In a parliament session on Monday (7 October), Law and Home Affairs Minister K Shanmugam and Worker’s Party MP Faisal Manap were involved in a heated exchange during the debate about the Maintenance of Religious Harmony Act (MHRA).
Mr Faisal uttered that he did not quite agree with the idea of keeping religion and politics separate, and this did not go down too well with the Law Minister.
Speaking in Malay on the changes of MHRA, Mr Faisal said: “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.”
Upon hearing his statement, Mr Shanmugam asked WP’s MP to clarify what he meant, and the duo went back and forth on this issue with Mr Shanmugam repeatedly asking Mr Faisal if he agrees that religion and politics should be kept separate.
After a prolonged debate, Mr Faisal eventually said, “I do agree that religion needs to be kept aside or apart from politics so that the religion won’t be used to gain personal benefit or the benefit of any political party.”
In attempt to clarify what his fellow party member meant exactly, WP chief Pritam Singh commented that, “In Singapore, as a minority MP for any party, you represent not just members of your community, you represent members of other faiths. And I think the only way to move forward is to accept that there has be a certain degree of understanding towards other faiths and move forward in a way which accepts that we must be mindful of introducing religion into politics,” he said, noting that he is speaking for himself.
“I think ultimately for a Member of Parliament of any political party in Singapore, I think it is important that you remember that you have to represent the interests of every community, not just yours,” Mr Singh added.

The video of this intense debate was uploaded on Mothership’s Facebook page which garnered strong reactions from online users. Many of them slammed Mr Faisal for his opinion and felt that religion and politics should always be separated. Citing Malaysia and Indonesia where politics and religion are intertwined, they noted that “countries which religion is involved in politics ended up the religion being abused for the individual gains which ultimately destroys that country”. Even the national pledge stated that religion should be separated from politics in order to ensure harmony, some netizens said. They added that religion should only act as a guide in politics.







However, a bunch of online users felt sorry for Mr Faisal as they felt that his language barrier hindered him from articulating his thoughts properly. “I think what Mr Manap was talking about is certain values that is carried forth in whatever he (a Muslim) does in life, hence it cannot be separated,” said Darrell Foam Man Lim.



Others applauded Mr Singh for stepping in and helping Mr Faisal to state his points clearly. “Mr Pritam responded well and gave a very clear explanation on how to move the discussion forward,” wrote Yao Weixiong Shem. They added that he showed a lot of “tact and grace in answering honestly and plainly what the right way forward should be”.



Although many agreed that politics and religion should be separated, however others opined that consideration of all faiths must be there when making policies in order “to ensure that the policies would not be leaning to the benefit or loss to any religion”. Kenneth Koh felt that “religion can serve as a moral compass which underpins the values of an individual which in turn produce the desired outcome in the form of sound decision and contributions to our society at the family level or at societal level.”



Separately, a group of online users also criticised Mr Shanmugam for “deliberately making it difficult” for Mr Faisal by asking him to answer “yes or no” for such a complicated and sensitive question. “Attempting to trap with a yes no, agree disagree question which is not simple and or applicable in every scenario where religion and politics are concerned,” Darren Yong said. Some even called the Law Minister as “spineless bully” and a “snake”.



Subscribe
Notify of
1 Comment
Newest
Oldest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
You May Also Like

Man injured in knife attack at Boon Lay supermarket; 18-year-old arrested over the attack

A 23-year-old man was injured from slash wounds on his head and…

Was the demolishing of the old National Library a well-thought decision?

The Old National Library Building was closed on 31 March 2004, and…

Burmese official blacklisted by the US airlifted to Singapore for medical treatment

A senior Burmese government official blacklisted by the United States has been flown…

尚穆根称《防假消息法》不阻碍言论自由

《防止网络假信息和防止网络操纵法案》于昨日国会进行二读时,内政兼律政部长尚穆根重申,当事人可以对政府所做的相关指示向法院提出上诉,启动上诉程序后,最快九个工作日,法庭就可以展开审讯。 据法案内容指出,只有影响了国家公共利益,政府才会采取行动。他也强调虽然部长是有更正与撤下不实信息的权利,但部长也必须对此提出理由。 而当事人若对政府的指示有所异议,可申请向部长提出撤销指示,而部长需在两日内日决定是否该撤销。若部长最终决定不撤销,上诉人也可向法庭提出上诉,由法官决定是否接受上诉。整个过程将尽速进行且前三日的上诉审讯无须支付。 部长尚穆根解释全球都在面临民主体系与公共机构被削弱的问题,其中以传统媒体与新媒体是部分原因之一,尤其是新媒体的功能更容易迅速散播及扩大假消息,为其带来严重后果。 例如在印度,人们因为错信在Whatsapp上传播的有关孩子被拐卖的假消息,引发私刑冲突,导致33人死亡,或是包括法国巴黎圣母院失火的视频,就被利用来推动反回教情绪法国 他认为一些有政治动机的机构,利用新媒体的便利误导民众,散播谣言以至于影响公共利益。 他表示,假消息无疑是制造民众与政府之间的不信任感。“假信息会破坏公众的信心,它被用来分化、极端化和撕裂社会凝聚力。民主对话、相互包容和寻求妥协将变得非常困难。”他持续说道。 他解释“言论自由不受这个法案的影响,我们这里谈论的是假信息,机器人写作程序、网络喷子、假帐号等,英国上诉法院的判决就提出,散播假信息不应获得基本人权保护民主社会的顺利运作,取决于社会民众是否能获得真实的消息而不是受到误导。” 部长逐一回应近期对法案提出的评论,包括法案对事实、个人看法、公共利益的定义,以及可能造成寒蝉效应,阻碍言论自由等。