Introduction
1. Thank you, Mr Speaker Sir. I thank Members for their interventions, and it is really gratifying to see that there is unanimous agreement on the need for the Bill. There are some questions, some concerns, and I do note the Workers’ Party’s position that they will support the Bill, but not the Constitutional Amendment, because they have specific concerns about the President having the power to disagree with the Minister. I will deal with that separately.
Consultation on the Bill
2. Now let me start with perhaps some of the misconceptions that underlie some of the questions raised. And Sir, if I may deal with Mr Gerald Giam’s points, he expressed, as I see it, two main concerns: one, that genuine dialogue will be curtailed, and he gave the examples of CECA, and the Palestinian issue and so on; and he also said that, since this is such an important bill, it really ought to have been sent to Select Committee like the MRHA.
3. I appreciate his comments, but I think there is some serious misconception on what the Bill does or is intended to cover, and I would refer members to
Annex 1, and press release of the Ministry of Home Affairs, and hopefully that will help in responding to Mr Giam’s comments, Ms Poa’s comments, and also some of the others who expressed some concerns.
4. First of all, paragraph 3, the second sentence: the scope of unacceptable conduct regarding race relations will remain substantively same as today. There is, in fact, no change in the law. And if you look at paragraph 12, the substantive provisions, scope of the offences, because paragraph 11 sets out what is being brought over from the Penal Code. Paragraph 12 says the scope of the offences under the Bill is substantially the same as what is covered in the Penal Code. Some updates will be made to align the language and defences under the Bill with the equivalent provision.
5. So the changes are that we actually provided for some additional defences, and in fact, narrowed one of the provisions. So, if you look at Section 298, 298A of the Penal Code, and then you look at clauses 39 and 40 of the Bill – they are the same.
6. So, as I understand from Mr Giam’s speech, he accepts today that there are no constraints. I mean, there are no unacceptable constraints on discussing on CECA, Palestinian issues and so on. Section 298, and 298a have been enforced for 17 years. If no concerns have been expressed until now, what is the additional concerns with clauses 39 and 40? And up to today, I’m not aware of any concerns expressed in Parliament about Section 298 or 298a of the Penal Code, or any suggestion that they should be repealed. And the Penal Code has been debated a number of times on various occasions in Parliament.
7. I mean, the point perhaps was picked up by Ms Chandradas, because she did say, yes you know, the provisions are the same, but since we are coming back to Parliament, perhaps we can re-debate or debate it anew. But that’s a different point.
8. What is new is really the Presidential Council for Racial and Religious Harmony (PCRRH), the additional power to issue restraint orders, and of course, the CRI additional remedial orders, but they are process-related. The fundamental power, as you would see, clause 8 relates to issuing of Restraining Orders (RO). You look at the provisions, they go back essentially to Clauses 39 and 40. So I think there is a degree of misconception which then leads to concerns. For the same reason, therefore, the substantive law remains the same with the addition of some processes. Then I think you can understand why we don’t need a Select Committee, particularly as those additional provisions, RO, PCRRH, the CRI – these are modelled after the MRHA.
9. Mr Giam also asked about members of public and if they can engage in racial politics. The answer is they can continue to do – after this Bill is passed – what they have been doing until now. I will just say, have a care on racial politics. If you get to the line of inciting violence – anything along those lines which Section 298 and 298a deal with – then you could be transgressing the law.
10. I would add one more point – because this is such a fundamental misconception that we do not want to unduly alarm the public. I know that sometimes speeches are made with the purpose of the public in mind. I am not suggesting that Mr Giam or anyone else has made such a speech – but it is sometimes made tailored for putting out on social media. But I think all of us agree that we do not want the public to be misled. So, I would suggest that if speeches are put out which could be misleading on their own, then some care should be taken to give the correct impression of the debate under the Parliamentary Proceedings Act, and the correct impression of the Bill as clarified by me.
Scope of the Bill
11. Assoc Prof Razwana Begum and Mr Louis Ng asked what measures are in place to address the root causes of racist conduct, support victims of racism, and if there are plans to complement measures under the Bill with public campaigns or education efforts promoting racial harmony, and how the public can play a role in safeguarding social cohesion.
12. I have said a number of times, both in my earlier speech and outside this chamber, and in this chamber on other occasions – if anyone thinks the law alone is enough to achieve racial harmony, I think that person needs to have his head examined. That is just not possible.
13. Members know that that has to be achieved through a multi-faceted programme of policies, including public education. So, I welcome those questions by Mr Ng and Ms Begum because it helps us explain the aim of the Bill clearly. Just in case members of public think we are putting in this Bill and relying on it solely to achieve racial harmony. It is intended to achieve racial harmony, but not solely.
14. This is a key facet – it provides a framework. But then you need a whole lot of other things.
15. As I referred to in my earlier speech, thousands of activities take place every weekend, organised by People’s Association (PA) – which is a key nation-building agency. It makes people come together every weekend. As a result, you interact with each other. You go for each other’s events, you celebrate the festivals, week in, week out, throughout the year. That is one of the secret sauces that make Singapore successful.
16. That is why PA has been a key enabler of the success of this country. That is one facet. There are so many other things -- I talked about the schools being integrated, housing estates being integrated. A lot of these are policies. So the legal framework tells you what you cannot do, and it helps to set a set of values which are hardwired, hopefully, into our society over time.
17. And our Government agencies do that. Some of the other examples would be the Character and Citizenship Education lessons in schools, where students are provided a safe space to understand the importance of racial and religious harmony in our multicultural society; and to develop an appreciation of different perspectives and sensitivities around racial and religious issues.
18. I should note that Mr Yip’s emphasis on the importance of community participation in building racial harmony – that is a view that is shared by many Singaporeans. In a poll conducted by MDDI, three in five (63%) respondents said that both the Government and the community hold equal responsibility to strengthen race relations.
Restraining Orders and the Presidential Council for Racial and Religious Harmony
19. Ms Hazel Poa, Assoc Prof Razwana, Mr Yip, and other Members asked how we can ensure that the ROs or the Bill does not stifle race-related discussions, and that the ROs are not used disproportionately.
20. I think we can look at the Maintenance of Religious Harmony Act (MRHA) for reference. We have had similar powers for over 30 years, and the powers have never been used. That gives you an indication of how the Government approaches these powers. The important thing is to have the powers, but to also be very very careful and judicious in how you use them.
21. Second, there are safeguards in place on the use of ROs.
22. The RO can only be issued by the Minister, who has to be publicly accountable, including in this Parliament.
23. After an RO is issued, it must be sent to the Presidential Council for Racial and Religious Harmony, I will refer to this as the “PCRRH”.
24. A person subject to an RO may make representations to the PCRRH, and that Council must make a recommendation to the President, whether to confirm, cancel or vary the RO.
25. Thereafter, the President must consider the recommendation by the Council, along with Cabinet’s advice, and he can cancel, confirm or vary the RO.
26. Here, the President must act in accordance with the Cabinet’s advice, but if the Cabinet disagrees with the Presidential Council, then the President has discretion.
27. So that is an additional safeguard, if the President does not confirm the RO within 30 days of receiving the Council’s recommendation, the RO will cease to have effect.
28. Mr Neil Parekh, Dr Syed Harun Alhabsyi, Ms Usha Chandradas, Ms Poa, and Mr Ng asked about the thresholds for issuing ROs, and the safeguards on the issuance of the ROs.
29. MOS Sun Xueling’s speech has covered most of the questions.
30. ROs are pre-emptive measures, and they may be issued if we know that a person is likely to commit or is attempting to commit an act, without having to go through a period of investigations and prosecution to establish a criminal conduct.
31. And really, this is necessary in the current day, in the context of social media.
32. The reference point, again is the MRHA. The powers are present – we have discourses on religious issues. Singapore is, I would say, a highly religious society and if people say that it is a subjective opinion, at least we can say that it is quite a religious society, a religious place. The MRHA in place for 35 years has not had any curtailing effect on how it has been used. I will come back to this point again.
33. The real point is that we must have the ability to act quickly, decisively, because the trust, goodwill, and understanding between our communities, once damaged, can be difficult to restore.
34. Persons issued an RO will need to comply with it immediately, but as MOS Sun has mentioned, they may make representations within 14 days, and the RO will then be subject to review.
35. To Ms Poa’s question, there is no change in the maximum duration for the Presidential Council to make its recommendations; this Bill has used 44 days, counting from the day the person is issued an RO, in contrast to the MRHA which references the end period for making representations.
36. Extensions of ROs are also subject to the checks and balances that I had noted above. And the RO cannot be varied when it is extended. If the Minister wishes to change the terms of an RO, he will have to cancel the RO before issuing a fresh RO with the new terms. This will have to go through the usual review process, including confirmation by the President.
37. Ms Poa expressed concerns about the Minister extending an RO indefinitely to keep a journalist or an editor out of their work. If that is done, that would be an abuse of power – it would be an abuse of power to extend the RO just to keep a person out of work. The extension of ROs are subject to the same review process, and will be considered by the Presidential Council, and the President. And if the Minister has no good explanation, he can be overruled, and such an act of extension can also be scrutinised in Parliament.
38. This is one of those situations where you need the powers to deal with the threats to racial harmony. The threats are real. At the same time, the Government is voluntarily frameworking in some checks on their power, and I would say – this is a point made slightly earlier – the best evidence of how these powers are likely to be used, is how the Government has used very similar powers under the MRHA since 1990, when the Bill became an Act. Not one order has been used under the MRHA, let alone any order be extended. But having the legal framework and the power means everyone understands, everyone is careful, and that coupled with a whole lot of other policies I have talked about, has meant that we have not gotten into the problems that others have gotten into.
39. And I will give you an example of one case, where we did not issue an RO, but having those powers were useful. A preacher went on YouTube and talked about Buddhism and Taoism and made some highly disparaging remarks, and said that they were superstitious and so on. An RO could have been issued, but that was not our first reaction. My Ministry officials had a chat with the preacher that this is really ‘not on’, and he understood, and he was very cooperative and withdrew his remarks, put out a new video; and that is the way we do things in Singapore – no one needs to feel ashamed and we did not need to resort to issuing an RO. If he had disagreed, we may have had to. But the fact that we had the power, I think helped, and after that, others took reference from that and overall, the balance has been maintained.
40. Mr Parekh also asked about the role of the PCRRH under the Bill. It is an advisory body, and its role was explained by MOS Sun. It will not have powers to issue binding guidelines or rules - that is not its mandate.
41. Mr Ng asked why do we have a combined council instead of two different councils – one for race and one for religion. We are a small place, the number of people who are upstanding – lay people, community leaders, religious leaders – rather than having two, it seemed to us, it made sense, race and religion – the issues sometimes overlap, in fact, quite frequently they may overlap, and it is not always straightforward to disentangle the two.
42. Have good people, have one composite Council, makes much more sense. It is a question of judgement. We thought it was more effective, more efficient, helps better consultation and discussions. We started out thinking we may need two, but after a lot of discussions, we decided that we would have one.
43. Assoc Prof Razwana, as well as Mr Louis Ng and Ms Chandradas asked about further details on the composition of the PCRRH, and its procedures.
44. As MOS Sun has mentioned, appointments to the Council must seek to ensure that it comprises representatives from the major racial and religious communities in Singapore, and those who have distinguished themselves in public service or community relations in Singapore.
45. The Presidential Council for Minority Rights will advise on the appointments to the PCRRH, and members of the arts community who fulfil these criteria can be appointed to the PCRRH. I do not want to pre-judge and say members of this community, or such other community would be appointed. But there is no automatic veto against a community.
46. Clause 33(5) of the Bill empowers the PCRRH to invite any person to attend before the PCRRH, and to examine the person orally, and consider that in the context of deliberations on an RO.
47. Beyond this, as the PCRRH is intended to be an independent body, it will be allowed to regulate its own procedures, within the framework of the law.
48. Given the inherently sensitive nature of the Council’s discussions, and so as to provide a forum for its members to express themselves freely, the Bill provides for the proceedings of the Council to be private, secret, unless its public disclosure is expressly authorised by the Minister.
49. Ms Sylvia Lim expressed concerns about the role of the Elected President under this Bill, in making decisions on matters related to race. I have touched on this very briefly earlier. As I understand it, Ms Lim is not objecting – the Workers’ Party is not objecting to the RO regime – but what she does not agree with is the Presidential review of the RO. And the Workers’ Party view is that Parliament and the public’s checks on the Minister are adequate, and there should not be an additional layer of checks through the PCRRH, and the President.
50. This is ultimately a question of judgement. The Government’s view is that Parliament and the public are essential checks on the Minister’s power, but that there is also considerable value in having an additional layer of check through the PCRRH and the President. And that it is appropriate for the President, who is directly elected by the people to act as a check on this power that can be exercised by the Minister. This is similar to the model we have adopted in other legislation like the Internal Security Act, and the MRHA. Obviously, that does not prevent Parliament from asking questions of the Minister or holding him accountable.
51. So, in all of this, this is a question of judgement. Ultimately whether the system works depends on the integrity of the people involved – all the way, the Minister, the Council, the President, Parliament – everywhere. The PCRRH by bringing in senior leaders from the religious and lay community can provide additional rigour to the process and I can tell Members, because Ms Lim sort of alluded to it, we have certainly not put these provisions into the Bill in the belief that the PCRRH and the President would never disagree with the Minister. That would be an untenable supposition if that was a supposition.
52. We are building frameworks and institutions which we hope will see Singapore through over a long period. And this is all part of the institution building that has been going on over the last 60 years or so.
53. If I can now turn to some comments that Ms Hazel Poa made. I can see that she is concerned in parts, and again I think Ms Poa’s comments arise from not realising what the current law is, and that the key charging provisions are substantially the same. Section 298A(a) of the Penal Code criminalises acts that knowingly promote or attempts to promote, on grounds of race, disharmony or feelings of enmity, hatred, ill will or hostility between different racial groups. And Ms Poa will see, and she quoted in her speech, from the Bill, and she says, “While this Bill borrows the language found in the MRHA, the phrase ‘an act that causes enmity, hatred, ill will or hostility between different races in Singapore’ – you will see that that is pretty much what that is in Section 298A today.
54. And the point I made earlier in response to Mr Giam, Section 298A has been in force for the last 17 years, and we know that it was, as far as I can tell, most MPs did not have any issue with it.
55. Then the second point that Ms Poa makes, that Singaporeans are concerned that the Government will use such powers to further restrict what Singaporeans can do or say – there is no further restriction. It is a restriction, there is, in the current law, and that restriction is being ported over, in fact, with a slight narrowing.
56. There are additional provisions as I mentioned earlier relating to the ROs, the CRI – those are separate points. The charging provisions as they were, remains substantially the same.
57. On the specific examples she has given on Mr Shaik Amar – I do not recall precisely what the facts were relating to Mr Shaik Amar. I know he said something about the EIP, and there was a POFMA order issued. I do not believe he was charged, and my recollection is that I do not remember anything he said that crossed the criminal threshold, and if did not cross the criminal threshold then, it would not cross the criminal threshold now.
58. On “Free Palestine Now”, I do not believe this was considered an offence at the time it was said. And I also do not believe that clauses 39 and 40 would be triggered now, if this was put into an Act. It is not a call for violence – it is an expression of opinion.
59. If you look at Israel-Hamas, which is another example in that context; ‘Free Palestine Now’, I have spoken about it. As for social media comments that are being posted and so on. It depends – an assessment has to be made as to whether the law has been breached, but the basic point is that the law remains essentially the same. And if the law is breached, whether it makes sense for it to be pursued, and those are matters that AGC will have to come into.
60. “From the River to the Sea” is another point that Ms Poa made. She asked if that would be an offence now, and whether an RO can be issued. She would have noted, and she did note, that the Police said that it may have been an offence, the Police statement. I want to be careful about what I want to say about this, because the Police statement was clear, it is up to the Police to decide what they will do about a potential offence that has been disclosed, but they have gone out in public to say that there may be a potential offence. I do not want to go beyond that. But if they are able to investigate, they wish to investigate because they think there was an offence, after this Bill comes into law – if Parliament passes it – they will be able to do the same now. Whether a further RO should be issued, depends on clause 8 and whether clause 8 is triggered, and that in turn depends on the actual facts.
61. And then the point about umbrellas with watermelons and wearing the Palestinian motif headgear and so on. They were not offences per se under s298 or s298A; and they would not be offences per se now. And I would suggest therefore, a careful understanding of the provisions now, other wise there is a serious risk that the public may be misled.
62. Now this issue of umbrellas and cause-related gatherings. You have got to differentiate between what this Bill does – clauses 39 and 40, taken from s298 and s298A – with gathering in protected places, or being in breach of the Public Order Act. If you gather in some places – in front of Parliament, in front of the Istana – gazetted protected places, then you may be committing an offence, not because you are carrying an umbrella with some motif or because you are wearing a particular headgear. But you are doing something in a protected place that the law prohibits you from doing. It does not relate to a specific, it does not mean that the underlying expression of your ideas about Palestine are in themselves an offence, no.
63. So again, with Ms Poa I would say, I understand the concerns, but please read the provisions carefully.
64. Mr Yip Hon Weng and Professor Begum and Mr Louis Ng asked, what measures are in place to address the root causes of racist conduct? How do we support victims of racism, and whether there are plans to complement measures under the Bill to support this. And I’ve explained that in quite considerable detail.
Foreign Influence (FI) Safeguards
65. Mr Mark Lee, Mr Zhulkarnain Abdul Rahim, Mr Parekh, and Dr Harun asked which entities would be designated under this Bill.
66. Clause 15 of the Bill describes what a race-based entity is. The definition has been kept somewhat broad, because the nature of malicious foreign influence, which can exploit a wide range of entities to further their own agenda, and undermine our racial harmony.
67. But, you know, as MOS Sun has mentioned, we intend to designate entities – we will take a practical and measured approach.
68. For a start, we only intend to designate clan and business associations that are linked to the Chinese, Malay and Indian races.
69. No other entities will be designated for now, though we will not preclude designating them in the future as the threat environment evolves.
70. On Mr Zhulkarnain’s query about whistleblowing channels, members of public who come across any activity which they consider suspicious or linked to foreign interference can let the Internal Security Department know.
71. Mr Lee asked if there are avenues to appeal against designations, and if there would be flexibility in the leadership requirements imposed on designated entities. Designated entities will be given 14 days to submit representations to the competent authority after they have been notified of their intended designation.
72. As part of their representations, the entity can explain why they think they should not be designated.
73. And the competent authority will take these representations into account when making a final decision on designation.
74. Designated entities can appeal to be exempted from some of the requirements, including the leadership requirements. My ministry will look into them and we are prepared to make exemptions on a case-by-case basis if sufficient reason is given.
75. They can also apply to the competent authority to have their designations cancelled instead of being varied, if there is a material change in their circumstances that no longer warrants designation.
76. Mr Dennis Tan, Ms Lim, Mr Yip, Mr Lee, Mr Parekh, and Dr Syed Harun asked the extent of foreign influence that exists in clans and business associations and if the foreign influence (FI) safeguards under the Bill would deter or act as a deterrence for individuals from participating in race-based activities, and if they would stifle the activities of such entities. There were some points made about the importance of Singaporeans and our associations and entities being able to interact with our foreigners and foreign entities.
77. For a start, let me make this clear. We agree entirely that Singapore must remain open and we must be able to reach out to the world; in fact, we have to, for our success. If you look at one of the underlying themes of speeches by various government leaders over the last 60 years, it is about being open, interacting with the world; economically, we will be finished if we don’t interact. Socially, we are such a small place, we need to get ideas from outside and then we need to interact and adapt the ideas that work for us to our own situation. Likewise, geopolitically too, Singapore survives by relying on being nimble, and that means understanding the world, and trying to keep a step ahead of others, that can only happen if you form international partnerships.
78. I don’t think there is any difference in viewpoints, or disagreement, that we need to attract the world and we need to form partnerships. The real issue is, with the good comes sometimes the bad, and clan associations, partnerships can potentially be vectors of influence from countries that want to influence our politics in Singapore. Is there evidence? There is certainly some reasons to be concerned. You see evidence all over the world. We have FICA, which was passed in this Parliament, where members of Parliament were subjected to various requirements. This doesn’t mean that all of you are, today, vectors of influence. We see that countries use legislators, MPs, Ministers, for pushing their own interests overseas. And we are taking precautionary measures. Likewise, we have identified this sector and we are taking the precautionary measures. So it’s really finding the right balance between remaining open and protecting ourselves from malicious foreign influence. And that’s what the safeguards in the Bill seek to do. Nothing in the Bill is meant to suggest that foreign influence is, in itself, undesirable. Designation under this Bill as a race-based entity does not imply any wrongdoing.
79. It simply means that the entity has engaged in activities that relate to race, which sometimes is its raison d’etre. We all recognise that these entities are important for Singapore, and they play a very constructive role. They help build social bonds, they preserve our traditions and cultures, they strengthen business networks, amongst the many other good things they do.
80. But at the same time, the nature of their activities makes them more susceptible to foreign influence, and if that foreign influence is malicious, then it can damage us, so we need to take some precautions. So under the MRHA, all religious groups are subject to such safeguards.
81. However, for this Bill, given that race-based entities are a more diverse group compared to religious groups, our approach is to have the safeguards apply only to a subset of designated entities and we believe that is enough to meet our policy intent.
82. Designated entities can continue to engage their counterparts overseas, including in the pursuit of cultural or commercial goals, and as I have said, designation in itself does not impute that they are guilty of any misconduct. And designated entities will only be subject to transparency requirements, but there are no prohibitions or implications on their activities in the first instance.
83. We have engaged many of these race-based entities, they understood and accepted the need for these safeguards to mitigate foreign influence risk.
84. Ultimately, our intent is to safeguard from malicious foreign influence, not to curtail legitimate exchanges, business deals, or trade promotion activities conducted by our clan and business associations.
85. Assoc Prof Razwana, Mr Lee, Mr Tan and Mr Parekh asked what would be considered foreign donations and foreign affiliations under the Bill, and how the Government would help entities to comply with the foreign influence safeguards. Clauses 13(5) and 14 of the Bill define “foreign donation” and “foreign affiliation”. And we are working out the reporting requirements, they will be prescribed in the Regulations.
86. But let me make it clear, there will be no prohibition on accepting foreign donations or having these foreign affiliations in the first instance. No prior or subsequent approval is required from the Ministry to accept these donations or to continue with these affiliations. The entities would have to declare them.
87. Similar to when such safeguards were introduced under the MRHA, my Ministry will provide an information kit in due course to guide designated entities in fulfilling the requirements, and will provide reasonable time for the entities to adjust to these changes.
88. Mr Yip and Mr Zhulkarnain asked how the Bill interacts with FICA. FICA is designed to apply when the risk is specific or when the risk is quite high because of the political nature of the entity or the individual. Whereas this Bill is intended to cover broad categories of race-based entities that are assessed to be susceptible to malicious foreign influence.
89. In 2024, we designated two politically significant persons under FICA, and issued account restriction directions to five social media platforms requiring them to block 95 social media accounts linked to a foreign network.
90. Mr Darryl David and Mr Yip asked about the effectiveness of the foreign influence safeguards.
91. The baseline safeguards that are in the Bill will not be able to completely eliminate the risk of foreign influence. Where we uncover specific risk or heightened risk, we will have to consider issuing restraining orders to impose additional measures against a foreign influence, or go to FICA and consider levers under FICA to deal with the risk.
92. It depends on the facts, it depends on the level of threat.
93. And that could include imposing additional restrictions on leadership, requiring the office bearers, all the office bearers should be Singapore citizens. iIf we are of the view that the designated entities have a higher risk of foreign influence. This is therefore the two-tier approach - Baseline safeguards, and then additional orders if there are higher risks, which is a two-tier approach suggested by Mr David.
Race-Related Offences
94. Assoc Prof Razwana asked what mechanisms are in place to allow MHA to take down racially problematic materials that are hosted online, domestically or internationally.
95. Now this covers different legislation – there is the Broadcasting Act and there is the Online Criminal Harms Act. Bearing in mind that we do not control the platforms, and there is a limit to what we can do internationally, and even within Singapore. But the Bill complements the levers available under these other legislation, and we have some powers to deal with the content that seeks to undermine racial harmony in Singapore.
96. In addition to ROs that can be issued to take down such content, offences under the Bill are provided extra-territorial effect. That allows us to address persons in other jurisdictions who act in a manner prejudicial to our racial harmony. But actual enforcement is a separate question.
97. Dr Syed Harun and Ms Chandradas asked if offences under the Bill will have an impact on the Arts community and their work. Again, I go back to the point i made in response to Mr Giam and Ms Poa. If they have no concerns today on what they are doing, then they should have no concerns about what they will be doing tomorrow or the day after the Bill becomes Act and comes into force because the provisions are substantively similar.
98. Ms Chandradas asked about the defences under the Bill, and when they will apply. So if I can go back to the earlier point again, I would say in our speeches and in the points we make, we have to be careful not to frighten one community or another community as to what the Bill covers. I think an accurate understanding of the Bill, both within the chamber and outside the chamber, is necessary. Of course, the Bill has new provisions, the RO, the other levers beyond prosecution and the Presidential Council. But those are all additional measures, whereas previously, what we could do was to either charge or not charge the person. But in terms of what they can do, the two provisions, Section 298 and 298a, they are essentially carried over. And there are two separate debates, whether that is too restrictive, which is a point Ms Chandradas has alluded to briefly. That is a discussion for another day. But the question here is whether we can proceed with the Bill, which is in the terms that I have described.
99. Ms Chandradas asked about the defences under the Bill, and when they will apply. The defences are scoped to provide space for honest and fair discussions about race.
100. However, the defences will not apply for the offences of urging violence on the grounds of race or against a racial group or its members. And I do not think anyone here would suggest that we go that far. I took some trouble in my opening speech to draw the distinction between the way we approach this and the way many other countries approach this. When it crosses a line into hate speech or speech that advocates violence, we say no. In fact, regardless of which comment, whether it is defined by race or defined by some other characteristic, we say no. You cannot advocate violence. We have been very clear about it.
Community Remedial Initiative
101. Mr Yip, Mr Zhulkarnain, Mr Parekh, Mr David, Prof Razwana, Mr Giam, and Mr Vikram Nair asked for more details about the Community Remedial Initiative (CRI). Their questions have mostly been addressed in my earlier speech, and I also noted Mr Zhulkarnain and Mr David’s suggestions for the programme.
102. To sort of briefly recap, the programme is similar to the CRI in the MRHA. The current intent is for the CRI to apply, to conduct that potentially discloses offences under the Bill. But where the actions are serious, like incitement of violence, then it is not the intention to offer CRI. For those cases, the intention is to prosecute them.
103. And the other point, because this relates to race, the CRI will not be compulsory. But failure to complete the CRI can be considered by the Public Prosecutor in exercising prosecutorial discretion whether to charge or not to charge.
104. MHA will work closely with MCCY, OnePeople.sg, and community partners, on structuring, delivering, and monitoring the outcomes of such programmes.
105. For example, an example of a CRI could be requiring the alleged offender to make amends with the aggrieved community that he has, in some ways attacked and is in breach of the provisions, perhaps volunteer with the community. And if it’s properly structured, it can actually lead to better outcomes, than charging such a person and imposing a fine or sending him or her to jail – could lead to a better understanding, better appreciation. Hopefully, both sides will go away feeling better about it.
106. But Mr David is right that the content of each programme offered would have to be customised to some extent, depending on the specifics of the case. And individuals with entrenched racist views – there will be some – they cannot be forced to change their views or to express genuine remorse.
107. That said, I think it’s good that CRI is offered. It really gives the alleged offender an opportunity to learn from the mistakes of his actions, his racist conduct, and help sort of soothe communal tensions and repair the disrupted ties between the communities.
108. Mr Ng asked what programmes are available for individuals imprisoned for serious race-related offences, given that they may not be eligible for the CRI. Well, inmates undergo various programmes - I have spoken about it in extenso previously – including psychology-based correctional programmes to help address their thinking patterns related to offending, correct their behaviours, help them stay away from reoffending.
109. These are all part of Singapore Prison Service’s efforts to rehabilitate and reintegrate offenders as responsible and try and make them contributing members of society.
Other Suggestions
110. Before I conclude, I would like to address some of the other suggestions made by Members. Ms Joan Pereira and Assoc Prof Razwana asked how we can better integrate foreigners and new citizens into Singapore society. This is large topic, it’s outside the scope of the Bill. I will just make the point that the Government agrees this should be a priority and the point has been addressed elsewhere.
Conclusion
111. Sir, racial harmony is more than an ideal. It is the very foundation upon which Singapore’s success and identity are built. Singapore is an ‘outlier’ when compared to other multiracial countries in the world. We are racially diverse, yet we live in harmony and in a high-density city-state. This is as I have said, not a natural state of things.
112. It is sustained through a suite of policies, laws, programmes, and more fundamentally, by Singaporeans’ shared commitment to racial harmony. And this Bill reflects our collective resolve to cherish and protect this harmony, so that future generations of Singaporeans will continue to enjoy peace and progress for years to come.
