MAINTENANCE OF RELIGIOUS HARMONY BILL

[Mr Speaker in the Chair]

Debate resumed.

Dr S. Vasoo (Tiong Bahru GRC): Thank you, Mr Speaker, Sir, for allowing me to join the debate.

Sir, we have religious harmony for some time. We hope that this will last forever. Will it? I am not sure of this. Mr Chiam thinks that it will, but he will probably also join me to think that it may not be possible for us to forecast what it is going to be like. Sir, we cannot take for granted that this will last. There is no guarantee unless all Singaporeans of various religious persuasions work towards the maintenance of religious harmony. Though this is difficult, we have to attempt to try and get them to work together. Religious differences are like time bombs. All we need are a few irresponsible fanatics to light the fuse to create religious discord. It is these irrational people that we must take actions against triggering religious tensions and conflicts.

Sir, you and I and many of my parliamentary colleagues have experienced two racial riots when we were young. These were started by religious fanatics and subversives. There were many untold miseries that we have all experienced and we know of and they are all very grim situations that we have all had some exposure to. We have suffered gravely by these setbacks which left much bitterness that took a long time to resolve. I remembered my peace loving neighbours saying that they felt that it should never have happened, but it did. Mr Chiam hopes that religious harmony would continue, but would it? I think it is a basic question that we will all have to ask ourselves. These are things of the past that I cannot easily forget. Therefore, I would like to urge all Singaporeans to see the Bill as a safeguard for our long term societal stability.

Sir, I support the Maintenance of Religious Harmony Bill as it will provide us opportunity to take preventive action against individuals or groups who are out to exploit religious issues to cause social disharmony in our society. I must say that it is a Bill which will help to maintain our social well-being, especially in a multi-racial and religious society like ours.

Sir, there are many lessons which we can draw from various places where religious passions have flared, resulting in unending human miseries and loss of lives. Recent events in many places have shown how grim the problems can be. Surely we would not like this to happen in Singapore. And if it does happen it will be very difficult for us to put things back together again. This, I think, every thinking and rational Singaporean will have to work to see that we ensure there is religious harmony, mutual respect and mutual tolerance among our people.

Sir, I hope that during our lifetime and our children's lifetime, such religious conflicts do not happen. It would be a sad day for all of us if we do not take steps to prevent this. Therefore, we need to bring more awareness among our citizens, particularly the young and the old, the need to have mutual respect and religious tolerance. Perhaps we need to inculcate into our young and also through our efforts in public housing to bring people of various religious persuasions to integrate and to socialise and to understand one another. The enacting of the Bill would provide one of the realistic solutions.

Sir, I am concerned about recent increase in religious fervour in Singapore. I have myself witnessed, as a parliamentarian in my own constituency, some of the issues and problems that have arisen and this I must say is a real problem. It is likely to grow if we do not bring to consciousness this problem and take steps to check some of these unhealthy trends. Sir, we need to monitor these activities carefully to see if these are healthy. All we need are some fanatics to throw a spanner in our works. If this happens, it will be disastrous for all of us. Our society will be fractured. It will never be able to heal the wounds of religious conflicts.

Sir, with regard to the Bill, I have a few concerns to address. One is the issue of the definitions of the Bill, which have been brought up by various Members, as to be vague. I feel that there is a need to arbitrate judiciously in terms of the interpretational problems arising out of those definitions. It is essential to have a judicial committee perhaps to review some of the problems that arise as a result of this difficulty in interpretation. Secondly, Sir, the other concern which has been expressed is that in the event there are conflicts between the Minister and the Presidential Council over religious harmony, one has to ask whether if the prohibition order has to be imposed, whose view would prevail? We cannot predict that such situations cannot arise. In the event that it does, who would arbitrate in this matter? I feel that there is a need to set up a Presidential Review Committee which can deal with such problems.

Sir, aside from these concerns, I am in full support of this Bill because I feel that it will ensure the long term safeguard for our social security and the stability of our society.

Dr Ow Chin Hock (Leng Kee): ( In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, Sir, first of all, I must declare that I do not have any religious belief but I do have close connection with the Catholic religion.

I support this Bill. However, when we debate this Bill, I hope we will concentrate more on its spirit and its objective rather than merely on its clauses and definitions. All Singaporeans, including leaders of the opposition parties, accept the objective of this Bill, ie, to ensure that there is religious harmony here. In a pluralistic society like Singapore, religious harmony and racial harmony are closely linked. This spirit of harmonious co-existence is not only an ideal but one of the basic conditions for nation building.

There is no doubt that religion has contributed greatly to our society. Religion satisfies the spiritual needs of the believers and serves as their moral guide. Religion has undertaken educational, social and charitable works and this contribution should not go unrecognised. That religion could co-exist in Singapore in peaceful harmony is no doubt due to the Government's neutral policy in which the various religious bodies are treated fairly and equally. At the same time, the fact that the various religious organisations have exercised mutual respect and tolerance has also contributed to our religious harmony.

However, in recent years, there seems to be changes to the situation. There is a trend of religious revivalism in many parts of the world. There are also many incidents of inter-religious riots and even wars in many countries. Such external factors have increased the possibility of friction among our religious groups. Some over-zealous believers have adopted a dominant and exclusive position, rejecting other religions and practising aggressive proselytization. No doubt, the zealous missionaries are acting out of good intention, for example, showing the way to Heaven for critically-ill patients, and giving spiritual support to students who have failed their examinations. Yet, to the person or persons concerned, and to members of their families, these preachers are taking advantage of the situation and adding more disturbance to their misery. Some of these preachers condemn other people's religions in an attempt to convert them. Of course, such method of proselytization would be strongly objected by the other religious organisations which will then retaliate in self-defence, thereby causing inter-religious conflicts.

The Annex to the White Paper on the Maintenance of Religious Harmony, has given such alarming examples. Therefore, we have to do something in anticipation and prepare ourselves for the rainy days, so that our religious organisations will continue co-exist peacefully, and that the religious leaders would restrain their respective followers to abide by the principles of mutual respect and mutual tolerance. This is why the Government has to introduce this Bill at this stage.

It is said that a single spark can start a prairie fire. We cannot wait until the spirit of religious harmony is undermined and the various religious organisations are placed in a situation in which they are as incompatible as fire and water, before we discuss how to deal with the situation. By that time, the structure of our society would be undermined; there will be political instability and the nation would be disintegrated. It would be too late for us to remedy the situation. The situations in Lebanon, Punjab and Sri Lanka, etc. are very good examples for us to learn our lessons from.

Some people feel that our existing laws are adequate to deal with the religious fanatics and people who undermine our religious harmony, for example, the Penal Code, Sedition Act or the Internal Security Act. However, these laws may be too severe or they cannot speedily prevent any conduct capable of undermining our religious harmony. Also in the course of judicial proceedings, the offender may make use of the opportunity to carry out propagation or to incite emotion, thereby worsening the situation. For this reason, we must have a new legislation which gives the Government the power to effectively and speedily, yet not too harshly, check the conduct of those who attempt to undermine our religious harmony.

The Minister is given the power to issue a Prohibition Order to stop a person from repeating his action or activity which could do harm to our religious harmony. Fourteen days before the Minister issues the Prohibition Order, he must notify the person concerned and also the leader of the religious body to which he belongs, so that he will have a chance to explain or to make representation. In addition, the Minister must also inform the proposed Presidential Council could give their views within the same time limits.

For any legislation to be effective, there must be some restrictive measures and punitive provisions. However, in this Bill, when the power is given to the Minister to issue a Prohibition Order, it is more regulatory than punitive in nature. As far as this Bill is concerned, it is limited in both its objective and its power. It does not impose any restriction on anybody's freedom of religion. Neither does it prevent any religious body from propagating its beliefs. For those who have no intention to undermine our religious harmony or to indulge in political activities under the guise of religions, there is really nothing to worry about.

Another major feature in this Bill is the formal establishment of a Presidential Council for Religious Harmony. It comprises representatives of the major religions. The Government has also accepted the suggestion to include grassroots leaders and other prominent lay persons who are respected and well-known in society in the Council. I believe these non-religious councillors can represent the viewpoints of those who do not have any religion. For example, they may recommend to the Council to request the religious leaders to restrain their own followers from slandering and rejecting traditional etiquette and custom which would affect harmony among members of the family.

It is pointed out in the White Paper that the Council can play a valuable role in moderating relatins between religious groups. At the same time, it can recommend to the Government on how best to deal with sensitive religious issues. From this perspective, it would appear that the two functions assigned to the Council under Clause 4 of this Bill are too narrow and passive. The Council should have the right to take the initiative to make recommendations to the Minister with regard to inter-religious relationship, the scope in which religions can carry out their activities, and the code of conduct for the preaching of religious beliefs, etc. In other words, the Council can play a more active part in the maintenance of religious harmony.

As far as the Prohibition Order is concerned, the Council can only make its recommendation. The Minister has to have regard to any such recommendation of the Council, but he is not bound by the recommendation of the Council. This arrangement is perhaps consistent with the Governments' position that the Government must claim ultimate political autority from the Constitution, and not from any divine sanction or the will of Heaven. However, on the other hand, if the Minister frequently disregards the recommendation of the Council, then it would diminish the influence of the Council on the various religious bodies and its authority on religious matters. This cannot be the original intention for the establishment of the Presidential Council for Religious Harmony. The Minister should also be objective and fair in making the decision before issuing the Prohibition Order. If he successively issues Prohibition Orders against perhaps from a particular religious group, he will have to face queries from his Cabinet colleagues, criticisms from Members of Parliament and finally sanction of the people. Therefore, I do not believe that the power given to the Minister is absolute. If the Minister abuses his power, the whole Government may have to pay a very high political price for it.

The issue that religion and politics should be strictly separated has aroused some heated arguments. These arguments were generated because the followers of some religions believe that the faith encompasses all aspects of life, and that it is impossible to separate religious from political behaviour. Another contentions issue is the definition of "Politics". Religious bodies and religious leaders are concerned that when they express their views on social and moral issues, they may be construed as having interfered with politics.

With regard to the first issue, our democratic system has provided us with the proper channel to participate in or to be involved in politics. One does not need to influence politics through religious means. At a General Election, when the voter casts his vote, he is exercising his political rights as a voter and not as a religious follower. Similarly, a candidate participates in politics as a citizen of Singapore and not as a member of any religious group. Nobody knows to what extent a voter is being influenced by his own religious belief when he casts his vote for the candidate of his choice. Likewise, nobody knows whether a candidate standing in the general election is doing so because he wants to serve the nation or because he is inspired by God, or for any other reason. However, if anyone makes use of religion to appeal to the voters for support and to influence the election results, then, obviously, he is using religion to interfere with politics. By so doing, he will certainly arouse strong objection from other religious organisations with counter-action. This will not only undermine our religious harmony but also bring about political instability. To get involved in politics through religion is not appropriate in our pluralistic and secular society.

As for the second issue, I do not think we are in a position to give a definition for "Politics" which is acceptable to everybody. I do not believe that this Bill seeks to deprive any religious leader of his right to express his own views on any social, economic or even political issue. In fact, any Singaporean, irrespective of his religion, or non-religious status, can freely express his views on any policy or current affairs by writing to the press. The views of religious leaders on such topics such as multinationals, foreign workers, distribution of wealth, population policy, etc. may not be as incisive as those of the sociologists, economists or demographers. They can, at most, look at these topics from the educational or moral point of view. However, there is one thing that the religious leaders must note, that is, in view of the influence they have on their followers, they must be cautious when they express their views. Very often, it would depend on his capacity, the venue, the choice of words and the starting points under which he makes his statement. As a matter of fact, they could make representation to the relevant department on certain matters in their capacity as citizens. They could even request to have a dialogue session with the Government Parliamentary Committees or Ministers to express their own stand or views.

What the Bill seeks to prevent is the action by persons who may try to make use of their religious organizations to mobilise their followers and to organise the so-called "social action" to exert pressure on the Government to give way on some policies. Different religious groups may have entirely different views on a given issue. If they all seek to exert pressure on the Government using the same method, then this will not only bring about a confrontation with the Government but also friction among the various religions.

Finally, I wish to raise a relatively sensitive matter, one which touches on the relationship between Ministers, Members of Parliament and the religious organisations. The Prime Minister, on 13th December 1988, observed that the last three General Elections had brought into Parliament more Members of Parliament who have religious beliefs. Yet, this has not changed the secular outlook of the Government. He also pointed out that Ministers and Members of Parliament, irrespective of their own religious beliefs, should adopt a secular attitute in dealing with their constituents, because these constituents come from different religious backgrounds or may have no religious belief. Yet, there are some people among us who feel that we should keep an equal distance from all religions or religious activities, that is, avoid attending activities organised by any religious organisation. I do not agree with this.

First, this will be very unfair to our Malay Members of Parliament because, to them, it is very difficult to separate race from religion. Furthermore, as Members of Parliament, of whatever religion, must rise above religion to be close to our people. We must treat all religions equally without discrimination and to take care of all religious organisations in our constituency. When a religious organisation in our constituency invites us to its function, it is doing so out of respect for our status in the constituency.

If a Member of Parliament, for reason of his own religious belief, refuses to attend the functions of these religious organisations, including religious functions, then this will mean that he is being influenced by his own religious belief into being prejudiced against the other religions. I respect the choice of every individual Member of Parliament. But, I hope that they know and understand the consequences of their choice. To treat all religions equally and without discrimination does not mean to reject without exception all invitations to attend various religious activities. To treat them equally and without discrimination, we should keep in contact with all the eligious organisations in our consti- tuency. If we reject without exception all invitations by various religious organisations, then this will result in our becoming estranged from our people, thus giving them the impression that we are cutting ourselves off from the masses and being intolerant to those who profess a religion different from ours. When a Member of Parliament attends these religious activities ---

Mr Speaker: Order. The Leader of the House wants to move a procedural motion.