REMARKS BY DEPUTY PERMANENT REPRESENTATIVE JOSEPH TEO AT THE HIGH-LEVEL THEMATIC DEBATE OF THE UN GENERAL ASSEMBLY ON PROMOTING TOLERANCE AND RECONCILIATION: INTERACTIVE PANEL DISCUSSION - PRACTICAL STRATEGIES FOR FOSTERING PEACEFUL, INCLUSIVE SOCIETIES AND COUNTERING VIOLENT EXTREMISM, 21 APRIL 2015

Ms Moderator,

Distinguished panellists,

1        Thank you for an interesting panel discussion.  Our exchange of views today cannot be more timely.  It is alarming that since the 2001 September 11 terrorist attacks, violent extremism has only grown in severity and magnitude, despite our best efforts to eradicate it.

2        It is important for us to have the right paradigm before we discuss what strategies to adopt.  Singapore was founded on the belief that our country does not belong to a single community or group, but to every individual.  Meritocracy, secularism and a national identity based on multi-racialism are principles upon which Singapore was built, and are enshrined in our Constitution.  Today, Singapore is a religiously diverse society  where people of all races and religions live peacefully side by side.

3        From our experience, having a sound legislative framework is only the first step of the journey.  Singapore Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong recently said that Singapore’s racial and religious harmony was an “unusual and unnatural state of affairs”.  He meant that it required constant work to maintain.  It is important for governments to examine the historical, religious, racial and cultural complexities of their societies and carry out “early intervention” policies to actively foster racial and religious harmony. 

4        Given the limited time, I will touch on one policy, which illustrates Singapore’s broader approach to this issue. Since 1989, Singapore has implemented an ethnic quota scheme for public housing where the proportion of residents from each ethnic group mirrors that of the national population.  The policy may sound prescriptive, but it has successfully prevented the formation of ethnic enclaves and allowed residents to learn to live with each other and embrace their differences, building more resilient communities. 

5        Even then, we cannot take this peace for granted.  For example, several years ago, there was some unhappiness between an Indian and a Chinese family.  The Chinese family objected to the smell of curry that was being prepared by their Indian neighbour and this escalated into a feud.  Fortunately, the issue was successfully resolved between both parties through one of our Community Mediation Centres.

6        This incident may seem minor but makes an important point.  Differences cannot be avoided but regular interaction is necessary so that people can talk through their differences and learn to coexist peacefully.  Segregating communities, especially those of minorities, will create a sense of marginalisation and will not help to foster understanding and friendship between and among people of different faiths and race.  As the President of the General Assembly said this morning, societies that fail to be inclusive can after serve as breeding ground for radicalisation.

Ms Moderator

7        I wish to ask the panellists the following question: We have seen a growing number of self-radicalised individuals or “lone wolves”.  Singapore had also discovered self-radicalised individuals and is actively rehabilitating them, including by providing socioeconomic support to their families and counselling them with the help of the Religious Rehabilitation Group, which comprises religious teachers who seek to correct doctrinal misunderstandings. What do you think is the driving force behind such self-radicalisation and what practical strategies should governments adopt to counter it?  Thank you.

.    .    .    .    .