The Maintenance of Religious Harmony Act (MHRA) was updated in Parliament on Monday (7 October) after an extensive debate on the Bill of proposed amendments which was introduced in September.
During the debate, three Worker’s Party (WP) politicians raised several questions relating to religion and politics, specifically if politicians should be seen with a religious leader and whether religious bodies should be allowed to support to criticise government policies.

Religious leaders making public appearances with politicians

First up was WP leader Pritam Singh who expressed his party’s broad support for the Act which is intended to protect religious harmony in Singapore and safeguard the separation of religion from politics.
Mr Singh noted that maintaining religious harmony now is just as much of a concern now in the age of social media as it was back when the law was first introduced in 1990. However, he added that back then, religious leaders were apprehensive about the law and there was little consensus event from the administration at the time.
“Even Minister Shanmugam’s speech, in his capacity as a backbencher then, was noteworthy because it raised fundamental points about the separation of powers and the potential for an irrational exercise of executive power,” Mr Singh said.
Back then, Mr Shanmugam has asserted that the power to decide whether politics and religion should be kept separate was for the courts, not the executive. He had said that if the MHRA gives ministers this ‘absolute power’, then there is a risk that it may be abused in the future.
However yesterday, Mr Shanmugam said that his views have changed from then when he believed that the legal process could resolve all disputes, adding that 30 years of experience and perspective has led him to realise that this doesn’t always hold true.
Using the Bali bombings and religious strife in Pakistan as examples, Mr Shamugam said in his closing remarks that the people responsible for those conflicts faced the consequences in court but that it ended up ‘deepening the fault lines’.
“It can even be counterproductive — the alleged offenders become martyrs for their communities, inflame tensions even more,” he said.
Mr Singh, in his speech also raised the issue of religious leaders appearing next to political figures.
Citing the 2016 General Election as an example, Mr Singh noted that a prominent religious leader with links to the People’s Association who also happened to be a senior PAP member actually served as the Prime Minister’s election agent.
Mr Singh said, “To that end, how would some members of the same religious group with a different political view from that espoused by their religious leader or elder feel if they openly support another political party?” he asked.
He later continued, “I would argue respectfully that the selection of established and well-known religious and even community personalities — who are probably forces for good in their own stead — in party politics in capacities such as election agents, notwithstanding their secular appointments, muddies the already difficult distinction between religion and politics.”
He explained that when politicians attend religious events, especially when close to election time, it could signal to worshippers that they should support this politician.
Responding to this, Mr Shanmugam countered that religious leaders have civil and political rights and are free to exercise them under the law. He also noted that there have been a number of MPs in the past and present who hold positions in religious organisations.
He said, “You can’t be saying they cannot exercise their rights.”
However, he did concede that religious leaders should look at these issues with care and not through a party lens but instead think about what’s good for Singapore.
“We must handle these issues with sensibility, with care and with wisdom,” he said.
He also said that it wouldn’t be wise for the government to cut ties with religious leaders, as such ties are extremely important in building trust and bonds that are important for society as a whole, and allows issues to be dealt with in an atmosphere of trust.
He also noted that government has to be fair and neutral in this area.

Religious groups openly supporting or criticising government policies

The other WP MP who spoke on the issue was party Chairman and MP of Aljunied GRC Sylvia Lim who noted how the ground sentiment showed that religious institutions “are developing a reputation for being supportive of certain political parties”.
She pointed out that after the Bill of amendment was introduced in the previous parliamentary sitting, a number of religious leaders and organisations have stepped up to openly support the bill.
She questioned if that is a mixing of religious authority with politics and wondered what the government would have done if those leaders had opposed the bill instead.
“As far as I know, the Government has welcomed this open support. But if the religious leaders had instead gone the other way… expressed concern or opposition to the Bill, will the Government have put its foot down and issued an order requiring them to stop?” she asked.
In his remarks, Mr Shanmugam said that the Act is not designed to curtail the views of religious leaders, but that even so, they should know not to engage in general political discourse.
“Religious leaders in Singapore know they should not be engaging in general political discourse… The question is what is good for Singapore? What is doable?” Mr Shanmugam said.
However, he said that there have been times when religious leaders have openly opposed government policies. An example given was the issue on casinos and online gambling where the National Council of Churches in Singapore opposed the building of casinos and the government’s approval of online gambling, adding that the government didn’t censure them.
He later conceded, “I think for the good of Singapore, we do not want religious leaders to get into the (political) arena and become partisan,” but added that no lines have been crossed thus far and that religious leaders have exercised a lot of care when making statements.

The separation of religion from politics

One comment that seems to have taken Mr Shanmugam aback was something Worker’s Party MP Mr Faisal Manap said about the separation of politics and religion.
Mr Faisal, another Aljunied GRC MP, said in his Malay speech, “I do not quite agree with this principle. As a Muslim, Islam is understood as a way of life. Islam encompasses all aspects of life, including politics and the way to practise politics. And I understand that Christianity also believes that it is unlikely that religion can be separated from politics.”
Mr Shanmugam highlighted this remark made by Mr Faisal, saying that he was surprised and couldn’t believe that he heard Mr Faisal saying he doesn’t believe in the separation of politics and religion, adding that it has serious implications.
“It’s a very surprising statement. It’s a very serious statement and a statement with serious implications. And it contradicts everything that we hold as central and important in Singapore and it’s a fundamental value,” he asserted.
“I will leave the chambers with those statements ringing in my head,” he declared.
Mr Shanmugam said, “Assuming that I heard him right, if we do not separate religion from politics then whose religion comes into politics? Inevitably, if you allow religion to play a significant role in politics, then those who are part of the majority religion must have the bigger say or plurality, at least, will have the bigger say? Do you think the position of religious minorities will be better or worse?”
In an exchange during which Mr Faisal attempted to clarify his statement several times, Mr Faisal said his comments were taken out of context by Mr Shanmugam. He reasserted that he doesn’t “fully agree” with the principle and that his stand is religion and politics cannot be separated in the context of Islam.
“It encompasses every aspect of life. That’s what I meant that as a Muslim, I can’t separate the two entity of politics and religion,” said Mr Faisal.
But after being pressed by Mr Shanmugam repeatedly on whether he agrees that religion and politics should be separate, Mr Faisal eventually conceded that he does, saying “I do agree that religion needs to be kept aside or apart from politics so that the religion won’t be used to gain personal benefit or the benefit of any political party.”
Following the back and forth between Mr Faisal and Mr Shamugam, Nominated MP Mohamed Irshad said he was troubled by the exchanged. He asked Mr Shanmugam if engaging religious bodies was a worthwhile method in driving across the point that secularism in Singapore should be safeguarded, and that religious values could be held as a personal view.
Mr Shanmugam responded that he has never heard anyone put it the way Mr Faisal did.
“Everyone would say their personal views will be and can be influenced by religion. Many in Cabinet, many MPs, are deeply religious. We don’t hide that,” he said.
“When we meet with the Muslim leaders, when we meet with the Muslim clerics, when we meet with the Mufti, when we meet with the Christian leaders, they understand and they accept (the principle of separating religion from politics) and they say it is the only way in which we can proceed with governing Singapore and living in Singapore.”
Mr Shanmugam said Mr Faisal introduced ‘a new element’ in the process, something for “him and others around him to think about”.

Subscribe
Notify of
0 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
You May Also Like

孟文能说词揭露整体银行领域 57巴仙高管职位由外籍人士执掌

一位退休银行家在本月中,揭露一些大型、老牌外籍银行,倾向雇用外籍人士、排挤新加坡人才,“已是业界熟知之事”,并呼吁当局应严密审查金融领域的这种现象。” 对于这位退休银行家的建言,金融管理局局长孟文能认真看待,也透过《海峡时报》论坛在昨日撰文回应,强调该局密切关注金融机构就业市场,也接触这些机构高管,以了解培育新加坡人核心的规划。 然而,孟文能声称,金融机构劳动力的全貌比预期还要好,预计70巴仙都是本地公民,永久居民占14巴仙。“公民在财经领域的代表性很好,我们仍需提升在科技和风险管理领域的比例。” 孟文能在文章中宣称,本地运营零售银行方面,金管局预计70巴仙高级管理层都是新加坡公民,而在整体银行领域,43巴仙高管都是本地人。 然而,这不就意味着,另外57巴仙的高管,都是外籍人士?10位银行高管中,恐怕至少六位都是外籍人士。 孟文能认为,我国金融领域吸引更多区域和全球性运营,也为国人制造良好就业机会,惟高管领域会有更高比例的外籍人士,可以理解金融机构会从全球范围招揽人才。 但他也指出,仍有不少国人执掌区域性的领导角色,更多国人掌控海外高管职位,金管局也在与金融机构合作,以培养更稳健的本地领袖管道。 8月12日,金融管理局市场与金融发展副局长罗恵燕曾敦促金融机构,应遵循人力部的公平考量框架(Fair Consideration Framework),积极栽培有潜质的新加坡籍员工担任领导职务。 孟文能也重申,金管局较早前已公布一项1.25亿元的配套,鼓励金融机构和金融科技公司留住员工。 事实上,早在2013年,民间实则已发出对金融领域外籍人士的人数表达担忧。自2005年新印经济合作协定(CECA)就有这种趋势。…

Singapore’s dengue cases hit a new high at 499 cases in a week, five times more reported cases than same period in 2018

The nation is currently affected with a dengue outbreak. In fact, the…

Five promo codes for local Singaporean brands

by SingSaver  There’s a special sense of pride when you come across…

增性欺诈罪 废除婚姻豁免权 刑事法改革与时并进

在未来,企图自杀或将不再被列入刑事罪,婚内强奸不再有豁免权,而谎称已经采取保护措施或隐瞒性病,促使另一方愿意发生性行为的“性欺诈”行为,将被列入刑事罪。 一旦通过《刑事法改革法案》,让《刑事法典》获得修正以合乎时宜后,以上的事项都会一一落实。 给予治疗开导更恰当 刑事法典检讨委员会建议,为企图自杀者提供治疗和开导帮助或许更为恰当,而不是定罪。政府对此强调坚信生命可贵的立场,但是也接受有关的建议。反之,教唆他人自杀者则罪在难逃,警方将获得宪法赋予权限,介入企图自杀个案,避免伤亡事件。 提倡对等性行为 鉴于婚内强奸豁免权或被滥用,并且保护女性免受另一半强奸的情况发生,政府同意废除有关豁免权。虽然有反对声指出,废除豁免权或会影响婚姻制度,和被滥用引起虚报假案事件的增加,但是政府表示将对所有强奸案件进行调查。虚报假案的人士也会面对执法当局,依据刑事法典采取对付行动。 非自愿性的肛交和口交性行为,一经投报,皆被列入强奸案处理。 同时,政府将对付诱导受害者进行性行为的干案人士。干案者若隐瞒部分详情,或误导及引诱受害者,让后者同意进行性行为,有关的同意将被视作无效,且干案者将被视作构成刑事罪。有关隐瞒或误导的部分包括了,隐瞒干案者行为本质、意图、身份或性病,已经谎称已经做好防范措施。 近年来在西方国家频频传出类似案件,即男女双方同意在惊醒性行为时使用避孕套,其中一方却在中途拿掉避孕套,这可被认为是性侵行为的一种。 政府关注到有关案件的发生,因此新增条文以对付“性欺诈”。 刑事责任年龄提高 另外,基于新加坡十岁以上少年犯罪人数呈现上升趋势,政府接受委员会的建议,将刑事责任年龄提高到十岁。原定的刑事责任年龄为七岁。政府也将设立合适的框架,以便监管七至十岁的犯罪儿童,力求将他们“导”回正轨。