MAINTENANCE OF RELIGIOUS HARMONY BILL

Debate resumed.

Mr Speaker: Dr Ow, you may continue.

Dr Ow Chin Hock: ( In Mandarin): When a Member of Parliament attends such religious activities, I do not think it would tantamount to compromising his own religious belief. The Member can simply treat such activities as social functions which give him the opportunity to be closer to the people and to understand them better. Moreover, when Members attend such activities, they are setting an example to show that people of different religions can gather under one roof with mutual comity and mutual tolerance. Indirectly, by so doing, they will promote religious harmony, in keeping with the spirit of this Bill.

Encik Zulkifli bin Mohammed (Eunos GRC): ( In Malay): Mr Speaker, when this Bill was first announced, it was envisaged that it would become a hot issue, because of its sensitivity. Its central issue is religion, an emotional issue, deeply ingrained in all believers. It is therefore not surprising that there is a perception in certain quarters that the Bill is politically motivated, that is, suppossedly, intended as a means to curb missionary activities and is directed at those groups who hold views contrary to the Government or groups deemed undesirable in the eyes of the Government. Is this true? In my opinion, if we could analyse the Government White Paper and the Bill calmly, logically and rationally, the correct perspective could be seen, i.e., that the Bill is aimed at curbing the action of any religious leaders or members of religious organisations or follower or any party for that matter who may wilfully use religion to excite popular sentiments to achieve their political ends, thereby causing chaos and strife. In other words, the Bill is more of a preventive measure, and not a means to restrict religious and missionary activities. As such, the public should not worry or feel uneasy about it because, in its White Paper, the Government has given an assurance that the proposed measures will not alter the provisions of Articles 15, 152 and 153 of the Constitution of Singapore, which guarantee religious freedom, including the interests of the Malay/Muslim community.

Mr Speaker, the undesirable incidents that could jeopardize religious harmony have already been cited in the White Paper. Can we just feel satisfied about it or can we confidently say that such incidents will not recur in future? I believe we cannot afford to take unnecessary risks because the stark reality is that recent trends indicate that the state of religious harmony in Singapore is not as it was before, despite the higher educational standards and quality of life that we have attained. What we must realise is that even today there is a lack of understanding on the part of the various communities of Singapore of each other's different customs, culture and religious practices. What is important is not just tolerance but continual efforts at understanding and appreciating each other's differences, becuase we cannot take it for granted that religious harmony will always prevail.

Mr Speaker, in view of these considerations, I fully support this Bill, but, like my other PAP colleagues, I would like to urge the Minister for Home Affairs to examine carefully the reservations that have been expressed, in particular on the wide powers of the Minister and also the membership and role of the Presidential Council for Religious Harmony. With regard to the Presidential Council, I am of the view that its membership should be restricted to those who profess a religion.

Finally, I would like to ask the Hon. Minister whether Members of Parliament, especially the Malay MPs, would be allowed to deliver speeches at functions organised by religious organisations without being accused of mixing religion and politics.

Encik Ibrahim Othman (Bedok GRC): ( In Malay): Mr Speaker, I support this Bill as it seeks to achieve two important aims, ie, to maintain religious harmony and to ensure the separation of religion and politics. The consequences of extremist religious activities can be very serious as they can undermine the bonds that hold society together. Thus, it is wise at this time to introduce a law to control the airing of sensitive religious issues. 4.05 pm

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lim Boon Heng) in the Chair]

Encik Ibrahim Othman (Bedok GRC): Our society is multi-racial and multi-religious. We are free to profess our own religions without interference from anyone. This has been the Government's policy for more than 30 years. The religious harmony that we have enjoyed so far must be maintained for all times to come. I think this requires responsibility on the part of every citizen. Without religious harmony, we would not enjoy stability in the country. We would also not be able to enjoy social and political stability. Therefore, if we want to live in a state of peace and order, each one of us must be prepared to bear the responsibility and play a role in ensuring religious harmony. What we have achieved so far can be sustained with the enforcement of this Bill.

Mr Deputy Speaker, under the Bill, the Minister is empowered to issue a prohibition order to religious leaders or their followers if their speeches or actions are prejudicial to religious harmony. I would suggest that the Government first issue a warning letter. This is the same suggestion made by a number of other Members earlier, ie, that the Minister first issues a warning letter before a prohibition order is imposed. This would serve to alert the person concerned of the mistake he has committed. The warning letter could also be issued jointly by the proposed Presidential Council for Religious Harmony. If the person concerned continues to act in a manner prejudicial to religious harmony, then the Minister could issue the prohibition order and later to take the necessary action in court.

The Bill proposes the setting up of a Presidential Council for Religious Harmony. This Council can play a significant role in furthering efforts to maintain harmony in our country. The Council can look into and produce a code of conduct for all religious groups and their followers. This code of conduct can be distributed to all those involved in religious organisations.

Further, the Government could also lay down clearly what religious activities are deemed to be interference in politics. And this has been referred to by the Minister for Trade and Industry earlier. This would help us to be more cautious in practising our beliefs and avoid mixing them with politics. This would also prevent us from getting into disputes and misunderstandings later.

I would like to seek clarification from the Minister on two matters. Firstly, I would like to ask the Minister how we can determine whether a religious leader was acting in his capacity as a religious leader or as an ordinary citizen participating in the political process, particularly when campaigning for an election. As far as I know, a religious leader would always be regarded as a leader by his congregation, whether he happens to be in his robes or in the pulpit or otherwise.

The second question I would like to ask is whether political leaders are allowed to involve themselves in religious activities. Would this be deemed to be mixing religion with politics? I ask this question so that the Government can allay any doubts in the minds of political leaders, especially Malay Members of Parliament who are often involved in religious ceremonies in Singapore.

Lastly, I think the important factors in maintaining religious harmony are tolerance, mutual respect and goodwill among people of different religions. Although the Bill is intended to be a preventive measure against anyone with the mischievous intent to cause trouble, we have to take immediate action to nurture the spirit of tolerance, mutual respect and goodwill among our children, especially those who are still in school. This can be done effectively through the moral education programme that is going to replace religious studies in school soon. We must also point out to parents the importance of nurturing these ideas, so that they could impart them to their children. Better still, religious leaders too should stress the importance of the relevant moral values and values that would promote the maintenance of religious harmony.

Mr Deputy Speaker, I support the Minister's move to commit this Bill to a Select Committee. The people should take this opportunity to offer their views so that the Bill could be further refined and improved. Let us not make a hue and cry only after the Bill has been finalised.

Sir, since the Bill does not affect religious freedom as enshrined in the Constitution, I support the Bill.

The Minister for Home Affairs (Prof. S. Jayakumar): Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I wish to thank Members who have spoken during this debate and I also want to make the observation that except for two Members, the NCMP and the Member for Potong Pasir, the principles in the Bill have received almost unanimous support from the other Members although they have expressed legitimate concerns and made suggestions for improvement. What is even more remarkable is that the Members who have spoken in support come from a wide variety of religious faiths. I think that augurs well for our country and also underlines the need to ensure that we preserve this state of affairs.

My task in winding up the debate, has been made easier because of the intervention by my Cabinet colleagues, the Second Deputy Prime Minister, the Minister for Foreign Affairs, the Minister for National Development, the Minister for Trade and Industry and the important statement made by the First Deputy Prime Minister, and they have dealt with various facets of the problem. They have dealt with issues which other Members have raised, such as whether the Bill will curb religious freedom, is it a measure to silence dissent and so on.

What I propose to do, Sir, is not to comment on each and every point that has been raised by Members. I would just deal with the major themes or issues which have been raised and other details or specific suggestions may be more suitable to be considered by the Select Committee.

First, one recurring point in speeches of many Members was the fear of abuse and the point was made that we may trust the present Government or the present leaders but the Bill can be abused. The powers contained in this law could be abused by some future governments. The first answer to that is let us ensure for the future of our country and our future generations that we always elect men of integrity into the government. But having said that, if you ask the question whether it is possible that our electoral system can throw up by some chance a government which is corrupt, dishonest, anti-religion or anti some religions, the answer must be yes. There is that possibility and there is no guarantee that any future government will be committed to the same goals as this Government of carefully nurturing and preserving racial harmony and religious freedom.

Let us not delude ourselves. When and if such a government comes into power, it does not need this proposed law to carry out its evil designs. Such a government will pass draconian legislation. If it has a two-thirds majority, it could amend the religious freedom Articles. I would like Members to consider that.

What we are proposing in this law is the exact opposite. Instead of resorting to more severe measures which we already have at the disposal - either ISA or prosecution in the court -we are proposing a more limited, proportionate measure and we say let us deal with the trouble makers with this more circumspect measure. In fact, our approach is more liberal than either the ISA or court prosecution.

A related question that was asked was: should so much powers be given to an individual Minister? I am not saying that this concern has no validity. But I would like Members to consider the following points. First, under our system, no Minister, whether the Minister for Home Affairs or any other Ministers, with this kind of discretionary powers really acts on his own impulse, on his own personal bias or animosity. He does not act without inputs from officials and the Minister does not act on his own because how is he in a position to know what is happening on the ground, whether on an ISA security matter or on the matters within the purview of this legislation? He has to rely on professional inputs and advice from the police or the ISD. The Minister will have to obtain the facts and evidence before he can even contemplate the making of an order. There have to be a report and recommendations put up to him. Then he has to send the facts and the supporting documents to the Presidential Council, as provided for in the Bill. In other words, if there is no basis whatsoever, the Presidential Council is bound to express their unhappiness and disagreement.

Then again, do not forget, Sir, that the Minister's action in this Bill will be a very high profile action. It will be closely watched by the public, not just by the religious group concerned and not just by the Presidential Council. If he is foolhardy to make a reckless decision, it will incur considerable political cost not just for the Minister but for the whole Government.

Finally, no Minister acts alone, isolated from the Cabinet and the point was made by Dr John Chen and others that perhaps we should consider formalising this into the Bill. This is something that can be considered. For example, we might consider borrowing the practice under the Criminal Law detention provisions where an order is first made by the Minister. It is referred to an advisory committee which reviews the order and it makes the recommendations. After receiving the report of the advisory committee, the order has to be confirmed by the President and the President acts on the advice of the Cabinet. So there are various possibilities for further discussion and consideration.

Several Members raised the issue of the subjectivity of the decision making. Terms like "aggressive proselytization" are very subjective. How do we define the dividing line between politics and religion? What is meant by a "political cause"? Yes, I would have to agree that these determinations are subjective. But the question is because it is subjective, ought we then not have this law? I would like to remind Members that even under the ISA which enables more severe action to be taken, the wordings in the law are also subjective "acting in a manner prejudicial to the security of the nation." What is a matter which is "prejudicial to the security of the nation"? This calls for judgment to be made and judgments have to be made by someone. I agree that it is not easy in some areas. Some acts which are listed out in the ISD's compilation are clearly harmful to any reasonable person. One can imagine other acts which would clearly be perfectly permissible. There may be grey areas. The White Paper itself concedes this. But because it is a subjective matter it cannot be qualified or measured as if you have a Richter scale. It calls for a subjective determination. The approach in this Bill is to temper the subjectivity by consulting the Presidential Council.

I would welcome suggestions, and I am sure the Select Committee will welcome suggestions, from anyone in this House or elsewhere if they have ideas to make it more water-tight or to provide workable indicative factors that can give better guidance to the Minister and the Presidential Council.

Next, several issues were raised with regard to the Presidential Council. I will deal with the more important ones. The first point was the Presidential Council should have a final say and not the Minister, in other words, reverse the roles. This was mentioned by several speakers. We have first to remind ourselves that the concept of prohibition orders under the Bill is not to regulate religious affairs. This is essentially a Bill designed to prevent tensions and is a Bill to deal with law and order situations. So the question is, on matters of law and order, who should be ultimately responsible? Who should be accountable if a wrong decision was taken or no decision was taken or there was undue delay in the taking of a decision? As a result of that, some harm has arisen - tensions, violence and, worse, killings. It surely must be the government. The buck cannot be passed to the Presidential Council and we cannot get the 15 members into this Chamber and ask them to be accountable to the people. It must be exercise of government responsibility, accountability and authority. But it would be foolish for a government to lightly disregard the unanimous or majority view of the Presidential Council if it advised against the making of the order.

The Government will have to take their recommendations very seriously because the Presidential Council's credibility will otherwise be affected and they will let it be known. But in the rare instance where the Government feels that its assessment of the situation calls for the making of an order, it must have that final right to take the decision even if it disagrees with the Presidential Council.

Then other colleagues asked why the Presidential Council in its general function can only discuss matters referred to it by the Government. I think the Chairman of the GPC for Home Affairs and other Members asked: why not give it, what they referred to as a proactive role? My colleagues may be interested to know that in the earlier draft of the White Paper, it read differently on this point. It read as follows:

'The Council will advise the Minister on matters affecting the maintenance of religious harmony and foster good relations among the various religious groups. The Minister may also refer to the Council specific matters concerning religious harmony and tolerance and to seek its views and recommendations.'

In the final White Paper this was changed because we received representations that it may be unwise and, in fact, imposing a tremendous burden on the Council to allow them to discuss matters free for all and this was elaborated and put across very succinctly by Mr Dhanabalan that you can have situations where there could be confrontation in the Council, accusations and counter-accusations. Members might want to consider this point. If it is strongly felt, this can be reviewed in the Select Committee.

The question was asked whether the Presidential Council can seek clarifications and ask for further information. I think that we should have a flexible working arrangement. We need not have too many provisions in the Bill. I think a practice must and will evolve eventually. For example, we have many other advisory committees which advise the Minister in exercise of discretionary functions and they too in actual working operations do ask questions and raise requests for further information and these are provided.

Several Members, particularly Dr Dixie Tan, spoke about the provisions in the Bill which provided for secrecy or confidentiality of the proceedings of the Presidential Council. The reason for this is really that we want to have a Presidential Council whose members feel that they can discuss things candidly and frankly, not from the viewpoint or perspective of the particular religion but from the viewpoint of what is best for Singapore. I doubt if this can be achieved if the proceedings - who said what, who voted in which way - are made public. The Presidential Council members would come under tremendous pressure, especially from the representatives of the religious group to whom the individual belongs. But I think Dr Dixie Tan's point was to agree that that should be confidential and not make public. But she posed the question whether in the interest of achieving credibility for the Presidential Council and to show the integrity of this whole system, whether the final recommendation of the Presidential Council ought not to be made public. I think that is a point that may be worth considering further.

One other Member pointed out that the Bill does not specifically make provisions for reference to the Presidential Council of further extensions of the prohibition order. In my own view, I do not envisage really that it will be necessary to extend prohibition orders frequently or often. Ideally the prohibition order should have a salutary effect on the individual concerned because if he breaches the prohibition order there will be court prosecution. Of course, the court is entitled to decide that he did not breach, in which case he will be acquitted. But if he is guilty, there will be a fine or a penalty imposed by the court. I doubt very much if after having gone through the process the individual continues to repeat. But if he does, of course, there will have to be extensions. But in the rare instance where prohibition orders are extended, I take the point that it ought to follow that the same procedure should apply. If this is not clear in the Bill, then at the Select Committee stage we should make it clear.

Some Members asked the question, why not have a warning letter and other preliminary steps? More than one Member referred to this. I would like to assure the House that the fact that we have this Bill does not mean that all other avenues and remedies would not be resorted to. It does not mean that every time we are put on notice of some situation, a prohibition order will automatically follow. Because if the problem is not serious, if its danger is not imminent and the person is innocently misguided, it may be possible indeed to counsel the person, advise the person, warn the person or, as some other Members said, get the head of the religious institution to discuss with the person concerned. In other words, let the organisation take care of their misguided members. It is possible. In other words, enactment of the Bill does not mean that all these approaches will be abandoned. It will be possible to resort to these measures. If the problem is not grave and there is no imminent threat, it will be possible to leave it to the religious leaders to restrain their individuals who commit these acts. But if time does not permit or the situation is urgent, or if the person is not controllable by the head of the religious organisation and indeed there have been cases where this has happened, then it may be necessary to resort to a prohibition order.

Encik Zulkifli posed the question whether there will be anything wrong for a political leader going to a religious function and speaking. A variation of the ques- tion was asked by Encik Ibrahim Othman and some others referred to MPs being advisers to religious organisations. It is a question which has arisen even in grassroots organisations. As far as the Government is concerned, there is really nothing wrong with a Minister or MP attending functions of religious groups, whether of his own faith or some other faith. Far from it being wrong, we in fact encourage them to accept such invitations, whether to the Seventh Moon Festivals or other functions, and even to speak. But he should not be promoting a political cause on such occasions. As long as this is observed, there is no reason why he should turn down the invitation to speak or be an adviser.

Sir, there are other miscellaneous points which will be taken up in the Select Committee, for example, who will authorise the release of information which otherwise cannot be released. Should the proceedings be privileged and special provisions made for this in the Bill? Mr Davinder Singh has a good point as to what happens in the 14 days during which representations can be made. It may be necessary to have an interim restraint order. This and other points will be considered by the Select Committee.

If I may close, Sir, the Government does not take the position that this Bill is not capable of further improvement. We realise that this is a novel legislation. There are not many precedents in other countries. Therefore, we welcome any suggestions that can improve the Bill and make it more effective, provided that we bear certain parameters in mind: first, it must be a mechanism that enables us to nip problems in the bud and it must enable quick, prompt and pre-emptive action. Secondly, bear in mind that this is not a law to decide religious matters or theological issues. It is a law to ensure public order and to deal with people whose actions can threaten religious harmony and affect public order. Thirdly, for the reasons which we have spelt out, and again reiterated by my colleague, the Minister for Trade and Industry, such matters have to be decided by the Executive and are not matters to be decided either by religious groups or by the judges. On that note, Sir, I thank you.

Question put, and agreed to.

Resolved,

That the Maintenance of Religious Harmony Bill be committed to a Select Committee consisting of Mr Speaker as Chairman and such other Members as may be nominated by the Committee of Selection. - [Prof. Jayakumar].