MAINTENANCE OF RELIGIOUS HARMONY BILL

Order for Second Reading read. 1.10 pm

The Minister for Home Affairs (Prof. S. Jayakumar): Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time."

Sir, the rationale for this Bill has in fact been set out in quite a comprehensive manner in the White Paper entitled "Maintenance of Religious Harmony" which was presented to Parliament dated 26th December 1989. What I propose to do this afternoon is to highlight and reiterate some of the more important points in the White Paper as well as to draw attention to the main scheme in the Bill.

Perhaps I should start off by reminding ourselves what kind of a society are we, what kind of a nation Singapore is. We are a young nation, small country, densely populated and we are not a homogenous society, because we are made up of different races, languages and religions. As far as religions are concerned, we have in Singapore all the great religions in the world represented - Buddhism, Taoism, Islam, Hindu, Sikhism and many denominations of Christianity. No single religion can be said to be the dominant religions, nor is any religion an official religion of the State because Singapore is strictly secular.

We have been fortunate that over the years we have had religious freedom and religious harmony. Is religious freedom and religious harmony just a desirable ideal, a lofty principle to be enshrined in the Constitution? The answer is no. For us, it is vital for our survival as a nation. It is essential for our stability and law and order. But can we be sure that the religious harmony and tolerance that we have had over the years can be preserved? Why does this question arise? It arises if we observe what is happening around the world and if we take note of what is happening in Singapore. First, let us look at the international context. What is happening elsewhere? If we just take the news over a period of two or three months - we do not have to go back much further - it is a sad tale because the news is full of examples of many countries which are experiencing violence, strife, disorder, because of inter-religious tensions and conflicts. In India, Muslims against Hindus, Kashmir and other cities. Elsewhere in India, Hindus against Sikhs. Sri Lanka was once held up as a model of peaceful coexistence of different religions. Now a holy war is taking place there. Fiji, always regarded as a tranquil, idyllic Pacific nation, no one would have imagined any such problems arising there. What happens? Suddenly, Sikh temples, Muslim mosques, fire bombed. Lebanon, we are all familiar with the perennial problems there, not just between different religious groups but within one religion there are different rival groups. Northern Ireland, Protestants and Catholics. Philippines, Muslims and Christians. And Muslims against Muslims in the Iran/Iraq war. The list is endless, Sir, with Armenia, Azerbaijan and so on.

Compared to Singapore, these countries are older societies, larger countries and more well-established nations. Yet they have inter-religious strife. They are torn apart by the conflicts. How about us? Singapore, in our tiny corner of the world, what is so special about us that we can assume that we will always be an exception.

Let us consider the local context and there are two factors. First, the heightened religious fervour amongst all religious groups. This heightened fervour and increased competition has made the search for new followers more intense, but this is part of the worldwide trends. We cannot be isolated. But this trend increases the possibility of friction and misunderstanding among different religious groups. Why? Because religion is a deeply felt matter. When religious sensitivities are offended, emotions are quickly aroused and it takes only a few incidents to inflame passions and kindle violence. The second factor, Sir, is that while the majority of religious leaders and the majority of followers of religious groups are conscious of the need to be tolerant, the need to be sensitive in our multi-religious and multi-racial society, there are some persons whose conduct can cause considerable tensions and problems for us. These are listed in the Annexe to the White Paper. For example, you have a Muslim priest denouncing Christianity as the most foolish religion. Surely that is going to upset Christians. Then you have Christian groups pasting posters announcing a forthcoming seminar outside a Hindu temple. Is that wise? Then Protestant pamphlets denigrating the Roman Catholic church and the Pope. Surely they would take great offence and umbrage. So considering what is happening in other parts of the world, taking note of what is happening here, it is obvious that religious harmony is a fragile matter. It needs careful nurturing and it will be a folly to assume that it will always be there. Therefore, conscious efforts are needed by religious groups, religious leaders and their followers to ensure that nothing jeopardizes it.

There are really two factors: (1) That followers of different religions must exercise moderation and tolerance, and not to instigate religious enmity or hatred. (2) It is important that religion and politics be kept separate. Let me take the first issue, which is that of religion and religion. As the White Paper highlights, the main problem here is that of insensitive, aggressive religious proselytisation. We all know, Sir, that the Constitution guarantees the freedom to propagate one's religion. The question is, how do we go about it? If we denigrate other faiths, there will be consequences. It is necessary to avoid insensitive and aggressive efforts. There is a need, of course, to point out, in the process of propagating religion, differences between one's religion and another's. But it is an entirely different matter to denounce other religions. For example, as is spelt out in the examples in the Annexe to the White Paper, should one say that another person's religion is a greater threat to mankind than communism? Would you expect the leaders of that religious group to take it calmly? Again another example. To say that the head of the Catholic church, the Pope, is the anti-Christ, will that not upset and provoke strong emotions amongst Catholics?

Next, Religion and Politics. Why we should be concerned, it is spelt out in the White Paper. Sir, we must bear in mind that religious leaders and leaders of religious groups, in the eyes of their followers, have a special status. They are regarded as being closer to God than anyone else. They may be specially anointed or ordained and their words have a tremendous emotional effect on their flock. If religious leaders enter politics, they must view matters from a religious perspective. There will be emotional appeals in the name of religion and their followers will believe them and their words as interpretations from a divine authority above.

Sir, when one religious group involves itself in this way in political issues, it must follow that other groups will do the same. And various groups will want to outdo each other. Then again, when that happens, what would the party in power, or for that matter all other political parties, do? Can they be expected to be quiet? Surely they will look for religious groups and their flocks to back them up. The end result surely is obvious. It is inevitable that there will be collision between the different religious groups and the Government leading to instability and conflict. It is extremely important therefore that priests and other religious leaders do not mix religion and politics and mount political campaigns.

The need for legislation. Coming to this Bill, one may ask, why legislate? In turn, I have to pose this question, Sir. Can we assume that everyone will act with prudence, moderation and sensitivity? Because if that is so, then I think we can conclude that there is no need to do anything and no need to legislate. But our problem is not with the majority of religious leaders and not with the majority of members of religious groups. It is a problem of a minority number of mischievous, irresponsible people. The compilation shows you enough examples to demonstrate that this is not a theoretical or hypothetical solution. But though they may be few, they can cause great harm not to just one religious group but to the very fabric of our society. To contemplate passing laws after the harm has been done will be too late because tensions would have arisen, violence might have erupted, people might be killed, deep feelings of resentment and considerable intense wounded feelings would divide our society for a long time.

Sir, we must have some mechanism to curb such elements. It is far better to put in such laws and mechanisms now when relations between religious groups are good than later. And what kind of legislation? What we need is a device that will enable prompt and effective pre-emptive or preventive action to be taken which can quickly defuse a potentially explosive situation. It must be prompt and effective.

Let me now turn to the provisions of the Bill, Sir. I do not intend to go clause by clause. Instead I wish to draw attention to the main scheme of the legislation and the Bill really has the five following features. First, it establishes a Presidential Council for Religious Harmony. Second, it sets out the conduct or acts which we should regard as harmful. Third, it enables prohibition orders to be issued. Fourth, it describes the persons against whom such orders can be issued. And fifth, it sets out the procedure which must be followed when such prohibition orders are issued.

First, the Presidential Council. The idea of establishing such a formal body in the law was in fact proposed in the report published by the Ministry of Community Development. The Bill envisages that the composition of the Presidential Council should be a Chairman and a maximum of 15 other members to be drawn from the representatives of the major religions in Singapore, but there would also be persons who can be appointed who have distinguished themselves in public service or community relations. In other words, the Council will have religious leaders plus lay leaders. Why lay leaders? As explained, it is to complement the perspectives of the religious leaders and also to represent the many Singaporeans who do not belong to any organised religious group. There will be a special function as well as a general function. The general function is to consider and give their views on matters generally affecting religious harmony in Singapore which may be referred to it by the Government. The special function it has is with regard to the proposed prohibition orders for any particular individual.

The Bill sets out what is a conduct which it should be concerned with. This is spelt out in clause 8. I will not repeat them verbatim but basically there are four categories. One, where a person causes feelings of enmity or hatred between different religious groups. Second, under the guise of religion or propagating religious activity, one carries out political activities for promoting a political cause or a cause of any political party. Third, carrying out subversive activities under the guise of propagation of religion. Fourth, exciting disaffection against the President or the Government of Singapore. I might explain here, Sir, that this term "exciting disaffection" in law is a well-known concept which is found in more than one precedent in Singapore, such as the Sedition Act. It is also to be found in Article 149 of the Constitution and it has many precedents in other Commonwealth countries. Basically, it connotes action taken by anyone to instigate and to provoke the feelings of disloyalty or hatred against an established government.

The third feature of the Bill is the concept of prohibition orders. In other words, what should be done when a person engages in such harmful conduct? Should we detain him immediately under the Internal Security Act? Or should we immediately prosecute him under one or other of the existing laws which could conceivably apply, which must result in a court conviction if he is found guilty, and therefore a sentence of a fine or imprisonment? If the conduct is so serious and so dangerous, perhaps that extreme measure may be necessary. It could be necessary and justified. But in many cases, we think a less severe remedy would suffice. Because what is necessary is prompt action to stop him from repeating that act, conduct or speech. Because if he does so again, then it will only exacerbate matters. There will be further counter-attacks and retaliatory measures, and the situation will get out of hand. Hence, the Bill has this concept of a prohibition order. In other words, it puts him on notice that he should not repeat that act or conduct. And only when he repeats and violates the specific terms of the prohibition order can he be prosecuted in a court of law, in which case the Court will decide whether he is guilty or not guilty of a breach of the prohibition order. In other words, Sir, what has been crafted into this Bill is in fact a more limited measure than either resorting to the Internal Security Act or prosecution in a court of law. We think this will meet the problem.

Against whom can such prohibition orders be issued? This is spelt out in clause 8. Obviously, it must apply to any religious leader of any religious organisation. But it is also possible that a non-member of that religious group, a person outside the religious group, could try to cause similar mischief by instigation or manipulation. Therefore, the Bill provides in clause 9 that such persons can also be the subject of a prohibition order.

Next, the Bill provides procedures to be followed. Before making a prohibition order, the Minister must, first of all, serve notice of his intention and he must serve this notice of his intention to the individual concerned as well as to the head of his religious organisation. Both the individual and the head of the religious organisation are to be afforded the opportunity to give their views and representations. For example, the individual can explain or argue why the order should not be made. At the same time, the Minister must also send the proposed notice and notify the Presidential Council for Religious Harmony, which also can give its views. A two weeks' deadline is provided. After receiving the views, the Minister has to have regard to them before he makes a decision whether to make the order or not. After an order is made, the Minister has still to send the order to the Presidential Council for Religious Harmony, together with all the representations the Minister has received from the individual heads of the organisations. Although the order has been made, the Council can recommend whether it should be modified, completely rescinded or revoked, and the Minister is to have regard to their views.

Sir, the intention is, that the Government seek views and advice from a body, the Presidential Council, which will have considerable moral authority. Because it will not only have representatives of the religious groups from which the individual has come from, but it will be composed of other representatives of other religious groups.

If I may sum up, Sir, I can repeat what I said at the outset. We really have a choice of whether to do something, enact this law or not to enact this law. So the question is: should we do something now or let things be? That is indeed a course of action that is open to us. But of course, Sir, there is a risk and a heavy price to be paid, and many countries are now paying the price. Or is it better to take note of the danger signs and put in place now legislative controls and measures which can enable us to nip problems in the bud whenever individuals engage in such irresponsible, senseless acts that endanger our religious harmony?

The Government recommends that we do not take the risk, and that is the approach in the White Paper and in the Bill, because far too much is at stake. Religious harmony is fundamental not just for one or more religious groups. It is vital not just for members of religious groups. It is vital for all Singaporeans because if there is religious strife, all of us are going to be affected.

Finally, Sir, I would like to say that this legislation has not been hastily rushed through. We have been deliberating on the matter for more than 2(r) years. In fact, the first draft of the Bill was prepared in June 1987. This is a delicate and sensitive matter. During this period, we have consulted MPs of different faiths, both in the previous Parliament and in this Parliament. We have consulted religious leaders of different religious groups as well as grassroots leaders on the basis of earlier drafts of the White Paper. In all these discussions, we received many significant suggestions for improvement which we have accepted. What these changes are, some of them are reflected in the White Paper and consequentially in the Bill.

For Members' information, I might point out, for example, changes which are mentioned on page 20 of the White Paper. Originally, in the earlier draft of the White Paper, it was not the Presidential Council for Religious Harmony. It was a National Council of Religious Harmony. In one of the discussions, Archbishop Gregory Yong gave us his suggestion that it should have a higher status - that it should be a Presidential Council for Religious Harmony. We accepted that change and it is now reflected in the Bill.

The Mufti of Singapore, Syed Isa bin Mohd Semait, wanted clarification that the proposed legislation will be consistent with Articles in the Constitution, such as Articles 152, 153. The White Paper accord- ingly was suitably amended because there is no inconsistency.

Then, some others from the Methodist, Bethesda (Bedok-Tampines) Church, Dr Benjamin Chew, and Bethesda (Frankel Estate) Church, Prof Ernest Chew, and others recommended that the White Paper should also emphasise the importance of respecting common values and the right of each individual to accept or not to accept a religion. You will find that this has also been incorporated in the White Paper.

Others such as Dr Chan Ban Leong, Chairman of the Christian National Evangelism Commission Board, Mr Sat Pal Khattar, member of the Hindu Advisory Board, proposed that the notice of intended probibition order should be sent to the Council at the same time it is sent to the individual. The earlier draft of the White Paper, as it then stood, required the Presidential Council to be involved only after the order was made. Now we have changed it so that we have accepted the suggestion and it is referred to the Presidential Council. These are some examples of the changes which were made.

In conclusion, Sir, the Government has not closed its mind to further suggestions for improvements. Therefore, so that there can be further opportunity to receive views on the provisions of the Bill, I would like to say that the Government intends to submit this Bill, to a Select Committee.

Sir, I beg to move.

Question proposed.

Mr S. Chandra Das (Cheng San GRC): Mr Speaker, Sir, this is a very important piece of legislation which we are debating today. I am extremely glad that the Government has obtained and incorporated the views of religious and grassroots leaders before the White Paper, and subsequently this Bill, was introduced in Parliament. What I would like to do in the next few minutes is to inform this House of the many views and suggestions that the Feedback Unit has gathered from a different segment of the population, namely, the professionals and a few other concerned citizens who have written to us. In fact, Sir, I am happy to inform Members that the Minister himself was present at a dialogue session organised by the Unit last week to listen first hand to the views of a group of about 110 professionals. These professionals come from a wide range of professions and practise different religions and faiths.

Sir, most of the professionals agree with the objective and rationale behind this Bill. They all recognise that being a multi-religious society, where the world's great religions are present, it is vital that religious harmony must be maintained at all times. They do submit to the fact that excessive religious fervour or behaviour can lead to grave problems for the nation. Sir, no one quarrels with the need to preserve this fundamental principle in our society.

Mr Speaker, Sir, however, on scrutinising the detailed provisions of the Bill, the professionals have several areas of concerns and misgivings and these worry many of them. I will now attempt to highlight some of these concerns. Firstly, they hope that the introduction of this Bill will not lead to a restriction of the freedom of practice of religion which is guaranteed by the Constitution. People, except for the minority with extreme tendencies, should still be allowed to continue to practise and profess their faith as before and as guaranteed in the Constitution.

Sir, with regard to clauses 8 and 9 of the Bill which spell out the type of behaviour that would merit a prohibition order, many felt that the descriptions of behaviour are too broad and open to interpretation. While they hoped that the Minister will be completely objective in his decision, it may be difficult at times, no matter how objective the Minister is, to draw the line between what is acceptable behaviour and what is not. The framework or guidelines for deciding where the limit has been breached should be clearly spelt out in the legislation.

Similarly, Sir, many of the professionals felt that it is also difficult to draw the line between politics and religion. They were of the opinion that it may not always be possible for religious leaders not to take a position on political issues, especially on matters of conscience. An often cited example where this may happen is when the nation is under an evil regime, like the Philippines under Marcos or Uganda under Idi Amin. If such a regime were to gain power here, then by this legislation people will be prevented to speak out or act against the government. Hence, it was felt that some safeguards should be put in place to prevent any possible abuse.

Mr Speaker, Sir, another nagging concern expressed was that the powers given to the Minister may be a little too excessive. They thought that the role of the Minister and Presidential Council should be reversed. The Presidential Council, being composed of a group of people with good knowledge of various religions, would be in a better position to decide on such matters. It should therefore have the final say on when a prohibition order should be issued.

Sir, many felt strongly that the Presidential Council should also be given the authority to raise issues on its own and not act only when directed by the Government. This, they felt, would give the Presidential Council an even greater standing and credibility.

Sir, another common concern aired is the lack of recourse to judicial review or appeal against the Minister's decision. In view of the fact that there could be a fair amount of subjectivity in the decision to place a person under a prohibition order, they felt that there must be an avenue for the decision of the Minister to be reviewed.

Mr Speaker, Sir, a few felt that the objective behind the Bill is fair but are really uncomfortable with the timing of the introduction of this Bill. There are some misgivings about the intention, especially this Bill coming after the arrest of Vincent Cheng and the Marxist group.

Sir, besides legislation, many professionals also felt that in the long term and perhaps a more lasting solution to the issue of preserving religious harmony is really through education. A strong moral education programme in our schools emphasising our multi-religious character will go a long way to achieve religious harmony.

Finally, Sir, there were a few who felt strongly that there is no need for this Bill. The reason is that the number of religious incidents that have arisen in the past is rather small and that this Government has been able to handle them with existing legislation.

Sir, over the last few minutes I have tried to broadly list out some of the major concerns expressed regarding this Bill before us. I hope the Minister will give due consideration and respond to these various concerns and misgivings raised. I would specifically urge the Minister to address the nine concerns which I have raised.

Sir, with your permission, I would like to state my own views on this Bill. At the outset, let me say that I accept the Government's rationale for the introduction of this piece of legislation. I strongly believe that in our multi-religious society, it is vital that religious harmony be maintained to ensure our continued survival and prosperity. It is common knowledge that in the recent years there has been a definite increase in religious fervour, missionary zeal and assertiveness among the various religious groups in Singapore. Competition for followers and converts is becoming more intense. More and more Singaporeans are veering towards strongly held exclusive beliefs, rather than the relaxed, tolerant acceptance of and coexistence with other faiths. This trend, as the Minister stated earlier, is not peculiar to Singapore, but part of a world-wide religious revival. If nothing is done now in Singapore, then this trend could increase the possibility of friction and misunderstanding among our religious groups.

Sir, I also accept the fact that we cannot assume that religious harmony will persist indefinitely as a matter of course. A conscious effort is needed by all, especially religious leaders and groups to help maintain our present position. This legislation before us, I believe, will go a long way torwards achieving this goal.

Sir, I would like to comment on two specific issues. The first relates to the powers to be given to the Miniser, as many have complained that they are excessive and will lead to abuse. I am satisfied that the powers given to the Minister will not enable him to play God, but I believe that his role is that of a policeman, one of maintaining religious harmony.

My other point refers to the use of the term "prohibition order". This, in fact, has caused some confusion. It may be worth while for the Minister to consider changing it to "restraining order". The word "prohibition" throws up a number of unnecessary interpretations.

In conclusion, let me add that in addition to this legislation, I would strongly recommend to the Government to pay attention to two other areas, as far as religious harmony is concerned. First, which I mentioned earlier, is actually greater emphasis on maintenance of religious harmony when our new programme for moral education is introduced in the school system. This will really be the long-term solution.

Secondly, I also believe that there must be frank and frequent exchange of views between the political leadership and the religious leaders on various issues affecting us. This should be done quietly and calmly without media attention and sensitive issues can be nipped in the bud. This approach, I feel, will ensure and guarantee national stability and prosperity.

Sir, I welcome and support this Bill. 1.54 pm

The Senior Minister of State for Education (Dr Tay Eng Soon): Mr Speaker, Sir, thank you for allowing me to speak at this debate. I rise in support of the Bill.

Sir, when the concepts of this Bill and the need for the Bill were first discussed some two years ago, I was party to the discussion. I must say that at that time my initial reactions were one of caution and I had some reservations. The questions that went through my mind were: will legislation on a subject concerning religion lead to the curbing of religious freedom or freedom of worship? Secondly, is legislation itself necessary? This is the same concern that I have found expressed by many other people when I discussed the White Paper and the Bill with them.

Let me return to the basic issues of the Bill first. The Bill addresses two basic issues. The first is how can we continue to preserve harmony amongst the different religious groups in our country? Secondly, how can we prevent religious groups from getting embroiled in the political arena or political parties from exploiting religious sentiments in order to win support or to cause disaffection with the elected government?

The first question is on religious freedom. Religious freedom and harmony amongst religious groups are two inter-related matters. If there is friction and unrest, obviously freedom will be affected. For there to be genuine religious freedom, freedom to worship freely, there must be a degree of harmony in the society. This is true especially in a multi-religious society. We have in Article 15(1) of the Constitution the guarantee that every person in Singapore has the right to profess and practise his religion and to propagate it. To that extent, religious freedom is enshrined in our Constitution. But freedom is not unlimited. Freedom comes with responsibilities. Although it is enshrined in our Constitution that we have religious freedom, we must recognise that it comes with responsibilities. Therefore, preaching, for example, should not be in such a way as to denigrate other religions or people of other religions, nor should the propagation of a religion be carried out with force or with harassment of people of other faiths. It should, in fact, be gracious and sensitive to those who have already embraced other faiths.

When I examined the Bill, Sir, I found that the Bill is narrow and specific in its intent. First, to prevent actions which are calculated at disrupting harmony between religions and, secondly, to prevent politically motivated actions which are carried out under the guise of religion or in the name of a religion. If the Bill succeeds in doing these two things, it will help keep the peace. And far from curbing religious freedom, it will safeguard freedom. So I am satisfied that the provisions and intentions of the Bill are narrow and specific, that the Bill will prevent a person from saying things which are calculated to cause disaffection. But the Bill will not restrain him in any other way, ie, he will continue to be free to act in every other way, including to preach and practise his religion. So when people express fears about the prohibition order, they should understand that it is on specific matters that the person has said or acted upon. But in all other respects, he is a free person to continue to preach and practise his religion.

Sir, I do not agree with those people who say that keeping religion separate from politics is a Western idea. By implication, they are saying that it is all right for us in the East to mix the two. I find this unacceptable. Is this really so that we can mix religion and politics and get away with it? I would ask them to look at a few examples. Take India. Every time there is a run-up to a general elections, hundreds of Indians are killed in the process because politicians on every side try to make use of religion and religious sentiments to gain support for themselves. So in the excitement, there is religious tension, there are fights and there are deaths.

Sri Lanka has been mentioned by the Minister. It is important to reflect upon the fact that Mr Bandaranaike in the Freedom Party came to power because his Party played on the sentiments of Buddhist Singhalese and also on their language. The result of that was that the Tamil Hindus, the minorities, were forced into a corner and they became less and less favoured in many ways. Today we have a civil war in Sri Lanka, a war that has seen no end. Even in Malaysia, some political parties made use of Islamic fundamentalism and they tried to outdo each other. Why? Because they want to use religion to win political support. I do not believe that this leads to greater harmony and stability. Can we, a multi-religious, multi-racial country, afford to let religious pulls come to the fore to determine the shape of politics in Singapore?

Sir, up to now we have enjoyed peace and harmony. Our people are basically tolerant and pragmatic. Religion is not a factor in education, in getting jobs, in housing, in getting promotions, in winning scholarships, etc. Religion has never been a factor in these things. Only in marriage, Sir, is religion a factor. But it is a very personal and private matter and if people prefer to marry other people of the same religion and faith, who are we to question their choice? But, Sir, this situation is not so in many other countries where there is a dominant or an official state religion. This influences who gets what jobs, who gets university places. There is a distortion. There is a bias. This would be disastrous in a multi-racial, multi-religious society like ours. The reason why religion is not a factor and has not been allowed to become a divisive factor is that our Government has not allowed it to become one. We have achieved this by scrupulously keeping religion separate from the political arena and keeping it from being able to influence the politics of our country.

But, Sir, we cannot be complacent. There are pressures mounting in many places outside of our country. Many people are seeking more rights, special rights, and even so-called justice on the basis of their religion. Take, for example, in Azerbaijan and Armenia. There is a worldwide revolution taking place. Older forms of Government, for example, communism, or even dictatorship, are being swept aside by uprisings. In their place at the moment there is great jubilation, there is exhilaration, there is even euphoria. But we are yet to see new stable forms of government taking their place. When the lid has been removed, old issues along racial and religious lines which were suppressed are beginning to emerge and resurface. Sir, are we so special that we do not have racial and religious sentiments in our country that cannot be influenced by these powerful changes, nor be exploited by ambitious politicians or religious leaders for their purposes? Some evidence have been provided in the White Paper of incidents to convince me that we are not that special.

Historically, more conflicts in the world have taken place over racial and religious issues than over any other issues. Civil wars, riots, international conflicts. Sir, the mixture is extremely potent. Religion has to do with sacred beliefs and practices and these cannot be challenged by others, especially those outside the faith. Politics, on the other hand, has to do with dividing the cake ultimately - the division of incomes, who gets what, university places, fees, etc. Can you imagine what will happen when people seek "justice" or a "better deal" in the name of their religion? Or consider this other scenario. Supposing we have a situation where there are marginal seats in a coming election or, worse, a national situation where there is a marginal situation. Will politicians and political parties in that situation be tempted to seek the support of religious groups in order to win the elections? Or will religions, sensing an opportunity, move in to offer their support to one party or another? After the elections are over, who will have to do favours for whom if the support resulted in victory for one party? Will the religious suspicions and tensions which arose because of the hustings subside after the elections are over? Sir, is this an unlikely scenario? I submit that it is not an unlikely scenario when things are on the margin. Many other countries have gone down this road. If we go down this road we will go down the road to perdition. There will be permanent distrust and suspicion. There will be tension of a kind that cannot be persuaded to go away.

Sir, no good has ever come out of allowing religion and politics to come together in any form. Dominant groups in such a situation will exert their influence. Minority religious groups will suffer.

Sir, having seen the havoc in history as well as in other countries, I am convinced that we need a simple, narrow Bill as a minimum piece of legislation to maintain religious harmony and to prevent religion and politics from getting mixed up.

Sir, I would like to turn to the question: Is legislation necessary? There is one recurring point which keeps coming up when the White Paper is discussed in various circles. The point is, why do we need to add another piece of legislation? Is not existing legislation sufficient? In one sense there is merit in that point. But, Sir, interestingly, the Sedition Act, the Penal Code, even the Internal Security Act, are all silent on the issue of religion getting involved with politics. They have a lot to say about disturbing the peace, for example, denigrating other religions, ie, one group denigrating the other, or subverting the security of the State, which is the main concern of the ISA. But they say nothing about religions and political parties seeking alliances with one another, nor about religious groups seeking the support or criticising political parties or vice versa. If the new Bill can prevent this from happening, I believe it will be worth having.

Sir, I am not anti-religion. In fact, I take my own religious belief very seriously. But the purpose of religion is often misunderstood and, worse, misused by people with political ambitions. What is the purpose of all religions? In my view, it is to help the individual to become a better person, to give him meaning to life and to give him comfort and assurance in times of suffering and death. Religion cuts to the core of the problems of human nature - problems of selfishness, greed, hatred and in its place seeks to make man better. The end purpose is to make parents become better parents, sons and daughters become better sons and daughters, to make a boss a better boss, a worker a better worker and even a citizen a better citizen and a better member of his community.

Sir, this is the noble task of all religions. If they succeed, society will be a better place. In this sense, religion has a profound influence over society and even over the politics in that society. But it does so by changing the individual from within for the better and it does not do so by involving itself directly in politics. Perhaps religious leaders should from to time examine or re-examine the real purpose of their religion. Is it to influence political affairs or is it to seek to change individual lives towards the good?

I believe the unique role and purpose of all true religions is clear. It is to minister to the personal and spiritual needs of individuals and to make them morally upright. But, Sir, I make a distinction between individuals and their religious organisation getting involved in politics. Sir, I must make this point again as, judging from letters to the newspapers, some writers seem to confuse the two issues. In my view, there is no reason why a person with strong religious principles should not go into politics. He should. He has every right as a citizen and he has a contribution to make. We need such men, men who are morally upright and can serve the society. But he cannot and should not go into politics to represent his religion. His electorate is multi-religious. He cannot take sides in this matter and he must serve all of them. It is quite a different thing, Sir, on the other hand, for a religious organisation or its leaders in the name of their religion to make political pronouncements or even to go into the political arena. This is not their place. If they do so this will only result in competition and rivalry from other religious groups who will seek to do the same thing. This will be the beginning of tensions.

Sir, I have met many religious leaders since the publication of the White Paper and have sought to get their views and their feedback on the proposed legislation. Many concur with the basic need to preserve religious harmony although, as I have explained, some expressed the fear that it may lead to the loss of religious freedom. But I have taken great care to explain to them that it will not do so. But there is one fear that they have and that is the possibility of abuse of the power which is given into the hands of the Minister who has to administer this Act.

The Presidential Council for Religious Harmony which has been explained in detail by the Minister is meant to be an advisory committee. But I believe that its role as a watchdog committee can be strengthened. According to the proposed Bill, all correspondence between the Minister and the person who is being warned will be provided to the Council, so they will have sight of it. Furthermore, in clause 11 of the Bill, the Minister will give to the Council documents relating to the case. Sir, I believe that if the Council could have more access to information and be able to call for more background evidence relevant to the issuance of the prohibition order, this would have two salutary effects.

First, the Council will be able to satisfy itself that sufficient evidence exists for the action to be taken, and that the action of the Minister is justifiable.

Secondly, the Minister, knowing that the Council can call for and scrutinise the evidence, will clearly be more thorough and careful before he acts. This way, Sir, the Council will be able to play its role more effectively as a safeguard against any possible abuse.

Furthermore, Sir, before the prohibition order is issued by the Minister, I would suggest that a number of earlier warning letters and contacts be made with the party concerned. This will give the person a chance to retract what he is doing or saying or to explain himself. And if he continues to disregard the warnings, then the prohibition order can be issued.

Finally, Sir, religious leaders do have views on matters of conscience and morality and on other public issues. This must be recognised by the Government. Therefore, channels for private contact and dialogue must always be kept open. The elected government of the day has the full mandate and responsibility to govern. But it must maintain and open all channels to religious leaders in our multi-religious society if we are to take into account their concerns, just as we maintain channels to many other groups in Singapore.

Finally, Sir, touching on the point raised by Mr Chandra Das, I fully agree with him that in the long term, moral and civic education especially touching upon the area of religious tolerance and more knowledge of one and others' religion should be carried out in the schools. I am happy to inform him that, in fact, this is part of the framework that is being developed, which was mentioned by my Minister earlier this morning.

Sir, I support the Bill.

Dr Arthur Beng Kian Lam (Fengshan): Mr Speaker, Sir, in the interests of national security, law and order, the Government has been in discussion regarding this Bill for more than two years. It opted for the presentation of a White Paper after the consultative process. The views of religious leaders and others were incorporated into the White Paper. The White Paper also included a security perspective giving instances of inter-religious tensions, intra-religious tensions, mixing of religion and politics, and religion and subversion. More dialogues followed subsequently. After this debate, the Bill goes to a Select Committee. I am confident that after this exercise, this Bill will indeed be one that will lay the foundation to ensuring the maintenance of religious harmony for generations to come. I hope that this Bill will unite our nation further, not divide it.

Sir, some of the incidents quoted in the White Paper in the security section were unknown even to us, as Members of Parliament. Many members of the public were surprised that these incidents had occurred. It is good that the White Paper has been candid in its presentation of the security perspective. Now all of us, regardless of faith, can see the potential explosiveness of each of the illustrations given.

However, there are some who have expressed that the Government, in wanting to remain secular, is anti-religion. This is a misconception, and it is essential that in a multi-racial, multi-religious society, the Government must remain secular and not be partisan.

Mr Speaker, Sir, on an issue as sensitive as religion, I feel that, difficult as it is, we need to address it now - at a time when we are enjoying a harmonious relationship. It is like a large wealthy extended family which has to discuss and plan for the distribution of wealth. This should be done when all members of the family are on good terms. They can then discuss logically and objectively and not be clouded by selfish desires and personal gains. This, I believe and agree with the Minister, is the correct time to discuss the issue of religious harmony.

Sir, by introducing this White Paper and Bill, the Government is unequivocally stating that (i) it is not anti-religion; (ii) it believes in a secular state; and (iii) it believes that religious harmony should not be taken for granted. I believe in these aims. One should differentiate between religious extremism and sincere committed believers of any faith. I believe that the majority of our religious leaders are virtuous men of great faith who are also responsible citizens, that is, they would not want to see strife and bloodshed in Singapore in the name of religion or for any other cause. Sir, because of this faith in our religious leaders, I support this middle-of-the-road approach of this legislation. To use the Penal Code, Sedition Act, or the ISA is too extreme. It is much better that the authorities seek clarification from the religious leaders regarding their acts or speeches, so that any miscommunication or misunderstanding of motives can be clarified.

Sir, on two separate occasions I had informal discussions with two different religious leaders regarding their publications which were of concern to the authorities. Both these religious leaders were surprised that the authorities had interpreted political implications into their writings. After this was explained to them, they gave perfectly acceptable explanations as to their intentions. They subsequently desisted from their trends. Today, both of them are respected leaders in their community.

This spirit of "let us discuss our differences" is the spirit behind the prohibition order. Before the prohibition order is served, the person involved must be put on notice. Another two checks are put into place. The head of the religious group has to be informed and the Presidential Council must also be informed.

Some of the religious leaders that I have discussed this Bill and White Paper with, see another positive factor put into place. This factor is accountability. They feel that in addition to their own disciplinary proceedings within their own religious order, this Bill now places on every religious leader an accountability to the authorities and the head of the religious group. It was also pointed out to me that this accountability factor placed on the heads of the religious groups would mean that no head of organisation can now pander to his group. This is important for us all to understand, as in many religious organisations the head is elected into office for a fixed term. This accountability factor is thus a check against the popular vote.

Those who have expressed doubts regarding the Bill feel that too much power is being put into the Government's hand. The Minister, I am sure, will also address this point. All I will say at this point is that the Minister must be a very wise and brave man or a very naive man to disregard the views of the Presidential Council as the major religious groups will be represented on the Council. These very members will go back to their own congregations and will have to explain convincingly to their members regarding the Council's decision. If the Minister cannot convince the Council members, can these men of great faith convince their religious followers?

Sir, at this stage, I would like to reaffirm two main points:

(i) It is the Government's duty to maintain law and order and, in the final analysis, separation of religion and state; and

(ii) This Bill is not against committed believers or against persons who express strong commitment and belief in their faith but against extremism.

With your permission, Sir, I would like to relate two experiences. Mr Speaker, Sir, I have changed the scenario, but the basic facts remain so that the families may remain anonymous and to dilute references to any particular religious groups. This was at their request. Nonetheless, they urged me to present their predicament to Parliament.

Case one. A family with four children all in their teens. One daughter was influenced by a religious group and subsequently brought his brother along. The parents were very distressed for several reasons. The daughter's academic performance fell drastically. The health of their son was deteriorating rapidly as he was unable to cope with the pressure exerted upon him by the religious group. Within months of contact with the group, he had to be placed under psychiatric care. His personality disintegrated. Until today the boy is still under psychiatric care. However, he has recovered well enough to continue normal schooling after severing ties with the religious group. The son has given all his savings amounting to some $2,000 to the group.

Case two. A father noticed that the eldest son in the family of five became increasing rebellious. It came to a point when he could no longer tolerate it. He engaged a private detective to inquire into the child's activities and discovered to his horror that his son was involved in cult-like activities. The son's educational performance dropped drastically and he was estranged from his parents and siblings. After much counselling from the extended family of uncles and aunties and with professional help, the son has been rehabilitated.

What are the common factors in both these cases? (i) The problem was precipitated by over-zealous religious leaders, that is, extremism; (ii) Families were disrupted; (iii) One child will probably suffer permanent disability; (iv) There was, in my opinion, unnecessarily far suffering for both families.

Both families sought help, but refused to make police reports for fear of reprisal and fear of the supernatural. They were indeed distraught. This, I hope, will help to convince those who feel that open court trials would be a better system than that proposed in this Bill.

Are these isolated cases? I have spoken to some of my medical colleagues, and they have also had similar cases and experiences.

Sir, these are but two examples. There are other incidents which have been enumerated in the White Paper. All of these incidents can only convince me of the need for this legislation and for an Advisory Council.

Sir, on to the question of religion and politics. To my mind, that religion and politics should be separate is unarguable. History teaches us this lesson and the Minister has given us many illustrations this afternoon. Religion deals with the deep questions of who am I, what am I, questions of our existence, and existence of the world around us, questions of how we relate to one another as individuals in an ethical sense. Without any intention of offending any particular religious groups, there are as many answers accorded to these questions as there are religious groups. Often they promote a system of ethics or moral values that binds the community together. As such, it complements the goal of politics, namely, to provide a better life for all, to put it very simplistically. Such a complementary relationship can only come about if there is a clear demarcation between religious institutions and the State.

Sir, at this point I would like to seek clarification from the Minister on certain details of the Bill. (1) What is the principle that will be followed regarding representation on the Presidential Council? Will it be proportionate to the number of devotees in the population? Or would the aim be to allow a broad spectrum of representation, ie, the smaller groups can also be represented? (2) Will there be a limit to the number of times a prohibition order can be extended? (3) Will a system evolve so that the Minister is also obliged to give reasons if he disregards the advice of the Presidential Council? (4) Will the Minister consider widening the terms of reference of the Presidential Council so that he can take a pro-active role in leading the nation towards greater religious harmony?

In conclusion, Mr Speaker, Sir, I feel that in the last 25 years of independence, we have harped on the theme of religious tolerance. Today, with a better educated nation and the mass media available, we should take another bold step forward towards understanding. The Oxford dictionary defines "tolerance" as "the action or practice of enduring or sustaining pain or hardship". There is something unpleasant about it. In understanding intelligence, the capability of judging with knowledge is present in the overtones. And when it comes to the good understanding, the dictionary refers this to as an "amicable or friendly relations between persons".

The Government, especially the Ministry of Community Development, can do much towards fostering understanding. I agree with my colleagues that the moral education programme can also do more. When there is an understanding and an acceptance of one another for what the other is, the ground is removed beneath those who stray towards religious extremism.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I support the Bill.

Dr Aline K. Wong (Tampines GRC): Mr Speaker, Sir, I support the Bill because the principles behind it are sound principles. In a pluralistic society like ours, I think no one would doubt the need for inter-religious harmony, nor the wisdom of separating religion from politics. I am also satisfied that this Bill has gone through a number of careful drafts and that discussions have been held with religious leaders. And there might also be public hearings if a Select Committee is appointed.

Here, I only wish to concentrate on several points about the Bill itself which the Minister might want to reconsider. Like the Members from Cheng San GRC and Fengshan, I think first and foremost we should note the wide-ranging powers given to the Minister. In fact, he has the absolute power to decide who would be deemed as mixing religion with politics or causing religious disharmony. It is to be noted that the functions of the Presidential Council for Religious Harmony are purely advisory. The Minister is not bound by its recommendations and not even the courts can question the Minister's decision. The courts, in fact, can only decide on the penalty to be given out. Thus, in my opinion, even though this Bill is much less severe than the Internal Security Act, a fact which makes this Bill more palatable to many concerned people, yet it is still the case that the power of the courts is extremely limited.

The Bill does not provide checks and balances in case the Minister abuses his powers. It may be said that the Presidential Council's deliberations on the evidences presented to it by the Minister are some kind of safeguard so that the Minister's decisions and actions are not out of misconception or even out of his prejudice. But then the proceedings of the Council are to be kept secret. So the question is how the public can be convinced that the evidences and the Minister's decisions are just and fair? I would also imagine where the case in point touches on inter-religious harmony only, the Minister would have more regard for the Council members' views, because the members are religious leaders themselves. On the other hand, where the case touches on politics so as to "excite disaffection against the President or the Government", I really do not know whether the religious leaders' opinions would be considered relevant.

For the Council to be credible, members of the Council must be seen to represent all the major religious groups in Singapore. In addition to the Chairman, there will only be 15 other members including an unspecified number of persons who are not representing any religious group. Apart from their own religious views, are these lay persons really in a position to make recommendations on religious issues? Matters would be made more complicated if such persons are staunch non-believers and are strongly against any attempts at proselytising by any religious group. The Council's discussions then may turn into a debate over "territorial rights" between "religionists" and non-religionists". Again, in the case of mixing religion with politics, would such lay persons also have anything to say? I thus urge the Minister to reconsider the representation of lay persons.

As for the other members who are religious leaders, how are they are going to be selected so as to ensure fair representation of all the major religions in Singapore? I think a particular problem would arise within Christianity itself. There are many different Protestant churches. One estimate is that there are over 500 churches and parachurch organisations within the Protestant community. And that on the national level, only four organisations can claim fairly extensive support from these churches. How then can the diversity within the Protestant community be represented on the Presidential Council? Will this lead to an exclusion of representatives of the smaller, independent churches?

Sir, had this Bill been aimed only at inter-religious harmony, I have little doubt that it will be widely supported by the religious groups. Even those groups which believe that active evangelising is part of their religious duty would support the Bill, because they understand the need for judicious restraint within our local context. However, where the Bill touches on politics and religion, and this is a significant half of the Bill, opinions are bound to differ widely between the secular and the religious authorities. Both Islam and Christianity hold comprehensive world views. To them, there is no possibility of separating moral responsibility from social responsibility. I shall not belabour this point. But we cannot ignore the widespread anxiety, especially among the Catholics and Protestants, that this Bill may be used by the Government as an instrument to quash political dissent that stems from moral convictions.

Morals are not just matters of private conscience. They are part and parcel of a collective conscience that makes society possible in the first place. And when expressed in religious beliefs, what may appear to be private conscience becomes part of the collective conscience of the religious followers. Hence, the line dividing private conscience and collective conscience cannot be drawn. So far, the Government has only allowed religious dissent on the issue of abortion. This is taking too narrow a view of religious conscience. Other examples of moral conscience that have deep religious overtones include questions of social justice, human rights, stewardship of the earth's resources, chemical and nuclear weaponry, and biotechnology. Are these moral issues? Are these political issues? Will it be permissible for religious leaders to speak only on issues which have no relevance to Singapore?

Sir, much anxiety has been generated among religious groups here because of the perception that this Bill may mean a strict policing of individual thought and action. Some of these feedback have already been given by Mr Chandra Das. Although the law is right in insisting that religious leaders should not use their positions of authority to sway their flocks towards their own political views, yet the law is equally applicable to any other person within the group. Is it not possible for the Government to consider allowing religious leaders to restrain their own followers, as is the customary practice in the past? Will we not be undermining the authority of religious leaders within their own groups? I think the Minister will have to clarify this point, ie, the need to apply this law equally to followers as to leaders of religious groups.

Finally, Sir, some Christian groups tend to perceive this Bill as the Government's reaction to the Marxist plot in 1987. I believe they should look at the Bill from a broader and longer perspective. They should have faith in what the Government has repeatedly said, that it is not against the Church or any religious groups. In fact, it is highly appreciative of what the religious groups have done in providing educational, welfare and other social services to the country. The feelings of religious groups aside, the Government should be aware of the reaction of some intellectuals who view this Bill as yet another layer of control by the Government. Perhaps these people should realise that this Bill is a far kinder, gentler approach and the Minister will only exercise his powers in keeping good faith with the people. Indeed it would be very foolish if the Minister does not exercise his powers with extreme caution in matters so sensitive as religion. What is needed is for the Minister to assure the country, the people, that this Bill indeed is to safeguard the long-term interests of the country and that the Minister himself or Ministers after him will actually exercise their powers with the most extreme caution. 2.45 pm

Mr Abdullah Tarmugi (Siglap): Sir, this Bill is indeed a very important and sensitive one and I am glad to hear the Minister assure us that it will be sent to a Select Committee for deliberations.

I think it is important for us to address two fundamental issues and I will therefore touch on the basic principles of this Bill rather than on the specifics. One fundamental issue is whether this piece of legislation is required at all and, secondly, whether it will curtail religious freedom in this country. Initially, Sir, I had doubts whether we need this Bill at all, whether, as some have mentioned, we are increas- ing the restrictions on our citizens burdened as they already are with numerous rules and regulations which govern a large part of their lives. I have thought, Sir, as those who oppose the Bill do, that existing laws were more than sufficient and adequate to handle the issues and problems addressed by the Bill. And indeed they are, Sir, in many respects. Take the Penal Code for instance. It is a crime for anyone to utter words to deliberately wound the religious feelings of any person. The ISA empowers the Government to detain anyone whose religious activity is likely to set religious groups against one another or to heighten differences and intolerance between religions. I found it difficult, Sir, if not futile, to argue that these are provisions could not do the job we want in this Bill except, as pointed out by the Senior Minister of State for Education, on the question of religion and politics.

Sir, one of the premises which prompted the introduction of this Bill is the growing religious fervour and missionary zeal in the population. As a person with a religion, I personally have no quarrel with this trend of Singaporeans being more religious as religions generally teach people to be good human beings even if theological definitions of virtue and piety differ among the faiths. But such zeal and fervour could push some of us to preach and proselytize in ways which transgress the religious sensitivities of others. Some could even go to any length to project and propagate their faiths. In our context, Sir, this could be explosive business, as it is natural that every action invites a reaction, more so when it comes to beliefs. If this trend continues, how do we deal with it? Sure, we can appeal for good sense. Sure, we can appeal for moderation. We can educate, we can persuade. But how do we argue against actions and attitudes which are based on and motivated by faith and the promise of eternal salvation? Or do we in the interest of the public or public order and stability begin to use the Sedition Act, the Penal Code and even the ISA liberally and wantonly? Surely, Sir, this is not what we want.

On closer examination, I see this Bill more as a preventive measure than a punitive one. It enables us to act promptly and without much fuss before a situation becomes ugly and out of control. If a prohibition order is issued and complied with, then that is the end of the whole story and no further penalty need to be meted out. We must be clear that the Bill does not refute divine truths and theological precepts. Rather it is the recognition of the realities that we in Singapore live in and as a Government it cannot turn its face away from these realities and the adaptations that are needed to live with them. Had we been a society with a single religion or a dominant religion, the story would have been totally different. Would this curtail our religious freedom? Frankly, Sir, it depends on how freedom is defined. If by this freedom we mean the right to choose and practise one's religion, build houses of worship, proselytize and accumulate merit for doing charity, social and community work, then religious freedom is untouched and undiminished. But if freedom is theologically defined where it encompasses not only the spiritual but the socio-economic and political spheres as well, as Christians and Muslims do, then this freedom may be perceived as being modified somewhat. And for good reasons.

The intent is not to stifle religious practice, however defined, or from preventing citizens to take part in politics. Neither is it to deny the inseparability of religion and politics as propounded by some faiths. It is to prevent the misuse of religion for political purposes and objectives. Indeed, Sir, if a government is so corrupt, so rotten, so unbearable, then it is the duty of every citizen, not only of any religion, to bring that government down. The Penal Code, Sedition Act, ISA, will not stop the tide.

There is, however, one possible consequence to the Bill that we should look into. This Bill should be viewed in its right and proper perspective. By this I mean we should not decrease our tolerance by being over-sensitive and over-suspicious, always on the look out for the slightest perceived infraction. To do so would be counter-productive and against the spirit and intent of the Bill. Neither should we be so withdrawn and so fearful and cowered that we become resentful of the restraints that are introduced and necessary.

On this, Sir, the Government has a very large part to play. As of now, our people are still unsure of what they can do in terms of their religion without breaking the provisions of the Bill. How far can proselytization go, for example? What words, what deeds, would be construed to be offending others or to be dabbling in politics? What can be said in religious sermons, in religious speeches? The Government must ensure that the people fully understand the ramifications of the Bill. A lot of explanation and clarification would be needed to clear the confusion and misunderstanding among our people and to ensure that our religious leaders and officials can play their roles properly and do their jobs without difficulty. I hope the Minister will consider this request seriously.

Religious harmony is something that we have enjoyed and something we should cherish. It is indeed paradoxical that the religious freedom we enjoy is possible because of the moderation, because of the restraints displayed by the various religions. Maybe this is the only way.

I support the Bill.

Mr Speaker: Order. I suspend the Sitting and will take the Chair again at 3.15 pm.

Sitting accordingly suspended at 2.53 pm until 3.15 pm. Sitting resumed at 3.15 pm