Yesterday (1 Mar), the Leader of the Opposition Pritam Singh and Minister for Home Affairs and Law K Shanmugam engaged in discussions over religious extremism, the secular nature of government policy, as well as the government’s position on the LGBTQ community.
Let’s take a closer look at the three main points that were made during the Committee of Supply debate in Parliament.
1. Religious Extremism
Raising the recent case of a 16-year-old being detained under the Internal Security Act (ISA) for planning a terrorist attack on two mosques in Woodlands, Mr Singh acknowledged assurances from the government that they have been strengthening efforts to reach out to youth via social media platforms in order to deal with threats of radicalism.
However, he also noted that this incident was a “good reminder” that religious extremism can come from anywhere, and that no religion is exempt from this possibility.
Mr Singh went on to point out that Singaporeans have to be able to rest assured that “the government is on top of things”, and that government policy had to be “strictly secular” or free from any form of religious influence.
He questioned whether or not there was the possibility of laws and policies being subtly influenced by religious people in prominent positions of power who may not necessarily be radical or extremist. And if so, he inquired whether or not the government had plans to deal with this risk.
In response to this, Mr Shanmugam pointed out that Singh could be misunderstood as essentially saying that top civil servants may be biased in favour of their own religion.
Mr Shanmugam went on to say that giving such an impression of civil servants to the public is “seriously wrong”, and that these civil servants have “dedicated their entire lives to public service loyally [and] faithfully”.
Mr Shanmugam stressed that the integrity of the civil service is “one of the key foundations of our success”, and that no religious groups are unfairly favoured when it comes to policymaking.
Nevertheless, Mr Shanmugam made it clear that he was only trying to clear up possible mistaken impressions that Mr Singh’s words could have left on listeners, without trying to challenge his actual meaning.
He said, “I have spoken about our approach at least nine times over the last five years, and I don’t think Mr. Singh wants a tenth speech.”
2. Revisiting the 1989 White Paper on Maintenance of Religious Harmony
Mr Singh mentioned that perhaps a re-visitation of the 1989 White Paper on Maintenance of Religious Harmony is in order, because times have changed, particularly with regard to “interpersonal communication”.
Bringing up an example, he said that today’s White Paper should aim to target issues of radicalism and extremism more closely rather than focus on “insensitive proselytisation” as raised in the past.
He also pointed out that this does not necessarily have to be restricted to the context of “religion versus religion”, but also in “religion versus other communities”.
Mr Shanmugam directly responded to Singh’s appeal for an updated White Paper by saying that there was “no immediate need” for one because of the numerous measures that have been taken thus far to continuously review and amend the White Paper, ensuring its relevance.
3. Far-Right Extremism and the Government’s Stance on the LGBTQ Community
Mr Singh cited the case of a man who had ripped the pride flag from a food stall counter and thrown it at the staff.
He described the issue as “concerning”, particularly as footage of the incident was uploaded onto social media to “highlight the everyday reality that the LGBTQ community experience”.
Mr Singh then proceeded to ask if the government will consider reviewing laws to “ensure that there is preservation of strict secularism”, so that all communities will be deemed equal in the fields of “law, policy and governance”.
In response, Mr Shanmugam re-emphasised that the Maintenance of Religious Harmony Act serves to protect the LGBTQ community from attacks by religious groups, and that all individuals are equal regardless of their sexual orientation.
Singh’s Response to Shanmugam’s Clarifications
Responding to Mr Shanmugam’s earlier mention that Singh’s words could potentially create a poor impression of civil servants, Mr Singh said that he had no intention of undercutting the work of civil servants, and that he had only wished to get a confirmation of the government’s commitment to secularism.
He even roused laughter from Mr Shanmugam and others when he said, “I didn’t realise Minister had made these remarks nine times since 2015. Suffice to say I appreciate his tenth restatement, more than anything.”
Mr Singh also heartily agreed with Mr Shanmugam’s words on the LGBTQ community, saying that Mr Shanmugam’s remark on how LGBT and non-LGBT people are equal was “a very powerful statement, a fair and egalitarian approach to dealing with the matter”.
For more information on what went down during yesterday’s debate, click here.
Feature Image: Youtube (The Straits Times) / Youtube (Gov.sg)
Watch this for a complete summary of what REALLY happened to Qoo10, and why it's like a K-drama:
Read Also:
- Woman Tried Bribing Officer in S’pore Immigration, Thinking It’s a M’sia Officer
- There Might Not Be Crazy Rich Asians 2 in the Near Future
- Everything About Donald Trump’s Controversial Cabinet’s Picks That Are Known So Far
- Pet-Friendly Cafe Just 10 Minutes Away From JB CIQ Has Furry Floral Decor, Pastries & Mains
- 4 Handrolls For S$4 At Japanese Handroll Bar In Duxton Road On 17 November 2024
- Everything About The Deepfake Nude Photo Scandal in S’pore Sports School
Advertisements
