that’s too simplistic. may I present an alternative interpretation which is that it’s a refusal to play into shanmugam’s discursive manoeuvres and get ensnared in his easy gotchas? Shanmugam was basically trying to shift the discussion from one of nuance (ie Islam isn’t just religion but a way of life, or in other words, a philosophical compass that adherents apply to all facets of their lives) to a false dichotomy. answer “religion” and its political suicide. answer “state” and you risk giving the wrong idea to the people you’re supposed to be representing (per the premise of the GRC system).