SINGAPORE, Mar 1 — No particular religious group is favoured when public policy is being formulated, Law and Home Affairs Minister K Shanmugam said today. Neutrality and fairness are essential traits at every level of public service, from Cabinet ministers at the top to civil service officers, to maintain citizens’ trust, he added.
However, Shanmugam also told Parliament, during the debate on the Ministry of Home Affairs’ budget for the upcoming year, that anyone in public service should guard against any tendencies to view an issue through a religious lens or from their personal perspective.
“You’ll be informed by your religious views but you have to look at the broad majority and see what is in their interest,” he said.
“We have to jealously guard against any such tendency to look through a particular lens, whether its ministers or anyone else and we have to set the tone from the very top. Insist on a secular approach and be strict about that.”
Shanmugam added that the quality of Singapore’s civil service depends ultimately on the timbre of its ministers.
“If the ministers are biased, they lack integrity, then that will spread. Maybe slowly, but surely. The institutions that we have set up can delay the spread. It may depend on how long the top remains bad, but it won’t be a happy situation,” said Shanmugam.
He was responding to Leader of the Opposition Pritam Singh who asked whether there is a danger, be it now or in the future, that Singapore’s laws and policies could be tilted towards the dominant religious beliefs of senior civil servants or people of influence.
“There’s no danger that government policy will be anything other than strongly against extremism. But is there a risk of the subtle influencing of policy by religious persons who are not necessarily radical?
“I would like to ask the Government if it has considered such matters and if so whether it intends to roll out strategies to counter such a possible risk to Singapore’s secular principles,” said Singh, who is also Member of Parliament for Aljunied Group Representation Constituency.
Singh also called for the Government to restate its position or update the working rules set out in an 1989 White Paper on the Maintenance of Religious Harmony to ensure that secularism is strictly preserved.
In his speech, Shanmugam said that he has spoken about Singapore’s approach to secularism at least nine times over the last five years.
He reiterated: “When the Government looks at policies, we do so in a secular way. We guarantee freedom of all religions. We don’t favour any particular religion.”
As for the updating the White Paper, Shanmugam said that the Government has reviewed it, which led to amendments to the Maintenance of Religious Harmony Act.
One of the changes was the introduction of higher standards of behaviour for religious leaders because of the influence they can wield.
For example, if a non-religious leader and a religious leader made the same statement in a private context, it may not be considered an offence for the non-religious leader.
But a religious leader would have to prove that he or she communicated that statement only with his or her relatives or with members living in the same household, he said.
Shanmugam said that many members of the public will interpret Singh’s questions about the possible bias of civil servants to mean that he is, in essence, saying that top civil servants could be biased and act in favour of their religious communities.
Leaving the public with that impression would be “seriously wrong”, he said.
“If there is evidence of such a lack of integrity amongst current senior civil servants, then I agree. It should be raised, stated and we must deal with it,” he said.
“If the statement was meant only to cover a future possibility, without any hint or suggestion of a lack of integrity amongst current top civil servants, then that should have been made crystal clear,” said Shanmugam.
Singh clarified that he was not trying to undermine the work of civil servants. His motivation was to seek a restatement from the Government on its position towards secularism and he thanked Shanmugam for doing so.
In his original question, Singh also brought up the incident of a man throwing the pride flag displayed at a shop front towards its staff as an example of how far-right extremism rejects others who are not like them.
The pride flag is typically used to represent the lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender and queer (LGBTQ) community globally.
Shanmugam said amendments to the Maintenance of Religious Harmony Act have made it an offence for anyone to urge violence against any person based on religious beliefs.
This applies to a religious group attacking an LGBTQ individual or vice versa.
“The law is even-handed in this context... Regardless of which community, what your social, religious or sexual beliefs are, everyone will be protected here. And I have said so categorically.
“LGBTQ persons, non-LGBTQ persons, we are all equal. We are not any lesser by reason of our sexual preferences. And if anyone stirs hate speech either for or against any sexual or religious community, we will take action,” said Shanmugam.
In response, Singh said he completely agrees with what Shanmugam said about protecting everyone, including the LGBTQ community.
“It is a very powerful statement, a fair and egalitarian approach to dealing with the matter. And I hope all Singaporeans regardless of race or religion actually coalesce around this and have reasoned and respectful conversations on LGBTQ issues. And I think we will be stronger as a nation for it,” he added. — TODAY
