Identity Politics is Playing Us

In recent weeks, across the globe, we’ve seen a familiar drama re-play: public institutions appealing to higher values of unity, equality or civic duty — only for those appeals to be undercut by the hard edge of competitive politics. The tension between doctrine (what we believe) and procedural democracy (how we govern) is fraying. Nowhere is that more visible than in the case of K. Shanmugam’s remarks in Singapore on 14 October 2025, where he cautioned against the “destructive temptation” of mobilising race and religion in politics.

This moment raises profound ethical and doctrinal questions: what is the role of secularism in multi-faith plural societies? When is identity recognition a progressive doctrine, and when does it become a political weapon? And as parties and governments invoke secular doctrine, are they reinforcing genuine inclusion — or simply entrenching new forms of dominance?

Secularism as Doctrine and Political Tool

Mr Shanmugam’s statement insisted that political debate in Singapore “must be conducted and decided on a secular basis.” On the face of it, this is a straightforward appeal to liberal doctrine: faith and ethnic identity are part of private conscience, but they shouldn’t become the currency of electoral mobilisation.

Yet beneath the surface lies a paradox. Secular doctrine is here used politically — to delegitimise particular forms of identity-based appeals (in this case those directed toward Malay voters). The doctrine becomes both shield and sword: the shield of universal civic equality, the sword against those who claim “special” identity-based rights. When a government invokes secularism to veto identity-based politics, the question becomes: is the invocation neutral, or is it itself an ideological assertion favouring one set of identities over another?

Identity-Based Claims: Recognition or Reaction?

One of the opposition figures, Damanhuri  Abas of the Singapore Democratic Party, argued that Malay community issues were being ignored, and urged for representation to uphold “Malay dignity”. From his viewpoint, the doctrine of equal citizenship gives insufficient traction to actual structural inequities. If the ordinary civic ideal (“we are all citizens equally”) fails to address persistent disadvantage, then identity-based mobilisation appears not only legitimate but necessary.

But when identity becomes political claim-making — ‘we are rights-holders by virtue of this identity’ — then the secular doctrine warns of the slippery slope: if every group demands its own collective rights, the logic of particularism disintegrates the universal civic order. Mr Shanmugam’s caution was precisely this: “the largest, the best organised religions and races will get their way”.

Here the doctrinal fault-line appears: universalism versus particularism. The ethical question: when does recognition of identity become a path to justice, and when does it become a form of competitive tribalism?

The Ethics of Political Doctrine: Ends, Means, and Integrity

From a normative standpoint, doctrine requires both means and ends to cohere. A doctrine of secular civic equality isn’t just a slogan — it demands institutions that are fair, accessible, trusted. If those institutions are perceived as biased or unresponsive, then the doctrine rings hollow. As one commentary put it:

“A society that requires political leaders to act to the highest standards of morality will not tolerate the political excesses seen in recent years … the ends do not justify the means.” @RSIS_NTU

If electoral actors believe the system privileges one identity group (by GRCs, by self-help associations, by candidate certification), then the secular doctrine becomes a veneer for existing dominance. Then identity politics becomes not aggression but grievance. The ethical breakdown happens when doctrine is invoked to suppress legitimate claims to justice rather than to mediate them.

What This Means for Democracies Going Forward

1. Doctrine must be lived, not merely invoked. A doctrine of secular citizenship is meaningless if minority communities believe their dignity or needs are systematically ignored. Complaint is the mirror-image of doctrine’s failure.

2. Recognise the dual nature of identity-based claims. These claims can reflect necessary justice-seeking (e.g., for recognition, voice, repair). But unchecked, they can erode the universal civic fabric. The ethical challenge is how to balance both.

3. Beware the instrumentalisation of doctrine. Whether secularism or identity-politics, doctrine can become a tool for power — to appease, to suppress, to redirect noise. Ethical politics demands transparency: who benefits, who is silenced?

4. Ethics demands procedural fairness no less than outcome justice. The means by which claims are made, by which identity is invoked, by which doctrine is mobilised, all matter. Without integrity in process, doctrine loses its legitimacy.

The case in Singapore is, in one sense, local — a debate over election rhetoric, ethnic mobilisation, minority representation. But its significance is far greater: it exposes the brittle interplay between belief-systems (doctrines), identity-claims, and political competition. If secular liberal doctrine remains merely aspirational, while in practice identity anchors power, then democracy becomes an arena of concealed dominance. If identity politics proceeds without limits, then democracy morphs into factional contest, and the civic “we” fractures into warring “us”.

What we need is politics that honours doctrine — not by ritual invocation, but by robust institutionalisation; identity that seeks not only voice but constructive reform; and ethics that places process as high a value as outcome. In a world of deepening divides, this is no small demand. It is the quiet crucible of democratic legitimacy.

Maximillian Fürt, Research Underhead, Beliefs, Doctrines, Ethics Focus Group @ ISYPO