Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time." Sir, the rationale for this Bill has in fact been set out in quite a comprehensive manner in the White Paper entitled "Maintenance of Religious Harmony" which was presented to Parliament dated 26th December 1989. What I propose to do this afternoon is to highlight and reiterate some of the more important points in the White Paper as well as to draw attention to the main scheme in the Bill. Perhaps I should start off by reminding ourselves what kind of a society are we, what kind of a nation Singapore is. We are a young nation, small country, densely populated and we are not a homogenous society, because we are made up of different races, languages and religions. As far as religions are concerned, we have in Singapore all the great religions in the world represented - Buddhism, Taoism, Islam, Hindu, Sikhism and many denominations of Christianity. No single religion can be said to be the dominant religions, nor is any religion an official religion of the State because Singapore is strictly secular. We have been fortunate that over the years we have had religious freedom and religious harmony. Is religious freedom and religious harmony just a desirable ideal, a lofty principle to be enshrined in the Constitution? The answer is no. For us, it is vital for our survival as a nation. It is essential for our stability and law and order. But can we be sure that the religious harmony and tolerance that we have had over the years can be preserved? Why does this question arise? It arises if we observe what is happening around the world and if we take note of what is happening in Singapore. First, let us look at the international context. What is happening elsewhere? If we just take the news over a period of two or three months - we do not have to go back much further - it is a sad tale because the news is full of examples of many countries which are experiencing violence, strife, disorder, because of inter-religious tensions and conflicts. In India, Muslims against Hindus, Kashmir and other cities. Elsewhere in India, Hindus against Sikhs. Sri Lanka was once held up as a model of peaceful coexistence of different religions. Now a holy war is taking place there. Fiji, always regarded as a tranquil, idyllic Pacific nation, no one would have imagined any such problems arising there. What happens? Suddenly, Sikh temples, Muslim mosques, fire bombed. Lebanon, we are all familiar with the perennial problems there, not just between different religious groups but within one religion there are different rival groups. Northern Ireland, Protestants and Catholics. Philippines, Muslims and Christians. And Muslims against Muslims in the Iran/Iraq war. The list is endless, Sir, with Armenia, Azerbaijan and so on. Compared to Singapore, these countries are older societies, larger countries and more well-established nations. Yet they have inter-religious strife. They are torn apart by the conflicts. How about us? Singapore, in our tiny corner of the world, what is so special about us that we can assume that we will always be an exception. Let us consider the local context and there are two factors. First, the heightened religious fervour amongst all religious groups. This heightened fervour and increased competition has made the search for new followers more intense, but this is part of the worldwide trends. We cannot be isolated. But this trend increases the possibility of friction and misunderstanding among different religious groups. Why? Because religion is a deeply felt matter. When religious sensitivities are offended, emotions are quickly aroused and it takes only a few incidents to inflame passions and kindle violence. The second factor, Sir, is that while the majority of religious leaders and the majority of followers of religious groups are conscious of the need to be tolerant, the need to be sensitive in our multi-religious and multi-racial society, there are some persons whose conduct can cause considerable tensions and problems for us. These are listed in the Annexe to the White Paper. For example, you have a Muslim priest denouncing Christianity as the most foolish religion. Surely that is going to upset Christians. Then you have Christian groups pasting posters announcing a forthcoming seminar outside a Hindu temple. Is that wise? Then Protestant pamphlets denigrating the Roman Catholic church and the Pope. Surely they would take great offence and umbrage. So considering what is happening in other parts of the world, taking note of what is happening here, it is obvious that religious harmony is a fragile matter. It needs careful nurturing and it will be a folly to assume that it will always be there. Therefore, conscious efforts are needed by religious groups, religious leaders and their followers to ensure that nothing jeopardizes it. There are really two factors: (1) That followers of different religions must exercise moderation and tolerance, and not to instigate religious enmity or hatred. (2) It is important that religion and politics be kept separate. Let me take the first issue, which is that of religion and religion. As the White Paper highlights, the main problem here is that of insensitive, aggressive religious proselytisation. We all know, Sir, that the Constitution guarantees the freedom to propagate one's religion. The question is, how do we go about it? If we denigrate other faiths, there will be consequences. It is necessary to avoid insensitive and aggressive efforts. There is a need, of course, to point out, in the process of propagating religion, differences between one's religion and another's. But it is an entirely different matter to denounce other religions. For example, as is spelt out in the examples in the Annexe to the White Paper, should one say that another person's religion is a greater threat to mankind than communism? Would you expect the leaders of that religious group to take it calmly? Again another example. To say that the head of the Catholic church, the Pope, is the anti-Christ, will that not upset and provoke strong emotions amongst Catholics? Next, Religion and Politics. Why we should be concerned, it is spelt out in the White Paper. Sir, we must bear in mind that religious leaders and leaders of religious groups, in the eyes of their followers, have a special status. They are regarded as being closer to God than anyone else. They may be specially anointed or ordained and their words have a tremendous emotional effect on their flock. If religious leaders enter politics, they must view matters from a religious perspective. There will be emotional appeals in the name of religion and their followers will believe them and their words as interpretations from a divine authority above. Sir, when one religious group involves itself in this way in political issues, it must follow that other groups will do the same. And various groups will want to outdo each other. Then again, when that happens, what would the party in power, or for that matter all other political parties, do? Can they be expected to be quiet? Surely they will look for religious groups and their flocks to back them up. The end result surely is obvious. It is inevitable that there will be collision between the different religious groups and the Government leading to instability and conflict. It is extremely important therefore that priests and other religious leaders do not mix religion and politics and mount political campaigns. The need for legislation. Coming to this Bill, one may ask, why legislate? In turn, I have to pose this question, Sir. Can we assume that everyone will act with prudence, moderation and sensitivity? Because if that is so, then I think we can conclude that there is no need to do anything and no need to legislate. But our problem is not with the majority of religious leaders and not with the majority of members of religious groups. It is a problem of a minority number of mischievous, irresponsible people. The compilation shows you enough examples to demonstrate that this is not a theoretical or hypothetical solution. But though they may be few, they can cause great harm not to just one religious group but to the very fabric of our society. To contemplate passing laws after the harm has been done will be too late because tensions would have arisen, violence might have erupted, people might be killed, deep feelings of resentment and considerable intense wounded feelings would divide our society for a long time. Sir, we must have some mechanism to curb such elements. It is far better to put in such laws and mechanisms now when relations between religious groups are good than later. And what kind of legislation? What we need is a device that will enable prompt and effective pre-emptive or preventive action to be taken which can quickly defuse a potentially explosive situation. It must be prompt and effective. Let me now turn to the provisions of the Bill, Sir. I do not intend to go clause by clause. Instead I wish to draw attention to the main scheme of the legislation and the Bill really has the five following features. First, it establishes a Presidential Council for Religious Harmony. Second, it sets out the conduct or acts which we should regard as harmful. Third, it enables prohibition orders to be issued. Fourth, it describes the persons against whom such orders can be issued. And fifth, it sets out the procedure which must be followed when such prohibition orders are issued. First, the Presidential Council. The idea of establishing such a formal body in the law was in fact proposed in the report published by the Ministry of Community Development. The Bill envisages that the composition of the Presidential Council should be a Chairman and a maximum of 15 other members to be drawn from the representatives of the major religions in Singapore, but there would also be persons who can be appointed who have distinguished themselves in public service or community relations. In other words, the Council will have religious leaders plus lay leaders. Why lay leaders? As explained, it is to complement the perspectives of the religious leaders and also to represent the many Singaporeans who do not belong to any organised religious group. There will be a special function as well as a general function. The general function is to consider and give their views on matters generally affecting religious harmony in Singapore which may be referred to it by the Government. The special function it has is with regard to the proposed prohibition orders for any particular individual. The Bill sets out what is a conduct which it should be concerned with. This is spelt out in clause 8. I will not repeat them verbatim but basically there are four categories. One, where a person causes feelings of enmity or hatred between different religious groups. Second, under the guise of religion or propagating religious activity, one carries out political activities for promoting a political cause or a cause of any political party. Third, carrying out subversive activities under the guise of propagation of religion. Fourth, exciting disaffection against the President or the Government of Singapore. I might explain here, Sir, that this term "exciting disaffection" in law is a well-known concept which is found in more than one precedent in Singapore, such as the Sedition Act. It is also to be found in Article 149 of the Constitution and it has many precedents in other Commonwealth countries. Basically, it connotes action taken by anyone to instigate and to provoke the feelings of disloyalty or hatred against an established government. The third feature of the Bill is the concept of prohibition orders. In other words, what should be done when a person engages in such harmful conduct? Should we detain him immediately under the Internal Security Act? Or should we immediately prosecute him under one or other of the existing laws which could conceivably apply, which must result in a court conviction if he is found guilty, and therefore a sentence of a fine or imprisonment? If the conduct is so serious and so dangerous, perhaps that extreme measure may be necessary. It could be necessary and justified. But in many cases, we think a less severe remedy would suffice. Because what is necessary is prompt action to stop him from repeating that act, conduct or speech. Because if he does so again, then it will only exacerbate matters. There will be further counter-attacks and retaliatory measures, and the situation will get out of hand. Hence, the Bill has this concept of a prohibition order. In other words, it puts him on notice that he should not repeat that act or conduct. And only when he repeats and violates the specific terms of the prohibition order can he be prosecuted in a court of law, in which case the Court will decide whether he is guilty or not guilty of a breach of the prohibition order. In other words, Sir, what has been crafted into this Bill is in fact a more limited measure than either resorting to the Internal Security Act or prosecution in a court of law. We think this will meet the problem. Against whom can such prohibition orders be issued? This is spelt out in clause 8. Obviously, it must apply to any religious leader of any religious organisation. But it is also possible that a non-member of that religious group, a person outside the religious group, could try to cause similar mischief by instigation or manipulation. Therefore, the Bill provides in clause 9 that such persons can also be the subject of a prohibition order. Next, the Bill provides procedures to be followed. Before making a prohibition order, the Minister must, first of all, serve notice of his intention and he must serve this notice of his intention to the individual concerned as well as to the head of his religious organisation. Both the individual and the head of the religious organisation are to be afforded the opportunity to give their views and representations. For example, the individual can explain or argue why the order should not be made. At the same time, the Minister must also send the proposed notice and notify the Presidential Council for Religious Harmony, which also can give its views. A two weeks' deadline is provided. After receiving the views, the Minister has to have regard to them before he makes a decision whether to make the order or not. After an order is made, the Minister has still to send the order to the Presidential Council for Religious Harmony, together with all the representations the Minister has received from the individual heads of the organisations. Although the order has been made, the Council can recommend whether it should be modified, completely rescinded or revoked, and the Minister is to have regard to their views. Sir, the intention is, that the Government seek views and advice from a body, the Presidential Council, which will have considerable moral authority. Because it will not only have representatives of the religious groups from which the individual has come from, but it will be composed of other representatives of other religious groups. If I may sum up, Sir, I can repeat what I said at the outset. We really have a choice of whether to do something, enact this law or not to enact this law. So the question is: should we do something now or let things be? That is indeed a course of action that is open to us. But of course, Sir, there is a risk and a heavy price to be paid, and many countries are now paying the price. Or is it better to take note of the danger signs and put in place now legislative controls and measures which can enable us to nip problems in the bud whenever individuals engage in such irresponsible, senseless acts that endanger our religious harmony? The Government recommends that we do not take the risk, and that is the approach in the White Paper and in the Bill, because far too much is at stake. Religious harmony is fundamental not just for one or more religious groups. It is vital not just for members of religious groups. It is vital for all Singaporeans because if there is religious strife, all of us are going to be affected. Finally, Sir, I would like to say that this legislation has not been hastily rushed through. We have been deliberating on the matter for more than 2(r) years. In fact, the first draft of the Bill was prepared in June 1987. This is a delicate and sensitive matter. During this period, we have consulted MPs of different faiths, both in the previous Parliament and in this Parliament. We have consulted religious leaders of different religious groups as well as grassroots leaders on the basis of earlier drafts of the White Paper. In all these discussions, we received many significant suggestions for improvement which we have accepted. What these changes are, some of them are reflected in the White Paper and consequentially in the Bill. For Members' information, I might point out, for example, changes which are mentioned on page 20 of the White Paper. Originally, in the earlier draft of the White Paper, it was not the Presidential Council for Religious Harmony. It was a National Council of Religious Harmony. In one of the discussions, Archbishop Gregory Yong gave us his suggestion that it should have a higher status - that it should be a Presidential Council for Religious Harmony. We accepted that change and it is now reflected in the Bill. The Mufti of Singapore, Syed Isa bin Mohd Semait, wanted clarification that the proposed legislation will be consistent with Articles in the Constitution, such as Articles 152, 153. The White Paper accord- ingly was suitably amended because there is no inconsistency. Then, some others from the Methodist, Bethesda (Bedok-Tampines) Church, Dr Benjamin Chew, and Bethesda (Frankel Estate) Church, Prof Ernest Chew, and others recommended that the White Paper should also emphasise the importance of respecting common values and the right of each individual to accept or not to accept a religion. You will find that this has also been incorporated in the White Paper. Others such as Dr Chan Ban Leong, Chairman of the Christian National Evangelism Commission Board, Mr Sat Pal Khattar, member of the Hindu Advisory Board, proposed that the notice of intended probibition order should be sent to the Council at the same time it is sent to the individual. The earlier draft of the White Paper, as it then stood, required the Presidential Council to be involved only after the order was made. Now we have changed it so that we have accepted the suggestion and it is referred to the Presidential Council. These are some examples of the changes which were made. In conclusion, Sir, the Government has not closed its mind to further suggestions for improvements. Therefore, so that there can be further opportunity to receive views on the provisions of the Bill, I would like to say that the Government intends to submit this Bill, to a Select Committee. Sir, I beg to move. Question proposed.