MAINTENANCE OF RELIGIOUS HARMONY BILL

Debate resumed.

The Second Deputy Prime Minister (Mr Ong Teng Cheong): ( In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, Sir, I would like to stress in simple terms the two main objectives that the Bill seeks to achieve: One, the maintenance of harmonious relationship among all the religions, and the second, to ensure the separation of religion and politics.

Why do we want to maintain harmonious and peaceful relations among all the religious? To many ordinary people who do not have any religious belief or who do not have very strong religious consciousness, they can hardly imagine that in such a peaceful and quiet small country like Singapore there could be any religious conflict or turmoil. However, in fact, from the White Paper, we can all see that certain religious followers have taken certain actions offensive to the other religions, sometimes resorting to tactics of proselytizing people of other faiths leading to mutual slandering and attacks. Sometimes added with race factor the tense relationship between different religions would be further intensified. Not only there could be unpleasant events between different religions, even among the followers of the same religion there could be conflicts and frictions.

In a plural society if followers of different religions could not live in harmony, then there would certainly be political and social instability and disorder for a long time. And if this religious relationship is mixed with racial sentiments, then the tragic situation would become even worse, such as the tragic religious and racial conflicts and wars taking place in Lebanon and Sri Lanka which are very real and terrible examples for us to see.

Therefore, we believe all those people who love peace and wish to live in a peaceful and stable society will not question the promise of our Government's honest intention in wishing to maintain peace and harmony among the religious groups.

Why should we ensure the separation of religion and politics? Basically, politics is secular, it is concerned with the reality of life, the necessities of daily life and the living conditions of the people. Whereas religion is somehting that touches upon our spiritual life and serves to console our mental conditions and relates to our spiritual side of affairs. So they are of two entirely different spheres. Just look around the world and you will find many regions and countries where there are religious and political mix-ups of roles and affairs which should be distinctive to their separate spheres in the first place where the people are drawn in conflict and wars with dire consequences and sufferings to many innocent people.

For example, the strifing between the Catholics and the Protestants in Northern Ireland has turned into a separatist movement. In Lebanon the sharp conflict between the Muslims and the Christians has caused them to come to blows each other for many years splitting up the country in many ways. In India, the Sikhs and the Hindus attack and kill each other. All these examples show that when you mix politics with religion, it would bring about very terrible consequences.

The purpose of separating religion from politics is not to prevent any religious followers from exercising their legal right of raising questions of social concern. It also does not mean that we want to pass judgment on the religious tenets or moral precepts of certain religion that relate to social concern to say whether they are correct or wrong or to make certain comparison, but rather to promote peaceful and harmonious relationships among all our religions, seeking similarities among diversities and peaceful co-existence.

Although we all may not have any difference as regards the premises of separ- ation of religion and politics, we may not fully agree on what is meant by "Interference of religion in politics", as we may have different views.

Some religions may feel that their talks and actions are only expression of social concern, not interfering in politics. If every religion or the followers of every religion want to solve social problems according to their own formulas or tenets or what they believe and promote as the only way, then how can a secular elected government or the government which has the mandate of all the people going to carry out its policies or to maintain its administration?

In fact, in principle, the democratic system has given all the people whether they are religionists or followers of any particular religion or non-religious people the rights of participation and airing in politics. They all have a part in the government through our democratic system which is the appropriate and correct channel. There is no need at all to influence politics through religious channel, even less, and should not, make use of the church or temple or mosque to instigate the followers and fan up anybody's sentiments against the government or to carry out subversive activities, particularly in a plural society no one religion is in a dominating position. Should any one religion try it, this will surely call for certain strong reactions from other religious groups for self defence or to launch counter attacks. Of course, the Muslims would not allow Christians to be on a domineering and leading position in political arena. And likewise the Christians would not allow Muslims or any other religious groups to be on a domineering position in political field to dictate their wishes to all people or to achieve their religiose political objectives. So we can figure out the situation for ourselves, we have no choice, because we are in a plural society, therefore the government must necessarily be a non-religious and a secular government.

I hope the passage of this Bill will promote better communication and understanding between the religious leaders and the political leaders and will facilitate better contact and consultation between them for speedier solution of any highly sensitive issues that should arise in future and promoting harmony anong our various people.

The Presidential Council for Religious Harmony is a good way to achieve this purpose. Our secular Government has all along respected all religious faiths, freedom of belief and religious faith and their equality. I hope all religious leaders and followers can understand the difficulties and constraints of a Government in a plural society and the duties it has to fulfil in achieving this objective and give it support.

Sir, I support this motion.

Mr Goh Choon Kang (Braddell Heights): ( In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, Sir, I feel that the introduction of this Bill is necessary and timely.

A Report on Religion and Religious Revivalism in Singapore published by the NUS scholars highlighted the alarming trends of development in this connection. The Government's White Paper entitled "Maintenance of Religious Harmony" stated,

"In recent years there has been a definite increase in religious fervour, missionary zeal and assertiveness among the Christians, Muslims, Buddhists and other religious groups in Singapore. Competition for followers and converts is becoming sharper and more intense. More Singaporeans of many religions are inclining towards strongly held exclusive beliefs rather than the relaxed, tolerant, acceptance of and co-existence with other faiths ... And this trend increases the possibility of friction and misunderstanding among the different religious groups in Singapore."

Mr Speaker, Sir, unless the actual situation is contrary to that mentioned above, there will be a need to legislate in order to control activities which go beyond the religious confines, in order to maintain religious harmony. Appropriate measures must be taken before the situation becomes too serious to contain and such measures are therefore timely. Some people feel that by legislating, it may arouse the disapproval of some people. Some may even think that this is a measure by the Government to suppress those who oppose it. There are also people who feel that by legislating, it may give rise to extremists seizing the opportunity to test the law to enhance their personal image and to give them a chance to propagate themselves and to portray themselves as a "champion of human rights".

Mr Speaker, Sir, of course, we cannot deny the existence of such possibility. However, are we going to give up this legislation because of this? If we do so, then I would say this is indeed an unacceptable excuse. I think we must, first of all, be very clear as to whether or not such an issue exists. If there is such a problem, then what we have to study is our solutions to these problems.

The White Paper has already pointed out that the existing legislation such as the ISA is inadequate to effectively tackle the new situation. From my observations, all those who oppose the legislation have, up to this date, been unable to provide an alternative to the "legislation to set down" some basic rules for all to observe in maintaining religious harmony. In other words, legislation is the best alternative open to us at this moment.

As pointed out in the White Paper, in order to maintain religious harmony, there are two basic conditions. First of all, the believers of the different religions must practise mutual tolerance and respect, to avoid any hostilities or animosity among the different religions. Secondly, religion and politics must be kept separate. Some religious leaders and some believers feel that it is very difficult to have a clear demarcation or separation between religion and politics. But that does not mean that we are unable to formulate a set of basic rules for all to follow. I believe in a plural and multi-religious society like ours, such basic rules are very important. There is no need for us to engage ourselves in heated arguments on whether or not there is a clear separation or demarcation between religion and politics and ignore the basic problem. What then is the basic problem? The basic problem is: How are we going to maintain religious harmony? How are we going to ensure that the existing religious harmony will not be undermined?

I believe that to maintain harmony we must accept certain confines of activity. That is to say that we must have a set of basic rules which can be accepted by all and observed by all when we carry out our religious activity so that everybody will have a clear idea as to what they can do and what they cannot do. What activities are considered to be within the confines of religious activities and what are outside the confines? In the event of someone straying beyond the confines of religious activities, we could effectively restrain him or mete out appropriate punishments against him. As such, I believe that it will be more meaningful for us to concentrate our debate on the relevant provisions of the Bill. In Part III of the Bill, an attempt is made to spell out the prohibitions, ie, activities that are deemed to be harmful or capable of undermining our religious harmony. These include four broad categories.

The first one is creating mutual hatred and enmity between different religious groups; second, engaging in political activities under the guise of religious activities; third, to engage in subversive activities under the guise of religious activities, and, fourth, exciting disaffection against the President or the Government. Among the four categories, I believe the fourth category is one which gives rise to more debate or argument. Some people say that if the Government is corrupt and incompetent, then is it wrong for the people to voice their discontent or to oppose it? Sir, in a democratic society, if the Government becomes so corrupt and incompetent or tyrannical, it will be overthrown by the people through general elections and there is no need for the religious body to take such an action. Some living examples are the Marcos regime of the Philippines and the Ceausescu regime of Romania. What can a mere legislation do to curb the people's power? However, under normal circumstances, I maintain the principle as what Jesus said in the Bible: "Give to Caesar what is Caesar's and to God what is God's". But what belongs to God and what belongs to Caesar? We cannot make a clear distinction in this. But I believe we could at least make a clear distinction as to what are Government's affairs and what are religious affairs? What are the things that could be done through religious means and what are the things that must be done according to proper political channel? In this way, religion will not be made use of by people with ulterior motives to become their political tools and there will not be conflicts between religion and politics.

In a democratic country, we must accept the fact that a government elected through proper democratic procedure must be vested with the supreme authority under the Constitution to govern the country. There are various restraining mechanism under the democratic system to prevent the Government or the Ministers to abuse the power vested in them, such as the division of the legislation, judiciary and law enforcement and the holding of general elections at regular intervals. It should not be done through interference by any particular organisation or body. In normal circumstances, religious leaders or religious groups should not interfere in the Government's affairs. I feel this may be the true meaning of returning what is Caesar's to Caesar and what is God's to God.

Sir, some people feel that the legislation will give the Minister too great a power and they fear that such power may be abused because the Minister can make the final decision in this matter. Such a worry is quite similar to the worries that people have for the Internal Security Act. I feel that in any legislation there is always a possibility of its being misused. So the best protection does not lie in not having this legislation but it lies in the uprightness, honesty and integrity of the people implementing these laws. It is because of this factor that the Internal Security Act has not been misused and not because of any other factor.

Generally speaking, if this legislation is passed, we would have a set of basic rules acceptable by our people for them to carry out religious or political activities. By so doing, it will greatly prevent our religious harmony from being undermined and also it would reduce the possibility of conflicts between religion and politics. However, if we want to continue enjoying religious harmony that we have enjoyed for the past 20 to 30 years, it is not adequate to depend on this Bill alone. We have to continue to maintain the status of a secular state, that is to say, we cannot be a religious country. In other words, the various religions must continue to remain on an equal status and be treated equally. The State shall not interfere with our people's freedom on religions. Secondly, we need to continue having a fair and firm Government with an impartial policy towards the various religions. We must also take stern actions against anyone who attempts to undermine our religious harmony. Thirdly, the major religions and religious leaders must continue to exert their influence in leading their congregations and believers into the right path whereby mutual tolerance and respect are practised.

Sir, I support the Bill.

Dr Wong Kwei Cheong (Cairnhill): Mr Speaker, Sir, I speak in support of the Maintenance of Religious Harmony Bill.

The purpose of the Bill is to maintain religious tolerance and harmony. This is vital to the future survival and prosperity of Singapore as we live in a multi-religious and multi-racial society, and we must be sensitive to the religious beliefs, practices and cultural heritage of Singaporeans of different religions and races.

The Government in its White Paper on Maintenance of Religious Harmony has given many examples of how inter-religious tensions can arise when persons try to promote their own religious beliefs without adequately considering the sensitiveness of other religious groups in Singapore. I do not intend to repeat these examples but may I refer to a very popular practice in Singapore, and that is, the use of HDB void decks for funeral wakes.

Sir, many of us have attended funeral wakes out of respect of the deceased; and some of us, as MPs, have also received complaints at the Meet-the-People sessions about the noise, especially at night, created at such funeral wakes.

Sir, what if a person, say, a Muslim, complains to the Minister that such funeral wakes violated clause 8(1)(a) of the Bill as they cause feelings of ill-will or hostility? Will the Minister issue a prohibition order requiring monks to refrain from conducting funeral wakes, as required under clause 9(1) of the Bill?

I know the Minister is unlikely to take such action, but the point I wish to make is that the phrase "causing feelings of enmity, hatred, ill-will or hostility" as defined in clause 8(1) of the Bill connotes a subjective view of a person who feels offended and complains to the Minister. I hope the Minister can consider this point and replace clause 8(1)(a) with words which connote the objective view of a reasonable person.

A second point which I hope the Minister will consider is that it is quite easy for a religious group to violate clause 8(1)(b) of the Bill, ie, to be seen promoting a political cause. This is because some religious causes may also be regarded as political causes that happened to be taken up by opposition political parties. For example, there are churches which feel that foreign workers in Singapore are poorly treated by their employers and have set up facilities to cater to their emotional and physical needs. The Workers Party, for example, used to take up in Parliament the problems of foreign workers, especially when they have difficulties marrying Singaporeans. Would the Minister regard such causes as religious causes or political causes?

This is one example of moral and social issues which are not only political but also religious in nature. These issues belong to both the political and religious domains. It is therefore necessary for the Bill to define what is to be considered improper conduct more precisely so that the line between political and religious issues can be drawn carefully. This will ensure that only genuine cases of political activism in the guise of religious activity conducted by one religious group against the government are prohibited.

My third point concerns the establishment of a Presidential Council for Religious Harmony under clause 3(1) of the Bill. I give full support to such an establishment as the Presidential Council will assist the Minister on matters affecting the maintenance of religious harmony in Singapore. However, the proposed Presidential Council as defined in the Bill is purely advisory in nature, and have no powers to delay or invoke Ministerial decisions.

Under clauses 8(4) and 9(4) of the Bill, before the Minister can make a prohibition order, he must inform the Presidential Council which will then make written representations within 14 days of the Minister's notice. The Minister is only required to have regard to such representations before making the prohibition order. However, once the Minister has decided to issue the prohibition order, it is almost irrevocable, as clause 11(4) of the Bill states that the Presidential Council can only recommend that the order be continued, revoked or varied in any manner. If the Minister disagrees with the Council's recommendations, there is no provision in the Bill that the decision be reconsidered. In short, the Minister's decision is final.

Sir, under our present Government, our Ministers, especially our Minister for Home Affairs, are just and fair. I am confident that the powers provided under the Bill will not be abused by the Minister.

However, there is always the possibility that sometime in the future, Singapore may not be so lucky as to have fair and just Ministers. May I suggest, Sir, that the Minister provide more checks and balances into the Bill, for example, by giving more powers to the Presidential Council. In cases where serious disagreement arises between the Minister and the Presidential Council, such cases can perhaps be referred to the Judiciary.

Sir, may I commend the Government for coming out with a well-reasoned White Paper and a Bill on Religious Harmony. As the Bill will be referred to a Select Committee, I am sure that there will be widespread support by most religious leaders in Singapore.

On this note, I support the Bill.

Dr Koh Lam Son (Telok Blangah): Mr Speaker, Sir, I support this Bill on the Maintenance of Religious Harmony.

Religion has been and will always be an important national institution to promote the social, educational and spiritual well-being of Singaporeans. We have seen many contributions from religious institutions, including the building and operation of many aided schools. Religious institutions have also played a key role in tackling social issues like drug abuse, and have helped many former addicts find meaning and purpose in life.

However, it must be emphasised that our political stability hinges on the secularity of our State. This is fundamental and crucial to our survival. Our history has examples of bloodshed as a result of racial and religious strife. We cannot permit such a situation to recur. Our pledge clearly says, "regardless of race, language, or religion".

Today, we do not have a dominant religion in Singapore. But even if we do, the Government must remain secular. Just as the Chinese, being the dominant race in the country, do not impose itself on the other races, likewise we cannot afford to have a government that favours any particular religion. To do so would be to destroy the delicate structure of our society and all that we have painstakingly built over the years. Singapore is a multi-racial country with people of many different religious faiths. We must exercise tolerance and respect the religious beliefs of our fellow Singaporeans.

The Bill is aimed at safeguarding the secularity of the Government as well as the maintenance of religious harmony among religious organisations. Further, by clarifying the roles of the religious institutions, individuals will not be able to carry out subversive activities or to promote a political cause under the cover of such organisations. Of course, we cannot permit this because in the longer term we will end up with a collision between the Government and the religious institutions or between different religious organisations. Sir, a church is a church, a mosque is a mosque, and a temple is a temple. These institutions have a primary function and must not double up as political entities.

Sir, the Bill will also help to protect these religious organisations from manipulation by politicians for political ends. Having said this, I think it is important to note that this Bill does not violate the right of the individual as enshrined in the Constitution. The individual has the freedom and right to choose and practise his faith as well as to participate in the political process. But obviously, there is the right time and the right place to do the right thing. In fact, any individual, regardless of his religious belief or affiliation, who has the interest, the energy and inclination to participate in the political process should do so. We will certainly encourage such persons because ultimately their participation and contribution will benefit the country.

Sir, the objectives of the Bill are indeed noble. However, it places a very heavy responsibility on the Minister. This is so because the Minister will have to seriously consider all representations from individuals on whom the intention to serve a prohibition order has been made and also the recommendations made by the Presidential Council. Moreover, should the prohibition order become necessary, this may actually aggravate the situation further, especially if the person adopts a martyr's mentality. If that person is committed to carrying out his motive, he can also resort to other acts of mischief which may not be covered by the Bill. For example, he can spread by word of mouth to his congregation to incite emotions against the Government or other religious bodies. In such cases, will the Bill be effective and can it really deter the individual?

The proposed Bill states in clause 8(1), among other things, that individuals may be brought to task if they cause feelings of enmity, hatred, ill-will or hostility between different religious groups. Sir, many religions are founded upon different and, in some cases, conflicting doctrinal basis. So this, as the speaker before me has stated, may become a very subjective issue. Likewise, acts that will cause disaffection against the Government must be clearly defined, if possible. I would like the Minister to clarify on this.

Finally, the White Paper has recommended that the Inter-Religious Council assumes a proactive role of promoting religious harmony. To me, such a role has merit because it will prevent unpleasant situations from developing. The role of the Presidential Council for Religious Harmony, as stipulated in the proposed Bill, appears to be passive in that it will only consider matters that are referred to the Council. Perhaps the Minister can explain why the recommendations of the White Paper are not incorporated into this Bill in this instance.

Sir, in conclusion, it is clear that today we have social harmony in Singapore. There is no religious or racial discontent. We are progressing well, and can be likened to a symphony orchestra with a brilliant conductor directing an extraordinary musical piece with great harmony from distinct sounds by different players. This Bill will ensure that this remains the case into the future.

Dr Lee Siew-Choh: Mr Speaker, Sir, first let me say that my Party is in full agreement with the principle that religious tolerance and harmony be maintained at all times. It is especially important in our multi-racial, multi-religious Singapore. Except for the Maria-Hertogh riots (which were due to unusual circumstances) and the 1964 racial riots (which had special political overtones, which the Prime Minister will confirm), it can be said that by and large we have enjoyed religious tolerance and harmony in Singapore for many years. This is largely due to our people's good sense in the practice of racial and religious tolerance, helped by the Government's policy of maintenance of religious harmony in a secular state.

Nevertheless, we have before us a Government White Paper and a Bill to maintain religious tolerance and harmony that already exists in Singapore, as stressed by the last speaker. Why is it necessary to do that? And why, at the present juncture when all is quiet, and when there is no inter-religious tension whatsoever?

Government has stated its case in the White Paper, and now again in the House. The Minister has spoken about the main scheme of the Bill, giving instances. In substance, Government argues that a definite increase in religious fervour also increases the possibility of friction and misunderstanding among different religious groups and, that, I quote, "it is better to act now to pre-empt future difficulties."

Ministers have quoted what has happened in Sri Lanka, Fiji and India with supportive evidence of religious friction. But, Mr Speaker, Sir, circumstances are different in the three countries from those in Singapore.

In the case of Sri Lanka, trouble started because of extreme political and social inequality and discrimination as well as inadequate political representation, not because of religion or religious friction per se. In the case of Fiji, the problems were also political and social. In the case of India, different circumstances again. Religious clashes have occurred regularly for tens and hundreds of years in India. Therefore, examples of these countries should not be used to justify legislation of the Bill in Singapore.

That such a possibility of religious friction and misunderstanding exists in Singapore cannot be denied. It has always existed in any multi-racial and multi-religious society. Nevertheless, some of the instances of what is called "aggressive and insensitive evangelism" listed in the White Paper would appear to be somewhat isolated instances. And they could easily have been dealt with under the existing statutes, like the Sedition Act and the Penal Code, or the Public Order Act, or even the laws of defamation.

Therefore, the question must again be asked: Why legislate? The Minister says there is fear that certain individuals get out of line. But are there more important reasons so far unsaid by the PAP? Let us try to find out from the facts of history.

From what has been said by Government Ministers, the first reason would appear to be that Government is apprehensive and is indeed fearful of the rapid recent growth of certain religious, especially Christian, groups referred to in the White Paper. These groups are mostly English-speaking and (to quote from the Report on Religion and Religious Revivalism, prepared by the MCD) "younger in age, better educated". "They are exerting an influence politically, socially and economically, far greater than the number they represent in the population".

Sir, this Report does not sound like sweet music in the ears of PAP leaders. And what is more important is that these younger English-speaking groups are today often associated with growing democratic trends, are more articulate, and are quite vociferous in their support for the struggle for justice, democracy, and for human rights.

Legislation in what the Government called "overall national interest" would certainly help strengthen the hands of Government in guaranteeing freedom of religion on the one hand, while at the same time containing such, to quote the Government again, "heightened religious fervour", which if unchecked could, and possibly would, work to the political disadvantage of the PAP. Hence the Bill is introduced to dampen and contain religious revivalism in Singapore.

That is the first reason - not so much the fear of individuals getting out of line as the fear of religious groups criticising undemocratic policies of the Government. Mr Abdullah Tarmugi has mentioned this earlier on.

What is the second reason? The second reason is somewhat linked to the first, and is concerned with what Government has called the "mixing of religion and politics". The question is: Is there evidence of such mixing of religion and politics? Which political party has used religious sentiments to garner popular support? Which religious group has ventured into politics?

First on the political parties. Among opposition parties which contested the elections in 1988, so far as I know, the Singapore Democratic Party did not play up religion to garner popular support. Neither did the Workers' Party, which advocates racial equality and equal respect for all religions. Nor the National Solidarity Party. Nor the PKMS, although its party membership is almost all from individuals of the Malay ethnic stock. And what about the ruling PAP? I believe it too did not play up religion during the last elections. But does the PAP make use of religion and religious occasions to garner political support for itself? I say that it does. For example, PAP MPs make politi- cal speeches before gatherings in the Seventh Moon celebrations. Complaints have also been made that PAP MPs are made "advisors" to religious organisations, temples and mosques. What "advice" can the PAP advisors give to these organisations other than political advice? Thus, it would appear, Sir, that it is the PAP itself that is in a way mixing religion with politics.

Next, on the religious groups. Have religious groups ventured into politics? The White Paper has given instances of lectures by Muslim Theologians from abroad, far back in 1973, 1982, 1984 and recently 1986. But the only government action considered necessary concerning them was to ban the three lecturers from re-entering Singapore. And that was sufficient.

Regarding the Hindu and Sikh organisations, these were isolated instances which had been brought about by events in India. The only action needed was for Government to give a warning. And that was again good enough.

The White Paper quotes some concrete instances connected with the Catholic priests. Government alleges that the priests have ventured into politics, that para-religious groups have gone into "radical social action" and so on. But have they really done so? What are the facts again?

I believe that the instances quoted in the White Paper have been somewhat taken out of context. There is no explanation as to how these incidents have come about. There is no explanation whatsoever. Those instances quoted are therefore more or less half-truths.

It must be emphasised that until today, the reasons given by Government for the arrests of the so-called Marxists in May 1987 have not been really accepted by most of the people, not even by PAP's strongest supporters, both inside and outside Singapore.

Those who were arrested have repeatedly denied that they are Marxists, and the Government has not dared to charge them in open court. It knows only too well that its so-called evidence will not be able to stand up to the slightest scrutiny.

Those arbitrarily arrested in 1987 all belong to a para-religious group. In the circumstances, it was not unexpected that some form of protests would come from the religious leaders who were connected in some way with the work of those arrested, just like what is done by political leaders when party members are arbitrarily arrested. Indeed, in the face of grave injustice done to their flocks, it would have been most unnatural for them not to have made any protests at all.

It must also not be forgotten that a strong people's movement in the quest for justice, democracy, freedom and human rights is sweeping across the world today. And priests and religious leaders in Singapore, like other people elsewhere, cannot but be affected in some way by such momentous events. Therefore, if circumstances had caused them to speak up for their flocks, that does not mean that the Catholic priests have ventured into politics.

Religious leaders all over the world have made similar protests against injustice on a variety of moral and social issues. Although such protests have political overtones, nevertheless, they are by and large isolated incidents and are merely protests on issues of "legitimate concern". That should not be construed as "venturing into politics" as alleged.

Let me stress that we support in principle that religion be separated from politics. But the big question is, how do we separate the two so that everyone is clear as to what is religion and what is politics? Social welfare, care for the aged, education, public health, morality and justice are all issues of legitimate concern to both religion and politics.

One religious leader has said that "Islam and politics cannot be separated because Islam embraces all aspects of life." Another religious leader said (and I quote from the Staits Times of 8th February 1990) "drew from the Bible to show that Christianity was a holistic faith which touched on all aspects of life, including politics." Archbishop Gregory Yong has spoken of confusion and added (I quote again from the Straits Times dated 11th January 1990), "To say that religion and politics can be separated is, at best, an ambiguous statement."

How then are we to separate religion from politics? I would say that, more often than not, it is well-nigh impossible. But it would appear that Government's way to stop mixing religion and politics is to lay down its own ground rules, which we have not yet seen, and then arbitrarily interpret them according to how religious groups and individuals react to certain policies of Government.

Would it mean that if religious groups and individuals react favourably to Government policies, then they do not mix religion and politics? Whereas if they react unfavourably to Government policies, then they mix religion and politics and are to be penalised in some way? Is that how the PAP would stop the mixing of religion and politics?

Sir, as is well known, how people normally react would of course depend on whether Government policies are democratic and caring or otherwise, and on how these policies affect their livelihood. It must be emphasised that Government has enacted many undemocratic and uncaring policies which have caused considerable hardships to many people. And Government has been forced to amend or completely revoke some of its policies in recent years. That is why Government has itself admitted in the White Paper that "the Government does not claim that it is always right in its policies, or that it is always deserving of support."

So if religious leaders or groups express their legitimate concern for those who have suffered hardships and injustice as a result of uncaring and undemocratic policies of Government, they have not really been "promoting a political cause or a cause of any political party" or taken up any so-called "radical social action.

Sir, it has to be emphasised also that freedom from arbitrary arrest is a basic human right enshrined in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. It is a key element of democracy. Detention without trial is accepted only in times of war and grave national emergencies. But in Singapore, more often than not, such arbitrary arrests and detentions without trial have repeatedly been used in times of peace, and when there is no national emergency whatever, all in order to get rid of political opponents and critics of the PAP.

Moreover, such Government action is often dependent on reports made by the secret police. And it is a well-known fact that the secret police is no paragon of the truth. In the circumstances, may I ask, is it wrong to speak of "the fears that innocent people could be easily fixed through false or fabricated information?"

Therefore, the instances given in the White Paper to support Government's contention that religious leaders have indulged in politics, and that Marxists have exploited religion for subversive purposes, are far from convincing, and they cannot be accepted by fair-minded people.

Now it is easier to understand the second reason why the Government has put up the White Paper and the present Bill. As is well known, the arbitrary arrests of the so-called Marxists have been most unpopular. Protests have come from far and wide, so much so the Government has been compelled to release the so-called Marxists, one batch after another, in a comparatively short time. Only two of them, Vincent Cheng and Teo Soh Lung, still remain under detention. But despite strenuous efforts by Government propaganda on TV, radio and the press to present the Government's case, to this very day, very few people have accepted Government's explanation for the arrests. And that too, with a big grain of salt! Why? Simply because many people know that the arrests were directed at political opponents and would-be opposition election candidates before the elections. Such "pre-emptive" arrests of political opponents have become the hallmark of PAP rule, "nipping of the dangers in the bud" according to the Minister. And they were carried out before the general elections in 1963, in 1972, in 1976, in 1980, in 1984 and again in 1988. These pre-emptive arrests were to nip trouble for the PAP in the bud.

The Bill before us today is therefore introduced not only because of the first reason that I have, said but also because of another reason: it is an attempt, a belated attempt, by Government to justify the arrests of the so-called Marxists. As we now learn, the Bill was first drafted in June 1987 soon after the arrests of the Marxists were carried out in May 1987. Dr Aline Wong has touched on this.

At the same time, of course, the Bill also allows Government to seize the opportunity to make provisions to prevent and suppress all future show of discontent by religious and para-religious groups against Government's undemocratic policies and the misuse or abuse of powers by the authorities. Such are the unspoken motivations behind the Bill.

With the passing of the Bill, the PAP hopes to be able to stifle all dissent from religious and para-religious groups. Would the PAP care to admit that what I have said is correct and true?

Let me now touch briefly on the establishment of the Presidential Council and the provision for prohibition orders. The Bill explains:

'All prohibition orders made by the Minister are to be referred to the Council ... The Council may recommend that the order be continued, revoked or varied in any manner.'

Sir, the big question is: what sort of regard will the Minister have to the Council's recommendations, or to the written representations of the person concerned?

Clause 14 states that, "All orders and decisions of the Minister ... shall be final and shall not be called in question in any court." If the Minister disagrees with the recommendations or representations, and proceeds to impose the prohibition order regardless, won't that make a mockery of the deliberations of the Council?

Indeed, clause 14 contradicts the much-talked-about-principle of "resolving major issues through consensus instead of contention" of PAP's so-called National Ideology. It is arbitrary and dictatorial, and is diametrically opposed to the spirit of consultation as implied in the provision of the Presidential Council. Clause 14 thus exposes the fact that the Presidential Council is a mere facade of democracy. If we must have the Presidential Council, then it must not be purely advisory. It must be given some teeth, so that it may play a meaningful watchdog role. If the majority views of the Council should disagree with the views of the Minister, then the Minister must not ride roughshod over the recommendations of the Council.

And whatever the final decision of the Minister, it should be open to challenge in a court of law, and provisions to that effect should be made in the Bill. Will the Minister then take heed of our positive suggestions?

Sir, from what I have said, it should be abundantly clear that what is considered to be so-called "activities to promote a political cause or a cause of any political party" or what is considered to be "subversive activities" could be very controversial. It all depends on the viewpoints of different people and different parties. Since the Presidential Council's recommendations may or may not be accepted by the Government, clause 14 in effect tells us that the Council is nothing more than an instrument to be used as a shield against any criticism that may be levelled at Government for whatever arbitrary action it may take against any religious group or person, as in the case against the so-called communists and Marxists under the ISA.

To summarise, Sir, the Bill ostensibly aims to provide for maintenance of religious harmony in Singapore. But it is in fact an instrument intended, first, to dampen and contain religious revivalism that could adversely affect PAP's political interests. Second, to justify the arbitrary arrests of so-called Marxists and to suppress any future public show of discontent against Government policies, however, patently unjust and undemocratic, on the one hand, and to make use of the Presidential Council as a shield against legitimate criticism of such unjust and undemocratic policies, on the other. Therefore, the Workers Party cannot support such a Bill.

Prof. Jayakumar: Point of clarification. If the NCMP felt so strongly that the Marxists' arrests were so unpopular with the people of Singapore, why did he not take up the invitation of the Government that he or any other political party make it an election issue before the September 1988 elections? We asked them to make it an issue. His party did not make it an issue. And also, every other previous arrests before an election, does he not know that the PAP fought it as an election issue and won the mandate of the people?

Dr Lee Siew-Choh: Sir, the explanation can be very simple. In an election you fight on a multitude of issues. If the Government wants to know whether people support the Government on the Marxist issue or on the ISA or on conscription, let the Government hold a referendum, singly on one issue and one issue alone. Then we will know whether the Government has really got the support of the people. You will not know if you just link everything up. To give a good example. In the old days, when we in the Opposition asked for an election, the PAP wanted to hold a referendum. Why? When was that? There was a White Paper about the Merger proposals. Because the Government knew that it was going to lose in an election. But in a referendum, even if the Government lost, they would not have to resign. They could just carry on as the Government. Now in this particular case, I wish the Minister would go back to history and read what Dr Goh Keng Swee had once said.

Prof. Jayakumar: Sir, this is a new line. Why did not his Workers Party say that they wanted a referendum on the Marxist arrests at that time?

Dr Lee Siew-Choh: Is the Minister issuing a challenge? I ask the Government to hold a referendum now. Will Government do it?

Mr Lau Ping Sum (Yio Chu Kang): Mr Speaker, Sir, Singapore has enjoyed a longish period of peace and harmony. The visible signs of inter-religious harmony are everywhere - mosques, churches and temples of various descriptions can be found in most if not all housing estates. But, more importantly, behind this external facade of peace and harmony, Singaporeans have come to terms with the fact that we profess and practise different religions and are free to propagate our faiths. This happy state of affairs has been brought about by a vigilant ISD because fanatical and extremist preachers have been expelled and barred from entry. In addition, a relatively relaxed and sensible attitude has prevailed among the followers of various religions in Singapore.

It is of course the duty of all Singaporeans to protect the peace and harmony in our society not only for ourselves but also for future generations. The recent emergence of fundamentalist revival can be due to various factors. Perhaps it is due to the rapid modernisation and urban development. Perhaps it is a sense of insecurity, a fear of failure and a compensation for difficulties in competing with others in secular pursuits.

Religious polarisation must not be allowed to emerge for it will lead to violence and bloodshed. For example, the Catholics and Protestants in Ireland, the Sunnis, the Druzes and the Maronites in Lebanon.

A number of guiding principles are of fundamental importance. We should cultivate a willingness to show respect to one another. Tolerance is not sufficient for tolerance connotes a half-hearted acceptance of a disagreeable situation. It is one-sided. Mutual respect, on the other hand, shows a two-way process, a more positive attitude. It has to be developed and nurtured from young. A second principle is that we should refrain from condemning other religions. We should respect the right of others not to share our beliefs. Some religions claim exclusivity, ie, that they represent the only path to truth and the Almighty. They are of course entitled to their views. Nevertheless, they should not criticise and highlight the negative aspects of other religions. Perhaps they could take a leaf from IBM where the sales representatives are trained from day one to sing the praises of all the wonderful and even unique features of the IBM system architecture but never to pass derogatory remarks about the competitors' equipment.

A third principle is that we should all try to learn more about various religions. Inter-religious conflicts are often caused by ignorance and prejudice. We live in an environment where the major religions of the world are practised. We cannot afford to take a blinkered view. The subject "World Religions" should be taught to all our students to impart knowledge but not to propagate a certain faith. I see no contradiction in this with the fact that Singapore is a secular state. On the contrary, the removal of ignorance and prejudice will strengthen the foundation for religious harmony in Singapore.

All religions have a certain unity in terms of universal and ethical values. It is not merely a belief in justice, honesty, equality, human dignity, but also a belief in spiritual terms, the concept of an everlasting life, the repugnance of materialism, the importance of moderate living and family ties.

For all the great spiritual ideals upheld by all religions, human behaviour unfortunately often falls short of these ideals. In the final analysis, we are judged not by what we say, but by what we do.

To reinforce faith in the common ethical values, it is necessary for religions to establish constant contact and consultation. This process will enhance mutual understanding and lessen the likelihood of conflict between different religions.

The proposed Presidential Council for Religious Harmony should widen its functions. It should not be confined to matters affecting the maintenance of religious harmony referred to it by the Minister or by Parliament. Apart from these matters, it should actively examine and review the existing inter-religious relations and recommend measures to strengthen mutual understanding . Where various religions are represented, is there sufficient dialogue and communication among the different groups? There is much the Council can do for Singapore to continue as a shining example of a multi-religious society.

Sir, clause 8 1(b) empowers the Minister to make a prohibition order against a person for promoting a political cause and clause 8(1)(d) for exciting disaffection against the President or the Government of Singapore.

Some reservations have been expressed in these two areas. These provisions are general and perhaps capable of different interpretations. For example, if a church leader were of the view that all children should be given equal opportunities to be admitted into schools regardless of their mothers' educational qualifications, would this have been considered as exciting disaffection if the policy had continued?

If a religious leader told his congregation that more help should be given by the Government and the people of Singapore to the poor and needy in terms of financial assistance and infrastructural support, would this be promoting a political cause because the opposition parties held the same view?

There is a certain gray area in these instances. I think these reservations and issues should be explained fully by the Minister. The prohibition orders are designed to protect the long term stability of the country and not to suppress viewpoints not in line with official policies. There are some who have yet to be convinced of the rationale for the legislation and a full and frank debate and well-informed discussions at all levels are necessary for an insight into this fundamental issue. 4.55 pm

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Abdullah Tarmugi) in the Chair]

Mr Loh Meng See (Kampong Glam): Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, the Maintenance of Religious Harmony Bill standing in the name of the Minister for Home Affairs aims to deal with the two issues of inter-religious harmony and the separation of religion from politics.

Sir, I would have preferred the part on inter-religious harmony to have come under the Ministry of Community Development because this will then signify and reflect our purpose and intention in wanting to build up our community of different races, languages and religions in Singapore. Obviously there are adverse perceptions when matters come under the Home Affairs Ministry and perhaps it has to do with policing and sentences. But I can appreciate that under the circumstances as explained by the Minister for Home Affairs, it is at best to be under his Ministry.

In the Internal Security Act, the Minister makes the decision in detaining certain persons after having relied on the professionals in the Internal Security Department for their investigations and assessment as to whether the individuals concerned pose security risks to the country. In matters of inter-religious strife and the encroachment of religion into politics, I wonder who are those that the Minister will be relying on for information in deciding to issue prohibition orders. What and whose evidence are being acted on? Possibly the Minister would like to clarify.

On the proposed Presidential Council for Religious Harmony, there is the question of composition, how the members are to be selected, and who do they represent. I think this is important because the appointees should have standing from among their own members. They should be men of credibility. The Presidential Council can only be effective if the highest ranking and most influential religious leaders serve in it. As to having people with no religion to sit in the Presidential Council, I am not so sure whether this is a good thing. Is an agnostic competent to discuss, comment and sit in judgement on a religious matter between two conflicting parties? I would suggest that a tribunal or a panel system be adopted instead to resolve the differences on religious issues. As my previous colleagues have said, I think the role and scope of the Presidential Council could be enlarged. It could be empowered to play a more proactive role.

There is only one concern that I would like to express because not too long ago we have been told that the teaching of Religious Knowledge in schools was a mistake, and the reason given was the unintended effects that arose from starting Religious Knowledge classes. And I sincerely hope that this does not occur after the passing of the this Bill because if the same occurrence takes place, then it will not be a good thing for us.

This Bill may also identify and separate the real believers who will fight their cause. But also it will cause religious leaders to be more circumspect.

I would disagree with Dr Lee Siew-Choh. I believe that we cannot afford to be complacent. The fact that there has been peace and tranquillity, we cannot take things for granted. In fact, there can be no better time than now to discuss and debate on the means to maintain religious harmony in Singapore. It is a controversial issue. It is highly emotional, especially to believers. But I can see the merits of the Bill. And so long as we are able to sort out the difficulties which have been addressed by Members of this House, I am very sure that we will be able to continue to enjoy religious harmony, peace and political stability in Singapore for many years to come.

Notwithstanding what I have said earlier, Sir, I support the Bill.

Dr Ong Chit Chung (Bukit Batok): Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I rise in support of the Bill.

No one, Sir, can quarrel with the laudable aim of this Government. All, I am sure, would agree that we must maintain religious harmony in a multi-racial and multi-religious society such as ours, lest we be swept away by the cross-currents of the world-wide surge of religions. Indeed, both the Government and the people must work together to ensure that there is peace in our land. Without this peace, nothing else is possible. The question is, how do we go about maintaining religious harmony?

The Bill before us is one additional means, enabling the Government to warn and curtail activities that would lead to serious troubles and thereby tear apart the fabric of our society. It may otherwise be too little, too late. It is put in place as a preventive measure and need not be used at all if all is well. The very existence of the law may have, on the other hand, a posi- tive effect on would-be wayward or fanatical elements.

Sir, the Government, as the keeper of law and order, has to play the moderating role, very much like a neutral referee. It may not be a popular task. But who else but the Government could, and indeed must, fulfil this difficult role.

Some accept that there is a place for such a Bill, but have queries and reservations. These are genuine and legitimate concerns, and I suggest the Government address the problems and consider these views seriously. Otherwise, much goodwill will be lost. I will here highlight some areas of concern.

The definition of an undesirable act as "causing feelings of enmity, hatred, ill-will or hostility or prejudicing the maintenance of harmony" is vague and subject to wide interpretation. Many things which one does wittingly or unwittingly could be perceived to be causing feelings of enmity or ill-will.

Further, where are the "working rules" contemplated in paragraph 27 of the White Paper? The Minister should, I think, spell out these rules clearly so that all will know what is permissible and what is not.

The Bill prohibits the promotion of a political cause or subversive activities under the guise of religious practices. But what constitute a political cause or subversive activities, many would ask. The White Paper states that religious groups can preach that abortion is morally wrong, but must not oppose National Service. What about other issues? Where is the dividing line? The Government, I think, should give clear guidelines.

The Bill provides for a Presidential Council for Religious Harmony. But the Council, as it stands, may look more like the handmaiden of the Minister, rather than a watchdog. And if it is a watchdog, it is a watchdog that has no bark and no bite. It has no initiative of its own. It cannot consider any item unless asked by the Minister or Parliament. It cannot on its own initiate a discussion on a topic, even if some of its Members think it is pertinent.

Further, I suggest that the Council be strengthened by allowing it to appoint sub-committees or resource panels to advise on matters pertaining to the practices of particular religions. This, I believe, will allow the Council to be more representative and be in closer contact with wider sections of the various religious communities.

The Bill also does not specify that the prohibition order must be served personally on the person concerned. He therefore may not be aware that he is under prohibition, and this, I believe, is a breach of the rules of natural justice.

The Bill provides for referral to the Council on the first occasion when the prohibition order is served or issued. But thereafter, there is no specific provision for further consultation with the Council. Theoretically, the prohibition order could be extended every two years on an indefinite basis, without further reference to the Council.

Finally, I suggest the Government consider incorporating some checks and balances, perhaps even allowing for judicial review, of the prohibition orders.

To the Government, I urge it to use this proposed law sparingly, prudently and wisely.

To the people, I urge them to take the Bill in the right spirit. Give the Government a chance to prove that it operates for the greatest good of all, and that it is not against religions in general or any particular religion.

Dr Dixie Tan (Ulu Pandan): Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I wish, first of all, to commend the Minister on the careful and painstaking manner in which this Bill has been introduced with prior groundwork in the form of the White Paper and very wide participation by members of the public in the discussions on the White Paper.

Many pertinent points have been made and I shall not repeat them. There is no doubt that religious harmony is imperative for peace and progress in Singapore.

I would like to comment on the Presidential Council. This is in Part II, clause 7, and it enjoins secrecy on the proceedings of the Council. I think that the proceedings themselves should be secret, but that the results of the proceedings, such as the opinions of the Council and its recommendations to the Minister, should be made public. Only in this way can the public know where the Council stands on any particular issue. If the decisions of the Council are shrouded in secrecy, there is no way for the public to know whether the Council agrees or disagrees with the Minister on any particular issue, or whether the Council is in fact playing a useful role. Some may even surmise that it is a "rubber-stamp" Council.

The point, Sir, is that the Council should have credibility, and it should be seen to have it. And the only way I can see that we can show this to be so is for its decisions and its recommendations to be publicly announced.

With this reservation, Sir, I support the Bill.

Encik Wan Hussin bin Haji Zoohri (Aljunied GRC): ( In Malay): Mr Deputy Speaker, in debating this Bill, we have to refer to the Government White Paper on Maintenance of Religious Harmony. The Introduction to the White Paper stated that it is proposing a law to maintain religious tolerance and harmony in Singapore and to establish a Presidential Council for Religious Harmony. To achieve these objectives, the White Paper continued, two conditions must be observed.

First, the adherents of all religions must practise moderation and tolerance and should not do anything that might lead to hatred and enmity between religious groups. Secondly, politics and religion must be rigorously kept separate.

I think the first condition is acceptable to all. As for the second condition - the separation of politics and religion - viewed in the wider sense, there exists no absolute dividing line between religion and politics in the eyes of Islam. This is because Muslims regard Islam as the only way of life for them. Islam encompasses all aspects of a Muslim's life - from birth to death. Politics is therefore an integral part of the Islamic way of life and, hence, there can be no separation between religion and politics.

Nevertheless, Mr Deputy Speaker, in my understanding, politics as intended in the White Paper has a more specific meaning, ie in the sense of the authority or mandate to govern and administer a country. Since the mandate to rule has been entrusted, for a specific term of office, by the people upon the Government, it is incumbent upon the Government to discharge this responsibility with wisdom and justice. If the Government senses any potential threat to the prevailing climate of religious harmony, the Government has the power to act in order to prevent disorder. And, viewed from this specific angle, it would be more accurate to say that the Bill requires the separation of religion and politics as a means to prevent the misuse of religion or politics for undesirable ends. This is what "separation of religion and politics" really means here.

Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, since the publication of the White Paper and the introduction of this Bill, various comments and concerns have been expressed by the general public. Some are concerned as to how this legislation, once passed, is to be implemented. Some have expressed the fear that this law will stifle religious freedom. They wondered whether what they have been doing all this time is going to be subjected to some new limitations. Such concern and uneasiness are understandable, because this is the first time a Bill of such nature is introduced.

In my view, it is not the aim of the Bill to inhibit the practices and work of the various religious groups here, which so far have been carried out in an orderly manner. In other words, the status quo will be maintained. No `ustaz' or Muslim missionary should be so psychologically or emotionally distressed by this Bill that the work they have been doing peacefully all this time is affected. If, thus far, they have not done anything to put themselves in the categories of people or activities cited in the White Paper, then they should have no fears. It is my hope that Muslim preachers and the various Muslim bodies would keep up and, indeed, better the good work they have long been doing, and they can do so as long as they have regard to the sort of activities referred to in the White Paper. In this connection, I would like to appeal to the Muslim Religious Council to play a role by explaining further the true perspective of this Bill to the other Muslim bodies. This will help to allay any negative perceptions about it. Other Muslim organisations can do the same too.

Concerning the Presidential Council for Religious Harmony, I welcome its establishment. One of its functions, as set out in Part II Clause 4 (1) (a), is, and I quote:

'to consider and report to the Minister on matters affecting the maintenance of religious harmony in Singapore which are referred to the Council by the Minister or by Parliament;'

Since the maintenance of religious harmony is a matter of concern to both sides, the people and the Government, I wonder if the Minister could consider the possibility of allowing the Council to consider the same matters but which are referred to it by other than the Minister and Parliament. In other words, matters concerning the maintenance of religious harmony that may be referred to the Council by religious organisations and the public.

I refer now to Clause 5 on the proceedings and recommendations of the Council. No details have been given as to how the Council is to arrive at its decisions. Should it be by consensus, or should it be simply by majority vote? What about minority views? Should it also be conveyed to the Minister? I hope the Minister could clarify these points.

Concerning the powers of the Minister, one of the concerns expressed by the public is on the wide powers vested in the Minister in the enforcement of this law. It would appear that the fortunes and future of any pastor, priest or imam or other missionary are going to be left in his hands. They are going to be dependant on whether the Minister is satisfied that they have committed an offence under Clause 8 (1) (a) to (d). Some have said the Minister's judgement in this respect is going to be very subjective.

In response, let me say that it is no simple task for the Minister to make a decision. He must be fully satisfied that the person concerned has, without doubt, committed one of the offences. In my opinion, the current Minister for Law is not someone known for making arbitrary decisions. I have confidence in his integrity, honesty and sense of justice. Nevertheless, to allay the fears of the public about the powers in his hands, the Minister should, I think, give further hypothetical examples, besides those instances already cited in the White Paper, to show the kind of situations that tend to lead to religious friction.

In my view, there are many factors to be considered before a prohibition order is issued. Among these, it would be necessary to consider the background of the person concerned, to examine whether his/her speeches reflect a negative trend or line, and to identify his/her style, techniques, tone, language and terms used, as well as conduct when making the speeches. And, of course, consideration must also be given to the kind of audience he/she is speaking to, and the place where it is made, whether it is a mosque, a public rally or an academic forum. The important question the Minister has to ask is whether the actions of the person constitute any of the offences under Clause 8 (1) (a) to (d). If this factor stands out clear above all others, then, but only then, for the sake of religious harmony, should the prohibition order be imposed.

In this connection, I would like to appeal to the Minister to consider issuing a warning letter to the person, if the contravention is not so serious as to warrant a prohibition order. This is considering (1) that the person might not be aware of having committed any of the four offences; (2) that the person or other concerned parties might not be in full agreement with the Minister's interpretation of what happened; (3) that a warning letter might be sufficiently effective to alert and caution the person of his/her mistake; (4) that the person would thereby have the opportunity to rectify his/her mistake; (5) that the objective of this exercise is not to punish but to rectify an error; and (6) that the effect of a warning letter on the person would not be as serious or harsh as a prohibition order.

I now move on to the two-year period of the prohibition order. Some have expressed the view that it is too long. I would like a clarification as to the rationale behind this length. Could the Minister not shorten it to one year? In my view, receiving the prohibition order alone would be enough to alert the person of the dangers of his/her actions or speech, if he/she truly appreciates the multi-religious, multi-racial nature and social climate of Singapore. Thus, a short period of prohibition order should be adequate.

Mr Deputy Speaker, in conclusion, the introduction of this Bill can be likened to thatching our roof before rain comes. We can also look at it as a set of directional signs in a Singapore garden of religions. By observing these signs, we can prevent ourselves from being hurt by the thorns in the garden. By following the signs, we will be able to enjoy the growth and the greening of this lovely garden, which has long been blessed with the flowers of religions hailing from all points of the compass.

Before I take my seat, I would like to bring to the attention of the Minister paragraph 9 of the Annex to the White Paper, on page 14. Let me read out the first sentence:

'Muslims and Ahmadis: There is a long-standing dispute between orthodox local Muslim organisations and the Ahmadiyya Muslim Mission.'

Mr Deputy Speaker, some of my constituents have brought my attention to the use of the term "Ahmadiyya Muslim Mission" here. They felt that the use of this term in the White Paper can be construed to mean that the Government recognizes the Ahmadis as a Muslim movement. To Muslims, the Ahmadis are out of the fold of Islam. So, I would like to urge that the Minister seek the advice of MUIS as to whether the use of the term "Ahmadiyya Muslim Mission" is correct in the Singapore context.

On that note, I support the Bill.

Dr Tan Cheng Bock (Ayer Rajah): Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, for allowing me to join in this debate.

I rise to support the Bill standing in the name of the Minister for Home Affairs. I support this Bill for the simple reason that as there are many religious practices taking place in this country, some form of guidance and control must be in place to ensure that anyone practising his or her faith knows the limitations of his practice. This is because practising religion in a multi-religious country requires not just understanding, tact and tolerance but more than that. While it is clear that our Constitution allows that religious freedom is guaranteed, one cannot assume that religious freedom can be practised without some degree of responsibility. If this is not so, this freedom will lead to chaos and havoc. We have witnessed these daily on our television screen and read in the newspapers.

In other words, we cannot practise our faith in isolation. We cannot ignore the fact that as a practising Taoist or Buddhist, there are amongst us Singaporeans, many practising Christianity, Hinduism and Islam. To ignore this is to court trouble. Thus, while it is the right of Christians, for example, to distribute leaflets to Hindus coming out of a Hindu temple. after their prayers, it may not be wise to spread their faith in such a manner. Thus, some constraints, some sacrifice may have to be asked of the many religious bodies to ensure that the devastating effects of religion and racial conflicts do not come to our shores.

In Singapore, race and religion are synonymous because if you are a Muslim very likely you are a Malay. So also, if you are an Indian it is very likely that you belong to the Hindu faith. And if you are a Chinese, very likely you are a Taoist or a Buddhist. Thus, a religious conflict in Singapore will lead to a racial conflict and we must take the trouble to see that this will not happen.

Look at this Bill as one of the ways to ensure this peace. Do not be prejudiced by recent past events like the Marxist arrests. Look at Singapore in the context of this mix of people with this mix of religions and think of what has happened in other parts of the world where governments are afraid to make such a move in case of being voted out of Parliament. On the contrary, they use religion to serve their ends and probably end up worse off. It takes a lot of courage and planning to introduce this legislation.

This Bill could be challenged by many as unnecessary and uncalled for because we have religious harmony for years. But I do not believe in chance. One can never tell what will happen in the future. Do not liken our religious bodies with those in China and Soviet Russia if this legislation is passed, as pointed out by a Straits Times reader. I appeal to the religious bodies to view this as a preventive measure, as pointed out by our Deputy Speaker earlier on. I understand their fears of the powers of the Minister and this is shared by many of my parliamentary colleagues and the heads of many religious bodies. This main point of contention must be solved. How the religious council has to work with the Minister must be worked out at the Select Committee to let our main stream religious bodies feel comfortable that the intention of this Bill is not to curb their practice but to ensure their survival and continuance. For example, if the Council is to have weight, it must be given quasi judicial powers such as conducting inquiry with powers to summon witnesses and to hear evidence under oath.

Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I used to appeal to Singaporeans to be tolerant of each other's religious belief. But now I think tolerance, to me, is a weak foundation for religious harmony. It implies blind acceptance and blind acceptance can break down easily. What if one day I decide not to be tolerant? We must go beyond that and this is where moral education in schools is important and where a chapter must be devoted to an appreciation and understanding of the main stream religions. This together with this legislation on the Maintenance of Religious Harmony Bill will put this very important pillar of society on a more sound footing.

I support this Bill.

Dr John Chen Seow Phun (Hong Kah GRC): Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, Singapore is a multi-racial and multi-religious country. Our founding leaders have rightly made Singapore a secular state to ensure religious and racial harmony without which we will never be able to survive as one nation. Singapore is thus governed by a secular Constitution from which the Government derives its political authority. The Constitution, however, guarantees freedom of religion as long as the exercise of this freedom does not threaten the overall national interest.

The Government therefore accords the same legal status to all religions and publicly stated time and again that it will always remain neutral towards the various religious groups. We have no reason to doubt the Government's position. This is because the Government realises too well that if it is not neutral or even if it is perceived to be not neutral, religious sentiments could easily be aroused and temperatures could quickly rise. This could lead to conflict and tension between religious groups or between the Government and the unhappy religious groups. Under such circumstances, political parties are also likely to exploit the situation in the hope of discrediting and overthrowing the Government. The end result could be public disorder and political instability.

Sir, there will be no problem if Singaporeans respect and take care of the sensitivity of each other's faith when propagating their own faith, and if religious groups do not lend themselves to the political process of the country. The problem comes when a person or a religious group steps out of bound either by attacking the faith of another person or another group, or by making use of religion and religious activities for his or their venture into politics. When this happens, the Government must step in to prevent the damage it may cost to our society.

But when the Government acts, it runs the risk of being accused of attacking the religious group against whose members action has been taken. In other words, religious groups might then not accept that the Government is neutral and this may lead to disastrous consequences.

Such possibilities may not happen if people in general are not interested in religion. However, recent survey has shown that there has been heightened religious fervour among the various religious groups in Singapore. This increases the probability of conflict tremendously especially when over-zealous followers of the different faiths come into contact with each other. In the university, most religions are represented among student clubs. On matriculation day, we have seen these religious clubs competing for attention from the new students in an attempt to promote their activities and to get more members. To avoid troubles, we have laid down some rules pertaining to the physical sizes of banners and orientation booths to prevent competition from turning into conflict.

Likewise, at the national level, a set of ground rules governing what can and cannot be done by religious and political leaders and which are understood and hopefully agreed by all are necessary. These ground rules must be in the form of an effective and comprehensive piece of legislation which will enable the Government to take appropriate and prompt action against offenders. I agree with the White Paper that although existing laws such as the Sedition Act, the Penal Code and the Internal Security Act can handle some of the offences, they are not designed for the effective maintenance of religious harmony. Offences under the Sedition Act and the Penal Code will usually carry a more severe punishment. A Court trial may be too late to stop a person from causing irreparable damages. The judicial proceedings and the judgment may themselves arouse religious passions. The ISA, on the other hand, was designed primarily to combat subversion. It is a crude instrument for the maintenance of religious harmony. Its use may often result in an overkill. If not, much harm may also be done before it is invoked.

The proposed legislation therefore allows the Minister to issue the offender with a prohibition order to prevent him from repeating the offence. Only if he continues the offending act will he be charged in Court. This is a quicker and finer instrument compared to the existing laws and therefore a more effective way of maintaining peace and harmony.

Sir, the major concern of most people regarding this Bill is why the Minister should be given the power to decide on the prohibition order and where the safeguards are against the abuse of power by the Minister.

Generally, the power to decide on the prohibition order can be vested in either the Court, the proposed Presidential Council for Religious Harmony or the Minister or the Cabinet. If the power is vested in the Court, I see the same difficulties which I have expressed earlier concerning the problems of Court trial. Furthermore, the offending act can be so delicate and subtle that the evidence produced may not be admissible in the Court nor sufficient for conviction. But that does not mean that the alleged offence will never undermine religious harmony and never have political sensitivities. Fundamentally, I see the difficulty for a secular court to decide on religious matters. Secular courts and their judgment appeal to the natural and rational norms of a society whereas a religious person appeals to the super-natural, and what is rational to him may not be rational to another person. That is why I see a secular court deciding on religious disputes as explosive.

If the power is vested in the Presidential Council, the Council will also have difficulty to be the final arbiter on religious disputes because of its multi-racial and multi-religious nature. A Muslim member of the Council may not want to pass judgment on the dispute between, say, the Hindus and the Christians. Furthermore, minor religions or denominations may not be represented in the Council and who will speak on their behalf and protect their interests? Can the Council decide on issues which require political judgment? The Council must therefore play an advisory role.

It is therefore obvious that in order for the legislation to work, the Minister or maybe the Cabinet must take up the power and the responsibility which is entrusted to them by the electorate, to decide on prohibition orders in the interest of the nation as long as there are reasonable safeguards against the abuse of power. The Presidential Council for Religious Harmony and the prosecution in court for it to decide whether the person has breached the Minister's prohibition order provide some safeguards. I am glad to note from the White Paper that these provisions are results of Government consultation with the Government Parliamentary Committees, MPs, community and religious leaders. I believe more views and representations will be received once this Bill is committed to a Select Committee after it is passed in this reading, so as to further fine-tune this piece of legislation. Perhaps the Government should consider altering the Bill to give the Cabinet the power to decide on the prohibition order, instead of the Minister alone, for I think this is a better safeguard in that the Cabinet itself is multi-racial and it should provide a better analysis and decision.

However, Sir, the greatest safeguard, in my view, is the ultimate judgment of the people of Singapore. The Government cannot expect to abuse its power in religious matters and get away with it. On the other hand, to deny the Government this power because of possible abuse is to ask for a more treacherous tendency for disharmony and not less. For nothing else can be as effective in the maintenance of religious harmony in Singapore.

Having supported strongly the necessity of this legislation and the necessity of giving the Government the power to decide on prohibition order, I would like to suggest a modification for the Minister to consider.

According to the proposed Bill, when a person receives a notice of the Minister's intention to issue a prohibition order, he can only seek representation by written statements. He has no right to appear before the Minister or the Council for an oral hearing. He has no way of getting a response from the Minister or the Council except the final decision. In other words, he has no opportunity to argue his case as carefully and effectively as one would in an oral hearing. I can understand the difficulty for the Minister to hear everyone out personally. But surely it is not impossible nor undesirable for the Council to hear the appeal of the person concerned personally.

Finally, Sir, I would like to ask the Minister whether the prohibition orders, the recommendations of the Council and the judgment of the Court in a conviction will be made known to the public. I believe the Bill is silent on those points and I would appreciate the Minister's clarification because there are important implications.

Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I support the Bill.

Resolved,

"That the debate be now adjourned." - [Mr Wong Kan Seng].

Mr Deputy Speaker: Order. Debate to be resumed what day?

Prof. Jayakumar: Tomorrow, Sir.

Mr Deputy Speaker: So be it.