Foreign Interference in Domestic Elections: The Singapore Ministry of Home Affairs’ Response to Parti Islam Se-Malaysia (PAS)
Abstract: This paper examines the Singapore Ministry of Home Affairs’ (MHA) strong condemnation of alleged interference by the Malaysian political party, Parti Islam Se-Malaysia (PAS), in Singapore’s domestic electoral processes. Specifically, it analyzes the MHA’s rebuttal to PAS’s claims of being a “bogeyman” used for Singaporean political agendas and its assertion that PAS’s statements were intended to influence Singaporean voters. The paper delves into the timeline of events, the specific statements made by PAS leaders, and Singapore’s legal and political framework concerning foreign influence in elections. It argues that Singapore’s response reflects a deeply ingrained concern for national sovereignty, social cohesion, and the integrity of its democratic processes, particularly in the context of its multiracial and multireligious society.
- Introduction
The relationship between Singapore and Malaysia, while marked by historical ties and geographical proximity, is often characterized by delicate diplomatic exchanges, particularly concerning domestic affairs. This paper focuses on a specific instance of contention that arose in the lead-up to Singapore’s May 3 General Election (GE), as reported on October 16, 2025, by The Straits Times. The Singapore Ministry of Home Affairs (MHA) issued a robust statement refuting claims made by Parti Islam Se-Malaysia (PAS) secretary-general Takiyuddin Hassan. This exchange highlights a critical issue in international relations and domestic governance: the boundaries of permissible foreign engagement in a sovereign nation’s electoral landscape.
- Background and Chronology of Events
The MHA’s statement on October 16, 2025, was a direct response to comments made by PAS’s Takiyuddin Hassan on October 15, 2025. Hassan had asserted that PAS was being “cast as a convenient bogeyman to advance domestic political agendas in Singapore.” The MHA, in its rebuttal, meticulously detailed a timeline that demonstrated a contradiction in PAS’s own positions.
April 24, 2025: Two incidents involving PAS leaders’ public statements occurred.
PAS national treasurer Iskandar Abdul Samad publicly supported the Workers’ Party (WP) politician, Mr. Faisal Manap. Samad praised Manap for his parliamentary explanation that “in Islam religion must not be separated from politics,” and expressed hope for his continued success. This statement directly invoked a religiously framed political perspective.
PAS Selangor Youth Chief Mohamed Sukri Omar re-posted a social media message that questioned the trustworthiness of PAP’s Malay-Muslim Members of Parliament. This was a clear attempt to sow distrust based on racial and religious lines.
April 28, 2025: In response to these statements, PAS issued a statement distancing itself from the comments made by Samad and Omar. The party declared that these remarks “represent their personal views and in no way reflect PAS’s official policy or stance as a political party.”
October 15, 2025: Takiyuddin Hassan’s statement characterized the April 24 comments as “ordinary cross-border commentary” and “legitimate speech” that Singapore was overreacting to. He also claimed that PAS was entitled to express its views on Singapore politics, provided there was no “funding, actions, coordination or directives.”
October 16, 2025: The MHA issued its strong rebuttal, directly challenging PAS’s revised narrative and highlighting the “clear intent… to influence Singaporean voters.”
- Singapore’s Ministry of Home Affairs’ Position
The MHA’s response was multi-faceted and addressed several key points:
Contradictory Stances: The MHA pointed out PAS’s shift from disavowing the April 24 statements as personal views to later defending them as legitimate cross-border commentary. This inconsistency was used to question the veracity of PAS’s current claims. The MHA posed the rhetorical question: “What is PAS’ true position?”
Intent to Influence: The core of the MHA’s argument was that the statements made by PAS leaders on April 24 and subsequently defended by Hassan had a “clear intent” to influence Singaporean voters. The MHA questioned the rationale behind making such statements if they were truly unlikely to have an impact, stating, “If that were true, why make these comments at all?”
Unacceptability of Foreign Interference: The MHA unequivocally stated that it is “not for foreign entities or individuals to tell Singaporeans how to vote.” This principle was further emphasized by stating that such interference, “least of all along racial and religious lines,” is “divisive and unacceptable.”
Inherent Conflict of Interest: The MHA posited that as a “Malaysian Islamist political party,” PAS “cannot have Singapore’s best interests at heart.” This implies an inherent divergence of interests and a potential agenda that may not align with Singapore’s national well-being.
Distinction Between Commentary and Interference: The MHA acknowledged that foreigners are entitled to comment on Singapore’s policies and politics, citing the regular commentary from foreign media. However, it drew a crucial distinction: “the Singapore Government will not stand by if a foreign actor attempts to influence Singaporeans for its own purposes, especially by rousing racial and religious sentiments and during elections.”
Racial and Religious Sensitivities: The MHA’s language directly addresses the sensitive nature of race and religion in Singapore’s multi-ethnic society. The concern was not just about foreign influence but about influence that specifically leveraged racial and religious sentiments, which could be deeply destabilizing.
- Singapore’s Legal and Political Framework
Singapore places a high premium on maintaining social harmony and national sovereignty. The MHA’s response is consistent with its broader stance on foreign interference and the politicization of race and religion.
Foreign Interference (Countermeasures) Act (FICA): While not explicitly mentioned in the provided text, Singapore introduced the FICA in 2021, a comprehensive legislation to deter and counter foreign interference in its domestic politics. This Act provides the legal framework for the government to take action against entities attempting to influence political processes through covert or deceptive means.
Electoral Integrity: Singapore’s electoral laws and principles are designed to ensure fair and transparent elections, free from undue external influence. The Election Department, in conjunction with the MHA, actively monitors and acts against any attempts to undermine the electoral process. The statement on April 25 by the MHA and the Elections Department, highlighting the dangers of mixing religion and politics and urging parties to safeguard harmony, exemplifies this proactive approach.
Politicisation of Race and Religion: Singapore has a long-standing concern about the politicisation of race and religion. The country’s multi-ethnic fabric requires careful management to prevent divisions. Statements that appeal to racial or religious sentiments, especially during election campaigns, are viewed with great seriousness. The reference to Coordinating Minister for National Security and Home Affairs Minister K. Shanmugam’s statement on the politicisation of race and religion further underscores this concern.
- PAS’s Perspective and the “Bogeyman” Argument
Parti Islam Se-Malaysia (PAS) is an Islamist political party in Malaysia. Its engagement with Singaporean politics, particularly through its leaders’ statements, has often touched upon issues of race and religion, which are sensitive in both countries.
PAS’s claim of being a “bogeyman” suggests a perception that Singaporean politicians are using PAS as an external threat to rally domestic support or to deflect attention from domestic issues. This is a common tactic in political discourse, where a foreign entity can be framed as an antagonist to unite the populace. However, the MHA’s detailed response aims to dismantle this narrative by presenting evidence of PAS’s direct and intentional involvement.
The argument for “legitimate speech” as “ordinary cross-border commentary” is a common defense employed by foreign actors when criticized for their engagement in another country’s affairs. The MHA counters this by emphasizing the intent behind the speech and the impact on Singaporean voters, particularly when it targets sensitive areas like race and religion during an election period. The absence of direct funding or coordination, as PAS implies, does not negate the potential for influence through public statements that resonate with specific segments of the electorate.
- Implications and Conclusion
The MHA’s firm stance against PAS’s alleged interference carries significant implications:
Assertion of Sovereignty: Singapore is clearly signaling its unwavering commitment to protecting its sovereignty and the integrity of its democratic processes. It will not tolerate external actors attempting to shape its electoral outcomes.
Reinforcement of Red Lines: The incident reinforces Singapore’s “red lines” regarding foreign interference, particularly when it involvesrousing racial and religious sentiments. This serves as a warning to other foreign entities that may consider similar actions.
Domestic Political Cohesion: By publicly addressing and refuting the interference, the Singaporean government aims to reassure its citizens and demonstrate its vigilance in safeguarding national unity and harmony. The emphasis on rejecting efforts to bring race and religion into politics, as highlighted by Prime Minister Lawrence Wong, is a crucial message to the Singaporean populace.
Bilateral Relations: While a direct diplomatic spat might be avoided, such exchanges can strain bilateral relations. Singapore’s willingness to publicly criticize a Malaysian political party indicates the seriousness with which it views the issue.
In conclusion, Singapore’s Ministry of Home Affairs’ strong rebuttal to Parti Islam Se-Malaysia underscores the nation’s zero-tolerance policy towards foreign interference in its elections. The MHA’s detailed timeline and its emphasis on the “clear intent” to influence voters, especially along racial and religious lines, demonstrate a principled stand for national sovereignty, domestic stability, and the integrity of its democratic system. The incident highlights the continuous challenge of navigating the complex interplay between domestic politics and cross-border influences in a globalized world, and Singapore’s resolve to maintain firm control over its electoral destiny.