Home
» Our News
» Reference to Religious Harmony - 2nd Minister Mr K Shanmugam's Speech
Reference to Religious Harmony - 2nd Minister Mr K Shanmugam's Speech
Date : 5 March 2010
Ministry of Home Affairs Committee of Supply Debate 2010 - Speech By Second Minister for Home Affairs Mr K Shanmugam – Home Team Resources, Integrated Resorts, Race Classification, Religious Harmony & Irresponsible Internet Behaviour
05 March 2010
Sir, I will address the issues on Home Team resources, law and order at the Integrated Resorts (IRs), race classification, maintaining religious harmony and irresponsible internet behaviour.
Home Team Resources
2. I agree with Mr Alvin Yeo’s view that we cannot neglect Homeland security. Mr Yeo observes little or no manpower increases in the Home Team this year. That comment has to be seen in context. In 2009-2010, the Home Team saw significant increases of establishment for Police (1,315 or 11%), ICA (1,275 or 33%), CNB (64 or 10%) and SCDF (205 or 10%).
3. Moving forward, we are looking to increase ICA manpower at the checkpoints and staffing a new cruise terminal. For SCDF, we will have a new fire station for Tuas View and a new Fire Post at Sentosa. More manpower will also be allocated for frontline policing and key operational roles like investigation and intelligence.
4. There is a limit to how much additional resources can be pumped in to the Home Team. However, there are pressures, like a rising population, as pointed out by Mr de Souza, an increase in mega events and a more complex security environment. Thus, as I had shared in last year’s COS debate, it is important for us to deal with these constraints in a holistic manner.
5. First, there must be force multipliers like technology to maximise the utility of limited resources. Second, we should partner the private sector to augment the security force and also free up Home Team officers to perform more critical functions. Third, we need to forge deep and meaningful collaborations with community partners.
6. The long term solution cannot be to continue growing the size of the Home Team indefinitely. Instead, our resources must be allocated to areas that best optimise their training and capabilities. And this must be to combat crime and not to do pest control like catching snakes.
Keeping the Integrated Resorts Crime-Free
7. On the IRs, Mr de Souza, Mr Arthur Fong, Mr Ang Mong Seng and Dr Ong Seh Hong were concerned about issues relating to vice, loansharking and other social menaces.
8. We have been focusing on the different potential threats faced and beyond issues relating to regulating the casinos. Being iconic, the IRs are potential targets for terrorists. We are also mindful, given the experience of other jurisdictions, that the casinos may attract criminal elements including organized crime, vice, money laundering and loansharking. We have from the outset built capabilities to deal with multi faceted threats.
9. The Casino Regulatory Authority (CRA) was set up in April 2008. The Casino Crime Investigation Branch (CCIB) was set up to deal specifically with casino-related crime. The new Marina Bay NPC and Bukit Merah West NPC will oversee general law and order at the Marina Bay Sands and RWS respectively.
10. With regard to vice activities which Mr de Souza asked about, the Police has increased the number of officers available to deal with vice. Police Land Divisions officers have been vested with the same powers as those from CID to curb vice-related activities.
11. Since the casino started operations, the law and order situation has generally remained under control. It is early days yet but we will monitor the situation closely.
12. As for the issue of problem gambling, this is under MCYS’s purview.
Racial Classification
13. I will now turn to Ms Ng’s question which can be broken down into two distinct points:
(I) There should be a new category of ‘Singaporean’ in the ‘race’ field of the NRIC; and
(II) We should ensure a level playing field for all citizens regardless of race, language or religion.
14. I will now respond to each of Ms Ng’s points. On the first idea that
(I) There should be a new category of ‘Singaporean’, for those who prefer to state that, rather than their ethnic identity.
15. An idea like this has to be realistic, acceptable to the majority, and capable of being implemented effectively. The reality is that ours is a multi ethnic society. Our people are heirs to several cultures which have long, proud and rich traditions, stretching over thousands of years.
16. Ethnicity and cultural identity, and identification along those lines, are not going to disappear by doing away with it in our NRIC or providing an option for people to avoid stating their ethnicity.
17. The example of France and many other countries tells us that. Indeed, in the Singapore context, there is much to be said for openly accepting our ethnic differences and celebrating our ethnic and cultural diversity. That diversity can be melded into great strength if properly handled – witness our ability to span across Asia and take part in the rise of China, India and parts of South East Asia.
18. However we must not lose sight of one basic fundamental ideal, which really underlies Ms Ng’s point. While we acknowledge our different ethnicities and cultures, underlying this is the ideal that we are all Singaporeans first and foremost – this has to be the foundation for our society. We will support each other and fight for each other. The Singaporean national identity has to be nurtured and strengthened, into a powerful unifying force. The Singaporean identity has to be made stronger than the individual ethnic identities. But that ideal is not going to be achieved by us ignoring our ethnic diversity, nor would our ethnic diversity go away because we do not reflect it in our NRICs. Even in countries with highly egalitarian ideals, with far longer history than ours, race still continues to be a central tenet and fact of society. It does not go away easily, even over hundreds of years. Thus it is best to be pragmatic and realistic while not losing sight of achievable ideals. While race does not always equate to culture, it most often does. Policy has to be based on the norm and not the exceptions.
19. Let me now deal with Ms Ng’s second point on:
(III) Ensuring a level playing field for all citizens regardless of race, language or religion.
20. I agree entirely. I said earlier that as a society we can in fact be stronger if we celebrate our diversity and draw strength from that diversity. It will however not be possible to draw such strength, if any ethnic group is discriminated against.
21. Our pledge sets out what our ideals are. As a Government and as a society, we have striven to achieve those ideals. Nevertheless in a society like ours, from time to time there will be perceptions of discrimination as well as actual cases where discrimination occurs. That happens in every multi-ethnic society. And discrimination on some differential basis occurs in every society. That is a reality of social organization. The key is that our Government and public institutions, as a matter of public policy will not tolerate such discrimination. We do our best to ensure a level playing field based on meritocracy. By and large, we have been successful, though in issues like this, it is always work in progress. We have a society whose fundamental tenet is meritocracy and all ethnic groups have made substantial progress. We have a good foundation for our society to move further forward to achieve the vision in our pledge.
Maintaining Religious Harmony
22. Let me now move on to touch on religious harmony. Dr Ong Seh Hong spoke about the need for religious tolerance and harmony.
23. Singapore’s peaceful communal relations are the result of the careful management of relations between the various racial and religious groups by the Government and the commitment of our people to the ideals and value of communal harmony. At the core is the policy that the Government of Singapore is secular and that the secular law is supreme. This ensures that all races and religions are given equal protection under the law.
24. Despite this, we occasionally face incidents of conflict and tension as pointed out by Dr Ong. Ethnic and religious diversity poses some challenges to social order as different groups pursue their interests sometimes over enthusiastically and passionately.
25. Our approach towards resolving such disagreements is that they should be mediated or resolved on the ground through common sense, and moral suasion using the collective efforts of the community, grassroots and religious leaders.
26. However, there may be times when such efforts are not enough. In such instances, the authorities will step in to deal with the problem, and I do not think that one will doubt the will and resolve of the Government to deal with these issues quickly and effectively.
27. Dr Ong suggested sending out a stronger and clearer signal for every breach. Ideally, such action by the authorities, should be few and far between. The long-term solution to religious disputes must reside in the mutual understanding and trust among the different groups and their leaders.
28. Dr Ong’s suggestion that religious clerics undergo a course on religious harmony is really a matter for MCYS to consider.
Irresponsible Internet Behaviour
29. I will end by addressing the issue raised by Dr Maliki about irresponsible behaviour on the Internet.
30. The Government has generally taken a ‘light touch’ approach on regulating the Internet. However, we do take a very serious view of those who take advantage of the anonymity offered by the Internet to do harm to others or to the community. We will not hesitate to take action in such cases.
31. Should the Government go further and criminalise more irresponsible internet behaviour? In France, it is an offence for anyone to broadcast images of certain classes of violent crimes, including severe beatings or rape. While Singapore currently does not have such a law, we will monitor developments and review our practices and laws where necessary.
32. Ultimately, the Internet cannot be a place where the law is suspended. There must be accountability for actions in the Internet as well as the physical world.