Staying United Against the Terrorism Threat

1.55 pm

Mr Christopher de Souza (Holland-Bukit Timah): Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move*, "That this House fortifies Singapore's resolve to stay united against the threat of terrorism by reaffirming the core values of multiracialism and social cohesion and calls on the Government to continue (a) promoting vigilance and resilience among Singaporeans to deter and overcome terrorist attacks; (b) preventing the spread of radicalised teachings which promote violent extremism; and (c) investing in multiracialism as the best socio-weapon to defeat the ills that terrorism seeks to sow".

*The Motion also stood in the names of Dr Intan Azura Mokhtar, Mr Murali Pillai and Dr Tan Wu Meng.

Sir, the Singapore Armed Forces (SAF) may have powerful weaponry; the Home Team may have sophisticated arsenal, but our nation's best artillery against a terror attack is multiracialism. Multiracialism is the bedrock, the foundation that will neutralise and defeat the ills terrorism seeks to sow.

We have effective, professional and responsive uniformed teams working to keep us safe − the Singapore Police Force (SPF), the Singapore Civil Defence Force (SCDF), working together with SAF, working in turn with the Internal Security Department (ISD) and the Security and Intelligence Division (SID). But terrorism is not a fight they are to battle against alone. Every Singaporean has a role to play. Why the need to debate this now? There are three reasons: first, we face a regional threat; second, we face a global threat; and third, we have been specifically targeted.

Let me deal with the regional threat first and, with your leave, Mr Speaker, may I display some slides on the light-emitting diode (LED) screen?

Mr Speaker: Yes, please. [Slides were shown to hon Members.]

Mr Christopher de Souza: Thank you. Terrorists are returning from Syria and Iraq to Southeast Asia. Misguided, they form terror cells which seek to influence others. It is estimated that in the next two years, about 200 terrorists would be released from prisons in the region. They could return to terrorist leanings after their release. Reports have shown that the Marawi conflict has generated potential terrorists, adding to the regional threat we face.

But this threat is not just regional. The threat confronts the globe. In fact, every single inhabitable continent in our world has suffered a terror attack since the beginning of this year alone, 2017.

In Fort Lauderdale, Florida, a man shot and killed five people at the airport. That was January 2017. Just last night, we heard news of a possible terror attack in Las Vegas, 59 people tragically killed.

In Manchester, an explosion killed 22 children, youths and adults at an Ariana Grande concert. That was May 2017. Again, just over the weekend, in Marseille, France, two women were stabbed to death.

In Jakarta, two explosions at a busy bus station killed three police officers and injured 10 people. That was May 2017.

In Melbourne, a woman was taken hostage, two men were shot, and three police officers injured in the line of duty in June of this year.

In Colombia, South America, an explosion at a shopping centre killed three women and injured 11 others.

And in Mali, West Africa, five people were shot at a tourist resort in June.

So, should we move on the assumption that an attack will never happen to us? I do not think so. Rather, we must prepare now.

In 2016, plans to attack Singapore were avoided and foiled. Terrorists from Batam planned to launch a rocket attack on Marina Bay Sands in August 2016. The Straits Times reported that there was an Arabic publication circulated last October that identified two entities here, the Singapore Exchange and a port, as targets as part of a wider bid to damage American and Western interests. In a separate report by the Jakarta-based Institute for Policy Analysis of Conflict, those heading the Marawi network had urged militants on Telegram to attack targets in Singapore, Thailand and Japan.

For these three reasons − one, our region is facing a heightened threat; two, the threat is global; and three, our country has been explicitly targeted − we need to promote vigilance and resilience.

According to a report on "Risk and Resilience" for the Department of Homeland Security in United States (US), pre-event activity is key to resilience. It places importance on the capacity to anticipate, plan and prepare to cope with threats. An important aspect of this pre-event activity is being vigilant.

Why is this so? In London, recent attacks involved vans being driven on pedestrian walkways and knife attacks. It happened in very public areas, accessible to pedestrians and vehicles. Low cost, highly visible, possibility for lone-wolf operations, vulnerable targets, are dangerous concoctions.

These attacks are very difficult to prevent. Without concrete bollards on every crowded street, checks on every bag carried on the Mass Rapid Transit (MRT), restriction on the sales of all kinds of knives ─ even kitchen knives ─ this would be near impossible. As Minister K Shanmugam has said, "You can't turn the entire city into a garrison." No matter what interventions the state puts in to try to prevent a terrorist attack, it is very likely that the first responders will be the citizens on the ground.

Therefore, it is not just for the specialist forces or the Police to be alert to such threats. The possibility of a terror attack needs to be ingrained in the consciousness of everyone. It should not cripple us in Singapore with fear. Rather, that consciousness should help us to know how to spot suspicious activities and how to react to them in a calm and systematic fashion.

Firstly, there is a need to identify the threat. The signs of suspicious persons, articles and vehicles have been disseminated through the SGSecure App and other means. But knowing the signs is not enough; we need to instil the culture of vigilance that will cause people to look up, observe their surroundings and know how to make a judgement call. That judgement call includes following instructions in the SGSecure App, which are "Run, Hide, Tell".

But what to tell is also important. How well we are able to respond to the terror attack would very much depend on how we, the first responders, cooperate with the Police by giving information through the SGSecure app. Information communicated is crucial. Hence, according to the SGsecure guide, we should TELL. T-E-L-L. T for the total number of attackers, E for equipment or weapons being carried, L for look of attackers, and L for location of attackers ─ where they are now and moving towards.

Our response as citizens will be crucial in order for the response from our uniformed staff to be even more effective. It could be a vehicle marauding through the crowd on a footway, or a knife-wielding group of men in a crowded restaurant. The attackers could be a moving target. It is our duty as citizens of Singapore to help report suspicious activity before the threat materialises.

If the threat is so well-disguised and an attack does occur, then we should provide as accurate information as we can through the SGSecure app. To be truly secure, all of us − very Singaporean − has a part to play to be vigilant.

It is also important that Singaporeans work synergistically with the uniformed forces in the face of a terror attack. Equally, the uniformed services − Home Team and SAF − will need to work synergistically with each other. Very interestingly, Australia amended their laws this year to allow military deployment alongside police personnel after a terror incident has been declared.

A synergistic response is needed. Singapore is increasing exercises and trainings between the Home Team and SAF as well as between the Home Team and the citizenry, through local Emergency Preparedness days. But a look at how other countries are planning their responses to terror attacks may be useful for Singapore's policymakers.

For example, in Hong Kong, the Standing Chemical, Biological, Radiological and Nuclear Planning Group meets regularly to formulate contingency plans and procedures for threatened or possible attacks, including terror attacks. It is made up of specialists from various departments and agencies, such as the hospitals, laboratories, police force, civil aid service and fire service. It is a multidisciplinary team on call, 24 hours a day, to assess threats and give advice on the spot.

In Australia, the Prime Minister Malcom Turnbull wanted personnel from the defence force to be placed within law enforcement agencies to assist in coordination efforts. We could study the Hong Kong and Australia models to assess what best practices we could import into Singapore's anti-terror regime.

Another key strategy to secure resilience against the psychology of fear that terrorists seek to sow is to promote unity in the aftermath of a terror attack. How we respond to a terror attack is important. A response using Home Team and SAF military hardware is key but let us also realise that Singapore and Singaporeans must win the psychological battle. Our unity will ensure we are victorious over any ill the attacks seek to incite. That is why communication is very important.

According to SAFE-COMMS which was commissioned by the European Union, a key message should be, "We will not allow terrorists to spread fear and horror and gain the upper hand." The next message is, "We know what we are doing", then the next message is, "All those affected will receive all the support that they need." The basic principles are rapid restoration of confidence and security, transparent trust-building information policy, calmly competent yet sensitive treatment of all those that are directly and indirectly involved, leadership with integrity and credibility, and decisive action.

The message of social connectedness and hope is important, especially in the aftermath of an attack. In December 2014, a lone gunman held 17 hostages at a cafe in Sydney for more than 16 hours. Two hostages eventually died. Within a few hours of the attack, a hashtag campaign entitled "I'll Ride With You" went viral on the Internet. Australians stood together with their Muslim brothers and sisters.

The point is, we need to win the psychological value. It is not just the day itself, but the day after the attack.

How will we act? How will we move ahead? We do not point our fingers but hold hands and stand united together against terror. But to do so, we need to prepare now. How? A first step now could be to prepare posters and other paraphernalia to send such messages quickly and visibly.

These are some of what the residents in the constituency I serve, Ulu Pandan, organised in terms of banners. These are day-after banners. They have been printed, they are in the Community Centre, ready to be put up at locations throughout the constituency should there be an attack. "We are one people, one nation, one Singapore", "Deny terrorism a victory, let's stay united".

The four hands of our races ─ Singaporean Chinese, Malay, Indian and Eurasians ─ protecting our precious Singapore, holding it together. Red and white chosen ─ the colours of our flag. "No to disunity", "Terrorism will not win". These messages displayed the day-after are what Singaporeans can see and will stir them to say, "Yes, we are in this together", "Yes, it will be okay."

So, first, we need to promote vigilance and resilience amongst Singaporeans to deter and overcome terrorist attacks. And that was the first part of the Motion. Allow me, Sir, to move on to the second point, that we need to prevent the spread of radicalised teachings which promote violent extremism.

There were 18 radicalised Singaporeans arrested in the past two years, compared to 11 in the preceding years. Let us study that statistics: 18 in the past two years, compared to 11 in the preceding seven years. To take the appropriate action, we have a range of laws that may be applied. We only need to look to the recent terror attack on London Bridge in Borough Market to see why muscular laws which gives police proactive and pre-emptive powers are important.

The Independent reported that Scotland Yard acknowledged that the ringleader of the terrorist who carried out the London Bridge attack was known to the police and MI5 for extremism before he went on his rampage of murder and maiming. The British Broadcasting Corporation reported that the ringleader had previously appeared in a Channel 4 documentary about the presence of violent extremists in British cities. In the end, that ringleader led a rampage which killed eight people and injured 48 others in an attack at London Bridge in Borough Market on 3 June this year.

In Singapore, the laws must not work to hinder investigation. When pre-emptive detention is necessary, we must act and administer it. We cannot have our hands tied behind our backs. More so, in light of what the Minister for Home Affairs shared just three weeks ago. Minister K Shanmugam said that before the Islamic State militant group came on the scene, authorities assessed it will take about two years for individuals to become radicalised. But now, some individuals may be radicalised in as little as one or two months. The rate of being influenced has decreased from 22 months, not to 20 months, not to 12 months, but to two months. Our laws in Singapore must facilitate early action, pre-emptive action, to reduce the possibility of terror threats.

Laws are important. They are important tools. Our laws do help deter the spread of radicalised teachings, which promote violent extremism. And with the changing nature of terrorist attacks in the world, the shorter period for radicalisation, we may need to review our laws to ensure that they are flexible enough, that they are robust enough, to mitigate against and ameliorate the morphing nature of terror attacks.

Allow me, Mr Speaker, to go through the Acts and, by so doing, hopefully get across to those who wish to do us harm that we have the requisite laws to act pre-emptively and swiftly.

For example, under section 7 of the Public Order Act, the Commissioner of Police may refuse to grant a permit if he is of the view that the proposed assembly or procession may glorify the commission or preparation of acts of terrorism, whether in the past or future.

A different raft of laws targets the action of spreading violent extremism. These can be found in the Penal Code and the Sedition Act. Section 267C of the Penal Code makes it an offence to distribute or possess documents or communicate electronic records that incite violence. The Sedition Act makes it an offence to commit an act which has a seditious tendency. Seditious tendency is defined to include "promot[ing] hostility between different races or classes of the population of Singapore."

When the need arises, there is the Internal Security Act (ISA). For instance, section 20 empowers the Minister to prohibit or set conditions regarding the possession of documents that contain any incitement to violence.

But, to add real value, the laws should also aim to assist the detained and help rehabilitate them. Rehabilitation and reintegration are important strategies to stem the spread of such violent extremism.

This makes crucial the work of organisations, such as the Religious Rehabilitation Group (RRG). Its mission statement expands on the importance of rehabilitation to the detainee: "Rehabilitation seeks to counter detainees' ideological misunderstanding of religion and help them come to terms with the fact that they have been misled."

It was reported that the restriction order of one of the former members of Jemaah Islamiyah (JI) was allowed to lapse; he is no longer required for further supervision under the restriction order regime. This is not the only example. ISA detainees can be released from preventive detention and put on restraining orders after they are shown to have made progress in rehabilitation and no longer pose a security threat that requires preventive detention. Therefore, we have an arsenal of laws to empower pre-emptive action, preventive detention, leading to rehabilitation and, hopefully, reintegration. The laws are effective and noble. But laws alone cannot offer Singapore's complete counter-offence to terrorism.

Multiracialism is the best socio-weapon to defeat the ills terrorism seeks to sow. What does terrorism seek to sow? Terrorism seeks to sow division, disunity, discord.

Terrorism is not the problem of a single race. It is not the problem of a single religion. Terrorists come in all forms. Look at Anders Behring Breivik. In 2011, he committed Norway's worst attack and was convicted of mass murder and terrorism offences. At that time, it was the world's deadliest terror attack by a lone gunman. Many of his victims were teenagers on a recent summer retreat.

Besides the shooting rampage on the island of Utoya, he planted a bomb in a van in Oslo's city centre. In total, 77 people were killed. He was a self-declared fascist, who held strong anti-Muslim sentiments. What he did was detestable, horrid and inhuman.

There can be no room for violent extremism in Singapore. Violent extremism is an affront to humanity. Therefore, acts of violence, such as those acts towards all vulnerable communities in the Rakhine state, should stop. To see children suffer like that grates against humanity.

In the case of terror attacks around the world, people of different races and religions have shown through their actions and courage that they will not condone violence and the killing of the innocent.

In July this year, Channel 4 News ran a documentary on a group of Christians in Mosul who were rescuing Muslims from the fire of the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS) snipers there. They risked their lives to save innocent Muslim people. Let me give another example. It was reported by Channel NewsAsia on 5 August that during the fighting in Marawi, a Muslim villager chose to stay put in his house and put his own life in danger, even when his friends and relatives begged him to vacate it. Why did he choose to stay? Because he had people he was protecting there. Who? Christians. They had run out of food and he helped them escape from the militants' rampage.

Terrorism is an affront to all of us, regardless of race or religion. And so, we can and need to have a collective counter-offence to it. How? By continuing to strengthen multiracialism and social cohesion in Singapore. We need to view our multiracialism as an asset, a muscular asset.

Sir, allow me to share what my view of multiracialism is. Different ethnic communities define their identity in different ways which may change over time. Multiracialism does not mean we give up our ethnic identity which is informed by race, our culture and upbringing and, to an extent, by our religious beliefs. It is not about everybody becoming the same. Multiracialism is about appreciating diversity − diversity in race, language, religious beliefs and, at the same time, being loyal to our duty we have as Singaporeans, that is, the duty to advance Singapore and Singaporeans.

In fact, multiracialism makes Singapore a multiskilled, multitalented and multifaceted country. Within Singapore, our population can lean on the different skills, thought processes, talents and languages of the people from the different races who live in Singapore. When foreign governments visit Singapore, explore trading opportunities and collaboration, our multiracialism becomes an immediate asset. Foreign governments, trading partners and tourists can relate to the cultures within Singapore which may be present in their own home countries. That is an asset.

Internationally, when Singapore Government leaders and businessmen visit China, Indonesia, Malaysia, India and many other countries, we are able to connect with them. Why? Because cultures are understood well and sometimes shared. We offer those whom we visit and with whom we trade a multiracial Singapore − multicultured, multiskilled, multitalented. It is a previous asset.

For me, multiracialism is not an academic issue. Singaporean Eurasians are multiracial in our very genetic makeup and believe in Singapore's multiracialism to the core. We do not want to discard the English, Portuguese, Dutch, Burmese and the Indian influence in us but, at the same time, we have a duty to Singapore. We are multiracial in the very core of our identity but, at the same time, profess fierce loyalty to Singapore. Over the centuries, in terms of ethnicity, we have become an amalgamation of many races, including Dutch, English, Portuguese, Ceylonese and Burmese. One cannot divide us and put a bit of us back into the different countries our ancestors came from. We have no homeland but Singapore. This is it. Our duty is to Singapore and her future. So, being part of the Eurasian race, I can understand what it means to be culturally aware of ethnic heritage and all the richness it offers but, at the same time, being completely focused on being Singaporeans first and foremost. This is my experience of multiracialism.

I hope we will all aspire towards retaining cultural identities coupled with a strong duty to Singapore. Terrorism seeks to destroy unity. It seeks to disunite communities, make us point fingers at one another, become factious. But with a cohesive spirit and multiracialism, we can defeat the ills terrorism seeks to sow.

That multiracialism is a strength can be illustrated in tangible ways. Look at sports. In the 2007 Southeast Asian (SEA) Games, women's 4x100-metre relay, Wendy Enn, Shanti Pereira, Dipna Lim-Prasad and Nur Izyln Zaini became the first local women's team to go under 45 seconds, cutting the national record from 45.51 to 44.96 seconds. Each runner's race did not matter. Rather, what mattered to them was the RACE Singapore had to win. What mattered was the mission − advancing Singapore's flag on the track. Working together, they broke the national record.

Growing up, when I was playing lots of hockey, I had Chinese, Indian, Malay, Punjabi, Eurasian teammates. When we played against teams from other countries, our teams used to communicate on the pitch in different languages − Malay, English, Mandarin, Punjabi, Tamil, Hokkien. Sometimes, using very colourful verbs and nouns, best not repeated, especially here. The other teams were confused at hearing this collage of languages. We used our multiracialism and multilingual ability as assets. Diversity was a strength for our team. What mattered most to us was whether Singapore was up against the opponent on the scoreboard.

Singapore has been recognised as a multicultural society and that has also been independently recognised as a strength. According to the Gallup World Poll 2016, Singapore ranked top out of over 140 countries for tolerance of ethnic minorities. According to the 2015 Legatum Prosperity Index, Singapore ranked the highest among 142 countries where people feel that their country is tolerant of ethnic minorities. In an article in September 2017 in the Asian Tribune, the author cited the Singapore Government as having recognised "the importance of maintaining and fostering racial harmony" and that it had implemented policies and safeguards to that end.

Multiracialism does not come naturally. Left to itself, people tend to gravitate along racial lines. In France, after the Charlie Hebdo attacks on 7 January 2015, it was reported that the then Prime Minister Manuel Valls identified 64 ghettos in major cities where significant portions of the population were being left behind economically, marginalised into ethnic enclaves. When there is an unfamiliarity among ethnic groups, lack of social cohesion exists. The unfortunate consequence is a sense of distrust among the races. So, multiracialism does not come naturally. We have had to work hard at it and we need to continue to work hard at it. It is an aspiration, an ideal that we strive and need to continue to strive towards. It is a long work in progress. So, what have we done to move towards our aspirations?

When it comes to housing, the Housing and Development Board's (HDB's), Ethnic Integration Policy (EIP) programme ensures that there will be racial diversity in each block of HDB flats. People of a different race, of a different religion, live next to one another. There is some familiarity, a platform for social integration through interaction, transcending ethnic boundaries. There is a kampung family.

Another important pillar is the Inter-Racial and Religious Confidence Circles (IRCCs). They bring leaders of the different religious, ethnic and community groups together to build friendship and trust. Their good work had brought all of us of different races and religions together and has greatly contributed to furthering our ideal of multiracialism. This picture was taken at the reappointment ceremony of our constituency's IRCC this year. All of us, the races, Chinese, Malay, Indian and Eurasian, and many religions were present and represented at that table, cutting a cake together, symbolising the re-appointment of the IRCC. That was a very meaningful ceremony, possibly only in Singapore. I think all of us do ceremonies in each of our constituencies. What I mean by "only in Singapore" is that this type of ceremony happens only in Singapore.

In conclusion, Sir, terrorism is an affront to the Chinese community, it is an affront to the Malay community, it is an affront to the Indian community, it is an affront to the Eurasian community. It is an affront to Singapore and her values.

This photo is significant. These are our anti-terror frontline task force patrol officers. Armed, ready. Look closely. They are a multiracial group of men. Multiracialism is what terrorism seeks to destroy. But in Singapore, it is that same strong multiracialism that will be used to defeat the ills terrorism seeks to sow. That way, we secure for ourselves a happy irony. In the very face of the threat, we deploy a united multiracial force.

So, I ask this House, do we let terrorism divide us? Or do we say no, not on our soil. When an attack vests on our shores, will Singapore shut down in fear? No, Singapore will not. We will respond as one united people. And that way, Singapore will win. [Applause]

Question proposed.

Mr Speaker: Dr Intan Mokhtar.

2.27 pm

Dr Intan Azura Mokhtar (Ang Mo Kio): Mr Speaker, Sir, thank you for this opportunity to speak on this important matter.

The threat of terrorism and the risk of radicalisation and extremism cannot be underestimated nor taken for granted. With advancements in technologies and increasing global connectivity, terrorist and separatist cells are emboldened and have more convenient platforms to recruit similar-minded individuals to fight their cause, no matter how insidious that cause may be, usually made under the guise of seemingly religious or cultural grounds.

The new Infrastructure Protection Bill that we passed yesterday is testament to the Government's resolve in ensuring that we continue to strengthen our security measures and minimise risks and threats, in light of the recent spate of terrorist attacks. However, fighting terrorism goes beyond legislative enactments and enforcement.

Some may think the onus and responsibility of looking out for such threats lie within the individual or those closest to the individual. However, just as fighting crime and ensuring public safety is a shared responsibility which requires a common effort and resolve, so is the threat of terrorism and the risk of radicalisation and extremism.

Sir, let me first speak on the first two foci: to promote vigilance and resilience, and to prevent the spread of radicalised teachings.

The work of addressing and mitigating the threat of terrorism, radicalisation and extremist ideologies have traditionally been done by the RRG, first set up in 2003. While RRG has been instrumental in rehabilitating Jemaah Islamiah detainees and their families, as well as ISIS supporters more recently, the work of rehabilitation is correction after the fact.

There is a need to work further upstream in preventing radicalisation at its core, before it can even evolve into extremist ideologies or acts of terrorism. And this upstream work cannot just be the effort of asatizahs or Islamic religious scholars and teachers alone. In fact, there is a need to work across religions, races, cultures and even languages in tackling these threats upstream.

First, I would propose involving as many first points of contact as possible, be it through our grassroots movement, Family Service Centres, Social Service Offices, non-government organisations (NGOs) and voluntary welfare organisations. Volunteers and officers in such organisations are in frequent and direct contact with Singaporeans on a daily basis.

They ought to be trained to pick up tell-tale signs or potential problems which may escalate into situations of an individual being radicalised or, worse, committing acts of terrorism, be it religiously motivated or otherwise. Some tell-tale signs could include being reclusive or withdrawn, spending too much time online, developing sudden changes in views or perceptions or behaviour, or developing intense frustrations or having anger management issues.

Upon the detection of such worrying tell-tale signs, these first points of contact should make referrals to the RRG or other certified counsellors for further assistance and follow-up. The call has always been for families and friends to look out for such tell-tale signs, but families and friends may not always be impartial or neutral enough or may not always be quick enough to inform the relevant authorities for follow-up help. Hence, we would need many other first points of contact to manage this better.

Second, I would urge the Government to support initiatives where some of our youths are trained to be youth ambassadors and youth leaders, to mitigate the threat of radicalisation and extremist ideologies through youth activism. Our youth ambassadors or leaders are the ones to lead our youths on meaningful engagements and socially constructive projects that build communities and not partake in missions or causes that tear down communities. They are also the ones who are trained to pick up tell-tale signs of the possible threat of radicalisation and extremist ideologies among their fellow youths, before these evolve into acts of terrorism.

These youth ambassadors and leaders are in constant touch with other trained counsellors and members of the RRG to help refer other youths who may be at risk of being radicalised. There is a need to work closely with our institutions of higher learning (IHLs) in the training of such youth ambassadors and leaders, and in supporting their socially constructive projects, such as Roses of Peace or Youth Ambassadors of Peace, appointed by several of our Muslim organisations.

Third, there is also a need to seek the involvement of significant others in promoting vigilance against and mitigating the threat of radicalisation and extremism among our youths. An important group of significant others is made up of our teachers, in both our mainstream and secular, as well as religious, educational institutions. Just as some teachers are trained as psychological counsellors in many of our mainstream schools, we would also need teachers to be trained as first points of contact to identify students or youths who are being radicalised or may be at risk of developing extremist ideologies or being involved in acts of terrorism. These teachers would work closely with the RRG, the Ministry of Home Affairs or other Government agencies that would be able to follow up with these students or youths, such as getting in touch with their parents or families, counselling them, enrolling them in rehabilitative programmes, or getting them involved in meaningful and socially constructive activities to redirect their ideas, energies and focus. At this point, Mr Speaker, Sir, please allow me to continue in Malay.

(In Malay): [Please refer to Vernacular Speech.] The involvement of educators and religious teachers in countering the threat of radicalism, extremism and terrorism amongst our youths is very important and necessary. Just as how some teachers from mainstream schools are trained to become counsellors to help students who may be stressed or have personal problems, we also need religious teachers in our madrasahs who are trained to help our students and youths who may be at risk of being radicalised. These religious teachers can refer such students or youths to the right persons for further assistance.

At the same time, we should also encourage our religious teachers to be more active in sharing their knowledge and views about the context of multiracial and multi-religious life in Singapore with our youths, especially through the social media platforms. We do have religious teachers who are active in social media in order to engage our youths, like Ustaz Mizi Wahid and Ustaz Irwan Hadi. But I hope that the number of such social media-savvy religious teachers will increase. They have the potential to become positive influencers who can shape the views and perceptions of our youths.

Here, I would like to welcome the establishment of the Islamic College of Singapore under the ambit of the Islamic Religious Council of Singapore (MUIS). Around 1,000 of our students are currently studying in Islamic educational institutions overseas and, in the context of an increasingly uncertain global security situation, I believe that having an Islamic College in Singapore will open opportunities for our students to further their studies in Islamic education at the post-secondary level within our shores. I also hope that our Islamic College will become a symbol of Islamic education and scholarship that is excellent, progressive and inclusive, and able to become a renowned global Islamic institution.

I would also like to touch on the third item of this Motion, that is, investment in our pillars of multiracialism and multi-religious life, to defeat the threat of radicalism and terrorism. We should continue our efforts to uphold multiracialism and multi-religious life in Singapore, not only to achieve racial harmony, but also in our efforts to counter the threat of radicalism, extremism and terrorism. These efforts should continue at all levels and by every person, and not only by the Government or religious teachers and educators.

(In English): Mr Speaker, Sir, please allow me to continue in English. Each individual plays an important role in our efforts against the threats of radicalism, extremism and terrorism. At the same time, there is another endeavour that we need to partake in, that of ensuring that we do not swing to the other extreme of allowing any form of stereotypes or deep-seated biases to develop against any particular race or religion.

For instance, we need to work together to prevent Islamophobia, racial stereotypes or racial profiling against the Malays, or religious suspicion against the Muslims, from ever influencing the way we deal with one another, just because of the atrocities committed by ISIS, Al-Qaeda or other terrorist groups who claim to act on the Islamic faith. And we cannot allow Muslims to feel apologetic for what these terrorist groups, which proclaim to carry out their heinous acts in the name of Islam, have done. As a Muslim, I abhor their actions and I refuse to be associated with them, and I refuse to feel apologetic for all they have done, for they do not represent me or the faith that I believe in and uphold.

What we have nurtured here in Singapore − inclusivity and trust based on multiracialism and multiculturalism − are very precious. We must continue to work and do good together, and we need to continue to be sensitised to the needs of others, especially the minorities among us. And here, when I speak of the minorities, I am not just referring to those of race and religion alone; I am also referring to those of abilities and which happen as a result of social constructs, be it cognitive, communicative and so on.

As we progress as a nation, let us strengthen the bonds that exist among us, continue to be inclusive and magnanimous, and make sure we do not leave anyone behind, stranded or paralysed because of their race, religion or abilities.

"The beauty of the world lies in the diversity of its people". Let us continue to uphold multiracialism, multiculturalism and inclusivity, for it gives us fortitude as a people. Mr Speaker, I support the Motion.

Mr Speaker: Mr Pritam Singh.

2.38 pm

Mr Pritam Singh (Aljunied): Mr Speaker, the Workers' Party supports the Motion. The spectre of terrorism has been with us for slightly over 15 years since the bombing of the Twin Towers on 11 September 2001. Many of us remember the shocking revelations of Al-Qaeda-inspired plans to attack foreign embassies and commercial establishments in Singapore with truck bombs, and the arrests of some members of the JI terrorist organisation in Singapore shortly thereafter.

More than 15 years later, Singaporeans may be surprised to know that, even up to today, there is no internationally agreed upon definition for terrorism. One reason for this is the objection of groups and communities fighting for nationalist or separatist causes as a result of being disenfranchised or excluded by the state.

In other cases, some communities have to face up to a state that uses overwhelming force to punish an entire people or ethnic group because of the acts of a disproportionately small number. We are already seeing this scenario allegedly play out in Myanmar where more than half a million Rohingya Muslims have been forced to abandon their villages, fearing more violence against them by the state. Such atrocities are fertile ground for terrorism, and some acts of terror undertaken by oppressed people do not lend themselves to simple understanding or even condemnation. At times, the reality of any multiracial country hosting different communities, races and religions, including Singapore, is that atrocities in lands far away from ours will affect our people and pull at our heartstrings and our identities, too.

This prospect has taken on a whole new dimension with the advent of social media. Even though we are one people as Singaporean citizens, many of us host other identities and even biases, alongside our status as Singaporeans, regardless if we are a minority community or in the majority.

In the 1980s, the ISD stepped in to prevent the Singapore Sikh community from taking their support through Sikh religious institutions for an independent Sikh homeland in Punjab too far. Most historically, in the war years, many Chinese in Malaya contributed and supported the resistance against the Japanese Imperial Forces through China and in Southeast Asia. Muslims are deeply affected when innocent Palestinians die in reprisal killings carried out by the Israeli state.

While all these examples are not directly comparable, the point is that no matter what our race or religion, many of us do feel a deep sense of outrage when our kinsmen or women are bullied or wantonly killed anywhere in the world. The reaction is only human. But add religion to the mix, and feelings can cut to the bone.

As a multiracial nation, we are susceptible to this reality of contested identities and even more so now, as our population grows in size and newer Singaporeans join our ranks. However, whether we are Singaporeans by birth or by choice, we are all invested in the well-being of this country, in all aspects. We have to acknowledge that we pay allegiance to the President, our flag and to the Constitution of the Republic of Singapore, a Constitution that makes it the duty of any government to look after the interests of racial and religious minorities in Singapore. And so long as we do, our first loyalty is to Singapore and our way of life, which includes the well-being of families and friends regardless of race, language or religion. This must be so, and we must never relegate this first loyalty under any circumstances.

To that end, I have observed ordinary Singaporeans, local NGOs and institutions, and even the Prime Minister in some cases, being openly supportive of humanitarian initiatives in some of the most politically tense and fraught regions of the world. The tragedy in the Rakhine state in Myanmar is not without controversy. But as a Singaporean, I was deeply moved to read of the Singapore Buddhist Federation and all Buddhist institutions strongly supporting the call by MUIS to raise funds to provide relief to victims of the tragedy. As a Singaporean, I identified with the call of the Buddhist community and it made me proud to be a Singaporean.

Mr Speaker, a common sense of humanity is a very power adhesive to fortify our social cohesion and multiracialism against the reality of terrorism. And it is this common humanity that we will have to call upon to deal with the type of terrorism we see today.

The advent of ISIS has inspired a new generation of extremists who find no compulsion using armed violence in any form against anyone. Catalysed by developments in the Middle East and the rapid advancement of mobile technology, in particular, the prospects of self-radicalised and outwardly unsuspicious Singaporeans joining the ISIS cause have infused a dangerous new dimension to terrorism. Well-equipped and well-endowed security agencies have nothing substantive in their arsenal to prevent a determined, lone wolf attacker from going on a knifing rampage or hijacking a truck and mowing down innocent people waiting for a bus, for example.

This could well happen in Singapore. For example, a successful ISIS terrorist strike in Singapore falsely carried out in the name of Islam will test our social cohesion and resilience as one people. The Malay/Muslim community will come under the spotlight. Some extremist Muslims, particularly those overseas, may even celebrate such an attack, seeding more doubt against the entire Malay/Muslim community in Singapore.

The ubiquitous nature of the social media will see some viral commentary which may prove hard to ignore, affecting the morale of the country and precipitating senseless reprisals, not all of which may be physical acts of violence. Avoiding the Malay/Muslim community and the desire not to have anything to do with them are equally, if not, more damaging, because turning on the Malay/Muslim community is the magic pill ISIS seeks to legitimise their narrative, one of oppression against Muslims.

In the event of an ISIS atrocity, all Singaporeans, regardless of race, language or religion, must stand up to defend and protect the Malay/Muslim community from vilification. To reiterate, to turn on any community, let alone the Malay/Muslim community, would be to blindly walk into the playbook of the terrorists who seek to divide Singaporeans and justify their cause.

A few days ago, as the Workers' Party Members were discussing this Motion, Mr Low Thia Khiang recalled conversations with his constituents and friends of some Chinese Singaporeans being shielded from violence by their Malay friends and neighbours who invited them to stay in their homes with family members during the racial riots in the 1960s. We will have to harness such examples of our common humanity to get on with our lives in the advent of a terrorist attack in Singapore. Such stories serve an important unifying purpose, as is the pursuit of knowledge on matters pertaining to faith in the context of a multiracial society.

I do appreciate that not all stories are comfortable to discuss, but they do need to be shared because a sense of perspective, even if it is the Government's perspective, can be critical. Some years ago, but less so now, in the course of house visits, I hear allegations about the Government discriminating against the Malay community in the banning of the call to prayer or azan over loud hailers, a policy introduced many years ago. When I share that some of our Chinese friends occasionally raise concerns about the Government reserving land for Chinese temples within industrial estates, unlike mosques, which tend to be centrally-located within our communities and with good transport links, the conversations suddenly take on a very different complexion. Views which originally started out as outright discrimination by the Government start to moderate.

When one hears the azan walking around Jalan Sultan today, one realises that there can be nuance to policy decisions. And there must always be scope for nuance in policy decisions.

This is one reality of living in a multiracial country, the inevitably uneven nature of give-and-take in matters of race and religion, a matter to which I will come back to shortly.

Members of this House would agree that HDB living and urban living in general, with the races co-existing cheek by jowl does increase the prospects of interracial misunderstandings to take place. They are usually innocuous, such as a shift worker trying to get some sleep or a student studying for exams, just as your Malay neighbours are hosting a marriage or your Chinese neighbours are carrying out funeral rites at the void deck or of your Indian neighbours pounding spices. Just as often as we hear complaints in our HDB estates of open burning of joss paper and the illegal parking of vehicles by congregants of various faiths at temples, mosques or churches which spill over outside, we also hear of neighbours who are comfortable amongst one another and can rely on one another in times of need, exemplified in not just the food or greetings they share, but the willingness to be race-neutral, open-minded and communicative, traits which are vital to living in a multiracial society. All Members of this House would have experienced this in the course of their grassroots work.

I do appreciate that things can get more complicated in the workplace. But race or religion should never be reasons not to hire or to discriminate against someone. Chauvinistic behaviour, an attitude of superiority, an intolerance exhibited by superiors or co-workers at the workplace where we spend a large part of our day-to-day lives, will permeate not just into our attitudes but into the values we pass on to our loved ones.

This damages the quality of our multiracialism and we must be mindful of passing on our prejudices and biases. In the same breath, workers of any race must recognise that we all must strive to do our best, not just in words but in deeds. A can-do spirit, a positive work ethic and a common sense of mission aligned with the needs of your company or organisation can actually play a pivotal role in teaching racists about the futility and irrelevance of holding on to racist attitudes.

Some Singaporeans might have to leave a job because of latent or even perceived discrimination, but whatever the bad experience, leave the prejudice or the racism you have experienced behind too, for not all five fingers are the same.

Mr Speaker, it is clear a certain degree of tolerance is critical to living in a multiracial society like Singapore. It is a testimony to Singaporeans and the sort of people we have moulded ourselves to become over the last 50 years, that we have come to live in peace with one another in spite of the occasional hiccup, which is not unusual for a multiracial society. To that end, I see our multiracialism not just as a constant work in progress, but a glass that is half full, as opposed to half empty. To live in peace and harmony, it is imperative everyone practises some give-and-take and accept that for multiracialism to succeed and thrive, we must move forward with a live and let live attitude with respect to our racial and religious differences.

On this note, I would like to acknowledge the real and optical comfort the presence of members of the Inter-Religious Organisation (IRO) have communicated to many Singaporeans when they appear at various events. The Government should look at how the good work of the IRO can be further enhanced and communicated in newer ways to better reach out to the next generation of Singaporeans and represent the common grounds Singaporeans must cherish and protect.

To conclude, Mr Speaker, for tolerance to flourish, we must take the initiative as Singaporeans to learn more about and increase our knowledge and understanding of one another's faiths and practices. This process must come from the bottom up, from within each Singaporean, and it is just as important as any movement to prepare Singapore for a terrorist attack. In doing so, we will unwittingly but crucially facilitate a deeper and more respectful understanding of one another and, by extension, strengthen our social bonds and the quality of our multiracialism. Such an outcome will not only serve to inoculate Singapore against the negative fallout of a terrorist attack, it will represent the sort of society we strive to be and determine the Singapore we wish to leave behind for our children and our children's children.

Mr Speaker: Ms Sun Xueling.

2.51 pm

Ms Sun Xueling (Pasir Ris-Punggol): Mr Speaker, I was at Gardens by the Bay. I marvelled at the boldness and imagination to create giant man-made trees in the middle of the city and to create a wonderful garden where plants of various species could be housed, tended to with great care to let them flourish. I recall that when plans for the Gardens were first unveiled, I had thought how unreal it was. But now, when I see the happy faces of families and visitors there, I have no doubt that the endeavour has paid off.

It occurred to me that what we have in Singapore is somewhat similar to our Gardens by the Bay. With boldness and imagination, we had economically transformed Singapore and, with the ideals of a multiracial and multicultural society in mind, we created social policies to bring about equal opportunities for our citizens regardless of race, language or religion to flourish and co-exist peacefully together. Our diverse cultures are like the diverse exotic flowers at Gardens by the Bay.

There is nothing preordained about our economic transformation. We created what we did not have. Land was reclaimed to build more housing and specialised industries, technology to recycle and desalinate water. And we attracted investments to create jobs we otherwise did not have. Similarly, there is nothing preordained about the social harmony among our citizens of different races and different religions. According to a Pew Research Center study released in 2014, Singapore is the most religiously diverse country in the world, compared to the 233 territories and countries studied. As the incident in Charlottesville, US, and in the Rakhine province of Myanmar and in various suburbs in France show us so vividly, in countries where there are racially and religiously diverse populations, when interracial or interreligious issues are not handled well, there can be bloodshed and chaos in society.

Our Government has taken a practical and unbiased look at what drives communities. While nurturing each community, our Government is cognisant of what outcomes may naturally arise, given inherent preferences and motivations, and takes actions through social policies to ensure that the delicate balance among different communities is maintained and trust built.

For instance, our towns are multiracial from the onset by deliberate design through our EIP. In Punggol recently, I welcomed three religious organisations to my constituency. Recognising the need to have places of worship to serve their respective communities, the mosque, temple and church each set up their places of worship in Punggol, a new town. They are located within 500 metres of one another. They each serve their congregants but they are close enough to one another for their congregants to see one another and to know one another if they make the effort to do so.

Would it have happened naturally if the Government had not put it into the town plans? It is natural for members of a community to want to group together. This is instinctive and understandable. But there could be downsides as communities can end up being segregated. So, while providing spaces for communities to practise their ways of life and religious worship, social policies have also been needed to create more common space through town planning in this case to bring communities closer together.

As individuals and as communities, we also can, through our own efforts, reach out to build bridges across communities. But we also need a system to support individual and community effort to nurture, guide and also protect. In this example, town planning provided a conducive environment for congregants of different religions to get to know one another. Grassroots organisations then proactively reached out to all three religious organisations to do good for the community together.

Does the Government's practical and realist approach make the policies any less aspirational? Like our young, we all wish for a progressive and equal society. But just wishing for it will not make it a reality. Recognising human nature, natural tendencies, objectively distinguishing causes from outcomes, and then taking action, step by step, to strengthen and protect what has been created may bring us closer to realising the ideals our nation aspires to.

Recently, we have seen growing religious extremism in many countries around the world which heightens tensions and differences among communities. Local grievances and regional conflicts provide a rallying cause, which charismatic preachers can leverage on. Racial and religious fault lines are fertile ground for domestic political exploitation.

Singapore is not immune to these factors. Extremist ideologies are also finding their way to our shores via online platforms, carrying persuasive but dangerous messages. Such influences accentuate differences, create walls among different communities and isolate groups. How do we address this? Is it by looking at the social harmony we currently enjoy and assuming that all is well? Or is it to continue investing in multiracialism so that it becomes the best socio-weapon against threats to the cohesion of our society?

We have to be careful not to be lulled into just saying the pretty words by not wanting to point out realities which may be inconvenient. In Hokkien, they say, "Mai zou pai nang", that is, "do not be the bad person", and allude to higher aspirations of multiracialism while leaving the work to others to do, and offer no practical solutions. Because if we all do that, then, we may inadvertently dismantle what has brought us here and discourage those who have contributed and are still contributing to our social harmony.

Our local religious organisations are mostly members of our IRCCs, volunteers who make up our RRG, and religious leaders who have pushed for the Asatizah Recognition Scheme to be made compulsory. Was it an ideology that the Minister Mentor had asked rhetorically in Parliament as recently as in 2009 over a debate on our founding tenets of multiracialism and multiculturalism? No, it is an aspiration, he remarked in return. Will we achieve it, he asked again. "I do not know," the Minister Mentor said, "We have to keep on trying".

We have to, so that our people, regardless of race, language or religion, can flourish in our unique garden city where there is always sufficient nutrition for everyone. Perhaps, individual care unique to their backgrounds, but always safe where no weeds can harm them. Our garden will be more beautiful and a greater wonder to all through its diversity. Mr Speaker, I would like to now continue in Mandarin.

(In Mandarin): [Please refer to Vernacular Speech.] Last month, I attended a very special event. It was proposed by the Punggol grassroots organisation, organised by the Al Islah Mosque, and attended by the local Catholic church and Buddhist temple. They did charity work together by delivering daily necessities to the residents and giving blessings. The theme of this event was "Blessing in Harmony". The decision to do this was jointly made by the three religious organisations, because they felt they shared a common cause.

I remember we came up to one flat with a cross hanging on its door. We naturally turned to the Catholic priest who then went up to knock on the door. A Chinese lady opened the door. She was Catholic but she can only speak dialect. The priest, however, can only speak in English. They made many gestures and tried to communicate but still failed. Luckily, there were people from the temple and the grassroots organisation who could speak dialects. They stepped forward to help with the interpretation. Both the priest and the lady were very happy, and we were also very happy seeing that.

I was touched. I think perhaps this scene can only be seen in Singapore. Here, the distance between the different religions and races can be very small. Although we are different, we can still support one another and be inclusive.

Integration does not mean homogenisation. We are not looking for uniformity. However, we can respect and accommodate one another.

Mr Lee Kuan Yew once said: "I do not expect the Government to assimilate everyone. I will not even try because that would be a meaningless attempt. …However, I would say integration is possible. Our integration is based on shared values, attitudes, language and, ultimately, a common culture."

We look forward to what Mr Lee had envisioned. We also need to act. We know that religious and racial harmony does not come out of the blue. Instead, it needs to be nurtured by our efforts, bit by bit.

Biologists say that living beings have a natural tendency to protect genes similar to themselves. Human beings also have a natural tendency to prefer one's own race. If this natural tendency is not developed properly, racial divide will occur, and racial divide is the beginning of ethnic confrontation and conflict.

The US has always been troubled by the race issue. The racial conflict in Virginia in August this year resulted in three deaths and dozens injured. If we take a look at the deeper issue, we can see that the long-time separation between the whites and the blacks has sowed the seeds for racial confrontation. Ethnic issues in other parts of the world are roughly the same. Separation creates misunderstanding, misunderstanding leads to confrontation, and confrontation leads to bloodshed.

The solution is to bring the distance closer.

The Singapore Government has been bringing the distance closer all these years. For example, EIP allows residents of different races to live together. Another example is to implement English education but, at the same time, keeping the mother tongue. This enables various races to communicate better and avoid misunderstanding and estrangement.

Racial harmony is not the work of the Government alone. In fact, we can all play a part. As long as we can take a small step forward when dealing with Singaporeans of different races and religions, show respect and understanding, we will then generate positive energies.

Just like during the Al Islah event, people from the temple and the grassroots organisation take a small step forward to help people from other religions and races. This one small step can change a lot.

Human beings also have another natural instinct, and that is love and tolerance. Love and tolerance allow us to love and help one another beyond race, religion and border. Love and tolerance are not just a slogan. It must be reflected in our actions. From the interreligious and interracial event which our local mosque has organised, we see love and tolerance.

Singapore's Malay/Muslim organisations have been playing an important role in preventing extremism and promoting racial harmony. For example, recently, leaders from the local Muslim community urged that the accreditation of asatizahs be made compulsory. Against the background that overseas terrorist organisations are spreading extremist thoughts, this initiative is very timely and will help guide local Muslims in the right direction. In addition, the RRG has also made active contributions to preventing extremism. The step taken by the local Muslim community has prevented social divide and made the distance between people smaller.

In order to maintain Singapore's racial harmony, we must act and continue to improve our system, so that we can create a common space among different religions and races. Let us work hand in hand and do good together.

When everyone takes one small step forward, the distance between us will become smaller. We will be more united, and we will be safer, too. Racial harmony begins from each one of us. A small step from one person will be a big step for the society towards social harmony. This is my aspiration. Let us work together!

Mr Speaker: Mr Faisal Manap.

3.05 pm

Mr Muhamad Faisal Bin Abdul Manap (Aljunied): Mr Speaker, Sir, I will deliver my speech in Malay.

(In Malay): [Please refer to Vernacular Speech.] Mr Speaker, I support the Motion and would like to make some suggestions towards the effort to strengthen social cohesion so that Singaporeans of all races and religions can stand strong together, with one voice, and prevent, combat and defeat the scourge of radicalism and terrorism together.

Sir, news about terror attacks have become commonplace over the past decade. It has frequently been reported that terror incidents taking place, either by certain groups or by individuals, were committed by those who have been influenced and lured by radical ideologies. Many experts who monitored and observed this situation have concluded that the scourge of terrorism and radicalism cannot be easily countered and stopped, and it is highly likely that this situation will persist in the future.

The question is, what makes a person become so influenced by radicalism until that person becomes so caught up in it and dares to commit acts of terror, killing innocent lives and destroying public property? How can someone's mind be able to accept that there is nothing wrong with committing acts of terror that are based on the justification of achieving change and justice?

Sir, we all know that the process of radicalisation usually involves the use of religious doctrines and politics to manipulate minds so that these individuals see terrorism as a way or approach that is acceptable and, in fact, some feel that it is compulsory in order to achieve an objective. This process is usually used by hardline extremists who submit to certain religious or political ideologies. Hence, the best way to counter such radical elements is by inculcating authentic religious values, knowledge that strengthens one's character and also community and national values amongst Singaporeans.

Sir, in Singapore since the early 2000s, we have seen cases of radicalism that involve Singaporeans related to the use of religious doctrine. We have seen how JI and ISIS have misused Islamic teachings to manipulate and radicalise the minds of individuals and, hence, influencing them to turn towards violence and terrorism by claiming that this is meant to uphold truth and justice.

In Singapore, preventive and rehabilitative steps have been taken and implemented to counter religious ideologies that are radical or extremist in nature. The establishment of RRG is a measure to implement educational and rehabilitative processes for individuals who are lured and influenced by radical beliefs. Local religious teachers and Islamic scholars have stepped forward, worked together and contributed their time and energy voluntarily to help rehabilitate individuals who were taken in by radical propaganda. I would like to take this opportunity to put on record the appreciation to all religious teachers as well as Islamic scholars who have worked hard, patiently and sincerely in this effort.

The introduction of the Asatizah Recognition Scheme (ARS) is another effort to ensure that religious guidance being delivered is in line with our context of Singaporeans of different backgrounds living together and, at the same time, prevent any teachings that are based on violence and radical ideologies.

Both initiatives, the RRG and ARS, showed that it is important and necessary to have efforts that inculcate fundamental and authentic religious values to counter and prevent radicalism and extremism in religion.

Sir, there is an English proverb: "prevention is better than cure". Prevention is a very effective way to counter the scourge of radicalism. Efforts for upstream intervention should be done by inculcating relevant knowledge to counter the wave of radicalism, a scourge that is haunting the global community.

Here, I would like to suggest that efforts to inculcate religious values at a young age should be done through the national education system. This can be done by reintroducing the Religious Knowledge (RK) subject in secondary schools.

Sir, I admit that Singapore is a secular nation and that my suggestion to reintroduce the RK subject is contrary to secular values, but I feel that this step is necessary. This is because the scourge of terrorism, globally as well as in Singapore, has shown that religious doctrine has been used to radicalise individuals. I believe that the inculcation of authentic religious teachings at a young age through the national education system is a more effective method in the effort to prevent radical religious thinking. We should be open to make slight adjustments and changes if the situation calls for it, in order to guarantee social cohesion and the prosperity of the nation.

Sir, apart from the RK subject, I would like to suggest that Psychology be introduced as a component of the science subject in secondary schools. Why Psychology? Earlier, I shared how extremists and terrorists manipulate minds in the effort to radicalise an individual. The manipulation of minds is done by planting perspectives and perceptions that are prone to accept and allow such propaganda that is presented to them. I feel that such manipulations can be countered by learning Psychology.

Psychology is a field of science pertaining to the mind and behaviour. It covers subjects like human development, social behaviour and the cognitive process, including knowledge about perceptions. A person who is equipped with knowledge of Psychology will likely be able to develop an awareness of himself or herself, as well those around him or her.

Psychology is also very relevant in the current context, not only to counter the manipulation of minds in relation to radicalism, but also for other social ills that arise from the usage of social media. We have seen many situations where conflicts arise in social media due to different perspectives and perceptions about current issues and sensitive issues. Often, it descends into insults, through the use of inappropriate words and phrases. I believe that, with a knowledge of Psychology that is obtained in school, this will enable one to have an open mind, because the person understands that it is natural for different perspectives and perceptions to exist, and we should practise mutual respect when encountering such differences. As the Malay saying goes, "we will have dark hair, but we have different hearts" which, in English, means, "we can agree to disagree".

Aside from imparting religious values and learning psychology, the inculcation of community and national values is also important. In our country, the inculcation of community and national values is done in schools through the National Education subject. This move has been applauded and has been very beneficial.

Sir, I am of the view and belief that the amalgamation of these three aspects, namely, religious values, learning Psychology, as well as community and national values, is a necessary combination in our efforts to strengthen the existing social cohesion. This is because this combination can produce individuals who possess positive characteristics who are proud of their identity as Singaporeans, and this will further enhance efforts to strengthen social cohesion in Singapore.

Mr Speaker: Mr Desmond Choo.

3.15 pm

Mr Desmond Choo (Tampines): Mr Speaker, as a racially and religiously diverse society, Singapore has a mix of fault lines and differences that can divide people and tear our society apart. The racial riots of the past are a grim reminder of what it can be like if there is no mutual trust and understanding among different societal groups. We have developed a Singaporean approach that worked for us. Although it is not perfect, we have enjoyed decades of peace and harmony. Singapore has been fortified but not impregnable.

In late 2015, I attended a seminar called "Celebrating Humanity, Faith and Love". It was organised by Jamiyah Singapore, held in Soka Association in Tampines, and attended by Muslims, Buddhists, Christians, Taoists and Freethinkers. I stood at the rostrum and could not help but marvel at the miracle that we have created. A week ago, I attended the 100th Anniversary of the Sheng Hong Temple and it was well-attended by leaders of Singapore's major faiths. We are probably one of the few places in the world where this can happen regularly, celebrated widely, and perhaps even taken for granted at times. We have forged a common space where Singaporeans can practise their faiths freely. This freedom is precious. Ironically, because we are a successful example of a multicultural society, we are on the terrorist hit list.

Terrorism threatens to rip our hard-earned social fabric apart. Extremists can then lay claim that multiculturalism just does not work. The chaos and destruction from a successful terrorist attack in Singapore will drive wedges right along our fault lines. Will we unite and overcome the challenges together as one Singapore, or will we crumble and fall apart?

The ties that we have nurtured during peaceful times can hopefully endure such a test. Even though we have differences, I believe that what divides us pales in comparison to what unites us. However, this is something that we should not take for granted, especially when terrorism is almost at our doorstep. It is imperative that we strengthen our bulwark against these winds of evil.

We have certainly made much progress through our many emergency preparedness programmes. Yet, videos and posts online continue to show that unattended bags or items in public spaces were often ignored and unreported. This reminds us that we have our work cut out for us. How can we further scale our efforts, especially in schools and workplaces?

The social media is an important battleground that must be won. Social media has a critical role to play in times of crisis. It can be an agent in uniting or dividing us. I would like to ask if we can have a group of social media influencers who can be roped in as "first responders" on social media in times of crises. In the event of such an incident, these "online first responders" could be the first ones to put out their thoughts and, hence, lead discussions in a productive manner. If there are groups that try to spread falsehoods or rumours online that can confuse the public in times of chaos, these "first responders" could help Government agencies spread the correct messages to resolve the issue.

I will next touch on fighting hate speech and extremist thinking. Incidents in other countries have shown a growing trend of extremist thinking. We must not allow our people to be influenced by these unhealthy trends which will create fear and suspicion among different races and religions. We must not only counter these perceptions online but also in our private lives daily. It can be when a family member makes a careless remark to us, or when a friend circulates such messages through WhatsApp or other means of communication. We must stand up to such seemingly innocent but are really soft approaches of spreading division and disunity. We have a duty, both moral and national, to not participate in spreading such messages. This is our Singaporean duty.

With regard to hate speech online, the European Union (EU) has said that it wants tech giants like Facebook and Twitter to do more in cracking down on hate speeches online by providing automatic deletion technology and other ways to prevent hate speech from being propagated online. Could we also look into whether we will call for the same provisions from such companies? While Singapore has laws to curb hate speech, such legislation may not be the only or the best way to deal with such matters.

The safety and security that we have enjoyed for many decades are not something that came about by chance, but it is a result of hard work over a long period of time. The Government's strong and consistent enforcement of the law, a dedicated and capable Home Team and SAF, and the forward-looking social policies have kept terrorism at bay. We have been fortunate thus far to be spared from terrorist attacks. The threat is real and we must all play our part in being vigilant in our daily lives. I support the Motion.

Mr Speaker: Ms Thanaletchimi.

3.20 pm

Ms K Thanaletchimi (Nominated Member): Mr Speaker, Sir, for more than five decades, Singapore has created a multiracial and multi-religious society not by chance but by choice, delicately balancing meritocracy with multiracialism. Since young, through education, every Singaporean has been continuously reminded that the peace and stability that we enjoy should not be taken for granted. Today, we often hear the word, "terrorism", both offline and online. There are a number of incidences, including the recent attacks in London, reminding everyone that there is a need not only to be vigilant but also a pertinent need to be resilient.

I welcome the SGSecure initiative. It is vital for all of us to look out for security threats and to know how to respond to such threats. We should acknowledge that terrorism is not far away and it can come to Singapore in both physical and psychological forms. We should not think of it as "if it happens", that is, if terrorism comes to Singapore, but rather think of it as "when it happens", what do we do? Are we prepared to confront it or hide behind the veil of fear and trepidation?

Our Singapore workforce constituents comprise a combination of local and migrant workers. Hence, it is not only important to inculcate the value of multiracialism and multiculturalism among Singaporeans, but also to the migrant workers from various countries.

In the case of the healthcare industry, other than the Singaporean Core, the industry is supplemented by migrant workers from the Philippines, Myanmar, China, India and many other countries. With such diversity in the workplace, it is pertinent to place emphasis on workplace integration and management of diversity. There should be platforms for the employees to understand the local culture, and this should be an integral part of the organisation, such as during employee orientation.

For example, I would like to quote some positive examples from Khoo Teck Puat Hospital. As the President of Healthcare Services Employees' Union (HSEU), I have attended as an invited guest to their festive celebrations, such as Chinese New Year, Hari Raya Puasa, Deepavali, to mention a few. I am so heartened and impressed by the efforts put in by the management of all levels, including doctors, to integrate their staff from various cultural backgrounds. It is strongly supported by the Chief Executive Officer and the Senior Management staff. The event is designed in a manner that the audience understands the rationale as well as the practices of each culture. The entire event, including the emcees and performers, are employees of Khoo Teck Puat Hospital. The organisers, who are employees themselves, take a deep interest in trying to understand the cultural practices and translate them into easily comprehensible acts or performance to the audience, that is, their diverse employees.

For instance, during the period of Ramadan, non-Muslim employees were encouraged to fast for one day so that they can participate in the fasting process with their Muslim colleagues and, at the same time, understand the reasons for doing so. In this case, it is beyond theory but also in action, showing the unique practices of each culture. In fact, at this year's Hari Raya Puasa celebration at Khoo Teck Puat Hospital, our hon Parliamentary Secretary, Mr Amrin Amin, was the special guest at the event. He can concur that the kind of enthusiasm, high spirit and atmosphere of gotong royong amongst the staff of all races and nationalities dressed up in the traditional Malay outfits were, indeed, highly commendable.

The above example is an illustration of how organisations can weave in the workplace integration efforts as part of their staff inclusiveness in the social setting. In fact, I fully support the launch of the Community Integration Fund by the National Integration Council in September 2009 to support organisations in implementing ground-up integration initiatives. I urge that more organisations should step forward to tap on this fund, not only to lessen the financial burden of these events' costs but, essentially, with the altruistic objective of promoting inclusivity and social well-being amongst employees. In addition, I personally feel that the organisers need to put in dedicated time to design the programme in a style that the audience can capture the essence of workplace integration and harmony.

As we go through the major economic transformation, it is vital that we focus on both the hardware and the heartware so that our social fabrics at workplaces are strengthened. Similar to how we treat health and safety as an important value and culture at our workplaces, likewise, workplace integration and harmony must be regarded and treated with equal importance for Singapore's progress, not only in today's global climate, but also for tomorrow.

While we place great emphasis on workplace integration and inclusion, it is of paramount importance that we always stay guarded against the potential threat that confronts us, be it in the community or at the workplaces, and be better prepared to confront the threat and overcome the fear. Companies must be better prepared with contingency plans or business continuity plans in the event of being succumbed to terrorist acts. The employees must be trained to be conscious of their surroundings and be better prepared to identify potential dangers, such as strange behaviours of their fellow employees or strangers loitering at the workplace. There must be an independent channel for staff to raise alert should there be a likelihood of threat, and that companies must be willing and be prepared to deal with such alerts.

Workplaces must continue to maintain harmony, and it is the corporate social responsibility of every employer to do so. In the event such threats should happen despite much vigilance, companies must have the means to deal with the recovery to attain the normalcy state swiftly. For this, it is crucial for companies to have professionals who could better address the psychology of employees who are affected. Incidences at workplaces should not divide a society or stigmatise people based on race, religion or nationality. We need to preserve harmony and industrial peace, as societal disruption is a perfect recipe for a country's downfall.

Therefore, I would urge the Government to encourage and, where required, mandate the following to prepare workplaces better to confront terrorism.

First, regardless of multinational companies (MNCs) or small and medium enterprises (SMEs), companies should be urged to perform SG Secure drills or at least tabletop exercises minimally once a year. Companies must be well-connected and work with various Government agencies, such as the Singapore Civil Defence Force, Home Team, as well as healthcare institutions at a geographical cluster level.

Second, companies must be encouraged through tax rebates or incentives to set up mental wellness or mental health counselling sessions for employees who are undergoing stress, depression or psychological challenges. The availability of professionals, such as psychotherapists, psychologists and professional counsellors, will certainly be of great help in identifying individuals who are much affected, both mentally and behaviourally, so that early intervention will certainly defuse potential explosive threats from taking place. It will also prevent such vulnerable individuals from being preyed upon by terrorist cells.

Third, we must ensure that workplaces are better prepared to provide first-aid or first line rescue, such as cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR), and be equipped with automated external defibrillator (AED) devices. When incidents happen, the workers have only themselves to help one another until rescue comes. Companies must invest in this effort to train their employees for the possible eventuality. Companies should also encourage their employees to support blood donation and be prepared to do so when called upon.

Lastly, the relevant Ministry to continue to promote workplace integration and the use of the available funds for companies to establish a framework that includes sustainable diversity management programmes and promote the establishment of "Diversity Ambassadors" to ensure unity in diversity and to propagate the message of workplace integration and workplace harmony. The unions in the unionised companies can partner this effort.

Mr Speaker, Sir, in conclusion, I would like to commend the Government for its effort to bring about SGSecure and its resolve to make it pervasive both in the community and at the workplaces. The challenge is to sustain the effort and, essentially, to remind ourselves that the threat is constant and psychological preparedness is key. With this, I support the Motion.

Mr Speaker: Mr Alex Yam.

3.30 pm

Mr Alex Yam (Marsiling-Yew Tee): Mr Speaker, Sir, terror has many faces, many names and many causes. It has no nationality, race, religion, language nor gender. Terror has been around for many centuries. But perhaps none has been more potent or devastating than those who have espoused their warped cause, falsely and illegitimately, in the name of religion in recent times. Yet, we must make an important distinction. Terrorism cannot claim to represent any particular religion, it has nothing to do with religion, it is plain and simply born out of warped human fundamentalism.

Islam, like all mainstream religions, is a religion of peace. Yet, various groups like Al-Qaeda, ISIS, all claim the right to inflict wrongs and inflict it on their Muslim brothers and sisters and establish an Islamic Caliphate, which they promise will be heaven on earth, but it is more like hell.

Mr Speaker, I am not a Muslim myself and I do not claim to be a subject matter expert. But from what I have read and learnt from my Muslim friends, Islam does not support terrorism. Islam calls upon Muslims to submit to the will of God. Yet, terrorists have misappropriated the words of the Quran for their own agenda. Their actions are completely at odds with the message contained in the Quran.

Fundamentalism, therefore, has no place in our present world. Adherence to a strict, literal interpretation of scripture does more harm than good to mankind. And just because we can pick and choose and memorise particular verses from the Quran, the Bible, the Torah and any other religious text does not make us religious at all. Religion, in fact, provides all of us with a pathway to be better human beings. Fundamentalism, on the other hand, leads one towards the corruption of the human soul.

In the Friday sermon on 29 September at all mosques in Singapore, MUIS did the right thing by explaining that verses contained in the Quran should not be tweaked for convenience and for setting of an alternative agenda. This is a very apt reminder under the present circumstances where a Singaporean, reported to have been recruited by ISIS, is misleading Muslims in Singapore and in the region with false statements to follow his path of terror. A little knowledge is a dangerous thing, they say. This terrorist, who was neither religiously inclined nor formally trained, was infused with deviant thoughts and teachings while in the Middle East. But, if we consider this very carefully, he is but one of the many Muslim, Christian, Jewish, Buddhist or Hindu youths who are now being influenced by deviant teachings widely available on social media and the Dark Web.

It is, therefore, incumbent upon all Singaporeans to be on a look-out to report family members, friends and individuals who display signs of having been radicalised in their thoughts and actions. They will be doing not only themselves and our nation a favour but also the affected individuals as well.

Betterment of society is the key word and I am glad that MUIS, in the same sermon on 29 September, preached that Muslims will continue to contribute to the prosperity and development of the community that they are living in.

Singapore is blessed that it has enlightened Muslim leaders who are in sync with the larger good of the community. Their enlightened and progressive approach to many issues, such as organ donations, the Milk Bank, cord blood donations, only serves to strengthen our social fabric.

Keeping Muslims informed and ensuring that their need for proper and religious knowledge is not compromised as well, MUIS introduced the ARS last year. To this end, registering religious teachers to ensure proper qualifications and training, and within the context of our multiracial and multi-religious society, is a welcome move. One can only imagine the havoc that can be created by self-serving rouge teachers.

The ARS' emphasis on contextualising around a multiracial and multi-religious societal core is also an important development. I hope that other religious communities in Singapore would also be able to mould their own religious teachings in the same way. Ultimately, deviant teachings serve two purposes: to turn the follower against the world and the world against the followers. Feeding the cycle of hate and fundamentalism only makes the world a far more restive and tense place, where every action can spark the tinder box of suspicion and violence.

Mr Speaker, Sir, multiracial and multi-religious Singapore was a hard-fought prize that is to be treasured by all Singaporeans. But even after more than 50 years of nationhood, this is still fragile. This calls for all of us to think very hard. The Prime Minister, in his recent Kopi Talk, highlights this concern aptly.

The social cohesion and racial harmony that we are enjoying now are not a given. It needs nurturing; it needs tender loving care because harmony, Mr Speaker, Sir, is not a luxury for Singapore. It is an absolute necessity for our very existence as a nation, as a people. So, how do we go about nurturing racial harmony among Singaporeans? By getting them more involved and interacting with Singaporeans of all races and religions. Schools could take a greater lead in this by encouraging students to interact with students of other races not just on the surface, but more in-depth and an understanding of the cultures and traditions and what motivates them. This really needs to start at a young age.

Our leaders have also been emphasising Singapore's potential as a prime target for terrorists. We talk about "when", not "if". Minister Shanmugam's recent statement that there is still some way to go for terror preparedness among Singaporeans is also worrying.

The SGSecure movement is already a year old. Yet, a recent Sunday Times poll shows that four in five Singaporeans are not prepared for the eventuality of a terror attack. Preparation for any eventuality has been a way of life for Singapore. A good example of this is our concept of Total Defence. It focuses on five key areas − military, civil, economic, social and psychological. Many of my fellow hon Members have mentioned different aspects of this. So, these five key areas have stood us in good stead over the years but how prepared will we be for the actual event, when it happens? How strong will be our social fabric? So, we need to focus also a lot on psychological preparedness which needs a lot of work.

We talk about unity in diversity in Singapore. It sounds very nice, warm and fuzzy but, in reality, it is a concept that needs lots of practice to make perfect. We have to admit that even in Singapore, casual and sometimes even overt racism is still an ugly fact. Religious chauvinism is also becoming part of our landscape, yet this is often hidden away in the relative safety of inner sanctums. It is these that we must be weary of. It is quite one thing to be proud of what you believe in and quite another to use that pride to deride another's beliefs. Casual racism and religious chauvinism are just one step shy of hate speech.

For many of us in this Chamber, as members of the majority race, it may seem hard to comprehend. Some people have asked me why I have constantly worn a lapel pin of the Singapore flag. I have done this since I was in university. I studied in the United Kingdom (UK) and it was in the university overseas that, for the first time, I was not the majority race. It was also the first time I experienced what it meant to be a minority. It was not violent, it was not always in your face, but it was always there lurking.

Regardless of my actual surname, to many of the shopkeepers in town, I was a Ching, Chang and Chong and they never did it with any sort of malice, it was always with a smile. It almost seemed normal to them.

Regardless of my actual nationality, I have been called a communist from the mainland or a boat boy from Saigon. And regardless of my faith, I was a papist practising popery in the Anglican heartland. Again, none of this was in your face, but it was always there. People spoke about you. It was always slightly percolating beneath the surface. I found comfort in the community in church but I did not retreat away.

To be honest, I was angry when I first experienced this, but I was encouraged to do something positive about it. And so, I ran for the Students Union as the Ethnic Minorities Officer, won the seat and then served on the Chaplaincy reaching out to other minorities. And because of those experiences, I also started wearing the flag as a visible sign to others and also a reminder to myself.

Today, back here, in Singapore, I belong to the majority race. I still wear the flag as a reminder that there is much work for us to do. How do our brother and sister Singaporeans from minority races cope because I am sure they faced the same difficulties I did overseas and, perhaps, even to a deeper level because it is not violent, it is not always in your face. It is not always apparent but it is there.

I have also discovered that the worst that we can do is to retreat into our own false security of our small racial and religious circles. Because it is only when we reach out that we can reach in to strengthen our own identities. We can have pride in who we are, but it is in the sharing and learning of others' cultures and practices that we can fully appreciate our very own. The strength of our own conviction should not come from the denigrating of another's.

Mr Speaker, we have come a long way as a nation, a nation that almost should not exist in some people's books. Yet, we do and we thrive. But we must not pay lip service to the harmony that we enjoy, our multiculturalism and multiracialism, because terror can strike at any point. We are buffeted on all sides by deviant thoughts, we are drawn towards the seductive call of separatism, of living apart from others. But I also see in Singapore a horizon filled with bright lights. If only we work hard at it.

While our very existence as an oasis of harmony is also the reason for us to be targets but it is also our harmony that will bind us closer together should something happen because we are Singapore. As One People United, we can weather any storm. So, Mr Speaker, Sir, I support this Motion wholeheartedly and I pledge to do my own small part so that all of us can stay united against any threat.

Mr Speaker: Assoc Prof Daniel Goh.

3.42 pm

Assoc Prof Daniel Goh Pei Siong (Non-Constituency Member): Mr Speaker, Sir, this is an important Motion that touches upon the state of foundation of our nation. Multiracialism is the bedrock for our nation. When we were trying to get out of the colonial mess of divide and rule, using race to split the people in Malaya, our founding patriots in the 1950s pledged on unconditional multiracialism to bring peace and security to our land. The image of "Merdeka" that is burned into my mind is the image of the four main races linking arms in solidarity and marching forward.

More than anyone else, the late S Rajaratnam had been the one who defined our foundational multiracialism in the 1960s. He saw the four main races of our nation as four independent circles brought together by history, now overlapping in terms of social bonds, cultural practices and political and economic interests, creating a common space in the middle of the overlap that could be called truly and uniquely Singaporean. The task of our multiracial nation-building was to keep working at enlarging that common space.

In the 1980s, because society was becoming very individualistic and uneven competition was leading to some groups being left behind in education and employment, the emphasis shifted to bolstering community bonds and identities. Self-help groups, namely, the Council for the Development of the Singapore Malay/Muslim Community (Yayasan MENDAKI), the Chinese Development Assistance Council (CDAC) and the Singapore Indian Development Association (SINDA), and later the Eurasian Association, were founded. Cultural preservation became a key thrust. The consciousness and appreciation of our cultural heritage was promoted.

Then, in the 2000s, there was another shift. One speech that I like to quote in my own academic papers is that of Minister of Community Development and Sports Yaacob Ibrahim's speech at the Wee Kim Wee Seminar on cross-cultural understanding. In that speech, he mapped out what he saw as the third phase of the evolution of our multiracialism. He called this phase, multiculturalism. Multiculturalism is about mutual respect and understanding. It is also more than mutual respect. Multiculturalism is also about us Singaporeans adopting and modifying cultural values and practices from one another so that we become more like one another and yet, still diverse.

Minister Yaacob used food examples, of course. He said, "When a Malay colleague of mine invited me to his home to have a steamboat dinner, my understanding of what it means to be Malay in Singapore had to be updated. When I visit Komala Vilas with my family and tuck into the vegetarian food, the crowd there is truly varied and Singaporean."

This 2003 speech on multiculturalism is important, given the historical context. It came in the wake of the 9/11 attacks in New York and the arrest of the JI members in Singapore.

Multiculturalism signalled to Singaporeans and the world we would not adopt reactionary approaches that could lead to backlash, we would not stigmatise any particular community and turn neighbours on neighbours with suspicion and phobia. Instead, we would fortify our multiracialism foundations to promote inclusivity, harmony and cross-cultural dialogue. The IRCCs were founded then as a significant innovation to build trust across communities, to invest in social capital development through dialogue and friendship, so as to be ready for any adverse event threatening our cohesion.

The situation is not too different today, except that terror is now cellular and social mediatised, harder to detect and more unpredictable. It is tempting to turn the institutions and social capital Singaporeans have built up into security instruments to counter terrorism. But I would like to sound a warning. We should not weaponise multiracialism. Multiracialism is our foundation and we do not rip up our foundation to build defensive walls. Multiracialism gives us the firm ground for us to stand and fight extremist threats to our nation; we do not tear up our ground to use as stones.

A weaponised multiracialism is a double-edged sword. It will heighten racial thinking and we will risk unintended consequences. A weaponised multiracialism will not only hold back progress to our post-racial aspiration. It can also turn xenophobic and be used against the many migrant communities and cultures that have come to our shores.

A weaponised multiracialism can cause race consciousness to feed on itself, leading people to judge one another on the basis of race, making us ask one another and ourselves: what makes a Chinese-Singaporean Chinese, whether a Malay-Singaporean is Malay enough, when an Indian-Singaporean is acceptable as family and leader?

Indeed, we need to strengthen our foundation and invest in multiracialism. But how? There is much to learn from the past, even as we celebrate the present and prepare for the future. Returning to the 2003 speech by Minister Yaacob, we should start to think about the next phase of evolution of our multiracialism. We need to build on the inclusive multiculturalism that was adopted in the 2000s to deepen it. As Minister Yaacob said in 2003, the evolution did not happen by design but by choice. We have to be careful not to over-engineer the evolution, or we cause multiracialism to become irrelevant or, worse, cause people to lose faith in multiracialism. We have to look at the choices we have now on the ground.

So, what choices do we have on the ground? What choices are being made by our grassroots multiracial institutions on the ground? There are three examples I would like to highlight. The first is the growth in the number of collaborative tuition centres operated by the four self-help groups to help students of all races, which is an acceleration of the collaborative tuition programme started in 2002.

The second is the Ministry of Education's (MOE's) strategic partnership with the four self-help groups to operate 30 student care centres for students of all races which was announced in August 2015.

The third is the recent initiative by the four groups to set up the pilot self-help group centre in January next year to run race-neutral workshops and enrichment programmes to cater to everyone.

The name "self-help group centre" is actually an oxymoron. The centre will become a mutual support centre, where Singaporeans of different races seek to help one another to overcome their difficulties in life. It is no longer communal self-help as we know it. It is mutual support. The self-help groups are fast becoming mutual help groups. This captures the movement on the ground, the choices that Singaporeans, originally caught up in their orientation towards their own community, are making. Singaporeans are choosing to forge trans-racial ties, that is, creating social bonds that transcend racial identities. And Singaporeans are choosing to engage in intercultural exchange and, that is, doing cultural practices across ethnic lines. Multiculturalism is becoming interculturalism.

In this respect, I would like to suggest that the Government could help to catalyse these trans-racial, intercultural collaborations by providing three things: one, space, funds and administrative support; two, special cohesion grants; and three, synergies in the public education sector.

First, space, funds and administrative support. When I read about the self-help group centres in the news recently, I was thrilled. This initiative converges with the Workers' Party General Election (GE) 2015 manifesto proposal to set up multicultural help centres to house the race-based self-help groups, so as to provide mutual help and educational support to all underprivileged children in every town. The setting up of multicultural help centres in all Community Hubs would be more beneficial to the Singaporeans needing help than to rent out public grassroots spaces to private tuition centres.

Our proposal also goes further to call for the IRCCs to be enhanced to operate as programme providers at the multicultural help centres. We also proposed a coordinating secretariat be set up within the Ministry of Culture, Community and Youth (MCCY) to help oversee the work of the centres. This coordinating secretariat could transform Community Development Councils (CDCs) into regional offices for multicultural programme resources and services. This would greatly extend the impact and reach of the inclusive and collaborative multiculturalism being pioneered by the self-help groups.

Second, special cohesion grants. One of the problems that groups promoting collaborative multiculturalism face is the lack of knowledge of innovative methodologies for cross-cultural exchanges. Another problem is the lack of knowledge of content materials, such as best practices and case studies of successful cross-cultural collaborations to solve community problems, that could be used for the workshops and enrichment programmes. Cultural studies is an important field of study that would increase the capacity of the self-help groups to collaborate with one another, but cultural studies is still an underdeveloped academic field in Singapore. The Government could step in to provide special cohesion grants to fund collaborative mutual learning trips and cultural studies research projects involving collaboration between the universities and the social sector.

Third, synergies in the public education sector. One of the reasons for the success of multiculturalism in diverse, migrant societies is the emphasis on multicultural practices and pedagogy in schools. Teachers are the frontline officers in this effort. They could inspire students to multicultural values or cause cynicism reinforcing racial thinking. National education programmes can only do so much with its content-rich approach. Teachers are the real-life role models for students. Teachers should receive special training in multicultural pedagogy so that they can better engage students from different backgrounds and bring together them for effective cross-cultural interactions. Schools can also work closely with self-help groups in their multicultural help centres, so that multicultural practices would not be limited to performances and food but involve real-time collaboration to tackle real-life issues.

Mr Speaker, Sir, 15 years ago, the Government recognised the evolution of multiracialism to multiculturalism, the third phase in our march forward to becoming a strong and united nation. We have built up important institutions and a rich cache of social capital since. Today, as we confront extremism, as we always have, I hope the Government will resist the temptation to weaponise multiracialism as instruments to counter terror. Multiracialism is only effective for countering extremism when it is not treated as a measure and means to counter extremism, but respected as an end in itself, the good that defines the essence of who we are as Singaporeans.

We need to look to the ground to see the features of the next phase of evolution of our multiracialism. Interculturalism appears to be the coming fourth phase and the Government would do well to facilitate its development. Deepen the trans-racial collaboration and intercultural interactions, and we would be one step closer to our post-racial aspirations.

Mr Speaker: Minister Yaacob Ibrahim.

3.53 pm

The Minister for Communications and Information and Minister-in-charge of Muslim Affairs (Assoc Prof Dr Yaacob Ibrahim): Mr Speaker, societies around the world face serious threats from ideologies that profess faith but preach hate and violence. Extremism in the name of religion and race has brought fear and death in its wake.

But just as dangerous are exclusivist beliefs and segregationist practices that result in communities not only staying apart from one another but making no effort to understand one another. These are societies in which the views of one community about the other are informed only by stereotype or prejudice. On the surface, all may appear calm and peaceful, sometimes for years. But when groups segregate themselves from others, social harmony is easily lost and hard to recover. So, when a crisis hits, when a terrorist attacks, or when times are tough, such societies can fall apart.

The extremism of ISIS has also spawned another monster, that of Islamophobia, in the West. Far-right groups in the West are gaining political ground by openly campaigning against Muslims. A few prominent religious leaders in the US have openly accused Islam of being a religion of violence.

So, Singapore is faced with a triple threat of extremist and radical ideology, segregationist beliefs and practices, and Islamophobia. All of us, regardless of race or religion, must squarely face and defeat this trifecta of disunity and not let it take root in Singapore. As a country founded on multiracialism where all races live together in mutual respect and equality, this is a threat to our very existence as a nation.

As a minority in a plural society, our Malay/Muslim community and its leaders are acutely aware of the challenges. Racial riots defined the fears of our founding generation. Our community's Pioneers saw clearly the importance of a united and strong society, where all communities are well-integrated.

Earlier this year, during my annual Hari Raya function with community leaders, I emphasised how the Malay/Muslim community has faced evolving challenges with resolve. In the aftermath of 9/11 and the uncovering of the plot of JI members planning terror attacks in the region and at home, there was intense scrutiny of the community. Yet, the community and our religious leaders rallied together to tackle this threat, along with the rest of Singapore society.

Over the past decade, our community has enhanced the capabilities of our religious teachers, or asatizahs, strengthened the curriculum of our madrasahs and revamped the delivery of part-time religious education to meet the needs of the community. We have the RRG, initiated and led by senior asatizahs who volunteered themselves as counsellors to help rehabilitate and reintegrate radicalised individuals. We launched the Harmony Centre@An-Nahdhah mosque in Bishan and supported inter-faith dialogues. To live out the ideals of Islam as a religion of peace, we created the Rahmatan Lil Alamin Foundation, or Blessings to All Foundation, to aid universal humanitarian causes to bring aid to Muslims and non-Muslims alike.

The emergence of ISIS-inspired ideologues and extremists and their methods of operation have magnified the challenge ahead of us. Their sophisticated use of the Internet, coinciding with the ubiquity of Internet access, influence and corrupt the impressionable and gullible. Similarly, such contents help plant the seeds of doubt and fear in non-Muslims.

The security agencies have put in tremendous efforts to safeguard our country against terrorism. They have stepped up vigilance and, in recent months, have issued detention orders to radicalised individuals who planned to travel to Syria to fight for ISIS. But beyond law and enforcement, ultimately, it is a battle for the hearts and minds of all Singaporeans, whether Muslim or non-Muslim.

The Malay/Muslim community, on our part, has stepped up efforts to address this triple threat to our social cohesion and national security. Allow me, Sir, to highlight the key thrusts of the community efforts.

One major thrust of our community efforts is to develop a corps of religious leaders and teachers who provide the community with sound guidance and who can counter dangerous ideologies.

Our asatizahs can act as a bulwark against extremist and segregationist ideologies. They play a key role in guiding our local Muslims in practising their faith in accordance with the context of a multiracial and multi-religious Singapore. Last year, reflecting on the views and concerns raised by the community, MUIS and the Singapore Islamic Scholars and Religious Teachers Association (PERGAS) decided to make ARS mandatory. This meant that all existing and aspiring asatizahs and Islamic Education Centres and Providers (IECPs) must register with the Asatizah Recognition Board, headed by MUIS and PERGAS, before they can teach Islam in Singapore. Central to the ARS status is the need for all asatizahs to abide by a Code of Ethics, which includes not denigrating any racial or religious group.

Anyone who crosses the line will be dealt with decisively. One example is Rasul bin Dahri, a Singaporean preacher who is not ARS-recognised but published books on Islamic doctrine. In June this year, his books were prohibited under the Undesirable Publications Act, as they contained extremist views under the guise of "religious guidance". This action, Sir, shows that we have zero tolerance for individuals and publications that promote ill-will among different groups.

To date, we have more than 3,000 ARS-registered asatizahs and Quranic teachers, as well as 174 IECPs. MUIS encourages these asatizahs to continuously upgrade themselves, under the Continuous Professional Education (CPE), and organises various training platforms, including modules on "moderation in religion", counselling workshops on developing engaged families and learning journeys to the RRG.

Many of our asatizahs receive their training in renowned overseas Islamic universities. MUIS, together with the Nanyang Technological University (NTU)-S Rajaratnam School of International Studies (RSIS) Studies in Inter-Religious Relations in Plural Societies (SRP) has developed a two-week programme "Islamic Thought in Context: Living in Plural Societies" to familiarise returning graduates with the need to contextualise religious doctrines for Singapore.

While we have all these programmes in place, we want to do more to develop future religious teachers steeped in Islamic learning able to inculcate sound religious values that are appropriate for our unique Singapore context. So, I am glad that MUIS has started looking into the development of a Singapore Islamic College. With this, our community will be able to train a new generation of asatizahs here. At the same time, MUIS will strive to learn and adapt best practices from the best Islamic universities in the world to our local context.

Mr Speaker, Sir, developing religious leaders alone is insufficient. Effective community engagement is urgent and important. To do so, we need to tailor programmes that cater to the different segments of the community.

MUIS has strengthened its part-time religious programmes to include lessons that inoculate our youths against extremist influences. The aLIVE programme, an acronym for "Living Islamic Values Everyday", is an age-appropriate and interactive class for children aged nine to 16. For the working adults, MUIS has designed ADIL, or Adult Islamic Learning, which includes modules about the universal Islamic values and ethics, such as mutual respect between among communities.

To address the serious concern of online radicalisation, MUIS has started parenting seminars to advise parents on issues, such as authenticating online Islamic content and dealing with digital addiction among children and youths. MUIS has also developed and distributed an info-kit on "Resilient Families: Safeguarding Against Radicalism" to help parents identify tell-tale signs of a person who may be at risk of radicalisation and how parents can respond should such a situation arise.

Earlier on, Sir, I touched on the establishment of RRG in 2003 to rehabilitate radicalised individuals. RRG has, over the years, expanded its role in building social resilience. RRG has organised briefings, forums and dialogues to educate both Muslims and non-Muslims about key Islamic concepts that have been perverted by terrorists and extremist groups. RRG has also published content online to explain and debunk the fallacies of ISIS ideologies. It also offers over-the-phone counselling through its RRG helpline. RRG also launched a Resource and Counselling Centre at Khadijah Mosque in Geylang to provide training and resources to RRG counsellors, asatizahs and members of the public who are interested to do research on extremism. RRG has hosted over 1,500 visitors, ranging from foreign delegates to students and community groups.

To complement the good work of RRG, MUIS is setting up an Asatizah Youth Network (AYN). The recent arrests of radicalised Singaporeans have highlighted how family and friends could see how a loved one was becoming radicalised, but not refer these individuals for help. We have a number of our asatizahs who have a strong online presence and have youth-centric programmes that appeal to the young. We want to work with them so that they can serve as the "first line of response" to guide these youths seeking answers and address incipient leanings towards problematic ideologies. The more serious cases will be referred to RRG for rehabilitation.

As for the general public, from time to time, MUIS prepares Friday sermons, as Mr Alex Yam has noted, specifically to educate the community on the threats of ISIS and radical ideologies. Topics include dispelling the notion of the call for armed jihad, condemning ISIS and how it is undermining Islam, and emphasising moderation in Islam. MUIS also works with RRG in conducting pre-sermon talks covering themes, such as cyber wellness, building resilience against extremist and exclusivist ideologies, and the importance of looking out to save friends or family who may be falling under the influence of radical ideology.

Mr Speaker, Sir, what I have just shared are some of the many efforts that the Malay/Muslim community has embarked on. It has been a difficult and challenging journey for my community. As Deputy Prime Minister Tharman recently said at the NTU Majulah Lecture, "growing up as a minority is different from growing up as a majority…never pretend that it's the same". Sometimes, the majority does not know what it feels to be a minority community. And for the Malay/Muslim community, this sense of being misunderstood is deeply felt, having been in the spotlight for quite some time. It is not a pleasant experience when your religion and your religious orientation are under constant scrutiny. But we persevered.

When other faith communities stepped forward to lend support to our struggle, it gave us comfort that we are not in this alone. So, while Muslims have come under scrutiny in recent times, Singaporeans recognised that it is not only our community's battle, it is everyone's battle. So, I was glad, like Mr Pritam Singh, when our Singaporean Buddhist brothers recently stepped forward to lend support to Singaporean Muslims who felt a sense of anguish for the situation in Rakhine state in Myanmar. They did so, despite sharing a common faith with the majority in Myanmar.

Each and every one of us is a part of Singapore, and we are interconnected in many different ways, linked through history, living side by side in our neighbourhoods, schools, workplaces, recreational activities and, sometimes, through marriage. These connections are the social glue that binds us together as a nation.

We all sing the same national anthem and hold our right fist to our hearts when reciting the pledge. These, and many other experiences of being a Singaporean, must mean something to every one of us, especially when the going gets tough for a member of the Singaporean family. We must all work together to ensure that we preserve a cohesive Singapore society. We can defeat extremism, exclusivism and Islamophobia and other threats only if we feel for one another and do whatever we can to tackle these challenges. We require a Team Singapore approach that must become our way of life.

We must build friendships and strong bonds among different communities. With solid foundations of mutual understanding and respect, different communities will stand by and help one another. Through the good work of our community organisations, the grassroots and the IRCCs in every constituency, religious and community leaders regularly come together to network and collaborate on projects that help members of different communities work together for common causes.

Nevertheless, we need more individuals to step forward in and outside of social media to reach out to as many as possible. New media and the anonymity it lends have led to individuals denigrating other religions or sowing discord among communities over the Internet, inadvertently or otherwise. We need netizens to speak up with moral clarity against injustice and stereotypes, and those who promote hatred and intolerance.

Earlier this year, I met Noor Mastura, co-founder of Interfaith Youth Circle, who organises inter-religious dialogues and engagements in safe spaces to better understand one another's religions and traditions. Last year, I met Muzakkir Samat, who co-edited a book "From Walden to Woodlands", an interfaith anthology of poetry about nature in Singapore. I understand that the Nanyang Confucian Association in Singapore has organised three Chinese-language forums on "Confucianism and Islam" earlier this year and in June last year to raise the level of understanding of Islam in the Chinese community. The Singapore Buddhist Lodge donates rice to mosques annually before Ramadan to be cooked for the breaking of fast and distributed to needy families. Sir, I commend these efforts. We need more to step up and reach out across the boundaries of race and religion.

The Government can and must deter wrongdoing with laws, and we can support with resources and advice, but we need good people, like Noor Mastura and Muzakkir Samat, to come forward to take action and build bridges across communities. We need Singaporeans to make racial and religious harmony happen in the everyday, through the friendships that are forged in school, in the workplaces and at play, and the deeper understanding that can happen when we try to discover and appreciate a little more about beliefs and customs different from our own. It is through the sum of all these efforts that we can become a stronger, more resilient and more harmonious society. Sir, allow me to continue in the National Language.

(In Malay): [Please refer to Vernacular Speech.] Mr Speaker, the global community is currently struggling with extremism that threatens our harmony and social cohesion. At the same time, we face certain groups which adopt exclusivist practices and isolate themselves, to the point that when a crisis occurs, it will result in divisions within society. The extremist influence spread by ISIS has also resulted in Islamophobia which points to Islam as a religion that propagates violence. We, in Singapore, are not immune to such threats. As a small country that is multi-religious and multiracial in nature, we have no choice other than to strengthen our country's resilience.

As a minority in Singapore's plural society, the Malay/Muslim community and its leaders have always steadfastly upheld the principle of solidarity where all communities integrate well. The dark chapter in our history, when racial riots took place prior to Singapore's Independence, was a lesson for our Pioneer leaders. When we were tested with the 9/11 incident and the terrorist plot by JI in this region, including Singapore, our religious leaders and community stood together with the rest of Singapore to overcome those challenges.

Now, the influence of ISIS has created new threats, especially through the manipulative use of social media to influence Muslims, and also to sow fear and suspicion in non-Muslims. Although security agencies have enhanced enforcement measures, this is not enough. Every Singaporean, whether Muslim or non-Muslim, has a role to ensure that terrorist ideologies do not spread here.

Over the past few years, the Malay/Muslim community has enhanced efforts to contribute towards Singapore's resilience, especially in two areas of strengthening religious leadership and forging a more comprehensive community engagement. In the effort to strengthen religious leadership, it is important that our religious teachers are empowered to guide the community in practising religious teachings that are appropriate to our context of multiracial and multi-religious life in Singapore.

Earlier this year, ARS was made mandatory, and all asatizahs who wish to teach here must register themselves and abide by the ARS' Code of Ethics. Currently, MUIS is working hard to establish an Islamic College in Singapore in order to produce even more religious teachers who can support this objective.

In addition, we are also increasing efforts to enhance community engagement through programmes that are appropriate for all ages. Apart from further improving the quality of part-time religious programmes, MUIS has reached out to parents so that they are more aware when they evaluate religious content and cyber addiction in their children. In fact, other organisations also play a role to counter terrorism. For instance, RRG has done a lot to engage Muslims and non-Muslims through community programmes as well as by providing information online. To complement RRG's efforts, MUIS is forming a network of asatizahs and youth groups so that they will become the first line of response for young people who are seeking answers about religion and those at risk of being influenced by dangerous ideologies.

Mr Speaker, the Malay/Muslim community cannot act alone in the effort to counter extremist ideologies and terrorist influences. We must work together with the Government and all Singaporeans to defeat the triple threats of extremism, exclusivism and Islamophobia. This effort must continue in order to further strengthen understanding and mutual respect among all races and appreciate our differences. The biggest victory is when we stay united in the face of any challenges. More individuals should step forward, whether online or in the real world, to fight prejudice and intolerance towards one another. Only by doing so can we progress towards a stronger, more resilient and more harmonious society.

Please allow me to conclude in English.

(In English): Mr Speaker, Sir, we should take heart in what we have achieved so far. If we stand together as one, we will keep Singapore, our home, safe and secure for all of us and for the generations to come. So, let us continue helping one another, reaching out to one another, and be a blessing to everyone around us. Mr Speaker, Sir, I support the Motion. [Applause]

Mr Speaker: Order. I propose to take a break now. I suspend the Sitting and will take the Chair at 4.35 pm.

Sitting accordingly suspended

at 4.15 pm until 4.35 pm.

Sitting resumed at 4.35 pm

[Mr Speaker in the Chair]

Staying United Against the Terrorism Threat

(Motion)

Debate resumed.

Mr Liang Eng Hwa (Holland-Bukit Timah): Mr Speaker, in Mandarin, please.

(In Mandarin): [Please refer to Vernacular Speech.] I would like to thank Mr de Souza for this Motion to call for Singaporeans to stay firm and fight the threat of terrorism together.

The current threat level is at the highest and our security forces are staying vigilant all the time to prevent terror attacks from happening in Singapore. However, terror attacks in other countries have become unpredictable, like the many lone-wolf attacks that had happened in Europe and the US.

We know it is impossible to have 100% security assurance. We may well already be in the situation whereby it is not a matter of "if", but "when". We must be fully prepared for the day when a terror attack eventually happens.

What is equally important is the preparedness at the people's level. We should be prepared at the psychological level and build resilience and mutual trust among different races. We need to focus on how to cope with the "Day after" effect and recover quickly and resume our normal life as fast as possible.

For the past 50 years, we have been fortunate in that we have not experienced any serious racial or religious conflicts. This is due to the continuous efforts of the Government as well as people of the various races. Most Singaporeans recognise the importance of living in harmony and social stability. Hence, they respect and tolerate one another, mind the sensitivity of different races and respect the differences.

But we also know that Singapore's social harmony and resilience have not really been tested by a major incident. Should a terror attack in the pretext of race or religion happen and result in large casualties, can we continue to maintain racial harmony and not be mired in racial tensions? This would be the real test.

Since Independence, be it legislation, governance or policies, the Government has spent a lot of energy on formulating forward-looking policies to build a harmonious multiracial society. We have integrated multiracialism as part of our country's core values and enshrined it into our pledge, the Constitution and the state institutions, such as the Presidential Council for Minority Rights (PCMR) and the Presidential Council for Religious Harmony (PCRH) under the President. We have also introduced the Maintenance of Religious Harmony Act to strengthen the legal framework to ensure social harmony.

We put in place EIP for HDB estates. In order to have enough representation of minority groups in Parliament, we have implemented the Group Representation Constituency (GRC) system. Recently, we also introduced the Reserved Presidential Election system to make sure that, every now and then, there will be a President from the minority groups. We have self-help groups for different ethnic groups to create a caring and harmonious multiracial society. Of course, we can further strengthen our legislation and policies, such as focusing on solving upstream problems. But we also know that it is not enough to rely on policies and laws alone to build strong and long-lasting trust and a harmonious relationship. We need to further strengthen the relationship among different races by working harder in the communities, schools and workplaces to build mutual trust and confidence.

Fortunately, our Pioneers had the firm belief that a multiracial Singapore must be built upon strong social harmony. By setting up the People's Association (PA), we have created grassroots organisations which can bring together residents and promote a harmonious relationship among people of different backgrounds. The purpose of grassroots organisations is to build more common spaces in the community, facilitating residents of different races to have more opportunities to interact and build rapport.

Promoting integration and harmony does not mean that we will neglect our own cultural heritage. We will continue to promote the culture of different races and this will help different races to appreciate and understand one another's culture. Seeking consensus while allowing differences is a sustainable way to bring different races together and make our multicultural society attractive. Based on this, we can deepen our interactions. During the engagement and the interaction process among different races, we can adopt light-hearted ways that are close to people's daily life to build rapport and trust.

In recent years, I noticed that while we have a stronger awareness of tolerance and the need to respect one another's differences and sensitivities, we have become more reluctant to discuss issues concerning race and religion at the personal level. In fact, many people do not know how to talk about these issues with friends or neighbours. They are worried that if they say something inappropriately, they may offend friends of a different race or religion. If this situation continues, or people only say politically correct things, not only will it not help build the trust, but hinder the efforts to build a long-lasting bond. A strong, long-lasting bond is, in fact, the key to whether a society can withstand a major incident.

We should create more opportunities and an environment whereby Singaporeans can have sincere and candid discussions concerning race and religion without much inhibition. Grassroots and other community organisations have provided a very good platform. We should make good use of these platforms and expand the scope of interaction, plan engaging and interesting dialogues to deepen understandings amongst us.

I am pleased to see that Singapore has enlightened and well-respected religious and community leaders. They continuously contribute to the country and our unity. What is more, they all know the importance of the overall interest of the country and speak out when necessary. They also condemn terrorism without hesitation to protect our harmony. Although what they say may be criticised or even attacked by their own community, they do not shirk. This has demonstrated our community and religious leaders' courage and faith.

I would like to thank leaders of the Muslim community and the whole community for their efforts and contribution to Singapore's peace and harmony, and their very firm stance against extremism. For example, the Asatizah Accreditation Scheme under MUIS is very commendable. This scheme stipulates that asatizahs must register with MUIS. This is to make sure that their teachings can help the community practise their faith in a way that is suitable in our multi-religious society.

Just now, I listened to Dr Yaacob's speech. I can imagine the stress and challenges faced by our Muslim community leaders. In Parliament, we often see Mr Masagos and Dr Yaacob speaking up on sensitive policies that could affect the Muslim community. They do so to defend Singapore's multiracialism. Their stance is firm and they have never shirked.

Building a harmonious society is an endless journey. We should see this as something that can enrich our lives, broaden our views, and a unique Singapore way of life. The key is to promote unity in a natural and sustainable way and not to see it as a burden. We already have a strong foundation. Going forward, we need to continue to build our multiracial society in an organic and sustainable way. I believe this little red dot will be able to withstand the test by demonstrating our unity and resilience at critical times.

Mr Speaker: Mr Murali Pillai.

4.45 pm

Mr Murali Pillai (Bukit Batok): Mr Speaker, Sir, I am grateful for the opportunity to speak in this debate. First, I would like to congratulate the hon Member for Holland-Bukit Timah Mr Christopher de Souza for introducing this Motion to this House. I fully agree with the points that he made in his speech and I support the Motion.

The specific focus in my speech is on two overlapping areas identified in the Motion: preventing the spread of radicalised teaching that promotes exclusivity and violent extremism; and investing in multiracialism to inoculate ourselves against the ills of extremism and terrorism.

One preliminary point which I want to discuss first though is: what exactly is meant by "multiracialism" as a policy? The common refrain is that we forge a common life whilst we preserve our own separate heritage and identity. How does that play out? Does that mean that we are required to put Singapore ahead of our own individual backgrounds and heritage?

It may be useful to refer to the objectives of our founding fathers who embarked on this journey of multiracialism. The late President Yusof bin Ishak, in his first Address in this House in December 1965 upon Singapore's Independence, said as follows:

"The four months since 9 August have given us time to take stock of our bearings, time in which to push emotions into the background for a calm and realistic appraisal of the new opportunities which Independence offers us, the greater authority to bring about what we have always thought necessary, a tolerant society, multiracial, multilingual, multi-religious, welded ever closer together by ties of common experience into a satisfying society, satisfying for both the indigenous peoples and those of migrant stock…Needless to say, the more extreme any community is about one race, one language and one religion, the more likely it is to arouse counter chauvinism amongst the other communities to the detriment of all."

So, from the start, we see the implementation of multiracialism as a social weapon to ensure peace, prosperity and stability in our country. I heard my learned friend, Assoc Prof Daniel Goh's worry about weaponising multiracialism. I understand his concerns but I would not be too worried because, really, the reference to multiracialism as a social weapon is a call to arms on the part of the people to put in their energies to invest in multiracialism as a policy that will bring peace to our country.

I also wish to highlight an excerpt of Mr George Yeo's speech at the inauguration of the Association of Muslim Professionals in 1991. He said as follows:

"We use the term 'multiracialism' so often that we sometimes forget what it means. It does not mean that in becoming Singaporean, we deny our heritage…That is not acceptable. Part of the essence of being Singaporean is the right to retain our separate ethnic character. But that right carries a corresponding duty to accept that others of other races also have the same rights."

This is not a theoretical musing. A good understanding of the underpinnings of multiracialism policy will help us formulate the responses we need to make as a society to issues pertaining to extremism and terrorism. I will now proceed to deal with some of these issues.

On the topic of preventing radicalisation through radicalised teachings and other modes, means or methods, it may be useful to take a step back and understand what are the contributing factors that promote radicalisation. I wish to highlight three.

One, socio-economic factors − not being able to improve economically and being trapped in the poverty cycle. The late Mr Lee Kuan Yew recognised this when he stated in his first National Day Rally speech on 8 August 1966. He said:

"If groups are left behind either on the basis of language, race, religion or culture, and if for these groups the line of division coincides with the line of race, then we will not succeed in our long-term objective of a secure future."

Hence, the importance of always ensuring social mobility and preventing a permanent underclass in appearing in our society, especially along racial lines.

Two, power of radical ideology expoused by charismatic idealogues focusing on exploiting unhappiness amongst a group of people, often leveraging on social media, too.

Three, presence of oppressed communities in the world, especially along racial and religious lines. The hon Members who spoke before me also highlighted this point. This provides the fuel to the ideologues.

In the context of the recent incidents of Singaporeans being radicalised, we have seen our Malay/Muslim community working very hard to rehabilitate the persons involved and prevent the spread of deviant teachings leading to radicalisation. Their efforts are very commendable.

In particular, I wish to acknowledge the laudable work of the RRG to rehabilitate persons who have become radicalised through deviant teachings. Over the years, we have seen that RRG has even upped the scale of resources. They have set up the Resource and Counselling Centre and a hotline and mobile app to allow better access to the religious teachers. They have also embarked on reaching out to young people through the Internet.

I note that the RRG teachers and academics are mostly Malay and English-speaking. Given our experience of the language backgrounds of the persons arrested under the ISA in Singapore, there may be a case to expand the group to include people speaking in other languages, such as Tamil, Malayalam and Bengali.

In the book, Majulah, 50 years of Malay/Muslim Community in Singapore edited by Mr Zainul Abidin Rasheed and Mr Norsharil Saat, there was an interview published of Habib Hassan, the Imam of Baalwie Mosque and an esteemed member of IRO. I have the pleasure of knowing him personally. He said that there is a need to reject teachings that seek to divide Muslims and Muslims, and Muslims and non-Muslims. In particular, he highlighted there should be no problems in wishing Hindus "Happy Deepavali" and Christians "Merry Christmas".

He also saw a need to evolve a Singaporean model of religious teachings which excludes Middle Eastern culture and politics. I am sure Members of this House will also applaud the concrete steps that have been taken within the Malay/Muslim community to prevent radicalisation.

We need, however, to recognise that members of other races have a responsibility, too. My learned friend, Dr Intan Azura, also spoke about this. The question arises: why? I start with the definition of "multiracialism" as a concept in Singapore, because while we have a right to identify ourselves, based on our ethnic background, we also have a duty to recognise and strengthen the bonds and preservation of a common space with members of other races. That is the quid pro quo. People are not born terrorists; they undergo a process of radicalisation and buying into violent extremist ideology.

This is where members of other races and religions have a common duty to reach out to all people of all races, actively promote inclusivity and a sense of common destiny. As Mr Christopher de Souza said, we live and die here.

We have a duty to respect, understand and accept and have a keen interest in one another's culture as well. This would be a more holistic response to the trend of radicalisation. All racial and religious communities have a responsibility in preventing radicalisation.

I now move on to my second area: promoting multiracialism as an instrument against terrorism. On this point, it is noteworthy that across the world, there is a trend of voting towards the Far Right. You see that in Germany. Recent polls last month showed the Far Right getting more influence, receiving 13% of the popular vote.

While people in Singapore got startled by this, actually, this was predicted in a Pew Research survey published last year in the UK Daily Express on 12 July 2016. It was entitled "EU nations rejecting multiculturalism − the ISIS effect".

More than 50% of people interviewed by the survey felt that the incoming migrants and refugees increased the likelihood of terrorism in their country. And this caused the rise of the right-wing parties. We have had similar trends in other countries, such as in the UK and US. This is exactly what ISIS wants: divide multiracial communities, sow discord and hatred amongst these communities. For that reason alone, it is not difficult to understand why Singapore is a target.

Singapore faces the same danger of populism, majoritarianism, intolerance and racial chauvinism. This is not empty talk. In the 1960s, communal extremism was commonplace in Singapore. President Yusof Ishak referred to them in the same speech I drew this House's attention to earlier. He pointed out that within 10 weeks of Independence, the communalists were advocating a change in the status of Chinese language because of the large Chinese majority in Singapore, even though Chinese was already one of the four official languages. In June 2017, the hon Minister for Home Affairs mentioned that internal surveys show that opinion is hardening against Muslims. It is not realistic to assume that communal extremism will not rear its head again in Singapore. The danger of Islamphobia, in particular, is real. We need to ensure politics of responsibility within Singapore when it comes to multiracialism.

Currently, across this House, multiracialism is accepted as a pillar of our society and I am heartened by my hon friend Mr Pritam Singh's support of this Motion on behalf of the Workers' Party. Even in relation to the debates on the Elected Presidency issue, both sides of the House acknowledged the wisdom of having Presidents from different races, from time to time.

We have other institutionalised time-honoured practices, too. For example, the bilingual education policy, the four official languages with Malay as the National Language and English as the working language, and the GRC concept, which I say, has the laudable effect of also promoting the emergence and acceptance of multiracial political parties.

However, there is no guarantee that what is happening in Germany, the UK, US and elsewhere may not happen here. It is the duty of all responsible Singapore political parties to embed in their deoxyribonucleic acid (DNA) to resist the temptation to dabble in populist politics, to disavow racial and religious politics, take responsibility when it comes to issues that may potentially give rise to racial and religious tensions.

Transparency is the key. Platitudes, in themselves, are insufficient. We must demonstrate in deed and commitment. The People's Action Party has made its stance very clear in this regard. It does not take the current harmonious situation for granted. It always strives to work to strengthen harmony among the races. And the recent amendments to the Constitution providing for the reserved election for the Elected President is one good example, even though it may be made possibly with a loss of goodwill for the short term.

It is also good to ensure that legislative responses to extremism and terrorism are settled now before any serious act of terrorism occurs. We have a sound framework of law to deal with major terrorist incidents today. My learned friend Mr Christopher de Souza outlined these pieces of legislation earlier.

I laud the introduction of a good number of Bills in Parliament to further ready ourselves, the latest being the Infrastructure Protection Bill 2017 that was passed yesterday. We may want to come to a consensus now on how to deal with any remaining issues, for example, as Mr Desmond Choo said, curbing hate speech and teachings via social media. The passing of the German Network Enforcement Act in June 2017 will enable the authorities to require social media companies to remove hate speech from their platforms. Perhaps, we could consider a similar model in Singapore.

The other area is to deal with obligations to report against a person who is suspected to be a terrorist. In the context of spousal communications privilege as provided for in the Evidence Act, or the right against self-incrimination if the disclosure will also expose the reporter to criminal liability, it would be good to delineate the responsibilities, clarify the obligations, so that everybody knows what is expected of them.

We should avoid a reactionary approach like what happened in the US and UK after the 9/11 incident where pieces of legislation were passed with little scrutiny and debate. This exposes the society to a danger of what exactly the terrorists want us to be.

In conclusion, Mr Speaker, Sir, in preparation for my speech, I had a discussion with Prof Bilveer Singh of the National University of Singapore. He has widely written on terrorism issues. He provided me with an analogy which I want to share in this House.

He said that Singapore is like a multiracial house built on a foundation of CMIO "bricks". I would modify it. I would say it is CMIEO "bricks", that is, Chinese, Malays, Indians, Eurasians and Others. As a result, we have a Singapore that is peaceful, strong and successful. Take out any one brick, the house's foundation will weaken and stand to be destroyed.

It is this foundation of CMIEO "bricks" that we will have to depend on to weather the effects of extremism and terrorism. We also depend on our uniformed services − the SAF, the Home Team − who are ever ready to protect our countrymen any time any day. For that, our nation owes them a huge debt. I strongly support the Motion.

Mr Speaker: Mr Leon Perera.

5.01 pm

Mr Leon Perera (Non-Constituency Member): Mr Speaker, Sir, thank you for the opportunity to speak on this Motion and I thank the hon Member Mr Christopher de Souza for moving this Motion, which is timely and worthy of support.

Sir, Singapore has not faced a terrorist attack in recent times. Will it happen one day? Probably yes. How will it affect Singaporeans? How will it affect Singapore, the idea of our nation? Peering at the future from today, we cannot see clearly because the future is always moving, always buffeted by the choices that we make today.

I was born in a 3-room flat. I still remember clearly: Block 74, Commonwealth Drive, even though we later moved to a flat in Telok Blangah. I still remember a few things incredibly clearly. We had a common corridor. The kids who lived on that corridor − and in those days there were lots of children around − would play on that corridor together. We would run into one another's flats and spend time there playing and then coming out and running into someone else's flat.

One neighbour, who happened to be Chinese, was good at cutting hair. She would cut people's hair for a small fee, but, for us, she would cut our hair for free, the neighbours who lived on the corridor. I still remember going to her house to cut my hair. I have such a clear memory of this because once there was an Ultra-man television (TV) show playing on the TV while she was doing that.

Another memory was that all the children running around downstairs playing with lanterns in our pyjamas during the Mid-Autumn Festival. Back then, children wore pyjamas and did not shy away from wearing them outside the house. I also remember enjoying lots of good Malay food during Hari Raya.

Do children still play in the common corridors these days and mix among different races? I have two children. They still do sometimes. They play football with our neighbour's son and sometimes they play on their scooters. But, in truth, not as much as I did back in the 1970s.

As I grew up in Singapore, my experience was not much different from other Members of this House. I was very fortunate to rarely experience anything like a sense that I was excluded. I know that not everyone maybe as fortunate. In the workplace over the decades, there were times when race issues emerged. But those times were extremely rare. Once, early on in my career, I wanted to hire someone of a particular race and a colleague told me that they had had bad experiences with employees of that race. I went ahead to hire this person anyway. That employee turned out to be outstanding and got promoted twice. But such incidents were extremely rare.

Mr Speaker, Sir, terrorists of the kind we most fear seek to turn races, religions, cultures against one another. When we fight among ourselves, they win. This we all know.

Multiracialism is the surest defence against terror. It is the ultimate goalkeeper.

Multiracialism is part of the Singapore pledge which we take as schoolchildren, to be united regardless of race, language or religion. This is one of the most important parts of the pledge. I feel this because when I talk to residents on house visits and outreach, when I look at postings on the Internet, many, many people use the language of the pledge many, many times − that particular bit of language − to express that urge, that aspiration to go beyond race. Regardless of race. At one market outreach last week a resident recited these words several times, emotionally, his voice rising each time.

Regardless of race then. Can we set race, religion, culture aside completely? Are we perfectly unconscious of race? No. The rising number of inter-ethnic marriages may be a sign of progress − may be − but that should not make us complacent. There is no complete race blindness, just as there is no complete equality of opportunity for all citizens. Not in Singapore and not in any country. And there will always be − always − a minority of people for whom attachment to their own identity crosses that line into a close-minded mistrust of others. Such minorities exist in every country.

But do the majority aspire towards a Singapore, regardless of race? In my experience, the answer to that question is a resounding yes today. But we must entertain the possibility that it may not be a resounding yes tomorrow. And the question is how can we nurture, cherish, grow, entrench our multiracial society?

Let us start from where we are. Our schools, workplaces, army camps, playgrounds are the crucibles and also the testing grounds of race relations. Multiracialism succeeds or fails in these places. Multiracialism in the common corridors is just as important as multiracialism in the corridors of power.

The topsoil of multiracialism in Singapore has many colours. Our Singlish. Our shared festivals. Our shared food culture and love of one another's ethnic foods, and this is very important in Singapore's context. Our coffee shops and hawker centres are where all these things come into play. That is the topsoil.

The bedrock underneath that topsoil is beliefs and attitudes. Our willingness to see one another as equal human beings deserving of the same respect we seek for ourselves, our willingness to give and take, to negotiate differences and not to escalate and amplify every single thing.

Many Singaporeans ask if this structure is as strong today as it was when I played in the common corridor in the 1970s. But rather than dwell on that subject, I want to focus on the future tense.

How can we strengthen multiracialism going forward? We have today talked about aspects of policy. That is important. In concluding my speech, I would like to talk about some principles that I feel we should hold onto tightly when we formulate, debate, review, replace, evolve policies, projects and initiatives towards multiracialism.

Firstly, we should focus on real everyday issues. Not that symbols are not important, but I would like to humbly and respectfully offer the opinion that real, everyday issues that affect the day-to-day lives of Singaporeans are more important. For example, in school and at work, we do not all start running the race from the same starting line. And the labour market is not 100% free of prejudice of any kind. That is as it always has been, in Singapore and in every country. But what we do about that is our choice. What we do to level up, correct for the inequities of birth and, in so doing, harness all the talent we have. Those are deliberate choices we make as a society. What is at stake is victory or defeat against divisions of class and race, which intersect in complex ways. Let us focus on fighting the real battles which are more important than the cosmetic ones.

Secondly, what public figures say matters. We do not want to be complacent about race relations. But implying at every turn that there is a deep, seething primordial tribalism waiting to break out at any time goes too far. It risks creating a self-fulfilling prophecy. Such speech can legitimise the thoughts of the minority who are inclined towards bigotry, a minority that exists − let us recall − in every society and among all races. "See, how I feel is the natural state of human beings," they may say. And then the minority may influence the majority, one day replacing it. In speaking of the dangers of getting race relations wrong, let us not go too far and fall into the trap of legitimising and empowering that which we fear.

Thirdly, yes, we should not permit − we should never permit − irresponsible racist speech and acts. Civilisation depends on the existence of some boundaries. I want to be absolutely clear about that. But we should never draw these boundaries so tightly that responsible discussion of race issues cannot take place in any public platform. If that happens, people will be cut off from information. They will not be able to form an educated opinion. This will make them more, not less, vulnerable to ignorant and divisive views available on the Internet or in the coffee shops or elsewhere.

Between the extremes of barring all public discussion of race except behind closed doors and the other extreme of allowing any kind of speech about race however irresponsible and hateful, there lies a middle ground − the middle ground of responsible, rule-bound public speech about issues of race. Let us embrace that middle ground.

Fourthly, let us not use the very real danger of racial strife to reach for authoritarian, heavy-handed solutions at every turn. In Yugoslavia under Tito, and Iraq under Saddam Hussein, there was little of the sectarian strife that broke out after those leaders were gone. But at what price was that peace achieved? We can repress racial tension with the weapons of an authoritarian state. But if we go too far in this, we compromise other values in our pledge. We are a people regardless of race, language and religion to build a democratic society. Let us remember that. Let us strike a balance.

Lastly, as we go forward into the future, as future Parliaments consider new policies towards multiracialism in decades to come, let us always remember the physician's oath set down by Hippocrates of ancient Greece − first, do no harm. Whatever we do in the multiracialism arena should always make things better, not make things worse. Our cures must never be worse than the disease.

Mr Speaker, Sir, we have more work to do. But we must do the right work, do it well and do it as one people. The day may come when we are all tested. And if that day comes, I am confident that that test will call forth the strength and unity of all Singaporeans. That strength, that steel that was forged in our hawker centres, our schools, our army camps, our workplace pantries, our void decks and yes, our common corridors − that steel will prove stronger than any attacker. We will defend our democratic society regardless of race language and religion. And we will give the gift of multiracialism to future generations of Singaporeans yet unborn. Mr Speaker, Sir, I support the Motion.

Mr Speaker: Dr Tan Wu Meng.

5.14 pm

Dr Tan Wu Meng (Jurong): Mr Speaker, I am glad to hear there is actually a lot of common ground in this House today – both sides of the House, Members of the Government bench, the non-Government bench, the Nominated Members, the Non-Constituency Members. Because we do agree that the threat of terrorism is a very real one and that our defences have to go beyond prevention and rescue. Not just the day before. Not just the day when the attack happens. We also have to strengthen our social fabric for afterwards. For the day after.

And that is why I am glad to hear there are lots of agreement that we need to deepen and strengthen our multiracialism in Singapore. Some see it as a socio-weapon, a steel that helps us stand against those who would divide us. Some see it as defence against globalised forces that would corrupt and poison our society.

I see it, first and foremost, as a strength and aspiration. A strength born out of love. Love that Singaporeans share for the dream of a multiracial society. A dream that was audacious 50 years ago in the early days of Singapore's existence. A dream that in many countries seems further and further away. A dream that recognises that we are all not perfect, we are all imperfect but that we still believe that we can grow closer to a more perfect union of our people.

It is also the love that a child feels for their friends and playmates of different races, religions and cultures. Children meeting in the void decks of our HDB estates, playing, dancing, learning together. Seeing diversity as something interesting and fulfilling to learn from, without seeing it as a difference.

It is also the love that neighbours feel for one another, when they grow closer over the years. That sense of friendship, wanting to grow the shared common space. Giving, rather than taking. It is a sense of trust and closeness.

During my walkabouts in Clementi, I met Mdm Esah, one of our Clementi makciks. She had a young toddler with her, a young Chinese boy, one year old.

Puan Esah shared that she was helping babysit her neighbour's child during the day because the parents were busy. I was deeply moved by this story, because it is a message of trust and harmony where neighbours of different races trust one another with their children. It is a message that this is your life and mine. I trust you with my flesh and blood. I trust you with my future.

But this closeness and friendship and trust, they do not happen spontaneously. It requires a whole of Government effort. It needs a whole of society. Because we know that, in other countries which have taken a free market, laissez-faire, hands-off approach to racial harmony, the outcomes have been very, very unhappy. We saw that in the banlieues in France. We saw that in Ferguson, Charlottesville, in the US.

And that is why I am very glad that the Member speaking before also agrees that it is possible for social markets to fail, that we must never give in to the approach of free-market fundamentalism in social markets. It is for similar reasons that in Singapore, we have our EIP, so that children of different races grow up as neighbours and friends from young. It is why we have the PCMR to scrutinise Parliament's legislation so that the majority does not discriminate against the minority.

It is why we have GRCs, to guarantee that minorities will always have representation in Parliament, guarding against failure in political markets, socio-political markets, so that every political party, as Mr Murali had said, if they want to mount a serious campaign nationally, they have to be multiracial and cannot play only to one race. Because the reality around the world is that, even when the finish line is the same, some have had to walk further and longer just to get to the start.

Recognising our human imperfections, we can understand why there is a hiatus-triggered reserved Presidential election, so that children from every race have a fair chance to see a President from their own community, at least once in a generation.

The earliest date another reserved election may be triggered would be in the year 2041. By then, my children will be all grown up. I am sure they will have kids of their own by then − my grandchildren. And I hope that by then, we would have elected a minority candidate as President in an open election.

Mr Speaker, there is a quote attributed to Sir Winston Churchill: "We shape our buildings; thereafter they shape us". And this matters in our urban design. It is something that I am glad that the preceding speaker, Mr Leon Perera, agrees with. It is something I have also been writing about in the TODAY newspaper since 2013, something I raised in my maiden speech last year and in the Budget Debate this year. We have to look at urban design and shared common spaces. For instance, in some of the newer HDB developments, there are fewer shared spaces for activities.

Some precincts − 2,000 units; one pavilion. Void decks, very small, very narrow. Big sky gardens, but not quite the same. Because when the void deck gets smaller, it can become devoid of interaction. Children squeeze through, rather than playing. Seniors passing by, rather than chatting, spending time together in that shared space.

So, I call upon the Government to study whether our newer estates will continue to have enough shared common spaces for unstructured, informal interaction. These design choices can be revenue-neutral, but it makes the difference between a place of transit and a place of friendship and fellowship.

But multiracialism cannot be up to the Government alone. It starts at home. It starts with each of us. We should encourage our children to learn about the cultures of other races. Not because of National Education, not because of an examinable subject, but because it is interesting and part of growing up in multiracial Singapore.

We can also all learn a little bit of the mother tongues of different communities. In Clementi − and I would say that our Clementi residents are very, very special and exceptional − many of our uncles and aunties know a little bit of Malay. I have met pakciks and makciks who speak a little bit of Hokkien. I have even met a Chinese resident in Clementi who can converse in fluent Tamil. All this helps people feel closer and grow closer together. It matters because our lived experience shapes our racial harmony. It protects against wrong impressions that could arise from social media. It also ensures a single incident, if it occurs, will not colour someone's perception of other communities for life. Mr Speaker, if I may continue in Mandarin.

(In Mandarin): [Please refer to Vernacular Speech.] Mr Speaker, Sir, our Malay community and MUIS have resolutely declared openly that Singapore's Muslims are against extremism. The Government established the RRG in 2003 with the aim of rehabilitating self-radicalised individuals and to further understand the whole process or self-radicalisation.

As the saying goes, "a close neighbour is better than a distant relative". In our HDB estates, neighbours are from different races, religions and background. Since Independence, we have been living together harmoniously and peacefully for decades, and racial harmony is cherished and recognised by everybody. However, this kind of harmony does not come naturally, nor by chance. If we look back in history and look at the other countries' experience in recent years, we can see that racial conflicts and confrontations are happening again and again.

Our national pledge reflects our people's aspirations for and emphasis on racial harmony. We must take concrete actions to fulfil our pledge. Otherwise, even if we recite it a thousand times, it will be nothing but empty talk. Our racial harmony does not come easy. This is something that we should be proud of, cherish and defend.

In the past few decades, many economists have realised that a total free market or laissez-faire approach is not necessarily a good thing. In the social market, there is also the risk of market failure. The so-called invisible hand of the free market may not necessarily be effective in creating an ideal society, particularly, in the aspects of racial harmony and social cohesion. This is why we have the EIP, PCMR and the GRC system to uphold multiracialism in our society.

In recent years, we see that many HDB estates do not have enough shared common spaces. In some of the new HDB estates, the void decks are small and narrow, which will hamper the arrangement of community activities and also limit the opportunities for interaction among the neighbours, particularly, the young children. If the younger generations are deprived of the opportunities to know friends from other races, the consequences can be serious. If our kids can only get to know the other races through the media, particularly, social media, then their understanding of the other races will be very shallow. Then, how are we going to foster meaningful relationships and build true racial harmony in Singapore?

As such, I must say that racial harmony is not the responsibility of MCCY alone, and counterterrorism is also not just the responsibility of MHA. Maintaining racial harmony is the responsibility of the whole Government, and it is also the responsibility of every citizen and every family.

Although it is said that we must have a nation before we can have a home, we can also build our nation at home. We should try our best to create opportunities for our children to make friends with children from other races, whether it is through extra-curricular activities or participation in activities in the HDB estates or community centres. We should endeavour to create opportunities for children to learn and play together.

We can also promote racial harmony through languages. The mother tongue enables the younger generation to understand their own community's culture, history, tradition and customs. Likewise, if we learn the languages of the other races, we will be able to understand one another better and our friendship will be deepened.

Mr Speaker, Sir, racial harmony is the prerequisite for the unity of our people and the continuous development of our nation. The racial harmony that Singapore enjoys can be said to be our national treasure. Let us continue to put in a concerted effort to strengthen racial harmony and fight extremism. Mr Speaker, Sir, allow me to say a few words in Malay.

(In Malay): [Please refer to Vernacular Speech.] Mr Speaker, in July, the Clementi Community Centre (CC) organised a Hari Raya dinner. We had many friends from different races who came. We sat together at the table. We ate a lot, and we chatted a lot.

In June, Clementi CC held a ceremony for new citizens. We had a demonstration on how to weave ketupats. The new citizens learned about Singapore's multiracial society.

Through activities like these, that is, activities with friends from different races, by learning other cultures and other languages, we can strengthen our racial harmony. Mr Speaker, I will continue in English.

(In English): Mr Speaker, our multiracialism is the foundation of our past and present. It is key to our future. It is what keeps Singapore together today. It is what will keep Singapore together the day after an attack happens. It is what will keep Singapore a beacon to the world. We must strengthen it for today, for our children and their children.

Mr Speaker: Ms Rahayu Mahzam.

5.29 pm

Ms Rahayu Mahzam (Jurong): Mr Speaker, Sir, I remember a conversation I had with a friend over dinner a few years back when reports of ISIS first came out. He expressed his concerns and asked why Muslims are not doing anything about it. At that juncture, I could not help but feel defensive. I explained to my non-Muslim friend that the terrorists are extremists and their actions do not represent the true teachings of Islam. I felt a tinge of frustration as he pushed on further and asked why true Muslims were not explaining the correct teachings to these terrorists.

I must have sounded a tad bit annoyed as I sought to distinguish myself, my community and my religion from these extremists. I told him I do not know these people, I do not understand their psyche and it was unfair to put the burden on Muslims alone to resolve this issue with regard to the terrorists.

In the wake of news reports and the development of ISIS, I saw many Facebook postings of Muslim friends condemning the terrorist attacks but also expressing similar frustrations of having to explain to non-Muslim friends that the terrorist actions were not aligned with Islamic teachings. The frustrations soon turned into concern as we started seeing acts of violence against innocent Muslims all around the world.

Islamaphobia was manifested in varying degrees and there was fear that the same would happen to Singaporean Muslims. As the days passed and the terrorist attacks continued, it became apparent that anger and distrust against Muslims also grew. The Muslims also, in effect, became victims of the actions of the extremists who claim to fight in the name of the religion.

I said in my speech during the Budget Debates last year that I have faith that, in general, the non-Muslim community in Singapore knows that Singaporean Muslims strongly reject terrorism and the misguided ISIS actions. I added that non-Muslims should have no reason to distrust or be resentful of Muslims here. That was a year ago, and we have since heard of several Singaporeans who were radicalised and have been detained because of their associations with ISIS as well as the one who had been featured in the ISIS propaganda video.

Despite my initial frustrations of having to defend my religion and my community to fellow Singaporeans, I truly appreciate the fear and the stress that are aroused by the non-stop terrorist attacks in other places, especially now, as the influence of ISIS has come to our shores.

I am worried about the attitudes that would develop against Muslims in Singapore, the impact on the practice of the religion and daily life. I worry that the tudung-wearing Muslim woman will be discriminated against when she seeks employment. I worry a Muslim is less trusted because of his faith. The fear and the distrust are understandable, especially if you do not know anything about the religion and have not had any significant interaction with anyone who practices the faith.

We need to counter the distrust and I believe the way to do this is to build the relationships among the different communities in Singapore. I, therefore, fully support the call to invest in multiculturalism as a socio-weapon to counter the discord which terrorism seeks to sow. We must continue to provide platforms for meaningful interaction among people of different races and religions.

Our children must be taught to accept and embrace the diversity within our community. This is easier said than done. At the grassroots level, for example, it is not always easy to get representation from people of different races to participate in various activities. I believe some small changes can be and has been made. Have halal and vegetarian food options. Avoid prayer times or avoid the time slots when people go to church when you organise activities. Open up festivities to people of different races. For example, invite Chinese and Malays to Deepavali celebrations. Improving the activities to meet the needs of the residents is always work-in-progress.

As a member of the management committee of OnePeople.sg (OPSG), I also see the hard work put in to promote multicultural integration. OPSG was founded by various self-help groups together with CDCs and PA. The education and training programmes, programmes to engage community to build capabilities to promote racial harmony as well as the resources – matters which Assoc Prof Daniel Goh had alluded to earlier – are actually things that we are already doing. We need to continue to do this and to work hard to create meaningful platforms for people to interact.

What is key is that we realise that we all play important parts in this work and we should continue to work together to build the bonds among us. Mr Speaker, allow me to continue my speech in Malay.

(In Malay): [Please refer to Vernacular Speech.] Every day, we hear reports about terror attacks all over the world, who claim to fight in the name of religion. Their actions have, in fact, sullied the name of Islam. One rotten apple spoils the whole barrel. Non-Muslims who may not understand this sacred religion will certainly feel afraid and do not believe the true teachings of Islam and its followers.

I think that Muslims in Singapore can play an important role in sharing and spreading accurate information about Islam. We should not just stand still and instead should try to correct the perceptions of others towards our religion. This does not mean having debates and organising lectures, but I think we can portray the beauty of Islam through our daily interactions and relations with those from other religions. We can do this at work, in school and by involving ourselves in social activities, for instance, at the CCs. Many of us have already done so and I encourage more to join in this effort.

Recently, there have been concerns about some Muslims in this region who are thought to display extremist characteristics from the way they practise their religion. I would like to highlight the example of a laundrette in Muar, Johor, where the owner provides washing machines for customers, tried to obtain halal certification for his detergent and only allows his machines to be used exclusively by Muslims. The incident resulted in a harsh rebuke from the Johor Sultan who felt that it was contrary to the principles of harmony and solidarity in that state.

This reminded me of the lessons I learnt in a religious class organised by PERGAS a few years ago. I still remember Ustaz Hannan Hassan, who taught me at that time, and the knowledge he imparted had a significant impact on me. Islam is a religion based on logic and intellect; a religion that requires us to think. It is a religion that is appropriate at any place and time. We should adapt our religious practices based on our situation and context. Knowledge about what is permissible or forbidden is important, but what is more important is knowledge about moral values, ethics and the reasons behind any religious ritual that we perform.

Therefore, I truly hope that Muslims in Singapore will continue to enhance their knowledge, constantly try to engage people from other religions and work hand in hand to defeat terrorism.

(In English): In conclusion, I wish to state my support for this Motion. I have faith that if we stay true to our values as a multicultural, multi-religious Singapore and take effort to nurture our relationships with one another, we will be able to stay strong in the face of any challenges.

Mr Speaker: Mr Gan Thiam Poh.

5.37 pm

Mr Gan Thiam Poh (Ang Mo Kio): Mr Speaker, in Mandarin, please.

(In Mandarin): [Please refer to Vernacular Speech.] Since Independence, building together a multiracial, multi-religious, multicultural and inclusive society has always been the foundation of Singapore's nation-building.

Founding Prime Minister Lee Kuan Yew stated clearly in the declaration of Independence what is the foundation of Singapore. "This is not a Malay nation, this is not a Chinese nation, this is not an Indian nation. Everyone will his place: equal; language, culture, religion."

Singapore is a multiracial society. Every race has its own language, culture, religion and values. All the races form a big family called Singapore. It is a Singapore for all Singaporeans. We can all see the efforts over the years to build a Singapore for Singaporeans.

From the national anthem played at the radio and TV stations, reciting the pledge in schools, the National Day Parade, GRC system, to the Reserved Presidential Election system and EIP, all these are constantly reminding Singaporeans the importance of unity and multiracialism. To build a Singapore for Singaporeans is the responsibility of every Singaporean.

Different races must co-exist peacefully. The majority race cannot bully the minorities. Every race must tolerate one another, develop consensus while accommodating differences, leverage different strengths and allow a hundred flowers to bloom.

Bilingualism enables Singaporeans to communicate with a common language while maintaining their mother tongue and helps develop multiculturalism in Singapore. Using English as the common working language will not only enable various races to communicate equally with a non-mother tongue language but also facilitate communication and business dealings with the international community and people from other countries.

Using English as the common communication medium is not because of its superiority but because it is convenient, used widely and practical. As the Founding Prime Minister had said, English is something that no particular race enjoys an advantage, hence all the races can communicate equally.

People say we are like a rojak, but we are a plate of healthy, delicious and popular rojak. I think the Health Promotion Board (HPB) can use this as our slogan for Healthy Food Choice. The establishment of IRCCs is a very good community scheme. The IRCC in my constituency plays a very important role. It has helped many residents to resolve their misunderstandings and contributed greatly to racial harmony in the community.

In fact, in my constituency, there were some disputes involving residents of different races. The consequence of these disputes can be big or small. If they are not solved promptly, consequences can be severe.

I remember one afternoon at one void deck, a group of Malay residents were having a wedding ceremony. At another corner, there happened to be a Chinese resident who was conducting a religious ritual with a puppet show. The loud noise from the puppet show disturbed the Malay wedding. The Malay residents had mistaken the nearby Chinese ritual for a funeral, hence they showed tolerance and constraint. However, they hoped that the Chinese resident can lower the volume so that the wedding can go ahead.

I happened to be visiting the area so I helped them understand each other. I was pleased to see that after some discussion, both parties demonstrated the spirit of mutual support and understanding. The two ceremonies were able to proceed smoothly. In the end, they even congratulated each other. Everyone was happy.

Many of us would have encountered situations, such as frictions caused by neighbours burning joss paper. Through the IRCC, I have also helped two neighbours resolve a dispute caused by the Indian family burning incense. They eventually reached mutual understanding.

From these incidences, my grassroots and I believe that we still need to continue to promote the understanding of the culture, faith and customs of other races through multiple channels, strengthen mutual trust and respect, and deepen our community bond.

Just like my Parliamentary colleagues, I often organise various activities to bring residents together to build rapport and social cohesion. Among all these activities, I noticed that the durian party is a good one. Different races can gather and enjoy durians together. The durian is not just a diplomatic tool. Minister Ong just conducted Durian Diplomacy when he visited China recently. The durian party is a good activity to bond residents. The durian has become a common language, regardless of language, race and religion.

We cannot afford to be complacent, lose vigilance or take for granted our current achievements, stability and peace. Because if we are not careful, the mutual trust and tolerance we have built over the years can crumble overnight. Only by working together can we prevent extremism from destroying our racial harmony and prevent the terrorists from taking any chance to undermine the peaceful co-existence of different races.

I suggest that the Government continue to strengthen national education, organise inter-religious, interracial exhibitions in various constituencies so that people can better understand one another's culture and customs. This will also be a very good opportunity for new immigrants to understand Singapore's multicultural and multi-religious society.

Let us continue to build a caring, loving, supportive and inclusive society. We must stay united, regardless of race, language and religion to build a fair and just Singapore.

(In English): Singaporeans must continue to work together to build an inclusive and compassionate community. We must be considerate and tolerant of the little differences which make our cultures so rich and unique, bearing in mind that we have more in common and share more similarities than differences. We can only progress by helping one another. The able caring for the less able, and those blessed with more must share with those who are less fortunate, regardless of race, language or religion.

Debate resumed

5.48 pm

The Minister for Home Affairs and Minister for Law (Mr K Shanmugam): Mr Speaker, Sir, I thank Mr Christopher de Souza for moving this Motion. I thank Members for their views. Many constructive suggestions have been made, which my Ministry will study. I also thank the Members from the Workers' Party, many of whom have made very constructive suggestions and we will look at them.

I will set out the types of threats we face, our response, and what the Government and the community can do.

First, what are the types of terror threats that we face? If you look at world and regional events − Marawi, Rakhine in Southeast Asia and, of course, the Middle East, these attract would-be fighters and others who feel angry. If you look at the Southern Philippines, if the situation is not dealt with, it could become an operating base for fighters from the Middle East, who would go from this region and, eventually, they would then radiate out back into this region again, well-trained with fighting skills.

And that can take the problems in this region to a level very different from what it has been up to now. This general situation has been made much worse by the mixing of politics and religion in this region and the rise of politicians and religious leaders who openly advocate intolerance.

So, quite frankly, Sir, the direction, the trajectory of where this region is going is quite worrying. And sometimes I wish we can be more frank and share with the people of Singapore what we know. But both foreign policy considerations and security considerations make it very difficult to let everyone know what it is that we are facing. That is one type of threat: regional situation, world events.

The second is the release of radicalised prisoners. Mr de Souza spoke about it. Laws in this region and some countries allow prisoners to be released even before they are de-radicalised. They are free to plot and are capable of inflicting harm.

The third type of threat that we face, of course, is self-radicalisation. It happens in Singapore as well. Three Singaporeans have gone to the Middle East. You saw one of them recently in the video. Two of them brought their families. The number detained under the ISA has increased, as Mr de Souza pointed out. Since 2015, we have also picked up over 40 foreign workers, domestic helpers included, who have been radicalised online by ISIS propaganda.

There have been several calls for Singaporeans to copy attacks using vehicles, knives and day-to-day implements. We do not say much about this, but it is there. I do not know how many Members realised but, last year, we picked up someone who was intending to go off to the Middle East to fight. He was a driver of a large dump truck.

The fourth aspect of the problem is divisive preachings. It is an insidious threat which seeks to divide society along racial, religious lines and I will say more about it later.

In the context of these threats, what is our response? I will share three aspects.

First, deterrence and protection. I call it the kinetic aspect. How would the Police respond? What are the operational responses to terror attacks? We have spoken about it frequently. So, I do not intend to go into details. I think most Members will know. Secondly, yesterday, Parliament passed the Infrastructure Protection Bill. It hardens our infrastructure, our buildings. There is a cost to be paid and that cost is imposed on us by the terrorists. So, we have no choice. That is the first aspect of response.

The second is the community response, both to help prevent an attack and when an attack occurs, to deal with the aftermath. The community must, first of all, be made aware of the threats, to the extent that we can make them aware of it. They have to be prepared, know how to protect themselves, and must be able to mobilise the rest of the community and protect the community as a whole. And after an attack, we need to also mobilise people, make people come together to stand united. This is the key objective of SGSecure.

SGSecure was launched by the Prime Minister about a year ago. Today, we have nearly one million devices with the SGSecure app. Our officers have knocked on more than 400,000 houses. We have spoken with 220,000 households, about one in two. Members of Parliament who do house visits will know that ratio. We have had 38 Emergency Preparedness Days around Singapore in different constituencies, 16 Crisis Response Exercises in neighbourhoods, and visited and spoken at more than 160 schools.

All this was done within a year. I think the SGSecure team has done an outstanding amount of work, working with our partners − PA, the Ministry of Manpower (MOM), the Ministry of Communications and Information, the Ministry of Education, the Ministry of Culture, Community and Youth and the Ministry of Defence. But much more needs to be done and has to be done. In the context of speaking about communities, how do we deal with workplaces?

Ms K Thanaletchimi spoke about this, the importance of ensuring that companies are ready. I agree. We are trying to do so. We have enhanced the bizSAFE framework to help businesses be prepared in the case of an attack. We are encouraging companies to develop contingency plans if their premises come under attack. We have arranged for Safety seminars. We use the Safety and Security Watch Groups. This is focused on the members and employees. Last week, Deputy Prime Minister Teo launched the SGSecure Guide for Workplaces. By early next year, 150,000 of these guides would be sent out to workplaces. It is a partnership with MOM. MOM is taking an active role in this.

Third, social media influencers. Mr Desmond Choo spoke about the importance and need for influencers to be part of the first responders when an attack happens. We entirely agree. MHA and MCI are engaging high profile influencers to reach out to different segments of the community when an attack happens.

Next, we have to also consider building resilience in the community. After an attack, society needs to pull itself together and stay united. Mr de Souza called this "winning the psychological battle". This is the key part of SGSecure's work. Several Members have made this point − a united community is a key factor in defeating terrorism.

If you look at other countries, recent experience shows, once there is a terrorist attack, then there is heightened suspicion among communities. In the current climate, that almost inevitably means Islamophobia. London police collected data after the London Bridge attack this year. They noted a fivefold increase in Islamophobic attacks.

If you try and strengthen trust after an attack, it is too late. We need to strengthen cohesiveness and our unity now, do what we have been doing and add on to it. As Members have emphasised, this means going back to one of the fundamental principles of our society, which is multiracialism.

Let me spend a little bit of time because this is, in some ways, the essence of what I am going to say. Let us recall what Mr Lee Kuan Yew said at Independence, "We are going to have a multiracial nation in Singapore. We will set the example. This is not a Malay nation; this is not a Chinese nation; this is not an Indian nation. Everybody will have his place: equal; language, culture, religion."

Moving, inspiring, determined. That was the Singapore we worked for. That is the Singapore we want, and that is the Singapore we must work for.

It is useful to consider in context Dr Martin Luther King's famous "I have a dream" speech. That speech, as many Members might know, was made in 1963, two years before Mr Lee spoke, but I think we can save it in the same timeframe. To quote a few key parts of that speech, Dr King said, "I have a dream that my four children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the colour of their skin but by the content of their character. I have a dream that one day little black boys and black girls will be able to join hands with little white boys and white girls and walk together as sisters and brothers."

Dr King said this in America where a Judge had said, in 1965, "Almighty God created the races White, Black, Yellow, Malay and Red, and he placed them on separate continents... The fact that he had separated the races shows that he did not intend them to mix." This was from a Judge in 1965. In Dr King's America of 1963, he had to speak what he spoke about as a dream.

Mr Lee, in Singapore in 1965, spoke in determined tones as to what Singapore will be. It was a vision for which we were thrown out of the Federation. Fifty years later, it has become more of a reality. It is a reality we have worked for these 50 years. It is not a perfect reality, but we are on the right path. It is worth recalling this history, as we note the troubled race relations across the world.

We do not in Singapore have movements titled, "Black Lives Matter" or counter movements "Blue Lives Matter". Because for us, All Lives Matter. Terrorism, radicalisation, extremism, these challenges have to be met with the same dedication and resolve by us affirming the fundamental principle − multiracialism.

Sir, how far can we go in this direction? Mr Murali Pillai made some good points on this. We often hear this suggestion: why do we even need to talk about race? Can we not just say we are all Singaporeans? Or as the late Mr Rajaratnam said: let us have a homogenous Singaporean race.

I will make three points in this context. First, what is behind the ideal, the desire to do away with racial identity and create a single identity? Can that be achieved? Second, what is the reality of racial identities today? And third, how can we deal with them?

First, this idea of trying to do away with our individual racial identities. Can this be achieved? Many have thought this not possible. For example, Du Bois said, and I quote: "he who ignores or seeks to override the race idea in human history ignores and overrides the central thought of all history." Mr Rajaratnam would, of course, have been aware of this when he formed his own views. And Mr Rajaratnam took a different view. A noble ideal.

Looking at current trends, the kind of centrifugal forces that society is facing, including Singapore, online, there are different pulls and pushes. I think many will agree it is going to be challenging to achieve a homogenous race of Singaporeans in the near term. What we can realistically achieve is a strong national identity, a Singaporean identity, which will overlay our separate racial, religious identities, and that framework can create a vibrant society.

Second, what is the reality of race relationships today? Let me again, in this context, quote President Obama as to how he had seen it during his own journey. And I quote: "The emotions between the races could never be pure… whether we sort out our demons or salvation, the other race would always remain just that: menacing, alien and apart." I quote this to show that even in a country that is often held out as the model of democracy, this is how a successful African-American, a future President, saw race relationships at one point in time.

For us in Singapore, I think it is safe to say, we have generally moved quite far from seeing another race as "menacing, alien and apart." That is the measure of our success.

How have race relationships changed in the US in the course of the Obama Presidency? In a New York Times/CBS News poll in April 2009, a few months after he took office, 65% of Americans regarded race relations as generally good. This was 100 days after President Obama's inauguration. Of them, 59% of African-Americans, and 65% of white Americans thought race relationships were good.

The same poll, done seven years later, July 2016, last year, 69% of Americans believed race relations were generally bad; with only 26% saying they were generally good. That was a 40% drop between 2009 and 2016. That is the reality in most places. The fault lines are difficult to deal with in many countries.

How can we deal with racial and religious fault lines? We have never believed that a laissez-faire approach in creating a national identity for a multiracial society will work. We were activists in this respect. We have had an activist policy of fostering inter-religious and interracial harmony. Many examples: EIP, several Members have spoken about it, the building up of our neighbourhoods. Dr Tan Wu Meng raised the need to ensure that they have sufficient interaction in spaces in the new HDB estates. HDB, when they design, they safeguard spaces where the communities can gather. For new block designs, there are additional areas for interaction beyond the void deck, for example, precinct pavilions, three-generation playgrounds, roof-top gardens. There are dedicated spaces like community centres for people from different races to gather, bond. Our national school system, with English as the medium of instruction; National Service (NS). In fact, we are often accused of being too interventionist and too focused on race. I do not think one can be too interventionist in this context.

[Deputy Speaker (Mr Charles Chong) in the Chair]

It is useful to say what is now being said in other parts of the world with regard to race relations and integration. Let me quote Prime Minister Theresa May, who said in June of this year, and I quote: "…there is, to be frank, far too much tolerance of extremism in our country."

Some people would hold up Britain as a model of free speech, as the kind of country that perhaps achieves a good balance between being too strict and being too lax. But this is what the Prime Minister had to say: "…our country needs to come together to take out this extremism; and we need to live our lives not in a series of separated, segregated communities, but as one truly United Kingdom."

Has Britain gotten it right, the balance? Have we gotten it right? Are we repressive?

In May 2017, she said: "There is … a role for government to help people and build up organisations in society to promote and defend Britain's values and stand up to the extremists who want to undermine our values and impose their twisted beliefs onto the rest of us."

We go to Germany, Chancellor Angela Merkel said: German attempts to create a multicultural society had, I quote, "utterly failed". She was very frank. Since the 1960s, many Turkish citizens moved to Germany for work. They stayed in Germany. They started families. The assumption was that the new immigrants settling in Germany would, over time, naturally assimilate themselves. But what, in fact, happened was the creation of parallel, isolated societies. The German government is now playing a more interventionist role.

We have been fortunate that 50 years ago, our leaders had the foresight to deal with this problem without being clouded by ideology. They were practical. They were focused. And their ideology was, "we want everybody to be together", which is a noble ideology.

Other countries' experience reminds us that we have to continue to build on the strong foundations that our country has had. We have to continue to be activist. Ms Sun Xueling cited the Pew Research Centre study on religious diversity that Singapore is ranked top amongst 232 countries. Mr de Souza cited several studies.

I would say this though. I am usually careful of such studies and reports. They have ranked us sometimes at the top and sometimes at the bottom. You need to check the methodology and the people who do these reports. For example, if I could digress and make a point here: take the Reporters sans frontières' (RSF's) Reporters without Borders' ranking on press freedom. I have spoken about this before in 2009. In 2008, RSF ranked us 144 out of 173 countries, below Guinea, Sudan, Pakistan, amongst others. Thus, I pointed out in 2009, that at about the same time RSF came out with their report, the International Herald Tribune (IHT) had a news story on Guinea, in fact, it was one or two days before I made my speech. And IHT said that people were being gunned down by a "brutal military junta"; women were being raped on the streets. But in RSF's eyes, their press freedom was higher than ours.

And RSF, of course, continues to rank us poorly. In 2017, it ranked us 151 out of 180 countries, below countries like Guinea again; Gambia, where journalists were detained, media outlets shut down, Internet disconnected, international phone calls banned last year; South Sudan, where it was described as having one of the world's most serious refugee crisis, suffering the effects of a devastating civil war; Afghanistan is ranked ahead of us; Pakistan is ranked ahead of us. I would invite RSF to please go there.

So, we have to be discerning about these rankings and how they are done and what are the political objectives behind them. And sometimes, ignore them, when they are patently false and not hold them up as a mantra.

With that, I will say, we should be doing quite well in comparison with many other countries when it comes to religious diversity and guaranteeing religious minorities. And really, you do not need studies and reports. You look at our lived reality. What is the experience? Your experience, my experience, the experience of our people. We know the answer. We can agree on the whole that we are going in the right direction. But it is always work in progress. I think Mr Pritam Singh used that phrase in a similar context in his speech. Mr Gan Thiam Poh said that there is scope to improve our appreciation of other religious groups. I agree with him.

Let me move on to how do we encourage greater integration. Many Members − Ms Sun Xueling, Dr Tan Wu Meng, Mr Liang Eng Hwa and others, spoke about the importance of each one of us as individuals, doing our part.

Ms Sun Xueling called for all Singaporeans to take a small step forward, so that the distance among the races narrow. We need that. Singaporeans need to come together. They need to understand one another better; not drift apart and withdraw into our own racial and religious communities.

We have to create more common spaces. Mr Alex Yam said racial and religious harmony must go beyond tokenism. Yes. We need genuine acceptance, we need genuine respect, and to honour one another. It is important that every citizen feels part of this society and has a strong sense of belonging. We need to create common spaces, bring people together, facilitate interactions and build strong, meaningful relationships.

In this context, Assoc Prof Daniel Goh made some remarks on self-help groups. Let me share some personal experiences. I served as President of SINDA for I think five or six years. The ideal is, of course, that self-help groups should not exist and we should have race-neutral help groups. The reality: CDAC, MENDAKI, SINDA, Eurasian Association, they are able to mobilise more volunteers from the respective individual communities, get more support that way.

As SINDA President, I told SINDA, let us get more non-Indian volunteers. So, we went out on a recruitment drive. At the end of the day, we did get more non-Indian volunteers, but the percentage was 11%; 89% was still Indian.

It is a journey. We have some goals and ideals, but we also need to be realistic and practical, and mobilise the community along the different lines that mobilisation is possible and, at the same time, keep reminding ourselves that while we mobilise the community to help those who are less well-performing, we also remind them that they are Singaporeans and they should help everybody else.

And then, the self-help groups moved, provided tuition support for those of other races. They opened their doors after having started helping their own. And, of course, most of the load then goes on to CDAC because they have the most centres. So, again, it is something where the anchorage, the majority community, voluntarily takes on a greater share of the burden. It is not easy to achieve in most places. And the Government encouraged all of this.

Ten years ago, the four self-help groups came together with CDAC and they have OnePeople.sg. The name speaks for itself.

What Assoc Prof Daniel Goh spoke about, the approaches are already happening. Basically, the self-help groups and communal bodies are not mutually exclusive to fostering integration, if properly managed. The different challenges require different solutions. The education programmes that Assoc Prof Goh spoke about, they already exist. And I am sure Dr Janil Puthucheary, who heads up OnePeople.sg, would be happy to give the Member a briefing, so that he will have a better understanding of what they do. What we need is a greater understanding of what we already do in many areas.

Mr Leon Perera acknowledged that we are not a fully race-blind society. I think that is acknowledging the obvious. Channel NewsAsia surveys showed this last year and this year. Other surveys show that there is a line among the races. So, we might as well acknowledge that and then try and build bonds and a common identity. The Member made a number of other points about, for example, playing in common corridors. That, as I have mentioned earlier, was a deliberate Government policy of building HDB estates in a way which integrates people.

The Member also made a number of general statements, as I listened, and they seem to be almost everything that we are already doing. For example, have some controls on speech relating to race and religion and, at the same time, also create some space for talking about them. Indeed, I would be happy if Members see it that way. That is what we are doing.

And the Member said repression is not an answer. Exactly. And I can assure the Member and everybody else, like he quoted, Saddam Hussein is not a model for this Government. In Iraq, what you had was a minority suppressing the majority in the first place, quite brutally, and, now, what is being suggested is that the minority is being oppressed. That is not a model for us. Neither is Marshal Tito a model for us. Our model is the governance that Mr Lee Kuan Yew, Dr Goh Keng Swee, Mr S Rajaratnam and others provided. That is the model that we have taken. And that model, for example, allowed the Member, a person from a minority community to go from an HDB flat, playing with other races − a deliberate Government policy − to top schools and then to Oxford. And I believe the state paid for most of that. So, in a sense, Mr Leon Perera symbolises the success of Singapore's multiracial approach.

So, I agree with all the broad concepts from the general points that the Member has made. But governance has to go beyond generalities. You have to build the integrated communities in HDB estates. You have to make sure your schools are open for all races. You have to have the NS system. The hallmark of our predecessors was to take the general ideas and then successfully convert them into practical steps. And if we want to change any of that, let us have a care.

The Member said we need to focus on the day-to-day. Yes, we do. And I believe I have explained that. At the same time, let us not forget that symbolism and seats of power matter. For example, if every Cabinet Minister and every Member of this House were from one race, I think it will be a very different matter, would it not? And the Member accepts that, because he accepted that multiracialism is necessary in the corridors of power as well.

As for the point that the cure must not be worse than the disease, again, I accept that. It is a general statement. But also remember there are some aspects of the disease that look pretty terrible, like Iraq, like the massacres in the former Yugoslavia, like Syria. So, we share the same aspirations. We need to convert those aspirations into practical realities in a way which is doable in the context of Singapore.

Ms Rahayu Mahzam spoke about the Muslim-only launderette in Johor. Narrow-mindedness in the name of Islam seeks to drive a wedge between Muslims and non-Muslims. The owner was asked to stop that discriminatory practice or shut down. We would not want something like that in Singapore. The tendencies and the risks are there and we need to guard against them.

And I agree with some of the points made in this context by Mr Pritam Singh and Mr Muhamad Faisal Abdul Manap. Mr Pritam Singh said neighbours willing to be open-minded, live-and-let-live attitude. Precisely. That is what we need to encourage. And Mr Muhamad Faisal Manap talked about open-mindedness, respecting the differences of people and national values. Precisely.

Next, let me move on to religious teachers. There is also a problem if a religious teacher tells his followers that they cannot make friends with people of other faiths or an employer. Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, in this context, may I seek your permission to show a video, please?

Mr Deputy Speaker: Proceed, please. [A video clip was shown to hon Members.]

Mr K Shanmugam: This religious leader was originally from India, he is in Zimbabwe. He used to come to Singapore regularly to preach. Three years ago, we banned him. There was some unhappiness, but I think Members will understand why. He said that "it is the biggest sin and crime for a Muslim to wish a non-Muslim Merry Christmas or Happy Deepavali", and I suppose the same goes for "Happy Chinese New Year". This is dangerous. Divisiveness. Our common space will shrink. And different segments of the community will drift apart.

So, we made no apologies for taking that approach, banning that. Because we cannot allow this sort of preaching to take hold in Singapore and gain followers. Taken to extremes, such preaching can have very serious consequences. For example, in 2016, a Muslim shopkeeper in Glasgow was stabbed by a fellow Muslim to death a day after he put up a Facebook posting wishing customers "Happy Easter". We need to be careful about foreign preachers who may not understand our context.

I agree with Mr Muhamad Faisal Manap that religious teachings must be aligned with our national values. Our religious bodies do draw on religious leadership from abroad. For example, MUIS has a Distinguished Visitors' Programme. Many distinguished Islamic scholars come and share their experiences. Likewise, for other religions. And that is to be welcomed. We did not say no to that. But it is important to be clear on the practices which will not work here and we have to be careful that we do not import the religious conflicts from other countries, even as we sympathise and offer help, where appropriate.

Mr Pritam Singh said our first loyalty should always remain to Singapore even if our common sense of humanity makes us feel for the plight of others in conflicts overseas. And I fully agree. We have to be careful not to import those religious conflicts here.

Mr Alex Yam, Ms Sun Xueling and other Members have said our Muslim community has taken the lead. They have put in place a code of ethics for religious teachers and, on the ground, Ms Rahayu Mahzam shared that members of the Muslim community actively speak out against extremist preachings. That reaffirms that Singapore Muslims object to the misguided teachings of ISIS.

Our National Council of Churches has spoken up against undesirable practices of foreign Christian preachers. Mufti Menk, whom Members saw in the video, was not the only preacher I banned. A few weeks ago, we banned two Christian preachers who had made several Islamophobic comments. The National Council of Churches came out after that. Those two preachers had been contacted by churches in Singapore. They were coming to speak, we said no. And the National Council of Churches came out and told all churches to be careful whom they invite. And that is good.

We do need to really look at our practices. Do they promote tolerance? Do they promote integration? Or do they tend to divide? We need to draw a clear line between what is acceptable and what is not acceptable. We have to develop our own style in the practice of religion, situated within the context of our multi-religious, multiracial society.

Mixing of religion and politics is another dangerous area and we need to guard against that because that is happening quite a bit around the region.

Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, may I seek your permission to have another video shown, please?

Mr Deputy Speaker: Proceed, please. [A video clip was shown to hon Members.]

Mr K Shanmugam: This is Dr Zakir Naik, who will not come to Singapore, but you can assume that Mufti Menk and Dr Naik are all around the region preaching. And their videos are available. Many people go and buy them, including Singaporeans. But such is what is happening and they are feted and welcomed for their viewpoints.

So, you can imagine. You can have a sense of what is happening in this region. A religious leader telling people they cannot vote for someone of another religion. I think Singaporeans will say that is not acceptable. And if we allowed that kind of teaching in Singapore, you can easily imagine what else might be said by people. It will move on to race. If you are one race, you should vote for a person of that race. It happens in other places.

This is a broad canvas of the kind of problems we face, some of the challenges, the approaches we take. In concrete terms, what are we looking at in this context?

First, let me talk about restrictions on foreign preachers. Foreign preachers who do not share our values of religious harmony will not be allowed to preach in Singapore. I spoke about their possible influence earlier. As such an open society, we cannot avoid being influenced by external developments. But we have to try our best to insulate ourselves from overseas events and foreign doctrines which can do us serious harm. We are studying how we can tighten the process and ensure that such preachers do not come into Singapore to preach.

Second, hate speech. Social media emboldens some people to say terrible and evil things. Mr Murali Pillai and Mr Desmond Choo said such comments have the potential to inflame emotions and can go viral. There are laws today. We have used them. We are studying whether we need to move more quickly and have more options to deal with this particular issue appropriately and decisively when there is hate speech.

Third, prevention of radicalisation. Mr Murali Pillai and Dr Intan Mokhtar spoke on the importance of community actors − parents, spouses, teachers and youths − playing their part in identifying whether someone close to them is showing signs of radicalisation. There were constructive suggestions on how we can support these people to help. Minister Dr Yaacob Ibrahim has highlighted some of the current initiatives. We will study those suggestions and see how we can support them further.

Fourth, the Islamic College. Dr Yaacob spoke about this. The Singapore Islamic College, when set up, can train a new generation of religious teachers who will understand our multi-religious and multiracial context. We support what Dr Yaacob has said.

Fifth, dealing with segregationist teachings. Our religious groups and leaders are generally very supportive of our efforts to build and maintain religious harmony in Singapore. They know how important it is that our religions co-exist harmoniously and why we need to maintain our common spaces. Religion can, and has been, a source of strength for our society, but we must also watch out for exclusivist, intolerant practices because that can deepen our fault lines and weaken our entire society. I spoke earlier about this. So, we are reviewing the Maintenance of Religious Harmony Act to see how we can best deal with this issue.

Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, since 1965, we have come very far in terms of integration. But I think everyone would agree that we have not arrived, and one never knows whether there is such a thing as having arrived.

Singapore's approach, as I have sketched out, is to build a Singapore identity that can accommodate diversity and celebrate our different racial and religious identities whilst at the same time creating a broad common space that we all share as Singaporeans and can build our sense of solidarity as one nation. That is an ongoing journey. It has to be continuously adjusted and refined as circumstances evolve, both locally and internationally.

In that context, the stronger religiosity that we have been experiencing across all religions is a source of strength, as long as we get the framework right. And we have to pay close attention to this. Almost 15 years ago, I spoke in this House during the debate on the White Paper following the JI arrests. I shared my view that it is an ideological battle that has to be won, and it is incumbent on all of us, as Singaporeans, to first reach across racial lines to build stronger ties across communities, ties that bind us more closely. That is the only way to cut terrorism from its base. We have to win the fight for hearts and minds.

I said then that each of us must take a deep and honest look at ourselves, examine our attitudes, mindsets towards our Muslim brothers and sisters, and ask in our heart of hearts, do we respect and value them as Singaporeans, and accept them as equals? Or are we just being superficial and politically correct? Are we showing them, with sincerity, that we genuinely want to build deep links? That is vital. That will define where our society is headed and that will determine whether we are able to come together as one people to celebrate the rich diversity amongst us and be the stronger for it or be divided by the differences and allow suspicion and negativity to tear our society apart.

And I said that Muslim Singaporeans also have a duty to react in a way which will encourage closer ties. Freedom to practise a religion should not mean a total ban on the discussion of practices, which is similar to the point Mr Leon Perera made. That will hinder a healthy, economically productive life and active citizenry. It should allow us to discuss practices that impact on others in society. We must be prepared to debate this but handle it sensitively. Many of these points are still relevant 15 years later, today.

I will emphasise one of the points on terrorism. It is not tied to any one religion. The man who killed more than 50 people and injured several hundreds yesterday in Las Vegas, as far as I know, is not a Muslim. So, we have to be careful about linking, and I stand corrected, as this is what I heard Er Dr Lee saying —

Er Dr Lee Bee Wah (Nee Soon): I did not make that comment.

Mr K Shanmugam: I see. I am sorry. Then, I apologise.

Anyway, I would say that we have to be careful about linking an entire religion to terrorism. Terrorism is not a threat that will go away anytime soon. It threatens our very existence as one of the most religiously diverse and harmonious societies in the world, where different religious faiths have been able to co-exist peacefully. We must resolve never to allow that and maintain the precious harmony that we have here.

As to the religious identity of that man, I based myself on what I read earlier in the morning but I stand corrected. Maybe I should say, "I do not know". Thank you, Sir. [Applause.]

Debate resumed.

Mr Speaker: Mr Christopher de Souza.

6.40 pm

Mr Christopher de Souza: Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I would like to thank the 17 Members of Parliament, including Minister K Shanmugam and Minister Yaacob Ibrahim, who have contributed much to the robust debate on this Motion.

That multiracialism can be discussed so openly by Members of many different races here in Singapore's Parliament is itself a strength not many parliaments around the world possess. Furthermore, that we could achieve broad consensus in the debate that we have to stay united, regardless of race, in the face of a terror attack is itself important and positive. We have agreed broadly not to point fingers at a certain race or religion, but to condemn in a single voice the abhorrent nature of terror attacks. That agreement is not something to be belittled, especially when we see how so many countries around the world choose the fractious route of finger-pointing and ostracising. So, this bipartisan support for this Motion is good for Singapore and good for a united stand against terrorism.

Mr Alex Yam supported the idea that all Singaporeans have a role in being vigilant. He said that all of us need to be aware of the concerns, as well as the preparatory measures required. Vigilance is only part of the equation. Resilience after an attack is just as important.

Mr Desmond Choo shared the importance of having "first responders" online to initiate and shape discussions in a productive manner, as well as to dispel falsehoods and rumours.

Both vigilance and resilience require a collective effort. In the same way, a collective counter-offence is required to diffuse the spread of violent extremist radical teachings. As Dr Intan Azura Mokhtar has said, "[it is] a shared responsibility, [one] which requires ... common effort and resolve."

Yes, we have a range of laws to prevent the spread of radicalised teachings which promote violent extremism. And as Mr Murali Pillai stated, it is important to have these laws in place now, before an attack occurs. But, as Dr Intan Azura Mokhtar also pointed out in her speech, more can be done upstream, well before muscular laws are applied. This is a good point. One major battleground upstream is the Internet. While it may propagate violent extremism, it can also be used to deter it.

What are we facing? It was reported by Channel NewsAsia that in 2015, there were 46,000 Twitter accounts and 10,000 accounts on Facebook held by those openly supporting terrorists. There were another 9,800 websites belonging to terrorist groups. We need to work on the counter-narrative. How?

Dr Intan Mokhtar shared that she hoped that there will be more "social media savvy" asatizahs as they have a potential to be a positive influence to shape and influence the perception of the youths.

Google's subsidiary, Jigsaw, does it by providing links to credible counter-narrative videos. These links are provided to those who had searched online for what Google's algorithms construed as potential terrorists. The counter-narrative links are not openly counter-terrorist in name and title. So, as a result, that potential reader is not deterred. Counter-narratives are key.

In fact, what we are debating today in Parliament is also a counter-narrative to terrorism. What we need to do more of is to put that counter-narrative into social media.

But we have not remained stagnant in that endeavour. Our Home Team has worked hard to keep us ahead of the game. We have invested in technology and thought out of the box to keep ahead. Through collaboration with the US, we have developed puffer portals to detect all forms of Chemical, Biological, Radiological, Nuclear and Explosive (CBRNE) threats. We have utilised the Automated Biometric and Behavioural Screening Suite to identify many blacklisted travellers. These are all important and critical initiatives.

Importantly, we also need to guard against the deadly concoction of terrorism and drugs. In Marawi, it was reported that 11 kilogrammes of high-grade methamphetamine hydrochloride or "Shabu" worth about US$5 million was found in a den belonging to militants. Some militants were even found high on drugs.

This is not just a problem isolated to Marawi. The Minister for Foreign Affairs of the Russian Federation stated at a Security Conference in December last year, "Terrorism is closely linked with the drug problem. Illicit drug trafficking provides the bulk of terrorism's funding." Therefore, to prevent funding to terrorists, we need to make sure we do our part to stop drugs from travelling into and through Singapore.

The third point is investing in multiracialism as the best socio-weapon to defeat the ills terrorism seeks to sow. As Ms Sun Xueling shared, her aspiration is that Singapore will grow "closer to realising the ideals our nation aspires to". Ms Rahayu Mahzam still retains the faith that the non-Muslim community in Singapore will know that Singapore Muslims strongly reject terrorism and the misguided ISIS actions.

To that end, Mr Liang Eng Hwa stated that, "Government policies and laws alone will not be enough to bring us to that enduring level of trust and harmonious relations at the people-to-people level". So, for Mr Liang, people-to-people relations are important. It is a good point.

Mr Leon Perera suggested to have more common spaces for people of different races to interact and integrate. I agree. Mr Leon Perera also expressed the desire that we must be aware of minorities who seek to sow discord amongst numerical majorities through influence and interference, sow discord along the lines of what the terrorism regime seeks. I agree. And I agree that that is a good desire to have. But I would also say that the laws in Singapore already deter such behaviour. The Government has already put in the legal levers to deal with this. I had mentioned the Public Order Act, Sedition Act and the Penal Code in the opening speech. All these seek, in one way or another, to deter the proliferation of violent extremism, radical teachings. So, we have systems in place already.

Mr Muhamad Faisal Manap suggested working upstream to intervene to strengthen our social cohesion to fight terrorism. He suggested the use of religious knowledge in schools to achieve that. But I think Mr Muhamad Faisal Manap would agree that much would depend on the curriculum and teaching materials of the subject, and that one requirement would be that the subject not include teachings that would incite violent extremism. That should be avoided so as not to manipulate the students.

Many of the Members here shared how multiracialism was furthered in their communities. Dr Tan Wu Meng, speaking in all three languages, shared with us that the Clementi CC organised a demonstration of ketupat making for the new citizens to share with them Singapore's multiracialism.

Ms Thanaletchimi highlighted the workplace as an important venue to foster multiracialism in Singapore. As Ms Thanaletchimi stated, as our Singapore workforce constituents comprise a combination of local and migrant workers, it is not only important to inculcate the value of multiracialism and multiculturalism among Singaporeans but also to the migrant workers from various countries.

Singapore's multiracial tapestry is important. And in preserving it, Mr Pritam Singh shared with us that conflicts of another country, although emotive, should not be transported here to destroy the social fabric we have in Singapore − our common humanity. I agree.

Assoc Prof Daniel Goh asked why the word "weapon" was used in the Motion's title. Let me share. When I was crafting the Motion, it was to view terrorism as an enemy in a real sense. After all, terrorism is an affront to Singapore and all her values. I thought "weapon" was a good analogy for what we are up against, and the hybrid word "socio-weapon" was chosen because terrorism is a common enemy we have to battle against as a citizenry. In peacetime, we do not use multiracialism as a weapon. But when under attack, we can deploy that multiracialism as a strength, as a weapon, against the common enemy. It is distinct from the hardware the SAF and Home Team will use, but it is as important a tool, as important a weapon when we are facing a terrorist attack on our shores. Hence, the reason for the word "socio-weapon" in the Motion's title.

The Community Emergency and Engagement Committee is another significant platform to ensure that our multiracialism can endure the test of a terror attack. With your permission, Mr Deputy Speaker, may I display a few slides on the LED screen?

Mr Deputy Speaker: Yes, please. [Slides were shown to hon Members.]

Mr Christopher de Souza: This tabletop exercise was organised by Ulu Pandan constituency's Community Emergency and Engagement Committee. I am sure many other constituencies have conducted similar exercises. Our grassroots leaders and key community resource persons, such as religious group leaders, gathered to simulate responding to a terror attack. Different people from different races are playing a part now to prepare for the consequences of a terror attack. Committee members were assigned to different groups, such as operations, media, logistics, community resources deployment, all everyday issues needed to overcome terror attacks. It is nothing like being prepared.

Essentially, multiracialism is a constant work-in-progress. As Minister K Shanmugam stated clearly, we have never believed that a laissez-faire approach to creating a national identity would work. We are wanting to secure a multiracial society that will work and that we are activist in this respect. As Minister Yaacob Ibrahim said passionately, we all sing the same National Anthem and hold our right fist to our hearts when reciting the pledge. These and many more experiences of being a Singaporean must mean something to every one of us, especially when the going gets tough for a member of our Singaporean family.

Dr Mercy Jesuvadian of the National Institute of Education highlighted that it is important to start building racial harmony at an early age. At the PAP Community Foundation (PCF) Sparkle Tots Preschool in my constituency, we have babies of all the different races taken care of by infant care teachers of different races. There is a photograph there. Members can see multiracial babies and multiracial infant caregivers. There is multiracial bonding on all levels − the teacher with the infant, the infants with one another, the teacher with her colleagues, the infant's family and the teacher, and the families with other families. But this also shows the big reservoir of trust we have among the races − to augment Dr Tan Wu Meng's point − to be able to entrust the baby with someone else from a different race. It is reflective of these day-after banners, which Ulu Pandan residents helped to organise, reflective of the values Singapore aspires to achieve.

Many of us here celebrate Multiracial Day in our constituencies where the children dress up in traditional costumes. Recently, in Ulu Pandan, we had a Multiracial Dessert Day. We feasted on many different kinds of desserts, from ang ku kueh, roti, samosa, pineapple tarts. We experienced the wonder of multiracialism through our appetites and stomachs. In a very real way, we tasted how each culture had something unique to offer, how each culture was unique and valuable. And we experienced it in one of the most Singaporean ways possible − food − a language that transcends the different communities. Many of us would have attended moon cake festivals over the weekend and seen residents of many races carry lanterns together, lighting up the evening with the warm glow of the lanterns.

Allow me to conclude, Sir. I took this photograph when visiting the PCF infant care centre in my ward earlier this year. It is a photograph of Makcik Minaseh carrying young Xander, holding him, caring for him. It is a meaningful photograph for me. Why? It reminded me of what happened 40 years ago. Back then, I was just born and my parents lived on Changi Air Base. My father and mother had asked a young Malay lady, Cik Zainap, whether she would like to help my mother in taking care of the children. My father was flying fighters then in the 1970s. It was dangerous. Pilots' wives went through quite a lot then, not knowing if something would happen in the air to their husbands. So, any extra help at home was very welcomed by my mother. Zainap became part of our family. She worked well with my mother and she saw my sister and I grow up. Even after we settled down and started our own families, our family kept in touch with Zainap.

She is now known as Nenek Zainap to our children and she considers them each her cucu. We keep in close touch. This photograph was taken when my parents, my wife and I and our children visited Zainap last year in her Tampines home for Hari Raya. Since then, we had our No 3 − so one more cucu for her! So, it is wonderful that in Singapore, we can consider one another as part of the same keluarga, the same family. My parents and I are a part of her family, and she is a part of ours.

Sir, one more example. In 2012, the Prime Minister came to Ulu Pandan to launch the Choo Siu Heng Scholarship, named after a long-standing and selfless community leader who dedicated over 50 years of service to the community. Mr Choo believed in a Singaporean Singapore, with multiracialism as a bedrock. Mr Choo was a source of great wisdom and encouragement, especially in how to reach out and serve residents. Sadly, in 2011, he passed away. We decided to honour his legacy by setting up a scholarship in his name to sponsor the university fees of a young Singaporean who is involved in community work in Ulu Pandan. Every year since then, we have given out a scholarship to a new and deserving student. The second recipient was Waseemah. She is pictured here with Mr Choo's widow, Mr Choo's son Roland, and Mr Choo's grandchildren. Also seen are Waseemah's parents. Mr Choo is not in this photograph. But his values of a united multiracial society within an independent Singapore live on in Waseemah, who is part of the Youth Executive Committee in Ulu Pandan serving a multiracial Singapore.

When terror strikes, what instincts will come to my mind? The care of Nenek Zainap, the complete dedication of Mr Choo, the effort of Waseemah and the selfless work of the many volunteers and Singaporeans who aspire to multiracialism. We will resist pointing a finger. Instead, we trust that Singaporeans will lock hands with fellow Singaporeans of all races, face terrorism squarely, and show in unity that "we will not be defeated, not on these shores, not in our homes, not on our soil", and that Singapore will prevail. [Applause.]

Question put, and agreed to.

Resolved,

"That this House fortifies Singapore's resolve to stay united against the threat of terrorism by reaffirming the core values of multiracialism and social cohesion and calls on the Government to continue (a) promoting vigilance and resilience among Singaporeans to deter and overcome terrorist attacks; (b) preventing the spread of radicalised teachings which promote violent extremism; and (c) investing in multiracialism as the best socio-weapon to defeat the ills that terrorism seeks to sow".