Race and religion should not mix with politics, WP statement during GE could’ve been clearer: Pritam

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.”