Shanmugam and Pritam Singh on Workers’ Party’s response to Noor Deros, PAS during GE2025

Key Concepts Timing of Political Responses, Identity Politics, Multi-racialism, Foreign Interference/Influence in Elections, National Interest, Unequivocal Rejection, Asymmetry of Information, Streyen Effect, Maintenance of Religious Harmony Act (Section 8A), POFMA (Protection from Online Falsehoods and Manipulation Act), Political Responsibility and Conduct.

Introduction: Context and Preamble

The discussion revolves around the Workers' Party's (WP) response to a joint Ministry of Home Affairs (MHA) and Elections Department (ELD) statement concerning foreign influence and the mixing of race/religion in politics, specifically regarding an individual named N. Duras Anos (referred to as "Dros") and the Malaysian political party PAS. Mr. Singh, representing the WP, and the Minister engage in a detailed exchange, clarifying positions and challenging arguments.

Mr. Singh begins by referencing a remark he made at a doorstop interview on April 26th, one day after the MHA/ELD statement. He stated, "Our political scene is for our people. We persuade Singaporeans of our value proposition and we urge all Singaporeans regardless of race, language or religion to judge us on our manifesto and our proposals and what we do in parliament for all Singaporeans, not specific communities only. I think once we go down that road, you're going to have an unnecessary politicization of the public space and we don't want that. That is not healthy for Singapore and that's not healthy for minority communities as well." This sets the stage for the WP's stance against identity politics.

The Question of Timing and WP's Response

Mr. Singh disputes the Minister's assertion that the WP took too long to respond to the issues raised. He provides a timeline:

• April 25th (approx. 10 PM): Joint MHA/ELD statement published, referring to foreigners attempting to influence general elections (GE), but not specifically mentioning Dros.
• April 26th (9:30 AM): The Workers' Party releases its statement.
• April 26th (11:30 AM): Mr. Singh conducts a doorstop interview, making remarks including the preamble mentioned above.
• April 26th (Evening): At a rally, Mr. Singh makes what the Minister later describes as "clearer remarks and statements about race and religion."

Mr. Singh argues that the WP's overnight response and subsequent clarifications demonstrate a timely and serious approach. He acknowledges the Minister's concern that the WP's initial statement "could have been clearer, more unequivocal," and concedes this point.

N. Duras Anos (Dros) and the WP's Engagement

Mr. Singh states he did not know Dros before the elections and that the WP does not have an "operations room or POFMA office" to monitor individuals or foreigners venturing into "dangerous territory" politically. He clarifies that Dros "gate crashed a meeting" Mr. Faizal Manab (WP Vice Chairman and CEC member) was having with someone else, implying there was no pre-arranged meeting with Dros specifically.

The Minister, however, highlights that Dros put up posts on April 23rd and 24th (Nomination Day and the day after), discussing his meeting with WP's Malay candidates (Mr. Faizal Manab and four others), his demands, and his intention to canvas support for the WP if his demands were met, specifically urging votes for Mr. Faizal Manab. The Minister argues that Mr. Manab and other WP candidates, having met Dros, did not need a POFMA office to be aware of Dros's posts and their implications.

The Minister criticizes the WP's initial statement regarding Dros, which merely stated "no commitments, promises or agreements had been made to a dross." He describes this as language "lawyers drafting for each other," lacking the clear and unequivocal rejection expected in political statements. He argues that the lack of a clear rejection of Dros's call for Muslims to vote along racial and religious lines was a "deliberate choice based on a calculation of interest," potentially to gain "short-term benefits" by allowing Dros to "swing some votes." This, the Minister contends, causes "long-term damage to our country" and goes against Singapore's "national pledge" and "multi-racial ideals."

Mr. Singh, in response, raises the "Streyen effect," suggesting that drawing attention to a "nobody" like Dros during an election might inadvertently amplify his message. He notes that Dros later accepted the WP didn't agree to anything and congratulated the new Prime Minister, Lawrence Wong.

Government's Role and Asymmetry of Information

Mr. Singh queries why the government did not take more direct action against Dros, asking:

• Did Dros break any laws?
• Was a police report made against him?
• Was a restraining order under Section 8A of the Maintenance of Religious Harmony Act contemplated?
• Why did the Prime Minister "take a break from the hustings" to make a statement in the national interest?

He argues that if the issue was so serious, the government, with its "far broader" perspective and "asymmetry of information," should have communicated directly with political parties "in the national interest" to achieve a collective clarification.

The Minister counters the "asymmetry of information" argument by stating that the WP had all the information regarding Dros, as their Vice Chairman and four other candidates met him. The government, conversely, only knew what Dros reported publicly. He also explains that the government is "mindful of being seen to interfere with individual political parties" during elections, as such actions "can be politicized." The MHA/ELD statement and the Prime Minister's "extraordinary move" to speak publicly were carefully drafted and delivered to address the fundamental issues for Singapore.

Foreign Influence and the PAP-PAS Relationship

The discussion extends to foreign influence, specifically concerning the Malaysian political party PAS. The Minister notes that while the WP's response to foreign influence (PAS) became clearer after Mr. Singh's doorstop interview and especially after the Prime Minister's call for clarity, their response to Dros remained less clear.

Mr. Singh then raises the relationship between the People's Action Party (PAP) and PAS. He points out that about a year prior, PAP Malay MPs (specifically from the Malay Action Bureau) went to Malaysia and had "some communication with PAS." He cites a PAP publication mentioning a former Malay Muslim affairs minister who thought it "would be good for party activists to be introduced and build bridges with these parties and personalities." Mr. Singh questions whether the PAP or government intermediaries privately communicated with PAS to ask them not to interfere in Singaporean elections, or if the government formally raised this matter with Malaysian counterparts.

The Minister clarifies that interactions between Singaporean political parties (including PAP) and various international parties are "part and parcel of understanding what is going on around the world." He distinguishes this from "accepting a foreign endorsement of our candidates." He asserts that if PAS had endorsed PAP candidates, the PAP would have "rejected it immediately." He emphasizes the distinction between general political engagement and the specific issue of Dros's endorsement of WP Malay candidates (leading to "identity politics") and PAS's endorsement of WP Malay Muslim candidates.

Synthesis and Conclusion

The core of the debate centers on the clarity and immediacy of political parties' rejection of attempts to introduce identity politics and foreign interference into Singaporean elections. While Mr. Singh concedes that the WP's initial statement regarding Dros could have been clearer, he maintains that the WP unequivocally rejected racial/religious appeals for support, especially after the Prime Minister's public statement. He also highlights the government's broader information perspective and suggests a more collaborative approach to address such issues in the national interest.

The Minister, however, stresses the WP's direct knowledge of Dros's demands through their candidates' meeting and argues that a clear, unequivocal rejection was necessary from the outset. He views the WP's initial vague response as a "deliberate choice" with potential short-term political gains but long-term national damage. Both sides agree on the fundamental principle of rejecting identity politics and foreign interference. The Minister calls for all parties to take "unequivocal acceptance of responsibility" and commit to clear rejections in the future, while acknowledging Mr. Singh's suggestion for future government outreach. The discussion concludes with a call to keep the issues of Dros's specific conduct and broader foreign interference/religion-in-politics separate, while affirming the government's consistent stance against both.