Malaysia Will Choose Its Politics. Singapore Must Protect What Works Here.
Good Government Has No Race or Religion
Abdul Hadi Awang’s remarks about the role of non-Muslim ministers are ultimately for Malaysians to judge. For Singapore, they offer a useful reminder of something we should defend confidently: political authority should come from competence, constitutional responsibility and service to the country, not racial or religious entitlement.
Malaysia will decide Malaysia’s future. That is their right.
But Singapore would be foolish not to pay attention.
PAS president Abdul Hadi Awang recently described how non-Muslims might participate in a future Malaysian government led by his party. His remarks, as reported, contemplated non-Muslims serving as ministers while distinguishing between portfolios concerned with implementing policy and those exercising greater policy-making authority, particularly where Islam and Muslims are concerned.
PAS presents its broader position as one in which non-Muslim rights remain protected. It has non-Muslim supporters, fields non-Muslim candidates and operates within Malaysia’s electoral system.
That context matters. This should not be caricatured into “PAS says non-Muslims have no rights”.
But there is still a political principle worth examining.
If religion becomes a qualification for who may exercise the highest levels of policy-making authority, then citizens are no longer being judged solely by their competence, integrity or capacity to serve the national interest.
Malaysia will decide whether that model belongs in Malaysia.
Singapore should be equally clear about ours.
In Singapore, Good Government Should Come First
I am Malay and Muslim.
My objection is not to Islam playing an important role in the lives of Muslims. Nor do I object to religious people participating vigorously in democratic politics.
My concern begins when religious identity becomes a qualification for political authority.
In Singapore, I want the best person capable of doing the job.
If that person is Malay, good.
Chinese, good.
Indian, Eurasian or from another community, good.
Muslim, Christian, Hindu, Buddhist, another faith or no religion, good.
The questions should be:
Can you do the job?
Do you have integrity?
Can you exercise sound judgement?
Will you uphold the Constitution and serve Singapore rather than a sectional interest?
That is good governance.
A minister does not become more capable of developing economic policy because of race.
A minister does not become better at foreign affairs because of religion.
Competence does not acquire a religious identity.
Integrity has no race.
And public office should never become an inherited communal entitlement.
There is nothing wrong with politicians representing the legitimate concerns of particular communities. Singapore does this too. Minority concerns deserve representation.
But there is an important difference between representation and political primacy.
One ensures that different communities have a voice.
The other says one community deserves greater authority because of who its members are.
Singapore should reject the second proposition regardless of who makes it.
This Standard Must Apply to Everyone
If a Christian political movement said only Christians should control Singapore’s important ministries, I would reject it.
If Hindu nationalists demanded political primacy for Hindus, I would reject it.
If Chinese Singaporeans claimed greater political authority because they constitute the majority, I would reject that too.
And if Malay or Muslim movements abroad suggested that Singaporean Malays should think of ourselves primarily as members of a wider racial or religious political community, my answer would be equally straightforward.
No.
My faith does not make me less Singaporean. My race does not make me politically Malaysian.
I can value Islam.
I can preserve my Malay heritage.
I can recognise centuries of cultural connections across Southeast Asia.
None of that requires me to import another country’s political struggles into mine.
Cultural affinity is not political allegiance.
That principle should apply equally to every Singaporean.
Malaysia Is Entitled to Be Different
We should also avoid the arrogance of assuming Singapore’s model must be Malaysia’s model.
Malaysia has a different constitutional history. Islam occupies a particular constitutional position there. Its political arrangements concerning Malays and Bumiputera developed through circumstances different from ours.
PAS competes within that system.
Malaysians vote.
Malaysians argue.
Malaysians will determine whether Hadi’s political vision represents the country they want.
That is their sovereign right.
Singapore does not need to lecture Malaysia.
But respecting another country’s sovereignty does not require pretending developments there are irrelevant to us.
We share far too much for that.
People, businesses, families, religious networks, languages and information move constantly between our societies.
The Causeway stops cars. It does not stop ideas.
Our task is therefore not to prevent Singaporeans from encountering Malaysian political ideas.
Our task is to remain sufficiently confident in Singapore’s own political principles that we can encounter those ideas without importing their communal assumptions.
Singapore Has Reasons for Being Careful
Singapore’s aversion to communal politics was not invented as a slogan after independence.
We have lived through its dangers.
The 1964 riots should never be reduced to the crude story of one race attacking another. They occurred amid merger, deteriorating PAP-UMNO relations, competing political visions, Malay grievances, communal mobilisation and increasingly inflammatory racial politics. Violence in July 1964 killed 23 people and injured hundreds.
Singapore today is not Singapore in 1964.
Our institutions are stronger. Our society has changed. Malaysia has changed.
PAS becoming stronger does not mean racial violence is about to erupt in Singapore.
That would be irresponsible fearmongering.
The historical lesson is more useful than that:
When citizens are politically organised primarily as competing racial and religious communities, the common national space becomes harder to sustain.
That experience helps explain why independent Singapore deliberately placed multiracial citizenship at the centre of the Republic.
It was not merely idealism.
It was statecraft.
Multiracialism Is Part of Good Governance
Singapore’s multiracial model is sometimes discussed as though it were mainly about festivals, food and people getting along.
It is much more consequential than that.
It is about how the state distributes legitimacy.
No race owns Singapore.
No religion owns the Government.
No community receives an automatic veto over another.
And no Singaporean should need the permission of another racial or religious group to be considered fully entitled to serve the country.
That does not mean our system is perfect.
Good governance requires constant scrutiny. Policies should be questioned. Governments should be held accountable. Institutions must earn trust. Singaporeans should debate how well our systems of representation, racial integration and religious harmony continue to work.
Being pro-Singapore does not require pretending Singapore never gets anything wrong.
It means recognising what has worked, understanding why it matters and improving it without casually dismantling the principles underneath it.
One of those principles is simple:
Public authority should ultimately be exercised in the interests of Singapore as a whole.
The Causeway Does Not Stop Political Influence Either
There is another reason Singapore must remain alert.
Ideas crossing borders are normal. Foreign interference is something different.
A Singaporean watching Malaysian political speeches is not a security threat.
A Singaporean Muslim agreeing with a conservative Malaysian religious scholar is not automatically radicalised.
A Singaporean criticising our Government is not subversive.
But Singapore has legitimate reason to be concerned when foreign actors deliberately attempt to influence our domestic politics through racial, religious or other external loyalties.
During the 2025 General Election, foreign actors publicly urged Singaporeans to vote along racial and religious lines. The Government responded by emphasising that Singapore’s elections must be decided by Singaporeans and that foreign attempts to exploit communal identities have no place here.
That principle is sound.
And it should be applied universally.
If influence comes from Malaysia, apply it.
If it comes from China, apply it.
If it comes from India, apply it.
If it comes from the Middle East, the United States or anywhere else, apply it.
Singapore first means the standard does not change according to which foreign country, race, religion or political cause we happen to sympathise with.
Strong Security Is Necessary. Strong Citizenship Is Better.
This is why I believe Singapore needs capable institutions such as the Internal Security Department.
Not to police religion.
Not to suppress conservative beliefs.
Not to silence legitimate political disagreement.
ISD’s role concerns much more serious threats including terrorism, violent extremism, espionage, foreign subversion and serious threats to Singapore’s racial and religious security.
Recent Singapore threat assessments continue to identify online self-radicalisation as a concern. Islamist extremist material remains relevant, but Singapore has also dealt with individuals influenced by far-right and other violent extremist ideologies.
That distinction matters.
The security problem is not Muslims.
The security problem is extremism.
Whatever its ideological origin.
But there is a limit to what any security service can accomplish.
ISD can disrupt a threat.
Laws can establish guardrails.
Institutions can make communal mobilisation more difficult.
None of them can force Singaporeans to trust one another.
That work belongs to us.
The greatest defence against communal politics is not ISD. It is Singaporeans refusing to practise communal politics in the first place.
Do Not Make Singaporean Muslims Answer for PAS
This point is especially important.
Concern about political Islam in Malaysia must never become suspicion towards Muslims in Singapore.
That would reproduce exactly the communal thinking we claim to oppose.
Singaporean Muslims are not proxies for PAS.
Just as Singaporean Chinese should not be treated as proxies for Beijing, and Singaporean Indians should not be treated as proxies for political movements in India.
Nobody should have his loyalty questioned merely because someone sharing his ancestry or religion abroad holds political views others dislike.
I reject religious political primacy precisely because I believe in equal citizenship.
That equality must protect everyone.
Our ancestry can cross borders. Our political allegiance should not.
“Regardless of Race, Language or Religion”
Perhaps the most important response to developments around Singapore was written into our national vocabulary decades ago.
Regardless of race, language or religion.
We have repeated those words so often that they risk becoming ceremonial.
They should not.
They describe an operating principle of the Republic.
A Malay Muslim Singaporean should be able to become a minister because he is capable of serving Singapore, not because he is Malay or Muslim.
A Chinese Singaporean should never possess greater political legitimacy simply because Chinese Singaporeans form the majority.
A Christian, Hindu, Buddhist or person without religion should never need to belong to the “correct” faith before being trusted with national responsibility.
That is not merely multiracialism.
That is good government.
Choose people for competence.
Demand integrity.
Reward performance.
Protect minorities.
Keep government accountable.
Maintain institutions strong enough to withstand extremism and foreign interference.
And above all, judge citizens by what they contribute to Singapore rather than the communal category into which they were born.
PAS may rise or fall.
Malaysia may choose political arrangements very different from ours.
We should neither panic nor interfere.
But we should pay attention.
Not because Singapore should become afraid of Malaysia.
Not because Singapore should become suspicious of Islam.
But because developments around us occasionally remind us why Singapore made different choices.
Our greatest response is therefore not fear.
It is confidence.
Confidence that a Chinese Singaporean, Malay Singaporean, Indian Singaporean or anyone else can stand beside one another as political equals.
Confidence that faith can flourish without determining grades of citizenship.
Confidence that good government should be judged by competence, integrity, accountability and whether it serves the national interest.
And confidence that Singaporeans can inherit cultures extending far beyond our shores without inheriting their political divisions.
Malaysia will determine what Malaysia becomes.
Our responsibility is to make sure Singapore remains Singapore.
Not Government first.
Not race first.
Not religion first.
Singapore first, with good government for every Singaporean.
CONCISE SOURCE / REFERENCE NOTE
Principal references include CNA and Malaysian reporting on Abdul Hadi Awang’s September 2026 remarks concerning non-Muslim Cabinet participation; PAS material and statements concerning non-Muslim rights and political participation; Singapore historical and institutional sources concerning the 1964 communal riots and the development of multiracialism; Ministry of Home Affairs material concerning foreign interference and the 2025 General Election; and the Internal Security Department’s 2026 terrorism threat assessment. Hadi’s remarks are distinguished from broader claims about Islam or Malaysian Muslims, and no allegation is made that PAS is conducting a covert operation against Singapore.