Ministerial Statement on Race and Religion – Speech by Mr K Shanmugam, Coordinating Minister for National Security and Minister for Home Affairs

Thank you, Sir.

1. The purpose of this Ministerial Statement is to reiterate the fundamentals of our approach to race, religion, and language, and its application in the political context. 

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

3. Sir, let me begin by setting out the historical backdrop to our nation-building journey. After the Second World War, many former colonies became independent countries. Many had a dominant ethnic group. In some countries, this group made up the absolute majority. In other countries, the dominant ethnic group was the largest minority.

4. Many of these countries chose the language of the dominant ethnic group to be the official language of their new nations. Sri Lanka and Malaysia are two examples. 

5. This is the approach of countries in the West as well, to organise themselves. 

6. In many countries, in the West, as well as elsewhere, minorities who do not speak the official language are disadvantaged – disadvantaged in education, employment, and opportunities to progress economically and socially.

7. Many countries also implemented policies which favoured the dominant ethnic group, at the expense of, and even suppression, of the minorities. Sri Lanka is one example of this practice in the past. 

8. Many such practices, and arguments over race, language, and religion, were quite common.

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

The Singapore Approach 

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

11. If our Founding Fathers had followed the prevailing norm, Mandarin would have been our only official language. 

12. But we became independent in 1965, precisely because Mr Lee Kuan Yew and his team decided on a very different approach for Singapore. Mr Lee Kuan Yew declared on the day of our independence:

13. This was not just political rhetoric. Our Founding Fathers took systematic steps to build a multi-racial, multi-religious Singapore. They enshrined the foundational principles: Unity in Diversity, Justice and Equality, in our national pledge. All citizens, regardless of their race, language, or religion, were to have equal status. Policies were designed to enable each ethnic group to preserve its own cultural heritage. At the same time, our common space would be enlarged, to facilitate interaction and understanding between the ethnic groups. English was used as the language of administration and instruction – meaning, the language used in schools. At the same time, students studied their mother tongue, Mandarin, Malay, or Tamil, as a second language. Selected festivals of the major ethnicities were designated as public holidays. And on the ground, in the heartlands, activities were organised for all ethnicities to promote multi-racial harmony. Religious freedoms were protected in the Constitution. At the same time, we retained Malay as our national language. This meant that we continued singing our national anthem Majulah Singapura proudly in Malay – in schools, and at national events. 

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

Our Founding Generation of Leaders Faced Serious Opposition to the Approach They Took 

15. Our founding fathers, however, faced tremendous opposition to this approach.  

16. Many Chinese organisations, including some highly influential ones, asked the Government to make Mandarin our national language and the only official language.

17. Questions were asked: Why not – since Chinese were 77% of the population? Why should Singapore adopt English – the colonial master’s language – as the language of administration and instruction? Why should Malay be the national language? Why should our national anthem be in Malay? 

18. Barisan Sosialis, the main Opposition Party then, took an active position on this matter. The Communist-inspired Left had long rallied in Singapore and Malaya on the mobilisation of Chinese-educated students and labour organisations. They did this by emphasising Chinese-language, Chinese-culture, Chinese education. By doing this, they repeatedly stoked tensions within the Chinese community. 

19. The politically expedient course for the PAP Government would have been to agree to these demands and make Mandarin, Singapore’s only official language. 

20. It would have helped to anchor the support of the majority Chinese community.

21. In the run-up to the 1963 General Elections, the PAP government’s majority had been steadily whittled down. Their foothold in Parliament had been eroded to just 25 out of 51 seats at the time of the 1963 General Elections – less than half. 

22. The PAP’s position did improve after the 1963 GE. 

23. But it was still in a fierce contest with the Barisan Sosialis.

24. Yet it chose to follow the more difficult, more idealistic course. At a time, when the PAP government needed the support of the majority Chinese population. 

25. Mr Lee and his colleagues chose the path that would in most contexts be seen as politically foolhardy. 

26. I would ask Members to take a moment to reflect, think about this.

27. You will realise how extraordinary their actions were.

28. How this cuts against all political realities and standard norms. 

29. And for 60 years, we have strived to achieve the ideals in our Pledge. 

The Multi-Racial Ideal is Still a Work-In-Progress 

30. But achieving the ideals is still a work-in-progress. We haven’t fully achieved them. Minorities in particular will tell you about lived realities on the ground. That they sometimes face racism at different levels. That they sometimes feel discriminated against. Beyond what each of us hears, surveys show how minorities feel. Some Chinese will also tell you of their experiences, though the instances are much fewer. 

31. The key point however is, we set out these principles as our ideals. And we swam strongly against the tide – the tide of ethnic identity as the organising principle of society. Instead, our foundational principles were – a secular state, meritocracy, multi-racialism, equal opportunities for all, and the rule of law. 

32. A secular state, with a neutral language, English, as the language of administration and instruction. The language of government, business and education.

33. Mr Lee explained this in this House in the year 2004: if Chinese had been made the working language in 1965, 

The Two Key Policies Which Underpin Singapore's Approach

First Key Policy: Strong Legal Framework to Protect Communal Harmony

36. First, it was decided that a strong legal framework was necessary to preserve our communal harmony, and minimise racial and religious conflict.

 

Maintenance of Religious Harmony Act; Maintenance of Racial Harmony Act 

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

38. Laws were also passed to set out what conduct, what speech would not be allowed,  relating to race, religion.

39. And over time we have been strengthening, modernising these laws.

 

40. We have, for example, the Maintenance of Racial Harmony Act, and the Maintenance of Religious Harmony Act. These laws set out the ways in which we can deal with threats to racial and religious harmony. These laws take their inspiration from earlier legislation. 

41. They are only two amongst a whole framework of laws, which seek to preserve our racial and religious space; and deal firmly with attacks on race, religion.

42. For example, we disallow hate speech, and offensive speech, against races, religions. 

43. Sir, these points have been addressed many times. 

44. However, some members may not be aware of them. 

45. For their benefit, I have set out a background summary on some of these points. Mr Speaker Sir, with your permission, may I ask the Clerks to distribute Annex B. 

Safe Spaces for Discussions, Debates on Race, Language and Religion 

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

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

48. But while laws can deter and penalise actions that seek to divide our society, laws alone cannot make society harmonious. They can’t force people to understand, respect and like each other across races, religions, and across divides. 

49. That’s where the second key policy framework comes in. 

50. This second key policy is that the Government should actively promote actions, platforms to encourage intermixing and understanding between our different communities. These are too numerous for me to cite. I have listed some of the key examples in Annex B.

51. Members will see that there is a fair degree of Activist Government Policy.

52. In the past, critics have mocked this as “social engineering”, and a violation of free choice. But today, many look at our high level of social cohesion and ask “what is your secret sauce”?

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

54. We have in Singapore an exceptionally high level of racial and religious harmony.

55. Mr Speaker Sir, with your permission, may I ask the Clerks to distribute Annex C, which contains a fuller list of indicators on this. In the 2023 Gallup World Poll, 92% of Singaporeans said that Singapore was a good place for racial and ethnic minorities. We ranked 1st out of 135 countries. In the 2024 IPS Survey on Race, Religion, and Language, 65% of Singaporeans rated racial and religious harmony as High or Very High. More than 90% felt that there was sufficient involvement, or that there should be more Government involvement to ensure racial and religious harmony. Over the past 5 years, there have been 178 police reports filed relating to race and religion. This works out to only about 3 cases per 100,000 people per annum.

56. Sir, I am not suggesting that race and religious harmony is perfect in Singapore. As I said earlier, it is a work-in-progress. Members of different communities do experience racism, and face other issues. The deep-seated human instinct; the tribal emotions which come from the gut - these cannot be wished away. As Prime Minister himself has acknowledged, it is more difficult to be a member of a minority community in Singapore, than being a member of the majority community. I should say minority communities. But as a system, we have sought to contain and overcome the natural human impulses by overlaying them with a broader sense of national identity. A community of shared values, experiences and vocabulary. 

57. And in the words in our Pledge: “Regardless of Race, Language, or Religion”. Our approach towards racial and religious issues is not to forsake our respective races, languages or religions, and force a singular identity. But to forge common ground and find strength in diversity. 

58. And our people generally accept these principles.

59. Singapore is in a good position today. 

60. Not perfect. But I dare say better than most other places. Many of these places started out better and stronger than us. But many of them have been going the wrong way.

61. Sir, this deals with the first part: the background to our approach to race and religion. 

62. Now let me move on to my second point: some recent incidents where race and religion have been brought into politics. 

Some Recent Incidents Where Race + Religion Have Been Brought Into Politics

63. The good position we have in Singapore can remain so, only if Singaporeans work at keeping it that way. 

64. Politicians, in particular, play an important role in setting the right tone for our society: not deepening divisions, not misleading the different communities; but by encouraging constructive discussions; by finding solutions to problems and issues faced by the different ethnic communities – not by exacerbating them, and not by sharpening differences. 

65. It is possible for politicians to say that they subscribe to our multi-racial and multi-religious values, but still use veiled rhetoric to work up racial and religious sentiment.

66. Sir, if you look at our short history, over 60 years, there have been several attempts to inflame racial and religious sentiments for political gain. 

67. Mr Speaker Sir, with your permission, may I ask the Clerks to distribute Annex D, where I have set out some examples of such attempts, which happened in previous GEs. 

68. In these cases, the Government highlighted the dangers of identity politics. But politicising race and religion remains seductive. It is an easy way to sway the emotions of voters for short-term political gain.

69. But once a division has been sown, it is hard to contain, and impossible to reverse. 

70. When one group asserts its identity aggressively, other groups in society will push back just as aggressively. And if this happens in a small, diverse city-state like Singapore, we will be irretrievably damaged. 

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

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

73. Singapore has come a long way in building a harmonious, multi-racial and multi-religious society. 

74. We may look stable now. But we are no more stable than other countries which I have cited were, before their communal relations became worse. 

75. With this background, let me turn to a few troubling incidents during the recent GE.

GE 2025  

Noor Deros

76. During the last GE, one Noor Deros came to prominence.

77. He is a self-styled preacher, based in Malaysia.  

78. He had been denied accreditation as an Ustaz here in Singapore because he refused to comply with the Code of Ethics. The Code of Ethics under Singapore’s Asatizah Recognition Scheme (ARS). He refused, despite being counselled by the Asatizah Recognition Board.

79. On 19 April this year, two weeks before the GE, Deros issued a public statement. 

80. He said that he would campaign for any political party which could meet his list of demands. These demands included one, adopting Islamic economics by changing the financial system to a non-interest-based model; another demand was that policies aimed at preserving the existing racial proportions should be ended.

81. Some of his demands were absurd; I would say very damaging. For example, his demand that we change our financial system to be more Islamic. The financial industry contributes 14% of our GDP. It employs nearly 200,000 people. It is vital to our economy. This man, who is based in Malaysia, wants to stop all of that. It is madness.  

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

83. On 24 April, Deros made further public statements. He reiterated his call for Tampines voters to vote for Mr Faisal Manap. He also said that he had spoken to all of the WP’s Malay candidates.  

  

84. Deros was saying that he would rally votes for any political party that agreed with his demands – demands which were along racial, religious lines. And he was comparing two Malay Muslim candidates and saying vote for Mr Faisal Manap because he had been a more vocal champion on race and religion for Malay Muslims. 

85. That was the main troubling issue. Not whether some of his demands were absurd, or whether one agrees or disagrees with his demands, or whether one agrees or disagrees with his assessment of candidates. 

86. Asking Singaporeans to vote for political parties and candidates along racial, religious lines is a reckless thing to do. It also sets a dangerous precedent. If we allow this, other racial and religious groups will have similar demands. And we have to allow them to make similar calls too. The natural result in a democracy will be that the largest and the best organised religions and races will get their way. They will have the strongest lobbying power and the most number of votes, and political parties will have to listen to them. The other natural result is that followers of different races and religions will clash. Followers of different faiths can hold beliefs that are essentially incompatible with one another. If the different groups press their religious ideals hard, instead of compromising with one another, and if the Government prioritises the views of one faith over another, conflict is inevitable.

87. If we go down this path of canvassing based on identity politics, the result will be that most parties will appeal to the Chinese vote. And the minorities will feel the squeeze and will be marginalised. 

88. When you try and get the Malay Muslim vote in this way, and if the Malay Muslim community responds, the other communities, in particular the Chinese, will quickly notice, and very likely start to view the Malay Muslim Community with suspicion, along communal lines. This is what happens in many countries and our sense is that something like that may have started to happen in Tampines. Many Chinese voters in Tampines seem to have observed the communal nature of the appeals to the Malay voters. And they seem to have chosen to take a different direction, during this GE. But this sort of racial dynamics in politics is very bad for Singapore.

89. The same can happen with religions: Christianity, Buddhism and Taoism. These will emerge as the dominant religions influencing politics that will cause deep resentment and anxiety amongst Muslims, Hindus, and other groups. 

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

91. Bigger countries may possibly survive with these sorts of divisions. Singapore: we will certainly be divided, damaged, and ruined. 

92. Just consider one example from our history, which few in this House will remember. In the 1963 GE, after we became a constituent state in Malaysia, the PAP won all three Malay-majority seats in Singapore at that time – Geylang Serai, Kampong Kembangan and Southern Islands. The PAP’s Malay candidates beat Singapore Umno Malay candidates in these constituencies. The Umno leaders in Kuala Lumpur were furious. They weren’t going to allow a non-communal party like the PAP to make inroads into what they considered to be their special preserve. So they launched a vicious anti-PAP and anti-Lee Kuan Yew campaign. Malay Singaporeans who voted for the PAP were called traitors. The leading Malay leader in the PAP then, Encik Othman Wok, was called a “kafir”. Chinese-Malay relations spiralled down. And within 10 months, we got the riots of July 1964. That’s all it took – 10 months – to unravel everything. 

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

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

95. On 26 April, the Prime Minister held a press conference. He called on Singaporeans to reject efforts to bring race and religion into politics. He asked all political parties to take a clear stand on two principles: (1) That identity politics has no place in Singapore; (2) That we should never mix religion and politics.

96. In this GE, the Worker’s Party released its own statement on 26 April, the day after ELD and MHA had issued their statement. The WP Statement stated that no promises, commitments or agreements were made to Deros in exchange for political support. 

97. In the circumstances, given the fundamentals of our multi-racial, multi-religious approach and the ideals set out in our Pledge, more needed to be said by the WP. And it needed to be said immediately after Deros had made his posts.  

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

99. This delay, on such an important matter, begs many questions. It can confuse the ground. For example, sections of voters might be misled into thinking, on those 2 days, that the WP was possibly considering Deros’ demands. Deros was saying all these things, and the WP was silent. MHA-ELD had to step in and say this was unacceptable. After that, the WP issued its statement. 

100. Second, the WP’s statement was ambiguous. 

101. It said that no commitments, promises had been given, and no agreements were reached. And that the WP was committed to the principle that religion and politics should be kept separate. The statement did not categorically reject Deros’ call on Muslims in Singapore to vote along racial, religious lines. Nor did it reject Deros’ support for its anchor in Tampines, Mr Faisal Manap. 

102. If we accept that identity politics has no place in Singapore, then a clearer and more immediate response was called for. For example, something along these lines would have been much clearer: That Deros set out various demands, based on his religious beliefs. He said that he would ask Muslims to vote for candidates who accepted his demands. He asked Muslims to vote for WP candidates if the WP agreed to his demands. He also said that he endorses Mr Faisal Manap in Tampines, because Mr Faisal is a more vocal champion of Malay Muslim issues. The WP rejects his attempts to influence the Malay Muslim Community, based on religion and race, just as we reject his endorsement of Mr Faisal Manap, based also on religion and race. That is completely unacceptable.  We rejected it when he told us. And we reject it now. 

103. This is what needed to be said. It is one way of putting it. Any other form of words, conveying the same points, could also have been used.

104. But it should have been squarely stated. Immediately after Deros issued his statement on 23 April, without letting the matter drag.

105. Mr Singh did follow up on 26 and 27 April at media interviews, to say that Deros’ endorsement doesn’t mean the WP will carry forward his policies. 

106. But we hope that in future if such incidents occur, there will be a more immediate, forthright, and unequivocal response, given by political parties. 

107. Establishing this common understanding on how such issues must be dealt with in future is one of the key reasons for this Ministerial Statement. 

Contest in Tampines  

108. Let me now turn to the contest in Tampines GRC in the last GE.

109. As I said earlier, the WP fielded Mr Faisal Manap in Tampines, to contest against the PAP team led by Minister Masagos.

110. That the Malay Muslim vote in particular was being targeted was obvious, not just to Singaporeans, but pertinently, also obvious to Malaysian observers. 

111. Malaysian politicians from PAS jumped in. They saw an opening and urged Singaporeans to vote along racial and religious lines. PAS National Treasurer Iskandar Abdul Samad expressed support for the WP’s Mr Faisal Manap. PAS Selangor Youth Chief Mohamed Sukri Omar reposted a social media post stating that PAP’s Malay-Muslim MPs cannot be trusted. More than 60 years ago, Malaysian politicians said the same things about PAP Malay-Muslim leaders. 

112. PAS is an Islamist party. Its goal is to Islamise society in Malaysia. It has persistently pushed for the adoption of Shariah law and penalties. Does anyone, whether in here or outside, seriously believe that PAS is supporting the WP’s Malay Muslim candidates in Singapore because PAS cares for Singaporeans? Does anyone believe that PAS has Singaporeans’ best interests at heart? Does anyone believe that PAS subscribes to Singapore’s multi-racial, multi-religious model? Statements by PAS leaders have clearly shown otherwise. In 2024, for example, the PAS President said that Mr Lee Kuan Yew’s strategy of fielding candidates from diverse ethnic backgrounds had led to Malay political influence diminishing in Singapore. 

113. This is why all of this reminded some of us, of the first 10 months when Singapore was part of Malaysia. I mentioned this earlier. 

114. In those ten months, between September 1963 and June 1964, the Ultras managed to work up sentiments to such an extent that race riots broke out in Singapore. In Dr Goh Keng Swee’s words following the 1964 riots, he feared that Humpty Dumpty had fallen off the wall, and could never be put back again. Fortunately, it was only our union with Malaysia which could not be put back together, not our multiracial country, Singapore. But don’t forget, it took us decades to repair the damage, decades for the scars to heal.

115. This history is seared into some of us, and it is also seared into some Malaysians, but for very different reasons. So we knew the Government had to call it out, when PAS leaders openly supported a political party in Singapore, on racial and religious grounds and in the middle of a GE. And when the political party in question hadn’t responded. 

116. Thus, the MHA-ELD’s statement I referred to earlier was issued – - it spoke about foreigners attempting to influence the election. Access to the posts by the PAS politicians was disabled.

117. PM also spoke about this, in his Press Conference on 26 April. Foreigners targeting Singaporeans, asking them to vote on racial and religious lines, that crosses a red line. PM called on all political parties to, one, make their stand clear on foreign influence; and two, clearly and categorically reject foreign endorsements of their candidates. 

118. The PAS politicians were championing one set of Malay Muslim candidates over another set of Malay Muslim candidates. Unfortunately, the truth is that such attempts will have some impact. And therefore it is incumbent on all political parties to decisively reject any attempts by foreigners to influence our election – especially on the grounds of race and religion. 

119. The WP issued a statement on 26 April. I had also referred to this earlier, in the context of Deros.

120. There are two concerns with the WP’s statement. First, on the timing, and second, on the substance.

121. On timing, Foreign Influence is a serious matter. It is even more serious, in the middle of a campaign. So given the gravity of the matter, it would have been better if the WP had issued its statement immediately, without waiting until after MHA-ELD had issued their statement. 

122. On the substance, the WP statement did not clearly reject foreign influence, or the foreign endorsement of its candidates. What it said was that the WP had no control over what others said. After the WP statement was issued, Mr Singh made further statements on 26 April. At a doorstop interview, he said that he stood behind the message in MHA-ELD’s statement . That is made the WP’s position clearer. Then finally at a Rally Speech later that evening, which took place after PM’s press conference, Mr Singh went further and gave the WP’s clearest statement on the matter. He said that he categorically rejected the involvement of any foreign elements whatsoever in Singapore’s domestic politics; and two, that the WP does not need the support of any foreign element. It would have been better if the WP had said this right from the start – responding directly and promptly to what the PAS leaders had said. The WP did so after PM had called on all parties to make their position on foreign influence clear; and clearly and categorically reject foreign endorsements of their candidates. 

123. We hope that, in future, political parties will immediately reject any such attempt to interfere in our political process. If this is not done immediately, clearly, and unequivocally, it will give rise to questions, confusion. We therefore hope, that in future, political parties will immediately reject, and especially, when such interference is made on the basis of race and religion. 

Damanhuri    

124. I will now move on to another incident during the GE. 

125. Mr Damanhuri Abas was an SDP candidate. He had made attempts to get support along racial lines. At an SDP event, Mr Damanhuri accused the PAP Malay MPs of failing to represent the Malay community and ignoring their issues. He claimed that more opposition Malay MPs were needed, to raise Malay issues in Parliament.

126. In an interview posted on social media, Mr Damanhuri stated that Malay community issues had not been resolved for 60 years under the PAP Government. 

127. He called for the Malay voters to vote against the PAP, framing it as an issue of upholding Malay dignity. 

128. ‘Dignity’ is a euphemism. What Mr Damanhuri means is more Malay “rights”. More advocating for “Malay” issues, more Malay separateness. 

129. In a separate podcast, he said meritocracy is selectively applied. He rehashed these arguments again in rally speeches, this time in Malay.

130. Mr Damanhuri’s rhetoric is deceptive. 

131. What he is effectively doing is trading off the long-term welfare of the Malay community, and our country, for his immediate political gain.

132. This is a slippery and dangerous path that will invite a strong reaction from other races in future elections.

133. So far, the situation has been broadly stable because the Government has anchored our country on our ideal of multi-racialism. The governing party itself has eschewed identity politics, fought against attempts to rile up the different ethnic communities. It has set out the fundamental ideals on how our Society should be structured. And it has managed to convince most Singaporeans to accept those ideals.

134. Meanwhile, from time to time, various parties, candidates have tried to stir up the Chinese and Malay communities. 

135. Because of the PAP Government’s political dominance, these efforts have not been successful. The PAP has been the dominant political force. So, it has been able to bear the political cost of fighting against such sentiments. Making this statement, this statement here today – it would actually have been easier to leave all of these unsaid. But, this statement has to be made in the country’s interests. 

136. The situation is a dynamic one. It is not permanent. If future generations of political leaders on all sides see such identity politics as gaining traction, then they will be pressured, and tempted, to themselves engage in it too. 

137. You know what will happen then. It is a one-way street to ruin. 

138. So, people like Mr Damanhuri should be more honest with their constituents. Their brand of politics will only work as long as the dominant political force, whether it is the PAP or another party in Singapore, rejects identity politics.

139. But if people like Mr Damanhuri succeed, then the serious risk is that more and more politicians on all sides, will go for identity politics. 

       

140. And then, Singapore will suffer. We will experience the same conflicts and divisions we see unfolding elsewhere in the world. 

141. So, the dangers of politicising race and religion are clear. But that is not to say that race and religion on the one hand, and politics on the other hand, are incompatible. All religions provide guidance on important aspects of life. So inevitably, there will be areas where faith and public issues overlap. 

142. The Government recognises this complexity, and how our identity is interwoven out of our faith, our ethnicity, our language, and our culture. In a multi-cultural society, a pragmatic approach of give-and-take is necessary. People are free to practise their faiths and express their views on politics and political issues, influenced by their private religious convictions. But we need to be mindful. This must be done in a manner that is respectful to other religions. The public, political debate must be conducted and decided on a secular basis and there must be give and take on all sides. All political parties need to be absolutely clear. Religion must not be misused for political purposes. It must never be brought into election campaigns. Without this shared restraint, destructive competition for power and influence between the different groups can only follow. The same logic applies to race.

143. Our society is structured such that every community gives up something, for the common good. And every community has progressed, as the nation has progressed. If any community pushes for its interests without consideration for the other communities, then a pushback can be expected. We need to think of our Singaporean identity as fundamental, and we each have to give up something to strengthen the shared Singaporean identity.  

144. And so, when there are threats to our social cohesion, or attempts to bring race and religion into partisan and electoral politics, this Government must and will act consistent with the principles it has upheld over the last 60 years. Statements like those from Deros and Mr Damanhuri in the last GE cannot go unaddressed. We highlighted and strongly criticised some of these instances of racial and religious politics during the GE. But we decided not to take immediate action against those who were transgressing. But we cannot allow such actions to take root, because they corrode our democracy, and tear our social fabric.

145. That deals with my second point on recent troubling incidents which sought to bring race, religion into politics.

 

146. Sir, my third and final point was on why bringing in race and religion into politics, will bring bad outcomes for Singapore.

 

147. Sir, I am not going to go into detail on that. Through the course of this speech, I have explained why that will be bad for Singapore and Singaporeans. It is obvious. If we do not take a firm stand, some foreign countries, including those not in our immediate neighbourhood, who must have been watching our GE very carefully, will be tempted to play on ethnic sympathies to influence our politics. And all our major communities are capable of being influenced from external sources.

148. Sir, in conclusion, our approach to race, language and religion has been largely successful. Our brand of multiracialism is not only the bridge that brings Singaporeans of all races and religions together. But it is the crux of our being an independent nation and our continuance as a successful country.

149. Now that the elections are over, and emotions no longer run as high, I make this Ministerial Statement to remind ourselves as Singaporeans about the framework and fundamentals that have allowed Singapore to succeed.

150. It is not the first time this House is discussing this issue, but events during the recent GE warrant this being raised again. It is too serious a matter – existential for Singapore – for us to simply let it slide. And so, I decided to make this statement at the earliest opportunity after the opening of Parliament.

151. The main purpose of this Ministerial Statement is to set out: one, our fundamentals on which I hope there will be agreement. Two, a clearer understanding on how we hope politicians and political parties will conduct themselves in future should these issues arise again. We must learn from what has happened.

152. As Parliamentarians, we may debate and disagree on many things, but I hope that we can all commit to handle issues of race and religion in a responsible and sensible manner, and to uphold the integrity of Singapore’s secular politics.

153. Sir, from time to time, we will have candidates professing that they or their party better represents and serves a specific racial, religious or some other identified group. That is entirely understandable, as long as it doesn’t get into identity politics. And we need to exercise caution that one doesn’t get into another; we need to exercise caution in how these points are made. In the recent GE, Deros, Damanhuri, have gone too far. Other instances will be less clear. We need to handle them with care, and good sense. Most important, we need deep commitment to our ideals. My statement builds on a series of recent Government statements and speeches. During the election, MHA and ELD issued a strong statement warning against bringing race and religion into politics. The PM also stressed that we are all Singaporeans first, regardless of our backgrounds. In the recent President’s Address, the President reminded us that we can never take our unity for granted and must guard it zealously. During the recent Debate on the President’s Address, the PM again urged all political parties to conduct politics with seriousness, with integrity and a deep sense of responsibility. So why do we keep repeating these points over and over again? It is because these fundamental principles are central to the very existence of Singapore. We decided that we should state our position formally, robustly and unequivocally. At the highest forum in our country – the Parliament. 

154. The peace and harmony in our society has been the foundation for the progress we have achieved. 

155. Since independence, Singapore has been transformed - the physical environment, the economic opportunities, the jobs available, and the standard of living. Our people’s lives have improved, regardless of their race, language or religion. All communities have benefitted – including the minorities. They have done well, not only compared to where they started out, but also compared to other communities in our region. Our multi-racial model has worked, and we must not heedlessly and irresponsibly put it at risk. 

156. Generations of Singaporeans have carried the torch onward. There is much more to be done to achieve the ideals of our pledge. But it is clear, looking around the world, that we can only achieve that if we steer clear of identity politics. 

157. Finally Sir, may I recall something from our history that few here will remember. 

158. On the very day Mr Lee Kuan Yew pledged this will not be a Malay nation, Chinese nation, Indian nation, and that all will be equal, then-Malaysian Prime Minister Tunku Abdul Rahman said that he had asked the Johor State government to set aside 10 acres of land for any Malay in Singapore who wished to leave the newly independent country.

159. You might think it might have appeared an attractive option to some of our pioneer generation of Malays – get some land, and remain a member of the majority in Tanah Melayu.

160. But not a single pioneer generation Malay took up the offer. They chose to stay in Tanah Singapura instead and build a home here.

161. We owe them so much. If they had left, we wouldn’t have remained a multi-racial country as we are now. Also, if the Chinese majority had at that point refused to listen to Mr Lee, then we wouldn’t be the multi-racial country that we are today. 

162. So, let us remain faithful to the hopes and dreams and aspirations of our pioneers.