SINGAPORE — In debating changes to the laws governing religious harmony, three Workers’ Party (WP) Members of Parliament (MP) raised these questions: If politics and religion are separate, should politicians be seen with religious leaders or enter another religion’s place of worship? Should religions be allowed to criticise or support state policy?

These drew a substantial response from Home Affairs Minister K Shanmugam, before the Bill to amend the Maintenance of Religious Harmony Act (MRHA) was passed on Monday (Oct 7) after a lengthy debate.

Of the WP trio, the first to speak was party chief Pritam Singh, MP for Aljunied Group Representation Constituency (GRC), who voiced the party’s broad support for the Act, which looks to safeguard religious harmony as well as to protect the value of separating religion from national politics.

The confluence of social mores and the ubiquity of social media today makes the maintenance of religious harmony an equal concern as back in 1990 when the law was first passed, he said.

But he also pointed out that in 1990, there was apprehension from religious leaders and little consensus among the ruling People’s Action Party government.

“Even Minister Shanmugam’s speech, in his capacity as a backbencher then, was noteworthy because it raised fundamental points about the separation of powers and the potential for an irrational exercise of executive power,” Mr Singh said.

Mr Shanmugam had held that the courts, not the executive, should exercise the power to decide whether politics and religion have been kept separate, and that if MRHA installs on the minister this “absolute power”, a future government may abuse it.

In his closing remarks on Monday, Mr Shanmugam explained how his views have changed from believing that “the legal process was able to resolve all disputes”.

“About 30 years later, with experience and perspective, I've come to realise that this does not always hold true, (that) the use of the legal process is the best way to deal with all religious issues in society,” he said.

He pointed to the Bali bombings, as well as the religious strife in Pakistan, in which those who caused these conflicts had been placed before the courts, which ended up deepening the fault lines. “It can even be counterproductive — the alleged offenders become martyrs for their communities, inflame tensions even more.”

ENGAGING RELIGIOUS LEADERS

Mr Singh also questioned the signal that is sent if a religious leader appears next to a political leader.

He cited the example of the 2015 General Election, when a prominent religious leader who was also a senior PAP member and with links to the People’s Association had served as an election agent for Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong.

“I would argue respectfully that the selection of established and well-known religious and even community personalities — who are probably forces for good in their own stead — in party politics in capacities such as election agents, notwithstanding their secular appointments, muddies the already difficult distinction between religion and politics,” he said.

Mr Singh also urged politicians to be mindful of the signals they send when attending religious events, particularly close to the election period. These acts could signal that believers in that particular faith should support the politician involved.

Mr Shanmugam, in his reply, said that religious leaders also have civil and political rights, which the law does not preclude them from exercising. He pointed out that MPs, past and present, are also religious and hold positions in religious organisations.

“You can't be saying they cannot exercise their rights,” he said. “I think it's difficult to draw bright lines. But I will agree with this point because they've to look at these things with care and without a party lens and on what is good for Singapore. We must handle these issues with sensibility, with care and with wisdom.”

RELIGIOUS GROUPS SUPPORTING OR OPPOSING POLICIES 

WP chairman Sylvia Lim and Aljunied GRC MP, in her speech, observed how ground sentiment had shown her how some religious institutions “are developing a reputation for being supportive of certain political parties”.

She also noted that since the Bill was introduced in the previous parliamentary sitting, religious organisations and leaders have come forth and stated their support for it openly.

“Is that mixing religious authority with politics? As far as I know, the Government has welcomed this open support. But if the religious leaders had instead gone the other way… expressed concern or opposition to the Bill, will the Government have put its foot down and issued an order requiring them to stop?”

Mr Shanmugam said that the Act is not designed to curtail the views of religious leaders on certain government policies, but that religious leaders should know they “should not be engaging in general political discourse”.

Religious leaders had expressed opposition to government policies before, he added, such as the casino issue by the National Council of Churches in Singapore, and on online gambling by Muslims as it is strictly prohibited in Islam.

“Religious leaders in Singapore know they should not be engaging in general political discourse… The question is what is good for Singapore? What is doable?,” Mr Shanmugam said.

“I think for the good of Singapore, we do not want religious leaders to get into the (political) arena and become partisan. But I can't see that any lines have been crossed so far. A lot of care has to be exercised by the religious leaders if they choose to make statements.”

SEPARATION OF RELIGION AND POLITICS

Another Aljunied GRC MP, Mr Faisal Manap, spoke about the separation of religion and politics but received flak from Mr Shanmugam.

In his Malay speech, Mr Faisal said: “I do not quite agree with this principle. As a Muslim, Islam is understood as a way of life. Islam encompasses all aspects of life, including politics and the way to practise politics. And I understand that Christianity also believes that it is unlikely that religion can be separated from politics.”

In Mr Shanmugam’s closing remarks, the minister said he could not believe he heard that Mr Faisal does not believe in the separation of religion and politics.

“I was so surprised. I asked for a confirmation that that is indeed what he said and my people say that is indeed what he said. It's a very surprising statement. It's a very serious statement, and a statement with serious implications. And it contradicts everything that we hold as central and important in Singapore and it's a fundamental value.

“I will leave the chambers with those statements ringing in my head,” he stated.

Clarifying his remarks in a lengthy exchange, Mr Faisal said that his comments were taken out of context by Mr Shanmugam, repeating that he does not “fully agree” with the principle. He restated his stand that the two cannot be kept apart in the context of Islam.

But on the seventh time that Mr Shanmugam asked whether he believes in the principle, Mr Faisal conceded that he does agree that they need to be kept apart so that religion cannot be used for personal or partisan benefit.

Towards the end, Nominated MP Mohamed Irshad said that he was troubled by the exchange with Mr Faisal, asking Mr Shanmugam if it was worthwhile engaging religious bodies to drive across the point that Singapore’s secular space has to be safely guarded, and that religious values can be held as a personal view.

Mr Shanmugam said in response that in all his engagement with religious leaders and organisations, he has never heard it the way Mr Faisal had put it. “Everyone would say their personal views will be, and can be, influenced by religion. Many in Cabinet, many MPs, are deeply religious. We don't hide that.

“When we meet with the Muslim leaders, when we meet with the Muslim clerics, when we meet with the Mufti, when we meet with the Christian leaders, they understand and they accept (the principle of separating religion from politics) and they say it is the only way in which we can proceed with governing Singapore and living in Singapore.

“Not just for us as Government, but for them as religious leaders. So Mr Manap has introduced a new element in that process today. I think that is something for him and others around him to think about.”