SINGAPORE – The Workers’ Party agreed that race and religion should not be mixed with politics, and had made clear its views on foreign interference during the 2025 General Election campaign, said Leader of the Opposition Pritam Singh on Oct 14.
The WP chief accepted Coordinating Minister for National Security K. Shanmugam’s criticism that
his party’s April 26 statement on remarks by self-styled Singaporean preacher Noor Deros
could have been clearer, but disagreed that WP took too long to respond to the matter during GE2025.
“We had made our views quite clear on foreign interference,” said Mr Singh. “I understand the minister says that (the) statement on Noor Deros could have been clearer. I accept that, I think we can make certain things very clear.”
Responding to a ministerial statement by Mr Shanmugam, Mr Singh told Parliament that the WP is “not shy” about coming forward to resolve an issue “in the event there is something untoward or awry”, and that it was not fair to say that the party did not take this issue seriously.
He pointed out that the Government had issued its statement – about foreign interference and the dangers of mixing religion and politics – on April 25. The following morning, WP had put out its own statement and also held a media interview that addressed the issue.
Mr Shanmugam, who is also Home Affairs Minister, had delivered a statement to the House on Oct 14 that questioned the timing and substance of the WP’s response after Mr Noor asked Singaporeans to vote along racial and religious lines in the election.
The minister also questioned the WP’s response to the endorsement its candidates received during the campaign period from certain Malaysian politicians, and sought agreement on how politicians and political parties here will conduct themselves in future should these issues arise again.
In a back-and-forth exchange with Mr Singh that lasted more than 30 minutes, Mr Shanmugam said the WP statement did not reject Mr Noor’s position calling for Muslims in Singapore to vote along racial and religious lines, nor did it reject his support for the WP’s anchor in Tampines, party vice-chair Faisal Manap.
“Instead, what it said is that no commitments, promises or agreements had been made to Noor Deros,” said Mr Shanmugam. “That is something that you might find lawyers drafting for each other, you don’t see that in political statements which ought to be clear and unequivocal.”
Mr Shanmugam then asked if the lack of a clear rejection of Mr Noor’s statement could have been an oversight, or “a deliberate choice based on a calculation of interests… that Noor Deros can swing some votes”.
While such a calculation may bring some short-term benefits to a political party, it does long-term damage to Singapore and goes against the Republic’s pledge and multiracial ideals, he said.
“Being true to our pledge has to go beyond citing it during GE rallies – it must mean putting it in practice even when it’s difficult to do so,” he added. “Sincere belief requires acting true to the words of the pledge, even when it may cost some votes.”
Mr Singh replied that the WP did make an assessment, and that his view was that there were a number of factors at play “when a nobody claims that there’s a set of demands that he has of a political party”.
This includes possibly bringing the issue into greater focus by raising the matter in the heat of an election, said Mr Singh. He cited the Streisand effect, which describes a situation when an attempt to censor information instead increases public awareness of the matter.
Mr Singh said that while he agreed with the minister on rejecting attempts to use identity politics to win votes, there was “an asymmetry of information, (and) the Government has a perspective which is far broader than a small political party”.
If the matter was serious enough that Prime Minister Lawrence Wong had to hold a press conference midway through the election campaign to address it, it should not be too difficult to reach out to political parties in the national interest to get their clarification, he added.
Mr Shanmugam replied that if there was any asymmetry of information, it was that the WP had all the information, given that neither the Government nor the PAP met with Mr Noor.
He added that the Government is also mindful of being seen to interfere with individual political parties during an election period, which could be politicised.
“Maybe Mr Singh is welcoming of a phone call to say ‘this is not on’, but I can imagine a number of other political parties might say, ‘you are trying to threaten me in the middle of a general election’,” said Mr Shanmugam.
Other MPs who sought clarifications from Mr Shanmugam included Mr Kenneth Tiong (Aljunied GRC), who asked if the PAP government would apply the same standards to Mr Michael Petraeus, a Polish national who runs a media platform known as Critical Spectator.
Mr Tiong said the platform had published “racially charged commentary” on Singapore politics, including a piece that includes in its title “WP abandons Muslim voters, turns to the Chinese”.
Mr Shanmugam said there are a variety of people who run commentaries about Singapore, including The New York Times and the South China Morning Post.
“Michael Petraeus is not the only person who is a foreigner who runs commentaries, sometimes for the Government, sometimes against the Government, sometimes favouring the Workers’ Party,” he said. “That does not amount to interfering with local politics.”
It is not the Government’s business to go around censoring these articles, but if there were specific attempts to interfere in Singapore’s elections, the authorities will look into it, he added.
In reply, Mr Tiong said: “I thank the minister for clarifying that the PAP will not be categorically rejecting Michael Petraeus’ actions.”
Mr Shanmugam told him “not to put words in my mouth”. He then invited the WP to say if its position was to censor and object to every article on politics in Singapore by any foreigner, including in international publications.
Mr Xie Yao Quan (Jurong Central) asked if it would be wrong for political parties to appeal to voters based on what they can offer to any specific community, or for people to demand that the Government do more for a specific community.
Mr Shanmugam responded that it is perfectly acceptable for political parties, candidates and politicians to state that their policies will benefit a specific community and for others to counter that.
For instance, it has been a longstanding commitment of the PAP government to support and uplift the Malay/Muslim community, which is why the Constitution recognises the special position of the Malays, he noted.
While there is nothing wrong with advocating ways to advance a particular community or discussing legitimate community concerns, this advocacy must be done in a responsible manner that upholds Singapore’s unity, he stressed.
This is different from pitting the different racial and religious groups against one another, or calling on Singaporeans to vote along racial and religious lines, he added.
Mr Zhulkarnain Abdul Rahim (Chua Chu Kang GRC) said some people may see Mr Shanmugam’s ministerial statement as “suggesting that a particular group or community, in this case, the Malay/Muslim community, should bear some responsibility for allowing such sentiments to take root in the first place”.
To this, Mr Shanmugam said he was not singling out any particular community, and the Chinese community had also been targeted in past elections.
“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, multi-religious approach,” he said of the Malay/Muslim community.
During the debate, which lasted about 1½ hours, Non-Constituency MP Andre Low also asked if Mr Shanmugam would consider “recalibrating” the Government’s approach to racial and religious harmony.
The WP NCMP cited statistics from the Institute of Policy Studies that show a gap between what the majority Chinese and what minorities feel about the situation in Singapore.
These findings suggested that the current approach may not be working for certain demographics, including younger Singaporeans, who may feel that safe spaces can be more open, said Mr Low.
While the situation in Singapore is not perfect, the answer is not to jump to models that have “failed miserably everywhere else”, said Mr Shanmugam.
He cited examples of societies with “real fora” such as the US, Britain, France and Germany.
When discussions over sensitive topics are allowed without any kind of legal framework, the result is identity politics, said the minister.
“Are we colonised in our mind so much, that we have to continue to hark back to these theories which have failed all around the world?” he asked.
Singapore’s approach is to create safe spaces where people with different views come together and discuss these issues, but with rules in place, said Mr Shanmugam.
“These so-called curated fora, all it means is a safe space is created, different people with different views come together, moderators come in, they discuss,” he said.
“It’s hard-hitting, and on substance nobody pulls their punches, but they are respectful.”
