Singapore rebuts PAS claim that political comments were legitimate speech

The Singapore Government has responded to Malaysia’s Parti Islam Se-Malaysia (PAS), following the party’s 15 October statement disputing remarks made by Minister for Home Affairs and Coordinating Minister for National Security K Shanmugam in Parliament concerning PAS’s involvement in Singapore’s 2025 General Election.

In a statement issued late on 16 October, the Ministry of Home Affairs (MHA) addressed PAS’s defence of social media posts made in April by two of its senior members.

The Ministry recalled that PAS had initially described those posts as personal views that did not reflect the party’s official stance.

It noted, however, that PAS now describes the same remarks as “expressions of PAS’s official view” and defends them as “ordinary cross-border commentary.”

MHA also highlighted PAS’s claim that it is entitled to comment on Singapore politics so long as there is no “funding, actions, coordination or directives.”

Rejecting this argument, the Ministry stated: “It is not for foreign entities or individuals to tell Singaporeans how to vote, least of all along racial and religious lines. That is divisive and unacceptable.”

It reiterated that the Government would not stand by if foreign actors attempt to influence Singaporeans, particularly during elections and on matters of race or religion.

PAS: Claims of interference are exaggerated and politically motivated

In its 15 October rebuttal, PAS strongly rejected allegations made in Shanmugam’s 14 October Ministerial Statement. The party described the remarks as an attempt to deflect from domestic political issues by externalising blame.

PAS Secretary-General Takiyuddin Hassan issued the response under the title “Singapore, address your domestic concerns, not blame neighbours.”

He accused Singapore’s Government of “sensationalising” cross-border political expression into a “security threat” and called the claims of interference “a political shortcut.”

Takiyuddin said PAS would not accept what he described as an attempt to portray the party as a “convenient boogeyman” for domestic political gain.

He also warned that treating digital commentary from foreign political figures as a form of electoral interference could lead to overly restrictive policies and isolate Singapore from open discourse.

He said Singapore’s global status comes with a responsibility to accept diverse opinions, even if they originate abroad.

“Legitimate commentary must not be weaponised into allegations of subversion,” he said, adding that “blaming outsiders for internal debates is a classic political deflection tactic.”

PAS stated that it respected national sovereignty and operated through formal and peaceful means. It called for “reciprocal restraint” and urged Singapore not to “manufacture enemies where none exist.”

April 2025: Foreign politicians expressed support for opposition candidate

The current exchange stems from events that took place on 24 April 2025, during Singapore’s General Election campaign period.

On that date, PAS National Treasurer Iskandar Abdul Samad made a public social media post praising Workers’ Party (WP) candidate Faisal Manap.

He commended Faisal for having “the courage to explain to Parliament that in Islam religion must not be separated from politics,” and expressed hope for his electoral success.

On the same day, PAS Selangor Youth Chief Mohamed Sukri Omar reposted a separate post on social media that claimed PAP’s Malay-Muslim Members of Parliament “cannot be trusted.”

The Singapore Government viewed these posts as direct foreign attempts to influence voter sentiment along racial and religious lines.

On 25 April, the MHA and the Elections Department (ELD) issued a joint statement condemning the comments and warning of the risks associated with such conduct.

Authorities said they had directed social media platform Meta to block access to the posts in Singapore. Similar restrictions were applied to posts by other foreign individuals, including a former Internal Security Act detainee now residing overseas.

On 28 April, PAS issued a statement clarifying that the April remarks reflected personal views and did not represent the party’s official stance.

The statement also acknowledged that Singapore, as a sovereign nation, had the right to take appropriate and lawful measures to safeguard its internal political affairs.

MHA’s latest response emphasised that PAS has now disavowed that position, which the Ministry argues confirms its interest in influencing domestic political outcomes.

Shanmugam: Identity-based politics, local or foreign, must be rejected

Minister K Shanmugam’s 14 October Ministerial Statement, which prompted PAS’s rebuttal, focused on the dangers of politicising race and religion, both by domestic and foreign actors.

He cited several examples from GE2025—including remarks made by Malaysian-based religious teacher Noor Deros and the two PAS officials—as cases where racial and religious sentiment was used to appeal to voters.

Shanmugam said such appeals were deeply damaging and incompatible with Singapore’s secular, multiracial political framework.

In particular, he criticised the Workers’ Party (WP) for what he described as a lack of clarity in its response to Noor Deros’s endorsement.

Deros had publicly stated that he would support any party that accepted his list of demands, which included adopting Islamic financial practices and ending policies aimed at preserving racial balance.

Shanmugam noted that Deros’s support specifically favoured WP’s Malay-Muslim candidates over those from the PAP, and was framed explicitly along communal lines.

He argued that WP’s public response—issued more than two days later—came only after the Government had released its joint statement with the Elections Department (ELD) on 25 April.

According to the Minister, this delay allowed confusion to take hold and should have been addressed “immediately, clearly, and unequivocally.”

He maintained that all political parties have a responsibility to reject foreign involvement, particularly when it plays on racial or religious identities.

Shanmugam also questioned whether anyone genuinely believed that PAS, a Malaysian Islamist political party, was supporting WP candidates out of concern for Singapore’s welfare.

He suggested that PAS’s ideological orientation and stated objectives were incompatible with Singapore’s model of multi-racial equality and meritocracy.

To illustrate the dangers of such communal appeals, the Minister cited the political climate preceding the 1964 race riots and the risks of allowing foreign actors to influence domestic sentiment.

He warned that such developments, if left unchallenged, could unravel the foundations of Singapore’s societal cohesion.

In response, Leader of the Opposition Pritam Singh pushed back against the Government’s characterisation of WP’s conduct during the election.

Speaking during the same 14 October parliamentary sitting, Singh rejected the claim that WP had been slow or ambiguous in addressing the issue. He pointed out that the joint MHA–ELD statement had been issued at 10pm on 25 April, and that the WP responded overnight.

He also addressed the matter in media interviews the next morning and again at a Tampines rally that same evening, where he provided clearer remarks on the party’s position.

Singh reiterated that the WP rejects all forms of identity politics and reminded the House that he had, in April, urged voters to assess parties based on their policy proposals—not on appeals to race or religion.

He argued that it was unfair to suggest that WP had taken the issue lightly, and noted that the party had no prior relationship with Noor Deros.

He also emphasised that WP, as an opposition party, does not have access to the same intelligence resources as the Government. Singh questioned why, if the issue was viewed as serious, the authorities had not raised concerns with the party directly during the campaign period.

Singh acknowledged that the WP’s initial statement could have been more explicit but challenged the premise that it had failed to act responsibly.

He drew a parallel to ministers from the ruling party, including Chee Hong Tat and Ong Ye Kung, who had unknowingly been photographed with Su Haijin—a man later convicted of money laundering—as an example of how parties could inadvertently associate with controversial figures.

In response, Shanmugam maintained that the PAP would have unequivocally rejected any form of foreign political endorsement and called on the WP to take clearer responsibility for its handling of the issue.

However, when challenged in Parliament by WP MP Kenneth Tiong on whether the Government would similarly reject posts by Critical Spectator—a foreign-run social media page known for supporting the PAP while criticising the opposition and civil society figures—Shanmugam declined to do so.