Maintenance of Racial Harmony Bill

Order for Second Reading read.

Mr Speaker: Minister for Home Affairs.

2.01 pm

The Minister for Home Affairs (Mr K Shanmugam): Mr Speaker, Sir, thank you. I move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time."

I will refer to this Maintenance of Racial Harmony Bill (RH Bill) as the RH Bill – short for racial harmony, which is somewhat similar sounding to the Maintenance of Religious Harmony Act, which we passed some time ago.

Sir, this Bill is linked to the next Bill, the Constitution of the Republic of Singapore (Amendment) Bill. The latter amends the President's powers under the Constitution to give effect to the proposals in this Bill. Sir, I seek your permission, to debate both Bills together.

Mr Speaker: Please proceed.

Mr K Shanmugam: Thank you, Sir. We will, of course, take the Constitution Bill through its formal stages separately later.

At present, dealing with the Maintenance of Racial Harmony Bill, there are powers to deal with conduct which threatens racial harmony, but what you see is that they are found in different pieces of legislation. What this Bill does is to bring those powers together in one place. And so, in that sense, it consolidates. And at the same time, by presenting it in this form, we seek to affirm the importance of racial harmony in Singapore.

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, 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 and racial harmony. That is a huge part of it. The law can set out a framework as to what you cannot do.

Sir, with your permission, may I ask the Clerks to distribute Annex 1?

Mr Speaker: Go ahead. [A handout was distributed to hon Members. Please refer to Annex 1.]

Mr K Shanmugam: Members can also access this material through the MP@SGPARL app.

The point that has been made by the Ministry of Home Affairs (MHA) through its press release, which I am sure the Members who are intending to speak on the Bill would have looked at, and 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.

As long as Members understand we are consolidating from different pieces of legislation and 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 does not create new provisions in a substantive manner.

There are some new provisions – you can see that in the Bill and in the press releases. But I am referring to the substantive provisions.

The Table in Annex 1 also provides a comparative reference between this Bill and the Maintenance of Religious Harmony Act as well as other legislation.

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. 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 Maintenance of Religious Harmony Act. Part 6 of the Bill on "Offences Relating to Race" – those are what I call the charging provisions – brings over the existing offences from the Penal Code.

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. I will explain that later.

Sir, first, I think the Bill itself is fairly clear cut. But why such a Bill? Why do we need this? It is not usual in many countries. I think that is a more fundamental, more important question. That is because we have always treated racial harmony as being fundamental in Singapore. This Bill has to be seen in that context. Multiracialism, underpinned by racial harmony, is a foundational principle for us.

Sir, as 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. The proximate cause were the racial riots of 1964. At that time, communal tensions were very high in both Singapore and Malaysia.

On 21 July 1964, riots started. That was during a procession to celebrate the Prophet Muhammad's birthday. A glass bottle was thrown into a crowd. The crowd had about 20,000 Malay celebrants. There was then an angry exchange between Malays in the crowd and some Chinese bystanders. That resulted in violence and the violence spread all across Singapore. That was the state of the tensions at that point. It lasted 17 days before the situation stabilised; 23 people died, more than 400 were injured.

Then, riots broke out again on 2 September 1964, between again the Malays and Chinese. That happened after a Malay trishaw rider was killed. The second time round, it took 12 days before calm was established; 13 people died and more than a hundred were injured.

The broader context for those tensions were the arguments between Singapore and Malaysia. These arguments then led to Singapore's separation from Malaysia.

Singapore's merger into the new Federation of Malaysia in 1963 had raised some very fundamental issues. Although the new state of Malaysia in 1963 had Malays, Chinese, Indians and Eurasians, amongst others, there were basic differences between Singapore and Kuala Lumpur on how the state was to be organised and, in particular, the approach towards multiracialism. Singapore wanted racial equality. Kuala Lumpur favoured race-based politics. The two approaches were not reconcilable.

The idea of a "Malaysian Malaysia", advocated by Singapore, brought about a very strong counter from the United Malays National Organisation (UMNO) leaders in Kuala Lumpur and Malaya. They saw this as a challenge to Malay dominance. Singapore then became an independent country.

On the day of our Independence on 9 August 1965, Mr Lee said – and these are very important words. He famously said, "We are going to have a multiracial 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."

These issues and the approaches exercised the minds of Mr Lee and his generation. The problems were seared into their minds. They had grown up in a Malaya where different races had lived together for generations as colonial subjects. 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.

Our founding leaders had seen how fragile a multiracial society could be. They wanted, as far as possible, to make Singapore a more racially equal society. That involved many tough decisions. For instance, the languages we speak. Some major Chinese organisations asked Mr Lee to make Chinese our only official language and the language of business. Mr Lee refused. He said on 3 October 1965 that, "although in Singapore 75% of the population is Chinese, the Malays form only 12%, never mind; Malay has become our national language, yet, Malay language, Chinese, Tamil and English are all equal."

The four official languages were given recognition by the Republic of Singapore Independence Act and also in the Constitution.

Another example: one of the first few constitutional amendments our first generation of leaders made was to create a Presidential Council for Minority Rights chaired by the Chief Justice. The Presidential Council for Minority Rights can veto any legislation that Parliament passes that it feels affects the rights and privileges of minorities in Singapore.

There were several other steps that were taken to focus on a Singaporean identity which would transcend race and religion.

It was an act of tremendous courage on the part of those leaders to do all of this. It would have been far easier for them to have said, "Okay, in Singapore, Chinese will be the sole official language and the Chinese will have several other legally recognised privileges."

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 the United Kingdom (UK), you generally have to speak English. So, it would have been very natural for some to have said in Singapore, Chinese should be the language of business, language of commerce and language of government. But we took a different path.

Over the years, our insistence on maintaining racial and religious harmony, and our zero tolerance for bigotry and hatred has made Singapore a very different place compared with others. 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.

Another global survey by the Pew Research Center 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.

The Government also periodically conducts domestic surveys on racial and religious harmony in Singapore. And so do non-Government entities. Most recently, in August of last year, my Ministry and the Ministry of Digital Development and Information (MDDI) polled more than 1,000 Singapore residents on their sentiments towards racial harmony.

With your permission, Sir, Mr Speaker, may I ask the Clerks to distribute Annex 2, which summarises the key findings from this poll?

Mr Speaker: Please go ahead. [A handout was distributed to hon Members. Please refer to Annex 2.]

Mr K Shanmugam: Members will see that the majority of the respondents felt that the current state of race relations in Singapore was good or very good. About half agreed that Singapore's laws were adequate to protect racial harmony, 6% disagreed and the rest were somewhere in-between. Most agreed that it was both the Government's and the community's responsibility to strengthen race relations.

What I would say to Members is that what we have in Singapore is actually not the natural order of things. Indeed, there is nothing natural about what we have in Singapore. We now have come to believe it to be natural. We have made it our second nature. But actually, it is not natural 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. That is the natural order of things. What we have in Singapore is we changed the natural order and made that changed situation second nature for us. So, this Bill has to be seen in that context.

When we consider our approach to multi-racialism and laws, it is also useful to look at the experience of other countries and see what we should do or should not do. Let us look at the developed world. Again, some examples. The UK, United States (US) and France have a majority white population, but also a long history of immigration. So, they have been multiracial longer than Singapore has been independent.

Race has been a flashpoint in these countries. Last year, the UK was hit with a wave of riots, between July and August 2024. The riots began with falsehoods. 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. 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. As of September last year, the police had arrested more than 1,200 persons.

This wave of riots is widely viewed as being among the most serious in British history. It exposed deep-seated racist sentiments and also other grievances, relating to immigration. There have also been other riots in the UK, arising from distrust between communities.

There was a survey in 2021. That survey was conducted by the King's College, University of Manchester and the University of Saint Andrews. The survey found that more than one-third of persons from minority groups in the UK had actually experienced racist assaults, meaning physical attacks. One-third.

Turning to the US, we also see evidence that race and attitudes towards racial issues, seems to divide American society. 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.

And if you turn to France, a report that was published in 2023 found that 91%, more than nine in 10 of black people had been victims of racial discrimination either "often" or "from time to time". Reports of anti-semitic and anti-Muslim acts increased by almost 300% and 30% respectively, while other types of racist acts increased by around 20%. Racial tensions are present and spill into serious violence even in countries where people do not look very different from each other.

If you look at the 1994 Rwandan genocide, this is one of several examples in Africa. A more recent example is the crisis in Sudan, specifically, the Darfur region. And as a result of the crisis, millions have been displaced from their homes. The British Broadcasting Corporation recently described the situation in Sudan as the world's worst humanitarian crisis. In our region, too, many countries have faced serious and long-standing conflict along racial lines, Myanmar being one of them.

So, looking across these countries, we see three issues.

First, in allowing hate speech. Many of the countries I have cited as examples earlier, such as the US, UK and France, they allow denigration of other races or religions. In the US, the Supreme Court has said that inflammatory speech, even speech advocating violence, can be protected. In Singapore, we take a different approach.

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.

We must not let this happen here. 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 have said in my Ministerial Statement.

The second lesson that I think that we can learn is and this is an age-old issue: the exploitation of race for politics. Race-related issues have immense power to mobilise people, identity politics basically and it is deeply visceral. Politicians know it, and many exploit it to score political points and win elections.

In recent years, you see a trend in many countries, including the West, politicians encouraging people to think along racial lines and adopt a "us versus them" mentality. And if this is repeated both during electoral cycles and off-electoral cycles, the racial divisions are then reinforced and become even more entrenched in society. We take a tough stance on this. Again, I trust all Members will agree with us that the exploitation of race has no place in our politics.

Third, social segregation. The neighbours we have and our day-to-day interactions with them affect how we perceive the wider society. Racially segregated neighbourhoods limit opportunities to build trust between different communities.

The University of California did a study in 2021 and found that racially segregated residential neighbourhoods in the US remain the "lynchpin" that sustains systemic racial inequality. This is a consequence of years of residential segregation based on race and the issue is not unique to the US.

After the riots in 2001, the government in UK commissioned a study. That study found that physical racial segregation of housing estates was a key contributor for the riots then. The report described most of the white communities as living "parallel lives" from minority Asian and black groups. It commented that, "there is little wonder that ignorance about each other's communities can easily grow into fear".

If we were to look at France, residential segregation can also be found in the banlieues. These are suburban areas predominantly inhabited by immigrant families usually of Arab or other African descent. Around five million people, or about 8% of the French population, live in areas classified as banlieues. 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. Again, here, we have done it differently in Singapore.

Previous Governments had the foresight to introduce the Ethnic Integration Policy (EIP) in our public housing estates. EIP has ensured a mix of races in our public housing estates. 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, similar to what is happening in many other countries and similar to what was happening in Singapore before we introduced the EIP.

If that happens, soon, schools in those areas would also become segregated. Children would have less diverse social circles and limited exposure to different cultures. They would grow up with less understanding, trust and comfort with other communities. They will carry this into adulthood and into workplaces.

We put in place rules to maintain certain racial proportions in public housing, so that we would have mixing across races in every estate. Singaporeans generally appreciate the intent of this policy. 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.

In the light of these lessons, what is our approach to maintaining racial harmony? I will say there are two aspects.

One, we have to have a strong legal framework which sets clear boundaries on what is not allowed in Singapore. Second, with that framework in place, we would 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 is where policies come in. So, the thousands of activities that are carried out every weekend, bringing people together and 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 that Singapore has progressed substantively on this front.

So, let me start with the first aspect: our a strong legal framework. Our Constitution guarantees that all persons are equal before the law and entitled to equal protection under the law. So, it is the responsibility of the Government to care for the interests of the racial minorities. Minority representation in Parliament is guaranteed through our Group Representation Constituency (GRC) system.

Other legislation also deal with these issues. Most recently, the Workplace Fairness Bill prohibits workplace discrimination based on some characteristics, including race. This means an employer cannot make an adverse employment decision because of the race of the jobseeker or employee. 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.

Beyond that, of course, our Penal Code also sets out what conduct is not acceptable and that would include conduct in the context of race. These laws have generally served their intended purpose. The Maintenance of Racial Harmony Bill continues with that approach. 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 and 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. Of course, there are some people who will still have some different viewpoints but, on the whole, it is 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.

While I do not want to go into a discussion of the policies, maybe I can refer to a poll. The 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. That is in the context where, in many parts of the world, race relations have actually regressed. IPS and OnePeople.sg, also conducted a study based on a survey last year involving 4,000 Singaporean residents.

Mr Speaker, Sir, with your permission, may I ask the Clerk to distribute Annex 3, which summarises the key findings of this study?

Mr Speaker: Yes, please proceed. [A handout was distributed to hon Members. Please refer to Annex 3.]

Mr K Shanmugam: Thank you, Sir. This study found that nearly two-thirds, 65.4%, of respondents rated Singapore's racial and religious harmony as high or very high. That is an increase of about 8% from 2018/2019, when 57.1% said that. 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 spike.

But we cannot take this state of affairs for granted. We are in an age when identity politics is on the rise globally and we cannot cut ourselves off from the world. With that background, Sir, I will turn to the Bill itself.

Essentially, the Bill has five aspects or five proposals.

First, it brings over existing race-related offences in the Penal Code.

Second, it introduces the Community Remedial Initiative (CRI). 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.

Third, the Bill seeks to establish a Restraining Order regime.

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.

Fifth, it introduces safeguards against foreign influence through race-based entities.

The 2024 poll on racial harmony, which I referred to, shows that the public strongly support various proposals in this Bill. Nonetheless, during public consultations, one common comment that we received was that this Bill only prevents racial disharmony and it does not promote racial harmony.

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. I explained the point earlier: you cannot, by law, force people to get along better with each other. That is to come through government policies, through the framework, the structure of society and how we build that DNA into society over time. And that is what we have been doing.

Laws play an important role in that because if you allow bad behaviour, then these policies would not 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 a small minority usually – laws are necessary, usually only as regards a small minority of people – then, if you do not allow for that behaviour, then there is a framework and within that, you can promote policies that will enhance racial harmony.

I will refer specifically to two proposals in this Bill, one relating to race-related offences and the other CRI. My colleague, the Minister of State Sun Xueling, will cover the rest.

First, on race-related offences. They are covered under clauses 39 and 40 of the Bill.

Clause 39 takes what is already an offence today, that is, 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.

Clause 40 brings over the substance of existing race-related offences in the Penal Code, which deal with threats to racial harmony. These are: section 298, which concerns acts that wound the racial feelings of any person; and section 298A, which concerns acts that promote enmity between racial groups. In bringing these offences over, we have made certain clarifications.

In particular, we have received public feedback that the term "wound racial feelings" lacks clarity. Therefore, clause 40(2) replaces the term "wound racial feelings" with objective descriptions, so, at least, more objective descriptions, which are, essentially, "insults, vilifies, denigrates, threatens or abuses on the basis of race". 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.

We have also aligned these offences with the corresponding offences in the Maintenance of Religious Harmony Act as we take an equally strong stance in dealing with threats to racial harmony and religious harmony. First, the penalties for offences in this Bill are the same as the Maintenance of Religious Harmony Act.

Second, we have also introduced defences for offences under clause 40 that are already present in the Maintenance of Religious Harmony Act. These are 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. The defence of pointing out, in good faith, any matters for the purpose of bringing about a removal of those matters.

And similar to the Maintenance of Religious Harmony Act, there will also be extraterritorial coverage for race-related offences. If the offence is committed overseas but targets Singapore and has an impact in Singapore, it will be covered.

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. That said, while there are offences in the Maintenance of Religious Harmony Act that are tiered, depending on whether the act is committed by a religious leader or a lay person, this Bill makes no such differentiation for obvious reasons.

The law today does not distinguish between different categories of offenders for race-related offences. The distinction we had drawn in the Maintenance of Religious Harmony Act was unique because in the context of religion, it reflects a greater risk posed by the actions of religious leaders who exercise formal religious authority and there is no equivalent in the context of race. Instead, all persons are held to the same standard since the acts of any individual can threaten racial harmony. Again, this only reflects the existing law and does not expand the scope of criminal liability.

Next, I will move to the CRI. Our starting point is this: racial incidents harm both the victim as well as the ties between the races. And criminal prosecution may be necessary, but it cannot, by itself, mend the community ties. Thus, if you have an offender, he might be offered an opportunity to participate in Community Remedial programmes as an alternative to prosecution. This is similar to the CRI in the Maintenance of Religious Harmony Act and we seek to achieve two policy objectives.

First, reconciliation. 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, creates a bond, a bridge and strengthens mutual understanding.

Second, rehabilitation. It gives the offender the opportunity to learn from his mistake. Clause 41(2) of the Bill provides for the Minister to appoint community partners to deliver the programmes and MHA intends to work with OnePeople.sg and the Ministry of Culture, Community and Youth (MCCY) to design suitable programmes based on the context of the different types of offensive conduct.

These programmes will have three broad elements. First, raising awareness of how the alleged offender's racist conduct impacts others. Second, initiating action by requiring the alleged offender to make amends with the aggrieved individual and community through volunteer work and other suitable engagements. Third, by encouraging amity by arranging guided reflection sessions with the alleged offender and aggrieved individual or community.

But as clause 41(4) provides, it is not compulsory for an alleged offender to complete the programmes, but 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. 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.

Sir, in our multiracial 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. 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.

Mr Speaker, Sir, what we are trying to achieve in Singapore is not easy. It is, in fact, very difficult and very hard work. But 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. That has been, if I may say so, the genius of Singapore. From many, one; but without erasing multiplicity.

We could not have done this without simultaneously fostering understanding, trust and acceptance amongst our many, and at the same time, making clear that we will not tolerate any bigotry or hatred or intolerance that threatens the one people that we have become.

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. 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.

Mr Speaker, I seek the support of all Members for this Bill. Let us send a strong signal to all the nations of the world that 60 years after we gained Independence, Singapore will remain a multiracial nation. That we will not be a Malay nation, a Chinese nation, or an Indian nation. That every Singaporean will have his place here and that he or she will be respected, and we will all be equal: language, culture, race, religion. [Applause.]

Minister of State Sun Xueling will now take the House through the remaining proposals in the Bill.

Question proposed.

Mr Speaker: Minister of State Sun Xueling.

2.45 pm

The Minister of State for Home Affairs (Ms Sun Xueling): Mr Speaker, the Minister for Home Affairs has provided the context and set out the broad rationale for the Maintenance of Racial Harmony Bill. He also explained two of the five proposals on race-related offences and the Community Remedial Initiative (CRI).

In my speech, I will provide details on the remaining three proposals: first, establishing a Restraining Order regime to enable the Government to act quickly and pre-emptively against content that threatens racial harmony; second, establishing the Presidential Council for Racial and Religious Harmony to advise on matters relating to the maintenance of racial and religious harmony in Singapore; and third, introducing safeguards against malicious foreign influence for race-based entities.

I will start with the Restraining Order regime. This lever is not new in our statutes. The Maintenance of Religious Harmony Act already has a Restraining Order regime against content that threatens religious harmony. This was deemed necessary because the Internet, social media and smartphones can enable offensive content to go viral very quickly.

A 2024 poll conducted by MDDI, involving more than 1,000 Singapore residents, provided three insights: first, one in two respondents have encountered content in the online space that might be considered racist or racially insensitive; second, two in three agreed that allowing racially offensive content to spread could threaten racial harmony; and third, seven in 10 agreed with the need for racially offensive content to be removed as quickly as possible.

The Government shares the view that there should be levers to quickly remove content that could undermine our racial harmony and prevent such content from being further disseminated. Therefore, clause 8 of the Bill will enable the Minister for Home Affairs to make Restraining Orders against persons involved in the communication, production or distribution of content that prejudices the maintenance of racial harmony in Singapore. This will complement existing levers, such as the Broadcasting Act and Online Criminal Harms Act, which provide ex-post powers against egregious race-related content on platforms, such as social media services.

Specifically, a racial content Restraining Order under the Bill may do one or more of the following: (a) prohibit a person from communicating or distributing specified information or material; (b) prohibit a person from addressing a specified audience on a specified subject; (c) require a person to take all reasonably practicable steps to ensure that any specified information or materials are no longer available to the general public in Singapore; (d) prohibit a person from printing, editing, assisting, or contributing to, any publication or a specified publication; and (e) prohibit a person from holding office in an editorial board or committee of any publication.

There is one area where race is in a slightly different position as compared with religion, with regard to their respective roles in politics in Singapore. That difference is reflected in the difference between the Restraining Order regime under the Bill, and that in the Maintenance of Religious Harmony Act.

Religion is a deeply personal issue. We have, as a society, emphasised that as a multi-religious but secular state, religion should not be mixed with politics. This is a foundational principle of our society.

In the context of race, we have laws which deal with communal politics. But given our multiracial community, race features in some of our political structures. For example, we have the GRCs. We also have constitutional provisions to ensure that a President from a minority race will be elected periodically. Good faith discussions about race have always been an important part of our political discourse and will continue to be so. It would therefore not be right or possible to completely disallow racial discourse in politics. Thus, this will not be one of the grounds for the issuance of a racial content Restraining Order in this Bill. However, any behaviour that creates enmity between races, such as whipping up of communal feelings, denigration of a person’s race or encouragement of violence, have been and will continue to be prohibited by the law.

The Restraining Order takes immediate effect once issued and this mirrors the amended Restraining Order process when the Maintenance of Religious Harmony Act was amended in 2019. There is no need to first establish that the person is engaging in criminal conduct, as the intent is to quickly stop the spread of content that could potentially undermine social cohesion. Failure to comply with the Restraining Order will be an offence.

The Government will be very careful when exercising its powers to issue Restraining Orders. The fact that no Restraining Orders have been issued to date, since the Maintenance of Religious Harmony Act was introduced in 1990, is reflective of this. But neither is this an indication that the Restraining Order regime is not necessary. On the contrary, the mere existence of the regime is a deterrent against conduct that disrupts religious harmony. The same logic applies to the Restraining Order regime under this Bill.

The issuance of Restraining Orders will be subject to stringent safeguards. All Restraining Orders will be reviewed by a Presidential Council for Racial and Religious Harmony, which I will elaborate on in the next proposal. The person who is issued a racial content Restraining Order will be able to make representations to the Presidential Council for Racial and Religious Harmony. The Presidential Council for Racial and Religious Harmony’s independent recommendation on the Restraining Order will thereafter be sent to the President, followed by the Cabinet’s advice to the President. If the Cabinet’s advice is different from the Presidential Council for Racial and Religious Harmony’s recommendation, the President will be able to act in his discretion to confirm, cancel or vary the Restraining Order.

Moving to the next proposal, clause 3 in this Bill will establish the Presidential Council for Racial and Religious Harmony, which will replace the existing Presidential Council for Religious Harmony. The Presidential Council for Racial and Religious Harmony will comprise representatives from the major racial and religious communities in Singapore and those who have distinguished themselves in public service or community relations in Singapore. As with the existing Presidential Council for Religious Harmony, our intent is to ensure that the new Presidential Council for Racial and Religious Harmony adequately represents the racial and religious diversity in our society.

The proposal to replace the existing Presidential Council for Religious Harmony with the Presidential Council for Racial and Religious Harmony recognises that issues of race may have religious dimensions and vice versa. Therefore, having a single council would facilitate consultation by the Minister or Parliament on issues given the close relationship between race and religion in Singapore.

To this end, the Presidential Council for Racial and Religious Harmony will have the following functions: one, to consider and report to the Minister or Parliament on matters affecting the maintenance of racial and religious harmony in Singapore which are referred to the Presidential Council for Racial and Religious Harmony by the Minister or by Parliament; and two, to consider and make recommendations to the President on Restraining Orders.

In the context of this proposal, we will be introducing the Constitution of the Republic of Singapore (Amendment) Bill. The Bill comprises amendments to the Constitution to enable the President to act in his discretion: (a) in deciding whether to act on the Presidential Council for Minority Rights’ advice on Presidential Council for Racial and Religious Harmony appointments; and (b) in confirming, cancelling or varying a Restraining Order in cases where the Cabinet’s advice is different from the Presidential Council for Racial and Religious Harmony’s recommendation. These are the same powers that the President has today in relation to the Presidential Council for Religious Harmony and we are extending it to the new Presidential Council for Racial and Religious Harmony.

We have consulted the President on these amendments as they pertain to his discretionary powers. The President supports the amendments.

Moving to the last proposal, we want to safeguard our racial harmony from malicious foreign influence. Our starting point is this: as a small, open and digitally inclusive society, Singapore is vulnerable to external actors exerting malicious foreign influence to achieve their own agenda. We had thus introduced safeguards against malicious foreign influence for religious groups under the Maintenance of Religious Harmony Act in 2019. Similarly, entities that promote the interests of a racial group or discuss issues relating to race are potential entry points for malicious foreign influence, which may seek to exploit race for their own agenda and undermine our racial harmony.

Singaporeans understand the foreign influence risks. The same MDDI poll I mentioned earlier provided the following insights: one, nearly seven in 10 respondents agreed that Singapore’s racial harmony could be threatened by malicious foreign influence; two, more than seven in 10 respondents agreed that there should be laws to protect race-based entities from malicious foreign actors.

Clause 15 empowers a competent authority to designate a race-based entity if considered necessary or expedient to pre-empt, prevent or reduce any foreign influence that may undermine racial harmony in Singapore. An entity may be designated by the competent authority if it: one, represents or promotes the social, economic, political, educational, linguistic, cultural or other interests of any race; or two, discusses any issue relating to any race.

We recognise that there is a wide range of entities that engage with race-related issues. As a policy stance, we will start off in a practical and measured manner by only designating race-based entities assessed to have a higher potential of being vectors for malicious foreign influence, rather than subjecting all race-based entities to the measures.

In the first instance, we will designate clan associations and business associations linked to the Chinese, Malay and Indian races. We will need time to assess the entities in these categories before we can inform them whether they will be designated. Clans and business associations, including those focused on trade promotion that are assessed not to be linked to the Chinese, Malay and Indian races, will not be designated at this juncture. However, we do not preclude designating such entities in the future, as the foreign influence landscape evolves.

I understand that there may be some anxiety amongst business associations as to whether they will be designated. I will make two points: first, designation is not a reflection of any wrongdoing by the entity and should not be perceived as such; second, business associations and organisations whose objects, purposes or activities do not relate to any race, will not be designated. Each designation decision will be made holistically and on its own merits. The list of designated entities will be made public to promote transparency.

Clauses 18, 19, 20, 23 and 24 of the Bill will introduce baseline measures against malicious foreign influence that designated race-based entities will have to comply with. These baseline measures are similar to those that all religious groups under the Maintenance of Religious Harmony Act have to comply with.

First, designated entities will need to disclose donations accepted from foreign or anonymous sources. The disclosure requirements will be set out in the subsidiary legislation and will take reference from the Maintenance of Religious Harmony Act as much as possible.

Second, designated entities will need to disclose foreign affiliations. This refers to arrangements or agreements where foreign persons or organisations have a position of control or power over the race-based entity.

Third, designated entities will need to disclose the leadership composition of their governing body.

Fourth, designated entities will need to comply with the following leadership requirements: one, their responsible officers must be Singapore Citizens or Singapore Permanent Residents (PRs). Responsible officers include the chairperson of the board of directors, the chief executive officer or the company secretary of a company; or the president, secretary and treasurer of a society; and two, the majority of the governing body, or anyone exercising functions analogous to a governing body member, are required to be Singapore Citizens.

For the first three measures, I wish to highlight that the focus is on disclosure. There will not be a blanket prohibition for designated entities to stop accepting foreign donations or to end foreign affiliations. They just need to disclose these matters on an annual basis to MHA.

The Government is prepared to grant exemptions to specific baseline measures on a case-by-case basis.

Clause 32 provides an avenue for designated entities to apply to the Minister for exemption from some or all of the baseline measures. There is a similar process for religious groups under the Maintenance of Religious Harmony Act. All entities will be notified ahead of being designated and will be provided time to submit their representations.

Clause 27 empowers the Minister to issue foreign influence Restraining Orders to impose stepped-up measures on a specific race-based entity. The intent is to pre-empt, prevent or reduce any malicious foreign influence affecting the entity which may undermine racial harmony and present a threat to public peace and public order. This is the same threshold for a foreign influence Restraining Order to be issued under the Maintenance of Religious Harmony Act.

These stepped-up measures against a designated entity may do one or more of the following:

(a) Prohibit the entity from accepting any donation from a specified foreign principal or any anonymous donation;

(b) Require the entity to return or dispose of any donation from a specified foreign principal or any anonymous donation;

(c) Prohibit the entity from forming or maintaining a specified foreign affiliation; and/or

(d) Prohibit the entity from appointing, admitting or retaining a specified individual – whether or not the individual is a Singapore Citizen – as a member of its governing body, or require the entity to remove any individual who is not or who ceases to be a Singapore Citizen as a member of its governing body.

These powers will, amongst others, mitigate the risk of Singapore Citizens becoming proxies for a foreign principal to exert influence over the race-based entity. Of note, while this policy intent is also relevant for religious groups, such a lever is not currently present in the Maintenance of Religious Harmony Act. Therefore, the Maintenance of Religious Harmony Act will be amended to introduce a similar provision.

Foreign influence Restraining Orders will also be reviewed by the Presidential Council for Racial and Religious Harmony, and must be confirmed by the President, similar to the racial content Restraining Orders I spoke about earlier. Mr Speaker, in Mandarin, please.

(In Mandarin): [Please refer to Vernacular Speech.] Today, we are introducing the Maintenance of Racial Harmony Bill. This Bill was announced by then-Prime Minister Lee in his 2021 National Day Rally Speech. At that time, we were in the thick of the COVID-19 pandemic and you might recall that several racist incidents were widely publicised on social media. It reminds us that although Singapore has come a long way in our race relations since our early years, racial harmony is not the natural order of things. We have to continue to work at it.

This Bill is the latest in our suite of measures to strengthen social cohesion and safeguard racial harmony in Singapore.

This is a new Bill but, in fact, much of what is in the Bill is not new. Similar provisions already exist in the Maintenance of Religious Harmony Act, which was enacted in 1990 and amended in 2019. This Bill aligns what we have for both race and religion, since the objectives of the Maintenance of Religious Harmony Act also apply in the context of racial harmony.

This Bill has five key proposals:

(a) port over existing race-related offences in the Penal Code;

(b) introduce the CRI;

(c) establish the Presidential Council for Racial and Religious Harmony;

(d) establish the Restraining Order regime; and

(e) introduce safeguards against foreign influence for race-based entities.

I will further elaborate on the proposals dealing with the Restraining Order regime and safeguards against foreign influence for race-based entities.

The Bill will enable the Minister for Home Affairs to make Restraining Orders against persons involved in the communication, production and distribution of content that prejudices the maintenance of racial harmony in Singapore. The Restraining Order regime allows us to take action pre-emptively against conduct that has the potential to inflame tensions between racial groups before it goes viral and causes irreparable damage to our social cohesion.

This will complement existing levers, such as the Broadcasting Act and Online Criminal Harms Act, which provide ex-post powers against egregious race-related content on platforms such as social media services.

I wish to assure Members that the Government will be very careful when exercising its power to issue Restraining Orders. The fact that no Restraining Orders have been issued to date since the Maintenance of Religious Harmony Act was introduced in 1990 is reflective of this. Restraining Orders are also subject to a variety of safeguards. For instance, they must be reviewed by the Presidential Council for Religious Harmony.

The introduction of the Restraining Order regime is in line with the public's views that racially offensive content should be removed quickly to prevent the erosion of racial harmony. The Restraining Order is intended to provide more levers to preserve our social cohesion, not to silence legitimate opinions on race even if the Government may disagree with them.

The last proposal in this Bill will introduce safeguards against malicious foreign influence. As we know, Singapore is vulnerable to external actors exerting malicious foreign influence to achieve their own agenda. They may do so in many ways, for instance, by seeding ideas that are incompatible with our multiracial society. Entities that promote the interests of a racial group or discuss issues relating to race are therefore potential entry points for such malicious foreign influence.

We recognise that there is a wide range of entities that engage with race-related issues. As a policy stance, we will start off in a practical and measured manner by only designating race-based entities assessed to have a higher potential of being vectors for malicious foreign influence, rather than subjecting all race-based entities to the measures.

In the first instance, we will designate clan associations and business associations linked to the Chinese, Malay and Indian races. We will need time to assess these entities in these categories before we can inform them whether they will be designated. Clans and business associations, including those focused on trade promotion, that are assessed to be not linked to the Chinese, Malay and Indian races will not be designated at this juncture. However, we do not preclude designating such entities in the future as the foreign influence landscape evolves.

I understand that there may be some anxiety amongst business associations as to whether they will be designated. Here, I would like to make two points. First, business associations and organisations whose objects, purposes or activities do not relate to any race will not be designated. Second, designation is not a reflection of any wrongdoing by the entity and should not be perceived as such.

Each designation decision will be made holistically and based on its own merits. The list of the designated entities will be made public to promote transparency. Our estimate is that the designations will cover more than 300 race-based entities in the first instance.

The baseline measures for designated race-based entities are similar to those that all religious groups are currently required to comply with under the Maintenance of Religious Harmony Act. Designated entities will need to disclose foreign donations and anonymous donations, foreign affiliations and their leadership compositions. They will also need to comply with certain leadership requirements, such as the requirement for their top office-bearers to be Singapore Citizens or PRs.

All entities will be informed of MHA's intention to designate them and will be given 14 days to make representations or seek clarifications before the designation takes place. The Government is also prepared to grant exemptions to specific baseline measures on a case-by-case basis.

To be clear, the baseline measures for designated race-based entities are meant to be a preventive measure. Being designated does not mean the entity is being targeted or has been compromised by a foreign actor. We are also not instructing designated race-based entities to stop receiving foreign donations or to end any foreign affiliations. They just need to disclose these matters on an annual basis to MHA. When subsequently operationalising the Bill, MHA will provide an information kit to designated entities to guide them in complying with the requirements.

(In English): Mr Speaker, Sir, racial harmony will always remain a work-in-progress in Singapore. We build on efforts and learn from the lessons of the past. It is also our responsibility to plant new seeds in accordance with new circumstances and realities. This Bill does that.

The Government will continue to do our part, but it will take a whole-of-society effort to sustain the progress we have made so that future generations of Singaporeans too will enjoy the peace and harmony that we enjoy today.

Mr Speaker: Mr Yip Hon Weng.

3.11 pm

Mr Yip Hon Weng (Yio Chu Kang): Mr Speaker, Sir, this Bill is timely and necessary. Racial harmony is not something we can take for granted. It is not just about avoiding conflict. It is about creating a society where we all feel at home.

This Bill possesses the potential to achieve its objectives. However, its success depends on how it is implemented and perceived by the community. I have some clarifications.

First, Mr Speaker, Sir, I have clarifications about the racial content Restraining Orders in Part 3 of the Bill. These are important tools. But like all tools, they need to be handled carefully. The power of racial content Restraining Orders is undeniable, but with that power comes an inherent challenge: balancing enforcement with the preservation of freedom of expression. How do we ensure that these orders are not misused to stifle legitimate discourse?

These includes artistic expressions, like parodies, satire or critiques of societal issues that touch on race. While some content may indeed cross the line, how do we draw boundaries between harmful speech and those forms of expression that are vital for a vibrant and open society? Could the current approach inadvertently silence voices that challenge the status quo in a way that promotes reflection and growth? How will we ensure that these laws do not become a tool for shutting down uncomfortable but necessary conversations about race and identity?

Education is as critical as enforcement. Are there plans to pair these measures with public campaigns that teach empathy, respect and dialogue? Racial harmony is not just about avoiding offence. It is about understanding each other's struggles and aspirations. Beyond penalties, how does this Bill encourage connection?

Laws alone do not build harmony. Harmony thrives when people see each other as neighbours, not strangers. How can this legislation inspire bridge-building between communities?

Second, Mr Speaker, Sir, Singapore's openness is undoubtedly a strength, but it also makes us vulnerable to external risks. Part 4 of the Bill rightly addresses the challenge of foreign influence. However, it is critical that we proceed carefully to avoid unintended consequences.

A recurring phrase in the Bill states that "it is for the accused to prove, on the balance of probabilities, that the accused took all reasonable steps to comply." This wording imposes a significant burden of proof on individuals, particularly volunteers who already juggle public service responsibilities. The penalties involved are substantial and this could inadvertently discourage Singaporeans and PRs from stepping forward to take on leadership roles in local associations. How can we ensure that this legislation does not unintentionally deter participation in community and cultural leadership?

Moreover, how do we define and differentiate "foreign influence" from "global collaboration"?

Many local associations maintain deep historical ties with overseas organisations, preserving our cultural heritage over decades, if not centuries. Could the broad definition of "foreign affiliation" unintentionally create barriers for such groups? Would this legislation impact non-profit or cultural organisations with harmless international connections? Transparent and proportionate enforcement will be critical to allaying such concerns.

Additionally, I seek clarification on how this Bill will interact with the Foreign Interference (Countermeasures) Act (or FICA) passed in 2021. Are there overlapping provisions and, if so, how will both pieces of legislation complement one another? Clarity is essential to avoid unnecessary duplication of compliance requirements.

Finally, how do we measure the effectiveness of these safeguards in Part 4? Regular reviews and transparent monitoring will be necessary to ensure the measures effectively strengthen racial harmony without hindering meaningful international partnerships or discouraging our community's engagement with global networks.

Third, Mr Speaker, Sir, I am particularly encouraged by the CRI in clause 41. Offering an alternative to prosecution is a progressive step, but it also raises a few questions too. How do we decide who qualifies for this programme? And how will it address the underlying prejudices or misunderstandings that led to the offense? We should also evaluate its impact. Will participants truly understand the importance of racial harmony or will they simply view it as another box to tick?

Community involvement is key. Will grassroots leaders and organisations play a role in shaping or running these programmes? Their involvement could bring authenticity and trust to the process. What happens if someone does not complete the programme? Will there be room for appeals or second chances? And how does this initiative fit into the overall Bill? Could it serve as a softer, community-based complement to the more stringent Restraining Orders?

Lastly, Mr Speaker, Sir, policies alone do not build harmony. People do. That is why constructive engagement with the public is so important. Part 5 of the Bill outlines oversight mechanisms. Will there be regular public consultations to ensure these measures remain relevant and effective? Listening to people's lived experiences can make our policies stronger.

How will the Presidential Council for Racial and Religious Harmony work with communities on the ground? Solutions must feel inclusive and co-created, not imposed from above. Education is critical too. How can we make public awareness campaigns engaging for everyone to understand their role in maintaining harmony? Empowered communities are harmonious communities.

In conclusion, Mr Speaker, Sir, Singapore's journey towards racial harmony has not been without its challenges. The painful lessons of the 1950s and 1960s – the racial unrest, the scars of the Maria Hertogh riots – serve as stark reminders of how fragile harmony can be. But they also gave rise to a commitment, a collective will, to build something stronger, something lasting. We are here today because of the hard work, the courage and the vision of those who came before us, who understood that racial harmony is not just a hope, it is a necessity.

We have come far. The 2023 Gallup World Poll ranked us first among 135 countries as a great place for racial minorities to live – 92% of those polled said they felt welcomed. Yet, we cannot let these positive numbers lull us into complacency. The 2024 MDDI poll also reminds us that nearly half of our fellow Singaporeans still see racism as a problem and more than half have experienced racial insensitivity online. These are not just statistics. They are a call to action.

We must continue to push forward. We must strive for an environment where every Singaporean, whether born here or new to our shores, understands that racial harmony is not just a policy – it is a shared responsibility. There is no place in Singapore for the biases that divide us. We must make it clear, now and always, that racism has no place here.

Mr Speaker, Sir, racial harmony is not a static achievement. It is a living, breathing reality that requires constant care, constant work. This Bill is an important step, but it is only the beginning. Today, I have raised in my speech questions that we must answer together: first, how do we ensure that our efforts to protect harmony does not come at the expense of meaningful, honest dialogue and freedom of expression? Second, how do we safeguard our openness to the world without allowing foreign influence to undermine our unity? Third, how do we ensure that the CRI is more than just a programme, but a true opportunity for understanding and healing? And lastly, how do we engage every member of our community in the ongoing work of nurturing racial harmony?

Let us remember that true harmony is not just about avoiding conflict. It is about building connections, about recognising our shared humanity, acknowledging our differences and yet, seeing what unites us. Singapore is often hailed as a model of multiracial harmony. But models cannot stay static. They must evolve, just as we must.

We owe it to ourselves, to our children and to our future generations to keep moving forward – towards a Singapore where every individual feels seen, heard and valued. This Bill gives us the tools to make that vision a reality. But it is up to us to inspire the kind of harmony that goes beyond legislation, to inspire the kind of harmony that lives in the hearts and minds of every Singaporean.

Let us legislate for harmony, but let us also live it. Let us empower every Singaporean to not just be a passive observer, but an active guardian of the harmony we hold so dear. I support the Bill.

Mr Speaker: Mr Gerald Giam.

3.20 pm

Mr Gerald Giam Yean Song (Aljunied): Mr Speaker, the Maintenance of Racial Harmony Bill seeks to address the complexities of race relations in Singapore. It introduces measures to regulate racial discourse, counter foreign interference and strengthen community cohesion. However, it is important this Bill fosters racial harmony without unintentionally stifling essential public discourse and silencing marginalised voices.

Racial harmony is a cornerstone of our society and I think we all agree that it cannot be achieved through legislation alone. Enduring racial harmony requires genuine understanding and open dialogue among all communities.

However, the broad Ministerial powers under this Bill risk deterring legitimate public discourse that is essential for fostering intercommunal dialogue and strengthen social cohesion. For instance, public critiques of systemic discrimination or policies affecting certain racial groups could be misconstrued as vilifying or denigrating others, even when the intent is to raise awareness or advocate for positive change. Forums discussing global events, like the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, or domestic policies such as the Comprehensive Economic Cooperation Agreement (CECA) could risk being labelled as racially inflammatory, despite their role in constructive discourse.

It is important to distinguish between speech that on one hand, incites hatred and violence, which should be prevented, and speech that fosters understanding and calls out racial inequalities, which we should encourage. Constructive conversations, including in public forums, are necessary for addressing racial issues and strengthening intercommunal trust.

While the Bill includes defences for private communication and calling out racism in good faith, individuals may still be uncertain about their practical application. The need to prove good faith intent or the private nature of a conversation could create hesitation to engage in discussions on race. This uncertainty may discourage open dialogue and cause such conversations to go underground or in echo chambers within the Internet.

Since the legislative intent as expressed during this debate may be referenced by the Courts, could the Minister clarify, with specific examples, the types of speech, including the ones I raised, that will or will not fall within the scope of this legislation?

I note that unlike the Maintenance of Religious Harmony Act, which explicitly prohibits the mixing of religion and politics, this Bill does not contain a similar prohibition on the mixing of race and politics. Can the Minister confirm then that members of the public can engage in public discussions on racial issues without an outright legal restriction?

Foreign influence operations can exploit racial and communal fault lines, destabilising our society and undermining social cohesion. Countering foreign interference is a necessary component of maintaining racial harmony. The ability to monitor and regulate race-based entities, and to take action against harmful external influences, is an important step in protecting Singapore's racial harmony and national security, and I acknowledge the Government's efforts in addressing this issue.

The Bill introduces measures such as designating entities and issuing Restraining Orders. The Workers' Party supports the inclusion of these provisions. It is important, however, that these powers are exercised judiciously, with transparency and accountability to maintain public trust. Ensuring that decisions are seen as fair and impartial will be crucial to the effectiveness and legitimacy of these measures.

I support the introduction of the Community Remedial programme, which offers an alternative to prosecution by encouraging participants to reflect on their actions and fostering rehabilitation. To be effective, the programme should engage participants in meaningful dialogue with members of other racial groups, allowing for deeper understanding and reflection on the impact of their actions. Could the Minister share more details on the structure and content of the Community Remedial programme? How will its effectiveness be measured to ensure it leads to genuine rehabilitation and behavioural change?

Sir, unlike the Maintenance of Religious Harmony Act in 1990, this Bill did not undergo the same level of Parliamentary scrutiny through a Select Committee. Instead, the Government feedback unit, Reaching Everyone for Active Citizenry (REACH), conducted a public consultation last year, but the feedback collected remains largely opaque, with only summarised data shared publicly. A Select Committee provides a more transparent and rigorous process, allowing for in-depth scrutiny, public engagement and expert input, particularly from minority communities most affected by such legislation.

The Government's Forward Singapore report underscores the need to strengthen our social compact through deeper citizen engagement. Yet, for an issue as fundamental as race relations, bypassing the Select Committee process weakens participatory democracy. A strong democratic system requires more than just electoral participation. It must also ensure meaningful avenues for policy-making input, robust public consultations and rigorous legislative scrutiny. The Government should uphold these principles by ensuring that future legislation of similar significance is subject to the full scrutiny of a Select Committee.

Mr Speaker, the Workers' Party supports the Maintenance of Racial Harmony Bill, particularly measures to counter foreign interference, but we urge the Government to ensure that safeguards are in place to protect civil liberties and encourage open conversations about race.

Mr Speaker: Order. I propose to take a break now. I suspend the Sitting and will take the Chair at 3.55 pm.

Sitting accordingly suspended

at 3.27 pm until 3.55 pm.

Sitting resumed at 3.55 pm.

[Deputy Speaker (Mr Christopher de Souza) in the Chair]

MaintEnance of Racial Harmony Bill

Debate resumed.

Mr Deputy Speaker: Mr Louis Ng.

3.56 pm

Mr Louis Ng Kok Kwang (Nee Soon): Sir, I support this Bill which will strengthen our ability to address threats to racial harmony. The Bill does this holistically through not just quick and pre-emptive responses, but through community-based approach.

I commend MHA for its broad consultation with the public and community leaders. We all have a stake in a multiracial and multi-religious society. The consultative process for the Bill reflects this priority.

I have three points of clarification to raise.

My first point is on the function of the Presidential Council for Racial and Religious Harmony. This will replace the Presidential Council for Religious Harmony. The Presidential Council for Racial and Religious Harmony is supposed to comprise representatives from all major racial and religious communities in Singapore.

Race and religion are two distinct matters. Context, considerations and nuances for racial and religious matters will differ. Representatives from major racial communities may not be best placed to opine on religious matters and vice versa. Can the Minister share if the Ministry considered setting a distinct council for racial matters? Can the Minister share the rationale for having a combined council for racial and religious matters and how this is preferable to having distinct councils?

Next, under section 9 of Schedule 1 on the Presidential Council for Racial and Religious Harmony, vacancy among its members does not affect the validity of the Presidential Council for Racial and Religious Harmony's proceedings.

Presumably, the requirement that representatives from all major racial and religious communities in Singapore are present on the Presidential Council for Racial and Religious Harmony are to ensure that perspectives of all communities are considered. While the quorum requirement ensures that at least half of members must be present, the Presidential Council for Racial and Religious Harmony is also set up such that every member plays an important role in representing their racial or religious community. For instance, under the current Presidential Council for Religious Harmony, there is one representative for each major religious group. It is difficult to imagine a decision concerning a particular religious group without the representative from that group present.

Without being prescriptive as to the procedures of the Presidential Council, can the Minister share if the chairperson of the Presidential Council for Racial and Religious Harmony should ensure the presence of representatives when decisions affecting their communities are deliberated and made?

My second point is on Restraining Orders. When a Restraining Order is first imposed, the President may cancel, confirm or vary the Restraining Order if the advice of the Cabinet is contrary to the recommendation of the Presidential Council for Racial and Religious Harmony. However, when it comes to the extension of a Restraining Order, the President can only cancel a direction or confirm the direction without variation.

Can the Minister share why the President does not have the discretion to vary the direction when it comes to the extension of a Restraining Order? Can the Minister also share what measures are available to address the root causes of racist conduct which necessitate the Restraining Order in the first place?

When it comes to offences relating to race, the Bill introduces the possibility of community remediation. Individuals subject to a Restraining Order may similarly require intervention to address ideologies and misconceptions underlying the conduct. What steps will be taken to address the root causes of the conduct attracting the Restraining Order?

My third and final point is on remediation for serious offenders. The Bill will provide for a CRI-Race. Under CRI-Race, persons who have engaged in conduct prejudicial to racial harmony can take remedial action for their conduct. Completing the programme can be taken into account by the Public Prosecutor in deciding whether to prosecute a race-related offence under the Bill.

Underlying the CRI-Race is the principle of restorative justice. The offender will have the opportunity to learn and make amends. This restores any damaged community relations and can even serve to strengthen ties. However, the CRI-Race will not be offered if the offence is egregious. The Ministry has stated that criminal prosecution will be pursued to send a signal of non-tolerance for serious racial offending.

I agree that prosecution may be necessary in serious cases. Appropriate punishment is also a form of repairing community relations by reinforcing healthy norms on race relations. However, punishment and rehabilitation are not mutually exclusive. Even serious offenders who are jailed, must eventually return and re-integrate into society. For these serious offenders, time in prison alone does not necessarily mean they will emerge with any better understanding of race relations.

It may be even more important for these serious offenders to participate in programmes targeted to address deep-seated ideologies and misconceptions. These programmes should incorporate community-based approaches.

Can the Minister share what programmes are available for the rehabilitation of serious race offenders who are not eligible for CRI-Race? How do we ensure that their time in prison does not have the adverse effect of radicalising these individuals even further? Sir, notwithstanding these clarifications, I stand in support of the Bill.

Mr Deputy Speaker: Ms Hazel Poa.

4.01 pm

Ms Hazel Poa (Non-Constituency Member): Mr Deputy 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.

The Progress Singapore Party (PSP) supports laws to protect our order and peace in our multiracial 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 EIP on social media in July 2024. He had commented that 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 the Protection from Online Falsehoods and Manipulation Act (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 a Restraining Order 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 Palestinians 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, which will be abolished under this Bill. Would individuals who use phrases, such as "from the river to sea, Palestinians 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? 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, the Attorney-General's Chambers (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.

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 discussions of racially sensitive topics, such as EIP, the deployment of Malay national servicemen, the racial breakdown of death row inmates or the "Chinese, Malay, Indian and Others" (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 Restraining Order can be extended "one or more times" for up to two years each, this means that an editor or 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? Deputy Speaker, in Mandarin, please.

(In Mandarin): [Please refer to Vernacular Speech.] For a long time, race and religion have been sensitive topics. When discussions about race and religion lead to disharmony, hostility or even violence between communities, it is appropriate for the Government to intervene to maintain public order and peace.

The Maintenance of Racial Harmony Bill, being read the second time today, needs to strike a good balance between freedom of speech and maintaining public order, peace and racial harmony.

Singapore is multiracial and multi-religious society, and our racial and religious harmony has not come easily and cannot be taken for granted. PSP, therefore, supports using legislation to maintain harmony between races and religions. However, we also cherish the freedom of speech granted to us by the Constitution. Freedom of speech is a fundamental right that promotes creativity, social progress and the exchange of ideas. It also allows us to hold those in power accountable.

While discussions involving race can be sensitive, it is necessary to discuss racial issues in an honest and responsible manner to promote understanding and mutual respect between races.

These sensitive racial topics include the impact on housing prices by HDB's EIP, our country's CMIO racial classification system, the racial distribution of death row inmates and the deployment of Malay National Servicemen. While not everyone will agree with these statements, discussing these topics in a rational, responsible, non-malicious and non-hostile manner can promote national and social development.

Singapore's existing laws already limited citizens' ability to express themselves freely in many ways and we do not wish to see this Bill to further curtail speeches.

We hope the Government can clearly explain under what circumstances it will issue Restriction Orders and what behaviours or expressions it will target. We hope the Minister can clarify how this Bill will strike a fair and appropriate balance between citizens' right to freedom of speech and public order and peace.

(In English): Deputy 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 reservations. But we hope greater clarity can be given in order not to dampen reasonable discussions or expressions involving race.

Mr Deputy Speaker: Mr Zhulkarnain Abdul Rahim.

4.13 pm

Mr Zhulkarnain Abdul Rahim (Chua Chu Kang): Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, Singapore has come a long way since the racial riots of 1964, we have progressed together as a nation regardless of race, language or religion. However, racial harmony, just like our peace and stability, is not something that we can take for granted.

A recent study revealed that 56% of respondents are of the view that racism is an important problem in Singapore, up from 46% in 2016. This trend underscores the need for proactive measures to address the underlying causes of racial tensions. Fortunately, a significant majority, about 70%, acknowledges that legislative tools are still useful in safeguarding racial and religious harmony in our society. This Bill, thus, presents an opportunity to strengthen our commitment in fostering a cohesive and inclusive society.

Before I seek specific clarifications in this Bill, I would like to highlight the importance of: firstly, the roles that we all play to maintain racial harmony; and secondly, the continued importance of our existing race-based integration policies and organisations which complements the objectives set out in this Bill.

While I applaud that the Bill introduces legal tools, such as ROs and community remedial measures, I believe that we must also tackle the root causes of racial tensions and, at the heart of it, racism.

This Bill is not a panacea. We as a society must do our part to safeguard against prejudices and discrimination through indirect means, like casual racism. Now, it remains a pervasive issue, often dismissed as unintentional or harmless. Yet, research shows that such behaviors perpetuate discrimination and exclusion. Whether in a family setting or workplace, this must be addressed with both clarity and conviction.

The work needed to maintain racial harmony cannot be left to the enforcement mechanism in this Bill or any other piece of legislation. It must begin in our schools, our workplaces and our homes.

For instance, we can introduce stronger education initiatives, like compulsory racial sensitivity training in schools and workplaces, to counter unconscious biases. At workplaces, we can encourage positive interracial interactions by fostering a culture of understanding and empathy. Businesses can also establish concrete anti-discrimination policies that evolve with and reflect current societal attitudes.

When every individual, regardless of race, language or religion, feels respected and valued, then racial harmony is not just enforced, but deeply ingrained in our society.

With more mixed-race marriages, naturalised Singaporeans and younger Singaporeans identifying with a shared identity rather than along ethnic distinctions, some have called for the revisiting of race-based policies or integration policies, like the CMIO classification, the Housing and Development Board's (HDB's) EIP and our Self-Help Groups as well.

However, while we aspire to be colour blind, we cannot close our eyes to the realities on the ground nor abandon the foundations that have been built by generations before us. Our policies remain crucial to maintaining racial harmony in Singapore.

For instance, our self-help groups, continue to mobilise resources and deliver targeted interventions along communal lines. Having volunteered in this space for many years before I became a Member of Parliament, I have seen how self-help groups provide an additional avenue for assistance and navigate through cultural or religious sensitivities that had risen.

Next, policies like EIP go beyond housing but right to the heart of our integration as a society. It is not just about putting different people from different races together in the same block or in the same precinct. It is more than that. It shapes generations and how we mould ourselves together. Once people of different races live together, they become neighbours and they become friends, their children grow up together, they help one another and learn to live together.

Regardless of whether we speak less of our mother tongues or erase race from our identity cards, our race and identity stays with us wherever we go. We can have various legislations or campaigns but, ultimately, racial harmony depends on each and every one of us.

That is why, while this Bill grants significant powers to intervene in racial disputes, a community-led approach will be more effective in supplementing and fostering long-term racial harmony. No amount of laws can change the heart of a community.

With that I move to my clarifications, Mr Deputy Speaker.

My first set of clarifications relate to the provisions that protect our racial organisations against foreign influence trying to exploit racial lines or undermine our racial harmony. This Bill draws parallels with FICA in respect of Restraining Orders. Under FICA, such interference includes actions that incite or are likely to incite feelings of enmity, hatred or ill will between different groups in Singapore, endangering public peace and order.

Just like hon Member Mr Yip Hon Weng, I join him in his clarifications on the overlap between FICA and this Bill. Why are similar provisions required in two separate legislations and whether given the possible overlap, how will the Ministry appropriately ensure that the powers in both legislations will be exercised judiciously?

Secondly, to date, there have been no public reported prosecutions under FICA. However, its provisions remain a critical safeguard against foreign interference. Has FICA been enforced since its implementation?

Thirdly, I note the automatic inclusion in this Bill for clan and business associations linked to the Chinese, Malay and Indian races. What about individual businesses that do not belong to such associations but have deep links to foreign organisations?

Fourthly, I understand that MHA has stated that at this juncture it is not necessary nor desirable for the safeguards in this Bill to apply to all race-based organisations because they are a much larger and more diverse group. However, can the Minister assure the House that MHA will continually review the list by monitoring race-based organisations and their activities? In this regard, will there be an avenue for reporting by members of the public or whistle-blowers for MHA to follow up on investigation or further assessment?

My next set of clarifications relate to CRI as envisaged under clause 41 of the Bill. This provision allows offenders to participate in reparative programmes, such as community service or educational workshops, as an alternative to custodial sentences or fines.

Similar restorative justice programmes exist globally, such as in New Zealand's family group and conferences and Canada’s indigenous sentencing circles. Locally, we have seen success with community-based sentencing in other areas, such as youth rehabilitation programmes. By emphasising rehabilitation over punishment, CRI aligns with our broader goal of fostering understanding and harmony.

Firstly, may I ask the Minister whether CRI or a similar scheme for maintenance of racial harmony, has been implemented locally or globally before? What are the intended outcomes for CRI for the perpetrators or the individuals or the community affected by the offence. I appreciate that the Minister has stated that CRI will involve creating awareness on the impact on affected community, making amends or amendments or suitable reparations.

And thirdly, guided reflections for offenders. I hope that CRI will be tailored to the specific circumstance depending on the racial sensitivities. It could include structured programmes, such as racial sensitivity workshops, where offenders can engage in facilitated discussions to understand the impact of their actions, the hurt and learn about different cultures; secondly, community service through inter-racial community projects, in order to foster deeper empathy and understanding; and thirdly, dialogue sessions between the offenders and members of the affected community to promote reconciliation.

And thirdly, for such CRI, would the close or immediate family members of the offender be involved or be a participant as well? Because this may help the rehabilitation of the offender on a long-term basis if his close family or home environment is also taken into consideration.

Fourthly, to build public trust in CRI, we must ensure transparency and rigor in its implementation. What are the measures that the Ministry will take in this regard? Would there be clear published guidelines on the detailed criteria for eligibility and programme requirements for CRI? Whether there will be public awareness campaigns to educate the public on the benefits of restorative justice and reconciliation? How will the Minister ensure that proper resources are allocated and provided to the necessary organisations that will be implementing the CRI? Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, in Malay, please.

(In Malay): [Please refer to Vernacular Speech.] Mr Speaker, this Maintenance of Racial Harmony Bill aims to further strengthen the legal safeguards for racial harmony. Singapore has long built a harmonious multiracial and multi-religious society and it is our responsibility to work together in preserving our way of life for future generations. Therefore, I support and agree with the safeguards and the establishment of a special Presidential Council for Racial Harmony.

As a Malay-Muslim and a minority in Singapore, we benefit from the safeguarding of racial harmony, which is a cornerstone of our country, so that there will be no repeat of the racial riots that our people experienced during our country's early years of independence. Here, I would like to share the story of my late mother during those racial riots, an experience that taught me a valuable lesson.

My late mother witnessed the procession to commemorate Prophet Muhammad's birthday in the early 1960s when racial riots broke out in Singapore. At that time, my grandfather, who was a police officer, was part of the police contingent participating in the procession. My mother and her three older sisters, along with my grandparents, boarded a bus to return home. This bus was also carrying several other passengers of various races – there were Chinese, Malays and even a Sikh. The driver was Chinese. On the way home, their bus came to a halt when the rioters blocked their bus and began throwing bottles and stones at it.

At that moment, everyone on the bus was worried about their safety. However, there was only one thing in their minds regardless of whether they were Malay, Chinese or Indian. They all just want to get home safely. Eventually, a few young men got off the bus to clear a path for their vehicle to drive quickly away from that place. This incident left a profound impact on my mother, who was still very young at the time.

My mother advised me: although we were of different races and religions, all of us in Singapore are like passengers in the same bus, heading in one direction towards the same destination. Therefore, we must take care of each other. Since young, she instilled in me the importance of racial harmony in Singapore's multiracial society.

Hence, I welcome any legislation that will continue to maintain and safeguard racial harmony in our country. At the same time, Singapore can take a more proactive approach towards racial harmony that goes beyond law enforcement and fosters a society built on mutual understanding, dialogue and integration.

(In English): Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, in my Malay speech, I shared the account of my late mother whose family was stuck in a bus right in the middle of the 1960s racial riots. The passengers in the bus consisted of families from various races – Malay, Chinese and Indian. At that time, when crowds ran amok and chaos engulfed them, the only thing that the passengers wanted was safety and safe passage home for everyone on the bus. They did not care if the rioters outside were of any particular race.

Just like the passengers on that bus, we fellow Singaporeans must continue to take care of one another, regardless of how we look, the language we speak or from where our families first originated. The world is increasingly conducive for the divisive. We are all on the same boat, heading in one direction towards the same destination. Racial harmony in our nation is integral to our survival and progress.

This Bill is a testament to Singapore's unwavering commitment to racial harmony. However, its success will depend on careful implementation, balancing legal enforcement with education, dialogue and community empowerment. We can create a society where racial harmony is not just a policy goal but a lived reality for all Singaporeans.

Mr Deputy Speaker, I would like to end with a quote from the seminal speech, given by Singapore's first Minister for Foreign Affairs, Mr S Rajaratnam, to the United Nations (UN) General Assembly on 21 September 1965 on the occasion of Singapore’s admission to the UN:

"The cultural and political development of my country has for decades been based on free intercourse and exchange of ideas drawn from many races, from many continents. The multiracial and multi-cultural character of my country has made us somewhat skeptical of those who preach the superiority and exclusiveness of one culture and one race. In a multiracial society, one soon learns that no one people has a monopoly of wisdom and that one's own culture is not without flaws. This not only breeds tolerance for different viewpoints but also a readiness to learn and borrow from the accumulated wisdom of other people. We shall, therefore, bring to the world of the UN, the attitude and approaches of a multiracial nation, aware that independence and interdependence of peoples and nations are not incompatible goals to pursue."

Those words, Mr Deputy Speaker, echo true since 1965 until today and on the occasion of this year's SG60 of our nation building, let us work together to build a Singapore that is united in its diversity, resilient in its values and steadfast in its pursuit of racial harmony, a shining united light in the sea of global polarising challenges. Mr Deputy Speaker, I stand in support of this Bill.

Mr Deputy Speaker: Mr Dennis Tan.

4.29 pm

Mr Dennis Tan Lip Fong (Hougang): Mr Deputy Speaker, I support the Maintenance of Racial Harmony Bill. But I have some questions and concerns to the proposed provisions in this Bill relating to clans and business organisations which would be designated as race-based entities under this Bill.

I declare that I am an honorary adviser of the Singapore Teochew Poit Ip Huay Kuan.

Mr Deputy Speaker, according to MHA, clans and business associations linked to the Chinese, Malay and Indian races would be designated as race-based entities under this Bill and be subject to measures to curb possible foreign influence. It was reported that according to MHA's preliminary estimation, this Bill, once passed, will result in the designation of more than 300 such entities in Singapore.

CNA reported that according to MHA, organisations that promote the interest of a racial group or subgroup are potential entry points for such influence, and that entities may be designated if their objectives and activities represent the interest of any race or issues relating to it and that "designation is deemed necessary or expedient to preempt, prevent or reduce any foreign influence that may undermine racial harmony in Singapore."

Mr Deputy Speaker, while I agree that clans and business associations linked to races should be protected from foreign political influence and interference, I am concerned with the potential impact the new rules may have on our clan associations and other race-based associations whose focus may be cultural and economic and not political.

Clauses 18 to 22 of this Bill provide for regulations imposing reporting obligations on designated entities.

Clause 18(1) requires that designated entities will generally be required to report the foreign donations and anonymous donations that they accept, subject to the regulations to be provided. Clause 18(2) sets out various matters that may be prescribed by the regulations to be included in the reports to be submitted by designated entities. They include the classes of foreign donations and anonymous donations that need not be reported.

May I ask the Minister what would be the classes or types of foreign donations which designated entities will be required to be reported? Would these be categorised by a monetary limit?

Clause 19(1) requires designated entities to report their foreign affiliations according to the subsidiary legislations. Clause 19(2) sets out various matters to be prescribed by the regulations which must be included in such reports by the designated entities. Clause 19(2)(b) mentions the possibility of "classes of foreign affiliations, if any, that may not be reported".

May I ask the Minister what are the possible affiliations being considered by MHA at this point in time to be excluded from the reporting process and if so, what are the considerations?

I would also like to ask the Minister whether MHA is presently aware of the extent to which our clan and business associations receive donations from foreign counterparts and entities, and if so, to share some details so that we can better understand the extent of such financial support such organisations are currently receiving and have a better appreciation of the likely risks that such organisations may face. It would also enable Members of Parliament to appreciate MHA's concern about the risk of foreign interference on such clans and associations, leading to MHA tabling such requirements.

Mr Deputy Speaker, while the declaration of details relating to foreign donations to clans and business organisations may be a control measure to minimise or prevent foreign political interference with the local clans or business associations, I am concerned that the reporting requirements should not overly burden the management of our clan and business organisations, especially the smaller clans, which may already have their hands tied running their organisations, recruiting younger members and ensuring their continuing relevance and contributions to modern society in Singapore.

I hope that MHA will also be empathetic to organisational constraints, especially in smaller clans and business associations, when regulations are introduced for easier administrative compliance. After all, many of these office-bearers and members are volunteers and staff support may be limited, especially for the smaller clans and associations. This is also bearing in mind the likely penalties which may arise from non-compliance are quite stiff.

I would further like to ask the Minister to confirm for good order that the presence of foreign-based donations, whether from a foreign counterpart clan or business association or from even a foreign business entity with business interests, is in itself and unlike in FICA not prohibited and not regarded to be unwelcome.

I say this because there are possibly mutual benefits from such donations if such clans and associations find it difficult to raise funds while foreign businesses may find that it is a good marketing avenue for their businesses and products. While MHA can follow up on declared foreign entities, if it deems necessary, I hope that there will not be unnecessary stigma relating to foreign donations per se as long as there is no political interference.

I would also like to know whether the financial contributions to joint projects between local clans or business organisations and their foreign counterparts come under the clauses of this Bill. If so, I am concerned that their inclusion may discourage joint projects which may be beneficial to the development of our local clans or business organisations.

Mr Deputy Speaker, I will next touch on leadership restrictions imposed by this Bill on designated entities like clans and business organisations.

Clauses 23 to 26 of this Bill impose basic leadership restrictions on such designated entities. The provisions require that more than half of the total number of seats on the governing body of any designated entity must be occupied or held by Singapore Citizens. For governing bodies with fewer than three seats, all of them must be occupied or held by Singapore citizens. Responsible officers of designated entities must be Singapore Citizens or Singapore PRs.

Mr Deputy Speaker, I support these provisions. In fact, I will go one step further to ask that responsible offices of designated entities must be Singapore Citizens only as opposed to Singapore Citizens and PRs are effectively nationals of another country. While their support and participation in clans and business organisations should be encouraged and allowed, the leadership of such entities should remain with those with no other nationality than that of Singapore. Mr Speaker, in Mandarin, please.

(In Mandarin): [Please refer to Vernacular Speech.] Mr Deputy Speaker, I support the Maintenance of Racial Harmony Bill, but I have some questions and concerns about the provisions in the Bill regarding clan associations and business associations. I declare that I am an honorary advisor to the Teochew Poit Ip Huay Kuan in Singapore.

According to the Bill, clan associations and business associations will be required to declare details of foreign donations. The Government's aim is to reduce or prevent foreign political interference in local clan associations and business associations. I can understand this. However, I am concerned that the reporting requirements may impose unnecessary administrative burdens on these organisations, especially smaller ones.

Many clan associations are already facing numerous challenges in their operations, including attracting new generations of members, maintaining the associations' operations and ensuring their continued relevance and contribution to a modern Singapore society. Therefore, the process of declaring foreign donations should not create additional administrative burdens for them.

I hope that MHA will show more empathy towards smaller clan associations and business associations when implementing these new regulations. After all, many association directors and members are volunteers, and these associations have limited manpower and resources. Severe penalties on unintentional oversights will put significant pressure on these organisations.

Furthermore, I also would like to ask the Minister to clarify that foreign donations themselves are not unwelcome or universally prohibited, because this is not like FICA. After all, donations from foreign clan associations, business associations or foreign counterparts may provide support for local associations or business organisations that are short of funds. At the same time, donations also give foreign companies more exposure in the market. This is a mutually beneficial relationship. Of course, MHA may follow up on declared foreign entities when deemed necessary, but I hope that this will not lead to unnecessary prejudice against foreign donations themselves.

(In English): My Deputy Speaker, notwithstanding my concerns and questions, I support the Bill.

Mr Deputy Speaker: Mr Mark Lee.

4.39 pm

Mr Mark Lee (Nominated Member): Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I strongly support this Bill and its aim of reinforcing Singapore's commitment to racial harmony. This is a principle that has anchored our social stability and will continue to be vital as our society becomes more interconnected. The introduction of clear measures to address emerging risks is timely and necessary.

As we implement this Bill, it is important to provide clarity for trade associations and foreign chambers of commerce so that they can continue their work in strengthening economic partnerships and fostering international collaboration. We must ensure that these business-focused organisations continue to be able to operate effectively within this framework and reinforce Singapore's standing as a trusted global business hub.

I therefore have five clarifications for the Minister.

First, one key area requiring clarification is the classification of trade associations under this Bill. The Bill states that organisations promoting the interests of specific racial groups may be designated as race-based entities, subjecting them to restrictions on foreign affiliations, mandatory disclosures and leadership requirements. It is unclear whether local or foreign chambers of commerce and business trade associations, which primarily focus on trade facilitation, investment promotion and industry collaboration, would fall under this classification.

For instance, within Singapore Business Federation, we have representation from Singapore Chinese Chamber, Indian and Malay Chamber of Commerce, American Chamber of Commerce, China Enterprises Association, European Chamber of Commerce and the Japanese Chamber of Commerce and Industry. Each of them plays crucial roles in facilitating trade, investment and cross-border business relations. These associations serve an economic purpose, focusing on bilateral trade policies, market access and regulatory advocacy, and not promoting any racial agenda.

I would like to ask the Minister to confirm if trade-based organisations will be exempted from designation, given their distinct function from community-based racial entities.

My second clarification is related to restrictions on foreign donations and affiliations. Some foreign trade associations receive funding from overseas business networks, foundations, corporate sponsorships and membership fees from foreign companies. Under this Bill, such funding could be classified as foreign donations and subject to regulatory scrutiny.

For example, if a multinational corporation sponsors a networking event hosted by a trade association, would this be deemed a foreign donation requiring disclosure or approval? If so, even though the Bill does not prohibit a designated trade association from accepting such sponsorships, the compliance implications for multinational enterprises could be significant.

Their internal risk assessment may classify sponsorship of a designated entity as a potential regulatory exposure, leading them to reconsider or, in the worst case, withdraw financial support. This could in turn discourage multinational companies (MNCs) from engaging with trade associations in Singapore, limiting the ability of these associations to organise industry events, foster business collaborations and advocate for trade and investment growth.

Another common practice is industry collaborations between local and foreign business councils. For example, if a Singapore-based association receives funding from an ASEAN business counterpart, would that funding be classified as a foreign donation? The implications of such a designation could hinder industry collaboration across markets.

My third clarification is in relation to leadership restrictions requiring more than 50% of governing body members to be Singapore Citizens. While the intent is to prevent undue foreign influence, this could pose practical challenges for foreign chambers and trade associations that rely on senior representatives from multinational corporations. These individuals bring industry expertise, strengthen bilateral ties and advocate for business-friendly policies. Would such advocacy be hindered by restrictions on non-Singaporean leadership in trade organisations?

Would the Minister therefore consider flexibility in leadership requirements for trade associations that do not engage in racial or political advocacy?

Fourth, I would like to seek clarification on the subject of foreign affiliations. In today’s fast-changing world, trade associations must remain nimble, flexible and responsive to support businesses and strengthen international partnerships. Trade associations frequently sign MOUs and establish partnerships with overseas trade bodies, embassies and government-linked investment agencies to promote cultural, as well as business exchanges, facilitate trade and strengthen international cooperation. These agreements are a regular and necessary part of global business engagement, allowing Singapore companies to expand their networks and access new markets.

Under this Bill, would such partnerships be subject to foreign influence reporting requirements and if so, what criteria would determine whether a Memorandum of Understanding or collaboration falls under these regulations? Clear and well-defined guidelines will enable them to continue fostering global collaboration seamlessly while upholding Singapore's strong social fabric.

Finally, I seek clarification on whether local and foreign trade associations will be clearly informed of the criteria used to classify them as race-based entities. As these organisations focus on business, trade facilitation and international collaboration, it is important they understand the basis for their classification under this Bill. If an association appeals against its designation, clear guidelines are essential to ensure transparency in classification criteria and assessment factors. This will help trade associations operate with confidence while ensuring compliance. I ask the Minister whether these classifications will be made transparent in advance and what the appeal process for exemptions will entail.

Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, maintaining racial harmony is a fundamental pillar of our society and this Bill reinforces our collective commitment to safeguarding it. At the same time, Singapore has been recognised as a trusted hub for trade and investment, with a strong reputation for regulatory clarity and openness to global partnerships.

As we implement this Bill, let us give assurances to our trade associations and foreign chambers of commerce such that they can continue to play their role in strengthening business ties and facilitating international collaboration. Barring my clarifications, I fully support the Bill.

Mr Deputy Speaker: Ms Sylvia Lim.

4.47 pm

Ms Sylvia Lim (Aljunied): Mr Deputy Speaker, I shall speak briefly on both Bills.

First, on the Maintenance of Racial Harmony Bill. The Maintenance of Racial Harmony Bill has several aims. Besides porting over and modernising existing offences, it also gives new powers to the Minister for Home Affairs to issue Restraining Orders to prevent the communication of content considered to be prejudicial to racial harmony in Singapore. The Bill further seeks to curtail foreign influence in race-based organisations, such as clans, through requirements such as reporting foreign donations and foreign participation in these organisations.

Sir, before I proceed, I declare that I am an Honorary Adviser of two organisations: Sai Ho Piat Su and Teochew Poit Ip Huay Kuan. That said, the views expressed in my speech today are my own.

Sir, we can all agree that the management of race relations and indeed, the management of Singapore society as a whole, should be decided by Singaporeans and Singaporeans alone. There is a risk that foreign entities may attempt or may already have attempted to channel their race-based agenda through Singapore-based entities.

The Ministry has informed this House that in the run-up to this Bill, it has consulted race-based organisations that it intends to designate for the new transparency requirements and that they understood the need for these new obligations.

Sir, on this matter, I would like to share a general observation about foreign connections. As mentioned by others before me, not all foreign connections are malign. On the ground, it is quite common to see race-based organisations having reciprocal relationships with like-minded organisations in other countries.

For Chinese-based organisations, these like-minded organisations may reside in Malaysia, Brunei and China. Such relationships enrich the breadth of engagement on shared interests and increase access to resources for charitable activities. Such connections also enhance people-to-people ties across national borders, which is to be encouraged from a foreign affairs perspective. In the implementation of this Bill, such benign foreign relationships should be allowed to continue and flourish. Sir, let me articulate this in Chinese.

(In Mandarin): [Please refer to Vernacular Speech.] On this matter, I would like to share some observations about foreign connections. Not all foreign connections are malign. On the ground, it is quite common to see race-based organisations having reciprocal relationships with race-based organisations in other countries. For Chinese-based organisations, they may reside in Malaysia, Brunei and China. Such relationships enrich the breadth of engagement on shared interests and increase access to resources for charitable activities. From a foreign affairs perspective, such connections also enhance people-to-people ties across national borders. We should allow such benign foreign relationships to continue and flourish.

(In English): I now move to the roles to be played by the President. These provisions are covered in both the Maintenance of Racial Harmony Bill and the Constitution of the Republic of Singapore (Amendment) Bill.

Sir, the Constitution (Amendment) Bill gives the Elected President (EP) a new power. If passed, the EP will have discretion to decide whether to confirm, cancel or vary any Restraining Order made by the Minister. Such discretion will be available if the Presidential Council for Racial and Religious Harmony disagrees with the Minister's decision to issue a Restraining Order.

This discretionary power sought to be given to the EP goes to the fundamentals of governance. I am sure the Government will agree with me that the responsibility of maintaining racial harmony and law and order lies with the Government. While all of us have a part to play, the Government is responsible for this outcome. It is publicly accountable for this key performance indicator to Singaporeans through Parliament. It is not the EP's responsibility to maintain public peace and public order. He is not answerable to Parliament in any way.

In my view, the proposed mechanism for the President to review the Minister's Orders carries several significant risks. Imagine a scenario where the Minister issues a Restraining Order which the Presidential Council disagrees with, following which the EP then decides to also disagree with the Minister and cancels the Restraining Order. I pause here to point out that although some of us may think that such a scenario of both the Presidential Council and the President breaking ranks with the Cabinet is unlikely, this is exactly what the Bills today permit to happen.

Returning to the scenario of the President cancelling the Restraining Order, let us say it subsequently turns out that the organisation concerned had truly become a proxy for a hostile foreign actor, or race relations deteriorate sharply, proving that the Minister was justified in issuing the Restraining Order in the first place. When Singaporeans question the decision-making process, the Government can justifiably say that it correctly issued the Restraining Order but since the EP decided to cancel it, the Government is not to be blamed for the bad outcomes. Is this acceptable?

On a separate note, I am also concerned about the grave implications of bringing the President into such decisions involving ethnicity. As our founding Prime Minister has said, the President is a symbol of unity and the personification of the state. Indeed, that is the President's central and defining role. To require him to make hard decisions on matters involving ethnicity will detract from his role as a unifying figure above politics.

This Bill envisages the President possibly confronting the Cabinet on decisions that that affect influential race-based organisations. For the President to enter the fray and to take a position on racial affairs could quite possibly lead to the presidency being polarised along racial lines. This should be avoided at all costs.

Further complicating the matter is that the presidency already has a defined racial dimension due to the reserve presidency. Imagine a scenario if a President were to cancel a Minister's Restraining Order relating to an organisation of the President's own ethnic roots. Even if the President were to do so for objective reasons, would it be perceived as objective? Such a scenario could be divisive and highly damaging, not just for the presidency as an institution, but for race relations in general. Looking ahead, will the presidency then become an arena in which racial issues are fought over?

Sir, since 1988, when the proposal for the EP was first mooted, the Workers' Party has been consistent in opposing the institution. This is mainly due to the potential gridlock it may cause to a newly elected Government if it should require to use past reserves, or when it needs to make key appointments in the public service. For the purposes of today's debate, we are further concerned about the implications of bringing the President into decisions involving race-based matters, for the reasons I have given. Sir, as such, the Workers' Party cannot support the Constitution (Amendment) Bill and will vote to oppose it.

As for the Maintenance of Racial Harmony Bill, my party colleagues, Gerald Giam and Dennis Tan, have raised questions and concerns. On my part, I would emphasise that we are not supportive of the provisions dealing with the EP's discretion. Nevertheless, as stated by my colleagues earlier, we support the wider objectives of managing race relations and will vote in support of the Maintenance of Racial Harmony Bill.

Mr Deputy Speaker: Ms Joan Pereira.

4.55 pm

Ms Joan Pereira (Tanjong Pagar): Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I rise in support of the Maintenance of Racial Harmony and Constitution of the Republic of Singapore (Amendment) Bills.

These are important and crucial updates to our current legislation to uphold racial harmony in an increasingly polarised global environment. This will support law enforcement and enhance clarity for the public. However, having two separate pieces of legislation for racial and religious harmony may prove to be confusing for the general public as well as for organisations. The lines may also get blurred in situations where racial and religious differences could be mixed up, blended together or misunderstood.

Even as we endeavour to promote racial and religious harmony, we must be mindful of how we can better integrate foreigners, from foreign employees to PRs and new citizens. For those of us who grow up in Singapore, attend local schools and have the benefit of years of national education, you can say that it is almost in our DNA to understand the absolute importance and duty that we all have to maintain racial and religious harmony.

How about those who have joined us as adults? How can we help them to reach a higher level of understanding about cultural nuances and mutual respect, and be able to integrate and assimilate into Singapore society? Could we re-look at how we can build and improve on the educational and learning journeys for new citizens, and also extend to those who are joining as PRs?

Our national pledge continues to remind Singaporeans of the need to remain united "regardless of race, language or religion". Now that we are 60 years into our nation-building journey, language is thankfully no longer something that divides Singaporeans, with high English literacy rates and perhaps Singlish being something that unite Singaporeans.

As we look to the future, it is my wish that we may one day be able to look beyond race or religion as well. That said, we will still need to be aware and be alert for the other ways which malicious actors, whether foreign or local, can try to carve out fault-lines within our community. This could include the exploitation of differences in socio-economic levels across our society, as well as attempts to fan xenophobic sentiments. Sir, in Mandarin.

(In Mandarin): [Please refer to Vernacular Speech.] As we look into the future, it is my wish that we may one day be able to look beyond race or religion as well. That said, we will still need to be aware and be on the alert for the other ways which malicious actors, whether foreign or local, can try to carve out fault-lines within our community. This could include the exploitation of differences in socio-economic levels across our society as well as attempts to fan xenophobic sentiments.

(In English): We should also be cognisant that we ourselves do not overly focus on and draw our own fault lines unnecessarily and cause alarm. For example, I had paid attention to the Board Diversity Index that is developed by the Singapore Institute of Directors because of the useful insights that we can draw about the diversity efforts amongst our corporations here. The latest 2025 Board Diversity Index reported that the percentage of boards which have at least one-third of directors from a non-majority culture fell. We need to be aware that being overly sensitive or in today's parlance, too "woke" without the proper context or understanding, can also cause problems for our society.

We need to remain vigilant and be on guard against attempts to weaken or harm our hard-earned unity among different racial groups. These Bills are timely and will help to set the safety parameters for respectful interactions and build greater understanding. I support the Bill.

Mr Deputy Speaker: Ms Usha Chandradas.

5.00 pm

Ms Usha Chandradas (Nominated Member): Mr Deputy Speaker, I rise in support the Bill, but I have some clarifications on the extent to which the Bill might have an effect on artistic expression.

I think many of us here today are agreed, and I certainly am of the view, that every civilised society has some measure of censorship in it. It should not be the case that hate speech is allowed to run unchecked in society just because we want to adhere to some imagined or theoretical principle on freedom of speech.

However, as it is the case with most things, the most extreme cases of racially harmful content are arguably the easiest ones to address. Where it is quite clear that offence has been caused and is intended, and maliciously phrased expressions and slurs are used, it is relatively easy for society to come together and band against these acts. The problem, however, lies in the grey areas where, for example, it is not immediately clear whether the acts in question are likely to incite "enmity, hatred, ill will or hostility” against a particular race or “insult, vilify, denigrate, threaten or abuse” another race, as these terms are set out in clauses 8 and 40 of the Bill.

I appreciate that the Government does not have an easy task. Overly strict measures could suppress future dialogue while inaction might encourage irresponsible and harmful behaviour.

This Bill is a matter of particular concern to Singapore’s arts community. Our arts and cultural groups have long been engaged in thoughtful, critical and necessary conversations about identity, history and race. These are voices that should be nurtured. If we truly believe in an inclusive and harmonious society, then we must also believe in the power of art, storytelling and critical discourse to bring us closer together.

The question of the extent to which the state should intervene in censorship of the arts is not a new one and it is one that has been addressed by all the previous arts Nominated Members of Parliament at one point or another. I, too, would like to add my voice to theirs in the context of the Bill that we are debating today.

First, I would like to ask if the Minister can provide some assurance to the arts community that the Presidential Council for Racial and Religious Harmony will be composed of some representatives from the literary, visual, performing and musical arts sectors? At the moment, the Schedule to the Bill only refers to Council members as being “representatives of all major racial and religious communities” and “persons who have distinguished themselves in public service or community relations.” The Council has very wide powers to review racial content Restraining Orders and it is heartening to see that the views of the Minister will be subject to some amount of independent oversight by the Council and the President.

A common refrain amongst the arts community – and I, too, feel this way sometimes when dealing with bureaucracies – is that administrators with little interest in or knowledge of the arts may not have a good understanding of how artistic production takes place, why artists behave in the way that they do, what artists intend to achieve and why the preservation of their voices is important. Artist representation on the Council is not only desirable, I would go so far as to say it is essential to maintaining public confidence and providing assurance that this new proposed law both safeguards the space for artistic expression while protecting racial harmony.

Secondly, in a related point, I would like to ask the Minister, if the potentially offending acts or content in question are artistic works, will the Council be open to consulting with specialists in the field when making its decisions? For instance, in cases where the contentious material is a painting, would the Council seek expert opinions from senior artists, art historians and academics specialising in the visual arts? If the work in question is a literary piece, would the Council then engage with experienced publishers, authors and editors to ensure a well-rounded and informed evaluation? Clause 33(5)(a) of the Bill alludes to the Council having the power to invite “any person” to attend before it and I believe that it would provide much assurance to the arts community if the Minister can confirm that specialist opinions will be obtained where artistic work and content is concerned.

Thirdly, can the Minister clarify whether there will be opportunities for the deliberations of the Council to be made public and if so, what the frequency of disclosure is expected to be? The Schedule to the Bill states that Council members and officers must keep meeting discussions confidential except when sharing with the President, Cabinet, Minister, other Council members or officers, or if they are expressly authorised to make disclosures by the Minister.

I would like to make the point here that it is important for the public to understand the basis for the Council’s decision-making. One strength of this Bill is that it acknowledges the complexity of racially motivated harmful acts. In introducing community remedial programmes in clause 41, it recognises that the remedies for racial intolerance are not to be found only in criminal sanctions. Instead, we are better served as a community by ongoing initiatives that seek to rehabilitate and educate.

In a similar spirit, if we regularly make the deliberations of the Council public, this could serve as a very powerful educational tool for the broader community. It would not only foster greater transparency but also prompt deeper public engagement and feedback on the decisions that are made. This kind of input would offer authorities valuable insights into contemporary cultural standards. It will help them to ensure that their decisions remain attuned to the evolving sentiments of Singaporeans.

My fourth question is on whether the Ministry will be releasing examples of what constitutes harmful content that would potentially be subject to Restraining Orders under clause 8 of the Bill. Will we be seeing regulations which offer examples and guiding principles? Restraining Orders can be used to prohibit the communication or distribution of “information and material”. The definition of “information and material” at clause 8(8) appears to be wide enough to cover visual, literary, musical and performance art works. Read in its entirety, these works can be removed from circulation altogether if the Minister is satisfied that the conditions in clause 8(1) are met. I think that clear examples will be helpful to minimise subjective interpretation and assure the arts community that legitimate artistic works will not fall afoul of the law.

Can the Minister also clarify how the phrase “likely to commit” in clause 8(1) will be construed? Restraining Orders can be issued if the Minister is “satisfied” that a person is “likely” to commit offences. This is clearly a pre-emptive power and one that should be exercised very carefully. It should not be the case that art works, books or plays that critically examine racial issues could be banned or censored based on mere speculation. Could the Minister clarify whether specific guidelines will be used to determine when an artistic work might be regarded as “information or material” connected to acts that are “likely” to cause racial disharmony?

My sixth and last question has to do with the interpretation of clause 40 of the Bill. Under this clause, an offence is committed if a person incites enmity, hatred, ill will, hostility, contempt or ridicule against a racial group in Singapore. The offence applies if the person knows that their actions are likely to cause this effect. It is, however, a defence under clause 8(6), if the accused person can show that he pointed out the offending matters in good faith and to bring about a removal of those matters. Looking at the strict wording of the Bill, it seems possible that if an artist were to produce, say, a video work about racial tensions in Singapore’s history, or if a theatre company stages a play on colonial era racial policies, that these works might be at risk of being deemed to “incite feelings of ill will.”

Let me give the Members a more specific example. The late artist Lee Wen’s “Journey of a Yellow Man” is a well-known performance art series in Singapore’s art history. It is a work that is studied by art historians and is taught to art students. It is part of the collection of the National Gallery Singapore and it is also a part of other prominent collections overseas. Lee Wen himself was awarded the Cultural Medallion in 2005. The work, if Members have not seen it, involves the artist, Lee Wen, a man who is of Chinese ethnicity, covering himself with yellow paint and placing himself into deliberate encounters and situations all over the world. These are then photographed, filmed or sometimes witnessed by an audience. As explained by the Singapore Art Museum, “the body of work is an exploration of identity and ethnic and cultural stereotypes.”

If we apply clause 40(1) to this body of work, it is possible to form the view that Lee, if he were alive today, might be considered as having knowingly ridiculed Chinese ethnicity. He would have accordingly committed an offence under clause 40(1) when exhibiting his work. Could he then rely on the defence in clause 40(6)?

Based on the wording of the Bill, I believe it is not so clear. Art historians would certainly argue that the work was made in “good faith” but can it be said to have been made or displayed “in order to bring about a removal of the feelings of ridicule?” Well, I would say yes, on balance, but I would also mention that this message is not immediately apparent from the images that are presented in the body of work. Certainly, the works are Lee’s expression of his frustration at being racially stereotyped when he was overseas, but can we say from simply looking at the work that there is a clear enough expression of a desire to bring about the “removal of ridicule”? I am not sure that we can.

Lee’s own declarations may not necessarily shed light on the matter either. Here is an example of something Lee himself has said on the topic in a 1994 artist statement. He said: “I’m already yellow. Why do I still paint myself yellow? Yellow is the colour of the sun, the colour of the moon, the colour of the river that runs in the old country. It is the spirit of nobility, the glow of precious gold. The warmth and abundance of harvest, the power and faith in temples. In a different sense, yellow can also be the colour of dangerous hazards, confidential secrets, pornography and vices. It is also the colour of the persecuted and the oppressed.”

So, as you can see, in the realm of art, messaging is often nuanced, layered and open to interpretation. Audiences are invited to engage critically and to interpret the works in their own way. This is what art is all about and why it is so powerful and why we value it. Last year, Prime Minister Lawrence Wong committed an additional $100 million of funding to support the arts in recognition of this value that it has in our society.

In the context of this Bill, however, the element of audience interpretation can make it challenging for an artist to definitively prove that their work is intended as a call for change, rather than being misinterpreted as an endorsement of the very issues that the work seeks to critique. This ambiguity may then make it difficult for artists to rely on the defence provided at clause 40(6) of the Bill.

Many artistic works critically examine race, social injustice and history. These should not be viewed at the get-go as acts of hostility but rather, as efforts to foster deeper understanding. Australia’s Racial Hatred Act introduced in October 1995, for example, provides a defence where a person's conduct was done reasonably and in good faith in the performance, exhibition or distribution of an artistic work. The proposed Bill today does not go as far as that. We do not have a blanket exemption or protection for artistic works, but we must protect our ability to discuss and reflect on history without fear of heightened state intervention.

In this regard, some guidance on the interpretation of clause 40(6) will be helpful. I know it is not possible for the Ministry to provide an exhaustive list of guidelines on this point, but I hope that the Minister can assure us that the terms “good faith” and “bring(ing) about the removal of those matters”, as these phrases are set out in clause 40(6), that these phrases will be broadly interpreted.

Racial harmony is indeed the cornerstone of our society, but true harmony is achieved through through open and meaningful dialogue. Our artists play a very important role in facilitating this. It is essential to strike a balance between preventing harmful content and allowing the arts to thrive as a platform for meaningful discourse.

Sir, I understand the Minister’s explanation earlier that a number of the Bills’ provisions actually port over and consolidate existing laws but given that we have a new proposed Bill to consider, I think it is also a good opportunity to relook some of the issues as they have been presented before the House today.

Sir, I support this Bill and I look forward to the Minister's response to my clarifications.

Mr Deputy Speaker: Mr Neil Parekh.

5.14 pm

Mr Neil Parekh Nimil Rajnikant (Nominated Member): Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, thank you for allowing me to speak on the Maintenance of Racial Harmony Bill, an important legislative initiative that seeks to reinforce our long-standing commitment to social cohesion and unity in Singapore. Together with the related Constitution (Amendment) Bill, this legislation strengthens our efforts to uphold racial harmony, ensuring that Singapore remains an inclusive and cohesive society for all.

Racial harmony has always been a fundamental pillar of our nation’s success. Over the years, we have fostered a culture of mutual respect and understanding among our diverse, multi-ethnic communities. However, in an evolving social landscape marked by the rise of digital media and increasing external influences, it is imperative to adopt new measures that safeguard the delicate balance of our multicultural fabric. This Bill is a timely and necessary step in that direction.

Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I seek clarifications from the Minister of State on seven key aspects of the Bill.

[Mr Speaker in the Chair]

One, could the Minister of State please elaborate on how the Presidential Council of Racial and Religious Harmony will engage with organisations that have racial affiliations? Will the Council primarily serve an advisory role, or will it have the authority to issue specific guidelines and recommendations that businesses or institutions must adhere to?

Two, the Bill grants the Minister the power to issue Restraining Orders with immediate effect. Could the Minister please clarify the criteria used to determine when an entity falls within the scope of such orders? What safeguards exist to ensure that organisations have the right to appeal or challenge these orders without undue disruption to their operations?

Three, participation in the remedial CRI race programme is presented as an alternative to prosecution. Can the Minister please explain the eligibility criteria for participation and whether completion of the programme will be considered in determining future regulatory actions against offenders. Also, how can entities contribute to the broader objectives of such initiatives, potentially as partners in promoting racial harmony?

Four, can the Minister please provide more details on the penalties for non-compliance with the Bill's provisions? How will the Government ensure these penalties are proportionate and do not unduly burden businesses?

Five, the Bill mandates disclosure requirements for race-based entities. Could the Minister please clarify what criteria will define an organisation as a "race-based entity"? How will the Government balance the need for transparency with the operational realities of organisations engaged in international collaborations? Could the Minister clarify the criteria for evaluating foreign donations or affiliations that may be deemed politically or racially sensitive?

Six, the Bill introduces stricter oversight of business associations with racial ties. Could the Minister please elaborate on how the Government plans to balance regulatory oversight with the operational needs of businesses and chambers of commerce, particularly those engaged in cross-border partnerships? How will the Government address concerns about potential competitive disadvantages for designated race-based entities especially the smaller ones, now that they have additional regulatory requirements and disclosure obligations?

Lastly, on support for businesses, given that the leadership composition rules for designated race-based entities may require significant changes to organisational structures and processes, will the Government consider providing a transition allowance? Specifically, how much time will be given to affected organisations to comply with the new requirements and what support or resources will be made available to help them navigate these changes, without undue disruption to their operations?

Sir, the Maintenance of Racial Harmony Bill is a comprehensive and forward-thinking legislative framework that reaffirms Singapore's unwavering commitment to racial unity. While this Bill introduces additional compliance requirements for business organisations, it also provides an opportunity for them to contribute meaningfully to our shared national goal of racial harmony. I am confident that through collaborative efforts, businesses, community groups and the Government can work together to uphold our social cohesion.

Mr Speaker, Sir, notwithstanding my clarifications, this Bill has my full support.

Mr Speaker: Dr Syed Harun.

5.19 pm

Dr Syed Harun Alhabsyi (Nominated Member): Thank you, Mr Speaker. In Malay, please.

(In Malay): [Please refer to Vernacular Speech.] Mr Speaker, racial harmony is the cornerstone of Singapore's social stability and prosperity. Although our hearts may differ, shaped by our respective cultural tapestries and ethnic traditions. As the Malay proverb goes, we all have black hair (birds of a feather).

The peace of our nation and society is our responsibility and we must have the will and courage to reach across the divide, get to know each other better and forge a united vision to ensure the peace and progress of our nation. This Maintenance of Racial Harmony Bill is important in preventing hostility and hatred from emerging between the different races. It also makes it an offence to incite and foment discord on the basis of race.

This is an appropriate measure for our country in order to preserve racial harmony, social stability, a united people as well as national cohesion. It also creates a fair and just society that views everyone equally regardless of race and one that fosters inclusivity and accords respect and appreciation to all races.

The importance of this Bill is also that it affirms measures that will prevent foreign influence and interference in local racial issues. It is important because Singapore, as an open economy, is also exposed to and not immune to, various external elements and influences. Moreover, with the influence of social media, this Bill needs to be holistic in order to curb news, narratives and perceptions that are false and dangerous, which can trigger misunderstanding, hatred and division between races.

In Singapore, as a young nation where many of our ancestors were early immigrants and traders, and where our family histories and ethnic traditions may still share intertwined aspects of history, culture and race from China, India and the Malay Archipelago, in these 60 years since Singapore's Independence, there are also many more unique features and local contexts that the people need to consider together. We must not allow any avenue and opportunity for extreme opinions, which can result in discrimination and racial provocations taking root and permeate our society.

This does not mean that we should avoid celebrating our respective racial identities that are rich with diversity and history, or shy away from honest discussions about issues of importance to each race. For everything that is allowed to develop in our multiracial and multi-ethnic society, we will need to consider the local context, culture, etiquette, history, harmony and legislation.

(In English): Mr Speaker, in English, please. I have a few clarifications in three broad parts for the Minister, as part of this proposed Bill. Firstly, in part three, restraining orders against racial content in clause eight, it is noted that the Minister may make a racial content Restraining Order against a person if the Minister is satisfied that several thresholds have been met in relation to an act that causes feelings of enmity, hatred, ill will or hostility between different races in Singapore, or that incites, instigates or encourages another person to commit such an act. May I clarify, specifically in the instance that a person is likely to commit or is attempting to commit the specific acts, could the Minister provide examples of when such a threshold is crossed and how this may differ from having an intent without any action alone? This is to reassure us that sufficient and reasonable basis for a Restraining Order is met before it is meted under these powers.

Secondly, in Part 4, measures against foreign influence, under division two, designation of entities, clause 15(A), where the competent authority may designate an entity where the primary objects, purposes or activities include representing or promoting social, economic, political, educational, linguistic, cultural or other interests, or discussing any issue relating to any race in Singapore. Would this also possibly include well-meaning ground-up initiatives, registered community-based organisations or registered charities that seek to support specific racial groups as part of each community's efforts to also uplift their own? Would ethnic-based self-help groups, like the Chinese Development Assistance Council, Yayasan MENDAKI, Singapore Indian Development Association and the Eurasian Association also fall within this definition of such potential entities as per clause 15(A)?

Would this be a rather wide and encompassing definition that needs better scoping and specificity for the purposes of this Bill, and instead of encouraging ground-up community efforts, could this instead raise concerns and prevent people from stepping forward to contribute more fervently towards building the social, economic, educational, linguistic and cultural interests of particular aspects of a race or community, which is really the rich diversity we want to preserve and encourage in Singapore, and also allow to flourish.

Lastly, also echoing what some hon Members have mentioned earlier, in part six offences relating to race, under offence of inciting enmity against persons distinguished by race and so on, in clause 40, I wonder if this, in any way, could affect our arts community in their good work today. We agree, and I am sure with a resounding consensus in this House, that we are firmly and flatly against any form of intentional incitement of ill will and hostility across racial lines. This, I have also outlined, in rather unequivocal terms, in the Malay portion of my speech earlier.

I appreciate, however, that the arts is and can be a powerful medium for expression of differing and diverse views, and sometimes emotive opinions, serving as a vehicle for social commentary, political critique, personal reflection and advocacy. Sometimes, the arts asks inconvenient questions, presses on hot button issues and could upset people.

In light of how clause 40 is worded, could the Ministry reassure the arts community and its enthusiasts, especially those in the visual, literary and performing art forms, that even on sensitive topics relating to race, where sometimes, there could be questions or challenges about racial stereotypes and identities, these would still be permitted with within the remit of artistic licence and what is considered reasonable.

My view is that some latitude should be given for the relevant art forms to express views, to ask the hard questions, to challenge narratives and to inspire change. In fact, when done well and tastefully, society would be more cohesive, more thoughtful and more reflective in the longer term, even though it could stir uncomfortable emotions and disdain in the short term. Mr Speaker, my points notwithstanding, I rise in support of the Bill.

Mr Speaker: Assoc Prof Razwana Begum.

5.27 pm

Assoc Prof Razwana Begum Abdul Rahim (Nominated Member): Mr Speaker, I stand in support of the Maintenance of Racial Harmony Bill. Mr Speaker, the Bill contains several important provisions, most notably: to allow the Minister to make "racial content Restraining Orders", including "foreign influence Restraining Orders" and to establish a Presidential Council for Racial and Religious Harmony.

The Bill also allows the Minister to establish CRI to address racial incidents and as an alternative to criminal proceedings. Mr Speaker, the overall intent of these provisions is, as the name of the Bill suggests, to maintain racial harmony in Singapore, and I commend this intention.

Mr Speaker, Singapore is renowned internationally as a safe and prosperous society and one in which people of many different cultures, religions and ethnicities live and work together successfully, peacefully and respectfully.

Such a situation is, however, not something to be taken for granted. As noted by then-Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong in 2017, and I quote: "there is nothing natural about where we are – multiracial, multi-religious, tolerant and progressive. We made it happen and we have got to protect it, nurture it, preserve it and never break it." Senior Minister Lee's comments were true then and remain true today.

As highlighted by the Minister earlier, the study conducted by MHA and MDDI indicates that 43% of surveyed Singaporeans feel that "racism remains a problem in Singapore" and 35% have had "racially insensitive encounters".

Mr Speaker, these figures demonstrate the importance of proactive action, such as the provisions contained in this Bill, to build and maintain a Singapore where racial harmony is not just a theory, or something enjoyed by certain racial groups, but a day-to-day reality for every person who calls Singapore home. Mr Speaker, I will now comment on several specific aspects of the Bill.

First, racial content Restraining Orders. Mr Speaker, part 8(2) of the Bill allows the Minister to make a racial content Restraining Order that prohibits or requires those subject to the order to do, or not do, certain things, including: prohibiting a person from writing about, talking about or distributing information about "any specified subject, topic, or theme"; requiring a person to take steps to ensure that "any specified information or material" is "no longer available"; and prohibiting a person from printing, editing or contributing to "any publication".

Mr Speaker, these powers are substantial and I am concerned that they allow, at least in theory, the conditions of a Restraining Order to go beyond what is reasonably necessary to address behaviour of concern.

Perhaps the Bill could contain a provision that stipulates that Restraining Orders can only be made once all other options have been exhausted and that the conditions of the restraining order are: directly proportional to the behaviour of concern; the least intrusive or restrictive remedy available to achieve the desired outcome and clearly aimed at modifying behaviour of concern, and are not used to punish people

Mr Speaker, my second issue relates to community education. In an ideal world, this Bill would be unnecessary and Singaporeans would not engage, certainly not deliberately, in any act that "causes feelings of enmity, hatred, ill will, or hostility between different races", or "incites, instigates or encourages a person" to do the same.

Mr Speaker, the MHA data I referenced earlier, particularly the figure that 35% of surveyed Singaporeans have had "racially insensitive encounters", suggests that more work needs to be done before my ideal world is realised. Mr Speaker, in Malay, please.

(In Malay): [Please refer to Vernacular Speech.] Mr Speaker, as frequently cited, prevention is better than the cure and I am interested to hear about any culturally and age-appropriate programmes that are currently available within our primary and secondary schools that work with children and young people to combat racial or religious intolerance or prejudice, while allowing for the open discussion of different views and opinions. I am particularly interested to hear about any such programmes that have been co-designed by children and young people from different cultural, racial and religious groups.

In relation to that, it is important that in any society people can safely raise or ask legitimate and genuine topics or questions about race and religion, yet to do so in a sensitive and constructive manner. It is important that in appropriately curtailing actions or discussions that are racially offensive or insensitive, we do not inadvertently curtail curious conversation or dialogue. This is particularly important for children and young people who can be naturally inquisitive about difference, and who need to be provided safe opportunities to ask about race and religion, and to learn about diversity, tolerance and inclusion.

(In English): Mr Speaker, related to the above, is the issue of new citizens, PRs and other foreigners living in Singapore.

Mr Speaker, people arrive in Singapore, either temporarily or permanently, from many different countries, and bring with them diverse opinions and behaviours. I would like to know what programmes, including community education initiatives, are available to welcome new arrivals, and alert them to the cultural norms expected, or required, in Singapore, and the thinking behind these norms. It is important that we assist all Singaporeans, including those new to our country, to not engage in any behaviour that may inadvertently offend or distress others.

Mr Speaker, I will now turn to the proposed Presidential Council for Racial and Religious Harmony. I understand that the Council is an extension of the current Presidential Council for Religious Harmony and that it is to have a range of functions related to racial and religious harmony.

I support the establishment of such a Council and would like to know what mechanisms are in place to ensure that membership of the Council is representative of the diverse Singapore community, and that individual members have the necessary expertise and experience to undertake their role.

I would also like to know how the Council intends to seek the views and opinions of the Singaporean community when making decisions, including the views and opinions of children and young people, women, foreign workers and other at-risk groups.

Mr Speaker, the Bill allows the Minister to establish CRIs for people who have engaged in conduct prejudicial to racial harmony. As noted in the MHA press release dated 7 January 2025, and I quote: "CRIs will provide an alleged offender the opportunity to learn from and make amends for [their] racist conduct, thereby soothing communal tensions and repairing ties between the communities." And "satisfactory completion of a Community Remedial programme can be taken into account by the Public Prosecutor in deciding whether to prosecute a race-related offence under the Bill."

Mr Speaker, I support the establishment of CRIs and would like to know what mechanisms are in place to ensure that the initiatives will be: co-developed with relevant community members and leaders; evidence-based and independently evaluated; and sufficiently funded and staffed by people with the necessary expertise and experience.

I would also like to know whether it is intended that any of the CRIs will formally incorporate the principles and practices of restorative justice, a model of community healing that is particularly relevant to racial harmony.

Mr Speaker, the Bill allows the Minister to "designate" entities; an action that then enforces certain obligations on that entity, including reporting foreign donations and anonymous donations, reporting foreign affiliations and reporting governing body composition.

The Bill allows the Minister to make a "foreign influence restraining order" if "necessary or expedient to pre-empt, prevent or reduce any foreign influence that may undermine racial harmony in Singapore and present a threat to public peace and public order in Singapore".

Mr Speaker, a foreign influence Restraining Order, while important, may have a significant impact on an entity, including on the entity’s cash flow, strategic partnerships and management structure. Perhaps the Bill could contain a provision that stipulates that foreign influence Restraining Orders, just like Restraining Orders in general, can only be made once all other options have been exhausted and that the conditions of the restraining order are directly proportional to the issue of concern; the least intrusive or restrictive remedy available to achieve the desired outcome and clearly aimed at modifying behaviour of concern.

Entities may not always be aware of their obligations regarding foreign influence or may be engaging in behaviour without intent and these entities should be alerted and supported as early in the process as possible.

Mr Speaker, my next issue of concern relates to online threats and overseas challenges. A substantial proportion of racially offensive or inappropriate material is disseminated online, including from overseas or anonymous sources. This material is notoriously difficult to respond to and I would like to know what mechanisms are in place to enable the Ministry, or other agencies, to prevent, monitor or take down racially problematic material that is online, either domestically or internationally, particularly when that material is posted anonymously or under a pseudonym.

I would also like to know what mechanisms are in place to enhance domestic cooperation with international agencies, including law enforcement agencies, in responding to online or overseas issues.

Mr Speaker, racism in any form is harmful and shapes people’s everyday lives: their work, schooling, sense of belonging, and mental and physical well-being. The harm can be worse for those who experience discrimination on several fronts, such as race, gender, age, religion and disability. The impact of these behaviours can be substantial and it is important that victims are provided with the appropriate level of professional, trauma-informed support and care. Victims should also be informed of their right to seek legal advice about potential legal action against liable individuals or entities.

Supporting victims of racism is a responsibility we all share. This means standing up against negative stereotypes, intervening in instances of interpersonal racism and advocating for fair practices in our institutions. We must create safe spaces where victims feel heard, validated and supported.

Mr Speaker, in conclusion I will make some final comments about the role of community. Racism exists in several forms and can be covert or overt, conscious or unconscious, deliberate or accidental. Racism can be individual or personal or it can be systemic or structural. Regardless of the form it takes, we all have a role to play to be vigilant in our own behaviour and the behaviour of others and to speak up if something is not right.

We cannot and should not, only rely on others to do something, or on laws or guidelines. This is about taking personal responsibility and working collectively to stamp out racism wherever and whenever it occurs. By doing so, we can assist make Singapore a place where everyone, regardless of their race, feels safe, welcome and respected. Clarifications notwithstanding, I support the Bill.

Mr Speaker: Mr Darryl David.

5.40 pm

Mr Darryl David (Ang Mo Kio): Mr Speaker, Sir, not only this Bill but this issue of racial harmony is one that resonates deeply with me. As someone of mixed race parentage, I recall my late mother telling me about how, as a Chinese lady dating an Indian man in the 1960s in Singapore, there were more than a few occasions where they were subject to some rather unkind comments and there were even places in Singapore that she and my father could not go to as a mixed race couple because of a very real threat of physical violence.

My mother also shared the story of how, as a teenage girl, she had to go to the hospital to identify the body of a minority race friend who had been killed when he was innocently swept up in a racially-charged act of violence and I can still recall the deep emotion in her voice as she told me this story, with a somber reminder of how "we should never, ever take racial harmony in Singapore for granted." It is with these words in mind that I rise in full support of this Bill.

In this regard, I think it is timely that the Government introduces the Maintenance of Racial Harmony Act as a standalone piece of legislation to deal with potential threats to racial harmony and to signal the importance of maintaining racial harmony in Singapore.

I applaud the Government’s position, Mr Speaker, that criminal prosecution is not the first recourse and sole remedy to racial incidents, considering that a good number of such incidents were not committed with the intent to injure anyone’s feelings, but largely arising from lack of cultural understanding and sensitivity. An effective CRI must be supported by a structured set of interventions that are evidence-based so that it can achieve its intent to help those who are undergoing the intervention to understand the impact of his or her conduct, reconcile and make amends within the community.

I hope that the Government can shed light on how such interventions are developed and delivered, and would like to ask if the Government will be setting up an expert taskforce to design, implement and oversee the CRIs.

I would also like to ask how would the effectiveness of these CRIs be measured so that their efficacy can be assessed? And with each transgression being different, would the Government be offering targeted interventions so that maximum level of reconciliation can be achieved? Finally, would recalcitrant offenders be referred to for prosecution if the community remedial initiative fails to work for them, even though their offences might not be sufficiently egregious to warrant prosecution under the current Penal Code?

I would also like to suggest that we consider using the Inter-Racial and Religious Confidence Circles (IRCCs) to rehabilitate individuals who are referred to the community remedial initiative. The IRCCs are already there. They are present and they have been a key pillar of helping to maintain racial and religious harmony in Singapore. Perhaps, the remediation process using the IRCCs could be similar to how radicalised individuals are currently being rehabilitated, but at a less severe, stepped-down level within the community.

Ultimately, Mr Speaker, reconciliation is a two-party effort. While we can mandate that offenders undergo remedial initiatives, the community must also embrace magnanimity and be willing to forgive the offenders if the offenders are contrite and they demonstrate willingness to make amends and rebuild bridges.

I would like to now talk about how we can safeguard racial harmony from foreign influence. This Bill also introduces measures against foreign influence by requiring entities, including unincorporated associations, to abide by rules governing donations, affiliations and leadership. While it would be fairly legislatively simple to compel registered entities to disclose their source of donations, foreign affiliations, if any, and the composition of their governing body, how does the Government intend to compel unincorporated associations to do the same?

This is under the assumption that these associations are informal entities and are loose gatherings of like-minded individuals that the Government does not necessarily have oversight of or has much information on. As such, I hope the Government can shed more light on how it plans to exercise supervision over these entities.

Under the provision to safeguard designated entities from foreign influence, more than half of their governing bodies must be Singaporeans and the responsible officer for such entities must be either Singaporeans or PRs. While these nationality-based restrictions may, in theory, safeguard designated entities from foreign influences, such arrangements might not provide sufficient guardrails. For example, the leadership team of a designated entity could comprise mainly newly naturalised Singaporeans or PRs who may still have personal historical linkages to foreign entities.

While I believe that we should not – and I say it again – we should not unfairly shine the spotlight on newly naturalised Singaporeans or PRs, it is empirically difficult for the Government to police personal affiliations of individuals, both local born and naturalised alike.

In this regard, I would like to suggest an additional safeguard that I hope that the Government can consider the implementation of a two-tier structure for designated entities.

For designated entities that have a lower risk of foreign influence or are regarded as less nationally critical, the nationality-based restrictions on their governing bodies and leaders proposed by this Bill would suffice as safeguards. However, for designated entities that have a higher possibility of being influenced by foreign actors or are regarded as nationally critical if compromised – for example, co-operative societies, trade unions, mutual-benefit organisations, platform worker associations and the like – the Government could legislate more thorough background checks on their proposed leaders before these individuals are appointed into their governing bodies or leadership team. I believe that such background checks would help to provide additional guardrails by restricting local born and naturalised Singaporeans with tangible and established foreign affiliations from holding leadership positions in such designated entities.

Mr Speaker, Sir, racial harmony in Singapore must never be taken lightly because it is an integral component of social cohesion and social trust in our multiracial, multi-religious society. A socially harmonious, cohesive and high-trust society will ultimately strengthen the stability of communities and the resilience of Singapore.

I am glad that the Government is sending a strong signal on the importance of racial harmony with this Bill, because, in the words of someone very dear to me, who once lived through the racial riots of the past, we should "never, ever take Singapore's racial harmony for granted".

Mr Speaker: Mr Vikram Nair.

5.47 pm

Mr Vikram Nair (Sembawang): Mr Speaker, in 2021, then-Prime Minister Lee first telegraphed a Bill on racial harmony in his National Day Rally. At the last Committee of Supply debate for MHA, I asked for an update on this proposed Maintenance of Racial Harmony Bill, and I am happy to see this well thought through and comprehensive Bill before us today.

The most important aspect of racial harmony is the day-to-day actions each of us takes to build bridges with people of different races.

The Government has policies that nudge us in this direction, including ethnic quotas for public housing and the requirement for minority representation for contesting in GRCs for our elections. Most of us have close friends of all races and understand the customs and traditions of one another. Yet, notwithstanding the racial harmony we generally enjoy in Singapore, there remain issues beneath the surface and we cannot take our harmony for granted. In my view, legislation remains a necessary tool to promote and maintain racial harmony.

We have had offences in relation to racial harmony in the Penal Code in the old sections 298 and 298A, and the substance of these offences remain in this Bill. The old language of section 298 of the Penal Code that made it an offence to "wound racial harmony and feelings of any person" has been replaced with language making it an offence to insult, vilify, denigrate, threaten or abuse another on the basis of race. In my view, the new language adds clarity by specifying the actual actions that constitute the offence. The offences in section 298A of promoting enmity between races and engaging in acts prejudicial to the maintenance of harmony remain. While prosecutions under these sections are not common, I think they send an important signal on what is unacceptable conduct.

There are also three important new tools this Bill provide MHA more powers to better calibrate and deal with the potential threats to racial harmony.

The first is the introduction of a Restraining Order regime, which allows MHA to act swiftly against acts that may threaten racial harmony. This seems to be an intermediate step that allows swift action without the need to prosecute the wrongdoer. I note that these orders will be subject to review by the Presidential Council for Racial and Religious Harmony and the President, which, in my view, is an important check. A similar regime exists in relation to religious harmony under the Maintenance of Religious Harmony Act and I think it is sensible for those principles to apply here as well.

The second tool is the CRI, which gives MHA the option to offer reparative measures in lieu of prosecution to offenders. This gives MHA a more calibrated set of tools so that less serious offenders may be given a chance to mend their ways and avoid a criminal conviction.

I will be interested to know how MHA intends to apply these measures. I think MHA will probably need to develop a set of interventions and procedures. There will also probably be a need to have skilled professionals to both help raise awareness and encourage amity between the offender and the community.

The aim of this provision seems to go beyond a simple Corrective Work Order type regime, and building bridges and amity is much more difficult than dishing out punishment. So, I look forward to seeing how MHA will apply these powers. It will also be important to develop some internal guidelines, at least on when this discretion will be exercised, though in my view it would be best to have this as the first port of call for most first-time offenders unless it was a particularly serious offence.

The third set of measures to safeguard racial harmony relates to foreign influence and requires race-based entities to have a leadership composed primarily of Singapore Citizens and to disclose foreign donations and affiliations.

I declare that I am involved in a voluntary capacity in a number of race-related charities in Singapore. I am the advisor to the board of trustees of Singapore Indian Development Association, and I am a trustee of the Singapore Indian Education Trust as well as a trustee of the Singapore Indian Fine Arts Society.

I note from Minister of State Sun's speech that charities have not been listed amongst the entities that MHA intends to designate at this juncture. This should be a relief to many of them.

As a matter of principle though, I believe that while race-based groups play an important role in preserving culture and tradition, it is important for Singapore-based groups to be rooted in our values as well. The requirement of a largely Singaporean leadership supports this objective.

I also agree that foreign donations should be disclosed, though I think we should also send the message that there is nothing wrong with getting donations from foreigners per se, especially for charitable institutions. Many charitable groups may benefit from raising funds from a larger group of donors, including foreigners, and the beneficiaries of these charities are ultimately going to be primarily Singaporeans and PRs.

Mr Speaker, I think that this is a well thought through Bill that introduces important new tools for MHA to continue to protect our racial harmony in a more calibrated way. I support this Bill.

Mr Speaker: Minister Shanmugam.

5.53 pm

Mr K Shanmugam: Thank you, Mr Speaker, Sir. I thank Members for their interventions. 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 Constitution (Amendment) Bill because they have specific concerns about the President having the power to disagree with the Minister. I will deal with that separately.

Let me start with some of the misconceptions that underlie some of the questions raised.

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. He gave examples of CECA, the Palestinian issue and so on. He also said that since this is such an important Bill, it really ought to have been sent to the Select Committee like the Maintenance of Religious Harmony Act.

I appreciate his comments, but I think there is some serious misconception on what this Bill does or what it is intended to cover.

I would refer Members to Annex 1 and the press release of MHA. 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.

First of all, paragraph three, the second sentence: "The scope of unacceptable conduct regarding race relations will remain substantively the same as today. There is, in fact, no change in the law."

If you look at paragraph 12, on the substantive provisions, because paragraph 11 sets out what is being brought over from the Penal Code. Paragraph 12 says that "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 provisions."

So, the changes are that we actually provided for some additional defences and in fact, narrowed one of the provisions.

If you look at sections 298 and 298A of the Penal Code and then you look at clauses 39 and 40 of the Bill, they are the same.

As I understand from Mr Giam's speech, he accepts that today, there are no unacceptable constraints on discussing CECA, Palestinian issues and so on. Sections 298 and 298A have been in force for 17 years. If no concerns have been expressed until now, I am a slight loss – what is the additional concern with clauses 39 and 40?

Up to today, I am not aware of any concerns expressed in Parliament about sections 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.

The point, perhaps, was picked up by Ms Chandradas because she did say yes, the provisions are the same, but since we are coming back to Parliament, perhaps we can re-debate it or debate it anew. That is a different point.

What is new is really the Presidential Council for Racial and Religious Harmony, the additional power to issue Restraining Orders and the CRIs, additional remedial orders. But they are process-related. The fundamental power, as you would see in clause 8, relates to issuing Restraining Orders; if 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 do not need a Select Committee, particularly as those additional provisions – Restraining Orders, the Presidential Council, CRI – these are modelled after the Maintenance of Religious Harmony Act.

Mr Giam also asked about members of public and can they 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 sections 298A and 298 deal with, then you could be transgressing the law.

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 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 tailored for putting out in 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.

Assoc Prof Razwana Begum and Mr Louis Ng what measures are in place to address the root causes of racist conduct and 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.

I have said a number of times, both in my earlier speech as well as outside this Chamber and in this Chamber on other occasions. If anyone thinks that the law alone can achieve racial harmony, I think that person needs to have their head examined. That is just not possible. Members know that that has to be achieved through a multifaceted programme or policies, including public education. So, I welcome those questions by Mr Louis Ng and Assoc Prof Razwana Begum because it helps us explain this clearly that what the aim of the Bill, just in case members of public think that 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. This is a key facet. It provides a framework. But then, you need a whole lot of other things.

As I referred to in my earlier speech, there are thousands of activities that take place every weekend organised by People's Association (PA), which is a key nation-building agency. It makes people come together every weekend and, as a result, then, 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. That is why PA has been a key enabler of the success of this country. That is one facet; so many other things. I have talked about the schools being integrated, housing estates being integrated. A lot these are policies.

So, the legal framework tells you what you cannot do and it helps to set a set of values which are hard-wired, hopefully, into our society over time. Our Government agencies do that. Some of the other examples would be the Character and Citizenship Education lessons in schools. 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.

I should note 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 respondents said that both the Government and the community hold equal responsibility to strengthen race relationships.

Ms Hazel Poa, Assoc Prof Razwana Begum, Mr Yip and other Members asked how we can ensure that the Restraining Orders for the Bill does not stifle race-related discussions and that the Restraining Orders are not used disproportionately. I think we can look at the Maintenance of Religious Harmony Act 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 also to be very, very careful and judicious in how you use them.

Second, there are safeguards in place on the use of the Restraining Order. The Restraining Orders can only be used by the Minister who has to be publicly accountable, including in this Parliament. And after the Restraining Order is issued, it has to be sent to the Presidential Council for Racial and Religious Harmony. A person subject to a Restraining Order may make representations to the Presidential Council for Racial and Religious Harmony, and that Council must make recommendations to the President whether to confirm, cancel or vary the order. Thereafter, the President must consider the recommendation by the Council, along with Cabinet's advice and he can cancel, confirm or vary the Restraining Order.

Here, the President must act in accordance with the Cabinet's advice. But if the Cabinet disagrees with the Presidential Council for Racial and Religious Harmony, then the President has discretion. So, that is an additional safeguard. And if the President does not confirm the Restraining Order within 30 days of receiving the Council's recommendation, the Restraining Order will cease to have effect.

Mr Neil Parekh, Dr Syed Harun, Ms Chandradas, Ms Poa and Mr Louis Ng asked about the thresholds for issuing Restraining Orders and the safeguards on the issuance of the Restraining Orders. Minister of State Sun Xueling's speech has covered most of these questions.

Restraining Orders 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 the criminal conduct. Really, this is necessary in the current day in the context of social media. The reference point again is the Maintenance of Religious Harmony Act. The powers are present. We have discourses on religious issues. Singapore is, I would say, a highly religious society, and if people say that is a subjective opinion, at least, we can say it is quite a religious society, a religious place, and the Maintenance of Religious Harmony Act 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. The real point is that we must have the ability to act quickly, decisively, because trust and goodwill, an understanding between our communities, once damaged, can be difficult to restore.

Persons issued a Restraining Order will need to comply with it immediately. But as Minister of State Sun had mentioned, they may make representations within 14 days. The Restraining Order will then be subject to review by the Presidential Council, Cabinet and the President.

To Ms Poa's question, there is no change in the maximum duration for the Presidential Council to make its recommendation. The Bill has used 44 days, counting from the day the person is issued an Restraining Order, in contrast to the Maintenance of Religious Harmony Act, which references the end period for making the representations. Extensions of Restraining Orders are also subject to the checks and balances that I had noted above. And Restraining Order cannot be varied when it is extended. If the Minister wishes to change the terms of an order, he will have to cancel the Restraining Order before issuing a fresh Restraining Order with the new terms. This will have to go through the usual review process, including confirmation by the President.

Ms Poa expressed concerns about the Minister extending an Restraining Order indefinitely to keep a journalist or editor out of their work. If that is done, it will be an abuse of power. It will be an abuse of power to extend the Restraining Order just to keep a person out of work. The extension of Restraining Orders 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.

This is one of those situations. You need the power to deal with the threats to racial harmony. The threats are real. At the same time, the Government is voluntarily frame-working in some checks on their power. And I would say, as was the 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 Maintenance Religious Harmony Act. Since 1990, when the Bill became an Act, the Maintenance Religious Harmony Act, not one order has been issued under the Maintenance Religious Harmony Act, let alone any order being extended. But having the legal framework and the power mean that everyone understands, everyone is careful and that, coupled with the whole lot of other policies that I have talked about, has meant that we have not gotten into the problems that others have gotten into. I will give you an example of one case where we did not issue an Restraining Order, but having those powers was useful.

A preacher went on YouTube and talked about Buddhism and Taoism, and made some highly disparaging remarks, said that they are superstitious, and so on. An Restraining Order could have been issued. But that was not our first reaction. My Ministry officials had a chat with the preacher and said this is really not on. He understood, and he was very cooperative and withdrew his remarks, put out a new video. 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 order. If he had disagreed, we may have had to. But the fact that we had the power, I think helped. After that, others took reference from that. And overall, the balance has been maintained.

Mr Parekh also asked about the role of the Presidential Council for Racial and Religious Harmony under the Bill. It is an advisory body. Its role was explained by Ms Sun. It will not have powers to issue binding guidelines or rules. That is not its mandate. 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. Have good people, have one composite council, makes much more sense. It is a question of judgement.

We thought that it was more effective, more efficient, helps better consultation and discussions. We had initially started off thinking that we may need two and after a lot of discussions we decided we will have one.

Prof Razwana Begum, as well as Mr Louis Ng and Ms Chandradas asked about further details on the composition of the council and its procedures. As Ms Sun has mentioned, appointments to the council must seek to ensure that its representatives from the major racial and religious communities in Singapore, and those who have distinguished themselves in public service or community relations in Singapore. The Presidential Council for Minority Rights will advise on the appointments to this Council and members of the arts community who fulfil these criteria can be appointed to the Council. I do not want to prejudge. I do not want to say members of this community, or such other community would be appointed, but there is no automatic veto against the community.

Clause 33(5) of the Bill, empowers the Council to invite any person to attend before the Council and to examine the person orally, and consider that in the context of its deliberations on a Restraining Order.

Beyond this, as the Presidential Council for Racial and Religious Harmony is intended to be an independent body, it will be allowed to regulate its own procedures within the framework of the law. 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 and secret, unless its public disclosure is expressly authorised by the Minister.

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 and the Workers' Party are not objecting to the Restraining Order regime, but what she does not agree with is the Presidential review of the Restraining Order. The Workers' Party's view is that the Parliament and the public checks on the Minister are adequate and there should not be an additional layer of checks through the Presidential Council and the President. This is ultimately a question of judgment.

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 Presidential Council 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 Maintenance of Religious Harmony Act. Obviously, that does not prevent Parliament from asking questions of the Minister or holding him accountable.

So, in all of this, this is a question of judgment. Ultimately, whether the system works really depends on the integrity of the people involved – all the way – the Minister, the Council, the President, Parliament and everywhere. The Presidential Council for Racial and Religious Harmony, by bringing in senior leaders in the religious and lay community, can provide an additional rigour to the process. I can tell Members, because Ms Lim sort of alluded to it, we have certainly not put these provisions in, in the belief that the Presidential Council for Racial and Religious Harmony and the President will never disagree with the Minister. That will be an untenable supposition if that was a supposition. We are building frameworks and institutions which we hope will see Singapore through over a long period. This is all part of the institution building that has been going on over the last 60 years or so.

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 arose from not realising what is current law is and that the key charging provisions are substantially the same. Section 298A of the Penal Code criminalises acts that knowingly promote or attempts to promote on grounds of race, disharmony, or feelings of enmity, hatred or ill will between different racial groups.

And Ms Poa will see, when she quoted in her speech from the Bill, and she said: while this Bill borrows the language found in the Maintenance of Religious Harmony Act, the phrase and act that causes feelings of enmity, hatred, ill will or hostility between different races in Singapore. Members will see that that is pretty much what that is in section 298A today.

The point I made earlier in response to Mr Gerald Giam, section 298A has been enforced for the last 17 years and we know that it was, as far as I can tell, most Members of Parliament or all Members did not have any issues with it.

So, then the second point that Ms Poa made, 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. There are additional provisions, as I mentioned earlier, relating to the Restraining Orders, the CRI. Those are separate points. The charging provision, as it were, remains substantially the same.

On the specific examples that 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 EIP and there was a POFMA Order issued. I do not believe he was charged and my recollection is I do not remember anything he said as crossing the criminal threshold. If he did not cross the criminal threshold then, he would not cross the criminal threshold now.

On "Free Palestine Now!", I do not believe that this was considered an offence at that time it was said and I also do not believe that clauses 39, 40 will be triggered now if it is put into an Act. It is not a call for violence. It is an expression of opinion. 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. Assessments have got to be made as to whether law is breached, but the basic point is 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 where AGC will have to come in to. "From river to sea" is another point that Ms Poa made. She asked if that would be an offence now and whether a Restraining Order can be issued. She did note that the Police said that it may have been an offence; the Police statement.

I want to be careful what I 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, where they have gone out in public and said they think 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 Restraining Order should be issued, depends on clause 8 and whether clause 8 is triggered, and that, in turn, depends on the actual facts. And then the point about umbrellas with watermelons and wearing the Palestinian motif headgear, and so on, they were not offences per se under sections 298 or 298A. They would not be offences per se now and I would suggest, therefore, a careful understanding of the provisions. Otherwise, there is a serious risk that the public may be misled. This issue of umbrellas and cause-related gatherings, you got to differentiate between what this Bill does – clauses 39, 40, taken from 298 and 298A – with gathering in protected places or in being in breach of the Public Order Act.

If you gather in some places in front of Parliament, in front of Istana, gathered at protected places, then you may be committing an offence. Not because you are carrying an umbrella with some motifs or you are wearing a particular headgear, but because you are doing something in a protected place that the law prohibits you from doing. It does not mean that the underlying expression of your ideas about Palestine are in themselves an offence. No. So, again with Ms Poa, I would say I understand the concerns, but please read the provisions carefully.

Mr Yip Hon Weng, Assoc Prof Razwana 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. I have explained that in quite considerable detail.

Mr Mark Lee, Mr Zhulkarnain, Mr Neil Parekh and Dr Syed Harun asked which entities would be designated under this Bill. Clause 15 of the Bill describes what a race-based entity is. The definition has been kept somewhat broad because of the nature of malicious foreign influence, which can exploit a wide range of entities to further their own agenda and undermine our racial harmony. But as Minister of State Sun Xueling has mentioned, we intend to designate entities. We will take a very practical and measured approach.

For a start, we only intend to designate clan and business associations that are linked to the Chinese, Malay and Indian races. No other entities will be designated for now, though we will not preclude designating them in the future, as the threat environment evolves.

On Mr Zhulkarnain's query about whistle-blowing 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.

Mr Lee asked if there are avenues to appeal against the 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. As part of their representations, the entity can explain why they think they should not be designated. The competent authority will take these representations into account when making the final decision on designation. The entities can appeal to be exempted from some of the requirements, including the leadership requirements and my Ministry will look at them and will be prepared to make exemptions on a case-by-case basis, if sufficient reason is given.

They can also apply, the entities, to the competent authority to have their designations cancelled instead of being varied if there is a material change in the circumstances that no longer warrants designation.

Mr Dennis Tan, Ms Sylvia Lim, Mr Yip Hon Weng, Mr Mark Lee, Mr Neil Parekh and Dr Syed Harun asked about the extent of foreign influence that exists in clan and business associations and if the foreign influence safeguards under the Bill would deter or act as a deterrence from individuals participating in race-based activities, would they stifle the activities? And there were some points made about the importance of Singaporeans and our associations and entities being able to interact with foreigners and foreign entities.

For a start, let me make this clear. We agree entirely that Singapore must remain open. 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 do not 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 situations. And likewise, geopolitically too. In every way, Singapore survives by relying on being nimble and that means understanding the world and moving ahead or trying to keep a step ahead of any others. That can only happen if you form international partnerships.

So, yes, I do not think there is any difference in viewpoints or disagreement that we need the world and we need to interact with the world and we need to form partnerships.

The real issue is, with the good comes sometimes the bad and clan associations, partnerships and so on can potentially be vectors of influence from countries that want to influence our politics in Singapore. Is there evidence? There are certainly some reasons to be concerned and you see evidence all over the world where there are such vectors of influence.

We had FICA which was passed in this Parliament where Members of Parliament were subjected to various requirements. It does not mean that all of you are today vectors of influence. All of you. All of us. We are not vectors of influence. But we see that countries use legislators, Members of Parliament, Ministers sometimes 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 is really finding the right balance between remaining open and protecting ourselves from malicious foreign influence and that is what the safeguards in the Maintenance of Racial Harmony Bill seek to do.

Sir, nothing in the Bill in itself is meant to suggest that foreign influence is in itself undesirable. And designation under this Bill as a race-based entity does not imply any wrongdoing. It simply means that the entities or the entity has engaged in activities that relate to race, which sometimes is its raison d'etre and we all recognise that these entities are important for Singapore and they play a very a 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.

But at the same time, the nature of their activities makes them more susceptible to foreign influence and that foreign influence is malicious then it can damage us so we need to take some precautions. So, under the Maintenance of Religious Harmony Act, all religious groups are subject to such safeguards. But for this Bill, the Maintenance of Racial Harmony Bill, given that race-based entities are a more diverse group compared to religious groups, our approach has been to have the safeguards apply only to a subset of designated entities and we believe that is enough to meet our policy intent.

Designated entities can continue to engage their counterparts overseas including in the pursuit of cultural or commercial goals and, as I said, designation in itself does not impute that they are guilty of any misconduct.

Designated entities will be subject to transparency requirements. But there are no prohibitions or implications on their activities in the first instance and we have engaged many of these race-based entities. They understood and accepted the need for these safeguards to mitigate foreign influence risk.

Ultimately, our intent is to safeguard Singapore from malicious foreign influence, not to curtail any legitimate exchanges, business deals or trade promotion activities conducted by our clan or business associations.

Assoc Prof Razwana Begum, 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". We are working out the reporting requirements. They will be prescribed in the Regulations.

But let me make it clear. There will be no prohibition on accepting these 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 only have to declare them.

Similar to when such safeguards were introduced under the Maintenance of Religious Harmony Act, 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.

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.

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.

Mr Darryl David and Mr Yip asked about the effectiveness of the foreign influence safeguards. Look, the baseline safeguards that are in the Bill will not be able to completely eliminate the risk of foreign influence. Where we uncover specific risks or heightened risks, we will have to consider issuing Restraining Orders to impose additional measures against foreign influence or go to FICA and consider the levers under FICA to deal with the risks. It depends on the facts. It depends on the level of threat. That could include imposing additional restrictions on leadership, requiring all the office bearers to be Singapore Citizens if 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 the two-tier approach suggested by Mr David.

Assoc Prof Razwana asked what mechanisms are in place to allow the Ministry to take down racially problematic materials that are hosted online domestically or internationally. That covers different legislation. There is the Broadcasting Act. There is Online Criminal Harms Act. Bearing in mind, we do not control the platforms and there is a limit to what we can do internationally, 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.

In addition to Restraining Orders that can be issued to take down such content, offences under the Bill are provided extra-territorial effect, So, that allows us to address persons in other jurisdictions who act in a manner prejudicial to racial harmony. But actual enforcement is a separate question.

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 concern 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 an Act and comes into force because the provisions are substantively similar.

Ms Chandradas asked about the defences under the Bill and when they will apply. 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 Restraining Order, other levers beyond prosecution and the Presidential Council. Those are all additional measures; whereas previously, what we could do was either charge or not charge the person.

But in terms of what they can do, the two provisions – sections 298 and 298A – they are essentially carried over and there are two separate debates, whether that is too restrictive, which is the point Ms Chandradas 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.

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. The defences will not apply for the offences of urging violence on the grounds of race, against 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 how many other countries approach it. When it crosses the line into hate speech or speech that advocates violence, we say no. In fact, regardless of which community, 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.

Mr Yip, Mr Zhulkarnain, Mr Parekh, Mr David, Assoc Prof Razwana, Mr Giam and Mr Vikram Nair asked for more details about the CRI. Their questions have mostly been addressed in my earlier speech, and I have also noted Mr Zhulkarnain and Mr David's suggestions for the programme.

To briefly recap, the programme is similar to the CRI in the Maintenance of Religious Harmony Act. 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 CRIs. For those cases, the intention is to prosecute them. 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. MHA will work closely with MCCY, OnePeople.SG and community partners on structuring, delivering and monitoring the outcomes of such programmes.

An example of a CRI could be requiring the alleged offender to go and make amends with the aggrieved community that he has in some way attacked and is in breach of the provisions. Perhaps, go and volunteer with the community. And if it is 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. It could lead to a better understanding, better appreciation. Hopefully, both sides will go away feeling better about it.

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, and there will be some, they cannot be forced to change their views or express genuine remorse.

That said, I think it is good that CRI is offered. It really gives the alleged offender an opportunity to learn the mistake of his actions, his racist conduct and help soothe communal tensions and repair the disrupted ties between the communities.

Mr Ng asked what programmes are available for individuals in prison for serious race-related offences, given that they may not be eligible for 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 to stay away from re-offending – and these all part of the Singapore Prison Services efforts to rehabilitate and re-integrate offenders and try and make them contributing members of society.

Before I conclude, Sir, 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 a large topic and it is outside the scope of this Bill. I will just make the point that the Government agrees that this should be a priority and the point has been addressed elsewhere.

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 said, not the natural state of things. It is sustained through a suite of policies, laws, programmes and, more fundamentally, by Singaporeans' shared commitment to racial harmony.

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. Mr Speaker, Sir, I seek to move.

6.46 pm

Mr Speaker: Before I ask Members for their clarifications, Leader, do you want to move the Exempted Business Motion?

Debate resumed.

Mr Speaker: We will now have clarifications for the Minister. Ms Sylvia Lim.

6.48 pm

Ms Sylvia Lim: Thank you, Speaker. I have two clarifications for the Minister. One is on my own speech and the second is a clarification on the Government's position.

First of all, earlier in the Minister's round-up, he quoted me saying, because I mentioned that the Government is accountable for decisions on Restraining Orders through Parliament and in that way, accountable to Singaporeans through this forum that these are adequate. Actually, the point I was making was that the Government is accountable to Singaporeans through Parliament whereas the Elected President (EP) is not. So, I was making that as a comparison in questioning the wisdom of making the EP the final arbiter of whether Restraining Orders are appropriate under the Bill. So, that is my clarification.

The second clarification I have is for the Minister. Again, it relates to the EP being designated as the final arbiter in such matters. He earlier mentioned that the Government never takes it for granted that the EP will agree with the Government. So, we have to imagine a situation where the EP will disagree because the Presidential Council has disagreed with the Minister and therefore, the EP is entitled to also take the point that he will not follow the Cabinet's decision and could cancel the Restraining Order issued by the Minister.

If that were to happen, does the Minister not agree that such a confrontation with the Government, by the EP, really detracts from his role? Of course, under the scheme, there are other decisions, if we look at the decisions that the EP has been emplaced with. Decisions like whether to allow drawdown of past Reserves, decisions like whether to concur with Public Service appointments. That already involves confrontation and we have always been very uncomfortable with this problem. But today, we are faced with an additional dimension and that is that you are envisaging that the EP may have to confront the Government on an issue about race, which goes to the fundamentals of every Singaporean's identity and to social cohesion as well.

So, is he not concerned that this scheme here will risk the EP being polarised along racial lines and it is actually really not a road we want to go down?

Mr K Shanmugam: Let me take the second point first. If I can summarise the point made by Ms Lim, where the EP disagrees with the Government or the Minister, he becomes the final arbiter, and such a confrontation detracts from the President's normal role. And that we have a number of places in the Constitution, situations where the President has such a role – Reserves, for example. But here, we are dealing with race and is that not a cause for concern?

Let us go to some fundamentals. What are those fundamentals? The Government is being given the power to issue Restraining Orders relating to race. The Minister issues the order. In other countries – first of all, I do not know of other countries which do this sort of thing – but the usual route is having the courts to have a judicial review. The courts sitting in there, dealing with, perhaps, a highly emotive issue and the matter being made a cause célèbre. In my experience, that usually makes things much worse.

We have taken a very different approach. For example, in the Maintenance of Religious Harmony Act, we deliberately went down this route – that we will have Restraining Orders and then, have the final check through a Council and a President.

I do not know if the Workers' Party objected to the Maintenance of Religious Harmony Act with those provisions. In the Internal Security Act, too, we have a similar provision.

If the President disagrees with the Minister, it is a matter of confrontation. It is not the most pleasant of things, but as I said, you have to design these laws with a view to build up institutions for the benefit of Singapore as a whole, predicting a time when most of us may not be around, how does it serve Singapore?

It is a curious reversal of roles, because I am here arguing for an extra layer of check on the Government, whereas Ms Lim is saying, why are we having this additional layer because it brings the President into the fray. I do not think so. Because if you have outstanding people in the Presidential Council and they are advising the President – senior community leaders and leaders of religious groups, together in their collective wisdom, they think that the Government's Restraining Order lacks substance and they advise the President. And the President himself is elected by the people and in that sense, he has a mandate, he is accountable to the people himself while the Minister continues to be accountable in Parliament and, of course, to the judgement of the public.

We take the view that if there is such a confrontation, then what it means is a group of outstanding people, the Presidential Council and a person who was directly elected by the people of Singapore, the President, takes a view which is different from the Minister. And we think that that should be given some value.

I think to suggest that that should be completely ignored, they should not be given that power – I can see where Ms Lim comes from. There are people who can argue that – that it should only be the Executive. But I think the balance here comes down in favour of having this additional check and letting the Minister understand that he has to have a care in how these powers are exercised.

You have power, you try and build in a framework that provides for careful and prudent exercise of that power, but all the time, also remembering that we are a small boat in an ocean and we do need power given to the Government, subject to suitable checks, to move fast and move quick. So, if you have too many checks and balances, nothing gets done. If you have no checks and balances, sometimes, you can go very wrong. So, we are trying to find a balance. That is the best answer I can give.

Her earlier point is a clarification of what she had earlier said. I understand the point and I think I do not need to repeat myself.

Mr Speaker: Mr Leong Mun Wai.

Mr Leong Mun Wai (Non-Constituency Member): Mr Speaker, I would like to clarify with the Minister on one point. This power that is given to the EP is actually not inside FICA, right? I am not a legal expert, but I want to clarify with the Minister on this point.

Mr K Shanmugam: I am not sure, Sir, what the clarification is. If the Member wants to ask me about FICA, I suggest he puts in a question to that effect.

Mr Speaker: Mr Leong.

Mr Leong Mun Wai: Mr Speaker, we are now debating a little bit about the powers of the EP. So, I think it is a relevant question, Minister. What I want to know is, under FICA, the EP does not have the power to veto the Minister's decision, right?

Mr K Shanmugam: As a matter of fact, that is yes. There are a number of pieces of legislation where the EP does not have the power to veto the Minister's decision. That is so.

Mr Speaker: Mr Leong.

Mr Leong Mun Wai: Mr Speaker, Sir, I remember when we were debating FICA some years ago, I asked the Minister this question specifically – whether the President has to act according to the recommendation of the Cabinet. And the Minister's reply at that time was yes, the President has to act according to the recommendation of the Cabinet.

In that case, under FICA, the President does not have the power to independently veto the decision of the Cabinet or the Minister. Is that right?

Mr K Shanmugam: I thought I made that clear. The EP has no discretion under FICA. He has got to act on the advice of the Cabinet.

Mr Speaker: Ms Hazel Poa.

Ms Hazel Poa: The Minister has said that the provisions in the new Bill is largely similar to current provisions, but I think there is a big difference in clause 8. Most of my clarifications were with respect to the Restraining Order, which is in clause 8. The main difference is that under current law, decisions are made by the Court on whether it is criminal, but in clause 8, the decision is made by the Minister.

Is the Minister saying that the Minister, in making a decision under clause 8, will be using largely the same procedure as the judges? Because when the Courts make the decision, they are usually bound by legal precedence and there is quite a lot of research involved and it takes time.

Since the purpose of clause 8 is for speed, I do not see how that can be possible. That is why we are trying to find out what is this alternative system that the Minister will be using to make his decision.

Mr K Shanmugam: Thank you, Sir. Let me try and explain this. Today, we have sections 298 and 298A. The process is as follows. An offence is potentially disclosed. Police investigate. AGC comes in – that is, if it is believed that an offence has been committed. You have to charge the person and you have to prove the case in Court. So, it is very binary. Either you charge or you do not charge.

The Bill, in terms of the offences, clauses 39 and 40, take that approach. So, it ports over sections 298 and 298A, and I made that clear. And that responds to a number of questions Ms Poa had asked about whether something will or will not be an offence. For example, Mr Shaik Amar's words, I think, she asked if they would be an offence today.

Let me be more accurate by looking at what exactly she said. There was, for example, "from the river to the sea", and I quote, "can lead to racial tensions and maybe an offence under section 298A of the Penal Code. Would individuals who use such phrases, such as "from river to sea, Palestinians will be free" online or offline, now we subject to a Restraining Order under this Bill or be prosecuted under clause 40 of the Bill?" Then, she asked about those who use umbrellas painted with watermelon: "Would individuals committing such acts be subject to a Restraining Order or prosecuted under clause 40 of the Bill?"

And my point generally was that, if it was an offence previously, it is an offence now. If it was not an offence previously, it would not be an offence now. I also distinguished between, for example, you carry umbrellas with watermelon motifs or the Palestinian headgear motif, there might be a misunderstanding. If you do that in front of the Istana or if you come to Parliament and do it, or in some other restricted place like the State Courts, you are not being charged because of carrying around a watermelon motif, but because you are breaching the protected places Act. Some places are gazetted, a certain conduct is prohibited and whether or not you are carrying a watermelon motif umbrella, you will be charged if you are engaged in activities that are prohibited. But you are not being charged for breaching sections 298 or 298A.

But if you engage in conduct, for example, "from the river to the sea", you can see the Police statement. Police statement was that it was potentially an offence. And I said if it was an offence then, it may be an offence now. I did not want to go beyond that because Police have issued a statement.

Beyond being a Bill that consolidates provisions, there are parts which are added. In fact, there are five aspects to this Bill, one of which is the porting over. There are four other aspects, one of which is the Restraining Order under clause 8. But if you look at the provisions of clause 8, the essentials that need to be satisfied, they are similar to the requirements of sections 298, 298A, except that the decision is made by the Minister. It is an executive decision. It is not a decision by the Courts. So, that is an add-on to the underlying provisions, and the Minister has to be satisfied. And the earlier discussion with Ms Lim related to the Minister's decision whether it should be final, subject only to scrutiny by Parliament or it should be subject to the safeguards of a veto by the President, if Cabinet takes one view and the Presidential Council takes a different view. So, we have that.

I do not see that that adds an additional layer of substantially restricting free speech or speech on these issues, because the underlying factors that need to be satisfied are similar to what is required under sections 298 and 298A, albeit the decision is made by the Minister. I hope I have clarified.

Mr Speaker: Ms Hazel Poa.

Ms Hazel Poa: I do understand the Minister's explanation with regard to clause 39 and clause 40. My main query is on clause 8 – basically, how the Minister makes his decision. As he has pointed out, and this is the Minister making the decision instead of the Courts, the Courts have their own system in the decision-making. So, what I am trying to establish is what is the system that the Minister will be using? What sort of criteria? And will they be bound by legal precedence?

Mr K Shanmugam: Sir, in the usual way, when there is a potential event which attracts clause 8, bearing in mind this is not in place yet and bearing in mind we have never had to do this under the Maintenance of Religious Harmony Act, but there would be a careful assessment made by the Ministry and obviously, the Ministry's lawyers would be involved; and almost certainly, there would be advice taken from the Government's legal officers. And then, the Minister will make a decision. But it will have to be a process that is swift and fast because of the nature of social media. But at the same time, Members will note that there are procedures for appeals and for the appeals to be dealt with. And ultimately, I have talked about the routes for challenging the Minister's decision.

Mr Speaker: Mr Leong Mun Wai.

Mr Leong Mun Wai: Thank you, Mr Speaker. Just one last question to the Minister. So, why does the Minister see fit to give the President the veto power under the Maintenance of Racial Harmony Act, but not under FICA?

Mr K Shanmugam: Sir, we spent some considerable time dealing with FICA. Members may recall that FICA would require the Government to act often on intelligence, on foreign influence. And often that information is not something that we can share with third parties.

Let me give you an example. If you look at FICA foreign influence countermeasures, we talked about different aspects. But let us take something that has happened internationally. Country A gives some money to a politician in Country B. You have seen enough newspaper reports. They do it covertly and they do it for the purpose of influencing the parliamentarians, journalists and others in such situations. I think I am on record as saying that many countries do it. Let us not target just one country or another. Many countries do it.

And there is record of us having been victims and there are other situations where we know that attempts have been made a number of times. Usually, it is subversive. Usually, it is covert. And usually, it is tracked through intelligence, either intelligence by ourselves or sometimes through intelligence exchange with others too.

It would be a serious prejudice to national interest if we were to go out and disclose to anyone beyond a very small group of intelligence officers the nature of this information. The idea that we can have something similar to a Presidential Council, comprising 15 to 20 people who will have access to the most classified of information, which potentially destroys our sources of information, sources of intelligence, in order to counter such influence – I cannot even begin to imagine or think that we will be doing that. So, there, it has to be kept to a very small group intentionally because of national interest.

In the context of someone talking about race, there is nothing particularly related to intelligence because it is public. The person has said what he has said and now, it is a question of assessment as to whether something ought to be done about it. And I did not see any particular issue with taking it through this route and having someone potentially review a decision that I or someone else in my position might make.

Mr Speaker: Ms Usha Chandradas.

Ms Usha Chandradas: I thank the Minister for his reply. I just have one clarification. Could the Minister address my question on how the defence at clause 40(6) will be interpreted? Is it something that is meant to be interpreted narrowly or will it be considered broadly with regard to the full context of the situation at hand that is being examined? So, specifically, if we have an artwork here that is the subject of consideration, will we consider things like the artist's intention as well as the work that is the subject of the consideration?

Mr K Shanmugam: Can I trouble Ms Chandradas to tell me which clause she was referring to?

Ms Usha Chandradas: Clause 40(6).

Mr K Shanmugam: Clause 46, it is about the composition of offences by the competent authority? If I got the right one.

Ms Usha Chandradas: Clause 40(6), my apologies, where we have to look at the matters of good faith.

Mr K Shanmugam: Yes, look, I mean, it goes back to the factors that make up the offence. We look at the issues of feelings of enmity, hatred, ill will, hostility, contempt, ridicule for any race, insult, vilify, denigrate. And then, we are seeking to give a defence in this case. Unlike some other situations, here, we are actually trying to put in a defence that if the person can show and he is not required to prove it beyond reasonable doubt, but on a balance of probabilities, that his conduct, even though the conduct would be causing these effects, he acted in good faith and he actually tried to remove whatever he had done or said. That can be taken into account in considering the totality of the situation.

It is fairly straightforward. Is there any particular concern about the way it is structured?

Ms Usha Chandradas: I think, if the Minister will recall, I referred to the example of an artist. The example that I talked about was the artist, Lee Wen, in his performance and his works, "The Journey of the Yellow Man". So, with this work, he is basically addressing racial stereotypes and it is with a view to prompting audiences to think about the issues.

So, if we actually look at the work, I do not think we can see a clear message there to bring about a removal of the matters that he is addressing. But if you consider the artist's intention in the work that he is producing, you will see that perhaps a different conclusion could be reached.

Mr K Shanmugam: The intention is relevant to, first of all, whether an offence has, in fact, been committed. I do not know this particular work, so I do not want to comment without knowing the details. But if you frame it as his intention, in the first place, was to educate and not to bring about enmity and ill will, and if that is believed, one has got to look at the nature of the work, what a reasonable person would think, what was his own intention in doing it; and there are a range of possibilities. One is to say, yes, it is offensive, but we think that this was the reason why he did it, and maybe, we give him a warning to not do it again. Or accept in good faith that actually, this might help in the overall maintenance of racial harmony because of the nature of the work.

Without knowing in detail what the artist has done, I am loathe to go further. But the intention behind section 40(6) was actually to try and add in additional defences to support people who might have made comments in a certain context, but then, in good faith, try and undo the damage.

7.16 pm

Mr Speaker: I do not see any more hands raised.

Question put, and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read a Second time and committed to a Committee of the whole House.

The House immediately resolved itself into a Committee on the Bill. – [Mr K Shanmugam].

Bill considered in Committee; reported without amendment; read a Third time and passed.