of countries in the West as well, to organise themselves.

In many countries in the West, as well as elsewhere, minorities who do not speak the official language are disadvantaged. Disadvantaged in education, employment and opportunities to progress economically and socially. Many countries also implemented policies which favoured the dominant ethnic group at the expense of and even suppression of the minorities. Sri Lanka is one example of this practice in the past. Many such practices and arguments over race, language and religion were quite common.

Thus, in 1965 when Singapore became independent, whether you looked at Asia, Africa, Americas or Europe, the norm was that the language and culture of the majority would automatically become the language and culture of the state.

Mr Speaker, Sir, with your permission, may I ask the Clerks to distribute Annex A, which contains a copy of a quote made by Mr Lee Kuan Yew. Members may also access this material through the Parliamentary app.

Mr Speaker: Please go ahead. [A handout was distributed to hon Members. Please refer to Annex 1.]

Mr K Shanmugam: Thank you, Sir. If our founding fathers had followed the prevailing norm, Mandarin would have been our only official language. But we became independent in 1965 precisely because Mr Lee Kuan Yew and his team decided on a very different approach for Singapore. Mr Lee Kuan Yew declared on the day of our Independence: “This is not a Malay nation; this is not a Chinese nation; this is not an Indian nation. Everyone will have his place, equal: language, culture and religion.”

This was not just political rhetoric. Our founding fathers took systematic steps to build a multiracial, multi-religious Singapore. They enshrined the foundational principles: unity in diversity, justice and equality in our National Pledge. All citizens, regardless of race, language, or religion were to have equal status.

Policies were designed to enable each ethnic group to preserve its own cultural heritage. At the same time, our common space would be enlarged to facilitate interaction and understanding between the ethnic groups. English was used as the language of administration and instruction, meaning the language used in schools. At the same time, students studied their mother tongues – Mandarin, Malay, Tamil – as a second language. Selected festivals of the major ethnicities were designated as public holidays. And on the ground in the heartlands, activities were organised for all ethnicities to promote multiracial harmony. Religious freedoms were protected in the Constitution. At the same time, we retained Malay as our national language. This meant that we continued singing our national anthem Majulah Singapura proudly in Malay in schools and at national events.

Members can see how different this approach is compared with the approach taken by most countries. We did not force any ethnic group to assimilate. The majority group accepted that while they were the biggest group, they should nevertheless take extra care and make sure that the minorities were not slighted. It was in this spirit of multicultural integration that we encouraged each ethnic group to preserve its own heritage. And we created space, space to enhance mutual understanding and develop a common identity.

Our founding fathers, however, faced tremendous opposition to this approach. Many Chinese organisations, including some highly influential ones, asked the Government to make Mandarin our national language and the only official language. Questions were asked: why not – since Chinese were 77% of the population? Why should Singapore adopt English, the colonial master's language, as the language of administration and instruction? Why should Malay be the national language? Why should our National Anthem be in Malay?

Barisan Sosialis, the main opposition party then, took an active position on this matter. The communist-inspired left had long relied in Singapore and Malaya on the mobilisation of Chinese-educated students and labour organisations. They did this by emphasising Chinese-language, Chinese-culture and Chinese education. By doing this, they repeatedly stoked tensions within the Chinese community. The politically expedient course for the People's Action Party (PAP) government would have been to agree to these demands and make Mandarin Singapore's only official language. It would have helped to anchor the support of the majority Chinese community.

In the run-up to the 1963 General Election (GE), the PAP government's majority had been steadily whittled down. Their foothold in Parliament had been eroded to just 25 out of 51 seats at the time of the 1963 GE, less than half. The PAP's position did improve after the 1963 GE, but it was still in a fierce contest with the Barisan Sosialis. Yet, it chose to follow the more difficult, more idealistic course, at a time when the PAP government needed the support of the majority Chinese population. Mr Lee and his colleagues chose the path that would in most contexts be seen as politically foolhardy.

I would ask Members to take a moment to reflect, think about this. You will realise how extraordinary their actions were. How this cuts against all political realities and standard norms.

And for 60 years, we have strived to achieve the ideals in our pledge. But achieving the ideals is still work-in-progress. We have not fully achieved them. Minorities in particular will tell you about the lived realities on the ground. That they sometimes face racism at different levels. That they sometimes feel discriminated against.

Beyond what each of us hears, surveys show how minorities feel. Some Chinese will also tell you of their experiences, though the instances are much fewer.

The key point however is: we set out those principles as our ideals and we swam strongly against the tide – the tide of ethnic identity as an organising principle of society. Instead, our foundational principles were a secular state, meritocracy, multiracialism, equal opportunities for all and the rule of law. A secular state, with neutral language, English, as the language of administration and instruction. The language of government, business, education.

Mr Lee explained this in this House in the year 2004: if Chinese had been made the working language in 1965, and I quote, “Singapore would fall apart. Our races would be in conflict.”

And over the last 60 years, we have taken various steps to achieve the ideals in our pledge. In this context, I will mention two key policies. These were put in place to make the ideals our reality. The first policy, it was decided that a strong legal framework was necessary to preserve our communal harmony and minimise racial, religious conflict.

One of the first Constitutional amendments after independence established the Presidential Council for Minority Rights. The Council's function is to assess whether any legislation would create a differentiating measure which would disadvantage any racial or religious group more than others. The Council's report would then be tabled in Parliament.

Laws were also passed to set out what conduct, what speech would not be allowed relating to race, religion. And over time we have been strengthening, modernising these laws. We have for example, the Maintenance of Racial Harmony Act, Maintenance of Religious Harmony Act. These laws set out the ways in which we can deal with threats to racial and religious harmony. These laws take their inspiration from earlier legislation. They are only two among a whole framework of laws which seek to preserve our racial and religious space, and deal firmly with attacks on race, religion. For example, we disallow hate speech and offensive speech, against races and religions.

Sir, these points have been addressed many times. However, some Members may not be aware of them. So, for their benefit, I have set out a background summary on some of these points. Mr Speaker, Sir, with your permission, may I ask the Clerks to distribute Annex B.

Mr Speaker: Go ahead. [A handout was distributed to hon Members. Please refer to Annex 2.]

Mr K Shanmugam: Sir, as we did that, set out the laws, we also know that people will have views on sensitive issues and that these views should not be suppressed. So, we provide safe spaces where honest, frank discussions can be held. These include, closed-door dialogues, fireside chats, regular engagements with different groups, including young people, entrepreneurs, religious groups, unions, non-profits and many others. These settings encourage people to be rational, responsible, while pulling no punches on the substance of their views.

This is, in broad terms, the first key policy underpinning our ideals. One, a robust legal framework that protects the rights of all communities and sets out what you cannot do, what you cannot say in public; and two, a reasonable, calibrated approach to discussing such views in public as well.

But whilst laws can deter and penalise actions that seek to divide our society, laws alone cannot make society harmonious. They cannot force people to understand, respect and like each other across races, religions and across divides. That is where the second key policy framework comes in.

This second key policy is that the Government should actively promote actions, platforms to encourage intermixing and understanding between our different communities. These are too numerous for me to cite. I have listed some of the key examples in Annex B. Members will see that there is a fair degree of activist Government policy. In the past, critics have mocked this as “social engineering” and a violation of free choice. But today, many look at our high level of social cohesion, and ask, “What is your secret sauce?”

The Economist has in the past described the Singapore Government's approach as "Dirigisme". "Dirigisme" refers to a state-led approach to economic development. The word has negative connotations. But we make no apologies for our philosophy. It extends well beyond economic planning. The Government also takes an active stand and approach in managing social issues, housing issues, community issues and more. But for this approach, Singapore would not be where it is today.

We have in Singapore an exceptionally high level of racial and religious harmony. Mr Speaker, Sir, with your permission, may I ask the Clerks to distribute Annex C, which contains a fuller list of indicators on this.

Mr Speaker: Yes. [A handout was distributed to hon Members. Please refer to Annex 3.]

Mr K Shanmugam: In the 2023 Gallup World Poll, 92% of Singaporeans said that Singapore was a good place for racial and ethnic minorities and we ranked first out of 135 countries. In the 2024 Institute of Policy Studies (IPS) Survey on race, religion and language, 65% of Singaporeans rated racial and religious harmony as high or very high. More than 90% felt that there was sufficient involvement, or that there should be more Government involvement to ensure racial and religious harmony. Over the past five years, there have been 178 Police reports filed relating to race and religion. This works out to only about three cases per 100,000 people per annum.

Sir, I am not suggesting that race and religious harmony is perfect in Singapore. As I said earlier, it is work-in-progress. Members of different communities do experience racism and face other issues. The deep-seated human instinct, the tribal emotions which come from the gut, these cannot be wished away. As the Prime Minister himself has acknowledged, it is more difficult to be a member of a minority community in Singapore than being a member of the majority communities.

But as a system, we have sought to contain and overcome the natural human impulses by overlaying them with a broader sense of national identity. A community of shared values, experiences and vocabulary. And in the words in our pledge, "regardless of race, language or religion", our approach towards racial and religious issues is not to forsake our respective races, languages or religions and force a singular identity, but to forge common ground and find strength in diversity. And our people generally accept these principles.

Singapore is in a good position today. Not perfect, but I dare say, better than most other places. Many of these places started out better and stronger than us, but many of them have been going the wrong way.

Sir, this deals with the first part, the background to our approach to race and religion. Let me move on to the second part.

Second point, some recent incidents where race and religion have been brought into politics. The good position we have in Singapore can remain so only if Singaporeans work at keeping it that way. Politicians, in particular, play an important role in setting the right tone for our society. Not deepening divisions, not misleading the different communities, but by encouraging constructive discussions. By finding solutions to problems and issues faced by the different ethnic communities, not by exacerbating them and not by sharpening differences. It is possible for politicians to say that they subscribe to our multiracial and multi-religious values, but still use veiled rhetoric to work up racial and religious sentiment.

Sir, if you look at our short history over 60 years, there have been several attempts to inflame racial and religious sentiments for political gain. Mr Speaker, Sir, with your permission, may I ask the Clerks to distribute Annex D, where I have set out some examples of such attempts which happened in previous GEs.

Mr Speaker: Yes. [A handout was distributed to hon Members. Please refer to Annex 4.]

Mr K Shanmugam: In these cases, the Government highlighted the dangers of identity politics. But politicising race and religion remains seductive. It is an easy way to sway the emotions of voters for short-term political gain, but once the division has been sown, it is hard to contain and impossible to reverse. When one group asserts its identity aggressively, other groups in society will push back just as aggressively.

If this happens in a small diverse city state like Singapore, we will be irretrievably damaged. You see around the world what happens when such identity politics takes root. Take the United States (US). Culture wars dominate US politics as parties run identity-based campaigns. Liberals accuse the right wing of preserving white political and social dominance by portraying African Americans as sources of crime and unrest. Republicans counter that Democrats have taken exclusionary identity politics too far, undermining traditional and nationalistic values. Every grievance, every disagreement is framed as an ideological battle. It becomes an all-out war with no room to compromise. If you look at the Netherlands, politicians openly frame Islam as incompatible with liberal Dutch values and portray themselves as protectors of Dutch culture. Some, like Geert Wilders, even go so far as to campaign around banning the Quran, closing mosques and sharpening divides for electoral gain.

We can see how societies are getting increasingly divided. The Edelman Trust Barometer conducts a large-scale global survey every year. They found that more than half of the respondents globally say that their countries are more divided today than in the past.

Singapore has come a long way in building harmonious, multiracial and a multi-religious society. We may look stable now, but we are no more stable than other countries, which I have cited, were before their communal relations became worse.

With this background, let me turn to a few troubling incidents during the recent GE. During the last GE, one Noor Deros came to prominence. He is a self-styled preacher based in Malaysia. He has been denied accreditation as an Ustaz here in Singapore, because he refused to comply with the Code of Ethics under Singapore's Asatizah Recognition Scheme. He refused, despite being counselled by the Asatizah Recognition Board.

On 19 April this year, two weeks before the GE, Deros issued a public statement. He said that he would campaign for any political party which could meet his list of demands. These demands included: one, adopting Islamic economics by changing the financial system to a non-interest-based model. Another demand was that policies aimed at preserving existing racial proportions should be ended. Some of his demands were absurd, I would say very damaging. For example, his demand that we change our financial system to be more Islamic. The financial industry contributes to 14% of our gross domestic product (GDP). It employs nearly 200,000 people. It is vital to our economy. This man, who is based in Malaysia, wants to stop all of that. It is madness.

On 23 April, Deros put up two Facebook posts. He said only the Workers' Party (WP) was taking his demands seriously. Deros said that he would invite Muslims in Singapore to vote for WP if they agreed to his demands. He also portrayed WP's Malay/Muslim candidate in Tampines, Mr Faisal Manap, as a more vocal champion of Malay/Muslim issues compared to Minister Masagos. He called on Tampines voters to "do the right thing"; meaning, vote for Mr Faisal Manap.

On 24 April, Deros made further public statements. He reiterated his call for Tampines voters to vote for Mr Faisal Manap. He also said that he had spoken to all of WP's Malay candidates. Deros was saying that he would rally votes for any political party that agreed with his demands, demands which were along racial religious lines, and he was comparing two Malay/Muslim candidates and saying, vote for Mr Faisal Manap because he has been a more vocal champion of race and religion for Malay/Muslims.

That was the main troubling issue, not whether some of his demands were absurd or whether one agrees or disagrees with his demands, or whether one agrees or disagrees with his assessment of candidates. Asking Singaporeans to vote for political parties and candidates along racial religious lines is a reckless thing to do. It also sets a dangerous precedent. If we allow this, other racial and religious groups will have similar demands and we have to allow them to make similar calls, too. The natural result in a democracy will be that the largest and the best-organised religions and races will get their way. They will have the strongest lobbying power and the most number of votes, and political parties will have to listen to them.

The other natural result is that the followers of different races and religions will clash. Followers of different faiths can hold beliefs that are essentially incompatible with one another. If different groups press their religious ideals hard, instead of compromising with one another, and if the Government prioritises the views of one faith over another, conflict is inevitable. If we go down this path of canvassing based on identity politics, the result will be that most parties will appeal to the Chinese vote, and the minorities will feel the squeeze and will be marginalised.

When you try and get the Malay/Muslim vote in this way, and if the Malay/Muslim community responds, the other communities, in particular, the Chinese, will quickly notice and very likely start to view the Malay/Muslim community with suspicion, along communal lines. This is what happens in many countries and our sense is that something like that may have started to happen in Tampines. Many Chinese voters in Tampines seem to have observed the communal nature of the appeals to the Malay voters, and they seem to have chosen to take a different direction during this GE. But this sort of racial dynamics in politics is very bad for Singapore. The same can happen with religions – Christianity, Buddhism, Taoism. These will emerge as the dominant religions influencing politics that will cause deep resentment and anxiety among Muslims, Hindus and other groups.

In the US now, there is a blurring of lines between religion and politics. There was an article published by Spiegel International two weeks ago on 2 October 2025. The article reported that prominent US religious leaders are openly pushing political agendas. One even called for the establishment of an “American theocracy” and banning Muslims from holding public office. Instead of rejecting these ideas, some politicians in the US are promoting them in order to get votes. More citizens have also become more accepting of political violence in the name of furthering religious ideals.

Bigger countries may possibly survive with these sorts of divisions. Singapore – we will certainly be divided, damaged and ruined. Just consider one example from our history, which few in this House will remember.

In the 1963 GE, after we became a constituent state in Malaysia, the PAP won all three Malay-majority seats in Singapore at that time – Geylang Serai, Kampong Kembangan and Southern Islands. The PAP's Malay candidates beat Singapore Umno Malay candidates in these constituencies. The Umno leaders in Kuala Lumpur were furious. They were not going to allow a non-communal party, like the PAP, make inroads into what they considered to be their special preserve. So, they launched a vicious anti-PAP and anti-Lee Kuan Yew campaign. Malay Singaporeans who voted for PAP were called traitors. The leading Malay leader in the PAP then, Encik Othman Wok, was called a "kafir".

Chinese-Malay relations spiralled down. And within 10 months, we got the riots of July 1964. That is all it took, 10 months, to unravel everything.

Hence, when Deros started making dangerous statements, Prime Minister Lawrence Wong decided to go public. He felt that he must respond robustly to Deros. And he did so. I will come back to this later.

On 25 April, my Ministry, the Ministry of Home Affairs (MHA) and the Elections Department (ELD) released a joint statement highlighting the dangers of mixing religion and politics. This was in the middle of the GE. The statement also urged all political parties and their candidates to do their part to safeguard the harmony in Singapore.

On 26 April, the Prime Minister held a press conference. He called on Singaporeans to reject efforts to bring race and religion into politics. He asked all political parties to take a clear stand on two principles: one, that identity politics has no place in Singapore; and two, that we should never mix religion and politics.

In this GE, the WP released its own statement on 26 April, the day after ELD and MHA had issued their statement. The WP statement stated that no promises, commitments or agreements were made to Deros in exchange for political support. In the circumstances, given the fundamentals of our multiracial, multi-religious approach and the ideals set out in our pledge, more needed to be said by WP and it needed to be said immediately after Deros had made his posts.

First, on the timing of WP's statement. On 23 April, Deros publicised his meeting with WP. That was on Nomination Day. He said that WP were the only ones who took him seriously. He called on all Muslims in Singapore to vote for WP if they agreed to his demands. He also called on Tampines residents to vote for Mr Faisal Manap, specifically over Minister Masagos. The next day, 24 April, Deros continued to speak publicly about his meeting with WP. He said that he had met with all of WP's Malay candidates. He also repeated his call for Tampines voters to vote for Mr Faisal Manap. Only on 26 April did WP issue its statement. That was more than two days after Deros publicised his meeting with WP and after the statement by ELD and MHA. This was during the campaign period, when every day made a huge difference.

This delay, on such an important matter, begs many questions.

It can confuse the ground. For example, sections of voters might be misled into thinking on those two days that WP was possibly considering Deros' demands. Deros was saying all these things and WP was silent. MHA and ELD had to step in and say that this was unacceptable. And after that, the WP issued its statement.

Second, the WP's statement was ambiguous. It said that no commitments, promises had been given and no agreements were reached. 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. 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. 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. 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.

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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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.

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

Mr Speaker: Before I call hon Members for clarifications, I just wish to point out that pursuant to Standing Order No 23, Members may seek clarification on the Ministerial Statement, but no debate shall be allowed thereon. Members can seek clarifications by way of asking questions.

I seek Members' understanding to keep your clarifications clear and concise, so that the Minister can answer as many clarifications as possible. I would also similarly ask the Minister to also keep his answers clear and concise. Mr Pritam Singh.

Mr Pritam Singh (Aljunied): Thank you, Speaker, and thank you, Minister, for the Statement. It appears to me that one of the issues the Minister raises is with regard to timing, in terms of how quickly the WP responded to some of the issues the Minister covered in his Statement.

Let me put that question of timing into perspective. But before I do so, let me just read out as a preamble, a short remark that I made at the doorstop interview on 26 April, one day after the MHA-ELD statement was made. And I said this, "I think MHA and ELD have put together a message and I stand behind that message. Our political scene is for our people. We persuade Singaporeans of our value proposition and we urge all Singaporeans, regardless of race, language or religion, to judge us on our manifesto and our proposals, and what we do in Parliament for all Singaporeans, not specific communities only. I think once we go down that road, you're going to have an unnecessary politicisation of the public space and we don't want that. That's not healthy for Singapore and that's not healthy for our minority communities as well."

On the matter of timing, the joint MHA-ELD statement was published on 25 April. It does not refer to Noor Deros, who is a Singaporean. It makes reference to foreigners attempting to influence the GE. This comes out on 25 April, and the Minister can correct me if I am wrong, the statement comes out at about 10.00 pm on 25 April.

On 26 April, the following morning, at 9.30 am, the WP releases its statement, overnight. At 11.30 am or thereabouts, there is a doorstop interview and one of the remarks that I made include what I have just mentioned, as the preamble to this clarification.

So, on the matter of timing, I do not agree with the Minister that we took too long.

I understand Minister has an issue about the context of what was said. It could have been clearer, more unequivocal. And the Minister concedes that on 26 April, that same day the press release of the WP was released that morning, in the evening, there is a rally, and at Tampines, I make what I think the Minister says are clearer remarks and statements about race and religion. So, I have a disagreement with the Minister about the question of timing.

Who was Noor Deros before these elections? I did not know him. I am not sure whether the Minister knew him or if the Ministry knew of him, unless he was on Majlis Ugama Islam Singapura (MUIS) or had served with MUIS at some point in some capacity. I am not sure. I do not know. But as far as the WP is concerned, we do not really have an operations room or a Protection from Online Falsehoods and Manipulation Act (POFMA) office to monitor what foreigners or what people are saying about politics and where they may be venturing into territory which is dangerous.

But in the event there is something untoward or awry, the WP is not shy of coming together and trying to resolve the issue. I will give an example as a matter of clarification. The first rally we had at Anchorvale, the rally site looks, starts to turn dangerous because people are slipping and sliding, and the Police commander on the ground is unsure, uncertain what is happening. And he says, "Look, we may have to shut the rally site down".

So, I said, "Let me make a remark to the crowd and ask them to keep safe". And we deal with the situation.

So, the point I am making to the Minister is, if something is heading into dangerous territory, I think there are many ways, in the national interest, for the Government to communicate with political parties and say, "Look, this is not on. And we are communicating this. We need to come together, resolve it, make that clear statement".

And if the party is not prepared to make a statement, then I think the Minister is fully at liberty to make the comments that he wishes to. But I do not think it is fair to say that the WP did not take this issue seriously.

I also would like to clarify – did Noor Deros break any laws? Was a Police report made against him, or was it in the Government's contemplation to issue a restraining order against him under section 8 of the Maintenance of Religious Harmony Act? Because the Prime Minister decides to take a break from the hustings and made a statement in the national interest. So, just to clarify, what considerations were on the Government's mind, in terms of trying to nip this issue at the bud?

For the moment, these are my clarifications. Mr Speaker, I may clarify further, subject to what the Minister says.

Mr K Shanmugam: 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. 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? 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. 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.

Mr Speaker: Mr Pritam Singh.

Mr Pritam Singh: Mr Speaker, before I go into that, I do not think the Minister has answered the point about section 8A of the Maintenance of Racial Harmony Act and what Noor Deros, a Singaporean, said and did, and how the Government responded.

Mr K Shanmugam: 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.

Mr Speaker: Mr Singh.

Mr Pritam Singh: Thank you for that, Minister. Indeed, there is an assessment made. And my own view on this matter is, when a nobody claims that there is a set of demands that he has of a political party, one has to think of a number of factors. The Streisand effect – by raising the matter, are you actually, in the heat of an election, bringing the issue to greater focus? So, by dealing with it on 23 or 24 April, points made by a certain Noor Deros, who really no one knows. I certainly did not know of him. He later on, on 6 May, accepts that WP did not agree to anything that he said. He also later on, congratulated Prime Minister Mr Lawrence Wong. He speaks well of the Government.

Ultimately, in the heat of the elections, attentions are all over the place. And for an opposition party indeed, Nomination Day – I do not think I need to state here how even the PAP had to move candidates last minute – your attention is all over the place.

But what I would say is that we had made our views quite clear on foreign interference. I understand the Minister says that the statement on Noor Deros could have been clearer, I accept that. I think we can make certain things very clear. But my point is if we talk about the national interest, if this is so important to the Government, there are other ways to deal with it collectively as one Singapore.

On the matter of PAS, I think the Minister made some extended comments about PAS. About one year ago, at this time, we know that PAP Malay MPs went to Malaysia. The Malay Action Bureau in particular went to Malaysia and there was some communication with PAS, and on Petir, the PAP publication outlet, the mast head says, "The PAP story told from within". "Malaysian politics has evolved. In the past there was only one dominant party, now there are multiple Malay parties and those with Malay components", and this is the former Malay Muslim Affairs Minister saying, "I thought it would be good for party activists to be introduced and build bridges with these parties and personalities." It is an extensive article and the Minister also said, "but I thought it would be useful to deploy our Malay activists in a way that would relive the purpose of the MAB: how do we help the party win over the Malay community now?"

I am not sure what is the party's approach to this matter, but what I would be interested in is, given this relationship that the PAP and PAS seem to have, was there any attempt made by PAP Members or intermediaries in private to communicate with PAS and to inform them not to interfere in our elections forthwith? And at the same time, did the Government make any intervention or formally raised this matter with the Malaysian counterparts as to not to do this in future?

Mr K Shanmugam: 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. 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.

Mr Speaker: Mr Singh.

Mr Pritam Singh: Just a matter of clarification. I think the Minister started by referring to meeting Deros and I mentioned quite clearly during the elections that he gate-crashed the meeting that Mr Faisal Manap was having with someone else. My understanding from Mr Faisal Manap is there was no arrangement to meet him specifically. But this is just a fact by the by, but the points that the Minister has made in terms of not wanting such interference, rejecting individuals who attempt to use identity politics to win votes, I can agree with that. And I think most Singaporeans will agree with that.

The point I wish to highlight, and I am not sure whether the Minister has been unequivocal about it, is when something like this happens, there is an asymmetry of information. The Government has a perspective which is far broader than a small political party. And my point is, if it is serious enough, in the Minister's words, for the Prime Minister to take measures such as stopping campaigning halfway to clarify a point, I do not think it is too difficult to reach out in the national interest to get that clarification also from all political parties as one Singapore. I hope the Minister can consider this in future.

Mr K Shanmugam: 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. 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.

Mr Speaker: Mr Singh.

Mr Pritam Singh: Sir, I do not intend to repeat myself. Just to share that the MHA-ELD statement, again did not refer to Deros. The only time it came up officially from the Government was when the Prime Minister brought Noor Deros up specifically. So, our statement focused on foreign interference.

But as the Prime Minister made his press conference, this was on 26 April at around noon-ish; same night, we made our position very clear on needing support from individuals on racial and religious grounds. We do not need that sort of support. So, I think that is unequivocal. I do not think I can be clearer than that. But the substance of what the Minister has gone on in his Ministerial Statement is not objectionable.

Mr K Shanmugam: 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.

Mr Speaker: Mr Zhulkarnain Abdul Rahim.

Mr Zhulkarnain Abdul Rahim (Chua Chu Kang): Thank you, Sir. I thank the Minister for the Statement. I do agree that identity politics would be disastrous for Singapore, especially minorities. And I thank him for the Statement.

However, listening to the Minister's Statement, I cannot help but notice that some may interpret his Statement as suggesting that a particular group or community, in this case, the Malay/Muslim community, should bear some responsibility for allowing such sentiments to take root in the first place.

Is the hon Minister suggesting that? Or would he not agree with me that it is, in fact, part of a broader issue or trend that political actors, both here and abroad, are taking advantage of our racial or religious sensitivities for their own gain? And if so, it can happen to any communities, any race, any religion or groups like new citizens.

Mr K Shanmugam: 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.

Mr Speaker: Mr Xie Yao Quan.

Mr Xie Yao Quan (Jurong Central): Thank you, Mr Speaker. I thank the Minister for reminding us all of the absolutely fundamental principles with regard to identity politics. But I would also like to ask the Minister to clarify if he is also saying that it would be wrong for any political party to appeal to voters based on what the party can offer to any specific community? Or is he also saying that it would be wrong for an individual to question whether the Government has done enough for any community or to demand the Government to do more for a specific community?

Mr K Shanmugam: 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.

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.

Mr Speaker: Ms Hazlina Abdul Halim. Mr Kenneth Tiong and Dr Charlene Chen, I have seen your hands. I will come to you next.

Ms Hazlina Abdul Halim (East Coast): Speaker, I thank the Coordinating Minister for reminding us of the importance of believing how we serve everyone and that this is a Singapore for all. And I also appreciate Members' appreciation of peace and harmony, being important tenets that we commit to.

I would like to seek clarifications from the Minister on two fronts: one is "when" and one is "how". The Minister cited Mr Noor Deros and Mr Damanhuri as an illustration of attempts to bring race and religion into electoral politics. While the Minister has mentioned earlier that he was looking for the earliest opportunity to bring this up and also was mindful about being seen as threatening smaller political parties, could the Minister help us understand why are we raising these concerns now, in particular, and not back then? And furthermore, what again warrants revisiting it today? Was that also above and beyond incidents that we recently saw with regard to, for example, Masjid Al-Istiqamah?

On the "how", expanding a little bit on the hon Member's question, as well as Deputy Speaker's question, about hesitance, I wanted to highlight that minority voices may hesitate to speak up on discrimination. And so, how can we, as Singapore, ensure a safer space for us to be able to do that, to ensure that Singaporeans can continue to have difficult, tough but meaningful conversation on race and religion, in particular, by taking the stand of preserving mutual respect when doing so and ensuring that it is not misused or not allowed for exploitation, especially due to external forces?

Mr K Shanmugam: 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 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. 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.

Mr Speaker: Mr Kenneth Tiong.

Mr Kenneth Tiong Boon Kiat (Aljunied): One clarification. The Minister has set clear bars for responding to foreign influence: immediacy, categorical rejection and explicit disavowal, regardless of ambiguity or delay.

Will the Minister now apply those same standards to Michael Petraeus, the Polish national, whose "Critical Spectator" platform has published racially charged commentary on Singapore politics, including a piece titled, "WP abandons Muslim voters, turns to the Chinese"? His platform was previously taken down from Facebook for policy violations. He continues to try to influence our politics from his foreign perch, this time favouring the PAP.

Will the PAP categorically reject and disavow his support today, just as the Minister demanded that WP do so within 24 hours?

Mr K Shanmugam: 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.

Mr Speaker: Mr Tiong.

Mr Kenneth Tiong Boon Kiat: I thank the Minister for clarifying that the PAP will not be categorically rejecting Michael Petraeus' actions.

Mr K Shanmugam: 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.

Mr Speaker: Ms Hazlina, do you have a further clarification? Go ahead.

Ms Hazlina Abdul Halim: Thank you, Speaker. I think it is important to recognise the fact that Singapore is for Singapore, and that is why we are all here today.

I was reflecting on Minister's speech on identity and what it means. It is just a small part of what we can do and what we have to offer and who we serve.

I wanted to clarify the point about the Malay community rising above targeted intentions during hustings and actually, really seeing the unity of Singapore coming together and taking all of our identities as strengths and really serving for Singapore for all, not so much feeling victimised, but realising that while there could have been targets or attempts, it is really about coming together for what is best.

Mr K Shanmugam: Sorry. Can I invite the Member to repeat the question, because I missed part of it? I am sorry.

Mr Speaker: Ms Hazlina.

Ms Hazlina Abdul Halim: Thank you, Minister. It was more of a clarification to state that while there were potentially attempts to make the Malay community victims during hustings, falling for identity politics, we, as a community, I believe, rose above it and took the point of really coming together and realising that identity is a strength.

So, that was a point of clarification on not falling victim, but wanting to rise above it, while targeted. Would the Minister see it in the same light?

Mr K Shanmugam: Yes, I will agree with that description and that is, in fact, what I said as well, maybe not as elegantly as the Member.

Mr Speaker: Dr Charlene Chen.

Dr Charlene Chen (Tampines): Speaker, Sir, I would like to thank the Minister for his Ministerial Statement. I would just like to say that Tampines has a very diverse, yet mutually respectful community. Our residents in Tampines would agree that Singapore's survival depends on our unity. And I believe that harmony comes from confidence and trust and sometimes, not avoiding difficult conversations.

So, beyond calling out and effecting the law in response to potential attempts to influence voting behaviour along racial and religious lines, how can we strengthen public awareness and civic education to help our Singaporeans recognise and reject such messages, so that they do not become victims of politically motivated individuals?

Mr K Shanmugam: 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. 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.

Mr Speaker: Mr Andre Low.

Mr Low Wu Yang Andre (Non-Constituency Member): Speaker, I have one clarification for the Minister. In his speech, he referred to one of the policy pillars being our reasonable calibrated approach to discussing such views in public, referring to religious issues. I want to refer to the Minister's citing of the IPS 2024 survey on racial and religious harmony and the headline statistic in Annex C, where it is stated that 65.4% of respondents rated Singapore's racial and religious harmony is high or very high, and this is on the uptrend from the last time the survey was run.

Of course, this is a heartening statistic, but there is some nuance to it. That same report highlighted that there was a perception gap between what the Chinese majority felt versus minorities, quite a significant one, as well as a perception gap between the younger generation and the older generation. Those 35 and below felt that racial and religious harmony was worse than the older respondents.

So, my clarification for the Minister is: would the Minister consider recalibrating that reasonable and calibrated approach that the Government has taken with racial and religious harmony in Singapore, given these findings? Maybe perhaps it is not working for certain demographics, such as our younger Singaporeans, who may feel that safe spaces, as my fellow Member referred to, can be more open. Because if we are constantly wary of tripping over, whether it is actual legislation or, perhaps, unseen "out of bound" markers, perhaps these conversations might not be had in the most open and respectful manner.

Mr K Shanmugam: 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? 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.

Mr Speaker: Mr Saktiandi Supaat.

Mr Saktiandi Supaat (Bishan-Toa Payoh): Mr Speaker, I have a clarification with the Minister. But before that, I would like to thank the Minister for his speech where he mentioned the historical fact that the Malay is being offered land back in the 1960s and none has actually gone over during the 1960s. I think it that sort of brings out the fact about our older generation of the Malay community being part of the Singapore's identity. So, I thank Minister for highlighting that.

Mr Speaker, my clarification is in relation to the discussion earlier. I have been hearing the issue about what the Leader of the Opposition has mentioned. I find it hard to believe that the Leader of the Opposition is somewhat suggesting that the Vice Chairman Mr Faisal Manap did not know who Mr Deros is and what were the implications of his endorsement, given that his reach is quite significant online and his positions have been quite clear. And I think it is on both sides – the PAP Malay MPs and of course, the WP Malay MPs, would know Mr Deros back then.

So, my clarification is somewhat related to that, in some ways in terms of the guidelines and framework. Can the Minister share a bit more about the guidelines and framework pre- and, I think, because the situation happened during the heat of the GEs, how can we be more clear, going forward, in terms of how the guidelines and framework that he has shared. And I truly support the fact that having a very clear guideline and framework as he has shared during his Ministerial Statement, will go a long way in in bringing a bit more clear direction into how we should deal with issues in relation to race and religion going forward.

Mr K Shanmugam: 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. 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.

Mr Speaker: Mr Pritam Singh.

Mr Pritam Singh: Mr Speaker, I did not intend to participate further in this exchange. But as Member Saktiandi seems to suggest, I shared, publicly, the circumstances which relate to how Mr Noor Deros met up with certain WP candidates. Mr Noor Deros himself, in a post on 6 May, says he was invited by an ustaz delegated by Mr Faisal Manap. Those are his views.

This idea, just like the Minister says, we meet with people from all walks of life. I believe there was a CNA article shortly after the elections. Ministers Ong Ye Kung and Chee Hong Tat have no dealings with Fujian gang member, Su Haijin, says press secretaries, "As Ministers, they meet a diverse range of people at various events and gatherings." The key point to note is Mr Noor Deros has some views. He wants to advance a certain view of society. The WP rejected it.

Mr K Shanmugam: 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.

Mr Speaker: Mr Singh.

Mr Pritam Singh: Mr Speaker, I am not going to go beyond what we said during the elections. That would be correct, because that was what was said.

But the point that I made early on before this exchange is, it was quite unequivocal in my understanding. By the time the matter came to a head at the Tampines rally, the statements that were made, I think, it was very clear where we stood on involvement of race or religion in politics.

If somebody comes along and says, "I am of a certain race, and WP should support us because we are taking certain identity politics type of arguments forward." We will reject those, as we have to.

Mr K Shanmugam: 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.

Mr Speaker: Mr Singh.

Mr Pritam Singh: Mr Speaker, I just want to clarify this for the record and I think it is important that I do so. This is an extract of a question that was asked to me during the doorstop. And the Minister can take a view whether WP rejected what Mr Deros was proposing. In my view, I believe we did.

The question was, "We saw the post that WP has put up this morning" – this is from the journalist – "regarding foreign interference and regarding the WP's Muslim candidate meeting with the Malaysian activist, Noor Deros" – that is wrong, he is Singaporean – "so could you walk us through some details of the meeting? When did the meeting take place?" And then it goes on, "And was it part of the consideration that WP fielded Mr Faisal Manap in Tampines to meet with the Tampines MP Masagos? Is it a coincidence that he is the Muslim Affairs Minister in this area? Was the meeting part of the consideration following?”

My reply, "No, absolutely not. Let me add to what has been already shared by way of the media statement this morning. What had happened was that one of our Muslim committee members in one of the mosques in Aljunied wanted to speak to Mr Faisal and to the Malay members of the party. And what happened was that the meeting was supposed to take place with some ulama, some senior Malay/Muslim religious leaders. There was no indication that this individual would be joining in the meeting. So, when the meeting started, he was there, and my understanding is he had this list of demands. And of course, as our statement makes it quite clear, there is no situation of, I quote, 'if the WP pushes forward this agenda, I will support you.' I am sorry. We do not work politics like that in Singapore. We do not work politics like that in Workers’ Party. People have views. I think Government officials, even Ministers, meet with various members of religious groups in Singapore. So do we. And if this gentleman thinks that his advocacy will lead to the issues being brought up by the Workers’ Party, I think he is sadly mistaken."

Sir, in my view, that is a rejection of what Mr Deros is trying to put forth. And I do not intend to repeat myself, but in the broad approach that the Minister is suggesting, going forward, in terms of ensuring that religion, race is not involved, or it does not mix with politics, we can agree with that. And I think most sensible Singaporeans, and the vast majority of Singaporeans, I would add, would agree with that.

The Ministerial Statement today was about race or religion. I want to pick up on a second point which Mr Low was alluding to. I believe after the last elections, the ones before, in GE2020, a Minister himself came out to say that an older generation of Singaporeans has a certain approach with regard to race and religion; and a younger generation take a different approach.

Can I confirm with the Minister, is there a new framework that the Government is considering in view of this difference of approach in addressing race or religion issues? Can we, for example, see more safe spaces or different style of trying to deal with race or religion issues, particularly for the reasons that the Minister states – the nature of social media and how a certain tribalism can develop in society?

Mr K Shanmugam: 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.

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

Mr Speaker: After two and a half hours, I believe all clarifications sought have been addressed by the Minister.

Order. End of Ministerial Statement. Introduction of Government Bills. Second Minister for Defence.