Maintenance of Religious Harmony (Amendment) Bill

Order for Second Reading read.

12.26 pm

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

This Bill proposes amendments to Maintenance of Religious Harmony Act, referred to as MRHA. The MRHA was passed in 1990 and came to effect in 1992. In those 27 years, society, attitudes towards religion, the environment and more have changed. We reviewed the MRHA and we decided to amend it, keep it relevant, keep it effective.

In this speech, I will touch on three aspects. First, the background to the MRHA, reasons why it was introduced in 1990; second, a brief look at relevant events around the world, the extent of religious harmony and our experience over the past 27 years; and third, set out the rationale for the amendments. My colleague, Senior Parliamentary Secretary Sun Xueling, will speak on the specific provisions in the Bill. Let me now deal with the context and background to the MRHA.

The rationale for the MRHA was set out in a White Paper. It was published in December 1989. It highlighted several important aspects. One: religious harmony is a necessary condition for us to survive as a country. The Government needed to set out a set of “working rules” on how different religious groups interact with each other. One such rule was that religious groups should not do anything that causes disharmony, ill-will or hostility between different religious groups. This is especially so for proselytisation. A key tenet of many religions is to propagate their faith, but in Singapore, we want it to be done sensitively.

Another rule, if I may highlight, is that religious groups should not venture into politics and political parties should not use religion to get popular support. The White Paper also recognised it would be unwise to assume that all religious groups will recognise the Rules of Prudence. But, in our context, in fact in any country, if these rules were ignored, that could seriously damage our social fabric and our political, economic fabric. The White Paper then said legislation was therefore necessary because we wanted to take pre-emptive action to maintain religious harmony.

The MRHA was passed, had these key features: one, it covered conduct that harmed religious tolerance; two, there were powers for the Minister to issue orders restraining harmful conduct; and three, a Presidential Council for Religious Harmony (PCRH) was set up, which could consider these orders. It could also consider other matters that affected the maintenance of religious harmony.

Let me give a bit more context on the reasons for the introduction of the Act then.

I think we all recognise the power of religion. It has been and it is a force for much good. Major religions have transformed societies in positive ways. They are the bedrock of core societal values: compassion, kindness, generosity. The collective efforts of a number of different religious organisations and groups, their values and their faith have also helped to make Singapore what it is today.

At the same time, we recognise that religion has also been used and can be used by bad actors as a rallying point for violence. Also, by bad actors as a rallying point to pursue political power, often with bad outcomes for societies.

In 1990, the Government was very aware of the good that religion can bring about, but also how it can be abused by some. So, the question was how to keep the good, allow a large measure of freedom and also keep out the bad? The Government decided on two key principles.

First, emphasise the constitutional guarantee of freedom of religion – the right of every person to practise his or her beliefs. And the Government, as a matter of policy, made sure that religion remained accessible to all Singaporeans who wish to access it.

For example, land is continuously set aside in our residential estates. Every time we plan an estate, we take into account religious needs for worship for all religions. The Government helped to establish the Mosque Building and MENDAKI Fund, which made it easier to mobilise the community and build mosques.

At the same time, the Government itself is secular. Secularism in Singapore is unique. It is not like secularism in some other countries. The example I spoke about in April this year before this House was France.There, the state will not intervene in religious matters, even if an act or speech offends other religions.

We take a different position. I explained this in some detail, in my Parliamentary Statement in April before this House.

The Government does not privilege any religious group. But we also do not allow any religious group to be attacked or insulted. And we actively encourage inter-faith dialogues, activities to foster mutual understanding and respect. At the same time, we keep to the position that no religious group should influence Government policy and decision-making.

That was the background for the passing of the MRHA in 1990. In the last 27 years since it was passed, there have been some significant changes. I will touch on four.

First, growing religiosity and increased reliance on identity politics around the world; second, increased violence committed in the name of religion; third, the Internet and social media; and fourth, increased possibilities for interference by countries in the affairs of other countries.

First, rising religiosity. If you look at the 2015 Pew Research Centre survey, it is projected that by 2050, 87% of the world's population will be religiously-affiliated. That, we can see, is particularly so in this region – look at Indonesia, for example. Rising religiosity by itself can be a force for considerable good, as I explained earlier. But there can be trouble when it is exploited by bad actors, for example, for identity politics. And it can be so exploited. We see this in many places.

If we look at Europe – far-right movements play up anxieties against Muslims and other minorities. If we look nearer in this region, in Myanmar, there is religious conflict between the majority Buddhists and the Rohingya Muslim minority. Buddhist monks enter the political scene and say they are defending the Buddhist Myanmar against Islamisation.

If we look at Sri Lanka, some have sought to radicalise Buddhists by claims that all of Sri Lanka should be exclusively Buddhist. We had a 2013 Buddhist attack on a mosque; 2014, anti-Muslim riots which resulted in a 10-day national state of emergency; and last year, more anti-Muslim riots. The Buddhist monks have also disrupted Christian church services.

The developments in India are worth nothing. India was established in 1947 as a pluralist nation and home that comprises people of many religions, sects and ethnicities. Their constitution provides no particular religion with special status.

A writer points out that the party that champions secularism, the Congress Party, during the 1984 national elections, moved away from being tied to secularism. It won by riding on Hindu majoritarian politics. By 2019, to regain power, the Congress Party dropped the word "secularism" from its manifesto. It tells you how far things have come – this is the party of Nehru and Gandhi.

The writer, Kanchan Chandra, says that through the years, Indian politicians have swayed from one side to another, overly championing minority interests, or giving in too much to the majority's desires. And over time, this generated feelings of unfairness, from both the minority and majority religionists.

Secularism is an ideal but it is difficult to get it right and get the balance right.

Our Constitution guarantees the freedom of religion, but so do the constitutions of many other countries, including the United States. And that has not prevented the rise of identity politics.

The second trend that I want to touch is the increasing violence from conflicts that have been fueled by religious hate speech. Once hate speech is systemically developed and normalised, it destroys social cohesion, erodes shared values and lays the foundation for violence.

I spoke about this quite extensively, to a great extent in this House in April. I will not go through it again. Hate speech is also fuel for religious violence. In 2018, Pew Research Centre did a studythat showed that two years earlier in 2016, more than 25% of the countries in the world experienced a high incidence of hostilities involving religion. I think the point is made – if you look around, you see many examples and I gave many examples a few months ago.

The third trend that I want to touch on is the Internet and social media. The Internet has been used to mobilise hatred and mob attacks. It has provided for anonymity that allows unfettered expressions and religious intolerance. Internet access has made it easier for people to be influenced by extremist ideologies. And collectively, social media can invoke irrational fear of both the majority and the minority groups. Parts of the Internet are already turning into hothouses of hate – like-minded bigots find each other and gather online. They are helped by Internet platforms where algorithms allow hate to go viral.

There are many examples. If we look at India, in 2014, photos of venerated Hindu figures were morphed in "derogatory" manner and circulated on social media. They went viral. Lots of people took to the streets, asking for the blood of the offenders. In Indonesia, you have preachers, some of whom have vast followings on social media and are influencers with a force of their own. They can mobilise huge crowds and can make part of the Muslim community susceptible to identity politics.

Right next to us, on the other side, you have the "Buy Muslim First" campaign in Malaysia. It has been been gaining momentum, going around on WhatsApp messages. It is now seen as a boycott of goods and services produced by non-Muslims. Government leaders have attempted to intervene but so far, the impact has been minimal. If this continues to grow, it will stoke Muslim versus non-Muslim sentiments.

The fourth trend I will touch on is foreign interference. Again, I will not go into details. It is well-documented. Members know about it and the Internet makes it much more possible.

So, let me now turn to the situation in Singapore. We have been spared most of this trouble in Singapore. Over the last 60 years, the Government has been even-handed in the treatment of all religions and religious groups. We actively protect religious diversity, but also emphasise our common spaces and our shared experiences.

Earlier this year, more than 300 religious organisations affirmed the Commitment to Safeguard Religious Harmony. The Commitment encourages day-to-day positive interactions so that people can work and live together harmoniously. Beyond institutional structures, we also have laws in place that seek to ensure that no one exploits fault lines.

Because of these policies, the laws and enforcement, we have created some norms and values within Singapore which make us unique and different from many other places. We have peace and harmony.

If we go back to a Pew Research Centre study in 2014 on religious diversity, it showed that Singapore was the most religiously diverse country in the world. That could make us particularly susceptible to fault lines deepening, because you are so diverse in such a small place. Yet, a 2016 Gallup World Poll ranked us first out of 140 countries for tolerance of ethnic minorities. The poll deals with ethnicity, not religion, but I think you can draw some conclusions from that.

A 2019 IPS and OnePeople.sg joint study also found inter-religious harmony in Singapore improving. Nine in 10 said the level of racial and religious harmony in Singapore is moderate, high, or very high.

I think you take the surveys and studies in context. Just because people say we are number one does not automatically mean we are number one. But I think we look our lived experiences, lived realities and the findings are consistent with our lived experiences in Singapore.

Let me now come to the reason for the amendments. I have described the developments around the world that we should be concerned about. It is easy for religious movements in other countries to affect us. A new way of thinking, or revolutions like the 1979 Iranian Revolution swept through the world; the ideas, come through here too.

We have to put in some circuit breakers to prevent events relating to religion from affecting us negatively. You want to allow for those religious influences but at the same time do not want them to affect us negatively.

We are updating the MRHA to deal with some of the challenges that I have spoken about. Let me touch on three key proposed changes to the MRHA.

First, we are moving over the religion-related offences from the Penal Code and housing them under the MRHA. The amendments will make it an offence to knowingly urge violence, on the ground of religion or religious belief, against any person or group. Protection is provided to religious groups and its members, as well as non-religious groups and the members of such groups.

Action can be taken if any religious group or its member attacks another religious group using religion. But action can also be taken if a religious group, using religion, attacks a non-religious group – say, for example, they attack a LGBTQ group or individuals on the basis of religion. But equally, if a religious group or its member is attacked by any non-religious group or person – say, again, LGBTQ – then action can also be taken. So, it is even-handed.

Second, we need to put in place measures to safeguard against foreign actors who attempt to use religion to divide our local communities. The Bill introduces requirements on religious organisations to disclose foreign donations and affiliations. It also introduces local leadership requirements for religious organisations. We will not apply these requirements to spiritual leaders and preachers. It is not possible. Many of them come from overseas and it is not our intent to constrain the practice of religion.

Third, the MRHA allows the Government to issue a Restraining Order to anyone who threatens religious harmony – that has been there all along. Currently, it requires a 14-day notice period to be given. With the Internet and social media, 14 days is too long. So, we will amend for the Order to to take immediate effect.

We will introduce the Community Remedial Initiative (CRI). It is a new tool that focuses on restoration and rehabilitation.

I would like to mention, in this context, a recent interesting incident which captures the essence of what we are trying to do. Some Members may recall an incident a few days ago where the Young Sikh Association reached out to a social media influencer, Ms Sheena Phua. She had uploaded a picture showing two Sikh men in white turbans at the recent F1 Grand Prix, and referred to them as “huge obstructions”. The online firestorm began – she was accused of being racist and slighting Sikhism.

It would have been entirely understandable for the Sikh community to criticise her, but the Young Sikh Association took a different path and in many ways a very commendable path. They reached out and invited her to visit the gurdwara so that they could educate her about Sikhism. These young men understood that at times, insensitive and derogatory comments can come from a place of ignorance and that the better and more sustainable path is not of hate or taking sides, but of friendship, respect and learning about each other.

Mr Malminderjit Singh, the secretary of the Sikh Advisory Board, called the actions of these young men and, I quote, a "First World response to a Third World incident". I agree. This incident in fact encapsulates the spirit of the CRI. It will not be compulsory because we do not want to force a person of one religion to compulsorily, say, step into another place of religious worship if there are religious reasons why that person may not wish to do so. We do not want to compel them to do some things that they may not wish to do. We will leave it as a matter of their own conscience and what they are prepared to do. But that will be taken into account in when deciding on the actions that are subsequently taken. The philosophy is that, it is much better if people reach out to one another and get a better understanding of each other's religion. This will foster a better environment.

So, these are the changes and they are being proposed after a lot of thought, consultations and, as Members will know, with considerable support from the different religious communities from all the major faiths. They have come out after they saw the Bill and after it was introduced in Parliament to give their support. And I hope that Members will likewise support it.

Question proposed.

12.49 pm

The Senior Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Home Affairs (Ms Sun Xueling): Mr Speaker, Sir, I will be speaking in my capacity as Senior Parliamentary Secretary for the Ministry of Home Affairs.

The Minister for Home Affairs has set out the broad rationale on the need for the Maintenance of Religious Harmony Act, otherwise known as the MRHA. He also explained why we need to amend the MRHA to ensure that it remains effective.

I will now set out the Government’s position and provide details on the key amendments. There are five key areas.

First, introduction of safeguards against foreign influence that affect religious harmony; second the updating of the Restraining Order; third, introduction of the Community Remedial Initiative; fourth, porting over of religion-related provisions from the Penal Code to the MRHA; and fifth, related amendments to the Penal Code.

First, safeguards against foreign influence that affect religious harmony. The Minister for Home Affairs has presented examples worldwide that show how foreign influence have impacted religious harmony in those communities. We will take active steps to prevent foreign influence from affecting our religious harmony.

Sir, all our major religious faiths and traditions originated elsewhere. Many of our religious organisations take guidance on key tenets of their faith from their counterparts or superiors who are overseas. Our religious groups serve both Singaporeans and non-Singaporeans.

So, it is not possible to say that we cannot have foreign influence. But we must safeguard against malicious foreign influence which seeks to undermine religious harmony here.

Let me provide one example from overseas. In Sri Lanka, as a result of the 2019 Easter Sunday bombings, investigations uncovered a link between extremism and funding and donations from the Middle East. The founder of the Centre for Islamic Guidance in Sri Lanka, Mohamed Aliyar, was arrested on charges related to the financing of terrorism. The Centre for Islamic Guidance was partly funded by countries in the Middle East and he was closely linked to Zahran Hashim, a radical preacher who allegedly mentored many of the Easter attack bombers.

In looking at the safeguards against foreign influence, they are structured so that there will be baseline requirements which all religious groups will be subject to. If there are specific threats, the Government can take more targeted action. These baseline safeguards were developed after extensive discussions with apex religious organisations.

First, on donations. We will require religious groups to disclose single foreign donations that are S$10,000 or more. Clause 13 gives effect to this. The disclosure threshold of S$10,000 was set after discussion with the major apex religious organisations. We wanted to balance the objective of preventing foreign influence, and not make it too onerous at the same time for religious organisations. We are not saying that any donation below S$10,000 is not a concern. Or that any donation above S$10,000 is malicious. The Government will make assessments to determine if there is malicious foreign influence. The requirements apply to monetary donations.

To reduce the administrative burden on religious groups, we have provided for exemptions to this requirement in the Bill. For example, anonymous cash donations received through donation boxes at religious institutions, or received during a collection during worship rites or services are exempted. Donations received from PRs as well as foreigners who are on long-term passes issued by ICA or MOM do not need to be disclosed. The Minister will be able to set out other types of donations that can be exempted from disclosure requirements through subsidiary legislation.

Second, on leadership. We will require the President, Secretary and Treasurer of the religious group to be either a Singapore citizen or PR. If a religious group is incorporated as a company, the requirements will apply on the positions analogous to President, Secretary, or Treasurer – for example, the Chairman, Managing Director, and Directors of the company. If the religious group was set up as a partnership, the equivalent position would be the Partners. In addition to this, the majority of the executive committee or governing body of the religious group must be Singapore Citizens. Clause 13 inserts the new sections 16D and 16E which give effect to this.

The leadership requirements do not apply to spiritual leaders, unless they hold such executive positions in the religious group.

We recognise that there are some religious groups which would not be able to meet these requirements, such as those who serve primarily foreigners who live and work in Singapore, or which are set up as single entities operating across different countries. We have been engaging some of these groups and are prepared to consider exemptions from these new leadership requirements for them. This will be granted on a case-by-case basis, as long as there are no security concerns.

Third, on foreign affiliations. Religious groups will be required to declare any foreign affiliations. Foreign affiliation is defined in the new section 16B as an arrangement with a foreign principal where the religious group is accustomed to act in accordance with its instructions, or where the foreign principal exercises total or substantial control over the religious group’s activities. The safeguard for foreign affiliations is for disclosure purposes.

We have sought to set the baseline requirements at a level that minimises regulatory burden on the religious groups. If however we have indications that there is a risk of foreign influence that can affect religious harmony, the proposed Bill will allow us to take more targeted actions in the areas of foreign donations and leadership.

Clause 5 specifically expands the current scope of the Restraining Order, otherwise known as the RO, under section 8 of the MRHA. This allows the Government to take targeted action in the areas of donation and leadership of local religious groups where there is indication that there is a risk of foreign influence that can affect religious harmony.

Under the new clause 5, a RO can be issued against a religious group to pre-empt, prevent, or reduce any foreign influence affecting the religious group which may undermine religious tolerance between different religious groups in Singapore, and present a threat to public peace and public order in Singapore.

The RO can impose additional safeguards on religious groups: (a) to prohibit or restrict receiving of anonymous donations, or of foreign donations by the religious group; (b) to ensure that every member of the governing body is a citizen of Singapore, or prohibit a specific foreigner or PR from holding office in the governing body in the religious group.

The safeguards for the issuance of the RO against religious groups will be the same as those for the issuance of RO against individuals. The Presidential Council of Religious Harmony, or PCRH, will hear representations and review the RO after it has been issued. The PCRH will be able to call any person to provide information to them and the PCRH will make a recommendation to the President, who will continue to have the power to confirm, cancel, or vary the RO.

The additional safeguards will require religious groups to take on more work. They understand that more work is required, but at the same time, the religious groups acknowledge the importance of such safeguards. They support these amendments. Any religious group that needs more time to comply with these requirements can work out appropriate interim arrangements with MHA.

I will now move on to the updating of the RO that can be issued against individuals. The MRHA currently provides that an RO can be issued against: (a) any individual who does or says anything that causes religious disharmony; (b) any religious leader or member of a religious group that mixes religion and politics, and any person inciting a religious leader or religious group to do so.

The RO can prevent this individual from addressing religious groups, or being involved in producing or distributing publications produced by religious groups.

The scope of the RO was drawn up nearly 30 years ago, before the advent of the Internet. It caters primarily to offline modes of communication. Social media has enabled offensive posts to go viral in a matter of seconds. There is now, thus, a need for the Government to update the RO to take swift action against such posts.

First, we will remove the 14-day notice period for the issuance of ROs. The RO will now be issued and take immediate effect. This allows us to stem religiously offensive posts at its source quickly, before it spreads.

Second, the scope of the RO will now include requiring the individual to stop undertaking any "communications activity" relating to the religiously offensive material. This will include the removal of any material that has been posted on the Internet.

The safeguards remain unchanged from what they were before. The individual and the religious group which the individual belongs to can make representations to the PCRH. The RO will be considered by the PCRH, and ultimately confirmed, canceled or varied by the President.

Clauses 2, 5, and 6 give effect to this.

I will now speak about the Community Remedial Initiative (CRI). To maintain religious harmony, it is not enough to just restrain bad behaviour. When there has been some damage, we need to find a way to soothe communal tensions and repair disrupted ties between the communities.

Our experience with cases of religious disharmony is that the most effective resolution occurs when the offender displays remorse over his actions and makes amends directly to the offended party. This is frequently facilitated by their religious groups.

In such cases, the benefits are twofold – first, the offender reflects on his actions and better understands the multi-religious context in which he lives; second, the offended community is given a chance to speak with and accept the apology by the offender. This goes a long way in soothing communal tensions.

There is hence a need for a new tool in the MRHA which focuses on restoration and rehabilitation. This is the Community Remedial Initiative, otherwise known as the CRI. Clause 13 introduces the new section 16H which gives effect to this.

The CRI is offered by the Minister to an alleged offender which will set out the remedial actions that can be taken to mend ties with the aggrieved community. Some examples of remedial actions under the CRI include issuance of a public or private apology, or participating in activities that promote religious harmony. In determining the appropriate actions, the Minister will consult with the religious leaders, though the final decision rests with him.

The CRI is not mandatory. The alleged offender can refuse to take up this offer and the non-completion or refusal of the CRI, will not be a criminal offence. At the same time, if the offender agrees to complete the remedial actions and does so, the Minister undertakes not to refer this case for criminal prosecution. The CRI will not be issued to every case where an individual engages in conduct which leads to religious disharmony. The Minister will have to exercise judgment in each case, to take the most appropriate course of action. For example, if the conduct is very egregious, such as when the offender incites violence, then this case is clearly not suitable for the CRI.

Cases of egregious conduct relating to religious disharmony used to be dealt with under the Penal Code, in sections 267C and sections 295 to 298A. I will now speak about the porting over of these religion-related offences from the Penal Code to the MRHA.

We wanted to make the MRHA a comprehensive Act which provides for a full range of legislative levers to deal with the maintenance of religious harmony. In the porting over of these offences, we approach it in two ways.

First, what is the offence? An offence of urging violence against another person or group is more serious than offences of insulting or ridiculing a religion. Second, who is the offender? Religious leaders have a greater ability to influence and mobilise their followers, as compared to lay persons. This is the case even when they speak to their followers in private capacities. As such, religious leaders will be subject to a lower threshold for offences.

Clause 14 inserts the new section 17E, which introduces offences of urging violence on religious grounds against any person or group, and offences of urging violence against religious groups or persons who belong to these groups. This sends a strong signal that the weaponisation of religion to urge violence or force to be used against any person is unacceptable in our society. Because of the seriousness of the outcome, that force or violence is likely to occur, any person who commits this offence will be subjected to the maximum punishment of 10 years’ imprisonment, or fine, or both. This is the most serious offence in the MRHA.

Clause 14 also inserts the new section 17F, which introduces offences of inciting hatred, ill-will or hostility against a religious group, and offences of insulting a religion or wounding the religious feelings of a person.

For offenders who are not religious leaders, an additional element needs to be proven for these offences. That is that their conduct would threaten the public peace or public order in Singapore. For religious leaders, there is no need to prove this element.

The defences for these offences are different for religious leaders and non-religious leaders. It will be a defence for offenders who are not religious leaders to prove that their conduct could reasonably be taken to indicate that the parties desired for it to be heard or seen only by themselves. In other words, private conduct will not be covered by the offence.

For religious leaders, in addition to proving that they were engaged in private conduct, there is an additional requirement that the private conduct was a domestic communication. This would cover situations where the religious leader is speaking with close family members in their household, or a small group of very close friends in his house.

There will be extra-territorial coverage for these offences. If the offence is committed overseas, targets Singapore and has an impact in Singapore, this will be covered. An example would be if a religious leader in another country urges his affiliate group in Singapore to rise up and attack another religious group, this will be considered an offence. We acknowledge that it may be difficult to enforce these offences extra-territorially. But this signals our commitment to protect our religious harmony, even when the threats originate from beyond our shores.

With the porting over of religion-related offences from the Penal Code to the MRHA, we will repeal religion-related offences in sections 295 to 297 and remove references to religion-related offences in sections 298 and 298A of the Penal Code.

We will also make related amendments to section 74 of the Penal Code. Section 74 of the Penal Code currently provides for enhanced maximum punishments of up to one-and-a-half times, where a specified list of Penal Code offences is committed in a racially or religiously aggravated manner. This includes situations where the offender demonstrates hostility towards the victim based on the victim’s religion.

The scope of section 74 will be expanded two ways. First, the scope of section 74 will be expanded to cover all offences in the Penal Code. Second, the enhancement of maximum punishments will be increased from one-and-a-half to two times, except those which are punishable with death or imprisonment for life. We will also exclude offences which have incorporated a racial aggravating factor, such as sections 298 and 298A. Clause 17 gives effect to these amendments to the Penal Code.

Mr Speaker, I have given Members an overview of the key amendments which we are proposing to the MRHA. These amendments are necessary to refresh our tool box of legislative levers, so that we can continue to respond effectively to the growing threats to religious harmony in Singapore. The amendments we have proposed today are testament to the Government's commitment to continue to safeguard religious harmony, which is vital to the peace and progress that we enjoy today.

1.09 pm

Mr Christopher de Souza (Holland-Bukit Timah): Mr Speaker, Sir, a look around the globe will show why a Bill such as this one is needed. Around the world, enmity between religious groups have created an inability for people to practise their religion in peace. In some countries, practising one's faith has cost property, safety, lives.

Allow me, Sir, to share some examples.

In the Czech Republic, the construction of a mosque was met with petitions, street demonstrations, public hearings and vandalism to the homes of Muslim families.

In Egypt, over a span of 13 months from October 2017 to October 2018, 15 churches were violently protested against by Muslims, 11 had to be shut. Stereotypes and misconceptions about Christians and Christian practices were rampant even among school children.

In 2014, in India, altered images of Hindu kings of medieval India and a right-wing political leader sparked stone pelting, violence and damaged vehicles and religious places of a minority community.

In February 2019, in the United States, a synagogue's window was smashed on a Sabbath while the rabbi and his family, including young children were inside.

In 2014 and 2018, in Sri Lanka, Buddhist extremists attacked Muslim Sri Lankans, spreading rumors that planted fear and insecurity as well as hate speech that caused violence and riots to break out. The Christians in Sri Lanka are also not spared. In 2018, there were 86 verifiable cases of discrimination, threats and violence against Christians in Sri Lanka and 26 such incidents occurred this year, before the Easter bombings, including the disruption of a Sunday service.

Having seen what is happening around the world, should our Government just sit by and not do anything? Or should the Government take a more proactive role in securing and protecting our precious religious harmony?

Some may say that we do not need this Bill since we have never issued a single Restraining Order since the Act was passed in 1990. I respectfully take a different view, I take a different position. Why? Because the mere presence of the law does have an educative and even a deterrent effect. Just because a law is not actively used or enforced does not mean it is useless.

Some may question the need to amend the law because it seems to have been efficacious in preserving religious harmony which we still enjoy today. But, my own view is that the law needs to be amended especially to address the swiftness with which messages of violence and hatred can spread. Therefore, the amendments today, are necessary.

The virality and speed at which hate speech which harms religious harmony travels has increased greatly through the use of technology and social media. The Facebook post with altered images of venerated ancient Hindu warrior kings and a political leader is one such example. United Nations Secretary-General Anotonio Guterres told a Security Council Ministerial meeting that "the new frontier is cyber-terrorism – the use of social media and the dark web to coordinate attacks, spread propaganda and recruit new followers". The threats we face are morphing and what is needed are updated tools to be able to address these potential harms. Just because there are more tools does not mean the tools need to be utilised. Just as how the Maintenance of Religious Harmony Act was not enforced these 28 years,similarly, the powers under the amended Maintenance of Religious Harmony we are debating today should continue to be used judiciously.

To address concerns of abuse of power, Restraining Orders and extensions of Restraining Orders have to go through the Presidential Council for Religious Harmony per sections 11 and 13. They also need to be confirmed or varied by the President per section 12. These safeguards are good. However, may I ask the Minister to explain why it is that the Presidential Council for Religious Harmony can recommend varying a new Restraining Order under section 11(5) whereas the power of the Council regarding an existing order is available only to confirm or cancel but not to vary it. I ask this question in relation to the amended section 13(3).

But, overall, my view is that there are safeguards. For example, for a Restraining Order under the Maintenance of Religious Harmony Act, not only does the Presidential Council for Religious Harmony need to scrutinise the restraining order, the President also needs to confirm it, vary, cancel or refuse to confirm it. This is not just provided for under section 12 of the Act. It is also provided for under Article 22I of the Constitution. This is similar to the President's discretion to concur with a Detention Order under the Internal Security Act under Art 151(4) of the Constitution.

Even as this Bill is updated to meet the morphing threats of our times, it is important to reiterate some key principles undergirding religious freedom and the preservation of religious harmony in Singapore.

Firstly, rights must be exercised responsibly. Article 15 of the Constitution states that every person in Singapore has the right to profess, practise and propagate his religion. Paragraph 3 of Article 15 also states that every religious group has the right to manage its own religious affairs, to establish and maintain institutions for religious or charitable purposes and to acquire and own property and hold and administer it in accordance with the law. Flowing from this constitutional right, it is important that religions be given the space in Singapore to exercise those freedoms. However, freedoms must be exercised within proper boundaries. Freedoms must be used responsibly. For instance, someone cannot use the freedom as a licence to intentionally promote enmity, hatred, ill-will or hostility. This is addressed in the new section 17F(1) and (3).

The duties under-girding the offences in the new section 17F are gradated based on whether or not the person is a religious leader. It is appropriate to hold leaders to a higher standard. Since they wield greater influence and have others entrusted to their care, they should bear greater responsibility for their actions and words. However, there needs to be clarity as to who this standard applies to.

Would the Minister clarify the scope of religious leaders in the Bill? The explanatory statement states that it includes lay leaders. Would that include part-time staff, those invited to speak to recount their experience and give testimonies to a religious group; counsellors who help families overcome financial, family or marriage difficulties or the loss of loved ones; those who do or organise charitable work, such as providing rations for families in the neighbourhood? What constitutes a leader? Some religions require making an oath or taking certain vows, or going through certain ceremonial rites. Other religions do not require such a formal commissioning process to become a leader. Some religious groups formalise mentorship or open up the facilitation of small group discussions. These people still do great service as volunteers. Therefore, it would be helpful if the Minister explains the definition of "religious leader".

We need to prevent the spread of foreign radicalised teachings that promote violent extremism. One of the ways in which this objective has sought to be achieved in the Bill is by limiting the involvement of foreign persons.

However, the good work of religious groups should not be unduly hampered by safeguards against foreign influence. Historically, religious leaders from other countries have contributed greatly to Singapore’s development. Religious leaders from other parts of the world, such as England, Australia, Portugal, Ireland, China and India came to spread or practise their religion through charitable deeds. They helped set up schools, hospitals, hospices, offer midwifery services, cared for the sick and wounded during the Japanese Occupation, doing good work for the communities here. Some of these charitable institutions have been corporatised. Do the same requirements relating to Singaporeans and foreign persons apply to corporatised religious charitable groups? If so, can exemptions be granted?

Furthermore, many religious groups in Singapore have links to foreign institutions, for example, the Catholic Archdiocese of Singapore with the Vatican, the Anglicans with Canterbury, Buddhist groups with Sri Lanka and Thailand. I agree that disclosure is needed to prevent situations where there is a deliberate intent to create enmity. It is also a good move to anticipate potential divisions that hate speech can create, but I hope the discretion to give exemptions will be exercised wisely, tactfully and delicately because of the universal nature of charity, honest hard work and integrity, often found in religious values and organisations. Considering the longstanding contribution and ties that Singapore religious groups have with overseas religious groups, how flexible and nimble enough is our law to ensure that the intent of this Bill is achieved without reducing the good work of institutions here? How can we ensure that the limitations on foreign persons will not be overly onerous in institutions, orders and missionaries who continue to do sterling work in Singapore?

Allow me to say, Sir, that there is strength when people of different religions come together to work for the common good. I was touched by a recent exercise conducted by the grassroots leaders involving porridge distribution in the constituency I serve in Ulu Pandan. The rice was donated by the Singapore Buddhist Lodge, it was then cooked into delicious porridge or bubur by members of the Al Huda Mosque and then distributed by volunteers from St Ignatius Church. In fact, there were Christians, Muslims, Hindus and Buddhists who distributed the porridge within my constituency. We came together – different religions in Singapore – to offer the less-advantaged residents lovingly cooked porridge. It was very meaningful for me and those present. Many hands, one product. Being able to come together to contribute to a meaningful cause testifies to the precious religious harmony we enjoy in Singapore.

In conclusion, even as the colour red in our flag stands for universal brotherhood, we still need the legislative tools and levers to promote such a harmony in our daily living in Singapore. It is a constant work in progress. This Bill is part of that work, that constant work in progress and, therefore, and I support it.

1.22 pm

Prof Yaacob Ibrahim (Jalan Besar): Mr Speaker, Sir, thank you for allowing me to join in this debate.

The Bill was crafted and passed in 1990. Since its passage, the Government has not had to invoke the Bill. Now, 27 years later, observing a different environment, the Government has identified the need to update and improve this piece of legislation. So, what has changed? One could argue that the fact that we never invoked the Bill shows that our society is harmonious despite our religious differences and that perhaps we could even repeal the Bill entirely.

Sir, that would be foolish. Human societies are not static and the world has changed since 1990. Human habits and attitudes have not changed, especially when it comes to dealing with differences and diversity. The ability to provoke and incite violence may be as old as mankind. And, in recent years, we continue to see violence sparked and perpetuated in the name of religion. So, in general, Sir, I support these amendments. But, forgive the pun, the devil is in the details. I have two concerns.

The new section 17F raises several concerns to me. The provisions are meant to curb and restrain any attempt at creating ill-will and feelings of hatred towards other religious groups by either a religious leader or an individual who is not a religious leader. But for the latter, it is an offence when the action is deemed to “threaten the public peace or order in Singapore or any part of Singapore”. So, clearly, for religious leaders, given their level of influence, the bar to make their actions an offence is much lower than those of lay persons.

However, I have two concerns with this provision. In the first instance, how do we define being wounded by words of the other parties? Insults are clear. But what about genuine differences of opinions or views? After all, is religion not, by its very nature, exclusive? This was pointed out by the White Paper of 26 December 1989. I adopt a certain religion because I believe it to be the truth and everything else to be untrue. And if I utter my views about what I understand and believe to be untrue of the other religions publicly, will I be guilty of an offence?

A similar concern could be raised for those without any religious belief but who believe that certain practices of certain religions are not right and may make public statements about it. The bar in this case would be if it threatens public order or public peace. If only one person feels wounded by the words of a non-religious person expressing his or her negative views of that person’s religion, would that be sufficient condition to deem this action an offence? And what if the “wounded person” can claim publicly on social media that his religion has been insulted and others from his religion feel equally wounded, would that make it an offence? Would there be any difference if 10 others, or perhaps a thousand others, express support for him online?

And in this respect, hatred could be directed towards the person who started this all. Can that person then seek protection under the Bill as his life is now being threatened by those feeling wounded? This scenario I have painted is already happening on social media. The to-ing and fro-ing of claims and counterclaims of who is right and wrong about views of religion and religious practices is likely to spark unintended consequences, even though the origins of these spats may merely stem from a difference of views and are not motivated by hate of a particular religious group.

My concern is that the ambiguities of what being wounded constitutes and, when public order or peace is threatened, can lead to some claims of ill-will that lead to an unintended escalation and expansion of the conflicts. Hence, I hope the Minister can enlighten us.

Sir, the concerns I have raised earlier equally apply to intra-religious differences. The White Paper of 1989 also raised this as an issue for the attention of our Government. I support this, especially when we see sectarian violence in different parts of the world within the same faith community. I am particularly concerned about the Sunni-Shia divide that is evident in some parts of the world and has found its way into the region. We must not import the religious divides and violence of other countries into Singapore. I have expressed my concern about this trend on other platforms and have called for better understanding between my Sunni compatriots and the Shias who, while not great in number in this part of the world, are also Muslims. We must respect and adopt an attitude of live and let live towards each other, while feeling equally attached to our faith and our desire to do good. But I would welcome the force of this Bill to be applied to those seeking to divide the community or, for that matter, any faith community. We know that there are different sects in almost every religion and there are tensions of varying degrees between groups in every religion. So, whether in Islam or in any other religion, I believe that religious harmony must start at home and every faith community must respect differences within their own faiths.

Sir, my final point pertains to one of the reasons for the 1990 MRHA, as raised in the 1989 White Paper – aggressive proselytisation. Religious consciousness is on the rise. More people are turning towards religion. Article 15 of the Constitution guarantees the freedom of religion where “every person has the right to profess and practise his religion and to propagate it”. Again, how do we define “aggressive proselytisation”? If I merely state the truth as I believe it to be about my religion to another person of a different faith and make claims that his religion is not true, is this considered aggressive? Sir, in this era of political correctness, some would consider this aggressive.

I am not opposed to proselytisation. It is about how it is conducted. In fact, the 1989 White Paper provided many examples by different groups of what they deemed to be aggressive proselytisation. Egregious cases can be easily ferreted out. But what about those who do it through actions which are not religiously related, like showing preferences in hiring or giving certain advantages to those from the same faith? The White Paper highlighted in its section on religion and politics on the need to keep the public space as secular as possible. Interestingly, the paper also cautions that it is almost impossible for someone who is voting to base his decision on his secular half and not his religious half. Such compartmentalisation, it notes, is “neither possible nor desirable”. That is why it is absurd to ask me to decide whether I am first a Muslim or a Singaporean. So, if we agree that if it is not possible to compartmentalise ourselves, then we must be alert to the breaching of the barriers of secularism in our public life. That is, we must continue to strengthen our common spaces and ensure that religious actors cannot impose their will on public policy to the detriment of other religious groups or the public good.

Apart from these concerns of definition and interpretation, we need to be careful about how we go about implementing or prosecuting these cases. A real question is at what point do we impose aggressive punishments and restrictions. The need for strong and decisive measures against egregious cases – threats, open harassment and incitement to violence – are clear-cut. Such a posture not only protects against the stirring up of religious conflicts but sends a strong message that any attempt to incite ill-will or violence will not be tolerated. Yet, where engagement and dialogue are possible, the imposition of community service work or engagement with community groups would be more appropriate.

Sir, we can all agree on the need for the Bill to be updated to deter insidious attempts to stir up religious discord that divides communities. The digital revolution has made it easy to spread extreme opinions and such people may feel that they can be more abusive online without having to face consequences. We need to send a strong signal that the harmonious relations that we have built up over the last 54 years are precious and must be guarded jealously. Like a piece of good China, once broken, it is very difficult to put the pieces back together.

Yet, Sir, the need to be careful must not end up silencing all discussion of religious topics by making it so that the definitions of illegal behaviour are so ambiguous that no one can be sure what might be judged hateful. Ironically, this might end up deterring meaningful interfaith efforts between groups as people steer away from any activity or topic for fear of causing unintended offence. Likewise, we need to be careful not to silence civil interfaith and intrafaith conversations and debates, even about sensitive issues which can yield important insights and further deepen understandings on all sides.

Sir, we must also not lose sight that legislation can only be a part of an array of policy responses to promote tolerance and harmony. In fact, the use of law is the last resort. The basis for religious harmony also cannot be the fear of the law. For religious harmony in a society to be strong and enduring, the citizenry must uphold the values of mutual respect and appreciation towards religious diversity. In this regard, in Singapore, educational efforts as well as outreach toward youth and community groups enable people to better understand the beliefs of religious groups and to forge friendships across communities. All these efforts must continue and be strengthened. Where there are transgressions, providing platforms and avenues whereby religious groups respond and confront hateful views with arguments and information remain important.

Sir, finally, this amendment is thus about preserving our way of life and strengthening the Singapore approach to dealing with diversity and differences. Mistrust among the different faith communities can lead to the breaking up of our society. There is a need for this legislation in dealing with those planning to split the communities in Singapore. While no one can disagree with the need to use a legal response to clear-cut egregious cases, I would urge the Government to exercise sensitivity in cases where there is some ambiguity on both the alleged culprit and alleged victim. Perhaps, in such cases, the Government could consider a range of engagement efforts involving leaders from all the communities involved to resolve the dispute. So, let us not be quick to condemn the slightest provocation as it could all be a simple misunderstanding.

Sir, even though the amendment excludes what is said privately and to a small group, I would urge my countrymen to aim for a higher bar. I understand this exclusion stems from the practical difficulties in policing all corners of Singapore. Yet, the best restraint must come from all of us. What we believe is the right thing to say in public must also be the right thing to say privately. What underpins our behavior publicly and privately must be the belief that what all Singaporeans hold dear as their faith deserves to be respected, irrespective of our own beliefs and faith.

Sir, I have expressed some views that, hopefully, will help this legislation better safeguard our religious harmony. Having said that, it must be the desire of all our faith groups and leaders that we interact freely with grace and mutual respect, without the need for the law to kick in. Sir, I support the amendment.

Mr Speaker: Minister Grace Fu.

1.34 pm

The Minister for Culture, Community and Youth (Ms Grace Fu Hai Yien): Mr Speaker, I support the Bill.

Since coming into effect in 1992, the Maintenance of Religious Harmony Act (MRHA) has been a critical complement to Singapore’s work on strengthening religious harmony. It protects our religious freedom, by making clear the boundaries of our mutual engagements. Since then, the world around us has evolved and changed. The world is at far more risk of polarising forces that divide rather than unite people. It is timely that we amend the Act to ensure that it continues to serve its original intent, today.

Globalisation has increased our connectedness with foreign cultures and communities; social media has transformed how we communicate; hate speech and violence in the name of personal beliefs and faiths are on the rise. We are facing heightening polarisation of views. Singapore is not immune to these trends and they threaten the religious harmony that we have spent decades carefully tending. We need new responses to new challenges.

The Government is not alone in holding this view. I chair the National Steering Committee on Racial and Religious Harmony, whose members comprise apex leaders from the major faith and ethnic groups. These respected leaders, and many more in Singapore, have expressed similar concerns when we discuss issues of race and religion. They understand the importance and urgency of dealing with the risks unequivocally and they have expressed strong support for the proposed amendments.

We have built a strong foundation for social cohesion in Singapore, which we must vigorously safeguard. We have proven that our communities can come together to discuss sensitive issues of race and religion seriously, candidly but respectfully, with the common goal of making Singapore a better home for everyone. This is the case whenever we discuss religious radicalisation activities, or when we discuss results of studies on race and religion in Singapore. It was the same when we debated the introduction of the Reserved Presidential Election. It was also the same when we debated the ban of the Swedish black metal band Watain from performing in Singapore, because the band advocated violence against a religion. It demonstrated the desire of our people for a cohesive society that will deal with such emotive issues publicly, transparently and calmly.

Although we are here to debate the Act, laws alone do not bring about the cohesive society that I have described. Legislative solutions cannot address the many challenges that we face. For instance, although we can implement policies, such as the Ethnic Integration Policy, we cannot legislate neighbours to interact with others of different faiths. Our schools cannot dictate that classmates must eat and play together. The same applies to our workplaces. At a more fundamental level, we cannot legislate to remove irrational fears and stereotypes, nor to accept that a set of different beliefs can coexist with ours. In other words, legislation, though important, is not sufficient.

Our social harmony has been built painstakingly over time. It is through individual actions and efforts in our everyday lives to engage one other. We offer help to one another, do business together, and attend one another’s life events, such as weddings and funerals. This approach has served us well and survey results show both inter-racial and inter-religious trust is high and rising. This requires continued effort and we, as Singaporeans, must all do our part. This was emphasised 30 years ago, in the original 1989 White Paper on Maintenance of Religious Harmony. I quote, “So long as all Singaporeans understand that they have to live and let live, and show respect and tolerance for other faiths, harmony should prevail”.

Underlying this is a shared commitment to build a home together. It is a home built on the ideal of a multiracial and multi-religious society where everyone has the freedom to choose and practise his or her religion, provided the same freedom is afforded to others. When Singapore became independent, our founding fathers made a deliberate choice to build our nation based on such a multiracial, multi-religious society, as an expression of what Singapore stands for. It was a novel idea at the time, when most newly-independent countries opted to entrench a dominant race, language and religion, because it was the easier and primordial path. It is done out of a tribal instinct to protect its identity and ensure its existence. Multiculturalism, of sharing the societal space with all races, on the other hand, has become an integral part of our Singapore identity. All of us want a society where all Singaporeans, regardless of background, feel that they are equal members of the same community. The social compact will allow us to broaden our common space, even as our society becomes more diverse.

We, the Government, are committed to working with Singaporeans, at all levels, to safeguard racial and religious harmony.

We have remained steadfast in this approach since our beginnings. The People’s Association was set up in 1960, with promoting social cohesion and connecting people from all walks of life as one of its main objectives. Grassroots organisations help to resolve local issues and bridge communities through dialogue and engagement. When faced with the communal riots in 1964, we established goodwill committees comprising racially diverse community leaders to calm the situation. This was the foundation for the Inter-Racial and Religious Confidence Circles (IRCCs) which was formalised in 2002 to foster community bonding at the local level. Today, IRCC members help resolve local issues that may arise from time to time, work on projects jointly, such as emergency preparedness, and help one another. During this year’s Hari Raya Haji, a Buddhist organisation helped to manage traffic for a neighbouring mosque so that its prayer service could run smoothly. This idea arose during an IRCC meeting, and was carried out by IRCC members.

We support efforts by religious and community leaders to promote racial and religious harmony. An Inter-Religious Harmony Circle (IRHC) comprising religious leaders and Government representatives developed and launched the Declaration on Religious Harmony in 2003. This Declaration is still recited at inter-faith events.

In June 2019, our religious leaders launched the Commitment to Safeguard Religious Harmony that affirms the shared values to safeguard our religious harmony and the norms of social interaction across religions to foster a cohesive society. The Government helped facilitate multiple engagement sessions with a wide group of religious leaders. More than 300 religious organisations have since affirmed the Commitment. Dozens of secular community organisations, companies, social service agencies and educational institutions have also expressed support for this.

Ground-up effort to promote racial and religious harmony is rising. Several community groups have facilitated candid and open dialogues on race and religion. For instance, The WhiteHatters organised a series of conversations called Ask Me Anything (AMA) where participants of diverse faiths engage religious leaders to clarify their understanding of their religions. In June, the organisers brought together the Christian, Jewish and Muslim representatives to discuss the Abrahamic faiths. In September, OnePeople.sg collaborated with CNA and Roses of Peace, a non-government organisation, to conduct dialogue sessions on race relations. The IRO, in conjunction with its 70th anniversary, held a Harmony of Faiths exhibition that showcased efforts in promoting inter-faith understanding throughout its years. The sight of 10 religious leaders representing different faiths, conducting prayers side-by-side, simultaneously and jointly, would be familiar to Singaporeans who have been to, for instance, SAF Officer Cadet Course commissioning parades, the World War II commemorative ceremonies, or watched their pre-race blessing of the F1 races. We want to tap on the collective wisdom and ideas of Singaporeans, and encourage the community to leverage MCCY’s Harmony Fund to continue developing innovative projects that promote racial and religious harmony.

Beyond programmes, more Singaporeans are also expressing interest and respect for diversity in our daily lives. In the work place, management plays an important role in creating a conducive work environment for a diverse workforce. For instance, IBM has a Cultural Adaptability Programme to enhance the level of awareness and appreciation on different beliefs and practices among their employees through structured workshops and resources. These have helped strengthen understanding among its employees and enhanced the contributions of the diverse teams. More companies should, similarly, pay attention to building race and religious competency.

Mr Speaker, at Independence, our society started out with tolerance and accommodation between communities. We grew to appreciate what we have in common and how our differences make us richer, not poorer. Today, we harness our diversity as our strength and we are a society with genuine friendships built on goodwill, trust and confidence in what it means to be Singaporean.

During my recent house visit, a Chinese resident, who is a Christian, shared with me how her Muslim neighbour would help watch her young child whenever she has to fetch another from school and her Hindu neighbour on the other side would share food with her from time to time. And their children would often be found in each other’s homes. The resident brought this to my attention because she truly appreciated the kindness and generosity of her neighbours. But above all, she knows that this relationship transcending differences in race and religion is not to be taken for granted. Such trusting and warm relationships between neighbours of different faiths can be found all around Singapore. It is the beauty of Singapore and Singaporeans.

We must continue to uphold our values and keep working hard to preserve social harmony. We must ensure that this is in the DNA of every Singaporean, so that we remain as one united people regardless of language, race and religion. Mr Speaker, Sir, I welcome and support the Bill.

1.47 pm

Mr Pritam Singh (Aljunied): Mr Speaker, amongst a number of reasons detailed by the Minister, the amendments to the Maintenance of Religious Harmony Act aim to make the Act relevant for the information age. The Bill updates what is essentially a preventive regime, albeit one that gives the Cabinet executive authority to endeavour that religion is kept out of politics. To that end, it is important to remember the socio-political context of 30 years ago, when the Bill was first debated in the House.

Generally, that era was known to be a time of heightened religiosity. The Bill was mooted only about one month after the detention of some Singaporeans who were accused of being Marxists. It is important, if not critical to note that the passage of the underlying Act in 1990 itself did not go without significant apprehension from religious groups and Members of Parliament, including differences of opinion amongst even Ministers.

Even Mr Shanmugam's speech, in his capacity as a backbencher then was noteworthy because it raised fundamental points about the separation of powers and the potential for an irrational exercise of Executive power. This was not the only difficulty. Prime Minister Lee, in his capacity as Minister of Trade and Industry and the then-Minister of National Development, Mr S Dhanabalan, both disagreed about the interplay between politics and religion in special situations where religious bodies would have no choice but to get involved in politics to overthrow a government – for example, in the event the government turn corrupt, oppressive, tyrannical.

Sir, I raise the historical difficulty with the passage of the Maintenance of Religious Harmony Act because the points and apprehensions expressed about the underlying Act continue to be of relevance today. While the Marxist arrests clouded the passage of the Act somewhat then, this Government today is not similarly encumbered insofar as the amendments to the Bill are concerned. To that end, the Workers' Party does not find the amendments mooted in the Bill before the House objectionable. Racial harmony remains a critical and important national value that must be upheld alongside the spirit of tolerance between believers of all religious groups.

Today, the confluence of the regional environment, social mores and the ubiquity of social media are perhaps of equal, if not more concern in the maintenance of religious harmony than in the 1980s. For example, the political narrative that has been developing within our closest neighbours, Indonesia, Malaysia and even regionally in Southern Thailand, while strictly speaking is not our business, is nonetheless cause for concern.

Only last week a Malay civil rights group openly called for a Vote Muslim First campaign with regard to the upcoming by-election for Tanjung Piai in Johor. The recent Indonesian Presidential Elections also saw candidates speaking to burnish their religious credentials. Mr Speaker, the age-old problem of the mixing of religion and politics has not gone away. If anything, it has become more acute. And with social media, it has become a more sensitive matter.

Going forward, this is something the Government and politicians and political party members of all political parties in Singapore need to keep an eye on as well in view of our unique context and political circumstances, and consider whether there may be some things that have to be tightened. With a difficult subject – the mixing of religion and politics – at the heart of the Act, the signals a one-party dominant government and its politicians send on the subject will have a direct bearing on how the Act will be applied and deemed relevant in years to come.

I will spend the first part of my speech to share some examples about how things can be perceived on the ground in Singapore, in spite of the spirit of the underlying Act which seeks to keep religions and politics separate.

Firstly, the more visible appearance of religious leaders alongside politicians. A well-known leader of a religious group – fronting many national initiatives including being a very senior party member and highly visible leader of the Inter-Religious Organisation and separately with links to the People's Association was seen with Prime Minister Lee during the 2015 elections. While it is unclear if the individual concerned was the Prime Minister's election agent, it is nonetheless useful for the House to pause and consider the optics of a respected member of a religious group appearing to canvass support for a politician.

To that end, how would some members of the same religious group with a different political view from that espoused by their religious leader or elder feel if they openly support another political party? Could it create or ferment tension within that religious group? Should another group or individual from within any particular religious organisation or faith rise in stature because of a disagreement or internal politics, would it be fair game for a politician from another party to canvass support for him or her? What can we reasonably foresee may happen next?

Mr Speaker, I would argue respectfully that the selection of established and well-known religious and even community personalities – who are probably forces for good in their stead – in party politics in capacities such as election agents, notwithstanding their secular appointments, muddies the already difficult distinction between religion and politics.

Secondly, all political leaders must also be mindful of their signature when engaging religious events such as large-scale prayer sessions and gatherings of any religion. Going forward, we should pause and consider the effect of politicians of all political parties attending places of worship of any faith as political leaders, as opposed to just lay congregants, visitors or well-wishes. For example, the imprudent timing of invitations by religious leaders and organisations to politicians, particularly in the run-in to elections would inevitably have a signaling effect on the religious laity of any faith to support the politician in question.

Thirdly, even events that take place in this House can be open to close scrutiny and test the long-held approach of the state as a neutral arbiter when it comes to matters of faith. In the first sitting that took place in this House following the tragic mosque shootings in Christchurch in March this year, this House observed a moment of silence for the victims of that massacre. Only a mere month later, many Christians perished in Sri Lanka in a series of suicide bombings there. I am aware that some Christian Singaporeans privately wondered why Parliament did not observe a moment of silence for those Christians who perished in Sri Lanka as well.

Sir, perceptions, particularly when it comes to matters of faith can take a life of their own and it behooves politicians of all stripes, and our religious leaders to take a moment to reflect on how we should navigate this space in future so the House can ensure that this Government remains trusted as a neutral arbiter in matters of faith. Would more religious or quasi-religious invitations or relationships between the state and citizens be better managed through the unifying and ceremonial role of the President or some other platform? This is something the Government would need to assess and consider carefully.

Sir, why is this renewed conversation in the context of the MRHA relevant? Firstly, it is because the Minister and Cabinet have significant powers under the Act to slap a Restraining Order on anyone the Government deems to be moving in the realm of politics from the safety of the pulpit or under the garb of religion. With no prospect of judicial review to adjudicate the rationality of executive fiat, clarity in how the law is applied and impartiality from the Government is paramount, not just in words but in action.

Secondly, it must not be that politicians, or it must not be interpreted or perceived that politicians are allowed to engage religious groups how they deem fit, but the faithful can only engage a political matter if, for example, they speak positively about the Government or its policies. But if they publicly raise objections or disagreements about government policy, in line with the Second Reading of the Act in 1990, the Maintenance of Religious Harmony Act portends that action could be taken against them. What the perception of such a one-way conversation or approach would ultimately do is to undermine and damage the Government’s case if it seeks to use the Act in future to move against elements that it deems to be mixing religion and politics.

As we look towards tomorrow’s Singapore, and as we enter the 4G era, this House must ensure that the public space continues to be a secular and safe space for all Singaporeans, regardless of creed. While the terrain of religion and politics is not without its difficulties, it is critical that restraint, mutual respect and equanimity define how both politicians and religious leaders operate in Singapore where being a successful multi-racial and multi-religious society is a significant value proposition in our neighbourhood and for our survival as one people.

Mr Speaker, it is worthwhile to note that the original Act has not been employed since its passage into law and to my understanding, no Restraining Orders have been issued in the last almost 30-odd years. I have one clarification on the Bill. One important change is the removal of a check on Executive power. Under the Act today, a 14-day notice period operates to inform the Presidential Council for Religious Harmony about the impending issuance of a Restraining Order. Under the Bill before the House today, the Government seeks to remove any requirement to notify the Council, ostensibly because it seeks to move quickly against an offender. I wish to clarify with the Minister, in the event a religious leader is slapped with a restraining order to remove an offending post – from his or her Facebook page for example – and he or she does not do so, what recourse, legislation or regulations will the Government turn to, to see that the offending statement or statements is speedily removed particularly if it cannot be classified as a false statement of fact?

In conclusion, Sir, the Workers’ Party notes the challenges presented by the interplay of religion and politics in a multi-racial and multi-religious society like ours. Whatever our political views, religion can be exploited and the use of religion to split communities is a renewed concern given the advent of fast-moving communications technology. A multi-racial and multi-religious Singapore and the way our people accommodate differences and diverse views and display a genuine tolerance towards one another is a key strength of this country. Therefore the Workers' Party supports these amendments, notwithstanding our concerns about the application of the underlying Act.

1.58 pm

Er Dr Lee Bee Wah (Nee Soon): Mr Speaker, Sir, religious views are a personal matter. But when they threaten the multi-racial harmony of our society, the Government needs to step in to protect our hard-won harmony.

The Maintenance of Religious Harmony Act (MRHA) has served us well in preserving the peace and harmony in our multi-racial society. But we need to update the law to reflect the current needs. The media has exposed how many users of the Internet have used it to promote hidden agendas. Today, there are also less scrupulous religious groups that use these platforms to attack, disrupt and spread extremist views or hostility towards other religions.

And we know how a post on the Internet can go viral rapidly, especially when it relates to sensational topics. We cannot afford to wait 14 days or more to allow Restraining Orders (RO) to kick in for the offending online content to be removed. I would like to ask, if a post is suspected to be both fake news and hurting religious harmony, how will these orders interact with the mechanism under POFMA? Can the Minister consider penalties for those who deliberately circulate such offending content, especially if they are influential pages?

Under the framework of offences, any individual who urges violence against any person or group on the basis of religion or violence against any religious group or member faces imprisonment of up to 10 years or a fine, or both. A religious leader or anyone posing a risk of disturbing public peace who incites hostility against a religion, insults someone's religion or wounds their religious feelings face imprisonment of up to five years or a fine, or both.

While I agree that these acts have potentially serious consequences that deserve heavy penalties, things like wounding religious feelings can be rather subjective. Sometimes, it may simply be due to misunderstanding or clashing cultures and no ill will was truly intended. May I ask how does one determine if something is to be considered sufficiently offensive to breach the law? The Government has consulted with religious groups in enacting this Bill and I hope they will continue to consult with the relevant religious groups when applying the laws too, as well as conduct dialogues with relevant stakeholders and affected parties after the laws are applied. The end goal should be to determine why certain acts are deemed offensive and how to prevent them from happening in future.

On this note, I am glad to see the introduction of the Community Remedial Initiative (CRI), where offenders will be asked to make amendments to offended parties and be given opportunities to understand how they did wrong in the context of a multi-racial society. After all, many offences happen as a result of a lack of empathy and ignorance, rather than pure malice.

I also hope we can nurture a society that is more sympathetic but act decisively when the need arises. In previous cases, some people who insulted other races and religions were doxxed and had their livelihoods affected, with some even losing their jobs. If we can rehabilitate criminals, can we do the same for cases under MRHA?

Religion has a huge impact and influence on many. Certainly, it can evoke strong emotions. Hence, there is reasonable cause for concern over foreigners taking advantage of this fact to try to abuse religion to establish their own agenda. The Bill aims to deter this by requiring key appointment holders or equivalent to be Singaporeans or PRs. However, for smaller organisations, this requirement may be hard to meet. I understand the Government is willing to grant exemptions on a case-by-case basis, or for cross-border or historical organisations.

For foreign appointment holders who get exemptions, it may be good for them to be given some basic education on the framework of our religious harmony practices so that they know the consequences if they breach the MRHA law.

Sir, religious harmony is always work in progress and the Bill brings about many necessary improvements to preserve this harmony that is responsible for making Singapore a safe and stable country to live and do business in. In Chinese, please.

(In Mandarin): [Please refer to Vernacular Speech.] With the advancement of communication technologies, foreign groups and social media will have an increasing influence on our religious groups. Sometimes, they may bring in views that could damage religious harmony here. Hence, the amendments this time are targeted at these two areas.

Sometimes, what is considered as an insult to other religions can be subjective. Therefore, I hope the Government can consult religious leaders first before banning certain types of remarks, and hold dialogues with relevant religious groups after the enforcement.

I am also pleased to see that the Government can order the offenders to understand other religions or issue a public apology. It is a more proactive way of correcting wrong views besides banning.

Key appointment holders of religious groups must be Singaporeans or Permanent Residents. However, for smaller religious groups, it may be a tall order. I hope the Government can make decisions on a case-by-case basis. If foreigners are to become key personnel, they must first attend lessons to understand the principles of maintaining religious harmony in Singapore. I support this Bill.

2.06 pm

Assoc Prof Walter Theseira (Nominated Member): Mr Speaker, the Maintenance of Religious Harmony Act reflects a shared consensus among Singaporeans that religiously driven politics and divisive speech would be fatal to the One People that we aspire to be.

This Bill gives us the opportunity to ask if we share the same consensus today, in a globalised world where religious ideas, for good or ill, flow as easily across borders as trade does, and where people feel affinity with religious and social causes far away. I believe the answer must be yes. While religious Singaporeans can be proud that they share the faith with brethren in many countries, we must have a consensus that the practice of faith here must be sensitive to our own multi-religious context. If so, then we must accept that the state must have some means of enforcing this.

This principle is not against religious teachings. In the New Testament, Jesus was asked whether Jews should pay taxes to the Roman authorities. He responded that they should "render unto Caesar the things that are Caesar’s, and unto God the things that are God’s." It is legitimate for the practice of religion to adapt to the requirements of the secular state and society.

All religions have a right to make rules of moral and ethical conduct that followers are expected to live up to. But when these rules of conduct contrast with secular law, or with the established norms of society, then the proponents of any religion face a hard decision.

Do they seek to explain why the way of life prescribed in the religion is superior, more ethical or moral, to persuade those who wandered astray to return to the fold? Or do they condemn such behaviours, portray those who have lapsed as sinners, encourage followers to ostracise or ex-communicate those who do not live according to their principles?

Sir, we must welcome religious movements and leaders who constructively articulate their vision of a moral and just life. We may disagree with some of their precepts but not their commitment to bettering humanity. However, we must caution against the condemnation of our fellow Singaporeans simply based on behaviour which strays from the precepts of a particular religion. And we must be cautious even when such criticism applies only to co-religionists.

Let me put this in the context of the question of the family. Nearly every religion is concerned with the nature of the family. There are rules for marriage and separation, proper sexual relations and other family affairs. Sir, the facts are that the nature of the family today is very different from that existing when most of our great religions were founded. Women can, and do, live independent of men today. A divorcee or widow is no longer condemned to penury or forced into a second marriage by society. Single parents and blended step-families exist. There are Singaporeans of different sexual orientations. While many different types of family relationships exist, I believe all aspire to having a happy family life.

Sir, we accept today that for the most part, how a Singaporean chooses to love and live their life is a private matter. The state may have some interest in it to promote social order and the national interest, but this interest cannot and must never be religiously motivated. The exception, of course, is Muslim Law for the family life of Muslims. But the general policy must be secular in a multi religious society like Singapore.

But this position that the state should refrain from interfering with private family life is at odds with the position taken by many great religions. Today, religious leaders in many countries routinely demand changes in family policy so that religious principles are enforced with the full weight of the state. They do so either because in those countries the right of free speech is nearly absolute, or because there is a state religion and hence there is little difference between theology and public policy. Their situation is not the same as in Singapore. This right, if applied indiscriminately in Singapore, would lead to the shrinking of the secular space in Singapore.

In recent years, some religious leaders here have established clear positions against the repeal of section 377A of the Penal Code and have thrown their moral weight behind this. The language used has, sometimes, been alarmist and unaccommodating. Some have also stigmatised those whose personal lives do not conform to religious precepts, including single parents and persons of different sexual orientations.

It is true that several mainstream religions do not accept these ways of life. But a common view among some religions does not by itself justify the use of the pulpit to influence public policy. Nor does it mean that these acts from the pulpit have no consequences; they harm the feelings of those they condemn and they create real risks of discrimination or violence against these minority groups. Thus, while the primary aim of MRHA must be to protect religious harmony, I ask the Ministry to also have regard to protecting social harmony.

Again, Sir, I support the right of every religion to prescribe principles of life for their followers. But I hope religious leaders will promote their precepts constructively, rather than destructively. I hope that they will speak to our common humanity, rather than divide us.

Sir, in closing, I believe MRHA has been effective precisely because it reflects a shared consensus. Singaporeans who disturb the religious peace accept that they are in the wrong and they voluntarily change their ways. This consensus is hard won. Indiscriminate use of the law would create contention rather than consensus. The significant expansion of powers under this Bill raises that risk. While this Government has demonstrated that moral suasion and dialogue are the preferred tools to enforce the law, I pray that a future Government will also respect that wise precedent. I stand in support of the Bill.

2.12 pm

Mr Alex Yam (Marsiling-Yew Tee): Mr Speaker, Sir, I am a practicing Roman Catholic and a person of faith.

When we speak of the Maintenance of Religious Harmony Act or the MRHA, it is oft said that its mark of success for this legislation is the fact that it has not been invoked since it was first codified into law almost 30 years ago.

With revivalism of religious faith in 1980s, the Government and society in general has been concerned with how religious fervour may prove to be fertile ground for fanaticism or radicalism. The late 1980s and the early 1990s saw numerous incidents that were citied in the Internal Security Department’s report that was annexed to the White Paper proposing the enactment of the MRHA.

Examples of aggressive and insensitive proselytisation, of intra-religious sectarianism, as well as issues of the use of faith for political ends are still as important today as they were when the MRHA was first formulated. At this point, I would like to ask if the Ministry would be able to update the House that besides the reasons already publicly raised by a number of political office holders for updating of the Act, are there any other concerns such as those raised in the previous ISD report that have also accelerated the need to amend the Act at this point in time.

Equally, the concerns on the reach of the MRHA that were raised when the law took effect in 1992 also remain today and should be rightly addressed so that we are without a doubt of the pure and noble intent of this Bill – which is to safe guard the harmony of Singapore, that we have fought hard to build.

Let me quote you just some of the reactions I read online after this Amendment Bill was presented to Parliament. They include lines such as: "Patriotic Church much like China", "Will we ban fasting too?", "Aggressive atheism in disguise", "All religious heads must now be pro-Government".

I must hasten to add that while these are minority views, a few come from level-headed people who I know. I would perhaps say that if not for this Amendment Bill, there would be many who would not be aware of the content of the MRHA, to begin with.

On this front, my next request is for the MHA to engage more publicly with religious organisations and assist in the information dissemination process of what the amendments of the Act itself would mean or not mean for the practice of religion. What are the plans that MHA have to engage people of faith as well as the society at large?

Religions like Islam and Christianity are what some would term as holistic religions, ones where adherents follow a code of life that is all-encompassing, where participation in the political life of society is informed by faith as well. Section 8(1)(b) and (d) were points of concern in 1990. It may be helpful today to state clearly what would constitute offences.

Would it therefore be an offence if, in the event that the government of the day, enacts or proposes a law that would run counter to the core tenets or beliefs of an established religion or religions in Singapore, and religious leaders of those faiths issue a public letter to their faithful or preach a message against it, against the intent of the law, I must add, and not the Government itself? Would it constitute something that a Restraining Order will be issued against as the message – even though religious and measured in nature – may cause some members of the congregation to be dissatisfied? Would it constitute a political cause in this case?

In addition, while the Government is accommodatively secular, allowing religions to function and practice freely in Singapore, we cannot guarantee that a future Government will not become aggressively atheistic and therefore apply the MRHA beyond what it was originally drafted for. What safeguards are there to prevent this?

Returning to a point I made earlier about how the Act is being more responsive, as pointed out by a number of Political Office Holders who spoke when the Bill was introduced. The key component of the Act will now be able to respond to the alarming speed by which hate speech and fake news can spread on social media, and how something inflammatory that may have been a slow boil during the 1990s can now heat up in the web in mere minutes and translate to real, explosive tensions offline.

I last spoke about how Singapore can easily be a target for disinformation operations because of our openness and connectivity during the Second Reading on POFMA. Over one third of the world is on Facebook alone. Much of how we interact with each other today is through social media. As a majority of the world moves into the unfettered online world, it also means old tropes of racism, misogyny and hate now have a free amplifier to spread and reinforce their views and perhaps even encourage others to violence.

In the amendments to section 8(4), (5) and (6), the Minister can now directly and immediately issue a Restraining Order rather than the 14 days later stipulated under the current section 8(6). Speed is of the essence, and as seen in the Christchurch massacre and also in the recent Sri Lankan Buddhist-Muslim clashes, having the ability to shut down hate speech to viral is paramount.

That, however is in theory, could the Ministry share with the House how in practice the new powers granted would improve the effectiveness of curbing the spread of speech that would incite hatred? In addition, what recourse by which those who have been issued a restraining order can seek redress if they truly believe that they have expressed a legitimate view and not hate speech? With regard to POFMA, how will the MRHA interface with it so that we have a seamless process to target fake news, hate speech and rumour-mongering?

It is heartening that in proposing the amendments, MHA has consulted broadly, and the apex organisations of religious groups in Singapore have accepted and supported the proposals. Can I ask that the Minister share with the House what were the concerns, if any, and perhaps even objections that were raised by religious leaders who were consulted, and how those concerns were appropriately addressed.

I applaud the Act’s innovativeness, especially for the introduction of the Community Remedial Initiative – CRI for short. As mentioned by Minister Shanmugam earlier, it has taken fruit even before we passed this amendment, from the recent example of a young influencer who accepted the invitation of the Young Sikh Association to learn more about their faith and traditions after posting an insensitive social media comment about two Sikh men she encountered at an event. Under what circumstances would a CRI be effective and are there examples in other jurisdictions that has shown its effectiveness? Also, if the Minister does not issue a CRI, but one is undertaken independently, at the initiative of both the offender and the aggrieved, will this be taken into consideration?

I agree with the need to prevent foreign influence in Singapore but am cautious about how we would qualify “foreign influence” in practice. The amendments propose restrictions on the leadership appointments of religious organisations and donations, for example. However, the appointment of religious leaders is complex. Most religions are universal by nature, belonging to global networks, alliances and associations. Some, like particular Buddhist sects and Roman Catholicism, or different denominations in Christianity, have global leaderships. How would the Act, in practice, address the peculiarities of some leadership appointments that may involve a global or external decision?

In addition, according to the Ministry, the proposed Act would mean out of around 2,500 religious organisations here today, about 100 will not be able to meet this requirement. Could the Minister provide examples of organisations that would be required to seek exemptions? What would happen to these organisations should the exemptions not be provided? Could the Act also become a prohibition for the entrance of new religious movements or denominations and sects if they do not already have a local presence? How would this be of impact to the constitutional guarantee of freedom of religion under Article 15 of the Constitution?

Mr Speaker, Sir, we live in an increasingly polarised world. Singapore is fortunate as an example of a country that has bucked the trend of racial and religious tensions. Just looking at a recent Pew Research Centre survey makes for cold sweat. In this research, it points out the percentage of people who agree that people should be able to make statements that are offensive to minority groups publicly, and this was done in just 2015. In the United States, 67% of people agree that they should be able to do so. In the Asia Pacific, of which Singapore is situated, 27%, close to 30% of people, believe that they should be allowed to make inflammatory statements that are offensive to minority groups publicly.

Mr Speaker, we should not allow ourselves to be polarised like that which has happened in other countries, and the amendments are much needed so that we avoid the vitriol that comes from misunderstanding, and avoid any tears that would come from our inaction, and avoid walls that may be erected to divide us because of distrust, and most of all, Sir, never allow blood to flow on our streets because we fail to confront hatred. Mr Speaker, not withstanding the questions I have posed, I support the Bill.

2.23 pm

Ms Sylvia Lim (Aljunied): Mr Speaker, in the Ministry's press release on this Bill on 2 September, the Government restated the two principles underpinning the Maintenance of Religious Harmony Act passed nearly 30 years ago. The two principles stated were: first, that followers of different religions should exercise moderation and tolerance towards each other and their beliefs, and not instigate religious enmity and hatred; and secondly, that religion and politics should be kept separate.

I would like to touch on both aspects in my speech and also seek a clarification on a specific clause of the Bill.

First, moderation and tolerance. The debate on any curtailment of religious freedom is difficult because our Constitution guarantees freedom of religion as a fundamental liberty. Article 15(1) provides that every person has the right to profess and practise his religion, and to propagate it. Thus, it is a fundamental right of a person not only to believe in the god he chooses, but to manifest that belief in action, and to spread the belief to non-believers. Today's debate is really one about the extent of this right.

Singaporeans value the peaceful co-existence of multiple religions in Singapore, and the Workers' Party values this as well. Over the weekend, I visited the home of a resident who was obviously a devout follower of his faith. When I asked him about his views on other faiths, he said, "I believe what I believe, not because you are wrong, but because my god is the right god for me."

Singaporeans on the whole embody a spirit of moderation. To that end, we agree that the agenda setting in religious matters should be done by Singaporeans. The Government has expressed concern that some foreign brands of religiosity, if imported, may not be appropriate and may cause tensions on religious grounds to arise. We do not dismiss this risk.

The Bill imposes reporting requirements on religious groups regarding their foreign affiliations and donations, and may require certain donations from foreign principals to be returned or surrendered. The Bill also empowers the Minister to require the removal of foreigners from the governing bodies of religious institutions if such persons are deemed by the Government to have priorities that are inappropriate. There have been news reports that the major religious groups in Singapore support these amendments.

Nevertheless, Article 15(3) of the Constitution provides that every religious group has the right to manage its own religious affairs. It could be argued by some that the powers in the Bill constitute an erosion of the autonomy of religious groups. Earlier in his Second Reading speech, the Minister did say that it was not the intention of the Government to constrain the practice of religion – and that is a welcome statement. To this end, it is important for the Ministry to further elaborate on why the Government believes that the Bill is fully consistent with Article 15.

Next, separation of religion and politics. Although this Bill does not specifically deal with the separation of religion and politics, it is useful to remind ourselves of what the separation of religion and politics entails. This is especially timely, in view of the impending General Election.

During the debate on the Act 30 years ago, it was acknowledged that it is not possible to strictly divorce religion from politics. This impossibility is true today and probably for all ages. Like Mr Alex Yam before me, I am a Catholic myself and I am to be guided by the Church’s teachings. The tenets of Christianity exhort Christians to promote social justice. In the Biblical book of the prophet Isaiah, it is written: “Seek justice, encourage the oppressed. Defend the case of the fatherless, plead the case of the widow”.

Advocacy for the voiceless is every Christian’s calling. This is a force for good in Singapore as we address concerns about class divides and move to foster an inclusive society. However, while individuals may order their actions based on their faiths, the picture takes on a more sensitive hue when religious leaders openly champion social or political causes. The Government has previously voiced its concern about the possible misuse of religious authority.

While the focus of today’s Bill is on foreign interference, we should be vigilant that Singapore’s own religious leaders do not polarise their congregations along party political lines. On this, I wish to share some observations.

In the run-up to the debate on this Bill, there has been open support for the Bill expressed by religious leaders. Religious authority is being thrown behind the Government’s legislation, both publicly and also to specific congregations. Is that mixing religious authority with politics? As far as I know, the Government has welcomed this open support. But if the religious leaders had instead gone the other way, that is, express concern or opposition to the Bill, would the Government have put its foot down and issued an order requiring them to stop?

Let us look at other examples. Is it appropriate for a religious leader to exhort his congregation during a General Election to “Vote for Stability”? Or is it right for a religious leader to be publicly seen, walking into a Nomination Centre in party uniform with a political party’s candidates on Nomination Day? It is already brewing on the ground that some religious institutions are developing reputations for being supportive of certain political parties. Any decision by religious leaders to take an openly partisan stance bears the risk of causing tension between followers who ascribe to their leaders’ political allegiances and those who do not. If unchecked, there is a possibility that, over time, there would be a polarisation of society along political lines, caused not by foreign influences, but by Singapore’s own religious leaders. Such a prospect could fracture social cohesion and divide society.

Sir, before I end, I would like to ask for a clarification on the Bill regarding the proposed section 16F. This section states that a Restraining Order issued by the Minister has effect “despite the provisions of any other written law in force.” The explanatory note to the Bill touches on section 16F but is not clear as to how a restraining order could be contrary to a written law. Without clarification, the section reads as if a Restraining Order may breach other laws or be illegal in some manner. Could the Ministry explain what this is all about, please?

Finally, Sir, let me conclude. The Maintenance of Religious Harmony Act was controversial at the time it was passed. The then First Deputy Prime Minister Mr Goh Chok Tong told the House that the Cabinet had not been unanimous in deciding whether to legislate, and decided to mull over it and consult widely for several years. When the Bill was presented, he said, “In a sense, this Bill is a recognition of a retrogression, or potential deterioration, in religious harmony.”

Sir, the Workers’ Party shares this concern of the Government and is prepared to work with the Government on this aspect.

2.31 pm

Mr Seah Kian Peng (Marine Parade): Mr Speaker, Sir, this Bill promises a more robust approach to safeguarding religious harmony. By restricting foreign influence on our religious institutions, we also allow our national and religious identities to intersect more closely. Last, this Bill is built for speed, given the very large harm that can result from religious insult within a very short time.

I see this Bill as one among a slew of others to protect our rights and the kind of society we have pledged to be. The Singapore model of protecting rights has always been one that relies on restrictions of freedoms, in an explicit recognition that rights without restrictions are empty.

If everyone is completely free to do whatever we want, then we yield our individual freedoms to those with the most power, which in modern society has tended to be those with the most wealth. Countries which we consider to be democratic today are perhaps merely plutocracy well disguised.

I give two examples of laws which appear to trample on freedoms but yet provides the most freedoms for the most of us. The Land Acquisition Act is recognition that the rights of private property owners are sometimes subordinate to the claims of the state. The ethnic quota guideline in our public housing estate is evidence that the right to freely transact on the market is conscribed by the larger goals of racial harmony through every day lived experience of all races. The restriction of hate speech is the latest in a series of these, a vital link in preserving the high quality of public discourse.

Each restriction of vital freedoms is not to deny that such freedoms are important, but is our way of recognising that such freedoms exist within a universe of rights.

In his Ministerial Statement on Restricting Hate Speech to Maintain Racial and Religious Harmony, the Minister for Home Affairs and Law Mr Shanmugam had defined hate speech as "all forms of expression which spread, incite, promote, or justify racial hatred, xenophobia, or other forms of hatred based on intolerance."

Our revulsion for hate speech stems from two sources. First, it is morally wrong, that is, wrong in principle; second, it has the potential to cause great harm. And it is this latter which carves out the three main areas which the current legislation address.

First, the harm against society. Hate speech divides us, sets man against man, tribe against tribe; it stirs us up, it inflates and inflames our emotions.

Second, and on the other end of the spectrum, it dampens our responses to and normalises outrageous behaviour. What may once have given us pause may now be shrugged off and accepted. In this way, we lose our collective public morality. In February 2019, the United Nations Secretary-General Mr Antonio Guterres called hate speech a "menace to democratic values, social stability, peace". And he pointed out the dangers of allowing hate speech to move onto the mainstream. He said, and I quote him, "With each broken norm, the pillars of humanity are weakened." We cannot allow the norms of Singapore to become so lax that hate against each other's religion goes unpunished by law.

Third, hate speech moves individuals to take radical action. In the name of overweening but ultimately false causes, we have seen Nazis against Jews during the Holocaust, Hutus against Tutsis in Rwanda, Sinhalese Buddhists against minorities in Sri Lanka.

In Singapore, our Minister-in-charge of Muslim Affairs, Mr Masagos has said that there have been external influences trying to "re-shape" how Muslims live their lives, including being "exclusivist". There is also the longstanding risk, with terrorist groups calling on Muslims to establish an Islamic caliphate. Let me now quote Mr Masagos again. He said, "All these ideas are new ideas, which are ideas from old texts or interpretation of old texts. So, these need to be addressed by our own scholars."

So, what can we do against the force of religious beliefs? Other countries have found their own solutions. In the US, speech is prohibited if it is likely to lead to "imminent lawless action". The German Criminal Code criminalises the incitement of hatred against, or insult of, a racial or religious group. And in the UK, it is a crime to incite hatred on the grounds of religion. But it protects freedom of expression to a high degree, to such an extent that one can ridicule and insult, abuse any religion or its followers.

The Singapore approach. Like many countries, Singapore finds hate speech wrong in principle. Like some of these countries, Singapore is willing to use the strongest institution at our disposal – our laws – to bind this wrong because of the harm it does to our society.

Our approach distinguishes itself in two ways.

First, we are nesting it within an eco-system of laws that promote a high quality of public life and discourse. The Select Committee on Deliberate Online Falsehoods, which I was a Member of, heard expert advice which argues that the "visible hand" of the state is needed to fight fake news. Lies mixed with religious fervor presents an explosive cocktail.

Second, our willingness to give force to this "invisible hand". This is not always the case – in some countries, something can be recognised to be wrong and harmful but still remain unbound either because there is a lack of political will or because it lies outside the political culture.

In Singapore, we recognise that in our best selves, we can rise above our primordial instincts, we can forbear from rash, unreasoned action, we listen to others, we can be dispassionate and rational. We value religious and racial harmony. But let us not be conceited enough to think that we are our best selves all the time, or even most of the time. Let us not be naive to think that what happened in history cannot and will not happen again. From this principle, we are therefore are justified in making our laws more robust, in a climate where strident views are rising, and much that cannot be said in the past, is now freely promulgated online.

There will always be critics who say that yes, they agree that religious harmony is important, but we should not be so ready to make new laws. We should trim our legal reach and give more respect and freedoms to the citizens. To do otherwise is to disrespect the ability of citizens to hold mature political dialogue.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I have spoken on the need for realism above. A second, perhaps more sustained argument could be that the amendments make the laws more robust, which runs the risk of over-zealous application.

Sir, if the risk is between over-zealous application of the law, which can be ameliorated by members of the Judiciary, or that of under-protection of vulnerable groups of minorities, which does not appear to have any recourse, save the mercy and fair-mindedness of online mobs, then, to me, the former is far superior.

In short, Sir, I support this Bill because we, in this House, we cannot say something is important and, at the same time, we shirk from the hard work of regulating it.

2.39 pm

Mr Muhamad Faisal Bin Abdul Manap (Aljunied): Sir, my speech will be in Malay.

(In Malay): [Please refer to Vernacular Speech.] Sir, the Maintenance of Religious Harmony Act was enacted in 1992. The two key principles of this Act are; first, that followers of religions in Singapore live their religious lives moderately, practise tolerance towards religious differences and do not do anything that can cause hatred and enmity. Secondly, politics and religion should be separated.

I will touch on these two principles but before that, I would like to seek a clarification from the Minister on one new section being introduced which can be found in this amendment Bill, which is section 17(F). Briefly, what I understand from the Explanatory Note is that a person is deemed to have committed an offence if he wilfully becomes involved in acts that insult a religion or the religious beliefs or the activities of others in Singapore, whereby those acts; one, cause hatred towards another religion; two, injure the feelings of followers of other religions; and three, will affect the law and public order.

I will share an example and I hope that the Minister can provide a clarification based on the example given, whether an offence had taken place as stated under section 17 in the following situation.

An Islamic religious leader or preacher said during a sermon that Islam teaches that Jesus was a prophet and not the son of God as taught in Christianity. He then says that any religion that says otherwise that Jesus is the son of God, then the followers of that religion will be punished in hell. While delivering the sermon, the preacher also delivers that message in a fervent manner. If a video recording of that session is shared on the Internet. I think it is very likely that the majority of Christians will feel offended and angry because they feel that the preacher has insulted their faith.

However, from the perspective of the preacher, his intention was simply to deliver Islamic teachings to Muslims and he had no intention or motive to injure anyone's feelings or cause any friction in a multi-religious society.

Sir, based on my interpretation of section 17(F) and the next section, that is section 17(G), which states that motive or intent is irrelevant in determining whether a person has committed an offence as stated under section 17(F). The preacher that I mentioned in my example will be deemed to have committed an offence under the Maintenance of Religious Harmony Act even though the preacher's real motive is to share the teachings that are found in the Quran.

I would like to seek some explanation and clarification from the Minister on this matter, and if such a situation occurs, whether the preacher will be charged under section 17(F).

Sir, moving on, I would like to touch on two key principles of the Act, which are; first, to live a religious life moderately and practise tolerance towards religious differences and not do anything that can cause hatred and enmity. The second principle is that politics and religion should be separated.

Sir, Singaporeans are constantly reminded of the importance of integration between the difference races and religions to create and preserve harmony. There is constant emphasis on messages stating moderation and tolerance as key elements to achieve integration.

Every religion directs its followers to work towards achieving and maintaining racial harmony. I believe that every religion calls for moderation and tolerance for the sake of harmony amongst humankind. But, Sir, what is the meaning of moderation and tolerance in religion? Does moderation and tolerance mean that the followers of a religion have to compromise their religious values and practices, like making themselves ‘less Islamic’, and so on? Do the followers of a particular religion have to do something prohibited or that contravenes the values and teachings of the religion, before he can be considered as someone who practises moderation and tolerance? Personally, I believe that tolerance, as a pillar of religious harmony in a plural society like Singapore, is achievable without having to sacrifice the values and faith of any follower. In short, there is no need to be less Islamic.

Sir, I would like to share my experience while studying in Australia. I was amazed by the way Australian society practises tolerance by respecting the beliefs and teachings of a religion. My father's friend, Mr A, sent his daughter to a renowned public secondary school for girls in Melbourne. Mr A sought permission from the school to allow his daughter to practise Islam by wearing an attire that covers her modesty based on Islamic teachings. The school allowed Mr A's daughter to wear the tudung. In fact, his daughter was also allowed to wear long-sleeve blouses and loose-fitting clothes which, nevertheless, still comply with the school's uniform requirements in terms of colour and pattern.

Although Australia is a multi-ethnic country where its people come from all over the world, they still adhere to their country's principle of religious freedom. As a nation and a plural society, they recognise the need to respect the teachings and beliefs of followers from various regions. They do not practise tolerance by asking followers of a religion to compromise their faith or ‘to be less Islamic’ for the sake of integration. Instead, tolerance is practised in Australia by respecting the beliefs and principles of a religion and by taking steps to render support so that the religious practices of any follower of religion is not impacted, which was what took place in the example I just shared.

Sir, another principle of this Act is the separation of religion and politics. I do not quite agree with this principle. As a Muslim, Islam is understood as a way of life. Islam encompasses all aspects of life, including politics and the way to practise politics. And I understand that Christianity also believes that it is unlikely that religion can be separated from politics.

Sir, Parliament, as the highest institution in creating laws, also allows for religious elements in the process of appointing Members of Parliament through the swearing-in and oath-taking ceremony. We can see during the ceremony that Members of Parliament who are Christians can hold the Bible when taking their oaths and they conclude their oaths with the phrase "So, help me God".

However, Sir, I agree that it is certainly wrong to use religion in order to gain political advantage. I believe such a thing is prohibited in any religious teaching. This is because religion is meant to shape individuals who are morally upright and pure of heart so that he can contribute as best as he can towards the development of society and nation, and not to use it for one's own interests or certain interests.

Sir, the maintenance of religious harmony is a collective role and responsibility, particularly among religious and community leaders. Each member of society must strive to give mutual respect to other faiths and to practise true tolerance in order to maintain and further strengthen religious harmony in our nation. Thank you, Sir.

2.49 pm

Mr Desmond Choo (Tampines): Mr Speaker, Sir, in October 1965, Mr William Cheng, Principal Assistant Secretary of Administration of MOE mooted the idea of a pledge. It was meant to inculcate national consciousness and patriotism in schools. The then Minister for Education, Mr Ong Pang Boon, sent two drafts worked out by his Ministry's staff to the late Mr S Rajaratnam, then Minister for Foreign Affairs.

Mr Rajaratnam believed that language, race and religion were potentially divisive factors, and the Pledge emphasised that these differences could be overcomed if we stay united as a country. He believed that the Pledge emerged against the backdrop of a struggle to forge a sense of nationhood and to build “a Singapore we are proud of”.

More than 50 years after our Pledge was written, in Singapore's very first study by the Institute of Policy Studies and OnePeople.sg on the state of racial relations, four out of 10 Singaporeans said that they decide what a person's behaviour and views will be like based on their race even before they interact with them.

Every now and then in the papers things happen that reflect very vividly the complexities of race and religious tensions in Singapore. The changes to the Maintenance of Religious Harmony Act are timely as it deals with the complex trends the world and Singapore are currently facing.

The rolling news flows in the global village have given race and religious phenomena increased visibility and potency. Our people are not immune from that. For example, attacks against Christians in Pakistan or against Muslims in India, new incidents of anti-Semitism in Western Europe and hate crimes against Muslims in the US or Europe immediately take on a global dimension. The worldwide ripples of these incidents have vividly underscored the sensitivity of religious issues in the global village. It is even more critical now as compared to 50 over years ago and Singapore must safeguard itself from these changes.

I do have a couple of clarifications on the Bill. First, the distinction between private and public speech and foreign interference. Under section 17F, if a religious leader is accused of inciting religious hatred or ill will, he would be able to defend himself by proving his message was meant only for a domestic gathering and that he could not have anticipated that it would reach unintended audiences. However, this is potentially problematic. Incitement – unlike insult – can cause serious harm even if the leader's words are heard only by a small circle. If someone had secretly video-taped the speech and then propagate it, the harm would still have been done. The speaker must still be as culpable as the propagator because he had spoken the words.

Next, the Community Remedial Initiative is laudable. It matters because when everything is viewed starkly in black and white and no one is given the chance to make amends, mistrust flourishes. It splits communities down religious fault lines even more starkly than ever. Once communities are divided in this way, tensions will spill over quickly. The connection between religious tolerance and stable societies is clear. However, the question remains: how many times will we allow a person who makes religiously intolerant comments to participate in this initiative? Even though inflammatory comments can be removed online, this digital age ensures that the impact is immediate and long lasting. Nothing is really quite forgotten. The damage is done. Should there be a limit to the Community Remedial Initiative to not only individuals but also organisations on how many times they can participate in it?

Next, it is encouraging to note that our youths clearly care about religious harmony. It was nearly unanimous among the 18- to 25-year-old Singaporean respondents in the same survey that it was either unacceptable or very unacceptable for religious leaders to make insensitive comments on other religions. In addition, 97.2% of those in this age group felt that it was either unacceptable or very unacceptable for religious leaders to incite violence or hatred against other religions. However, the very same younger netizens might also guard online spaces more vigorously through accepting views of different nature, even though these views might seem offensive to some. How can we better bring about awareness amongst our youth that while people can express their views, they should also be cognisant that some discourses should not be accorded a platform, especially in multi-racial and multi-religious Singapore, that the enhancement of this Act is not the restriction of what they can say, but it is for the pursuit of higher ideals?

“Regardless of race, language or religion” cannot be words recited daily in our National Pledge for a brief moment in the morning and then conveniently ignored for the remainder of the day. Let us always remember that Singapore worked hard to lay the foundation for religious harmony and maintain it over the years. We did not achieve this by accident. The timely changes to this Bill are welcomed as they deal with the nuanced, complex trends in this world today. With this, I support the Bill.

Mr Speaker: Order. I propose to take a break now. I suspend the Sitting and will take the Chair at 3.20 pm.

Sitting accordingly suspended

at 2.54 pm until 3.20 pm.

Sitting resumed at 3.20 pm.

[Mr Speaker in the Chair]

Maintenance of Religious Harmony (Amendment) Bill

Debate resumed.

3.20 pm

Ms Anthea Ong (Nominated Member): Mr Speaker, I support this Bill as it takes a strong stance against religious intolerance that would threaten the public peace and public order of Singapore. It also expands the scope of protection beyond religious groups against such intolerance and discrimination.

I especially applaud the new provisions in sections 17E(1) and (2) which explicitly state that it is an offence of any person knowingly urging, on the ground of religion or religious belief or activity, the use of force or violence and the target group or target person is distinguished by religion or religious belief or activity, or by ethnicity, descent, nationality, language or political opinion, or any other characteristic whether or not of a similar kind.

The target group was elaborated in unambiguous terms in the Explanatory Statement on Page 77 of the Bill. I quote, "the target group need not be confined to persons who practise a certain religion. The target group may be made up of atheists, individuals from a specific racial community, who share a similar sexual orientation, or have a certain nationality or descent like foreign workers or new citizens."

In April 2019, the Minister for Home Affairs said that hate speech dehumanises marginalised groups, which enables individuals to justify violence against them. These new provisions serve to protect our vulnerable groups, including the LGBTQ community, from hate speech and institutionalised discrimination which, to my mind, always constitutes violence.

This is indeed an important change that signals the coming of age of a progressive and inclusive society that we are and must be. I recall the 2016 case of a Singaporean man who threatened to "open fire" at the LGBTQ community in a Facebook community based on certain religious beliefs and was subsequently charged for "making an electronic record containing an incitement to violence". Would the Minister clarify, as an illustration for the Bill, that the man’s action could be an offence under the new provisions of section 17E(1) and (2)?

Mr Speaker, beyond physical safety, our laws must also protect the psycho-social safety and mental well-being of vulnerable groups against religiously-motivated violence.

In the last three to six months alone, a community project I co-founded called A Good Space, has been approached by three different groups who support people who suffer from mental distress because of religious discrimination – some call this religious trauma which is sometimes defined as when religion has been been weaponised to cause guilt, shame and a feeling of unworthiness in people.

One of these groups was set up four years ago to address religious trauma for young girls and the group has supported a range of issues that were raised from micro-aggression with remarks like "your skirt’s too short, too tight", "why aren’t you in a hijab", to outright sexual harassment and violations.

Another is an interfaith group that was set up last year by a 35-year-old man and his wife. He shared his traumatic experiences of deep religious indoctrination, peer pressure, pastoral surveillance and being asked to participate in the many disciplinary actions that his church did to those who were not faithful. He eventually became, in his words, an "evangeliser climbing the church ladder who have lost my identity, my education and all other passions". Now, his group brings together, and support, many pro-pluralistic believers regularly to share with each other their experiences of religious trauma.

Another community practitioner, in her 30s, who set up a healing group in December 2016 to support Muslim women from the LGBTQ community just shared this story with me. She attended a parenting talk by a psychologist recently at a mosque and was shocked to hear the speaker tell parents to treat their LGBTQ children like drug addicts and also encouraged them to put these children through conversion therapy. Despite a large body of scientific evidence showing that being LGBTQ is normal and healthy, and the World Health Organization having removed homosexuality as a disease 42 years ago in 1977, punishments are still imposed by religious communities.

Both religion and spirituality can have a positive impact on mental health which is the basis for harmony and peace in our society. But we cannot and must not dismiss the religious hurt and victims of religious abuse in this effort towards religious harmony. I hope the new provisions will go some way in deterring these practices.

Open dialogue about such emotionally-harming practices needs to take place more often. There needs to be more support for those affected by religious trauma. I am glad to see interfaith groups like Interverse by Saiful Anuar emerging in this area and hope to see more religious and interfaith communities take on such support roles. I also hope that the Government proactively encourage intra-faith dialogue beyond just interfaith ones to maintain not just religious harmony but also the mental well-being of our fellow Singaporeans.

Mr Speaker, let me now move our focus to another key amendment of this Bill. For the Bill to truly work in achieving religious harmony as its intent, its implementation should heavily engage various religious groups. Instead, the Bill allows for the expanded powers of the Minister in being able to make a Restraining Order without 14 days’ notice of his intention to the person against whom the Order is made or to the religious group that is implicated. The Minister can decide without affected persons and religious groups nor relevant stakeholders consulting and advising on the Order.

I am concerned that the lack of notice and consultation may not sufficiently take into account the sensitivities of religious issues and the need to ensure good governance. A decision that is made without notice nor consultation may be seen as heavy-handed and controlling of the religious landscape in Singapore. While affected parties can appeal within 14 days of the order, the Restraining Order having been made would cast negative public attention on the particular religion affected. The absence of consultation may also mean that the Minister has less information to decide whether making an Order is the best way to achieve religious harmony. While the current Government may believe itself to be competent in making Orders appropriately, we may not be able to say the same of future governments. I think it is important to keep the safeguard procedures of notice and consultation to ensure that the law is properly enforced.

Moreover, Mr Speaker, allowing swift issuance of the Order is efficient but may not be appropriate in all instances. For online communications, such a swift issuance may be more suitable. Yet, for restraining orders relating to not accepting, returning, or disposing of donations and the composition of the governing body, these are decisions that can be undertaken less urgently. Hearing the affected person or religious group’s side of the story, such as on how the sources and necessity of these donations are, and the nature of contributions of the governing body members, would be extremely useful in decision-making.

I strongly urge the Minister to clarify on the removal of the notice period and the non-requirement of notice or consult. And to enlighten us with the implementation and training guidelines for the "competent authority" with these new provisions.

Mr Speaker, let me invite us to think about the other side of this religious coin. As much as we enhance our laws to protect against religious intolerance, how can we also ensure that engaging in honest dialogue made in good faith for the purpose of intellectual and spiritual advancement will not make a person liable under the Act and other related legislation like the section 298 and section 298A of the Penal Code and the Sedition Act?

Section 17F(10) in the Bill is implicit yet limiting in this regard. I urge the Minister to consider the inclusion of a "Stephen’s Code" into our laws to provide protection for reasonable speech made with good intentions for the sake of protecting public interest – like Canada and New Zealand have. New Zealand’s version of this code reads, I quote, "It is not an offence against this section to express in good faith and in decent language, or to attempt to establish by arguments used in good faith and conveyed in decent language, any opinion whatever on any religious subject."

This ensures that highly intolerant segments of society who deliberately take offence will not be able to silence reasonable and well-intended speech. Non-religious individuals in Singapore can feel restrained providing a fair response to religiously-motivated opinions for fear of causing offence, even if unintentional.

Finally, Mr Speaker, this brings me to the scope of inclusion in our policy and social narratives for religious harmony. Singapore is the world’s most religiously diverse country. Yet one in four Singaporeans do not follow a religion, according to the 2019 survey by the Institute for Policy Studies. Religious harmony, which is the intent of this Bill cannot be complete if we do not actively invite and include all the non-religious in our current interfaith initiatives.

The Humanist Society Singapore had to insert itself in interfaith programmes through its assiduous efforts. Five years ago, they had to intently knock on the doors of initiatives such as RSIS conference, NUS interfaith, NTU Path, UnConference, RosesOfPeace, CIFU, OnePeople.

People of faith must know and understand that fellow Singaporeans who do not have a religion do not necessarily oppose religion, they simply hold a different set of beliefs. I urge the Government to consider using "interbelief" instead of "interfaith" in our official narrative so that we are not alienating 25% of our Singaporeans and for all interfaith communities to do the same.

Mr Speaker, diversity may be the hardest thing for a society to live with and yet perhaps, the most dangerous for a society to be without. Someone once said that, "Diversity is having a seat at the table. Inclusion is having a voice at the table. And belonging is being heard at the table."

The Bill recognises the need for us to protect our vulnerable and minority groups and is a step in the right direction by bringing them to the table. Yet we must do more to make sure we give everyone a voice to be heard – whether they be those who suffer from religious trauma, LGBTQ persons, atheists, unwed mothers, foreign workers, new citizens and many more minorities.

Because religious diversity may be a given but religious harmony, whether inter or intra, is not. A top-down approach may risk creating merely facades without sentiment and could in fact perpetuate the divisions. We must go beyond mere proclamations of peaceful co-existence to develop the ability to understand and communicate with each other across all kinds of divisions, within and between religions and cultures, as a fundamental prerequisite for our society to remain cohesive and robust. The Government must not over-regulate peace and harmony or intervene too early as it might rob us of the opportunity, as a people, to develop this ability. This inter-cultural competence, and not merely multi-culturalism, must be a collective responsibility and priority for a Singapore that citizens from communities can call home, truly.

3.32 pm

The Senior Minister of State for Defence and Foreign Affairs (Dr Mohamad Maliki Bin Osman): Mr Speaker, Sir, the Singapore Muslim community welcomes and supports the proposed amendments to the Maintenance of Religious Harmony Act, or MRHA, which will further strengthen religious harmony in Singapore.

The community recognises the importance of practising one’s religion in a way that is respectful towards those who may profess a different belief from oneself.

Singapore is a multi-religious society. Singapore is a successful, thriving nation-state not just because Muslims and non-Muslims live side-by-side in peace and prosperity, but because many Singaporeans deeply believe that our diversity does not divide us and instead is a source of strength. We believe that Singapore can flourish as a cohesive society and as one united people, only if we safeguard the common space for people of all races and religions, including those who do not profess one.

While religion is a deeply personal matter, the community recognises the need for laws as an important enabler to allow communities of different faiths to co-exist in harmony. The law sets the tone for the norms that we treasure and uphold as a society, and in the case of the MRHA, the laws are the ultimate safeguard for religious harmony.

The amendments proposed in this Bill are aligned with our approach of managing Muslim affairs in Singapore. Our Muslim community is a confident one and how we practise our faith is founded on the strong underpinnings of Islam and contextualised to our way of life in Singapore. It cannot and should not be influenced by foreign forces, as our community must chart our own way forward, based on the set of values that have allowed Singapore and Singaporeans to thrive in an increasingly polarised world.

In support of the launch of the Commitment to Safeguard Religious Harmony in June 2019, Mufti Ustaz Mohamed Fatris Bakaram had said that MUIS’ efforts have always been guided by the vision of establishing a common space and advancing the common good for all in our society, and to keep out divisive and isolationist tendencies.

The practices in our mosques and religious institutions under MUIS are already aligned to the enhanced safeguards in the MRHA amendments, in particular, to ensure local leadership in our religious institutions, as well as regulations on foreign funding. For example, all members of the MUIS Council and the board members of our madrasahs, are Singapore citizens. We are also proud that the strong support of the Muslim community in Singapore – through the monthly contributions to the Mosque Building and Mendaki Fund (MBMF) – has allowed us to raise funds from our community to build and upgrade mosques in all our estates and to support education in our madrasahs without the need for foreign funding.

We can and must continue to be self-reliant so that as a Singapore Muslim community we are able to address our own needs without becoming susceptible to manipulation by foreign parties for their own agendas and risking the peace and harmony we have enjoyed as a society.

We will not condone any foreign preacher advocating violence, segregationist or intolerant teachings that could divide our multi-racial, multi-religious society, and build up unhappiness across different faith communities. In 2017, Imam Nalla, a preacher from India, was charged and repatriated for making remarks against Christians and Jews. Our community leaders and those of other faiths met with him. Before leaving Singapore, he apologised, and showed that he understood the implications of his remarks on trust between communities in Singapore. Both the Muslim community and non-Muslim Singaporeans welcomed his apology and gesture of reconciliation.

However, we need more than MRHA laws to ensure that our Muslim community remains strongly grounded in how Islam is practised in Singapore’s multi-religious context.

Workers’ Party Member of Parliament, Mr Muhamad Faisal Bin Abdul Manap, earlier mentioned about how integration is done in Australia. But here in Singapore, we must determine what works best for our unique multi-religious context. We must always uphold our common spaces. And our schools are critical common spaces where we nurture a shared identity and a shared experience among our children regardless of race and religion. This has worked well for Singapore.

Our entire community, our religious teachers and our leaders, must continue to be proactive and have the conviction that religious harmony is imperative to the survival and success of Singapore, and then to equip ourselves with the knowledge and skills to live out these values every day.

This is why to be registered under the Asatizah Recognition Scheme, or ARS, one must possess the necessary qualifications as well as abide by the Asatizah Code of Ethics, which states that religious teachings must not encourage extremism or violence, nor denigrate other faiths, and instead inculcate respect and understanding toward others. The ARS was introduced as a voluntary scheme in 2005, and community support, including amongst the asatizahs, has been strong. This was underscored when community and religious leaders asked in 2016 for the ARS to be made mandatory.

Today, we have more than 4,500 asatizahs registered under the ARS. Several crucial ingredients make the ARS work. First, the Asatizah Recognition Board (ARB) – comprising senior and respected asatizahs in the community – oversees the ARS, supported by MUIS. Second, the Board and MUIS take ARS registration seriously, instituting provisional periods of observation and requiring additional interviews as the Board deems necessary. Third, ARS asatizahs are required to attend regular Continuous Professional Education training programmes, and their suitability as an asatizah is periodically reviewed. Their accreditation will be revoked if they breach ARS standards. For example, Murad Mohd Said, who was placed on a Restriction Order in December 2018, was struck off the ARS earlier in May 2018 for his segregationist teachings that contravened the ARS Code of Ethics. In summary, the ARS is a robust, community-led system. It shows the Singapore Muslim community’s strong sense of ownership and commitment to ensuring that its religious teachers are credible and that their teachings are in line with Singapore’s multi-religious context.

To enhance further, starting next year, all returning religious graduates from overseas Islamic universities must also undergo the Postgraduate Certificate in Islam in Contemporary Societies, or PCICS, programme to be registered under the ARS. The PCICS will enable local asatizahs who have been trained in overseas Islamic institutions to remain anchored to Singapore’s multi-religious context. Under the PCICS, they will learn about other religions in Singapore, and through this, appreciate the importance of inter-religious understanding in strengthening social cohesion.

Mr Speaker, I chair the Committee on Future Asatizah, or COFA, that looks at supporting the development of our future religious teachers to confidently lead and provide guidance in the religious life of the community that is suited for Singapore. In my conversations with the asatizah community as part of COFA’s engagement, I am heartened that they recognise the importance of teaching Islam that is suited to our multi-religious societal context and support the introduction of PCICS. COFA will submit its recommendations to the Government early next year.

Our community’s religious leaders also lead by example. They have a strong tradition of working closely with the leaders of other faiths to strengthen interfaith trust and understanding. For instance, our mosques officials are active members of the Inter Racial and Religious Confidence Circles, or IRCCs. Several asatizahs have been involved in deepening interfaith dialogue and mutual understanding, through the "Ask Me Anything" and the Common Senses for Common Spaces (CSCS) dialogue series promoting interfaith conversations, while others volunteer as docents at the Harmony Centre.

The religious leaders of the different faiths mooted and developed the Commitment to Safeguard Religious Harmony that was launched during the International Conference on Cohesive Societies in June this year. The Commitment emphasises the common values across different faiths and sets out how Singaporeans of different faiths should interact with one another in a manner that grows trust and social bonds in our society. How we can dine together and express good wishes for and attending each other’s festival celebrations and life events. MUIS and the leaders of key Muslim religious and community institutions, including all mosques in Singapore, have since endorsed the Commitment. Mr Speaker, in Malay, please.

(In Malay): [Please refer to Vernacular Speech.] The Muslim community in Singapore recognises the importance of practising one’s religion in a way that is respectful towards other religions.

Singapore is a multi-religious society. We are a successful nation not just because Muslims and non-Muslims live side-by-side in peace and prosperity, but also because Singaporeans understand that our diversity does not divide us, but instead it is our source of strength. We believe that Singapore can flourish as one united people, only if we safeguard the common spaces in society, regardless of race or religion, including those who do not profess to any religion.

Although religion is a deeply personal matter, our community recognizes the need for laws as an important enabler to allow communities of different faiths to co-exist in harmony. The law sets the tone for the norms that we treasure and uphold as a society, and in the case of the MRHA, laws are the ultimate safeguard for religious harmony.

The amendments proposed in this bill align with our approach in managing Muslim affairs in Singapore. Our Muslim community is a confident community. The way we practice our religion is founded on the strong underpinnings of Islam and is contextualized to our way of life in Singapore. It cannot and should not be influenced by foreign forces, because our community must chart our own way forward, based on the set of values that have allowed Singapore and Singaporeans to thrive in an increasingly polarised world.

The practices in our mosques and religious institutions under MUIS are already aligned to the enhanced safeguards in the MRHA amendments to ensure local leadership of our religious institutions, as well as regulations on foreign funding. For example, all members of the MUIS Council and the board members of our madrasahs, are Singapore citizens. We are also proud that the strong support of the Muslim community in Singapore – through the monthly contributions to the Mosque Building and Mendaki Fund (MBMF) – has allowed us to raise funds from our community to build and upgrade mosques in all our estates and to support education in our madrasahs without the need for foreign funding. We can and must continue to be self-reliant so that, as a Singapore Muslim community, we are able to address our own needs without becoming susceptible to manipulation by foreign parties for their own agendas and risking the peace and harmony we have enjoyed.

However, we need more than MRHA laws to ensure that our Muslim community remains strongly grounded in how Islam is practised in Singapore’s multi-religious context. Our entire community, our religious teachers, and our leaders, must continue to be proactive and have the conviction that religious harmony is imperative to the survival and success of Singapore. We need to equip ourselves with the knowledge and skills to live out these values every day.

This is why we have the Asatizah Recognition Scheme or ARS. To register under ARS, one must possess the necessary qualifications as well as abide by the Asatizah Code of Ethics, which states that religious teachings must not encourage extremism or violence, nor denigrate other faiths. Instead, it must inculcate respect and understanding toward others. The ARS was introduced as a voluntary scheme in 2005, and received strong support from the community, including amongst the asatizah. This strong support was clearly displayed in 2016, when community and religious leaders themselves asked for the ARS to be made mandatory.

Today, we have more than 4,500 asatizah registered under the ARS. Several crucial ingredients make the ARS work. First, the Asatizah Recognition Board (ARB). Comprising senior asatizah who are respected in the community, it oversees the ARS and is supported by MUIS. Second, the ARB and MUIS take ARS registration seriously, by instituting provisional periods of observation and requiring additional interviews as the Board deems necessary. Third, ARS asatizah are required to attend training under the Continuous Professional Education programme, and their suitability as an asatizah is reviewed periodically. Their accreditation will be revoked if they breach the ARS Code of Ethics. Essentially, ARS is a robust system that was built through the community’s own effort. It shows the Singapore Muslim community’s strong sense of ownership and commitment to ensure that its religious teachers are credible and that their teachings are aligned with Singapore’s multi-religious context.

To enhance this further, starting next year, all returning religious graduates from overseas Islamic universities must also undergo the Postgraduate Certificate in Islam in Contemporary Societies (PCICS) programme, before they can register under the ARS. The PCICS will enable local asatizah to remain anchored to Singapore’s multi-religious context. Under the PCICS, they will learn about other religions in Singapore, and through this, appreciate the importance of inter-religious understanding in strengthening social cohesion.

Mr Speaker, I chair the Committee on Future Asatizah, or COFA, that was established to support the development of our future religious teachers to confidently lead and provide guidance in the religious life of the community that is suited for Singapore. In my conversations with the asatizah community as part of COFA’s engagement, I am heartened that they recognise the importance of teaching Islam that is suited to our multi-religious societal context and support the introduction of PCICS. COFA will submit its recommendations to the government early next year.

Mr Speaker, the Singapore Muslim community recognises that we cannot take for granted today’s harmonious state of inter-religious relations today, and we cannot underestimate the influence, ideas and practices from outside our borders that are dangerous to our community and social cohesion. Muslims and non-Muslims in Singapore have shown our region and the world that it is possible to have a model anchored on harmony, peaceful co-existence and honest, genuine relationships between the leaders and followers of different faiths.

Hence, we believe that, as the global socio-religious landscape continues to evolve, the amendments to the MRHA will ensure it remains an effective legal safeguard to protect religious harmony, and bolsters the community’s ongoing efforts to strengthen our social cohesion. The Bill underscores Singaporeans’ conviction that we will not allow others and foreign influences to prescribe for us how we should live our religious lives. MUIS has been consulted on the specific amendments to the MRHA, and MUIS supports the amendments. I too welcome and support this Bill.

(In English): The Singapore Muslim community recognises that we cannot take today's harmonious state of inter-religious relations for granted nor underestimate the influence of foreign ideas and practices that are inimical to our community and social cohesion. Muslims and non-Muslims in Singapore have shown our region and the world that it is possible to have a model anchored on harmony, peace, coexistence and honest, genuine relationships between leaders and followers of different faiths.

Hence, we believe that as the global socio-religious landscape continues to evolve, the amendments to the MRHA will ensure it remains an effective legal safeguard to protect religious harmony and bolsters the community's ongoing efforts to strengthen our social cohesion. The Bill underscores Singaporeans' conviction that we will not have others prescribe for us how we should live our religious lives. MUIS has been consulted on the specific amendments to the MRHA and supports them. I, too, welcome and support this Bill.

3.53 pm

Ms Rahayu Mahzam (Jurong): Thank you, Mr Speaker. In Malay, please.

(In Malay): [Please refer to Vernacular Speech.] We often speak about our country's uniqueness as a multi-racial and multi-religious society where all races live in harmony. History has shown us that nothing we have achieved today happened by chance and we are aware that the necessary efforts should continue in order to preserve this harmony. This includes maintaining the good relations between the different races through community activities, providing a safe space for dialogue and discussions of sensitive issues, providing infrastructures such as schools and housing where we can live and gain common experiences, and also having laws that can specifically hinder acts that can divide our society.

Some of the existing legislation include the Maintenance of Religious Harmony Act. This Act was introduced in 1990 and enacted in 1992. It was established based on several principles. First, to maintain religious harmony by ensuring that the different religions practise moderation and tolerance, and do not do anything that can create any discomfort with one another.

Second, to ensure that religion does not influence national politics.

This Act has actually never been used or amended. However, with changing times and rapid digital breakthroughs, we need to review the effectiveness of this Act in order to protect the nation's well-being. For instance, fake news can become viral at an amazing speed. Hate commentaries towards any particular religion can also spread very quickly. With technology, influences beyond our borders can easily reach out and damage the trust within society without us realising it. The Government must have the ability to manage this quickly. The Maintenance of Religious Harmony Act needs to be strengthened so that we can continue to ensure the country's well-being and interest are protected. Therefore, I fully support this Bill.

(In English): Today, we are debating the amendment of an Act that has not been invoked but holds great significance as a symbol of the nation’s commitment to the preservation of harmony in Singapore. I am heartened that continued and consistent efforts are being made by the Government to ensure that we guard against acts that could tear at our social fabric.

The advent and proliferation of technology has made the world a different place. With social media, a lot of information, both positive and negative, can go viral very quickly. There is a need for appropriate legislation in place to ensure that there is ability to quickly respond to acts that could incite hate and ill-will amongst members in the community and respond to foreign interference that could create distrust and divisions in our people, without us even being aware. This amendment is therefore timely and welcomed.

I would just like to comment on several provisions in this Bill.

Firstly, I refer to section 17F of the Bill, in particular to the defence to the offence, at sections 7 and 8. The defences appear to make a distinction between acts that are carried out privately and in the public domain. I would like to gain a better understanding of the rationale behind the defences as well as how the distinction between the private and public domain will be made.

I appreciate that it may be impractical to expect the authorities to police private communications. Any enforcement of the law for action done within certain confines, may also be seen to infringe on certain human liberties of privacy. Further, I appreciate that believers of a certain faith would have views on non-believers and any articulation of that may be perceived as offensive. However, the fact that there had been an incitement of enmity, hatred or ill-will, even if it is in a private setting, could be a cause for concern. A more profound hatred could develop over time, through repeated private discussions and with different groups of people.

I am therefore wondering if we could take a more calibrated approach in practice, when such a situation of a private expression of hate or ill-will that is made known to the authorities occurs. In appropriate circumstances, especially when the hate or ill-will arises out ignorance and could worsen if left unchecked, could recommendations be made for the individual to be referred to a community engagement, akin to the Community Remedial Initiative?

This leads me to the second provision I would like to comment on. I would like to laud the inclusion of section 16H of the Bill relating to the Community Remedial Initiative. I feel that this approach is potentially a powerful mechanism to really challenge beliefs and behaviours. In Malay, there is a saying, “Tak kenal, maka tak cinta” which means, “You do not know, so you do not love.” Often, resentment or hatred arises from ignorance and lack of understanding of another’s beliefs and practices. The Community Remedial Initiative presents that opportunity to edify, clarify and rebuild relations and I am happy that it is being introduced. I note though that the process is not mandatory. The offer must first be made by the Minister and the person may choose to enter into this scheme.

I acknowledge that one must be given the choice as compelling anyone into this process would be counter-productive. However, I hope that in the implementation of this legislation, efforts will be made to encourage the application of the Community Remedial Initiative in most cases.

Minister Shanmugam said at the recent dialogue organised by One People.Sg and CNA, that there is no silver bullet to solving racism, but Singapore has had a fair amount of success over the years. The issues of race and religion are intertwined in this country and we need to continue to take effort to address them. As a management committee member of OPSG, I am happy to note that there have been many platforms put forth by OPSG to allow for discussions and meaningful engagements amongst people from different races and religions. The dialogue was one such platform. There are also various focus-group discussions, learning journeys and camps for youth, to name a few, that are targeted towards promoting understanding and embracing the diversity of race and religion in our community. These efforts augment the legal framework that we put in place to preserve and protect our social fabric.

I have faith that with the appropriate combination of legal measures as well as community engagements, and a conscious effort to consistently and vigorously protect the interests of our multi-racial and multi-religious community, we would be able to maintain our harmony. Mr Speaker, I stand in support of the Bill.

4.00 pm

Mr Gan Thiam Poh (Ang Mo Kio): Mr Speaker, Sir, I rise in firm support of the Bill.

Our Government has been putting in great effort to strengthen racial and religious harmony in Singapore since we gained Independence. Our policies have been carefully reviewed and updated over the years. This round, as usual, we are not taking things for granted and will be introducing Restraining Orders (ROs) which will take immediate effect. This is a significant change, compared to the current 14 days' notice. However, in view of the speed and reach of online communications, we must do this to minimise potential damage.

There is a Chinese saying, 星星之火可以燎原，that a single spark of fire could burn down an entire grassland. Likewise, a comment, a single sentence or a single paragraph on the Internet could trigger discord between groups of people, leading to violence and destruction within hours. It is far better to err on the side of caution even though we might be criticised for being too strict or too sensitive as the stakes are simply too much for our small nation.

This challenge is how the Government could increase surveillance over social media and stop any comment or posting that could sow discord among religious groups, especially from offshore. The scope of this task could be overwhelming due to the sheer volume of online postings. Would the Ministry share how it will filter feedback, conduct online checks and whether it will utilise technology, such as artificial intelligence or AI?

After identifying online threats, how could we enforce our ROs against online service providers to remove such provocative posts immediately to prevent them from being circulated in Singapore? Many of the providers may resist or ignore our demands, on the pretext of freedom of expression, even when such expressions include untruths, insults and calls to do harm. Are we able to impose effective restraints and meaningful penalties upon uncooperative companies?

In addition, would the law be applied to foreigners who have attempted to infiltrate and impose such provocative expressions from offshore? Do we maintain a blacklist of such perpetrators which Singaporeans can also access so that institutions and organisations will be mindful and think twice about giving them a platform to share their thoughts or give public talks? In Mandarin, Mr Speaker.

(In Mandarin): [Please refer to Vernacular Speech.] Here in Singapore, we must not allow anyone to attempt to sow mistrust among our racial and religious groups. Nobody is allowed to cross the OB markers using the pretext of freedom of belief and speech. However, we should not assume that everyone is clear about the OB markers. Therefore, public education is very important and it should be complemented with regular reminders.

I hope the Ministry will share its plans and measures for public education to continue educating Singaporeans, to strengthen mutual understanding of one another’s faiths and practices as well mutual respect and help. In addition, more can be done to encourage inter-religious cooperation. For example, we are already seeing many religious groups coming together to support each other e.g. recently, a Buddhist group helps with traffic control for visitors to a mosque. Another example is mosques working with churches and temples to help the needy regardless of race and religion.

Finally, I would like to ask about efforts to help with mediation when disputes involve different religious groups. For example, we have come across neighbours’ disputes arising from different religious and cultural practices, such as the burning of joss paper and even the placement of altars. Would the Ministry consider having a special mediation team to help resolving such disputes and to ensure that these cases can be handled sensitively and fairly? Thank you.

4.04 pm

Ms Joan Pereira (Tanjong Pagar): Mr Speaker, Sir, I strongly support the amendments to the Maintenance of Religious Harmony Act (MRHA).

Singapore is ranked as the most religiously diverse nation in the world by the Pew Research Centre. This is really quite remarkable, considering our small population and land size. Our religious diversity and social stability attest to the success of our policies to treat everyone equally, "regardless of race, language or religion", as stated in our citizens' National Pledge. This commitment extends to residents of other nationalities living and working here. Maintaining peaceful co-existence of people from so many different religious and racial groups and of different nationalities in a densely built-up city is no easy feat. We must never take religious harmony for granted nor let our guard down but continue to work on strengthening our social fabric through constant reviews and adjustments.

The MRHA has been instrumental in preventing anyone or group from inciting feelings of hostility towards people of different religious groups. To ensure that its powers remain effective, we need to revise its coverage to keep up with the times. The ways of communication have changed significantly and I view the expansion of the scope of Restraining Orders (ROs) as a necessity.

Today, unfiltered messages can spread through the Internet and social media like wild fire, reaching tens and hundreds of thousands in minutes and hours. Within that time, much damage can be done if ROs do not take immediate effect. As we have seen in incidents in other countries, the harm is not just hurt feelings, but the loss of precious lives, irreparable injuries, destruction of infrastructure and, worse, when people react emotionally and violently, often without checking the basis of what they have heard or read. We also need to factor in the precious time used up in the process of recognising verifying and identifying such online threats before issuing the RO. The current 14-day notice before the order can take effect is inadequate in our current environment.

Next, I want to state my support for the introduction of the Community Remedial Initiative which is non-mandatory and intended to be rehabilitative and restorative. I believe that a significant portion of the offenders will benefit from the opportunities to better understand themselves and their religion in the context of our multi-religious Singapore, and the religion or religions they have denigrated, through counselling or participation in activities. I am hopeful that ties can be mended.

While these individuals are going through CRI, they may not be able to earn a living or take care of their families as usual. Would there be help provided for their family members, such as counselling on financial and household management and even religious guidance, similar to assistance for families of the incarcerated? I am particularly worried about how the elderly and children in affected families will be impacted. I appeal to the Ministry to ensure that they will not go hungry and the children will also get to continue their schooling uninterrupted. This may also be a good time to identify how much influence the offenders' beliefs have on their family members, so that they can be similarly assisted and led away from misguided beliefs.

I have another concern which I seek clarification. It is stated that if the offender completes CRI, criminal prosecution cannot be taken against him. What is the risk of offenders choosing to undergo CRI, going through the motions without any sincere intention, in order to avoid criminal prosecutions? What is the Ministry's assessment of this scenario and the consequences of the offenders being let off, in a way, without penalties?

One of the safeguards against foreign influence is to require religious organisations to only open key positions to Singaporeans or permanent residents, with "exemptions granted on a case-by-case basis". Would the Ministry share some of the guidelines which inform such exemptions? My concern is that too much discretion will be given to the officers in charge and evaluation standards may be uneven.

Another safeguard is the requirement to disclose affiliations to foreign organisations. Many of the smaller religious bodies rely on volunteers and have very lean resources to draw upon. I seek the Ministry's assurance that the demands of the disclosure are not too onerous.

Next, would the Ministry elaborate on how to facilitate whistleblowing so that the authorities can pick up news and information of individuals or religious leaders fanning the flames of ill-will and hatred towards targeted groups as early as possible? On one hand, we want to deter unwarranted complaints or prank calls; on the other hand, the screening process should not be too onerous and discourage genuine reports. We also need to provide protection for whistleblowers and ensure anonymity.

Lastly, I want to ask about efforts to ensure the spread of public education on basic religious knowledge which is suitable for our multi-religious nation. It is very important that citizens and residents here at least attain a basic level of discernment and knowledge. Add these to mutual respect, tolerance and a gracious attitude, we will be able to enjoy the fruits of a harmonious and vibrant society for years to come. Sir, in Mandarin.

(In Mandarin): [Please refer to Vernacular Speech.] (In Mandarin): Lastly, I want to ask about efforts to ensure the spread of public education on basic religious knowledge which is suitable for our multi-religious nation. Most people will not actively seek out general knowledge about other religions. For this reason, the Government must take on the task of pushing out key nuggets of information to the public, including young and old, on a sustainable basis. It is very important that citizens and residents attain at least a basic level of discernment and knowledge so that our community's foundation for religious harmony is firmly set. In addition, with mutual respect, tolerance and a gracious attitude, we will be able to enjoy the fruits of a harmonious and vibrant society for years to come. Thank you.

4.12 pm

Mr Mohamed Irshad (Nominated Member): Mr Speaker, the Pew Research Centre's ranking of Singapore as the most religiously diverse country in the world is an accolade that we ought to embrace proudly. All the world's great religions have a presence in Singapore – Christians, Buddhists, Taoists, Muslims, Hindus, Jains, Sikhs, Baha'is, Jews and Zoroastrians. This is a consequence of Singapore – from the time of historic Temasek – having been a Faith-Hub for leaders and missionaries of all the major religions. However, being a faith-hub, also brings its own set of challenges.

To deal with these challenges, in 1990, we enacted the Maintenance of Religious Harmony Act (MRHA). The Act had two main objectives: firstly, to guide followers of different religions to exercise moderation and tolerance towards each other and their beliefs and not to instigate religious enmity or hatred; and, secondly, for religion and politics to be kept separate.

After almost 30 years, these two principles remain relevant. The proposed amendments are timely, well-calibrated and much needed in the face of technological disruptions and global threats to uphold peace, security and even sovereignty.

Today, I wish to speak on three areas – issuance of Restraining Orders, Community Remedial Initiative and foreign influence.

Firstly, on issuance of Restraining Orders. At an international hearing on fake news and disinformation in London on 27 November 2018, a Facebook executive admitted, in response to a question by Senior Minister of State Edwin Tong, that the company "made a mistake" in not removing a post that incited racial and religious hatred and violence in Sri Lanka and caused people to lose their lives. Perhaps, it was fitting that Facebook's founder and Chief Executive, Mark Zuckerburg, had earlier this year said that there was a need for governments and regulators to have "a more active role” on how the social media and and Internet are regulated."

With the Internet and social media, quicker actions need to be taken to prevent statements which are offensive to religious communities from spreading here in Singapore. Social media is akin to forest fires, where a lit matchstick on a beautiful summer day can cause a massive wildfire. We, Singaporeans, know full well the effects of forest fires. Therefore, I welcome the move for the Restraining Order to take immediate effect before the offensive statement starts spreading like wildfire and causing irreversible damage to our social fabric and communal bonds.

Mr Speaker, we are also witnessing the rise of many charismatic and fanatic preachers who have built massive followings in the tens of millions online, espousing divisive values and teachings. A single offensive or thoughtless post by such figures can be seen by millions within a few hours thus creating a tense situation. How can we safeguard Singaporeans from having access to such content on social platforms given the introduction of the extra-territoriality clause in this amendment Bill? The revised process of Issuance of Restraining Orders is a step in the right direction.

Secondly, on Community Remedial Initiative (CRI). In keeping with the ethos of MRHA not being a punitive act, the CRI is a welcome addition. We have seen CRI in action on a few notable occasions in Singapore in recent times.

In 2017, an Imam of a mosque who had made controversial remarks about Christians and Jews apologised for his actions to a group of faith leaders. In 2018, a Pastor apologised to Muslim leaders for a guest US preacher’s hurtful statements on Islam. More recently, last month, as quoted by Minister, a social media influencer apologised for an insensitive remark about two Sikh gentlemen’s head-gears at the F1 Grand Prix and subsequently joined and took part in the community outreach efforts of the Sikh community.

In all three incidents above, the apologies rendered and subsequent interactions with the faith leaders and communities concerned were restorative, rehabilitative and I would say reconciliatory in nature. CRI was a reality without a name in all three incidents. For those who genuinely, without malice, cross the religious harmony line, CRI offers a fair and balanced means to set right what was made wrong. Can the Minister share how the CRI will be administered practically, and more specifically what sort of activities does the Ministry have in mind in carrying out the CRI?

Thirdly, on foreign influence, the term "foreign influence" need not connote a negative meaning completely. The Inter-Religious Organisation in Singapore is a living example of what constructive foreign influence can do for a multi-religious environment like Singapore. In 1949, Maulana Muhammad Abdul Aleem Siddiqui – known as 20th century’s roving ambassador of Islam – landed on our shores to great acclaim to deliver a message of peace. Representatives of the major religions were catalysed and met again in a series of two further meetings and it culminated in the formation of the body known as the IRO which marked its 70th anniversary just this year.

Singapore is very fortunate that our founding generation laid the foundations for a harmonious and peaceful country, with subsequent generations working hard to strengthen the trust, tolerance and mutual respect between the different faiths. Unfortunately, the world we live in today is starkly different and is definitely not a bed of roses. Going back to the second objective which I shared earlier on MRHA, religion and politics must be kept separate. However, it is simply not the case in today’s context where we find numerous nefarious examples of religion being used to advance political causes.

Just last month, Prime Minister Lee spoke in New York at the Appeal of Conscience Foundation Annual Awards Dinner where he warned about weaponisation of religion as a growing phenomenon in countries around the world where foreign actors influence and/or interfere in local religious organisations to exploit religious fault lines, cause social upheavals, and create political instability. We are witnessing many of these on our television screens every passing day and we must never allow religion to be weaponised in Singapore, or to be used as a front for other conflicts.

Mr Speaker, just recently, I attended a multilateral ASEAN engagement where I had the opportunity to interact with our ASEAN counterparts. In one of my discussion, it was shared that in the years leading up to the general elections, huge amounts of money from foreign sources were routed through local foundations and religious bodies to fund political campaigns and their agendas. We cannot allow religious bodies to be manipulated in the same fashion and the need to mitigate foreign influence is a necessary amendment to the Bill.

Mr Speaker, in my discussions with some key stakeholders, a few concerns were raised with regards to the amendments which I would like to put forth to the Minister to address:

Firstly, several of our religious leaders are deeply concerned about the repercussions of any possible genuine oversight on the disclosure of any one-time donation of $10,000 and above from foreign sources. This is especially so in the case of "goodwill donations" and "cash gifts" that are presented when a prayer is answered, or a vow is fulfilled or simply to seek the blessings of a guru or deity. They shared that they may not have adequate resources to dedicate for this disclosure purpose. How will the Ministry view and act on such cases?

Secondly, to allay the concerns of our religious leaders who fear that the regulations might be too onerous for them to fulfill, can I propose the Ministry set up a help desk or a resource centre to educate and assist religious groups to fulfill and comply with the necessary requirements?

Thirdly, Mr Speaker, what is the Ministry’s view and stand on foreign donations received by non-registered local religious groups affiliated with international religious organisations? In particular, those operating under the banner of private enterprises or social organisations in the form of educational establishments, training agencies, meditation centres or any such other entities?

I believe that the amendments will not affect the work of religious organisations in Singapore, but it will certainly require greater transparency from them in terms of who they are getting their funds from, who are their leaders, and who they are affiliated to internationally.

The possibility of manipulation by foreign agents is very real and religious organisations should view these amendments positively to protect their congregations and Singapore. Of course, no one likes controls, but it is inevitable to maintain harmony. For the larger common good, these are necessary. Mr Speaker, allow me to conclude in Tamil.

(In Tamil): [Please refer to Vernacular Speech.] Religious Harmony is a uniquely Singaporean effort. While many of us may disregard this, we must remember in Singapore we have made a concerted effort over many generations to achieve this.

This did not happen by chance; many years of forging friendships, fostering understanding, building mutual trust, and creating legislative structures, Singapore is an inevitable "Faith-hub" today.

In the past 30 years, we did not have the need to use this Maintenance of Religious Harmony law.

The proposed amendments in this Bill should ensure religious harmony in our society, not just for the next 30 years but for many more years beyond. This is a testament to the will and courage of our religious, community and political leaders – both past and present.

It is therefore for these reasons of meeting today's challenges and needs that I stand in support of the amendments to this Bill.

(In English): Mr Speaker, we have never had the need to use the Act in almost three decades of its existence. I pray that the amendments will be deterrent enough to warrant many more years of the Act not being used. Mr Speaker, I stand in support of this Bill.

4.23 pm

Mr Louis Ng Kok Kwang (Nee Soon): Sir, this Bill relates to a very fundamental tenet of Singapore society. Singaporeans often proudly cite the fact that Singapore is a country where many religions can co-exist peacefully and even thrive. We cannot take this state of affairs for granted.

This Bill is acknowledgment that we must constantly update our legal framework to address new challenges. The most pressing ones we face right now are the challenges posed by social media and the Internet, as well as the trend of foreign influence exploiting religious fault lines. The Ministry has closely consulted religious leaders in drafting the Bill and I understand that there is strong support from religious leaders for these amendments. I am heartened to see that while the challenges have evolved, the Government’s consultative relationship with religious leaders and groups when it comes to religious matters has not changed.

Sir, I support the amendments proposed but my concern is how effective they would be and I would like to seek some clarifications.

The Bill seeks to prevent foreign actors from adversely affecting religious harmony in Singapore by imposing requirements relating to citizenship or permanent residence requirements on the leadership of religious organisations and the disclosure of large donations, amongst others.

A Restraining Order can also be issued to prohibit a religious organisation from receiving donations from specific or all foreign donors, to require the entire governing body to be Singapore citizens and to require specific foreigners to be suspended or removed from office. However, citizenship or permanent residence is a very rough proxy for whether an individual is under foreign influence.

Earlier this year, Senior Parliamentary Secretary shared that 24 radicalised Singaporeans have been dealt with under the Internal Security Act since 2015. Just this year alone, two Singaporean men were detained in January, while another two were detained in May and July. All four men had been radicalised by pro-ISIS elements. They were Singapore citizens but acting under the influence of foreign actors.

How does this Bill propose to address foreign influence on religious organisations where the influence does not come directly from foreign actors, but from citizens or permanent residents who are acting under foreign influence?

Section 8(2A) specifies the reasons for which a Restraining Order may be made. On what grounds under section 8(2A) can a restraining order be made to address foreign influence exerted through Singapore citizens in a religious organisation?

Next, I support the requirement for religious organisations to disclose "foreign donations" of $10,000 or more. But with so many exemptions proposed, my concern is whether this requirement will be effective. We are exempting "foreigners in Singapore on long-term passes". Why? It is probably more justifiable to exempt Singapore Citizens and Singapore Permanent Residents. But since the amendment is proposed to safeguards against foreign influence. Can the Minister clarify why the exemption is extended to "foreigners in Singapore on long-term passes"?

The exemption is also for anonymous donations like those made via donation boxes placed at the religious site. This exemption seems quite straight forward since we do not know who made those donations. However, how will we prevent people from exploiting this loophole? A foreigner could inform a religious organisation that he or she is making a donation to of $10,000 or more but to circumvent the need to disclose this donation to authorities, he or she will drop the donation in the donation box. He or she could also ask a foreigner in Singapore on a long-term pass to help make that donation but still alert the religious organisation that the donation is from him or her.

I suggest that we also require religious organisations to disclose any correspondence with foreigners with regard to donations of large amount. This can be similar to the proposed requirement for religious organisations to disclose affiliations to foreign individuals or organisations, which are in a position of control or power over the religious organisation. Can I also ask if the Ministry is tracking how much foreign donations a religious organisation is receiving annually and also how much it is receiving anonymously?

There might be cases where a religious organisation who receives a significant amount of foreign donations but does not need to disclose their foreign donations as it is from different sources and each source pf donations is under $10,000.

I do believe that we should monitor this, be alerted when and pay attention to religious organisations who have significant amounts of or sudden increases in foreign donation which does not need to be disclosed. This should apply also to sudden increases in anonymous donations.

Beyond these suggestions, can Minister provide more assurances that the exemptions proposed will not become loopholes, which makes it harder to safeguards against foreign influence?

Lastly, section 16H provides for the Community Remedial Initiative or CRI as a reconciliatory approach for addressing offending behaviour that has wounded the feelings of a religious community. The CRI has a similar objective as a Community Service Order or CSO, which is a sentence that can be imposed for an offender to make amends to the community by performing unpaid community service under the supervision of an authorised officer. The difference between the CRI and a CSO is that the decision to offer the CRI is made by the Minister, making it different from a CSO, which is a punishment imposed by a judge.

The CRI is intended to be offered at the pre-trial stage as opposed to a CSO which features at the post-trial, sentencing stage. A CSO may not be a sentencing option for some of the new offences in this Bill because a CSO cannot be imposed for an offence, which is punishable with a term of imprisonment which exceeds three years. The offence of inciting hatred and ill-will is punishable with imprisonment of five years while the offence of urging violence on religious grounds or against religious groups is punishable with imprisonment up to 10 years.

However, both the CRI and a CSO have similar underlying rationales of rehabilitation and education. The need to rehabilitate and re-educate an offender is still present even after an offender has been tried. Yet, under section 16H(5)(b), a CRI cannot be entered into after the commencement of trial. Will the Minister consider extending the CRI as a sentencing option?

Sir, I stand in support of the Bill. However, beyond the MRHA or the proposed amendments, what is even more remarkable is the collaborative relationship between the Government and our religious organisations. The religious groups have a close relationship based on mutual trust and respect, and frequently interact through platforms such as the Inter-Religious Organisation. The success of our multi-religious society lies not just our laws but also our approach in managing inter-religious relations.

In the press coverage leading up to the second reading of the Bill, it has been often highlighted that the Act has never once been invoked since it came into effect nearly 30 years ago. I hope our focus will continue to remain on education and building inter-religious ties, and that we never have to resort to the mechanisms under the MRHA.

4.31 pm

Mr Murali Pillai (Bukit Batok): Mr Speaker, Sir, I join the hon Members who spoke before me such as Mr Mohamed Irshad as well as Mr Louis Ng, who stated that the MRHA has a strong signalling effect even though it has not been invoked to date.

The late Dr Ong Chit Chung, former Member of Parliament for Bukit Batok and my predecessor, stated presciently in this House at the Third Reading of the Maintenance of Religious Harmony Bill on 9 November 1990, and I quote, "This Bill is a preventive measure. It need not be used at all if all is well. But its very presence will help to check mischievous or misguided persons. It helps to maintain law and order, without which no religious beliefs could be upheld or practised in peace."

After almost 30 years, it is timely to review the MRHA to ensure that it is strengthened to deal with evolving issues that potentially have an impact on maintenance of religious harmony in Singapore.

I note that the principal aim of Amendment Bill is to deal with the challenge of social media which can cause a viralling and deleterious effect on our society very quickly, and possible foreign interference in local religious organisations. It also consolidates all the criminal provisions dealing with religious harmony, previously under the Penal Code, under the MRHA.

I support the aims of the Bill in principle. I note also that it also has broad support of the local religious leaders. The hon Member, Ms Sylvia Lim, has some reservations that the religious leaders made statements to this effect. The suggestion, I believe, she made is that by making such statements, they may have crossed the religion-political divide. With respect, I disagree.

These statements as I recall were issued after MHA actively sought the leaders’ views. This is a responsible thing to do because a number of the provisions in this Bill are focused on religious leaders. In fact, the Select Committee in 1990 also benefited from the views of the religious leaders. It should be borne in mind that the religious leaders consulted, whether they supported the Bill, was not, pardon the pun, preordained. As it turned out, after the consultative process and after their views had been taken into account into the Bill is presented in this House, they gave their support. So, the leaders’ expression of support, or for the matter, even if they have expressed reservation or dissent to the Bill in these circumstances, does not, in my respectful view, equate to mixing religion with politics.

I have three points to make on the Bill proper and one query on the proposed Minister’s powers to make subsidiary legislation under this Bill.

First, the removal of the requirement that the Minister may issue an RO only after sending of notice and receiving of representation to the person within a 14-day period. A number of hon Members spoke about this.

I join Ms Anthea Ong in making the point that the focus of the removal of the 14-day period appears to be because of the fact that you have such statements being made on the Internet and there could be a viralling effect very quickly. But the wording of the provision applies broadly. So, in those circumstances, I wonder whether the rationale behind this provision in the first place that has been identified by the Select Committee, as a the safeguard, which is through requiring the Minister to take notice of the individual’s representation before proceeding further, can be adopted for situations which do not involve the Internet. And what is not clear is that at this point in time, whether the Ministry could say that, most likely, all the situations, or most of the situations, we are dealing with representations or statements made through the Internet. That part is not clear and I would be grateful for the hon Minister’s views on this point.

Next, I move on to the proposed section 16H which deals with the Community Remedial Initiative (CRI) and many Members spoke positively about this. It is meant to rehabilitate the person in question, and to promote reconciliation with the wounded community and victims. The hon Minister’s reference to the laudable initiative by the Young Sikhs Association, inviting a blogger who made a statement which can be seen as offensive, to a Sikh gurdwara with a view to rehabilitate her is an excellent example of how the CRI can work in future.

The starting point, however, is that the person in question is believed to have committed offences of causing ill-will between different groups or wounding religious feelings of any other person. These are offences under Penal Code provisions which are proposed to be ported over to MRHA.

I agree with the porting over, but my concern is the interplay between the Attorney-General’s powers and the Minister’s powers. Under article 35(8) of the Constitution, it is the Attorney-General who has the power, exercisable at his discretion, to institute, conduct or discontinue any proceedings for any offence.

Here, Minister decides whether or not to offer the CRI, and while the CRI is implemented, there can be no prosecution. So, you could have a situation where the Attorney-General may decide to prosecute a person only not to be able to proceed with the issuance of the CRI by the Minister. Would it not be better to vest with the Attorney-General this power, or at least require Minister to get the Attorney-General’s consent beforehand.

The final point, Sir, is on section 18: all orders and decisions made under the MRHA are not justiciable, meaning it cannot be called into question by the Court. Now, in this regard, I declare my interest as a lawyer in private practice. This provision invited much scrutiny in this House when the Bill was debated in 1990. The decision to oust the jurisdiction of the Court is based on mainly the following reasons. A decision to issue an RO is a political decision, not a judicial decision. The Executive Government is ultimately accountable to our people through the ballot box. This compares in stark contrast to judges who are appointed to their post. Court proceedings would not be suitable to deal with such matters because they are open proceedings and may unwittingly incite hatred between different religious groups. And one good example of this is the Maria Hertogh riots which happened in the 1950s where a Christian judge ordered a girl, who was brought up in a Muslim community, be returned to her Christian biological parents. This caused riots in which 18 people died. There was widespread property damage and fire too. There is also a need to move fast and decisively, and this is something where Court proceedings may not necessarily be an answer.

I have previously made a suggestion in this House this provision be re-looked with a view to allow Court scrutiny and welcome this opportunity to elaborate on my reasons.

At the heart of the issue is to ensure that the MRHA will continue to enjoy legitimacy amongst our people. Allowing decisions under the MRHA to be judicially reviewed by the Court does not lead to a replacement of a political decision with a judicial one. The focus is on the process and whether there are reasonable grounds to support the decision of the Executive. This is already the case for orders of detention made by the Minister under the Criminal Law Temporary Provisions Act (CLTPA).

Any concerns that the Court proceedings which are open to public may inflame tensions can be dealt with procedurally. Most importantly, there is a safeguard against abuse of power in the future.

It is not enough to say that Executive is still accountable to the public through elections. The concern I have is to ensure legitimacy of MRHA. This is not gained just by obtaining the imprimatur of the majority who voted in the Government. It is also important to deal with minority interests. This is to ensure that all segments of our society are united.

Lord Sumption, a retired UK Law Lord, pithily put this point across extra-judicially in the 2019 Reith Lectures. He said, "Majority rule is the basic principle of democracy, but that only means that a majority is enough to authorise the State’s acts. It isn’t enough to make them legitimate. That is because majority rule is no more than a rule of decision. It does nothing to accommodate our differences, it simply restates them in numerical terms."

[Deputy Speaker (Mr Lim Biow Chuan) in the Chair]

One good example of taking care of the minority interests is that the Presidential Council of Minority Rights (PCMR)'s articles in the Constitution dealing with Acts that may discriminate against minorities. Now, this is a point that was raised by the Prime Minister when he was Deputy Prime Minister during the Second Reading of the MRHA in the House. Our Courts should be allowed to act as a safeguard against abuse of power against individuals in future. Members of the public are not necessarily in a good position to parse through evidence and draw the necessary conclusions. Judges on the other hand have the skill and ability and they are also highly regarded as an independent pillar in our Westminster-style Government.

The point I make is not new, as the hon Member, Mr Pritam Singh noted. The Minister himself made the same points at the Second Reading of the Maintenance of Religious Harmony Bill in 1990. I stress, my concern is ensuring that for the next 30 years and beyond, the MRHA provisions will continue to enjoy legitimacy.

The hon Minister spoke about the rise in identity politics in the world. That is something may catch root even in Singapore. And having judicial oversight would help keep our community together. And I would welcome his views on this.

Finally, Sir, I wish to refer to the proposed section 19(g) of the Act. There is a reference to creation of offences which shall be punishable with a fine not exceeding $5,000 or with imprisonment for a term not exceeding 12 months or with both. The way it reads is that it is proposed that the Minister creates these offences. The punishment provisions are not light. Would it not be better for the Parliament to create the offences arising from breach of regulations that the Minister prescribes? Or in any event, what are the offences that are being proposed? With that, I support the Bill.

4.42 pm

Mr Saktiandi Supaat (Bishan-Toa Payoh): Mr Deputy Speaker, in Malay, please.

(In Malay): [Please refer to Vernacular Speech.] Mr Speaker, this review of the Maintenance of Religious Harmony Act is a timely move. Growing connectivity, be it the widespread proliferation of social media or convenient travel across physical borders, has allowed religious organisations and followers around the world to reach out to one another. And with our nation located at the crossroads of this region, it is increasingly common for religious leaders to travel to Singapore to conduct seminars. In this age of the internet, their books, for example, are readily available online. Some have made their way into local book stores. Some speakers may even make use of social media to broadcast their seminars via Youtube and other platforms without stepping foot in Singapore, and believers can learn from them in the comfort of their own homes.

For those who have religious beliefs, religion gives one guidance and comfort when one is going through a bad patch in one’s life. As Singapore is a cosmopolitan city with people from around the world taking up permanent or semi-permanent residency, it is important that their religions remain accessible to them. Mutual respect and understanding of various religious practices have allowed Singapore to remain a safe, stable and prosperous nation, and this must continue.

This was demonstrated, for instance, in Toa Payoh East-Novena recently, when non-Malay/Muslim volunteers jointly helped to pay for the airfare costs of a Malay/Muslim grandmother whose grandson was fatally shot by extremists in Chrischurch.

Nevertheless, I note that there are some people who teach religion or preach in the privacy of their own domains, such as at home, private halls and so forth. These are not open to the public, and only people who have been invited are allowed. These mostly consist of their own circle of friends, who would then, through word of mouth, invite their own friends, and so on. This is common among non-Singaporeans or foreigners who may prefer a group that shares their nationality and language, but it also happens among some locals. Some are splinter groups with a small following; perhaps they could not agree with the mainstream ideologies of their religion, so they decided to improvise.

My concern is that, since we do not know what goes behind closed doors, the organisers may try to promote a political cause, or even impart extremist ideologies under the guise of religion. How do we monitor such groups to ensure that they conduct their activities without breaking any laws, when regulators are unable to monitor what they say or communicate?

Moreover, if foreign guest speakers are invited to speak without a permit, as would likely be the case given the private nature of the group, would this be against the law?

In addition, the topic may not have any religious connotation. For example, it could have an innocuous title like “Challenges we face in our life”, for example, and the speaker can then weave in religious ideas and so forth.

Then there are cases of religious teachers who are self-proclaimed religious experts, who approach individual places of worship, get a small audience of people, preach, collect a donation, then disappear. Or if they are foreigners or non-Singapore citizens, they may leave the country. Sometimes, they don’t lecture, but they may screen a video. Could the Minister clarify if this constitutes as a definition of preaching? Ultimately, it would likely boil down to one of the attendees to tip-off the police, or their loved ones to realise that something is amiss and make a police report.

The recent case of domestic helpers who were radicalised is indeed an eye-opener. We must remember that radicalisation can affect anyone, man and woman, young and old, and from all walks of life. How do employers look out for such cases? For instance, domestic helpers have their days off and are able to go out and mix freely. Once these amendments are made, local religious organisations are required to declare their associations or affiliations to foreigners or foreign organisations, if any. But what if the organisation is affiliated to an overseas organisation that is unapproved under local regulations? Would the local organisation have to delink itself?

Next, I would like to ask, what if a speaker is from a diplomatic mission? If he addresses an audience on religious matters, would he be governed under this law or is he exempted because of his diplomatic status?

I applaud the government’s determination to prevent the spread of offensive statements against any religious group. I think it could also happen the other way around when a religious group unintentionally offends another religious group or group of people. And there are words, for example, like “heathen” or “pagan” or “infidels”, or “idolater” which can inflame feelings and be regarded as offensive under certain circumstances. Could Minister offer some guide on the usage of such words in terms of their definition and their use within this Act?

Finally, I applaud the introduction of the Community Remedial Initiative. Many offensive and insensitive acts to other religions or races occur due to lack of awareness rather than out of hatred. I note one recent incident, that was already highlighted by several Members in this Chamber, where a social media influencer offended members of the Sikh community with her controversial remarks. The Young Sikh Association (YSA) reached out to her and invited her to the Central Sikh Temple so they could share more about their religion with her. She even got to participate in some of their activities and it was a good learning experience for everyone.

This is a great example of a remedial initiative to educate the offender. Had the incident simply ended with angry netizens heaping criticisms on her, there would only be tension and anger between all parties, and nothing constructive comes out of this. I hope this initiative can be made mandatory for all offenders. And certainly, those who may not have broken the law, but affected a group of people with their remarks in relation to race and religious matters, should be encouraged to take up the opportunity to learn from such initiatives. Religious organisations and communities can play their part in actively reaching out, like what YSA did.

Therefore, Mr Speaker, I support the Bill. Thank you.

4.50 pm

Ms Irene Quay Siew Ching (Nominated Member): Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, we are witnessing a sharp increase in sectarian and religious violence in the world and Singapore is not unsusceptible to such external influences. As such, we need to be mindful of the aspects which could pose challenges to religious harmony in our society.

Immigration is one such aspect. New citizens and foreigners may not be familiar with living in a multicultural and multi-religious environment and there may be more diversity in the practice of faith, which can cause potential rifts and conflict among practitioners.

While I was going through the Bill, I thought of Muhammed Haniff Abdul Razak, my long-time family friend, who has devoted a big part of his life to inter and intra-faith harmony work. Haniff was previously serving on the Islamic Religious Council in Singapore and was tasked by the MUIS President Encik Alami Musa to set up a Harmony Centre in Singapore. Together with Imam Habib Hassan and Ms Hairani Hassan, they came together to devise a concept and pioneered this initiative that provides inter-faith services in Singapore.

This Singaporean concept of a Harmony Centre has deeply impressed many interfaith organisations across the world. And, with that, in 2010, Haniff was invited by the esteemed Prof Venerable Master Chin Kung and the Late Mr Ng Kim Suan to set up a similar centre in Australia, and since then, shared and replicated this model with many other countries such as UK, Taiwan, Hong Kong, Thailand, Sri Lanka, Bangladesh and many others. This clearly demonstrates how our little red dot can be an incubator for innovative models and influencing practices all across the world.

I was introduced to several religious leaders, educators and interfaith advocates through Haniff and while most of them are generally supportive of this Bill's amendments, they do have some concerns that they have laid out in the hope that the Government will consider them.

First, I would like to talk about the introduction of mandatory declarations for foreign donations of $10,000 per transaction to safeguard against foreign influence. Mr Deputy Speaker, while they are supportive in principle of the mandatory declaration for foreign donations, they would like to find out how was this quantum decided, because the value seems modest in today's day and age.

We must place trust in our respected and learned religious leaders to be accountable, and reduce the administrative burden on these organisations. Can MHA provide evidence or examples of past cases where foreign countries exerted influence and control over religious organisations through donations? How much were such donations? How is the proposed quantum compared with figures used, let us say, to monitor for money laundering activities or terrorism financing activities in Singapore?

Some religious leaders are concerned that this requirement will add on more administrative work and may deter future donations needed to support their community work, as some donors may prefer to remain anonymous.

As there are many ways for external influence to act on a country and disrupt societal harmony, would it not be possible to deal with these concerns as a whole through a Foreign Interference or Social Harmony Act? This way, if practices are breached, regardless of whether they are religious in nature or not, they can be dealt with similarly, instead of incorporating into this Bill and putting an unflattering spotlight on religion.

Another concern is about leadership requirements placed on Singapore’s religious organisations. It is stipulated that their governing bodies and top leaders are required to be Singaporeans or Singapore Permanent Residents. All religious societies in Singapore have their origins overseas and it is not uncommon that their leaders are appointed from their head organisations overseas. I understand that MHA do have provisions for exemptions on a case-by-case basis. Can I ask if MHA can elaborate further on the criteria for exemptions, so that this process is more open and transparent? Can it provide assurance that this change will not compromise their leadership appointment process?

MHA has been very vigilant in monitoring religious matters happening in Singapore. We all know the stakes are very high when it comes to maintaining racial and religious harmony and any imbalance can severely affect security, peace and stability.

We can do more to strengthen community cohesion and engagement through forming a conclave of renowned, highly respectable community leaders, and empower them as spokesmen to front religious sensitive matters. Such an initiative is apparent to MUIS, but more can be done to extend this to other religious organisations. This can help to promote community ownership for sensitive matters related to religion. A select group of official, religious mediators can also support these leaders through mediation and cross religion practice awareness training, also coordinated and assisted by MHA.

Allow me to posit a case where religious sensitivity was involved. An elderly Muslim man lived alone and was neglected by his family. To stave off loneliness, he joined a Church, participated in Christian activities and over the years decided to embrace Christianity. However, he became very ill and one of his last wishes was to die as a Christian and be buried according to Christian rites.

Subsequently, the family came to know of this and made a Court injunction to stop him from being buried with Christian rites. The Church countered this challenge and brought the matter to Court. For such a scenario, religious mediators are much needed by the authorities to step in and find an amicable solution.

Greater emphasis should also be placed on intra-faith harmony. While the IRO Council promotes inter-faith harmony, it is equally important for us to focus on intra-faith harmony. There are many examples of intra-faith conflicts all around the world for us to learn from such as the Shia-Sunni conflict in the Middle East.

Hence, it is important for us to follow the principle of "every Singaporean matters". Despite the occurrences of sensitive disputes, we are all Singaporeans regardless of religion, and one has to acknowledge that all religions form part of our social fabric too. So, perhaps the IRO can consider expanding its membership to include other faith sect representatives, so that we can work together towards a more inclusive society.

I also understand that the National Steering Committee (NSC) on Racial and Religious Harmony is a national platform built to bring together top levels of community, government and faith leaders. With the growth of inter-faith organisations in Singapore, perhaps NSC can be the central body to bring these inter-faith groups together to discuss how each organisation can work in synergy, and be aligned with the national strategy and direction. One of the potential areas of collaboration could be developing authentic religious educational materials for MOE to raise awareness in students.

Currently, there is no syllabus in schools imparting knowledge about our various religions. This prevents citizens from having a stronger understanding of each religion so that they feel comfortable and safe to engage in discussion. A successful, harmonious society should be one where we understand each other’s religion and are able to openly share without causing tension, rather than one where people choose to be silent and harbour ignorant ideals of another’s religion.

Mr Deputy Speaker, as we ended our conversation, Haniff also shared that there are still day-to-day challenges and religious harmony efforts remains a work in progress. I quote Prime Minister Lee’s recent speech in New York that "Singapore is ranked the most religiously diverse country in the world, but its harmonious society did not come about by chance."

His words remind me of the numerous unsung heroes in Singapore, committed to their vital roles to bring peace and harmony to our country. They include our inter-Ministerial colleagues, our Home team, religious leaders, interfaith advocates, responsible media and a strong Singaporean community.

Mr Deputy Speaker, I would like to summarise. Firstly, to form a conclave of official and religious mediators to strengthen community ownership regarding sensitive religious matters. Next, IRO should be as inclusive as possible with the various faiths to ensure religious harmony. Finally, the Government should empower NSC to bring in faith groups together for a common cause and promote religious awareness education in Singapore.

I look forward to MHA’s response to my proposals and the concerns raised by some of our religious leaders.

5.00 pm

Dr Intan Azura Mokhtar (Ang Mo Kio): Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker, for the opportunity to speak on this Bill. The maintenance of religious harmony, the upkeep of and the elimination of any threat to public peace and public order, are paramount to Singapore. We must do all we can to preserve the religious harmony that is critical for the survivability of Singapore. I fully support the amendments in this Bill which are aimed at maintaining this harmony.

There are some areas of the Bill to which I seek clarification. Before I seek my clarifications, please allow me to speak in Malay.

(In Malay): [Please refer to Vernacular Speech.] We all fundamentally agree that it is important for Singapore to maintain racial harmony. This peaceful and harmonious environment is created by establishing trust between the different races and religions that was imbued since independence by many of our community leaders, including our accredited asatizahs, as well as our other community leaders.

However, the racial harmony that we enjoy can become fragile and easily destroyed if we are not careful and vigilant in maintaining the strong bonds that exist between us.

We must recognize and admit that there are certain groups that want to unravel or destroy the bonds of trust between the different races and religions in Singapore. Religious beliefs and ethnicity are matters that are close to the hearts of Singaporeans. As Singaporeans, we can practice our own religions peacefully and undisturbed by anyone. This situation did not exist by chance, and must be looked after judiciously and wisely. Hence, I welcome the Ministry of Home Affairs’ move to propose amendments to this act in order to further strengthen the laws that safeguard racial and religious harmony in Singapore.

(In English): As mentioned earlier, Mr Deputy Speaker, there are some areas of the Bill in which I seek clarifications.

First, I support the need for immediate, pre-emptive and decisive actions to be taken to maintain racial and religious tolerance and harmony, and to remove threats to public peace and public order. Hence, I support the amendment to allow the Minister to “make a Restraining Order against any religious group for the purposes specified in subsection (2A) if the Minister is of the opinion that it is necessary or expedient” to do so.

However, can the Minister give the assurance that: (a) the expanded powers conferred on the Minister are justified and grounded on relevant intelligence gathered and established facts; and (b) that no particular religious or racial groups would feel that they are being unfairly targeted?

Second, the definition of “anonymous donation”. I understand the need for a “Know-Your-Donor” process or KYD to be carried out, but the way in which “anonymous donation” is defined in the Bill may bring about potential disputes and loopholes. For instance, there may be a donor who is known to a person or persons in a religious organisation, but who decides to give an “anonymous donation” by dropping in a sum of money to a donation box of the organisation, and where the act and purpose of the donation has been made known to the organisation.

In this case, in terms of audit and accounting, the donor is anonymous. But in reality, the donor is known to someone in the organisation and the act, and purpose, of the donation, is also known. In this case, how can the proper KYD be carried out? How will the donation be returned to the donor? Will interactions and communication between the donor and known person or persons in the organisation be more closely scrutinised? Are there ways in which the Minister can exercise his power to obtain further information about the donor?

Third, the appointment of a “competent authority”. What are the qualities expected of this “competent authority” that provides advice to the Minister on matters pertaining to Restraining Orders? To what extent does the Minister seek the counsel of this “competent authority” on matters pertaining to Restraining Orders? Will this “competent authority” be someone from the Presidential Council of Religious Harmony (PCRH)?

Mr Deputy Speaker, I would like to reiterate the need for a cohesive and strong multi-religious and multi-racial Singapore society where our diversity strengthens our social fabric, rather than weaken it. Both our diversity and social cohesion are equally precious and important to us, and it is imperative that both are upheld and protected. I am confident the amendments in this Bill will help to further strengthen our social cohesion, provide greater protection to our religious and racial harmony, and ensure public peace and order in our society. Notwithstanding the clarifications I seek, I support this Bill.

5.05 pm

Mr Terence Ho Wee San (Nominated Member): Mr Deputy Speaker, maintaining religious harmony in Singapore. In Mandarin, please.

(In Mandarin): [Please refer to Vernacular Speech.] Singapore is multi-religious and multiracial society. For many years, Singaporeans have witnessed that different races and religions co-existing harmoniously, but we cannot take it for granted.

The Maintenance of Religious Harmony Act (MRHA) was enacted in 1990 to lay out fundamental principles in a multi-religious society so that different religions can co-exist peacefully. According to the Act, the Government has the power to take actions against those who instigate hatred between religious groups, issue Restraining Orders, and forbid them to make speeches to religious groups or distribute publications. The Act also established the Presidential Council for Religious Harmony which provides information and reports to the Government in relation to religious harmony matters.

As time changes, ill-intended radicals can make use of the various new media to create xenophobia, and extremist groups will even stage terror attacks to stir up social unrest. What is unsettling is that terrorism is also threatening Singapore. According to statistics from MHA, the past few years have seen a rising trend of radicalisation. The Government is aware of this worrying trend and has taken more measures to prevent the problem from getting worse. Hence, I agree that MRHA must be kept up-to-date to safeguard Singapore's religious harmony.

We must work together to maintain and strengthen our religious harmony. We have also set up the Inter-Racial and Religious Confidence Circles ( IRCC) to strengthen social cohesion and expand our contact network. MCCY set up SGSecure Community Network two years ago to support the SGSecure movement, helping IRCCs grassroots' work.

Over the years, Singapore's different races and religions have been living peacefully together. They have always been accommodating, which sets a key tone for social stability. For example, Singapore Buddhist Federation seeks to promote cultural education and groom the future generation. They also founded schools, childcare centres and Buddhist youth groups. Through its bursary awards, the Federation provides various social services to needy students from different races. The Federation spares no effort in promoting religious harmony and plays an important role in maintaining Singapore's racial and religious harmony. These activities help to strengthen bonding amongst Singaporeans and build a common identity.

The Al-Istighfar Mosque at Pasir Ris provides guided tours to non-Muslims and introduced an initiative called "Water For All" to benefit different races and religions, and to deepen the understanding between one another. YMCA organises many local and overseas community services. In 2018, they accumulated more than 90,000 hours. The volunteers have made an impact on all members of the community, regardless of race, language or religion. There are many more such examples.

Besides MHRA, we can still do more. I recommend that the Government include Culture Studies in our education curriculum. To respect and understand one another is the foundation of a united Singapore, especially because we are a multiracial, multi-religious society. Integrating Culture Studies into students' curriculum will allow students to study the similarities and the differences between different cultures, providing a platform for different races to interact with one another. Just like Social Studies lessons in school, I think Culture Studies will help Singaporeans to better understand a particular culture and better communicate with people from other races. These lessons can be thought provoking as well, inspiring us to learn from one another. They can make us more considerate and understanding. When we interact with people from other religions, we should accommodate one another. The friendship and understanding between our different races in Singapore is not formed overnight. Instead, mutual trust and good relations are built over years through common experiences and interactions. These valuable social assets must be passed down to the future generations.

In conclusion, MHRA must be kept up-to-date. Religious leaders, community leaders and Singaporeans must work together to build a united Singapore. The implementation of Culture Studies can aid this process. This goes in line with our Pledge:

We, the citizens of Singapore,

Pledge ourselves as one united people,

Regardless of race, language or religion,

To build a democratic society based on justice and equality,

So as to achieve happiness, prosperity and progress for our nation.

(In English): Deputy Speaker, Sir, Singapore is a multiracial society. As Singaporeans, we observe that followers of different religions exercise understanding and tolerance. The Maintenance of Religious Harmony Act (MRHA) is the law that was enacted in 1990 to help authorities prevent friction and misunderstanding between religious groups. However, with the proliferation of social media, one with ill intention may use it to divide Singaporeans. As such, we need to keep this law up-to-date and I am in support of this amendment Bill. However, beyond supporting, I believe there are more can be done.

Strengthening our social cohesion is a shared responsibility for all races and religions. Everyone plays a part to safeguard our way of life and keep each other safe. The Inter-Racial and Religious Confidence Circles (IRCC) are inter-faith platforms in every constituency, formed to promote racial and religious harmony. The work of the IRCCs is instrumental in strengthening our social cohesion and supports the SGSecure movement. At present, the IRCCs deepen people's understanding of the various faiths, beliefs and practices through inter-faith and inter-ethnic themed activities such as heritage trails, inter-faith talks and various ethnic and religious celebrations.

Throughout these years, all races and religion live harmoniously together, with understanding and respect for one another. Our religious groups play an important role. For example, the Singapore Buddhist Federation (SBF) seeks to promote culture, education and social welfare. They, too, help to groom the future generation and founded Schools, Child Care Centre, youth groups and so on. SBF awards annual Bursary Awards to needy students in Primary, Secondary school and Junior Colleges regardless of race or religion and this benefits students from all backgrounds.

Also, initiatives such as “Water For All” and guided mosque tours for non-Muslims are testament to Masjid Al-Istighfar’s commitment to serving the community at large, and strengthening inter-faith relations. The Young Men’s Christian Association (YMCA) organises many local and overseas community services. In 2018, they accumulated more than 90,000 hours; the local community services clocked 31,740 hours and overseas services clocked 64,840 hours. The volunteers served and impacted all members of the community, regardless of race, language or religion. And there are many more examples.

Other than the MHRA, I do recommend that the government implement “culture studies”. The study of culture and heritage, cultural elements of each race and religion allows Singaporeans to learn, understand and appreciate the different groups. Just like Social Studies lessons in schools, the culture studies lessons, integrated into students’ curriculum, could be a platform for discussions on the similarities and differences between each race and religion, thus fostering deeper connections and friendships among Singaporeans. These thought-provoking lessons aim to enhance understanding, as well as empathy. In Singapore, the friendship and tacit understanding of different ethnic groups in our country did not happen overnight. They are fundamentally based on accumulated experiences, interactions, understanding, and built on mutual trust and good relations. And this valuable social asset must continue and get passed down to the future generations.

In conclusion, updating the MHRA is a move which will strengthen and focus efforts to maintain religious harmony in Singapore, yet we should also keep motivating religious groups, to do bonding and cultural events and practices. The implementation of culture studies classes, through concerted efforts, will also aid in maintaining peace and harmony in Singapore.

5.16 pm

Mr Douglas Foo (Nominated Member): Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, please allow me to declare my interest as Chairman of Sakae Holdings Ltd, President of the Singapore Manufacturing Federation, Vice-Chairman of the Singapore Business Federation and Vice-President of the Singapore National Employers Federation. I rise in support of the amendments to the Bill.

As both an employer and a representative of the Singapore business community, there is no doubt that the religious harmony that we now enjoy in Singapore should not be taken for granted. As Prime Minister Lee noted in his recent address in New York, our approach is "strictly secular, but not anti-religious". That many religions are able to co-exist harmoniously in our small island-nation brings valuable diversity to our economy. More importantly, employers having a peace of mind for a stable and reliable workforce reaps significant intangible benefits. By the same coin, employees can take heart in planning their careers knowing that they are not discriminated against by virtue of their religion.

Our Singapore today is a uniquely Singaporean society where all religions are accorded respect. Race and religion are both personally sensitive matters and are held close to the heart by our people. The 1964 racial riots where violent clashes between communities of different races demonstrated how intolerance and a lack of understanding can lead to detrimental results.

Since Independence, a number of social constructs were implemented to encourage inclusion and to foster deeper relations between racial and religious groups within the community. This approach has yielded fruit over the years and I believe all Singaporeans have memories visiting homes of friends of different races and religions during the different festivals and occasions in a year. These are activities that are commonplace for us and are easily taken for granted in today’s society.

Yet, it is important that we and the younger generation do not forget that this state of harmony definitely did not happen by accident, but rather by foresight by our leaders in the formative years of our nation. It is then our responsibility to continue to do our best to ensure we protect this harmony that is uniquely Singapore.

The amendments proposed in the Bill are therefore timely. As noted by the Ministry of Home Affairs, much has changed in the way society communicates since the Bill first came into force in 1992. While, as widely reported in the media, that the provisions in the current Act have never been invoked, we cannot afford to leave things to chance and reflect changing times and practice.

Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, please allow me now to share some of the comments and observations about the amendments to the Bill which I have had the privilege of discussing with people in the business community.

Many recognise that it is indeed imperative for the Minister for Home Affairs to be given the authority to issue a Restraining Order to take effect immediately, for the removal of offensive and subversive material. The speed at which such material can be transmitted through today’s digital medium means that time is indeed of the essence and where the seeds of such sensitive material is allowed to be sowed, it may be difficult, even impossible to completely weed out with the passage of time.

Yet, there are always relentless cynics who would outcry this provision as one designed to curb freedom of speech and freedom of religion. It would, therefore, be beneficial if the Ministry can publish clear guidelines on what is likely to constitute subversive and offensive material; and it is also of paramount importance that discussion and outreach to the general public be continued unrelentingly. Our people must continue to know and understand that any such freedoms must always be preceded by responsibility.

Moving on to my second point, I applaud the efforts of the amendments for the more moderate stance it takes towards offenders. Offenders are not immediately sent to Court but rather, are encouraged to undergo the Community Remedial Initiative (CRI) where they are given an opportunity to reconcile their religious differences. This reflects the sensitive approach that the Ministry has taken and sets a tone for collaboration and continued education for society.

However, it must also be equally important for such an individual to be re-integrated into our Singapore society. Continued support for the individual's rehabilitation and education must be available. I would therefore appeal to the Ministry to continue its good work and to extend all such necessary support as required.

My final point on the amendments, and one which I personally is especially crucial, is that the proposed amendments provides safeguards against foreign actors interfering in the religious harmony of Singapore. Religious organisations now, to some extent, are more complex than they were in the 1990s. I believe it is prudent for religious organisations to have more accountability as proposed by the amendments to the Bill.

Similar to heads of companies, leaders of religious organisations indeed need to be held to a higher standard of behaviour. To date, our leaders of religious organisations have been strongly committed to the religious harmony of Singapore, and we must take steps to protect this harmony, borne out of respect and humility.

Singapore has been identified as possibly the most religiously diverse country on the planet by the Pew Research Centre this year. This coincides with the 70th Anniversary of the Inter-Religious Organisation. This is testament to the sheer amount of work that goes into creating a united society of multiple religions. As noted by Prime Minister Lee, "This year, our religious leaders made a formal collective declaration that it is entirely proper, and indeed praiseworthy, for people of different faiths to befriend each other, exchange felicitations on each other's religious festivals and eat together despite different dietary rules."

Negative foreign influence cannot be allowed to impugn on the intricately woven fabric of our Singapore society. This is a society which has been nurtured to be religiously tolerant, providing for a stable country and a safe home. New citizens must therefore resonate the same chorus and must be educated on the values of Singapore – standing as one united people, regardless of race, language or religion.

Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, while the amendments to the Act are laudable, in conclusion, I would like to take this opportunity to advocate for the tripartite partnership of the Government, the employers and the workers to be more heavily involved in the reinforcement of the importance of religious harmony. Having a workplace where people progress on merit rather than on religious inclination is basic ingredient for employee happiness. Happy employee – happy employer – translates to greater efficiency and focus on business needs, and therefore, a happy Government.

This simplification of the tripartite partnership conceals the hard work that the partnership puts in to encourage dialogue and keep open channels of communication. I therefore urge the Ministry to continue to utilise such platforms for the benefit of our people and for our nation.

It is my view that with the proposed amendments, the Act is now a forward-looking piece of legislation that will continue to provide a framework for Singapore to prosper as a nation. With that Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I support the Bill.

5.24 pm

Mr Vikram Nair (Sembawang): Mr Deputy Speaker, I speak in support of the Bill. Religion is an important part of many people's lives and, in Singapore, people of different religious groups have no trouble living harmoniously together.

In my family, my father's family is Hindu, my mother's family is Christian, my wife is Buddhist and my mother-in-law is Catholic. I myself is not religious but we have no trouble at all, coming together as an extended family in different ways celebrating different occasions together. I grew up with copies of the Bible, Koran, Bhagvad Gita and the teachings of Buddha, all on the same bookshelf. When I go to religious house of worship, I am always interested in finding out more about the practices, about the religion. And, to me, it is a way of developing learning.

My life is, in some way, a microcosm of Singapore. In Admiralty, I say we are very blessed. We have a mosque, the Yusof Ishak Mosque, a Buddhist monastery, the BW Monastery and a church, Covenant Evangelical Free Church. Through the IRCC, all three come together regularly and work together on initiatives including dialogue sessions, "harmony walks" and regularly support each other's community efforts. In true Singapore spirit, they not only practice tolerance, but also understanding and warmth for each other.

But if one looks at human history, disputes along religious lines are almost as old as time itself and what we have in Singapore is actually quite exceptional and not an accident. We just look at some of the festering disputes in the world. In Palestine, for example, the differences between Christians, Muslims and Jews have made resolution of the dispute very difficult. The holy city of Jerusalem is holy to all three and there is no simple answer. The tensions between Saudi Arabia and Iran, also divide along the old lines between the Shi'ites and the Sunnis. And, again, there is no easy resolution there. The civil war in Ireland between the North and South, also divided along Protestants and Catholics lines. In Sri Lanka, there was a historical dispute between the Tamils and the Sinhalese, involved not only differences along language and race but also along religion. The simplistic of this language of the cause of these disputes, but it was definitely a factor that made them more difficult to resolve.

Even developed countries which do not have a history of violence are not immune to foreign disputes spilling over. Throughout the last few years, ISIS has been spreading terror virally through the Internet as well as through organisations, and attacks have taken place in Paris and London and other capitals with people claiming allegiance to ISIS. In March this year, in New Zealand, a country which has almost no history of religious violence, a shooting took place in a mosque during Friday prayers, killing dozens of people. In April, a month later, there was a series of coordinated attacks in Sri Lanka on Easter, again a country with no history violence against the Christians. But in this particular case, inspired by foreign disputes, killing more than 250 people. This was one of the worst attacks on a Christian community in Asia in recent history. Later that month, in a Synagogue in San Francisco, there was another attack, this time by a shooter claiming he was taking revenge.

These attacks are happening in developed countries, all being attributed to religion. Religious violence is clearly growing in different places and Singapore should not be complacent. We had some of our people taken under Internal Security Act for being self-radicalised. We are certainly not immune, notwithstanding that we have very good practices.

I think the amendments made to the Maintenance of Religious Harmony Act (MRHA) are timely to deal with these new threats and the new challenges we face.

One of the first measures that comes up very clearly is measures to control foreign influence. And this includes control over donations and people who may take leadership positions in the religious groups. Most of these changes are fair. By and large, they aim to promote transparency. So, it has to be clear where these foreign donations come from, foreign affiliations have to be clearly disclosed.

At the same time, there is a requirement for the leadership, more than half of it to be Singaporeans. This is all entirely fair and it is not rigid because if any group wishes special consideration, they may apply to the Minister. This strikes a right balance that deviations from the requirements of foreign leadership must be exceptional.

The tools available to the Ministry also include tools to pre-empt trouble and not just respond to it once it has happened. This includes the use of Restraining Orders to restrict what may be said or published or to restrict donations coming in. More broadly, section 16G allows the competent authority to request information from any religious group to investigate whether there has been compliance by that religious group. These are all calibrated tools that allow the Ministry to come in before trouble has take place.

Of course, for any legislation to have meaning, it must also clearly spell out offences and consequences. And the more serious ones are in sections 17E and 17F for serious offences, including the urging of violence on religious grounds or inciting hatred or ill will amongst religious groups. The penalties for this include imprisonment. Additionally, offences also include offences by corporations and unincorporated associations, but also provide for individuals within these organisations to be individually responsible. This places the balance fairly and holds organisations and individuals responsible for their actions in line with their culpability.

One measure that I found quite interesting is the Community Remedial Initiative (CRI) under section 16H which allows for the Minister to offer this option where certain offences have been committed. This is clearly a gentler penalty and it looks to me like it is aimed at rehabilitation because the end result of this is the offender will get a discharge not amounting to an acquittal.

I welcome the additional tool because it again allows for a more calibrated approach, but I think it should also be clear that this does not mean we are going soft on people who incite ill will or hatred. I will also be grateful for the Minister’s clarification on whether this more calibrated tool kit with gentler options available also means that these tools may be used more often. If so, then I think it is important for the Ministry to have the resources necessary to monitor and take action. I reiterate my support for this Bill.

Mr Deputy Speaker: Minister for Home Affairs.

5.31 pm

Mr K Shanmugam: Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I thank the Members who have spoken on the Bill. In my speech, Members will see that I use the phrases "wisdom", "care", "sensibility", "practicality" a number of times. That would be in essence what I would say to many of the questions. But let me start by saying I am heartened by the support of the Bill by everyone who spoke. There are some questions but everyone believes that this should be done and that this is the correct thing to do.

So, let me now try and address the points raised by the Members. There have been a lot of points by a lot of Members so I hope I can cover them.

Mr Alex Yam asked whether there were any concerns such as those raised in the White Paper in 1990 which required these proposed amendments. Sir, I have dealt with this in some detail in my opening speech – the changes around the world, the reasons for the amendment. I would refer to those.

Mr Yam also asked whether the Act will forbid the entry of new religious movements if they do not have a local presence. No, the Act does not forbid that. Religious freedom is guaranteed under the Constitution. We do not interfere with that. But the requirements in the Bill, if it becomes legislation, will apply to all new as well as existing religious groups.

Next, on safeguards against foreign influence. Members agree that our religious organisations need safeguards against foreign influence.

Ms Irene Quay asked whether there should be an omnibus legislation on foreign influence, instead of including these safeguards in the MRHA. I think Members recognise that legislation is needed. It is a matter of where these laws need to be sited. We took the view that MRHA should be comprehensive in covering all the matters relating to religious harmony – whether dealing with offensive speech, or safeguarding against foreign influence that affects religious harmony – which is why we also moved some provisions from the Penal Code over. We are looking separately into legislation to better counter foreign interference that is harmful to our national security and sovereignty. But that is a separate matter.

Mr Christopher de Souza asked about whether leadership requirements will cover corporatised religious charitable groups. The outcomes we want – that organisations that propagate, teach and practise religion should be subject to the principles which are set out in the Bill. Those principles apply regardless of whether the organisations are societies or companies limited by guarantees. But it does not cover organisations that may have a religious background but do not have as their purpose the promotion of any religious worship or religion, or whose business does not concern religious affairs or practices or conducting, teaching or propagating any religious belief. The Act has been applied for a long time in a sensible way and we will continue to do this.

There are religious organisations that set up companies to do commercial trading. I do not think those companies will necessarily be affected, but we have to look at what they are doing.

Mr Christopher de Souza, Er Dr Lee Bee Wah and Ms Irene Quay expressed concern that the requirements may be too onerous. Mr Alex Yam requested that MHA engage with religious organisations to clarify these requirements. He also asked about the feedback that has been received.

We have had discussions with various religious organisations. We also engaged non-apex religious organisations – the larger temples and all the Catholic Orders. The Bill incorporates their feedback. We made some changes along the way, based on their feedback. The religious organisations know there will be some additional work but they understood and accepted the rationale and the need for these safeguards. We have been working with them for more than a year. They realised the need for the amendments in maintaining religious harmony. We have assured the religious groups that we will work with them, implement these requirements in a practical manner and, where needed, we will also grant exemptions.

Ms Irene Quay asked how we set the threshold at $10,000 and how this compares with money laundering and counter-terrorism legislation. Money laundering thresholds take reference from standards set by FATF. All amounts, however, small are covered. For terrorism financing, likewise, action is taken however small the amount. We have taken action against persons for $60. So, those actions are in a different league and extremely strict.

For MRHA we discussed with the apex religious organisations on what an appropriate level would be. Ten thousand dollars was chosen because by the standards of donations, it was a significant amount. We have to balance between the risk and also the effort that religious organisations have to take. If you set it at too low an amount, they will have to take a lot of effort and it may not be meaningful.

Ms Irene Quay asked about examples of past cases where foreign donations have been used to influence local religious organisations. Mr Louis Ng asked whether we track foreign and anonymous donations. We do not track foreign donations to local religious organisations now. So, I am unable to give those examples.

But, I will say this. If you go back and for those who know that we did these things. The first generation leaders put in some practices that I must say had amazing foresight, and I say this with hindsight. Because in the last 30 years, what you have seen is that all over the world money from the Middle East has been used to fund mosques and religious institutions. The result is that this influences and changes the practice of Islam, which itself has been changed very substantially.

Our first generation leaders put in initiatives such as the Mosque Building Fund, where local Muslims donate to build our local mosques. And, for the building of mosques, the land is not tendered for. It is allocated – bringing down the cost. So, that effectively, made it very unlikely that foreign funding will come in. It is amazing foresight. So, we have not been affected in the same way as a lot of other countries have been, where money from the Middle East has come in – because that money comes in with tight conditions that the preacher must have been trained in specific countries, and in all likelihood, the preachers would come from those countries. And after awhile, and now you see it, the entire way in which people practise the religion, changes.

Mr Louis Ng spoke about the loopholes in the donation requirements. He raised some examples. Those examples have elements of deceit – where a foreigner passes off his donation as anonymous or from another person. Dr Intan Mokhtar raised similar examples. We have offences to deal with donors and religious groups that use fraud, really, to escape disclosure requirements. Section 16G of the Bill gives the Competent Authority powers. We can ask more information to determine the accuracy of the disclosures and also to check whether there are grounds for a Restraining Order. But we do not want to put too many requirements on these organisations. There is mutual trust.

Mr Ng also asked about a foreigner donating $9,999. Yes, for any threshold we set, someone can donate a dollar less. But we have to choose a threshold. If we did not set a threshold, then religious organisations will have to track every single donation and that is not feasible either. If we believe that there are influence operations going on, based on intelligence or otherwise, then we can move to a Restraining Order.

Mr Ng asked why the exemptions for donations disclosure also apply to foreigners on long-term passes. Religious institutions and groups in Singapore serve foreigners as well as locals who stay in Singapore. We have foreigners who live here, work here, study here, go to local religious institutions, temples, churches and so on and they naturally donate to them and, again, we did not want to and we do not want to impose too many administrative burdens on our religious organisations.

Let me now move on to leadership. Mr Ng asked about what we can do about citizens or PRs who act as agents of foreign influence in local religious groups. The scope of the RO only applies to ensure that every member of the governing body is a citizen, or to remove persons who are not citizens from the governing body. Where a Singapore citizen is acting as a conduit for foreign influence, we cannot use the RO. We will have to look at other legislation.

Mr Alex Yam asked about religious organisations where leadership appointments involve an external decision, due to historical reasons. The Catholic Church is an obvious example. We are very mindful of that and we always knew that those are not areas where we can go and direct, or require, or impose requirements. These have been discussed. And for other organisations as well exemptions will be granted on a case-by-case basis. We have met many of these organisations and have explained this to them. The Catholic Church came out in support of the amendments, because they understood what we are trying to do.

Ms Irene Quay and Ms Joan Pereira sought more details on the criteria for exemptions on leadership requirements. Without being comprehensive or exclusive, I will say we will consider the following: whether the congregation is largely made up of foreigners. There are some small religious organisations which serve exclusively a foreign community and sometimes, it may not be practical to impose on them the requirements that we have. We will also look at the structure of the religious organisation, and whether it operates as one entity across different countries. We will also, of course, look at security concerns.

Er Dr Lee Bee Wah raised a good suggestion that foreign appointment holders who are granted exemptions, that they should be given basic education on our multi-religious context. We will consider that.

Let me now deal with affiliations. Mr Saktiandi asked about whether local religious organisations would need to delink themselves from "unapproved" overseas organisations. Let me clarify. The MRHA does not provide for powers to ask a local religious organisation to dissociate itself from a foreign affiliate. I think that would be too intrusive and excessive. My colleague Ms Sun Xueling made this point. We have no homegrown religion of our own and we are an open society. I think the approach is to ensure that our local religious organisations are sensitised to our multi-religious context.

Dr Intan Mokhtar asked about the Competent Authority (CA) – what qualities are expected and to what extent the Minister will seek its counsel. The CA will be a civil servant appointed to administer the parts of the Act relating to disclosure requirements. It will be made up of officers from MHA, and they will act in accordance with the general directions of the Minister.

Let me now move on to the ROs. Mr Yam asked whether it would be an offence if a religious leader made public statements against a law enacted by the Government which runs counter to the beliefs of the religion. I presume he means whether such conduct would be grounds for an RO to be issued.

It depends on what the religious leader says, how he says it and to whom he says it. We do not want to constrain public debate on social issues, even when done on religious grounds. But if a religious group says, you can only vote for people who are of the same religion as you, that is not acceptable and crosses the line.

Dr Intan Mokhtar asks for assurances that the RO will not be used to target any religious community and Mr Alex Yam asked about the safeguards if the Government becomes “aggressively atheistic” and applies the MRHA beyond what it was drafted for.

The RO has safeguards, which I had mentioned in my opening speech and I will reiterate them. The ROs will be reviewed by the PCRH, which makes recommendations to the President. The President decides whether to confirm, vary or cancel the RO. The PCRH is made up of community leaders – both religious leaders and lay persons. All the major religions are represented on the Council. They are an independent body. They have powers to call any person to provide information while making their recommendations.

We have these pieces of legislation and I have made this philosophical point elsewhere: it is a balance of power between the Executive and the individuals and other institutions. What is the purpose you seek to achieve? How do you calibrate that balance? We have had this law for 27 years and I think the fact that it is successful is shown by the fact that we have not had to use it even once. It shaped values and norms in our society, and very different from every other place around us and further beyond.

Mr Alex Yam also asked about recourse for individuals. If a person or religious group is aggrieved by the RO that is issued, they can make representations to the PCRH. These processes have been put in place to ensure that the Minister’s decision can be reviewed and the RO issued, if appropriate.

Many Members have spoken in support of the amendment to remove the 14-day notice period in this age of the Internet. Mr Alex Yam asked how in practice these “new powers” can improve the effectiveness of curbing the spread of hate speech. I want to make one point. There are no new powers. The substantive powers remain the same. We are just removing the 14-day notice period. But the safeguards and the exercise of the powers remain the same.

Mr Murali Pillai asked if most of the situations will involve the Internet. The RO is meant to be pre-emptive, and to prevent further harm. With the internet and smart phones, I do not think you can talk about this is brick and mortar and this is the Internet. It moves from one to the other very quickly. A speech to a small group of followers in a room can be recorded and transmitted in a matter of seconds and from there, it can go viral very quickly. So, I think a 14-day notice period would be quite ineffective.

Ms Anthea Ong said the removal of the 14-day notice period may mean that the Government no longer consults religious groups or stakeholders before the issuance of the RO. As my colleague, Senior Parliamentary Secretary Sun Xueling has said, the Government’s preference has always been for the community to resolve the issues of religious disharmony. We work closely with religious groups, there are open channels, and this close, consultative relationship has been mentioned by Members such as Mr Louis Ng. That will continue, even as we determine the action to be taken in each case. And the person subject to the RO obviously can exercise his rights to have a review by the PCRH, and ultimately, the decision is to be confirmed or otherwise by the President.

Er Dr Lee Bee Wah and Mr Alex Yam asked about how the RO would interact with POFMA. They are quite separate pieces of legislation. POFMA can be used to direct online platforms, amongst other things, to amplify the corrections to a falsehood. In some instances, of course, it can both be false and also come under MRHA, and then, one has got to decide how to deal with it.

Mr Christopher de Souza asked why the PCRH can recommend varying a new RO, but can only confirm or cancel a proposed direction to extend an existing RO. I congratulate him for having read the Bill so closely. This is the same arrangement for the Minister. The Minister may only direct the extension of an existing RO. He cannot change the terms of an existing RO. So, he either extends it, or lets it lapse. All the terms of the RO remain the same. Hence, similarly, PCRH can only confirm or cancel the RO.

Let me now move on to criminal offences under the MRHA.

Er Dr Lee Bee Wah and Mr Douglas Foo had questions on the thresholds for offences in the MRHA. Mr Douglas Foo asked if the Ministry can provide guidelines on what constitutes offensive statements. Prof Yaacob Ibrahim asked how we define “wounding” of religious feelings and was concerned that it would cover genuine differences of opinions and views. He cautioned that laws must not end up silencing all discussion of religious topics through ambiguous definitions of illegal behaviour. He also asked if proselytisation would be covered.

First, the phrases “wounding of religious feelings” and “threat to public peace” are not new. They were adapted from existing offences in the Penal Code. People are free to express their views. This has to be done responsibly. Statements that denigrate another religion will of course cross the line. And the proof of the pudding is in the eating. We have had the Penal Code for eons and we have had the MRHA for 27 years. These terms are not new, and I do not think that anyone complains that there has not been a possibility of discussing viewpoints or that all discussion on religious topics have been silenced. I think people understand the norms and values, and there are fairly open discussions. If a debate on religious differences gets into a denigration of another religion, insults, incites violence, we will, of course, take action and we have done so in the past.

Members will remember Amos Yee, who made offensive remarks against Islam and Christianity. He did this repeatedly in 2015 and 2016, and so he was charged under section 298 of the Penal Code for uttering words with deliberate intent to wound religious or racial feelings. So we have had this law. We are just porting it over. The Courts will take reference from case law to assess the facts of the case. But nobody has felt that these laws prevented them from saying what they wanted because most people are sensible and we have created a framework within Singapore for a sensible, practical, wise way of discussing these.

Prof Yaacob Ibrahim asked if MRHA offences will apply to intra-faith matters, where persons seek to insult or wound persons of a different denomination of the same religion. The answer is yes. The Bill defines religious belief or activity to mean holding a religious belief or view or engaging in religious activity. The religious practice or view of a denomination can be distinct.

Assoc Prof Walter Theseira asked us to have regard to protecting social harmony, especially in cases where religious leaders stigmatise persons who do not have the same values and exhorts Government to change policy on religious grounds. The intent again, I reiterate, is not to stifle conversation about policy issues. The role of the law and the Government is to set some boundaries on how these discussions are carried out so that the conversation can be constructive. But apart from the legal framework, the Government seeks to build constructive relationships with stakeholders involved in the debate. But we do need the law to give that framework.

Mr Christopher de Souza asked about the scope of “religious leaders”. Section 8 of the MRHA sets out the definition and includes designated religious leaders: priests, monks, pastors, imams. But whether someone is in fact a religious leader has got to be a finding of fact based on the assessment of each case.

Mr Desmond Choo and Ms Rahayu Mahzam were concerned about the distinction we have drawn between private and public speech. For people who are not religious leaders, private speech is not covered under the offences in section 17F. If the alleged offender can prove that he made the communication in situations where the parties to the conversation intended it to be heard or seen by themselves, this will be a defence. We do not want to intrude too much. People have their views. They say it to their family members or they say it to their friends in a specific context. You do not want to necessarily criminalise all of that. But the burden is on the alleged offender to prove that.

Mr Desmond Choo asked about a person who secretly video-tapes the speech and communicates it. If a person does this so that action can be taken against the offensive speech in the video, then he is likely to have a defence provided in the Bill as well.

The defence is tighter for religious leaders and it requires two elements – first, that they show that it was private speech and second, that the communication was domestic. The second element narrows the first to cover circumstances such as conversations with immediate family, and you will see other examples in the explanatory statement. The religious leader will have to show that his conduct falls within this narrower scope.

The rationale for the defence is to recognise that there will be situations where the religious leader will want to speak unencumbered and can speak unencumbered. We balanced this with the potential for harm that a speech of a religious leader can cause. This is why the defence for religious leaders is scoped tighter than for persons who are not religious leaders.

Ms Rahayu Mahzam said there could be situations where members of religious group has repeated private discussions with different groups of people to preach hatred and disharmony. We can still take action against them. ROs can be issued to stop them from addressing a specified group of worshippers or members of religious group. The CRI can also be used.

Ms Anthea Ong suggested the inclusion of “Stephen’s Code” in the MRHA. Her suggestion may not deal with the outcome of the person's speech. That is an important aspect that we have to take into account in determining whether the law should step in for conduct of speech that is motivated by religious prejudice. Our approach is for persons who are not religious leaders, their conduct must have an additional element of being likely to disturb public peace. We have also provided a defence for a person who is pointing out in good faith conduct which could constitute an offence under section 17F, for the purposes of removal of such material.

Er Dr Lee Bee Wah asked about the rehabilitation of offenders that commit criminal offences under the MRHA, like inciting hatred. This is a good suggestion and we will look into it.

Mr Saktiandi Supaat asked about whether we would have oversight of foreign guest speakers who come here without a permit, especially in situations where they approach individual places of worship and speak with smaller groups of people. Ms Joan Pereira had a related question on how we can facilitate whistle-blowing. There are existing requirements that local organisations which bring in foreign preachers to speak in Singapore must comply with. They have to apply for the appropriate permits. There are penalties under the Employment of Foreign Manpower Act. If there are breaches and if we know if these breaches, we will not hesitate to take action, particularly when we are alerted to an egregious act which incites religious violence or disharmony.

Mr Murali Pillai asked about the Minister’s powers to create offences in the MRHA. These powers will be used to create regulatory offences to facilitate disclosure requirements introduced through the MRHA.

Mr Gan Thiam Poh asked how we can conduct online checks on materials and use technology to stop comments or posts which may incite religious disharmony. We have to take a balanced and pragmatic approach. We cannot regulate all online media. Instead, we restrict access to content that is against public interest when it comes to our attention.

Mr Gan also asked about how the ROs can be enforced against online service providers and Er Dr Lee Bee Wah asked about how action can be taken for posts on influential pages. The RO in the MRHA will not apply to online service providers that merely convey the offending material. We mitigate the deleterious effects of harmful online content in other ways. Under the Broadcasting Act, IMDA can direct Internet Content Providers and Internet Service Providers to remove or block access to material that is prohibited under the Internet Code of Practice. And if there is wilful transmission of online falsehoods, then POFMA can be used. For social media platforms like Facebook or Twitter, IMDA can issue a takedown notice to remove offensive posts.

I move now on to the Community Remedial Initiative (CRI).

Many Members have expressed support for this. Assoc Prof Dr Yaacob Ibrahim has said that while there is a need for strong and decisive measures for serious cases, there are other times where engagement and dialogue will be more appropriate. We fully agree. Using the weight of the law at first instance is not always the best way to resolve religious disharmony.

Mr Murali asked if it would be better to vest the Attorney-General with the power to issue the CRI, bringing this closer to a conditional warning. Mr Louis Ng has also asked whether the CRI can be a sentencing option for the Courts. If the person chooses not to participate in the CRI, the person's conduct will be taken into account to determine if it is appropriate to bring criminal prosecution against him. We wanted to look for a community-based way of dealing with such issues. And the CRI is voluntary. So, it is not appropriate to leave it with the AGC.

I think this is especially important in the context of religion. We should not force people to do what their faith militates against them to do. So, we must leave it voluntary and we leave it as something that you can consider doing and, then, later on, in terms of whether further action is taken, this is something that can be taken into account. Any improvement of understanding on the part of the offender should be done on a voluntary basis. This option would be better than forcing someone through the law to "reform". The CRI is a novel option. We will work with the religious leaders and communities to ensure that the actions under the CRI are appropriate and beneficial.

Mr Alex Yam asked if we had taken reference from other jurisdictions. No, the CRI is not something that other countries have implemented, as far as we know. But we wanted to see how we can deal with these issues in a different, non-legal way, as far as possible. I spoke in my opening speech about how the Young Sikh Association reached out to social media influencer, Ms Sheena Phua, and dealt with it. Mr Saktiandi and Mr Alex Yam brought up this incident as well.

Ms Joan Pereira said some offenders may go through the motions of the CRI without any sincere intention, to avoid criminal prosecution. Mr Desmond Choo had concerns that the CRI would be taken advantage of. Before the issuance of the CRI, we will assess the circumstances of each case carefully. But, like the young men of the Young Sikh Association, we should take a chance that the CRI will help some people and some communities to mend communal relations without having to involve the law unnecessarily.

Mr Vikram Nair asked if there are plans to use the CRI more widely. It is a new initiative. We will observe how the CRI improves our response to conduct that undermines religious harmony and then learn along the way.

Mr Pritam Singh made some points. I thank him for the general position that he took on the Bill. One point he made was that, in Singapore, politicians are often seen with religious leaders and it gives a picture of mixing religion with politics. So, how do we deal with this? I would say with wisdom and common sense. And that this is normal in Singapore. We do not live apart from religion; we do not live apart from religious leaders. If you take my Ministry, MHA, it is quite an important part of what we do, interacting closely with religious leaders, constantly being photographed as well. And, so, for Government leaders to cut off, not have contact with religious leaders, this will not be wise. Good deep friendships between Government leaders and religious leaders are extremely important. It helps to build trust, bonds and that is important for society as a whole and allows issues to be dealt with in an atmosphere of trust. But the key is to do it with wisdom, clarity of position and mutual understanding. And, in Singapore, we do it publicly, openly and we celebrate that relationship.

Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, with your permission, may I flash some slides of photographs?

Mr Deputy Speaker: Yes, please go ahead. [Slides are shown to hon Members.]

Mr K Shanmugam: This is the Prime Minister on 15 April 2015 at the Taoist Federation's Silver Jubilee. It sends a signal. It is important that he is there, standing together with the Archbishop and various other leaders. In the next picture, you see him at the consecration ceremony of a Hindu temple last year. It sends a signal, sends a message to all Singaporeans. Next picture. There were 40,000 people who turned up there. Does the Prime Minister say, "No, I don't go for this"? Or does he say, "I go"? He is the Prime Minister, he represents all of Singapore. Let us move on to the next slide. I have entered St Andrew's Cathedral; spoke with 400-plus pastors and we were photographed. Deputy Prime Minister went to a meeting with volunteers from RPG, I think, on 7 September. The pictures speak for themselves. It is a constant thing that we all do and that builds the trust and the bonds between the religious leaders and Government leaders.

But it is not only Government leaders who do it, as you can see. You can see that it is cross-party, right? There are quite a few pictures of WP Members with religious leaders and they are across all religions. I think there is more. But I thought that was enough to make the point. [Laughter.]

So, in Government, we do that. I said it has to be done with mutual understanding and that we are neutral. The religious leaders must know that we are neutral and confidence has to be given to all religions that the Government will be fair and neutral and be the conscientious referee. So, I will repeat very strongly: these interactions, the building of bonds are extremely important. You will see that religious harmony in Singapore is not only because of the laws but also because of how Government leaders have behaved. And if a political leader is invited – taking the example that Mr Pritam Singh gave – during a period of celebration, say, celebration of the nation, a significant date for the country, say, the 50th Anniversary Celebrations. Our tradition in Singapore, as you can see from all of this, we go. They are celebrating a national event and it is important for a Minister to be there to show that all faiths, all sections of the society are celebrating the success of the nation. And does he not go simply because it coincides with the run-up to a general election which one can expect anytime? I think we have to be sensible enough to say what is the occasion, is it a national event, is the Prime Minister or any other Minister being invited in his capacity as a Minister, or a senior leader in the Government, and what is the message that is being sent? Is it a celebration by the religious community of the success of Singapore? That is what we are celebrating.

Mr Deputy Speaker: Minister Shanmugam, would you need another five minutes or so?

Mr K Shanmugam: I think a bit more than five minutes.

Mr Deputy Speaker: Yes. Leader of the House.

Debate resumed.

Mr K Shanmugam: Another point that Mr Pritam Singh made, of religious leaders being seen with political leaders during elections, if the religious leaders are lay religious leaders, they have civil and political rights. The law does not preclude them from exercising their civil and political rights. They can be members of political parties. We have had Ministers, Members of Parliament who were lay preachers. So, they hold senior positions in a religious organisation and who are lay persons who hold other jobs and businesses. As I have said, they can be Members of Parliament, they can be Ministers and you cannot be saying they cannot exercise their rights. I think it is difficult to draw bright lines. But I will agree with this point, because we have got to look at these things with care and without a party lens, to decide on what is good for Singapore. We must handle these issues with sensibility, care and wisdom.

Ms Sylvia Lim spoke about religious leaders supporting this Bill and she asked what views would the Government take if they had not been supportive of the Bill. This is not the first time religious leaders and organisations have expressed a view on a piece of legislation or Government policy. They have expressed views on other issues.

Sir, with your leave, can I show extracts of some letters?

Mr Deputy Speaker: Yes. [Slides are shown to hon Members.]

Mr K Shanmugam: If you will see, December 2010, October 2016 on the casinos and gambling. They were quite clear. This is the National Council of Churches of Singapore: "We speak against the building of a casino in Singapore. Casinos undermine values. The Council urges the Government to review this decision. The family and social fabric of our nation is currently not strong enough."

And if you see, Pergas, October 2016, this is regarding online gambling: "Pergas would like to voice its concern regarding the Government's approval of online gambling. Gambling is strictly prohibited in Islam. Erosion of moral values within the community." I can refer to other examples but you can see that they were quite uncomfortable. They expressed their discomfort. It was published in the media. The Government did not tell them "You should not be expressing your views". I think that answers Ms Sylvia Lim's questions.

Should we have told them that they are not to comment? This, again, would suggest not practical to draw very clear bright lines. Needs to be dealt with with sensitivity, understanding and some care.

For the MRHA, there were substantive consultations with the religious groups. It relates to them. They expressed their views. Religious leaders in Singapore know they should not be engaging in general political discourse. So, again, approaching this without a party lens, the questions are: what is good for Singapore and what is doable? MRHA, obviously, they will comment and it is understandable that they comment. And if they did not support it and made their lack of support public in the way they talked about the casinos and the way they talked about online gambling, it would be no different from how they had reacted earlier on other occasions, if they had said "We do not support this". I do not think we can completely deny them the right to express some views on some pieces of legislation. At the same time, both parties must understand that the language must be one of mutual respect, and does not cross over into being partisan and political.

Ms Sylvia Lim spoke about religious leaders making statements during elections – "vote wisely", "vote for stability" and so on – again, I think the principles ought to be: be careful, be temperate, be wise. I agree that for the good of Singapore, we do not want religious leaders to get into the arena and become partisan. But I cannot see that any lines have been crossed so far. A lot of care has to be exercised by the religious leaders if they choose to make statements. And that is in the interest of everyone.

She had a couple of technical questions. One, how the RO is consistent with Article 15 of the Constitution because the RO seeks to constrain some rights. Article 15(4) of the Constitution, which she may not have seen, states that the freedom of religion does not authorise any act contrary to any general law relating to public order, public health or morality. So, the Constitution itself recognises that there can be some constraints on the freedom of religion.

The grounds on which the RO can be issued to religious groups is in the circumstances that are set out. For example, foreign influence that undermines religious tolerance between different religious groups and that can present a threat to public peace and order in Singapore, and that is consistent with Article 15.

Moving on to a query on section 16F. That states that Restraining Order has effect despite other written laws. So, what does that mean? It is in very, very limited circumstances but let me give an example. I talked about foreign influence through corporations, companies. Section 145(5) of the Companies Act says there should be at least one director – it is a provision known to all lawyers – who is ordinarily resident in Singapore. But supposing we issue an RO because we believe that that company, that person, is subject to foreign inference. So, despite section 145(5) of the Companies Act saying that you need at least one person who is resident in Singapore, the RO will take precedence over section 145(5). That is the context. So, section 16F is to ensure that the religious group cannot refuse to comply with an RO for such reasons.

Let me turn to Mr Faisal Manap. He made three points. First, he gave a specific illustration and asked whether that would be a breach. First of all, I would like to ask him if that statement is hypothetical or whether it is actual and whether it has actually been made. But I will, secondly, tell him that on the specific illustration, the substantive law is broadly similar. If you look at section 17F and compare it with sections 298 and 298A of the Penal Code, which I am sure he is very familiar with, you will see that it is broadly, not that different. It will depend on what is the intent of the person saying it and the way and purpose for which the statement was made.

He made a second point on issues relating to the practice of religion. But those comments do not arise from these amendments. The Government's position has been set out. Different countries follow different approaches. Some even in Europe create a lot of obstruction, for example, on the building of mosques and the practice of Islam. They threaten Muslims, there is Islamophobia. We in Singapore take the opposite approach. Here, as I said earlier, the Government allocates land for the building of mosques, only for Muslims – that approach is not taken for any other religion. For other religions, you got to bid for the land; so this is done without tender; and makes the access to the practice of Islam easily accessible. We have set our face very strongly against Islamophobia. We have made it very clear. If we see any such practice, we will move. Earlier, a gentleman was sent to prison and caned for writing on an MRT wall certain derogatory remarks about Muslims. We protect religious communities including religious minorities.

The third point he makes, that he does not agree with the principle of separation of religion and politics. That is what I heard. I was surprised. I asked for confirmation that that is indeed what he said and my people say that it is indeed what he said. It is a very surprising statement, it is a very serious statement and a statement with serious implications. And it contradicts everything that we hold as central and important in Singapore and it is a fundamental value. If we went out and asked Singaporeans, I think they will be quite shocked.

Let me tell Mr Manap, assuming that I heard him right, if we do not separate religion from politics, then whose religion comes into politics? Inevitably, if you allow religion to play a significant role in politics, then those who are part of the majority religion must have the biggest say, or plurality, at least, will have the biggest say. Do you think the position of religious minorities will be better or worse?

He quoted what an Islamic scholar might say. What if a text in another religion is critical of all other religions and it tells its followers that non-believers should be shunned? How would Mr Manap feel if these were the views of the religion of the majority or the plurality, and that comes into politics?

So, for an elected Member of Parliament in this House to say, "I do not accept the principle of separation of religion from politics", I think it is very, very surprising. If you say it is not possible to draw bright lights, that the line will be fuzzy, that is different. It is what I have said. But, anyway, I see your position and I will leave the Chambers with those statements ringing in my head, that you reject the principle of separation of religion from politics.

Many Members have provided suggestions on how we can resolve disputes arising from different religious beliefs. Mr Gan Thiam Poh asked if MHA could consider having a mediation team to resolve disputes. Ms Irene Quay suggested forming a group of official and religious mediators. These groups already exist. One of them is the National Steering Committee on Racial and Religious Harmony chaired by Minister Grace Fu. The religious leaders on the NSC broached the idea of a Commitment to Safeguard Religious Harmony to counter segregationist behaviours.

In addition to the NSC, we have the Inter-Racial and Religious Confidence Circles (IRCCs). They are local-level inter-faith platforms. They are in every constituency and they seek to promote racial and religious harmony. The IRCC leaders are trained. They can be called upon to mediate in incidents which can impact on social cohesion. For private family disputes such as those highlighted by Ms Irene Quay, the religious leaders work closely with Government agencies to try and find an amicable solution.

Other than mediation, a number of Members – Prof Yaacob, Ms Pereira, Mr Gan, Ms Irene Quay, Mr Terence Ho – have talked about the importance of education, for members of the public and for our young people. These are important suggestions. Their suggestions also provide a reply to Mr Desmond Choo’s query on how the Government can better bring about awareness among the youth that some discourse is inappropriate in our context.

MOE’s curriculum currently inculcates in students values of living harmoniously in our multi-religious context through subjects such as Character and Citizenship Education and Social Studies.

MCCY also has the following programmes to foster better understanding and appreciation of different religions and cultures in Singapore. One is BRIDGE (Broadening Religious/Racial Interaction through Dialogue and General Education) that seeks to provide safe spaces and opportunities for the public to engage in open and facilitated conversations on sensitive topics. And another is Ask Me Anything, Common Senses for Common Spaces and IRCC inter-faith dialogues.

Different community platforms can help to build and encourage religious harmony in different parts of society. Mr Douglas Foo talked about the tripartite partnership – Government, employers and workers. Ms Irene Quay talked about expanding the membership of the IROs to include more members of different faiths. Ms Anthea Ong talked about the inclusion of atheists in inter-faith dialogues.

These are important and valid suggestions. The law sets out the broad parameters of behaviour, but it cannot be the sole driving force to change behaviour. We do need the community to come in to ensure that deep and strong bonds are built between and within faiths.

Mr Saktiandi asked how employers can look out for radicalisation of domestic workers. I believe the Parliamentary Question reply has dealt with this.

Finally, let me deal with the points raised by Mr Murali on section 18 of the MRHA. He says the Courts should act as a safeguard against abuse of powers. The Member will note that section 18 of the MRHA is not a total ouster of the Courts’ ability to review decisions or recommendations. The Court can review decisions and orders under the MRHA for some narrow grounds – legality or errors of law. He referenced my speech made in the Second Reading of the MRHA in 1990. I had a running bet with my people on two things, whether anyone will raise it and no one wanted to take that bet because they expected somebody to raise it. And, second, who will raise it first.

Let me recap the process of the MRHA in 1990. In 1989, the Government tabled a White Paper setting out the threats to religious harmony and introduced the Maintenance of Religious Harmony Bill. The Bill was debated extensively in Parliament and referred to a Select Committee, which made recommendations to improve the Bill.

One of the key recommendations made by the Select Committee was the amendment of the issuance process of the ROs. Before the Bill was considered by the Select Committee, it was called the Prohibition Order. The Minister was required only to have regard to the recommendations by the PCRH. He had the sole discretion to decide on the Prohibition Order. The President was not involved in the issuance or review of the Order.

The current process for the Restraining Order has incorporated the recommendations of the Select Committee. It renamed the Prohibition Order to a Restraining Order. The Minister must send the proposed RO to the PCRH. The PCRH then makes recommendations to the President, who can then decide whether to confirm, vary or cancel the RO. So, under the current process, the Minister is not the sole approving authority on the RO. There are checks.

But in addition to the above, there is a deeper philosophical point. It is about what I said just now about the balance of powers between the Executive, other institutions including the Courts, institutions like the President, the PCRH and, of course, individual members of the public.

Mr Singh paid what I think is a compliment by a reference to my speech in 1990; no doubt, so as to make me explain myself. So, let me say this frankly and completely openly. In 1990, when I spoke on this, when the MRHA was first put to Parliament, I was a young, common law-trained lawyer with four years of experience and a few months in politics. My view was that the legal process was able to resolve all disputes and that was the most suitable approach.

About 30 years later, with experience and perspective, I have come to realise that this does not always hold true. Is the use of the legal process the best way to deal with all religious issues in society? How about a firebrand preacher who is unrepentant and not remorseful? By going to the Courts, you may be able to deal with the preacher. But what of communal relations and the underlying sentiments of the community? The trial process can often deepen the fault lines and encourage others to do the same. It can even be counter-productive – the alleged offenders become martyrs for their communities, inflaming tensions even more.

I will give you a couple of examples. You look at the Bali bomb attacks in October 2002. The mastermind was put on trial, said the Court verdict was not in line with Islamic teachings. He used his trial repeatedly to condemn the United States, its President, Israel, calling them the world’s terrorists. He promised to write a book on jihad. It inflamed passions. Did it make things better or worse?

Another example – Mumtaz Qadri. He was the bodyguard of Mr Salman Taseer, a politician with relatively liberal viewpoints in Pakistan and an outspoken critic of the blasphemy laws. Mumtaz Qadri murdered Salman Taseer, the person he was to protect, claiming it was his religious duty to do so. Qadri was hailed as a hero by some Islamist groups. Thousands of activists turned up during the trial to show their support during the trial. Supporters in 2011 threw rose petals on the armoured vehicle carrying Qadri away from the court – all beamed throughout the world and all over Pakistan. When he was executed, crowds took to the streets to protest. These are the real world consequences.

In 1989, I was quite innocent of these ways of the world – how people actually behave, how they can abuse the legal process. If I believe today what I believed in 1989, then I would not be standing here tabling this Bill. I took an active role in conceptualising and working through this Bill. I believe it to be right for our country and that belief has much to do with what has happened in the last 27 years.

The formulators of the original MRHA had greater experience, knowledge and foresight than I had. When I spoke, I recall that the current Prime Minister responded to me though he did not refer to me. But after that, in my all youthful innocence, I was not convinced. I will say that openly. But in the nearly 30 years since MRHA was enacted, we look around us – Al-Qaeda, ISIS, communal violence in Myanmar, Sri Lanka and more. There are disputes between all major religions across the world, and abuse of major religions by politicians and religious leaders.

Through this, we stand proud, a beacon of religious tolerance and social harmony. We need to ask ourselves why. Why have we been spared? My opening speech sets out the principles we have applied, the policies we have put in place and how they have all worked together to help keep religious harmony.

The MRHA tries to balance different methods of resolving disputes. The RO is pre-emptive, to stop the spread of speech or material that can cause widespread harm. It is also used to curb malicious foreign influence. The CRI is a community-based tool. We use this in situations where the person and the offended community are willing to meet to mend relations. Prosecution is used in serious cases, where the person incites violence; or his conduct poses a threat to the public peace and order of Singapore. In such cases, criminal sanctions are appropriate to deter others from similar conduct. It also provides for severe punishments to reflect the person's culpability and conduct.

Has our approach worked? Members answered the question.

We have had some incidents of religious disharmony. How did we deal with them? Nine years ago, we had a Christian pastor Rony Tan. He made offensive remarks against Buddhism and Taoism. These video clips were available on his church's website. We spoke with him, he apologised publicly to the religious leaders of the affected communities.

In 2017, in a slightly different context. Imam Nalla made a supplication during a Friday prayer in a mosque that we thought was unacceptable. The international context was also different. He was charged under the Penal Code, fined $4,000. He too, apologised to the community.

But we have had relatively few incidents. Why? Because norms have been shaped and values have been shaped. Does that mean we do not practise our religions? There are many religious people in this House and outside. In fact, the IPS survey shows that Singaporeans are very deeply religious. But that does not prevent us from having harmony.

Assoc Prof Walter Theseira said that the indiscriminate use of the law would create contention rather than consensus. We agree. And if you look, the law has been there for 27 years; and it has not been used once.

We try, as best as we can, to deal with the issues with wisdom and common sense. Some people say, "This government has done so; how do we trust future governments?" I think that is the constant paradox about Singapore. It requires good governance for the country to succeed.

The way each of the situations was dealt with – wisdom, common sense. We draw lines in the sand, reinforced positive norms and they made our society stronger. It is not just the MRHA that has helped to keep religious harmony in Singapore. It is a whole series of policies, approach, and most crucially, that a significant majority of our people accept, subscribe, support these policies and they want religious harmony. It is a core value of our country. And fundamentally, our people trust the Government to keep to this and to apply the rules fairly.

The MRHA comes in, gives powers to the Government to step in where necessary. Our people know that; they appreciate that. We are religiously diverse, yet live in harmony. That is not a natural state of things.

We have had nearly 30 years of the MRHA.

The most powerful point, as I have said earlier about the MRHA, we have never had to use it. Once in a while, we have to go and talk to some religious leaders. But our public approach, setting the norms, our speeches, policies, holding the ring neutrally, fair approach, constant positive engagement with religious groups and swift action taken, together with the MRHA and other laws, have created the current situation in Singapore. All of these and more has meant that we have managed to create a framework of positive norms and values for our society. Sir, I think I have answered all the questions. Thank you. [Applause.]

Mr Deputy Speaker: Mr Manap.

6.38 pm

Mr Muhamad Faisal Bin Abdul Manap: Sir, I would like to clarify the point made by the Minister about my speech earlier. Basically, I just want to touch on two points. The first one would be, the Minister mentioned that, in my speech, I mentioned that I disagree. Maybe, I would like to reiterate my speech in Malay and I would actually translate to English.

For that particular paragraph, I will read as full: "Tuan, satu lagi prinsip Akta ini adalah memisahkan agama dan politik. Saya kurang setuju dengan prinsip ini". That means, I do not fully agree with the principle. "Sebagai seorang muslim", as a Muslim, "Islam difahami sebagai satu cara kehidupan atau A Way of Life" being taught, we learn that Islam is a way of life, of which Islam encompasses every aspect of life, including politics and way to do politics.

And I actually continued by saying that I understand that Christianity also believes the same, of which religion cannot be separated from politics.

So, I am not so sure he mentioned that he counter-checked with that particular someone on that particular sentence of mine, whether he checked with the same person, the content, in the context of what I have spoken about for this point; rather than just one particular sentence and the Minister tends to choose to amplify by saying that I totally disagree with this principle.

Secondly, I think he misunderstood my point. I did not say that I quote from a preacher who says those who believe Jesus as the Son of God will end up in hell fire. I mentioned that it is a quote from the Quran. It has been cited by the preacher. So, two clarifications.

Mr Deputy Speaker: So, you are seeking a clarification from the Minister. Minister Shanmugam.

Mr K Shanmugam: Yes, Sir. I understood the second one has been a quote that the Member is making and I gave my points, just to clarify on that. There are other religious texts which also, if read out of context – I am not saying you are reading the Quran out of context. I do not want to discuss or debate Quran. I am not an expert. But other religious texts that if you read them out of context, a literal reading could suggest that non-believers should be dealt with harshly.

But we need to be careful in Singapore how these things are preached and brought about. I believe that, for example, in Singapore, when people refer to the Old Testament, they would do it with context and sensitivity. That is what the Christian preachers tell me, that they will do it with sensitivity and they will take a lot of care. That is one.

Second, I think it might be easier to just cut to the chase and maybe tell me, do you accept the principle of separation between religion and politics or do you not accept it? Because, by referencing to other religions, if everybody starts saying we do not accept the separation of religion and politics in Singapore, do you accept that there will be severe consequences? And that is why, in this country, we have always brought the religions together. But we have also said there has got to be a separation. So, perhaps, just to be clear, do you accept the principle or do you not accept the principle?

Mr Deputy Speaker: Mr Faisal Manap.

Mr Muhamad Faisal Bin Abdul Manap: Sir, I believe I have mentioned it clearly when I provided my clarification. I think the Minister needs to look in what context I am saying this principle which I may not fully agree. As I mentioned, I would like to highlight that —

Mr Deputy Speaker: Mr Manap, the Minister is asking you a question. I do not think you need to read from —

Mr Muhamad Faisal Bin Abdul Manap: Sir, but I need to put in context. If he just picked on that particular sentence, it will be out of context. I do not think it is accurate and, in a way, fair for me.

Mr Deputy Speaker: Okay. Can you not read the whole thing again, because we have heard it already?

Mr Muhamad Faisal Bin Abdul Manap: I need to do so. Sorry, sorry, Sir. I said that as a Muslim, we learn Islam and we accept Islam as a way of life. I am putting into that context. So, I am not so sure what is the issue with me saying that, in the context of me as a Muslim which, in a way, cannot fully agree, in terms of the principle of the separation of religion and politics.

Mr Deputy Speaker: Minister Shanmugam.

Mr K Shanmugam: Maybe, please explain, Mr Manap, what do you mean by religion and politics here? Can you explain? You said religion cannot be kept out of politics. What do you mean exactly?

Mr Muhamad Faisal Bin Abdul Manap: Sir, I said that, as a Muslim, Islam is a way of life. It encompasses every aspect of life. That is what I meant that, me, as a Muslim, I cannot separate the two entities of politics and religion. I hope I made it clear.

Mr K Shanmugam: So, every aspect of life would include politics, right? Is that not the natural conclusion? You just said every aspect of life must be covered by religion. So, that would include politics.

Mr Muhamad Faisal Bin Abdul Manap: Yes, I did say that.

Mr K Shanmugam: Thank you. So, if a religious leader or Muslim religious leader comes out and says, "Islam covers all aspects of life and therefore, Muslims must vote for Muslims". I suppose that follows, does not it, based on your position?

Mr Muhamad Faisal Bin Abdul Manap: Sir, I disagree with that. I did mention in my speech that we should not use religion for the benefit of politics. It is clearly stated in my speech.

Mr K Shanmugam: And if someone were to say religion cannot be separated from politics and it covers all aspects of life, and therefore it should impact on Government's policy formulation as well. It must follow from what you say; that this comes through, surely.

Mr Muhamad Faisal Bin Abdul Manap: Sir, I believe in terms of the policies that are actually related to religion, as what we are discussing currently, even the Minister has to consult religious groups, right? So, there is an element of – especially in these policies – the element of being intertwined between politics and religion, which cannot be separated.

Mr K Shanmugam: Mr Manap, in this clarification and discussion, I do not think that we are going anywhere because we are going around in circles. Either your words mean something – (a) or (b). Do you believe, I ask you for the final time, religion and politics should be kept separate? A simple answer would do.

Mr Deputy Speaker: Yes, Mr Abdul Manap.

Mr Muhamad Faisal Bin Abdul Manap: Sir, when the Minister seeks clarification based on my speech, not focusing on one particular issue that he is asking right now; so, my speech already clearly stated that —

Mr K Shanmugam: Yes, forget about that particular part. I am just asking you: do you believe that religion should be kept separate from politics?

Mr Muhamad Faisal Bin Abdul Manap: Sir, to cut it short, can you please refer to the Hansard for the speech that I delivered?

Mr K Shanmugam: I think I am asking you, would you be prepared to answer honestly? Do you believe religion should be kept separate from politics?

Mr Muhamad Faisal Bin Abdul Manap: I do not wish to be engaged in such a debate because as I mentioned just now, it is clearly stated in my speech. I believe that your clarification, Minister, is directed to my speech. And I have clearly mentioned in my speech my stand as a Muslim which I see: Islam is a way of life; in the process, in every aspect of life including politics.

Mr K Shanmugam: Mr Manap, I am entitled to ask you based on that a further clarification: do you believe that religion should be kept separate from politics in Singapore?

Mr Deputy Speaker: Minister, I think Mr Pritam Singh wants to raise something.

Mr K Shanmugam: Perhaps Mr Manap can be given a final opportunity to answer the question I just asked.

Mr Deputy Speaker: Mr Manap, do you want to?

Mr Muhamad Faisal Bin Abdul Manap: Sir, can the Minister repeat? Just for clarity.

Mr K Shanmugam: Would you agree that religion should be kept separate from politics in Singapore?

Mr Muhamad Faisal Bin Abdul Manap: I do agree that religion needs to be kept aside, or apart from politics, so that religion will not be used to gain personal benefit or to benefit any political party.

Mr Deputy Speaker: I think Mr Manap has answered the question. Mr Pritam Singh.

Mr Pritam Singh: Yes, Mr Deputy Speaker, I was attempting to intervene to just make clear what the position has to be in Singapore, as a minority Member of the Parliament for any party. You represent not just members of your own community. You represent members of other faiths. I think the only way to move forward is to accept that there has to be a certain degree of understanding towards other faiths and move forward in a way which accepts that we must be mindful of introducing religion into politics.

I think where Mr Manap is coming from is faith. And in his faith, it is a value system; I believe the Christian faith is similar. But I think ultimately for a Member of Parliament of any political party in Singapore, I think it is important that you remember that you have to represent the interest of every community, not just yours.

Mr Deputy Speaker: Mr Pritam Singh, I assume you are speaking for yourself because you should not be speaking for Mr Manap.

Mr Pritam Singh: I am speaking for myself, Deputy Speaker.

Mr Deputy Speaker: Okay, thank you. Ms Sylvia Lim.

Ms Sylvia Lim: Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. If I may make two points. First, I would like to thank the Minister for answering the questions which I posed which I find quite helpful. And I think I should also clarify why I asked the question about Article 15.

Now, of course, I did not overlook Article 15(4) and what it provides and in a sense the Minister’s answer was predictable. But I felt it was important to put it on record, as a point of reference later on, to make it clear that the Parliament did consider this point and it was debated.

Mr Deputy Speaker: Minister, do you want to reply? She is just making a clarification.

Mr K Shanmugam: I am not sure that Ms Lim is asking me any specific question.

Mr Deputy Speaker: I suppose she was giving an explanation. Mr Mohamed Irshad.

Mr Mohamed Irshad: I thank the Minister for his comprehensive reply. I raised five questions and I would just like to reiterate them because I do not think any of them was captured in his reply.

Mr Deputy Speaker: Please do not repeat your questions.

Mr Mohamed Irshad: Sir, if the Minister has the questions that I asked —

Mr K Shanmugam: Actually, yes. Okay, my apologies, left out here. I have four questions. I think the Member asked how the CRI would be administered practically and more specifically the sort of activities the Ministry has in mind. I think we will have to consult the religious groups on the appropriate activities and some of them could include private or public apologies, speaking with the religious leaders of the affected community to better understand their views.

I think the Member also asked about the repercussions of genuine oversights for disclosure of donations. Some of them may also not have, as the Member said, adequate resources to dedicate for such disclosures. The Bill provides for a defence of due diligence where people can ensure that they took reasonable steps, exercised due diligence to ensure that they met the requirements. And we will work with the religious groups on the implementation of these requirements, and will give them short-term exemptions where required.

The Member also asked whether there is going to be a help desk or resource centre to educate and assist religious groups. The CA which will be set up, we will work with the religious groups to see how we can assist, but we are also limited in our manpower. This is something that has to be dealt with, with some element of common sense.

The Member asked about foreign donations received by non-registered local religious groups which are affiliated with international religious organisations. The MRHA requirements would apply to all these religious groups, regardless of whether they are incorporated, registered, or not.

Mr Deputy Speaker: Yes, Mr Irshad

Mr Mohamed Irshad: If I may ask, the fifth one was: we are witnessing a rise of many charismatic and fanatic preachers who have built massive followers in tens of millions online, they are passing divisive values and teachings. How can we safeguard Singaporeans from having access to such contents on social platforms, given the introduction of the extraterritorial clause in this Amendment Bill?

Mr K Shanmugam: We are putting the extraterritorial clause, but I think the Members would recognise it is not easy to go and find these people. These are the facts. These things are all around us. The influences are there. Some people will be influenced. And I do not think I want to mislead anyone. We will do our best, but that does not mean that we can keep everything out.

Mr Deputy Speaker: Order.

Debate resumed.

Mr Pritam Singh: Thank you, Deputy Speaker. Minister, just one clarification on the point you raised at the end about the position you took in 1990. Actually, I think it was an eminently sensible position.

Of course, I do not have the benefit of 30 years of being in this House, and having been in MHA for many, many years now to take a different position. But I do distinctly remember in his speech, the Minister spoke about the concern of that individual in Pakistan, Qadri, who took advantage, basically, of that whole judicial process by bringing more attention to his cause.

Minister did mention in his speech in 1990 that there is always the prospect of modifying judicial procedures and processes to deal with that sort of a problem. It was just one sentence if I remember correctly.

But I think the important point is the separation of powers doctrine, the idea that every man or woman in the country has the opportunity to go before a Court of law to examine what they have been accused of. I think that is important. And I hope as we move forward and the effectiveness of this Bill is assessed, that the Government consider that repeatedly at every stage because that is important.

Mr K Shanmugam: I can assure Mr Pritam Singh that that remains my underlying belief – that relationship should be structured on the law and the rule of law, and exceptions should be carefully considered. This is not a new exception we are making. We are keeping to the exception that was made, but even since my speech in 1990, a further structure was set up. The structure was not a judicial process per se, but a separate independent review process, going up all the way to the President. I think that strikes the right balance.

Mr Deputy Speaker: Assoc Prof Walter Theseira.

Mr K Shanmugam: Sorry, by the way, Qadri is much more recent. I do not think it had taken place in 1990.

Mr Deputy Speaker: Assoc Prof Walter Theseira.

Assoc Prof Walter Theseira: Mr Deputy Speaker, would the Minister agree that religious leaders should have some care when characterising the behavior of Singaporeans who do not quite meet the moral standards of the religion, especially with respect to family life. And if so, what would be an ideal standard of care, especially in cases where the characterisation might be offensive or hurtful?

Mr K Shanmugam: Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I think we as a people here should be very careful making public statements about what behaviour we expect from religious leaders.

I am the Minister for Home Affairs, Minister for Law, and I can tell you what the law is and what should not be done. Beyond that, I think those are matters where we certainly can talk to the religious leaders in a private setting, but I do not think I should be commenting publicly on how I want religious leaders to behave and what standards they ought to meet.

Mr Deputy Speaker: Ms Anthea Ong.

Ms Anthea Ong: Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. Minister, I actually also have a question that you might have unwittingly left out. At the beginning of my speech, I asked about the new provisions – I think the provision is section 17E(1) and (2) – and I cited the example of 2016 when a Singaporean man threatened to open fire on a Facebook comment, and the Facebook community is a religiously based one. So, now that we have these new provisions, would something like this come under that as an offence under the new provisions?

Mr K Shanmugam: I am sorry that I left out answering that question. Lots of questions from lots of people. But if I may say this, the man was charged. The Member is asking whether he can now be charged here under section 17E. There are a number of requirements – mens rea of knowledge and intention and so, one has to go and look at the facts. I do not know enough of those facts to be able to tell you whether he could have been charged here. Potentially, but it depends on the facts.

Mr Deputy Speaker: Mr Irshad, do you have a new clarification? We should not be in debate; this is clarification time.

Mr Mohamed Irshad: I do not have a new clarification, but I am very troubled by what was shared in the conversation between Minister Shanmugam and Member of Parliament Faisal Manap. Sir, I just want to put across a point that I felt that was needed to be said.

Mr Deputy Speaker: Meaning you want to say something?

Mr Mohamed Irshad: That is right.

Mr Deputy Speaker: You can seek a clarification of the Minister’s speech, but you are not in a position to make a personal statement unless it relates to yourself.

Mr Mohamed Irshad: Perhaps I would like to put it across as a clarification for the Minister and then I will ask a question and propose the point.

Mr Deputy Speaker: What is your point of clarification?

Mr Mohamed Irshad: From what I understand from Member of Parliament Faisal Manap's —

Mr Deputy Speaker: No, no, no. Ask the Minister for clarification on his speech.

Mr Mohamed Irshad: Minister, you mentioned very clearly you wanted a clarification from the Member of Parliament that religion has to be separate from politics. And I fundamentally agree with that point. However, what I felt is that I think it has to be explicitly mentioned and to be made clear that, as a Muslim, you can have any personal view and opinion whether you believe that religion is also encompassing as part of your faith and your lifestyle. That is fine. Fundamentally, that is fine.

But as a nation, I think we have to understand that we have to have a secular country. As a secular nation, we cannot impose our religious values on the common spaces of everybody. And in regards to that, would it be worthwhile, perhaps, engaging the religious body to drive across this point and to educate them that our secular space as a country has to be safely guarded and has to be guarded fundamentally, and that any religious values that we espouse in terms of religion as a way of lifestyle and so on, that can be held as a personal view.

Mr K Shanmugam: I thank the Member for his comments and I will say this. We have extensive discussions with the religious leaders, both my Ministry but also the Government leaders, including the Prime Minister with the Christian leaders, the Catholic leaders, the Muslim leaders, the Mufti, Hindu Endowments Board. It has never been said to me in the terms that Mr Manap put it today.

Everyone would say their personal views will be, can be, influenced by religion. Many in Cabinet, many Members of Parliament are deeply religious. We do not hide that. But when you make your decisions, you cannot put aside your religious self but you must take into account everybody else and you act neutrally; and you take the position for the benefit of all Singaporeans, even if you believe that that may not be consistent with your religious beliefs.

That is a consistent position. When we meet with the Muslim leaders, when we meet with the Muslim clerics, when we meet with the Mufti, then we meet with the Christian leaders, they understand that, they accept it and they say that is the only way in which we can proceed with governing Singapore and living in Singapore, not just for us as a Government but for them as religious leaders.

So, Mr Manap has introduced a new element in that process today. I think that is something for him, and others around him, to think about.

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.