Ministerial Statement on Race and Religion in Parliament on 14 Oct 2025

Steer clear of identity politics, uphold integrity of Singapore’s secular system: Shanmugam

Political parties should not use race and religion in election campaigns, he says

By Linette Lai, The Straits Times, 15 Oct 2025

Resist the destructive temptation to use race and religion in election campaigns for easy political wins, and steer clear of identity politics, Coordinating Minister for National Security K. Shanmugam urged Parliament on Oct 14.

In an hour-long speech that referred to “troubling incidents” during the May general election, he set out the fundamental principles underpinning Singapore’s approach to race and religion, as well as how politicians here should respond to future attempts to provoke such issues.

While people are free to practise their faiths, the Government’s position is that public political debate must be conducted and decided on a secular basis. This approach is central to Singapore’s existence as an independent nation, said Mr Shanmugam, who is also Home Affairs Minister.

In particular, he highlighted the opposition Workers’ Party’s reaction to remarks made during the hustings by self-styled religious teacher Noor Deros and politicians from Malaysia’s Islamist party, Parti Islam SeMalaysia (PAS), saying that the WP could have acted more quickly and been less ambiguous about its stance.

Political parties should “immediately, clearly and unequivocally” reject any such attempts to interfere in Singapore’s political process in the future, the minister said.

Mr Shanmugam also pointed to how identity politics has split countries around the world, including the US, cautioning the House that such division is hard to contain and impossible to reverse.

Ultimately, it will lead to political parties courting the majority vote and minorities being marginalised, he said in his ministerial statement.

While Singapore looks stable now, it is no more stable than other countries where communal relations have worsened as a result of these pressures, he added.

The minister’s remarks were the latest in a series of statements on identity politics that have been made since the election, when external parties sought to sway voters through online appeals.

Mr Shanmugam said he was bringing the matter up again to remind Singaporeans of the framework and fundamentals that are crucial to the country’s success.

“It is too serious a matter – existential to Singapore – for us to simply let it slide,” he said. “And so I decided to make this statement at the earliest opportunity after the opening of Parliament.”

Mr Shanmugam later fielded questions from eight MPs on both sides of the aisle, including several from WP chief and Leader of the Opposition Pritam Singh.

In an exchange lasting more than half an hour, Mr Singh disagreed that the WP took too long to respond and said it was unfair to characterise his party as not taking the issue seriously.

He said the WP agrees that race and religion should not be mixed with politics, and accepted that the party’s statement could have been clearer.

‘Troubling incidents’ during GE2025

In his speech, Mr Shanmugam referenced remarks made during the election campaign by Mr Noor, as well as politicians from PAS.

Mr Noor had posted online about meeting WP representatives, including its Malay candidates, and said the party was the only one taking his demands seriously.

Both Mr Noor and PAS politicians called on voters to throw their weight behind the WP’s Faisal Manap, who led a five-member team contesting Tampines GRC.

The WP team was up against a PAP team led by then Minister-in-charge of Muslim Affairs Masagos Zulkifli.

“That the Malay/Muslim vote in particular was being targeted was obvious,” Mr Shanmugam said.

He noted that the PAS politicians saw an opening and urged Singaporeans to vote along racial and religious lines.

“Does anyone, whether in here or outside, seriously believe that PAS is supporting the WP’s Malay/Muslim candidates in Singapore because PAS cares for Singaporeans?”

The WP responded to this issue on April 26, the fourth day of the hustings.

Mr Shanmugam said the party should have done so immediately rather than wait several days, and been more definitive about its stance.

Initially, the WP had not clearly rejected foreign influence or the foreign endorsement of its candidates, he noted.

Mr Shanmugam also flagged statements from Singapore Democratic Party candidate Damanhuri Abas, who contested Sembawang GRC as part of a five-member team.

He said Mr Damanhuri had called for Malay voters to vote against the PAP and framed this as an issue of “upholding Malay dignity” – a euphemism, the minister said, for Malay “rights”.

This is a slippery and dangerous path that will invite a strong reaction from other races in future elections, the minister cautioned.

Politicians play a role in setting the right tone for society, Mr Shanmugam said, and should encourage constructive discussion and find solutions to problems faced by different ethnic groups.

He added: “It is possible for politicians to say they subscribe to our multiracial and multi-religious values, but still use veiled rhetoric to work up racial and religious sentiment.”

Singapore’s active role in managing race and religion

Mr Shanmugam recounted how Singapore’s founding leaders took systematic steps to build a multiracial country in the face of “tremendous opposition”, especially from organisations representing the majority Chinese population.

At the time, many newly independent countries officially adopted the language and culture of the majority ethnic group. Had Singapore done so, Mandarin would have been its only official language, the minister said.

Barisan Sosialis, the main opposition party then, had taken an active position on the matter, stoking tensions within the Chinese community.

The PAP’s multiracial approach – which Mr Shanmugam described as “the more difficult, more idealistic course” – was therefore not politically expedient.

“We set out these principles as our ideals, and we swam strongly against the tide, the tide of ethnic identity as the organising principle of society,” he said.

Mr Shanmugam also noted that tensions can escalate quickly. For instance, the 1964 race riots took place just 10 months after Chinese-Malay relations began to spiral downwards following political tensions with Malaysia.

In the present day, culture wars in the United States are fuelled by identity-based political campaigns and the blurring of lines between religion and politics, Mr Shanmugam said.

“Every grievance, every disagreement is framed as an ideological battle. It becomes an all-out war, with no room for compromise,” he said.

If such tactics are used in Singapore, the largest and best-organised groups will get their way and conflict is inevitable, he added.

On Tampines GRC, Mr Shanmugam said if the Malay/Muslim community had responded to appeals based on identity politics, other ethnic groups would have noticed.

“Our sense is that something like that may have started to happen in Tampines,” he noted. “Many Chinese voters in Tampines seem to have observed the communal nature of the appeals to the Malay voters, and they seem to have chosen to take a different direction during this GE.”

He said that today, Singapore has a strong legal framework to protect communal harmony, and the Government actively promotes mixing among the different ethnic groups through various policies and platforms.

“I am not suggesting that racial and religious harmony is perfect in Singapore,” he added.

“But as a system, we have sought to contain and overcome the natural human impulses by overlaying them with a broader sense of national identity.”

At present, the situation in Singapore is broadly stable, in part because the ruling PAP has eschewed identity politics and borne the political cost of fighting against attempts to stir up such sentiments, Mr Shanmugam said.

“It would have been easier to leave all of this unsaid,” he added of his speech. “But this statement has to be made in the country’s interests.”

He also warned that this stability is not to be taken for granted. If future political leaders on all sides see identity politics gain traction here, they will be pressured and tempted to take part themselves, he said.

“You know what will happen then. It is a one-way street to ruin,” he added.

The Government’s position is not that politics is incompatible with race and religion, Mr Shanmugam said.

“All religions provide guidance on important aspects of life. So inevitably, there will be areas where faith and public issues overlap,” he noted.

But even as people are free to practise their faiths and express views on political issues that are motivated by their religious convictions, they must do so in a way that is respectful of other religions, he said.

“All political parties need to be absolutely clear: Religion must not be misused for political purposes. It must never be brought into election campaigns,” Mr Shanmugam said. “Without this shared restraint, destructive competition for power and influence between the different groups can only follow.”

The same logic applies to race, he added.

“We need to think of our Singaporean identity as fundamental, and we each have to give up something to strengthen the shared Singaporean identity,” the minister said.

Mr Shanmugam rounded up his speech with an appeal to MPs on both sides of the aisle.

“We may debate and disagree on many things, but I hope that we can all commit to handle issues of race and religion in a responsible and sensible manner, and to uphold the integrity of Singapore’s secular politics,” he said.

Prime Minister Lawrence Wong and Senior Minister Lee Hsien Loong made social media posts on the topic later on Oct 14, in which they reiterated Mr Shanmugam’s points on the dangers of identity politics.

“I’m glad there was a shared understanding in Parliament today that we must handle issues of race and religion with care, responsibility, and respect,” PM Wong said.

Said SM Lee: “We must never mix race and religion with politics. That is the way to prosper as one nation for generations to come.”

National Day Rally 2025: Beyond SG60 Writing Our Next Chapter

PM Lawrence Wong calls on Singaporeans to unite, write nation’s next chapter together

Government will place citizens at centre of what it does but people must also chip in, look out for one another, he says

By Goh Yan Han, The Straits Times, 18 Aug 2025

Prime Minister Lawrence Wong called on Singaporeans to band together to write the next chapter of the nation’s story, as he set out plans to support them throughout various stages of life.

He gave the assurance that the Government will place Singaporeans at the centre of everything it does, be it navigating economic uncertainty or tackling technological disruption and demographic shifts.

In his first National Day Rally after the general election, PM Wong, who is also Finance Minister, outlined how his Government intends to address the challenges relating to the economy, senior citizens and the younger population.

It will provide job support – in particular, for fresh graduates and mid-career workers – and develop community infrastructure to support the growing population of elderly citizens.

Addressing the audience at ITE College Central in Ang Mo Kio on Aug 17, PM Wong opened his English speech by setting out the immediate challenges that Singapore is facing in a “more troubled and turbulent world”.

These include global tariffs imposed by the United States earlier this year, growing global contestation and rapid advancements in technologies like artificial intelligence (AI).

Singapore is reviewing its economic strategy on various fronts to secure its future in a changed world, he said, noting that harnessing innovation and technology will allow the country to sustainably raise its productivity and improve lives.

“Ultimately, our economic strategy is about jobs, jobs and jobs – that’s our No. 1 priority”, said PM Wong.

Three announcements in his speech centred on jobs: a job-matching scheme at the town level, enhancements to an existing SkillsFuture scheme for mid-career workers, and a government-funded traineeship programme for tertiary education graduates. The details of these schemes will be announced later.

PM Wong said new jobs will be created, as he acknowledged Singaporeans’ worries about jobs evolving or disappearing due to technological change.

“I assure you, even as we embrace AI and technology, we will not lose sight of our key priority,” he said.

“Singaporeans will always be at the centre of everything we do.”

He said the Government is committed to helping every worker progress and succeed, and will not rush headlong into adopting new technology.

There are plans to equip and empower every business, especially small and medium-sized enterprises, to harness AI effectively, he said.

The authorities will also work closely with unions and workers to redesign jobs and help Singaporeans seize new job opportunities, he added.

“The road ahead will not be easy. But we are not going to sit back and resign ourselves to being mere bystanders in a world shaped by others,” said PM Wong.

“We will take charge of our own destiny. We will shape the future we want – through our own actions, and our own choices.”

Turning to the issue of long-term care for seniors, PM Wong announced a new Age Well Neighbourhoods scheme that will adopt features from HDB Community Care Apartments – senior-friendly public housing that provides care services for residents.

The scheme is meant to allow senior citizens to live more independently in their own neighbourhoods, as Singapore’s demographics shift towards more elderly citizens and smaller family sizes.

Identified towns – starting with Toa Payoh and one or two other areas – will have more active ageing centres for seniors to gather, said PM Wong.

Home-based services such as basic health checks and housekeeping will be provided to seniors, with healthcare services brought closer to them as well, he added.

The scheme builds on the existing Age Well SG nationwide initiative for seniors to lead more active lives in their homes and communities.

“That’s how we will grow old – not in isolation, never alone, but always together as one Singapore family,” PM Wong said.

On challenges faced by the younger generation, PM Wong brought up vaping and excessive screen time.

Flagging vaping as a serious concern, he said the Government will take much tougher action and treat it as a drug issue.

It is also studying how other countries manage access to the internet and social media for children, he added.

Setting out the Government’s stance on responding to technological developments – like the use of AI by students – PM Wong said Singapore has to strike the right balance between protecting young people from potential harms and empowering them to fully exploit the benefits of technology.

He also sketched out plans for the northern part of the island, building on the Urban Redevelopment Authority’s Draft Master Plan 2025, which covers Singapore’s development plans for the next 10 to 15 years.

These plans include redeveloping the areas in Woodlands North, Kranji racecourse and Sembawang Shipyard.

As the Government reimagines new uses for existing land, it is also developing plans to protect the country’s coastline against rising sea levels, he added.

“So even as climate shifts and circumstances evolve, one thing is certain: Singapore’s progress will never be left to chance. We are – and have always been – a nation that adapts, reinvents and dares to dream,” said PM Wong.

Good plans and strategies are just the first step for Singapore’s continued progress, said PM Wong as he wrapped up his speech.

“What matters just as much – and even more – is the collective will of our people,” he said, adding it is this Singapore spirit that binds everyone together.

Going forward, Singapore must be a “we first” society with a people that considers others and not just themselves, said PM Wong.

“If each of us does our part for the ‘we’ – care, contribute and look out for one another – then the ‘me’ will thrive and flourish too,” he added.

His team will continue to involve Singaporeans in policy discussions, and will open up more avenues for people to be heard and to get involved.

“We certainly do not want to end up as a society where people rely solely on the government. It’s about all of us – government, businesses, workers and unions, community groups and civil society – doing our part,” he said.

“That’s how my team and I intend to lead. Not just doing things for Singaporeans – but doing things with Singaporeans.”

The nation cannot stand still as it looks beyond SG60, as standing still today is the same as falling behind, said PM Wong.

He urged Singaporeans to dream bigger, be bolder in pushing new frontiers, and be ready to try new things, even if they stumble or fall.

“We take pride in whatever we do, and strive to be the best possible versions of ourselves,” he said.

“We never give up and we never let each other down. That’s how we’ve achieved exceptional performance. That’s how we will continue to stay exceptional – as a people and a country.”

Terror attack foiled: 17-year-old self-radicalised Singaporean arrested weeks before planned attack in Tampines

Youth shared radical materials with his social media followers

By Samuel Devaraj, The Straits Times, 18 Oct 2024

A 17-year-old Singaporean supporter of terror group ISIS was arrested just weeks before he could carry out his plan to kill non-Muslims in Tampines.

And this was a very close shave, said Law and Home Affairs Minister K. Shanmugam on Oct 18.

The youth, who was from a mainstream school, had planned to carry out his attack during the September school holidays and practised stabbing motions with a pair of scissors.

He was arrested in August under the Internal Security Act (ISA).

He had traced his steps from his home to an open area in Tampines Street 81, near supermarkets, provision shops and coffee shops, a children’s art school and a tuition centre, where he had planned to stab non-Muslim men.

The teenager chose this HDB heartland area near Tampines West Community Club as it was crowded and near his home.In a press statement on Oct 18, the Internal Security Department (ISD) said he was issued a two-year order of detention in September.

The teen had also planned to travel to Syria to fight, said ISD. He had got in touch with an online foreign contact for travel advice and researched flight routes.

The youth saw his plan to fight in Syria as meaningful, as he would be able to fight and die with fellow ISIS fighters to establish an Islamic state in Syria, ISD added.

He knew it would be difficult to travel to Syria without arousing the suspicions of his family, ISD said. So, he decided to strike here, a plan that he felt would be easier to carry out and fulfil his aspirations to be a martyr.

Speaking to the media at the site of the planned attack, Mr Shanmugam said thousands of people walk through the area daily, and it would have been more crowded during the school holidays.

The minister said: “He knew that he would be intercepted by the agencies, the police. He had made up his mind to die in the course of the attack. He wanted to become a martyr.

“I would say this was a very close shave. It is very fortunate that ISD arrested him in time.”

Mr Shanmugam said that compared with past cases, this was one of the plans that came closest to being carried out.

He said the youth was detained because of the extent of radicalisation and how close he was to carrying out his plans.

He said: “It is very easy to attack people here. People are defenceless. They are not coming here expecting to be attacked.

“People go around in Singapore feeling safe, so you could easily have gone on a rampage and killed a lot of people around here.

“Look at the kind of people who are around. Kids are playing, senior citizens are resting. They are easy targets for such an attacker.”

ISD said the youth came across the teachings of foreign radical preachers in August 2023 while searching for religious knowledge online.

He embraced segregationist religious beliefs, including the view that Muslims should not extend festive greetings to non-Muslims.

ISD said that following Hamas’ attack on Israel on Oct 7, 2023, online extremist materials by ISIS increased, and he became self-radicalised.

ISD added that he joined online groups that provided updates on ISIS activities, and believed in the use of armed violence to establish an Islamic caliphate.

By January, he aspired to die as a martyr while fighting for the group.

In May, he took a bai’ah or pledge of allegiance to ISIS in his room.

The teen was inspired by ISIS propaganda, which glorified suicide knife attacks, ISD said.

Besides the pair of scissors, he considered using a kitchen knife in his home to stab people in the neck to kill or wound them.

Said ISD: “He felt a sense of pride knowing that his planned attack, if successfully executed, would be the first terrorist attack in Singapore in recent decades.”

The teen had crafted a declaration of armed jihad against non-Muslims, which he planned to release before his attack, to inspire other Muslims to engage in armed violence.

Former transport minister S. Iswaran’s 12-month prison term underlines intrinsic value of public trust

The integrity of our public institutions is paramount and serves as the lynchpin for our faith in governance.

By Eugene K B Tan, Published The Straits Times, 5 Oct 2024

Integrity underpins good governance. It’s a non-negotiable. When public trust erodes, the country risks descending into dysfunction, as accountability falters, and public institutions lose legitimacy.

For many in Singapore – and around the world – the high-profile case of former minister S Iswaran was seen as an anomaly here, and yet at the same time a litmus test of the integrity of our system and governance.

Last week, Iswaran pleaded guilty to four Penal Code Section 165 charges, which make it an offence for a public servant to ask for or accept gifts as a public servant from someone with whom he has an official business relationship, and one charge for the obstruction of justice. Thirty other charges under Section 165 were taken into consideration in sentencing.

On Oct 3, Justice Vincent Hoong sentenced Iswaran to 12 months’ jail – twice the six to seven months the public prosecutor had argued for and about six times what the defence had put forward.

In his view, anything else would be a “manifestly inadequate sentence”.

The message was clear.

The paramount importance of trust and confidence in public institutions was writ large and robustly reiterated in the High Court’s 94-page ruling.

Perceptions and public institutions

At one level, the sentence underscores the court’s strong stance against any offence that undermines trust and confidence in public institutions.

Even perceptions of influence peddling by gift givers or abuse of office are highly detrimental as they have an insidious effect on public trust and confidence.

Perceptions often operate as reality. In other words, the harm caused can be significant even from perceptions. This is a reasonably compelling position to take.

The public interest in the integrity and trustworthiness of public institutions, which is necessarily hard-earned, is undermined and easily dissipated by perceptions that individuals could enjoy the patronage of public servants, or that public servants are susceptible to influence by pecuniary benefits. As such, perceptions of unethical conduct or unlawful actions must be vigorously avoided.

Is this too high an expectation and standard of public servants and public institutions?

Not at all. The public sector is such a vital part of our lives and its impact significant in all that we do. Should it fall into disrepute, governance can only become awry.

Notably, the judge recognised that distrust in the public sector can arise not just from outright corruption but also where public institutions become the target of influence peddling, the lack of impartiality in decision-making, and being prone to dispensing patronage.

Justice Hoong put it well: “The swift denunciation of such offences is necessary to deter the acquisition or cultivation of the patronage, loyalty or goodwill of public servants by valuables for the perceived benefits of persons with dealings connected to the official capacities of public servants”.

Zero tolerance

But this was also a case that demonstrated the various public institutions and the rule of law at its best even though the matter was hugely embarrassing for the Government and ruling party.

The judge found that Iswaran had abused his high office.

The mitigating factors he put forth, including his public service and contributions to Singapore, the voluntary disgorgement of benefits received, and a guilty plea at the start of the trial, did not sway the sentencing in his favour.

The judge made it clear that persons in high office with the “associated power and status” should generally be regarded as having acted with more culpability in abusing their position to obtain valuable gifts.

The investigation, prosecution and outcome of this case align with the longstanding position of zero tolerance of corruption.

Any doubt that there has been a wavering of the commitment on incorruptibility across the whole of government or that preferential treatment was accorded to Iswaran should now be banished.

What the West can learn from Singapore

Data shows that in key areas, Singapore is better at governing than the US and Britain.

By Graham Allison, The Straits Times, 12 Jun 2024

When asked whether the US government works, most Americans say no. According to recent polling by Ipsos, more than two-thirds of adults in the United States think the country is going in the wrong direction. Gallup reports that only 26 per cent have confidence in major US institutions, such as the presidency, the Supreme Court and Congress. Nearly half of Americans aged 18 to 25 say that they believe either that democracy or dictatorship “makes no difference” or that “dictatorship could be good in certain circumstances”. As a recent Economist cover story put it: “After victory in the Cold War, the American model seemed unassailable. A generation on, Americans themselves are losing confidence in it.”

Most Singaporeans have a very different outlook on their government, a managed political system that has elections but nonetheless facilitates the dominance of one party, the People’s Action Party. According to a Pew Research Centre report, three-quarters of Singaporeans are satisfied with how democracy is working in their country. Moreover, 80 per cent think their country is heading in the right direction – the highest number in any of the 29 countries surveyed in the May Ipsos poll.

In 2024, both the United States and Singapore are facing one of the most challenging tests of any system of government: the transfer of power from one leader to the next. Textbooks on government identify this as an arena in which democratic systems have the greatest advantage over authoritarian or managed alternatives. Yet, as 2024 shows, that isn’t always the case.

In May, as then Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong passed the baton to his chosen successor, Mr Lawrence Wong, Singaporeans almost unanimously applauded the orderly, peaceful transition. In contrast, Americans’ sense of gloom is growing as they approach a presidential election in which voters will have to choose between two candidates who claim that the other’s victory would mean the end of US democracy. According to an April Reuters/Ipsos poll, ttwo-thirds of US voters believe that neither candidate should be running.

These comparisons invite the question: Is Singapore simply better at governing than other countries?

To answer this, consider the following three Report Cards, which use data from international organisations to assess Singapore alongside two countries holding major elections in 2024: the United States and Britain. Each report card grades the countries on how well they have fulfilled the requirements that Singapore’s founder and first prime minister, Mr Lee Kuan Yew – the father of Mr Lee Hsien Loong – believed were the functions of government: to “improve the standard of living for the majority of its people, plus enabling the maximum of personal freedoms compatible with the freedoms of others in society”.

The first Report Card considers citizens’ well-being, which we’ve assessed based on categories for which there is ample data, such as income, health, safety and sense of security.

The second Report Card covers what the World Bank calls “governance”, or a government’s effectiveness in facing issues, making policy choices, executing policy and preventing corruption.

The third Report Card, which considers both individual rights and citizens’ satisfaction with their government, is more difficult to interpret. It includes the judgments made both by international organisations and by polls that gauge how citizens feel about their democracy.

It’s worth reflecting on nine takeaways related to these Report Cards. First, Mr Lee Hsien Loong left to his successor a population that is now wealthier than Americans – and almost twice as wealthy as their former British colonial overlords.

When he took office in 2004, the so-called Singapore miracle had already happened: Singapore’s economy had soared since the 1960s, taking the country from poverty to having a gross domestic product (GDP) per capita that was approximately three-quarters of that of the United States, where many analysts thought it would remain. Yet 20 years later, Singapore’s GDP per capita is more than 4 per cent higher than that in the United States: $88,500 compared with $85,000.

Second, while rapid economic growth often produces greater income disparity, over the past two decades, Singapore has reduced inequality significantly – from 0.47 to 0.37 (as measured by the Gini coefficient, a measure by which 0 equals complete equality and 1 represents complete inequality) – while the United States has remained around 0.47. (For comparison, China’s Gini coefficient is 0.46, and the country with the highest level of inequality is South Africa, with 0.63.)

Third, Singaporeans are generally healthier and live longer than their counterparts in the United States and Britain. Just 20 years ago, life expectancy in all three countries was approximately the same. Today, the life expectancy in Singapore is longer (83 years) than that in the United States (76 years) and Britain (81 years). Singapore’s infant mortality has fallen from 27 deaths per 1,000 births in 1965, to 4 in 2004, to 1.8 today – considerably lower than both other countries. Furthermore, 93 per cent of Singaporeans express satisfaction with their healthcare system, in contrast to 75 per cent of Americans and 77 per cent of Britons.

Fourth, Singapore was clearly best prepared for a major public health crisis. Because the Covid-19 pandemic struck all countries around the same time, it provided a clear test of their response systems. On a per capita basis, around 10 Americans or Britons have died from Covid-19 for every one of their counterparts in Singapore.

Conversation on euthanasia should enter end-of-life discussions in Singapore

Assisted dying is a sensitive subject but, with its population ageing, Singapore may need to discuss what we think about it

By Salma Khalik, Senior Health Correspondent, The Straits Times, 29 Jul 2023

As more Singaporeans age, urgent discussions are taking place on how we approach end-of-life issues.

The roles of nursing homes, hospices and home palliative care are part of ongoing discussions on easing and widening different approaches towards how we age, and ultimately pass on.

There is, however, one issue that has gained traction elsewhere but which hardly ever figures in our end-of-life discussions here: assisted dying.

Assisted dying can either take the form of assisted suicide, where the final act is undertaken by the person involved, often with the aid of a medical practitioner; or euthanasia, where another person, again often a doctor, performs the act of terminating life.

Assisted dying is illegal in Singapore.

But given that our population continues to age rapidly, and more older people will increasingly find themselves in continuous pain that even palliative care can do little to help, this is not an issue we should entirely ignore. What could be at stake is the dignity and personal choice of a segment of our population.

Several countries are well ahead of Singapore on this count, both in terms of having mainstream discussions, as well as in having legal frameworks on assisted dying.

Most countries that have legalised assisted dying allow both assisted suicide and euthanasia. Some, like Switzerland, which was the pioneer in allowing assisted suicide in 1942, allow the former but keep euthanasia illegal.

Should one or both options be legalised here, to give those desperate to end their lives a way of doing so with grace?

Singapore moves to repeal Section 377A

Section 377A: Constitution will be amended to protect Parliament's right to define marriage, says Home Affairs and Law Minister K. Shanmugam

Government spells out plans to safeguard family as it repeals Section 377A

By Tham Yuen-C, Senior Political Correspondent, The Straits Times, 23 Aug 2022

As it repeals Section 377A, the Government will also make it clear in the Constitution that it is Parliament's prerogative to define marriage as being between a man and a woman and to make other pro-family policies on that basis, Home Affairs and Law Minister K. Shanmugam said on Monday (Aug 22).

This is different from enshrining the definition of marriage in the highest law of the land, which some religious groups and conservative Singaporeans have pushed for. But Mr Shanmugam said the move will stave off legal challenges on the definition of marriage.

His comments, in an interview with The Straits Times and Lianhe Zaobao, come a day after Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong announced at the National Day Rally that Section 377A of the Penal Code, which criminalises sex between men, would be repealed.

In tandem, the Government would move to safeguard marriage, PM Lee said. As the law stands, he added, marriage as it is now defined can be challenged on constitutional grounds in the courts, just like Section 377A has been challenged.

Religious and conservative groups, some of whom see the colonial-era law as a moral marker, have welcomed this guarantee, and suggested that marriage will be defined in the Constitution.

To this, Mr Shanmugam said: "I want to be clear because I think there's some confusion. The definition of marriage is not going to be in the Constitution. That's not the intention."

Instead, the Government plans to explicitly state in the Constitution that Parliament can define the institution of marriage in the way it has been defined in the Women's Charter, and can make other pro-family policies on the basis of that definition. This will make it difficult to challenge the definition of marriage and the policies that rely on it, he added.

In a separate interview with CNA, Deputy Prime Minister Lawrence Wong said the Government was fully committed to uphold the current definition of marriage.

"This will not change... under the watch of the current Prime Minister, and it will not happen under my watch - if the PAP were to win the next General Election.

"Likewise, we will not change the laws and policies that rely on this definition of marriage, and that relates to public housing, adoption, what we teach our children in schools, advertising standards, film classification, and so on. Basically, the overall tone of society will not change - our laws and policies will remain the same," he said.

Meanwhile, the Ministry of Education said its policies on the issue would not change, and the Ministry of Communications and Information also said its approach to regulating media content would remain.

In the interview, Mr Shanmugam said that if the proposed amendments to the Constitution are not made, the prevailing definition of marriage risks being challenged on the basis of being discriminatory under Article 12 of the Constitution, which guarantees equal protection under the law.

"It can be challenged, it can be asked...why should marriage only be between a man and a woman? Why shouldn't it be possible for two men, or two women, to be married?, he said.

"Such arguments about marriage have been made elsewhere successfully."

If this happens, "everything could go in one sweep", including many of the other laws and policies built on the current definition of marriage, such as those on public housing, education and media policies, he added.

The danger of this happening became clear when the Court of Appeal said in a February judgment that Section 377A could be discriminatory under Article 12 of the Constitution which guarantees equal protection under the law.

Mr Shanmugam, who with Attorney-General Lucien Wong advised the Cabinet on the issue, said: "If Parliament doesn't act, either because of fear or because of a lack of will, and therefore doesn't deal with the law which may be in breach of the Constitution, then...(it) is not doing its job. Then, you make it difficult for the Courts to exercise restraint."

Keeping quiet and letting the Courts deal with it would have been more politically expedient, he noted, since emotions run high on both sides.

But if Section 377A or even the definition of marriage were struck down like that, it would risk damaging the fundamental fabric of society, he added. Such political issues should not be decided by the judiciary, but by the legislature.

In fact, the intended amendment to the Constitution leaves open the possibility for Parliament to change the definition of marriage through a simple majority.

While constitutional amendments require a two-thirds majority in Parliament to pass, changes to other pieces of legislation, including the Penal Code which Section 377A is a part of and the Women's Charter, requires a simple majority.

Mr Shanmugam said: "This government's position is very clear and you've also heard what Deputy Prime Minister Lawrence Wong has said.

"We are committed to strengthening the current structure of marriage, strengthening the family structure and the policies that surround that structure of family. We think that's what is fundamental for Singapore. And in fact, we are amending the Constitution to strengthen their position."

He added that any political party or group that wants to push for same-sex marriage will be able to do so. "They will have to put that in their manifesto, fight elections, get a majority and then change the definition of marriage," he said.

Asked when the repeal of Section 377A would happen, he said "the changes itself, in terms of legal drafting and so on, will not take much time".

He added: "I am not in a position to give you an answer on that right now. But I do not expect that it will be very long."

* Singapore Parliament debates repealing S377A