Introduction
1. Mr Speaker, Sir, thank you. I beg to move that the Bill be now read a second time. I will refer to this Bill as the RH Bill, short for racial harmony.
2. Sir, this Bill is linked to the next Bill, the Constitution of the Republic of Singapore (Amendment) Bill.
3. The latter amends the President’s powers under the Constitution to give effect to the proposals in this Bill.
4. And Sir, I seek your permission, to debate both Bills together.
5. We will, of course, take the Constitution Bill through its formal stages separately later.
6. At present, dealing with the RH Bill, there are powers to deal with conduct which threatens racial harmony.
7. But what you see is that they are found in different pieces of legislation.
8. What this Bill does is to bring those powers together in one place. And so in that sense – it consolidates.
9. And at the same time, of course, by presenting it in this form, we seek to affirm the importance of racial harmony in Singapore.
10. Based on the responses we have had from members of the public when we had our consultations and when we put out the Bill, I want to make one point: this Bill is not a panacea for all racial issues. You cannot, by law, force people of different races to get along with one another.
11. Nor can you prevent insensitivity, or racist slights, from happening in everyday interactions, by passing a law – that we try to deal with, try and improve conduct, try and get people together through a variety of policies and platforms which promote social cohesion, racial harmony – that’s a huge part of it. The law can set out a framework as to what you can’t do.
12. Sir, with your permission, can I ask the Clerks to distribute
Annex 1. Members can also access this material through the Parliamentary App.
13. The point that has been made by MHA through its press release, which I’m sure the members who are intending to speak on the Bill would have looked at, which I would emphasise again, and you will see it from Annex 1, is that most of the proposals in this Bill – certainly the substantive proposals, are not new.
14. So, as long as members understand we are consolidating from different pieces legislation. So, when you express your concerns and so on, in a way, what you need to understand is, if you have those concerns, then they would have existed for a very long time, because this Bill doesn’t, in that sense, create new provisions in a substantive manner.
15. There are some new provisions, and you can see that in the Bill and in the press releases, but I am referring to the substantive provisions.
16. The Table in
Annex 1 (Table) also provides a comparative reference between this Bill and the
Maintenance of Religious Harmony Act, which I would call the “MRHA”, as well as other legislation.
17. For example, Part 2 of the Bill on the Presidential Council for Racial and Religious Harmony takes reference from the current Presidential Council for Religious Harmony.
18. Part 3 of the Bill on Restraining Orders Against Racial Content; and Part 4 of the Bill on Measures Against Foreign Influence are also similar to the MRHA.
19. Part 6 of the Bill on Offences Relating to Race – and those are what I call the charging provisions – they bring over existing offences from the Penal Code.
20. So, in the course of bringing in concepts and provisions from other existing legislation, we have made some refinements to some provisions, for clarity and effectiveness, and I’ll explain that later.
21. Sir first, I think the Bill itself is fairly clear cut. But why such a Bill? Why do we need this? It’s not usual in many countries. I think that’s a more fundamental, more important question; and that is because we have always treated racial harmony as being fundamental in Singapore. And so, this Bill has to be seen in that context.
22. Multi-Racialism, underpinned by Racial Harmony, is a foundational principle for us.
23. Sir, as members – most members will know, when Singapore gained independence, the issues relating to racial relations were fresh in the minds of the First-Generation of leaders.
24. The proximate cause were the racial riots of 1964.
25. At that time, communal tensions were very high in both Singapore and Malaysia.
26. On 21 July 1964, riots started – that was during a procession to celebrate the Prophet Muhammad’s birthday.
27. A glass bottle was thrown into a crowd – the crowd had about 20,000 Malay celebrants.
28. There was then an angry exchange between Malays in the crowd and some Chinese bystanders that resulted in violence.
29. The violence spread all across Singapore. There was a state of tensions at that point.
30. It lasted 17 days for the situation to stabilise. 23 people died and more than 400 injured.
31. Then riots broke out again on 2 September 1964, between again the Malays and Chinese. That happened after a Malay trishaw driver was killed.
32. The second time round, it took 12 days before calm was established. 13 people had died, and more than 100 injured.
33. The broader context for those tensions were the arguments between Singapore and Malaysia. These arguments then led to Singapore’s separation from Malaysia.
34. Singapore’s merger into the Federation of Malaysia in 1963, had raised some fundamental issues.
35. Although the new state of Malaysia in 1963 had Malays, Chinese, Indians, Eurasians, amongst others, there were basic differences between Singapore and KL on how the State was to be organised, and in particular, the approach towards multi-racialism. Singapore wanted racial equality. Kuala Lumpur favoured race-based politics.
36. The two approaches were not reconcilable.
37. The idea of a “Malaysian Malaysia” advocated by Singapore, brought about a very strong counter from UMNO leaders in KL and Malaya. They saw this as a challenge to Malay dominance.
38. Singapore then became an independent country.
39. On the day of our independence on 9 August 1965, Mr Lee famously said: “We are going to have a multi-racial nation in Singapore. We will set the example. This is not a Malay nation; this is not a Chinese nation; this is not an Indian nation. Everybody will have his place: equal; language, culture, religion.”
40. These issues and the approaches exercised the minds of Mr Lee and his generation – the problems were seared in their minds.
41. They had grown up in a Malaya where different races had lived together for generations as colonial subjects.
42. Once independence was achieved – first in the Federation of Malaya in 1957 and then in Malaysia in 1963 – the question immediately arose as to whether all citizens, regardless of their race, were to have equal status.
43. Our founding leaders have seen how fragile a multi-racial society could be. They wanted, as far as possible, to make Singapore a more racially equal society.
44. That involved many tough decisions. For instance, the languages we speak.
45. Some major Chinese organisations asked Mr Lee to make Chinese our only official language and the language of business.
46. Mr Lee refused.
47. He said on 3 October 1965 : “although in Singapore, 75% of the population is Chinese (and) the Malays forms only 12%, never mind; Malay has become our National Language, yet, Malay Language, Chinese, Tamil, and English are all equal”. 1
48. The four official languages were given recognition by the Republic of Singapore Independence Act; and also, in the Constitution.
49. Another example – one of the first few constitutional amendments our first generational leaders made was to create the Presidential Council for Minority Rights, chaired by the Chief Justice. I will call it PCMR.
50. The PCMR can veto any legislation that Parliament passes that it feels affects the rights and privileges of minorities in Singapore.
51. There were several other steps that were taken to focus on a Singaporean identity which would transcend Race and Religion.
52. It was an act of tremendous courage on the part of those leaders to do all this.
53. It would have been far easier, for them to have said: Ok, in Singapore Chinese will be the sole official language, and the Chinese will have several other legally recognised privileges.
54. If you see the situation in advanced developed countries – if you go to Germany, you have to speak German by and large. If you go to France, you have to speak French. If you go to UK, you generally have to speak English. So, it would have been very natural for some to have said that in Singapore, Chinese should be the language of business and language of commerce and language of Government. But we took a different path.
55. Over the years, our insistence on maintaining racial and religious harmony, and our zero tolerance of bigotry and hatred, has made Singapore a very different place compared with others.
56. If you look at a 2023 Gallup World Poll, 92% of respondents in Singapore said that: “Singapore was a good place to live in” for racial minorities. We were ranked first out of over 130 countries and territories for this question.
57. Another global survey by the Pew Research Centre in 2021 found that 92% of respondents in Singapore think that having people of different backgrounds, including racial backgrounds, makes Singapore a better place to live in.
58. The Government also periodically conducts domestic surveys on racial and religious harmony in Singapore, and so do non-Government entities.
59. Most recently, in August last year, MHA and MDDI polled more than 1,000 Singapore residents on their sentiments towards racial harmony.
60. With your permission, Sir, Mr Speaker, may I ask that the Clerks distribute Annex 2, which summarises the key findings from this poll.
61. Members will see that the majority of the respondents felt that the current state of race relations in Singapore was ‘Good’ or ‘Very Good’. 2
62. About half agreed that Singapore’s laws were adequate to protect racial harmony 3. 6% disagreed, and the rest were somewhere in-between.
63. Most agreed that it was both the Government’s and the community’s responsibility to strengthen race relations. 4
64. What I would say to members is that what we have in Singapore is actually not the “natural order of things”.
65. Indeed, there is nothing “natural” about what we have in Singapore. We have now come to believe it to be natural – we have made it our second nature. But it actually is not natural.
66. Because human beings are wired to be tribal, based on identity. And that continues to be true; in many places around the world. If you look at many countries, they are organised on the basis of formal or informal racial or religious hierarchies.
67. That’s the “natural order of things”.
68. What we have in Singapore is that we changed the natural order and made that changed situation second nature for us.
69. So this Bill has to be seen in this context.
Experiences of Other Multi-racial Countries
70. When we consider our approach to multi-racialism and laws, it is also useful to look at the experience of other countries, to see what we should do or should not do.
71. Let’s look at some countries in the developed world.
72. Again, some examples - the UK, US, and France have a majority “White” population, but also a long history of immigration.
73. So they have been multi-racial longer than Singapore has been independent. Race has been a flashpoint in these countries.
74. Last year, the UK was hit with a wave of riots, between July and August 2024.
75. The riots began with falsehoods.
76. There was a knife attack that killed three young girls. Rumours were that the attacker was an asylum seeker. But in fact, the attacker was born in the UK.
77. By mid-afternoon on the day of the attack, the false name of the suspect had received more than 30,000 mentions on X alone. 5
78. As of September last year, the police had arrested more than 1,200 persons.
79. This wave of riots is widely viewed as being among the most serious in British history.
80. It exposed deep-seated racist sentiments and also other grievances, relating to immigration.
81. There have previously also been other riots, in the UK – arising from distrust between communities.
82. There was a survey in 2021, conducted by King’s College, University of Manchester, and the University of St Andrews.
83. The survey found that more than a third of people from minority groups in the UK have experienced racist assaults, 7 meaning physical attacks. One-third.
84. Turning to the US, we also see evidence that race, and attitudes towards racial issues, seems to divide American society.
85. You see the endless media reports on the issue - the protests marches, the violence – you get the sense that racial issues continue to be flashpoints.
86. And if you turn to France, a report published in 2023 found that 91% - more than nine in ten - of Black people had been victims of racial discrimination "often”, or “from time to time”. 8
87. Reports of antisemitic and anti-Muslim acts increased by almost 300% and 30% respectively, while other types of racist acts increased by around 20%. 9
88. Racial tensions are present, and spill into serious violence even in countries where people do not look very different from each other.
89. If you look at the 1994 Rwandan genocide, this is one of several examples in Africa. 10
90. A more recent example is the crisis in Sudan – specifically, the Darfur region.
91. As a result of the crisis, millions have been displaced from their homes.
92. BBC recently described the situation in Sudan as the world’s worst humanitarian crisis.
93. In our region too, many countries have faced serious, long-standing conflicts along racial lines, Myanmar being one of them.
94. So looking across these countries, we see three issues.
95. First, in allowing Hate Speech. Many of the countries I have cited as examples earlier such as US, UK, and France: They allow denigration of other races and religions.
96. In the US, the Supreme Court has said that inflammatory speech, even speech advocating violence can be protected. 11
97. In Singapore, we take a different approach.
98. As I told this House in my Ministerial Statement in April 2019: if we do not have a tough set of laws and policies against hateful and offensive speech, the tone and texture of public discourse in our society will change over time. It will create an environment that is conducive for discrimination, and eventually, violence against people who can be classified in a specific category described by skin colour, or religion, or some other attribute.
99. And we must not let this happen here.
100. I trust that, on this issue, we are all agreed as to where we draw the line on hate speech, on speech which advocates violence, on speech which incites violence, on speech which seeks to set aside a group and target them as the ‘out’ group, as I said in my Ministerial Statement.
101. The second lesson that we can learn is, I think, is an age-old issue; the exploitation of race for politics.
102. Race-related issues have immense power to mobilise people. Identity politics basically, and it is deeply visceral.
103. Politicians know it, and many exploit it to score political points and win elections.
104. In recent years, you see a trend in many countries, including the West.
105. Politicians, encouraging people to think along racial lines and adopt a “us vs them” mentality.
106. And, if this is repeated both during electoral cycles and off-electoral cycles, the racial divisions are reinforced and become even more entrenched in society.
107. We take a tough stance on this.
108. Again, I trust all Members will agree with us that the exploitation of race has no place in our politics.
109. Third, social segregation.
110. The neighbours we have and our day-to-day interactions with them affect how we perceive the wider society.
111. Racially segregated neighbourhoods limit opportunities to build trust between different communities.
112. The University of California did a study in 2021.
113. It found that racially segregated residential neighbourhoods in the US remain the “lynchpin” that sustains systemic racial inequality. 12
114. This is a consequence of years of residential segregation, based on race.
115. The issue is not unique to the US.
116. After the Riots in 2001, the government in the United Kingdom commissioned a study.
117. The study found that physical racial segregation of housing estates was a key contributor for the Riots then. 13
118. The report described most of the white communities as living “parallel lives” from minority Asian and Black groups.
119. It commented that: “there is little wonder that ignorance about each others’ communities can easily grow into fear”.
120. If you look at France, residential segregation can also be found in the banlieues – These are suburban areas predominantly inhabited by immigrant families. They are usually of Arab or other African descent.
121. Around 5 million people, or 8% of the total French population, live in areas classified as banlieues.
122. The overlap of ethnic segregation in these areas, with economic and social exclusion has led to increasing polarisation between those minority, marginalised groups and the majority in French society.
123. Again, here, we have done it differently in Singapore.
124. Previous Governments had the foresight to introduce the Ethnic Integration Policy in our public housing estates. The EIP has ensured a mix of races in our public housing estates.
125. If the Government had left it to market forces: You would have seen Chinese, Malays, and Indians, forming residential enclaves in different parts of Singapore.
126. Similar to what is happening in many other countries – and similar to what was happening in Singapore before we introduced the EIP.
127. If that happens, soon, schools in those area would also become segregated.
128. Children would have less diverse social circles, and limited exposure to different cultures.
129. They would grow up with less understanding, trust, and comfort with other communities.
130. They will carry this into adulthood, and into workplaces.
131. We put in place rules to maintain certain racial proportions in public housing, so that we would have mixing across races in every estate.
132. And Singaporeans generally appreciate the intent of this policy.
133. The Institute of Policy Studies (IPS) conducted a survey in 2024, and 93% of the respondents agreed that it was important to have a mix of people from different races in each housing estate.
Singapore’s Approach to Maintaining Racial Harmony
134. In light of these lessons, what is our approach to maintaining racial harmony?
135. I will say there are two aspects.
136. One, you have to have a strong legal framework which sets clear boundaries on what is not allowed in Singapore.
137. Second, with that framework in place, you have to have the government actively putting in place policies and platforms that maximise our common space, to strengthen cohesion. Just a few words on that. The law can tell you what you cannot do. The law cannot tell you: be nice to your neighbour, form friendships and bonds with your neighbours, across races, across religions. That’s where policies come in.
138. So, the thousands of activities that are carried out every weekend, bringing people together, and the multiplicity of events and approaches, the way schools are organised, every other aspect, which is too long to go into here, but that comes in to create opportunities for people to become friends, or at least form understandings and dislike each other less, where there is dislike; and like each other more, where there is some potential for like. And over time, we would say Singapore has progressed substantively on this front.
139. So let me start with the first aspect: our strong legal framework.
140. Our Constitution guarantees that all persons are equal before the law, and entitled to equal protection under the law.
141. So, it is the responsibility of the Government to care for the interests of the racial minorities.
142. Minority representation in Parliament is guaranteed through our GRC system.
143. Other legislation also deal with these issues. Most recently, the Workplace Fairness Bill prohibits workplace discrimination based on some characteristics, including race.
144. This means an employer cannot make an adverse employment decision because of the race of the jobseeker or employee.
145. A subsequent Bill will lay out avenues for affected individuals to seek recourse when they feel that they have been discriminated against, including racial discrimination in the workplace.
146. Beyond that, our Penal Code sets out what conduct is not acceptable, and that would include conduct in the context of race.
147. These laws have generally served their intended purpose.
148. And the RH Bill continues with that approach. And the law tells us what is it that we cannot do, or what remedies there are when something wrong has been done. The second part, the policies, platforms to expand and deepen our common space. If you look at 1965 and if you look at today, you will find that most people are comfortable with bonds across races. Singapore is in a much healthier place. There is understanding, there is appreciation, there is acceptance, and deep bonds across racial-religious lines.
149. Of course, some people will still have some different viewpoints, but on a whole, it’s a very substantively different society from what it was in the 1960s. Because we have been facilitating interactions between people of different backgrounds, and we do this very deliberately. It is not left to chance.
150. While I don’t want to go into a discussion of the policies, I will refer to a poll that MHA and MDDI conducted last year . It found that over 85% of respondents felt that race relations are better or the same compared to 10 years ago. Now that’s in the context where I think in many parts of the world, race relations have actually regressed.
151. IPS and OnePeople.sg (OPSG) also conducted a study, based on a survey last year involving 4,000 Singaporean residents.
152. Mr Speaker, Sir, with your permission may I ask the Clerks to distribute
Annex 3, which summarises the key findings from this study.
153. This study found that nearly two-thirds (65.4%) of respondents rated Singapore’s racial and religious harmony as high or very high. Now, that is an increase of about 8% from 2018/2019 when 57.1% said that.
154. The number of race-related incidents reported to the Police has also largely remained stable over the years, at around 10 per year, though there are some years with spikes. The Police have noticed, I have noticed that whenever there are elections, the number of Police reports spiked.
155. But you know, we cannot take this state of affairs for granted.
156. We are in an age when identity politics is on the rise globally.
157. And, we cannot cut ourselves off from the world.
Introducing the Maintenance of Racial Harmony Bill
158. With that background, Sir, I will turn to the Bill itself.
159. Essentially, the Bill has five aspects or five proposals.
160. First, it brings over existing race-related offences in the Penal Code.
161. Second, it introduces the CRI, Community Remedial Initiative, that gives the offender the opportunity to mend ties with the community that he was attacking. And, we provide this as an alternative to the person being charged in court.
162. Third, the Bill seeks to establish a Restraining Order (“RO”) regime.
163. Fourth, it establishes the Presidential Council for Racial and Religious Harmony to advise on matters relating to racial and religious harmony that are referred to it by the Minister for Home Affairs or by Parliament.
164. Fifth, it introduces safeguards against foreign influence through race-based entities.
165. The 2024 poll on racial harmony, which I referred to, shows that the public strongly supports various proposals in this Bill.
166. Nonetheless, during public consultations, one common comment that we received was that this Bill only prevents racial dis-harmony, but does not promote racial harmony.
167. I can understand the perspective. What people want to see is something that will positively push people to be harmonious with each other across races. And I explained my point earlier. You cannot, by law, force people to get along better with each other. That has to come through government polices, through the framework, the structure of society, how we build that DNA into society over time. And, that is what we have been doing.
168. Laws play an important role in that because if you allow bad behaviour, then policies wouldn’t succeed. Laws are there, they provide a very strong legal framework and people know we will enforce our laws, and therefore they reduce and deter bad behaviour. Once you stop that bad behaviour, amongst the small minority, usually. Laws are necessary usually, only as regards to a small minority of people. If you don’t allow for that behaviour, then there is a framework, and within that, you can promote policies that will enhance racial harmony.
169. I will refer specifically to two proposals in this Bill: one relating to race-related offences; and the other, a Community Remedial Initiative.
170. My colleague MOS Sun will cover the rest.
171. First, on race-related offences. They are covered under Clauses 39 and 40 of the Bill.
172. Clause 39 takes what is already an offence today - inciting violence under section 267C of the Penal Code and it prescribes increased penalties for a subset of that conduct where offenders do so on the basis of a belief about race.
173. Clause 40 brings over the substance of existing race-related offences in the Penal Code which deal with threats to racial harmony.
174. These are Section 298, which concerns act that wound the racial feelings of any person; and Section 298A, which concerns acts that promote enmity between racial groups.
175. In bringing these offences over, we have made certain clarifications.
176. In particular, we have received public feedback that the term “wound racial feelings” lacks clarity.
177. Therefore, Clause 40(2) replaces the term “wound racial feelings” with objective descriptions, or at least more objective descriptions. It is essentially “insults, vilifies, denigrates, threatens or abuses on the basis of race”.
178. This provides greater clarity and probably narrows the scope of conduct that would make out an offence today. “Wound racial feelings” could potentially be subjective.
179. We have also aligned these offences with the corresponding offences in the MRHA as we take an equally strong stance in dealing with threats to racial harmony and religious harmony.
180. First, the penalties for offences in this Bill are the same as the MRHA.
181. Second, we have also introduced defences for offences under Clause 40 that are already present in the MRHA.
182. These are:
(a) The defence of private or domestic conduct – which allows people to have a safe space to express their views about race and religion, in private or domestic settings;
(b) The defence of pointing out in good faith any matters for the purpose of bringing about a removal of those matters.
183. Similar to the MRHA, there will also be extra-territorial coverage for race-related offences.
184. If the offence is committed overseas, but it targets Singapore, and has an impact in Singapore, it will be covered.
185. We acknowledge that it may be difficult to enforce offences outside of Singapore , but it signals our commitment to protect our racial harmony, even when the threat originates outside of Singapore.
186. That said, while there are offences in the MRHA, that are tiered depending on whether the act is committed by a religious leader or a layperson, this Bill makes no such differentiation, for obvious reasons.
187. The law today does not distinguish between different categories of offenders for race-related offences.
188. The distinction we had drawn in the MRHA was unique in the context of religion, reflecting the greater risk posed by the actions of religious leaders, who exercise formal religious authority.
189. And there is no equivalent in the context of race.
190. Instead, all persons are held to the same standard since the acts of any individual can threaten racial harmony.
191. Again, this only reflects the existing law and does not expand the scope of criminal liability.
192. Next, I will move to the CRI.
193. Our starting point is this – racial incidents harm both the victim, as well as the ties between different races, and you know, criminal prosecution may be necessary but it cannot by itself mend community ties.
194. Thus, if you have an offender, he might be offered an opportunity to participate in a community remedial programme as an alternative to prosecution.
195. This is similar to the CRI in the MRHA.
196. And we seek to achieve two policy objectives.
197. First, reconciliation.
198. It provides the alleged offender with the opportunity to make amends for his racist conduct. And hopefully by that process, he or she gets a better understanding of the community that he attacked, and hopefully create a bond, a bridge, and strengthen mutual understanding.
199. Second, of course, rehabilitation.
200. It gives the offender the opportunity to learn from his mistake.
201. Clause 41(2) of this Bill provides for the Minister to appoint community partners to deliver the programmes.
202. And MHA intends to work with OnePeople.sg and MCCY to design suitable programmes based on the context of the different types of offensive conduct.
203. And these programmes will have three broad elements.
204. First, raising awareness of how the alleged offender’s racist conduct impacts others.
205. Second, initiating action by requiring the alleged offender to make amends with the aggrieved individual and community through volunteer work and other suitable engagements.
206. Third, by encouraging amity by arranging guided reflection sessions with the alleged offender and aggrieved individual or community.
207. But as Clause 41(4) provides, it is not compulsory for an alleged offender to complete the programmes.
208. Failure to complete can be taken into account by the Public Prosecutor in exercising prosecutorial discretion. Such cases will continue to be directly referred for prosecution.
209. Egregious cases will not be offered the opportunity of CRI, so that a clear and strong signal is sent that such conduct will be treated severely.
Conclusion
210. Sir, in our multi-racial society, where diversity is woven into the very fabric of our identity, it is crucial that we continue to celebrate our differences while understanding and respecting one another.
211. By fostering an environment of trust, empathy and unity, we can build a future where everyone continues to feel a deep sense of belonging and pride in being Singaporean, regardless of race.
212. Mr Speaker, Sir, what we are trying to achieve in Singapore is not easy; it is, in fact, very difficult and very hard work.
213. Given that Singapore has always been a diverse country – many races, many religions, many languages, we had to and we wanted to, from this multiplicity, create “one united people”, but without suppressing any racial, religious, or linguistic identity.
214. This has been, if I may say so, the genius of Singapore: From many, one – but without erasing multiplicity.
215. We could not have done this without simultaneously fostering understanding and trust and acceptance amongst our “many”; and at the same time, making clear we will not tolerate any bigotry or hatred or intolerance that threatens the “one” people that we have become.
216. We are grateful for the progress we have made – thanks to the Pioneer and Merdeka generations of Singaporeans – but we know that we can do better, and we are trying to do better.
217. The Bill, as I have said earlier, will not be a panacea for solving all race-related challenges, but it is a powerful signal of our resolve to remain united as one people.
218. Mr Speaker, I seek the support of all members for this Bill.
219. Let us send a strong signal to all the nations of the world, that 60 years after we gained independence, Singapore will remain “a multi-racial nation”.
220. That we will not be “a Malay nation … a Chinese nation … an Indian nation.”
221. And that every Singaporean “will have his place” here; he or she will be respected.
222. And we will all be “equal – in language, culture, race, religion.”
223. MOS Sun will now take the House through the remaining proposals in the Bill.
[1] This speech was delivered by Mr Lee Kuan Yew (in Chinese) at the Liquor Retail Traders Association’s 28th Anniversary Celebrations.
[2] 54% gave a positive rating of race relations in Singapore, with only 6% rating it as poor.
[3] 49% of the respondents agreed that Singapore’s laws and policies adequately protect racial harmony in Singapore, as compared to 6% that who disagreed.
[4] 63% opined that both the Government and the community hold equal responsibility to strengthen race relations.
[9]
Data extracted from Reuters
[11] Brandenburg v. Ohio (1969) – a landmark decision of the US Supreme Court interpreting the First Amendment to the US Constitution.
[14] Number of reported race-related cases: 10 in 2019; 36 in 2020; 24 in 2021; 8 in 2022; 7 in 2023; 10 in 2024.
