On Tuesday in parliament, Mr Zhulkarnain Abdul Rahim (PAP-Chua Chu Kang) said some may interpret Mr Shanmugam’s statement as a suggestion that a particular group or community – in this case Malay-Muslims – should “bear some responsibility for allowing such sentiments to take root in the first place”.
“Would he not agree with me that it is in fact part of a broader issue or trend that political actors both here and abroad are taking advantage of our racial or religious sensitivities for our own gain?” he added.
In response, Mr Shanmugam said he was not singling out any particular community, but Singapore’s Malay-Muslim community was a “victim of these tactics” during the most recent General Election.
“They didn’t ask for these provocations. Nor did they support these tactics. They share the same strong commitment as any other community to Singapore’s multiracial multireligious approach,” said the home affairs minister.
The Malay-Muslim community has stayed calm despite the attempts to rile up racial and religious sentiments among their community, he added.
Noting that the Chinese community has been targeted in previous elections, Mr Shanmugam said: “Those who play identity politics don’t just target one community.”
Mr Xie Yao Quan (PAP-Jurong Central) asked Mr Shanmugam to clarify if it would be wrong for any political party to appeal to voters based on what it can offer to any specific community.
“Or is he also saying that it would be wrong for an individual to question whether the government has done enough for any community, or to demand the government to do more for a specific community?” said the deputy speaker of parliament.
The minister replied that it was “perfectly acceptable” for political parties, candidates and politicians to say that their policies will benefit a specific community.
It is “entirely possible” for a PAP politician to say that their party is the best party to protect minority interests, and “perfectly possible” for someone to counter that statement, said Mr Shanmugam.
Noting that uplifting the Malay-Muslim community is one of the government’s key policies, he added: “There is nothing wrong with advocating ways to advance a particular community or discussing legitimate community concerns.
“But when we advocate for the concerns of the Malay-Muslim community or any other community, we must ensure that our advocacy is conducted responsibly in a manner that upholds Singapore’s unity.”
There is a distinction between advocating for the legitimate needs of a community and pitting the different racial and religious groups against each other, or calling on Singaporeans to vote along racial or religious lines, said Mr Shanmugam.
“The latter is what causes division.”
During a clarification by Mr Saktiandi Supaat (PAP-Bishan-Toa Payoh), the MP said he found it hard to believe Mr Singh’s suggestion that Mr Faisal did not know who Mr Noor was and what the implications of his endorsement would be.
“His reach is quite significant online and his positions have been quite clear,” said Mr Saktiandi.
Mr Shanmugam said Mr Singh did not say that Mr Faisal or the WP’s Malay-Muslim candidates did not know who Mr Noor was.
Mr Singh then spoke up again and pointed to a May 6 social media post by Mr Noor where he said he was invited to the meeting with WP candidates by an ustaz or Islamic teacher “delegated by” Mr Faisal.
“We meet with people from all walks of life,” said Mr Singh, who then pointed to similar statements made by PAP Cabinet ministers about meeting convicted money launderer Su Haijin in the past.
He then reiterated that the WP had in fact rejected Mr Noor in public statements during the election season – but Mr Shanmugam disagreed with him on this.
