Delivered by NCMP Hazel Poa in Parliament on 5 February 2025, she emphasized the need for a careful balance between preserving racial harmony and protecting freedom of speech in Singapore, particularly in the context of the Maintenance of Racial Harmony Bill. While supporting laws to maintain public order and peace in a multi-racial society, she raised concerns regarding overly restrictive legislation stifling honest discussions on sensitive racial topics. In addition, she sought clarifications from the government on how the bill will be applied, including examples of prohibited behaviours and assurances that it will not unduly limit constructive dialogue or freedom of expression.
Mr Speaker Sir,
Racial and religious differences have always been challenging issues. With globalisation and the spread of different cultures and information both within countries and across borders, even more sensitivity is needed to deal with these topics. If and when discussions on race and religion cross certain boundaries and cause hurt, disharmony, hostility or even violence among communities, it would be appropriate for the State to intervene in the interest of maintaining public order and peace.
The Maintenance of Racial Harmony Bill that we are debating today needs to strike a fair and reasonable balance between the freedom of speech and expression, and the preservation of public order, peace, and racial harmony. This is a very fine balance.
PSP supports laws to protect our order and peace in our multi-racial and multi-religious country. Harmonious and peaceful relations between different races and religions is something that we should never take for granted in Singapore.
However, we also value the fact that freedom of speech and expression is a fundamental right enshrined in our Constitution. It is freedom of speech that allows for creativity, the exchange of ideas and opinions, and improvements beneficial to society. It is also freedom of speech that allows us to seek accountability from those in power.
While discussions involving race can be sensitive, but honest and responsible discussions on racial relations and topics are necessary for better inter-racial understanding and mutual respect. We must not allow such discussions to be stifled and driven underground by overly restrictive legislation. As such, we seek greater clarity from the Government on the type of behaviour or expressions that will be prohibited under the bill.
Firstly, can the Minister give us some examples of scenarios where, in the Ministry’s view, a Restraining Order would be needed to preserve public order and peace, and where we could not use any other existing legislation to achieve the same outcome of peace and order?
Secondly, while this Bill borrows the language found in the Maintenance of Religious Harmony Act, the phrase “an act that causes feelings of enmity, hatred, ill-will or hostility between different races in Singapore” is broad enough to potentially cover many instances over a whole spectrum of seriousness.
Singaporeans are therefore naturally concerned that the Government will use such executive powers to further restrict what Singaporeans can do or say. We would like to seek the Minister’s clarification on if, and if so, how, the use of this Act will be calibrated to ensure that a fair and appropriate balance will be struck between the right of Singaporeans to their freedom of speech and expression, and our public order and peace. We will set out a few examples here to frame this debate.
- The first is the incident involving Mr Shaik Amar who made comments about the Ethnic Integration Policy on social media in July 2024.
He had commented that the EIP does not benefit ethnic minority households and only causes them significant financial detriment when they sell their flats. While he received a Correction Direction under POFMA for this comment, would that attract a Restraining Order under this Bill?
Assuming the answer is yes, does this mean that there are potentially cases that could, and in practice would, attract both a Correction Direction under POFMA, and an RO under this Bill if the conditions are satisfied?
- The second is in relation to conflicts such as the Israel-Hamas war. I will provide three examples.
Firstly, will making comments such as “Free Palestine Now!” online attract a Restraining Order under this Bill? Such comments may be made online by a very large number of people. Considering that, what factors will push a case beyond the tipping point such that a Restraining Order will be imposed?
Furthermore, considering that millions of comments are posted every day on social media, practically speaking, how does the Ministry intend to monitor these comments? How much manpower and spending by the Ministry is justifiable to monitor comments like these?
Secondly, in February 2024, the Police stated that the use of phrases such as “from the river to the sea” can lead to racial tensions and may be an offence under Section 298A (a) of the Penal Code 1871[1], which will be abolished under this Bill. Would individuals who use phrases such as “from the river to sea, Palestine will be free”, online or offline, now be subject to a Restraining Order under this Bill or prosecuted under Clause 40 of the Bill?
Finally, what about individuals using an umbrella painted with watermelon images during their day to day, or wearing a keffiyeh at their university graduation ceremony[2]? Would individuals committing such acts be subject to a Restraining Order or prosecuted under Clause 40 of the Bill?
Sir, previous prosecutions and convictions under Section 298A have been for very egregious remarks or acts. For example, in 2017, Muslim imam Mr Nalla Mohamed Abdul Jameel Abdul Malik, was convicted under section 298A for promoting enmity between different religious groups. In 2015, Mr Amos Yee was convicted under section 298 of wounding the religious feelings of Christians for describing Jesus Christ in an offensive manner.
In other cases, AGC chose not to prosecute. These include Ms Amy Cheong’s hurtful remarks online regarding Malay weddings in 2013 and Ms Sangeetha Thanapal’s claim in 2018 that casual racism was common[3].
Will the enactment of this Bill lead to more types of actions and speech attracting Restraining Orders or prosecutions under Clause 40? Would the Minister issue Restraining Orders to Ms Amy Cheong or Ms Sangeetha Thanapal under the Bill if they said the same things today? Notably, Ms Sangeetha Thanapal’s comments had been made overseas, which is now explicitly covered by the Bill under Clause 38.
More critically, will the Bill be used to restrict discussion of racially sensitive topics such as the Ethnic Integration Policy, the deployment of Malay National Servicemen, the racial breakdown of death row inmates, or the CMIO model?
Next, we note that under the Maintenance of Religious Harmony Act, the Council has 30 days to make its recommendations to the President; under this Bill, that period has been extended to 44 days.
Given that a Restraining Order will take immediate effect upon its service on the person restrained before the Council makes its recommendations, we would like to ask for the reason for this extension from 30 to 44 days.
We are also concerned about the effect of clause 8(2)(d) and (e) on journalists and editors. Clause 8(2)(d) can prohibit a person from editing or contributing to “any publication”. Clause 8(2)(e) goes further to prohibit a person from holding office in any editorial board. Considering that the RO can be extended “one or more times” for up to 2 years each, this means that an editor/journalist could potentially be kept out of his work indefinitely. Can the Minister clarify whether our concerns are valid and how these two clauses will be used?
Mr Speaker, Mandarin please.
议长先生，
长期以来，种族和宗教都是个很敏感的话题。当种族和宗教的讨论导致社群之间产生不和谐、敌意甚至暴力，政府为了维护公共秩序与和平进行干预是恰当的。
今天二读的《维持种族和谐法案》需要在言论自由与维护公共秩序、和平及种族和谐之间取得良好的平衡。
我国是个多元种族和多元宗教的国家，我们的种族和宗教和谐，来之不易，不能视为理所当然。前进党因此支持制定法律来维护各种族和宗教之间的和谐。
然而，我们也珍视宪法所赋予我们的言论自由。言论自由是个促进创造力、社会改进、和思想交流的基本权利。言论自由也使我们能够追究当权者的责任。
虽然涉及种族的讨论可能很敏感，但为了促进种族间的理解和相互尊重，以诚实且负责任的方式讨论种族话题，是有必要的。
这些敏感的种族话题包括：建屋局的种族融合政策如何影响房价、我国的CMIO种族分类制度、死囚的种族分布、和马来国民服役人员的调配。虽然不是每个人都会同意这些言论，但是以理性、负责任、非恶意、非敌对的方式讨论这些课题，是能促进国家和社会的发展的。
新加坡现有的法律已经在许多方面约束了国人自由表达的能力，我们不希望看到这项法案更进一步扼杀言论。
我们希望政府能更清楚地说明政府将在什么情况下，发布限制令，对付哪些行为或表述。我们希望部长可以澄清，这项法案将如何在国人的言论自由权与公共秩序与和平之间取得公平适当的平衡。
Mr Speaker, PSP has serious concerns that the powers under this Bill will dampen important discussions. I have provided several examples of speech and actions which I hope that the Minister can clarify whether the powers in this Bill will be used against such speech or actions.
The Government already has many powers under laws such as the Internal Security Act, POFMA, and FICA to act against false speech, acts that threaten national security, and foreign interference in our politics. Protests are only allowed at Hong Lim Park, and protest permits are not granted for sensitive topics. The ability of Singaporeans to freely express themselves is already very circumscribed and limited by existing laws.
Recognising the importance of maintaining racial harmony, PSP will support this bill despite our serious reservations. But we hope greater clarity can be given in order not to dampen reasonable discussions or expressions involving race.
[1] https://www.police.gov.sg/media-room/news/20240213_media_reply_for_events_letters_for_palestine_with_love_from_singapore
[2] https://www.instagram.com/elijahtaypeng/reel/DCJoPp_Sf3r/
[3] https://singaporelegaladvice.com/law-articles/racial-enmity-sections-298-298a-penal-code/
