MAINTENANCE OF RELIGIOUS HARMONY BILL (As reported from Select Committee)

Order for Third Reading read.

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

Sir, I do not propose to restate all the arguments and the reasons for this Bill for that would be burdening the House with a repetition of arguments which have been presented on more than one occasion. In fact, we have had two Second Readings of this Bill.

But if I may just recapitulate quickly, the purpose of the Bill is preventive, to nip problems in the bud. It is to prevent matters from escalating and creating tensions, frictions and conflicts between different religious groups. Fortunately, the majority in each religious group in Singapore are conscious of the need to be tolerant and sensitive in our multi-racial society, parti- cularly in the manner they go about practising their faith and persuading others to join them. The problems are usually caused by a small number of people who are either insensitive, thoughtless, irresponsible or worse mischievous, and these few people must not be allowed to jeopardise the precious religious harmony that we have maintained all these years.

The full and detailed rationale for the Bill was set out in the White Paper on the "Maintenance of Religious Harmony" presented to this House in December 1989. That White Paper also had a compilation of actual incidents in Singapore which illustrated that the kinds of problems which the Bill addresses are real problems and not academic. We have had a full debate on the Second Reading in February this year on an earlier identical Bill.

During that Second Reading, Sir, I said that the views expressed in this House would be considered carefully. In referring the Bill to a Select Committee, I also said that the Government did not take the position that the Bill could not be improved. I welcomed suggestions which could improve the Bill, ideas that could make the Bill more workable, practical and effective. I also said that this must be within certain parameters. The Bill must be a mechanism that enables us to nip problems in the bud and enables quick, prompt and pre-emptive action. I also reminded colleagues that this is not a law to decide religious issues or theological issues. It is a law to ensure public order and to deal with people whose actions can threaten religious harmony. I also listed as another parameter that such matters have to be decided by the Executive and are not matters to be decided either by the religious groups or by the judges.

I, therefore, Sir, intend to focus on the Report of the Select Committee and on the amendments made to the Bill by the Committee. Members will know from the Report that the Committee received some 79 written representations, the majority of which were in support of the Bill.

From the nearly 20 amendments which the Select Committee has made to the Bill, it must be clear to Members that the Committee has made a serious effort to address the valid concerns expressed to the Committee. The Committee did not just confine themselves to the views put forth by the representors. They also took into account views expressed in this House. Let me give you some examples. Mr Chandra Das suggested that the term "Prohibition Order" should be changed to "Restraining Order" and this has been accepted. Dr Dixie Tan proposed that while the provision on the secrecy of the proceedings of the Presidential Council might be retained, she advocated that the final recommendation of the Council ought to be published. This has also been accepted. Dr John Chen urged that the practice of the Minister consulting Cabinet would be usefully incorporated in the law and this has been accepted.

Let me now proceed to discuss the amendments made by the Select Committee. The detailed reasons for the amendments are set out clearly and I would not repeat them. I would categorise the main amendments under the following. First, amendments which address concerns that the Bill frames the individual Minister's powers in rather excessive terms and that there should be additional safeguards. The second category of amendments are those which dealt with concerns that clause 8 of the Bill has language which is subjective in nature and might give rise to difficulties. Third, amendments concerned with the composition of the proposed Presidential Council for Religious Harmony. Fourth, amendments designed to improve the procedures to be followed before the making of an order and after the order is made. The fifth category of amendments are those which dealt with so-called gaps in the original Bill.

Let me take the first category, ie, concerns that the Bill was drafted in such a way that the Minister's powers may seem absolute or excessive and that there should be additional safeguards. During the Second Reading in this House, some Members expressed concerns that on such a potentially delicate and sensitive matter as religion, it should not appear that a single Minister has absolute or excessive powers, especially since the Bill also provided that the merits of the decision would not be reviewable in the Courts. A variation of this concern was that a difficult situation may arise when a Minister may have to act on a complaint by a religious group to which he himself belonged. In that situation, even if he had ample grounds to act, some may believe that there was a likelihood of bias. Some of the written representations also echoed these concerns.

I had pointed out that in actual practice, no Minister acted alone isolated from Cabinet. Dr John Chen proposed that the reference to Cabinet could be written into the Bill. I said I would be prepared to consider this and I also referred to the model of the Criminal Law (Temporary Provisions) Act under which the procedure is the Minister first makes the order, it is referred to an Advisory Committee and the Advisory Committee makes its recommendation whereupon the President must confirm the order, acting on the advice of the Cabinet. I assured the House that we would discuss this. The Select Committee did take this into account in making a major change to the process of making an order. Under the original Bill, the Minister makes the order. After he has received the representations of the individual and religious organisation, he has to have regard to their views. Likewise, after the Presidential Council for Religious Harmony gives its views, the original Bill prescribes that the Minister would make the decision whether to modify or rescind the order. This has now been revised by the Select Committee.

Under the revised procedure, the Minister makes the order in the first instance after sending the Notice to the individual. There is no change there. However, the change is that all orders must be confirmed by the President within 30 days of receipt of the report of the Presidential Council for Religious Harmony. If the order is not confirmed, it will lapse. The change also is that the President acts on Cabinet's advice except where, as would be provided in the Constitution, Cabinet's advice is contrary to the recommendation of the Presidential Council for Religious Harmony, in which case, the President, acting in his discretion, can refuse to confirm the order. This would be consistent with the proposed safeguard role of the Elected President in the Constitution of the Republic of Singapore (Amendment No. 3) Bill which is before the House and this will take effect after that amendment is enacted.

This important change achieves several objectives. First, it is not just the Minister, but the entire Cabinet which is involved in confirming the order. It formalises what invariably takes place in practice. If I may remind colleagues, Cabinet comprises Ministers belonging to many different faiths.

The second advantage is that the President is involved, and the third objective is that it takes into account the proposed additional safeguard role for the Elected President in regard to this Bill. The effect of this is that the recommendations of the Presidential Council for Religious Harmony cannot be lightly ignored by the Minister and Cabinet.

The second category of amendments are those which address the concern of the element of subjectivity in clause 8. In this regard I will just refer to two amendments. First, the deletion of the phrase in clause 8(1)(a) "prejudicing the maintenance of harmony". This has been deleted and it will meet the concern of those who felt the subjective element in clause 8(1)(a) should be reduced. Likewise, in clause 8(1)(d) the amendment which establishes a nexus between the concept of exciting disaffection and the abuse of religion would meet the concerns of those who felt that that limb was too wide.

The third category of amendments is connected with the composition of the Presidential Council for Religious Harmony. There was a host of ideas and suggestions about the provisions relating to the Presidential Council. The Committee has accepted quite a number of these proposals, for example, there should be a minimum number stipulated, two-thirds of the members should be representatives of religious groups, the terms of office of the Council members ought to be varied subject to a minimum of one year, so that there would be continuity, ie, the whole Council would not be vacated at the same time. Fourthly, there is provision for qualifications and disqualifications for Council members which are modelled on the provisions of the Presidential Council for Minority Rights. Provision for a quorum is another example.

The fourth category of amendments are those designed to improve the procedures to be followed both before and after an order is made. Amendments in this category are, first, a new provision that when the Minister sends the Notice to the individual of the intention to issue an order, it should be accompanied by grounds and allegations of fact. Secondly, a new provision that the Presidential Council for Religious Harmony is empowered to hear individuals in person if they consider it necessary. Thirdly, every order should be reviewed at least once a year.

As regards the fifth category of amendments, several representors thought that in certain respects, there were gaps in the Bill and the Select Committee has made amendments to address these concerns. First, it was pointed out that clause 9 of the Bill was not complete because it did not cover a situation where an individual who was not a member of any religious group, through conduct or speech, nevertheless, caused enmity, hatred, etc, between different religious groups. So an amendment is made to clause 9. Likewise, it was pointed out that the original Bill provided for the Presidential Council for Minority Rights to be involved in the appointment of members of the Presidential Council for Religious Harmony. But there is no such mention with regard to removal. This is now taken care of by an amendment.

Sir, those are some of the amendments which I have touched on. I should also point out, as stated in the Report, that although it was a general principle, which was emphasised during the Second Reading, that the method to tackle this problem cannot be judicial review or to be left to the Court, quite a number of representors made representations advocating that the final recourse should be with the Courts. Opportunity has been taken by the Select Committee to set out in a fairly detailed manner all the reasons why the Select Committee considered that this ought not be the solution. These reasons are fully spelt out in the Select Committee Report and it is unnecessary for me to repeat them.

Sir, if I may conclude. What we have in this Bill is really a mechanism which has been crafted to deal with the kind of problems that I summarised at the beginning of my speech. Of course, we can deal with such persons with other legislation that exists. We can take them to the courts, prosecute them, have a criminal conviction, or if their actions are more grave, even to deal with them under the Internal Security Act. But in most cases, a less severe, more limited, measure may suffice.

Sir, preserving religious harmony is not just a high sounding goal for us in Singapore. I think it is crucial for our survival as a nation. We are young, we are a small nation with people from many races, religions and languages. We can ill-afford to have religious or racial strife or conflicts which plagued other countries. Just consider the very sad situation in India where many have died and suffered - both Muslims and Hindus - over the dispute concerning the construction of a Hindu Temple in Ayodhya on the site where a mosque now stands. In the last General Elections in 1989, a Hindu-revivalist political party campaigned for the removal of constitutional safeguards for Muslims and that India should be established as a Hindu state. After the elections, the party further exploited the issue to garner political support from the Hindus and proposed to demolish the mosque, built more than 500 years ago, and to build a new Hindu temple. Thus, the dispute not only pitted religious group against religious group, but also was made into a political issue with all the resulting disastrous consequences. The national unity of that country has been threatened.

We here cannot and should not judge the merits of that problem. But I am sure all in this House and all Singaporeans will agree with me when I say that we must never allow that to happen here. Imagine that nearly a hundred thousand people had been detained. Imagine such a strife and conflict taking place in Singapore, in our tiny Republic. Where would we find places to detain so many thousands of people? And if it takes place here, would Singapore ever be the same again after such a conflict?

I think the answers are obvious. Religious harmony and racial harmony are far too important for us and we cannot take things for granted. The Bill therefore is a preventive measure which we should put in place. I would say that the best case scenario is that no occasion arises where we need to invoke this Bill. But if one day some individuals, irresponsible or just thoughtless or mischievous, embark on a reckless conduct which can threaten religious harmony, then we would have this limited mechanism in place which can be invoked in a restrained manner to ensure that it does not succeed.

Sir, I beg to move.

Question proposed.

Mr S. Chandra Das (Cheng San GRC): Sir, I rise to support the many substantive changes proposed by the Select Committee on the Maintenance of Religious Harmony Bill. I am particularly happy that the Select Committee has recommended these changes in response to views, suggestions and feedback made by concerned members of the public and groups during the Select Committee hearings and at the dialogue sessions organised by the Feedback Unit and other organisations in Singapore.

Sir, I am personally glad that the Select Committee has accepted my suggestion made in this House that the "Prohibition Order" be renamed as "Restraining Order". This is indeed a less threatening term and a more accurate reflection of what the order actually does. Sir, the Minister mentioned just now that the Committee also accepted the recommendation made by the Member for Ulu Pandan, Dr Dixie Tan, that the final recommendation of the Presidential Council for Religious Harmony and the order of the Minister be made public. This will definitely reduce the likelihood of abuse of the system in that the Council or the Minister must ensure that the person upon whom the order is slapped, has truly gone out of line.

I am also pleased to note that the recommendation originally proposed by the Catholic Church and the Islamic Religious Council that the majority of the members of the Presidential Council be from major religious groups was also accepted by the Select Committee. As religious leaders, they would be in a better position to consider matters put before the Council. Besides these recommendations, the Minister has mentioned a number of other recommendations and inputs that were taken into account by the Select Committee.

Mr Speaker, Sir, many people I know are quite sceptical about the usefulness of Select Committees in the process of legislation in this House. Sir, they feel that Select Committees are an "eye-wash" in that the Select Committees only look at "full-stops" and "commas". People have the impression that once a Bill has passed its Second Reading, there can be no substantial changes.

Sir, in my view, the Select Committee on the Maintenance of Religious Harmony Bill has certainly debunked this misconception. The Report before this House clearly demonstrates the usefulness of Select Committees. I would like to congratulate the Committee for a job well done. I sincerely hope the public will realise the value of Select Committees and therefore be more willing to come forth with their views and suggestions for future Select Committees.

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

I join Mr Das in thanking the Select Committee for a job well done: for painstakingly going through the points raised by Members and various representors; for accepting and incorporating many of the suggestions into the final Bill. We must also thank the representors for taking the trouble to make representation and for standing up for their beliefs and what they believe to be in the best interests of our nation.

Sir, the Select Committee has addressed a number of issues, but I am particularly encouraged by the fact that it has gone out of its way to provide additional safeguards against possible abuses: instituting checks on Ministerial or Cabinet powers. Amongst others, it expressly recommends that all Restraining Orders must be confirmed by the President within 30 days of receipt of the report from the Presidential Council for Religious Harmony. And in the event of a contrary report from the Presidential Council, the Elected President may, acting in his own discretion, refuse to confirm the order. This, I think, is in the best tradition of checks and balances in our democratic society. But it goes without saying that the best checks against abuse really reposit in the people: that the people must wisely elect and continue to elect the right Government and emplace men of integrity in positions of authority.

Sir, to give the legislation a good start, the Government should select and appoint the members of the Presidential Council judiciously, and with as wide a representation as possible. The Government should, I think, informally consult the heads of the major religious organisations. Religious leaders on their part should not withdraw or count themselves out but participate responsibly as men of God and men of peace.

The Select Committee has explained that the judicial review is inadvisable in a situation where prompt executive decisions are required. A partial way to meet this demand which has been raised many a time is to appoint retired Chief Justices or Judges to the Presidential Council. Their legal perspective and their standing would, I am sure, be an asset to the Council.

I understand that some religious groups feel that the Bill is targeted at them. I think their fear is unfounded. I believe that the honourable men in this Government have no intention of discriminating against any particular group. To do so would be to invite trouble. It would be foolhardy. It would unravel the multi-racial and multi-religious fabric of our society.

Sir, we must go back to the basics, and appreciate that this Bill is a preventive measure. It need not be used at all if all is well. But its very presence will help to check mischievous or misguided persons. It helps to maintain law and order, without which no religious beliefs could be upheld or practised in peace.

Having said all that, I must add that the Maintenance of Religious Harmony Bill is only part of the answer, not the complete answer. Its role, in my view, is mainly preventive and acting as a deterrent. The Government and religious organisations should consider ways to actively promote religious understanding and tolerance. Perhaps all should seriously consider expanding and strengthening the Inter-Religious Organisation or any such bodies, so that we will ensure inter-religious peace for our children and our children's children.

Finally, Sir, I wish to repeat what I said in the earlier debate: that the Government should use this law "sparingly, prudently and wisely", and the people should "take it in the right spirit" and give the Government a chance to prove that it is operating in the greatest good of all, and that it is not against religions or any particular religion.

Sir, I support the Bill.

Dr Lee Siew-Choh (Non-Constituency Member): Mr Speaker, Sir, the Report of the Select Committee has brought forth a good number of welcome changes following submissions from the church organisations and individuals of the public. The Government has accepted many of the proposals of the representors. I too have no wish to be repetitive.

But in spite of the sound arguments presented, and the Government's so-called concern, it has refused to budge on two very basic issues, namely, (1) the "activities to promote a political cause or a cause of a political party", and (2) the role of the Presidential Council for Religious Harmony.

Let me first touch on the political issue here. Government has said that the Bill is intended to maintain religious harmony in Singapore. The First Deputy Prime Minister has said that he is concerned about the mixing of religion with politics by some sections of the church. Submissions to the Select Committee have pointed out, as we have also stressed, that it is impossible to completely separate religion from politics. And now the Select Committee itself has admitted this to be so.

Paragraph 15 of the Report states that "the division between religion and politics is not a well-defined one." Such being the case, Sir, any Government allegation arbitrarily made that a religious leader or organisation has mixed religion with politics may be completely erroneous. Such an allegation would probably be based on questions, as put down in the Report, of "public policy" of Government. And of course on whether or not "the issue is wise for the Government to allow, and not what is lawful for a person to carry out". In other words, it is preventive, yes, but it is based on whether or not it is in the interests of the ruling Government political party. For example, if it allows too many and too often criticisms of its policies by critics, it could, and possibly would, mean considerable loss of votes for Government in elections.

Unpopular policies of Government are of course often subject to severe criticisms by the public and political parties. While opposition political parties' statements may be distorted and may not even be published in the press and so may not possibly reach many people, similar criticisms by religious leaders and organisations may well reach a wider audience through word of mouth, and so are more damaging to the ruling Party. As quoted by one submission, religious leaders' views have, I quote, "extra credibility". Therefore, whether or not criticisms of Government policies become, and I quote, "activities to promote a political cause or a cause of any political party" depend very much on how adversely the ruling Party will be affected by such criticisms.

All this of course has nothing to do with liberation theology, as put down in one of the submissions, and which has so frightened the PAP. What is troubling the Government is not the mixing of religion and politics per se, because they cannot make out the difference, but how much so-called mixing of religion with politics will adversely affect the credibility and popular support for the PAP Government.

As I had said during the debate in June, Sir, the Bill, apart from providing a belated cover-up and excuse for the arrests of so-called Marxists, is really intended to be another step towards total control of public opinion in Singapore. Many people share this viewpoint and that is why so many people do not support the Bill.

The other issue I would like to touch on is the role of the Presidential Council for Religious Harmony (PCRH). Almost all submissions had pointed out that the Executive is given too much power in the Bill. The first White Paper on the Elected President says it too. That is why everyone has asked for more safeguards against the power of the Minister, and now Government says it too, In paragraph 14, I quote:

"The Committee agrees that additional safeguards are desirable ...".

Government has however argued that the remedy should not be a judicial one as a court trial may mean delay and prompt action may be necessary.

What remedy has the Committee then proposed? Paragraph 21 of the Report states that, and I quote:

"It decided that the proposed Elected President could appropriately provide an independent check on the Government when it exercises its powers under this Bill."

Sir, if the Elected President should be non-political, and its election open to wide sections of the people, such a proposal would have some merit and might be considered a good and fair proposal. But the proposed Elected President is to be elected from a very small exclusive PAP club. Only ex-Ministers, Permanent Secretaries and Chairmen of big corporations may stand as candidates for the high office. The common man-in-the-street is totally excluded. In the circumstances, how could the Elected President be expected to be completely unbiased, fair and independent in his decisions, even if he is a most upright man? It is true that the Presidential Council for Religious Harmony may offer its views to the Elected President and its advice may not be lightly disregarded. But the Elected President," acting in his discretion", could well ignore the advice of the PCRH and confirm the restraining order made by the Minister and the Cabinet, as the Minister has quoted again," no Minister acts alone isolated from Cabinet". So we go back to square one. The Minister and Cabinet, and perhaps the Elected President, all have more or less similar political views and will probably act similarly. In other words, the Elected President in the circumstances is no check at all on the unfettered powers of the Minister and Cabinet.

An independent check on the powers of the Minister and Cabinet must therefore be found elsewhere. A judicial review by a High Court Judge would be acceptable to most people. But the Government has rejected judicial review as a safeguard. I therefore believe that a most reasonable compromise safeguard would be the Presidential Council for Religious Harmony. Presently, its role is only to advise. Its role should be more than advisory. It should become the final arbiter or authority on all questions of whether any act or conduct violates the law in mixing religion with politics "under the guise of propagating or practising any religious belief" - words already accepted by the Government.

This has in fact been suggested in some written submissions to the Select Committee. One submission on page B48 reads as follows:

"We therefore recommend that Clause 11 (4) [that is of the original Bill] be amended to read:

The Council may recommend that the order be continued, revoked or varied in any manner and the Minister, in the event of a majority decision of the Council, shall accept [I emphasise "shall accept"] such recommendation."

To me, the words are clear and unequivocal. The PCRH makes the recommendation which is to be accepted by the Minister, and rightly so, as at least two-thirds of the members of the Council are representatives of the major religions in Singapore and, I quote, "being directly concerned, are in a better position to consider the matters which may be brought before the Council".

This would be in keeping, Sir, with the correct purpose or tenor of the Bill. After all, the general understanding of most people is that the very people most concerned with religious harmony should be given the duty and responsibility to maintain such religious harmony in Singapore. This is also in keeping with the proposed policy of participatory democracy.

Will Government be flexible enough to accept a most reasonable proposal which is acceptable to, I believe, the vast majority of people in Singapore? If it is a question of public policy, is it wise to allow a politically inspired Elected President to be the final arbiter in matters related to religion? Or is it wise to allow an independent Presidential Council which knows more of matters related to religion to decide on the exercise of power to make a restraining order?

To me, Sir, the answer cannot be in doubt. The Presidential Council must be the final arbiter.

Encik Othman bin Haron Eusofe (Marine Parade GRC): Sir, I rise to support the Bill.

Sir, the rationale for the Bill is very clear. The White Paper entitled "Maintenance of Religious Harmony" which was presented to Parliament on 26th December 1989 had discussed it comprehensively. The House had debated the issues involved during the Second Reading of the Bill in February 1990 and again during the proceedings of the Select Committee on the Bill. Leaders and members of the various religions and interest groups had the opportunity to express their concerns about the Bill, particulary as to how certain provisions will be implemented and they had also made many suggestions to improve the Bill. Sir, this is clearly a very sensitive Bill and in the process of discussing it, I believe that we have developed a strong consensus on the need for this Bill, which is preventive in nature, and this Bill can help to promote greater harmony and understanding among the people of Singapore. This Bill will give Singapore added security and there will be greater confidence in us.

Sir, many Members of the House have already spoken on this Bill during the Second Reading of the Bill and also today and I would only like to deal with the general principles and fundamental issues involved in the Bill. However, let me just mention again that we need to continuously remind ourselves of the kind of society and nation Singapore is. Not only is Singapore young and small, we are a multi-racial and multi-religious society. In the circumstances, Sir, it is necessary that Singapore remains strictly secular. Religious harmony and understanding underpin our continued social and economic development. For without stability and confidence, we cannot hope to thrive and prosper and provide a good quality of life for our people. So we have no options but to work hard to find ways whereby we can better promote greater understanding and harmony among our people.

There are many examples of how things can go wrong in a multi-racial and multi-religious society. The Minister has mentioned just now of what has happened in India, and we have other cases, in Sri Lanka, in Northern Ireland, just to mention a few. We must therefore always exercise sensitivity when we deal with matters of religion, language and race. We owe it to our children and future generations to do all we can to put in place a system which can help to promote peace and stability. And to do otherwise is to shirk our responsibility.

The Select Committee proceedings have given the opportunity to Singaporeans to give their views on the proposed Bill and they have indeed come out positively to participate in the process of formulating the Bill with their many suggestions and improvements.

Sir, I am glad that the Select Committee has taken in many of the views for improvements and has made provisions to make the Bill clearer and also to introduce safeguards to ensure that any abuse of the powers in the Bill can be checked. However, the Bill is by no means perfect but as we gain experience in the implementation of the provisions, more improvements can be gradually incorporated.

Sir, let me now touch on the question of separation of politics and religion. This has always been a sensitive issue to Muslims as it is difficult for us to draw a line between religion and politics in Islam. It has been pointed out by my Muslim colleagues in the House that Islam is regarded as a complete way of life by all Muslims and politics is an integral part of the Islamic way of life. Sir, however, having regard to the reality of the multi-racial, multi-cultural and multi-religious society of Singapore, we believe that this Bill is for the common good of Singaporeans as it can to a great extent effectively check irresponsible and mischievous persons who want to create disharmony and misunderstanding. We understand that some line must be drawn to define the boundary between religion and politics to the best of our ability. And here, there is the assurance that Article 15 of the Constitution guarantees freedom of religion.

Sir, the Mufti and MUIS have given their support to the Bill and in examining the provisions of the Bill, MUIS has consulted the major Muslim organisations in Singapore. The Mufti has advised that in the circumstances of Singapore it is good and appropriate to have this Bill and, Sir, I strongly support this view.

On this note, Sir, I support the Bill.

Encik Wan Hussin bin Haji Zoohri (Aljunied GRC): ( In Malay): Mr Speaker, the existence and maintenance of religious harmony in a plural society like Singapore is an important condition in ensuring our prosperity, progress and peace. On the other hand, any conflict, disharmony or hostility between religions in this plural society will certainly lead to strife and violence. Thus, Mr Speaker, the presence of this Bill in the midst of our multi-racial society provides a safety valve that functions to alleviate any problem that might arise to hinder the maintenance of religious harmony.

Viewed as a whole, the Bill, along with the amendments that have been made following the Select Committee Report, would, I think, allay many of the concerns and fears of the society about the possibility of misuse by the Government. There are a number of clauses and sub-clauses under the Bill that provide additional safeguards against any abuse of power. They also go towards ensuring justice, integrity and fairness in its implementation.

Allow me now, Sir, to touch on some aspects of the Bill relating to the features I mentioned.

First, additional safeguards. I accept the Select Committee's view that the issue of religious harmony should not be decided by the Court. The four reasons given in the Select Committee's report are sufficiently convincing and would remove any doubts in the minds of the parties concerned. Among the arguments are that this Bill is more of a preventive rather than punitive measure. If a sensitive issue like religion is brought before the Court, the publicity that will result from the hearing itself would stoke the anger of affected religious groups and this could lead to religious unrest. The question we should ask ourselves is: Do we want a repeat of the Maria Hertogh tragedy, which resulted from the decision of a judge, or do we want people like writer Salman Rushdie to be judged in court in the midst of a plural society like Singapore? The Bill puts public security and religious harmony above individual interests, the interests of the individual who is threatening to cause disharmony.

Moving on to the powers of the Minister, the Bill now provides that a Restraining Order issued by the Minister must be scrutinised by three other parties, namely, the Cabinet, the Presidential Council for Religious Harmony (PCRH) and the Elected President. Clause 12(3) of the Bill empowers the Elected President to decide on his own where there is conflict between the Cabinet's advice and the recommendation of the Presidential Council. Another new additional safeguard is in clause 13, which stipulates that the Minister, if he seeks to extend an order, must take the same steps as when issuing the original order. This safeguard provides room for review to ensure there is no error in the decision made by the Minister against the person concerned. Clause 11(3), which allows the person concerned to present himself and argue his case before the Presidential Council, is another improvement in the Bill. Clause 14, which allows the Minister to revoke his order before the expiry of the period, also reflects the preventive and not solely punitive nature of the Bill.

The Presidential Council for Religious Harmony

I welcome the setting up of the Presidential Council for Religious Harmony. In this regard, I would like a clarification from the Minister as to the method of selecting members of the Council. Clause 3(2) of the Bill stipulates that not less than two-thirds of the Council members shall be representatives of the major religions in Singapore. Mr Speaker, we know that many different religions are professed by the people of Singapore. According to available statistics, the distribution of religions in Singapore in 1988 was as follows: Buddhism 28.3%, Taoism 13.4%, Christianity 18.7%, Islam 16%, Hinduism 4.9%, other religions 1.1%, and no religion 17.6%. I would like to know the criteria for deciding which are major religions and which are minor religions. Going by percentage, those who profess no religion appear to be greater in number than those professing Hinduism or Taoism. The rather odd question, perhaps, is whether those who profess no religion should count among the major religious groups of Singapore. Further, what is the position of other religions not mentioned here, such as Sikhism, or Judaism and Bahaism. What opportunity is there for those who belong to these religions to be represented in the Council? Also, how would representatives of Christianity be selected, since it has many different sects like Catholics, Methodists, Presbyterians, Baptists, born-again Christians and so on. Could the Minister give us some guidelines here?

The Bill and the Administration of Muslim Law Act

Mr Speaker, I fully understand the concerns of certain sections of the Muslim community about the effect of this Bill on the Administration of Muslim Law Act (AMLA). I am relieved, however, by the assurance given by the Minister for Law that the Bill would not inhibit or impede the powers of the Muslim Religious Council of Singapore or the Fatwa Committee of MUIS, as long as these powers are exercised within the ambit of the Administration of Muslim Law Act. Specifically with regard to the Fatwa Committee of MUIS, I have full confidence that our Muslim clerics would not hesitate to issue any religious ruling based on Islamic principles alone and not on any legal provision in any form.

In view of these considerations, I support the Bill.

Prof. S. Jayakumar: Mr Speaker, Sir, I wish to thank the speakers who have spoken on this Select Committee Report and on the revised Bill.

If I may comment first on the points raised by Dr Lee Siew-Choh. I need not spend too much time because some of the points he has raised during the Second Reading of the original Bill. He advocates that the final decision should rest with the Presidential Council for Religious Harmony. Once it makes the recommendation, the Minister must accept, the Executive must accept. In other words, the final decision in tackling problems and potential threats to religious harmony is by this body of 15 people who have been appointed by the President on the advice of the Presidential Council for Minority Rights. He referred and quoted from one of the written representations. But if Members read the written representations that was one viewpoint which was put to the Select Committee. It is not an argument that is totally devoid of any merit. It is a viewpoint that can be argued. But there were also arguments put to the Select Committee with equal vigour and force that the Presidential Council should not have the final say and these are published. In fact, one of the religious groups, the Graduates' Christian Fellowship, if I may turn to pages B 7 and B 8, their view was "once the Presidential Council has completed its work on the matter, the decision will lie with the Minister. Thereafter, if the Minister decides to proceed with issuing the prohibition order, the Presidential Council should not be further involved in the matter." So the Select Committee had to discuss the pros and cons and it decided that the Presidential Council for Religious Harmony should have an advisory role which we should take counsel from it and give it serious weight, and if Cabinet chose or wanted to disregard its recommendations, the Elected President would have a discretion to say no. Of course, there are good reasons for this, Sir, because ultimately, the question boils down to accountability. Who will be accountable?

If we take that proposal and adopt it, if a group or an individual embarks on what the Government feels is very dangerous, very harmful, the matter comes up to the Council and the Council says, "No. No Restraining Order should be made." Supposing their judgment is wrong and tensions quickly flare up. There is a conflagration and there are riots. Who is accountable? Then bring the 15 members into this Chamber to explain to the people of Singapore why they took those decisions? In matters such as this, law, order, security, prevention of disorder, diffusing tensions, in all governments it is a fundamental responsibility of the Executive and that is how it should be. So the approach here is that the Executive must take the responsibility and it must be accountable. Therefore, it must decide. It cannot pass the buck to one group of wise men and it cannot pass the buck to the courts. If it makes a wrong decision the Executive is accountable to the electorate. That is how the Select Committee's recommendations must be viewed.

Dr Lee Siew-Choh's other point was about mixing religion and politics, and it is difficult to draw a dividing line. The Select Committee and the Government have never taken the position that the line is easy to draw. But having said that, does it mean that you do not take action when mixing of religion and politics poses a threat to religious harmony? Very few disagree with the proposition that mixing of religion and politics is harmful to our society. I have explained this on previous occasions. If one religious group does it, so must other religious groups. The Government cannot expect to stand idly by. It must then get its religious groups on its side and there will be mayhem and chaos. What is most illustrative of what Dr Lee Siew-Choh said is when he emphasised that religious leaders commenting on political issues can reach a wider audience. Precisely, Sir, that plus the fact that religious leaders are viewed by the flock and their worshippers as having closer links to God and with an aura of holiness and divinity, make it all the more imperative that if religious leaders want to enter into politics, they come down from their pulpit and participate as citizens.

Encik Wan Hussin asked about the Presidential Council for Religious Harmony, how they would be appointed, the detailed criteria and so on. I would not want to prejudge these matters because, as Encik Wan Hussin knows, under the Bill the appointment of the Chairman and every member shall be by the President on the advice of the Presidential Council for Minority Rights. So obviously we must not pre-empt the scope of consultations and discussions within the Presidential Council for Minority Rights and the recommendations that they may give. But obviously, it seems to me that we must include the major religions, such as Buddhism, Taoism, Christianity, Hinduism and Islam. We also have to include persons who do not belong to any organised religion and the wording of the provision is sufficiently flexible to enable us to do this. I might also add that the terms of office of the members have been drafted in such a way that it will stagger the membership and it is open to the Presidential Council to recommend to the President that whenever new appointments are to be made, it can take into account this element as to whether there has been a fairly wide representation of the different religious groups.

Question put, and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read a Third time and passed.