National Symbols Bill

Order for Second Reading read.

4.53 pm

The Minister of State for Culture, Community and Youth (Ms Low Yen Ling) (for the Minister for Culture, Community and Youth): Mr Speaker, Sir, on behalf of the Minister for Culture, Community and Youth, I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time."

Sir, the National Symbols Bill seeks to repeal and replace the Singapore Arms and Flag and National Anthem Act 1959. It will declare the national symbols and Presidential symbols of Singapore and regulate the use of these symbols. Related amendments are also made to other Acts.

More than 60 years ago, our three national symbols were unveiled on the steps of City Hall at the inauguration of our first Malayan-born Yang di-Pertuan Negara (Head of State) Encik Yusof Ishak. They were the state crest, the national flag and the national anthem. It was a significant moment in Singapore’s history – the birth of a new national consciousness.

With your permission, Mr Speaker, may I display some slides on the screen, please.

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

Ms Low Yen Ling: These three national symbols gave the people of Singapore our first tangible representations of nationhood – that we are one people – united by a single anthem, identifying with the same state crest and joined by one national flag; we are fellow Singaporeans, fellow citizens forging a shared future together.

Our founding fathers understood the role the national symbols played in unifying the fledging nation. Mr S Rajaratnam, the then Minister for Culture, laid out how the symbols expressed, and I quote, "the sentiments and aspirations, not of any particular group, party or section, but of the people of Singapore as a whole". He emphasised what each national symbol stood for, like our distinctive Singapore values of "equality" and "progress", and how these symbols represented our "identity and personality".

The national symbols represented Singapore and the stirrings of a young nation-state. We had gained self-governance and were no longer subject to – in the words of Mr S Rajaratnam – symbols of "dominance". Instead, the national symbols set us apart as a people with our own set of values, beliefs and ideals.

Given their gravity and significance, our pioneering leaders ensured that the symbols were accorded the proper respect.

The Singapore Arms and Flag and National Anthem Act 1959, also known as the SAFNA Act, was enacted to govern the use of the state crest, the national flag and the national anthem. Since 1959, there have been several important developments in our nation’s journey. Between 1966 and 1986, we introduced three more national symbols outside the SAFNA Act: the national pledge, the national flower and the lion head symbol.

As our nation developed, Singaporeans also grew in our pride and expression of love for our country. Increasingly, Singaporeans seek to use the flag and its image to show our national pride and solidarity in ways that were not anticipated back in 1959.

When it was enacted, the SAFNA Act and Rules deliberately restricted the use of the national flag to preclude the possibility of misuse. For instance, the use of the flag as a means of adornment, of advertisement or for any commercial purpose was prohibited. Unrestricted use of the flag was limited to National Day and occasions of national rejoicing.

The SAFNA Rules were amended over time to accommodate wider usage, but many restrictions were maintained.

Today, Singaporeans wish to express our love for Singapore in many creative ways. For example, many interest groups like cycling clubs want to have an image of the flag on their cycling jerseys, for instance.

During the National Day period, it is very common to see the Singapore flag mounted on the side mirrors of motor vehicles. Temporary Singapore flag tattoos are also popular with the public and among National Day Parade participants. Technology has also created new uses for the image of the flag. Many people now have access to devices and apps that allow them to easily manipulate images and transmit them digitally. Likewise, the wide use of social media has increased the modes of reproduction and communication of different forms of media, like music and audio clips.

Hence, the Government undertook a review to relook at the national symbol rules. MCCY started engaging citizens on the legislative framework and guidelines governing the use of our national symbols in September 2020, done over a two-year period. This involved the participation of citizens across several public consultation exercises in the last two years, including polls, focus group discussions and feedback sessions. The Citizens’ Workgroup for National Symbols was convened in 2021 to discuss and recommend ways to improve the regulation and promotion of the symbols. The public feedback and recommendations called for greater flexibility in the use of the national symbols, as well as greater clarity on appropriate use and higher safeguards against misuse. This feedback has guided our plans for the revised legislation.

Sir, the Bill seeks to address the changes and developments in our current context and landscape of rapidly proliferating technology and media. It will also provide more comprehensive protection of the national symbols from misuse.

The Bill proposes three key changes. One, the inclusion of the symbols like the national pledge, flower and the lion head symbol, which were introduced after 1959, as well as the Presidential symbols and public seal. Two, the provision for a prescribed person to permit or prohibit uses of the symbols under the regulations, and three, an update on the maximum penalties for infringement of the Act.

The Bill will extend statutory recognition and protection to these familiar symbols which were not covered by SAFNA and they are the national pledge, the national flower, the lion head symbol and the public seal. They will now be regarded as national symbols under the Bill.

The national pledge, the national flower as well as the lion head symbols are synonymous with Singapore and evoke immediate recognition and pride among Singaporeans. The public seal represents the Republic, and the public seal is affixed to important documents of the state, so, it is befitting for it to be recognised as a national symbol of Singapore under the Bill.

The Bill will also grant statutory recognition and protection to the Presidential standard, the Presidential crest and the Presidential seal as Presidential symbols. This is appropriate as the President is the Head of State and the symbol of national unity.

The existing SAFNA Rules already regulate the use of the state crest, the national flag and the national anthem. The Bill will enable the President to make regulations to control the use of Presidential symbols. The Bill will also enable the President to make regulations to regulate the use of the other national symbols under the Act. We will extend statutory safeguards to the national pledge and the public seal. We do not intend to make any new regulations for the lion head symbol or national flower, as these are intended as less restricted symbols for people and organisations to use.

Their inclusion in the Bill is meant to confer on them statutory recognition. The Citizens' Workgroup for National Symbols, for instance, had suggested that such icons could be recognised as a "tribute to their place in Singapore's history". We will continue our practice today of allowing any individual, organisation or company to use the lion head symbol for purposes of identifying with the nation, following prevailing guidelines. Individuals, organisations and companies are also free to use the image of the national flower.

Sir, over the past two years since COVID-19, we have seen how Singaporeans used national symbols like the flag as an expression of our solidarity in challenging times. All of us in the House will remember, in April 2020, two and a half years ago, the Government responded to calls by Singaporeans to fly the flag as a show of unity and support for one another. The SAFNA Rules were amended to allow the flag to be displayed outside the typical National Day period, which is from July to September.

To allow for greater flexibility in future, regulations under the Bill can enable a prescribed person, such as the Minister, to permit the use of a national symbol in appropriate situations. This could entail, for example, permitting the display of the national flag outside the National Day period, if warranted by circumstances.

We also intend to make regulations to enable a prescribed person to prohibit certain uses of the symbols, subject to appeal. This is to prevent disrespectful uses of the symbols. With these new regulations, we can respond more nimbly to legitimate requests to use the national symbols under pre-specified conditions, while also protecting the national symbols from indiscriminate or inappropriate use.

To provide greater flexibility in the use of the national symbols, we will also review the circumstances and manner in which the symbols may be used. For instance, we envisage that the new regulations could take a more permissive stance to allow greater artistic and creative use of an image of the Singapore flag; and to permit the use of images of the national flag on attire outside the National Day period without requiring approval, provided that such use is non-commercial and such use is respectful.

Nonetheless, we must balance the introduction of greater flexibility with proper safeguards against the misuse of our national symbols. As Mr S Rajaratnam had pointed out, we need to respect the national symbols for the values, sentiments and ideals they represent. Rules are critical to ensure that the symbols are not wilfully brought into contempt, ridicule or hatred because such disrespect for our symbols will be an affront to the people of Singapore and the values they represent.

During the public consultation, many Singaporeans underlined the importance of ensuring that the dignity of the national symbols is upheld even as more flexible use is allowed. Hence, the third major change we will be making in the Bill is to update the penalties for offences relating to the national symbols and Presidential symbols.

The current penalty for offences under the SAFNA Act is a fine of up to $1,000 – a maximum fine of $1,000. This sum will not be as effective to serve as a deterrent today as the amount was set in 1959 and has not been updated since. Taking into account the maximum penalties that are set for similar offences, we will update the penalties for such offences to a maximum fine of $30,000 or a maximum imprisonment term of six months or both.

The penalties for individual offences will be calibrated in the new regulations. More egregious offences would attract higher penalties. An example is the burning or desecration of the national flag.

Sir, the national symbols represent the nation and the Head of State. Respect for the symbols is part of the civic and public morality of the nation. Any affront to our national sovereignty and pride as represented by our symbols must be dealt with seriously. We should not allow the symbols to be wilfully brought into contempt, ridicule or hatred. Furthermore, their unauthorised use by private individuals or entities can create false or misleading impressions of links to, or endorsement by, the President or the state. Such uses could lead to public order issues. There is, therefore, a need to regulate the use of the symbols to uphold public morality and order.

Finally, any prosecution under the Bill may only be instituted by or with the consent of the Public Prosecutor. This ensures that prosecutions under the Act are brought in the public interest.

The Bill will also make the following amendments to related legislation – section 59(1)(f) of the Evidence Act 1893 will be amended to require the Courts to recognise the public seal and the Presidential seal. The National Emblems (Control of Display) Act 1949 will be renamed the "Foreign National Emblems (Control of Display) Act 1949" to make clear that its role is in regulating foreign national emblems.

Sir, this Bill reflects what our citizens have expressed in our engagements and public consultations over the past few years. Singaporeans feel a strong sense of ownership of our national symbols and agree that these symbols encapsulate the ideals of what it means to be a Singaporean and what it means to be a member of the Singapore community.

We pay special attention to these symbols because they remind us of who we are, our journey as a nation and the values and aspirations we espouse. Sir, I beg to move.

Question proposed.

5.09 pm

Mr Louis Ng Kok Kwang (Nee Soon): Sir, this Bill declares our seven national symbols and three Presidential symbols and to regulate their use.

National symbols are an important part of our national identity and a common rallying point for Singaporeans. I welcome this Bill, which recognises and protects these symbols. I thank MCCY for allowing Singaporeans to be a part of the process in deciding what our national symbols mean to us by convening a citizens' workgroup and public consultation for this Bill. I have three suggestions and clarifications on the Bill.

My first point is on pre-approval requirements. I am glad that MCCY listened to feedback from the citizens' workgroup and is allowing a wider use of our national symbols by loosening approval requirements. This gives Singaporeans more freedom to express their identity and love for Singapore. However, there are still some situations where the Government's pre-approval is needed. This includes the commercial use of our symbols outside of the National Day period or for using the National Anthem.

Can the Minister share how the Ministry will ensure that the pre-approval process is accessible, low-cost and simple to navigate for well-intentioned individuals who wish to use the national symbols? Independent creatives, in particular, may not have the administrative knowhow to navigate the process. We should ensure that the bureaucracy of it all does not deter them from innovative, respectful uses of our national symbols.

My second clarification relates to the prohibitions under the regulations. Will the Minister consider creating enhanced punishments for those who misuse the national symbols to mislead others? Our national symbols are not only a source of identity. They also carry the Singapore brand, signifying the trust and reliability we are known for. Almost every day, we are seeing new attempts to scam Singaporeans or spread false information, with a large variety of creative tactics. Earlier this year, investment scammers tried to pass off as GIC and used its logo to try and trick Singaporeans into transferring money to them. I can easily imagine that other scammers might try to use our national symbols, to fake official Government communications, or give a sense of reliability and trick victims into letting their guard down. Enhanced penalties will deter such fraudulent behaviour and help protect Singaporeans from harm.

My last clarification relates to the President's powers to amend the symbols. Section 13 allows the aspect or description of any symbol to be amended by notification in the gazette. Amendment by notification in the Gazette which does not require approval of Parliament appears to be incongruent with the sacrosanct nature of the symbols.

Can the Minister clarify in what circumstances is it anticipated that such an amendment may be made? Will public consultation be sought before any amendments? When the President exercises her or his powers to amend the symbols, on what basis and on which entity's or individual's advice will the President be acting? Sir, notwithstanding my clarifications, I stand in support of the Bill.

Mr Speaker: Mr Leon Perera.

5.12 pm

Mr Leon Perera (Aljunied): Mr Speaker, Sir, the National Symbols Bill makes several important changes. It provides formal statutory recognition to our national symbols and seeks to clarify and broaden the use of the national symbols by Singaporeans to express national pride and solidarity.

Sir, I support the Bill in making meaningful and necessary changes. I shall focus my speech on the posture which I hope all stakeholders will take towards this law, not only in Government, but also those in political parties, civil society groups and citizens at large. And that posture should be to use this law as a reference point for the work of galvanising awareness and respect for our nationhood amongst all citizens. All of us can and should be ambassadors and role models for this work, in ways both large and small.

Sir, this Bill is about national symbols. When people speak of something as symbolic, it sometimes means that it is less valuable and less important. Less important, perhaps, than material things – money, resources, healthcare, the proverbial bread-and-butter issues. The bread-and-butter issues that, in some narratives, Singaporean public life is fixated on.

Yet, symbols matter. I will say that again – symbols matter!

The symbols of our nationhood should be viewed by all Singaporeans as precious. Why? Because they symbolise our hard-fought Independence and our national sovereignty. And why is our national sovereignty important? It is important because it is equivalent to our national freedom – our freedom to choose our destiny, as a people, through the institutions of our democratic society, the democratic society that our pledge enjoins us to build.

Sir, it is my hope that our schools and other institutions educate the public about the meaning of our national symbols with this in mind. That these symbols are about our freedom. For example, it is said that Pak Zubir Said, when he composed the national anthem, thought of it as a kind of prayer to be uttered when Singapore attained Independence. And here, I would like to call for more efforts to be made to educate our people on the meaning of the national anthem. It is sad that many citizens do not know the words or even what the words mean, simply referring to our anthem as "mari-kita."

Sir, our pledge calls on all of us to be one people, regardless of race, language or religion. Today, I would like to talk about how we should be one people, regardless of political views and affiliation as well. Some may find this an uncomfortable subject to talk about in the context of a conversation about national symbols. But I think this is an important point to make and expand upon.

Sir, in my conversations with Singaporeans as a Member of Parliament and previously as a Workers' Party volunteer and, before that, a civil society activist, I have come across the view that displays of national symbols are associated with support for the ruling party, the "establishment", the "status quo", however you want to define it. It is a view that has some currency, though much less today than it did in the past, from what I can tell.

[Deputy Speaker (Ms Jessica Tan Soon Neo) in the Chair]

In truth, I encounter this view less and less. And I can quite confidently say, from many conversations with Singaporeans, that displaying the flag is not associated with any particular political leaning. My Workers' Party colleagues and I are incredibly proud to give out flags on National Day, as are Members of this House from all parties. And I have met many wonderful Singaporeans, who are true patriots, who belong to multiple political parties.

I have also encountered the view in some quarters that, if one is a Singaporean who disagrees intensely with some aspects of Government policy or the design of political institutions, one, therefore, will find the symbols and institutions of this nation alien and unrepresentative.

The people who harbour such sentiments, I would argue, should not be condemned in a very judgemental way. But it is the task of all of us who care about our country and value our democracy to win over such people, to persuade such people to identify with our national symbols.

In fact, many of the people who are disinterested in the symbols of the nation for such reasons do so precisely because they care passionately about certain principles, ideals and values. And that is a good thing. And that is what we need – citizens who care about the greater good and want to play their part in defining it, rather than citizens who do not care about politics or the wider society.

We should, Mdm Deputy Speaker, recognise that the greater danger for our country may not lie in people who are passionate about particular political ideals, but rather people who do not care about politics or anything else going on in the wider society, only bothering to form an opinion when something affects them personally and materially.

Madam, sometimes, in my house visits, I meet people, and this is more and more rare nowadays, but I meet people who say, "I don't care about politics." I typically give them a jokey reply, "But politics cares about you."

Madam, I have met some Singaporeans over the years who disagree with certain aspects of policies and politics in Singapore and have decided that they want to migrate for that reason. My reply to them has always been, "Please, let us stay and fight to change things in our country". A people who care about politics only in the personal and pecuniary sense, a people who are not invested in the greater good, in what society is and should be, will be a people who are doomed to disappear in the long arc of history.

So, we should recognise that people who are suspicious of our national symbols may have the best of motives. They may be passionate idealists and that should not be dismissed. Rather, I would like to argue today that all of us who value our democratic society, including all of us in this House, should work towards galvanising respect for our national symbols among our fellow Singaporeans, of all views and all shades of political opinion.

It is possible for reasonable citizens to disagree about the design of our national institutions. For example, some facets of our electoral system or the design of national practices. For example, some citizens may disagree that the public expense incurred for the National Day Parade is fully justified. I would argue that there can be reasonable points of view on all sides of these questions. And that is exactly how we should resolve such questions – reasonably, respectfully, democratically.

But when it comes to our national symbols, such as our flag, our pledge, our anthem and so on, it is my hope, and I am sure it is the hope of all Members here, that all of us who believe in this democratic society would serve as advocates and role models for the view that our national symbols should be respected by all citizens, across the political spectrum and across the spectrum of views on other matters as well.

Government policies, political ideas, political practices, institutional design – all of these things are subject to the immutable law of change. All these things will evolve with time and will be decided democratically now and, one hopes, by future generations of Singaporeans. The ideas that future generations debate, the technologies and economic arrangements, the big public questions, all of these will evolve and change, probably in ways that we cannot completely foresee now. But it must be our collective hope that the symbols of our nation endure, along with our nation's sovereignty.

And we should seek this respect for our national symbols, not primarily through heavy-handed legal means, though that has its place. At this point, I would like to express the hope that the authorities take a light touch in enforcing the provisions of this law, show compassion and take cognisance of the individual circumstances associated with each offence, for example, where ignorance, mental illness or momentary emotions come into play.

Rather, we should seek this respect for our national symbols primarily by inspiring citizens with what Singapore is and what it can be, not primarily through law enforcement – though the latter, inevitably, has its place as well; I do not disagree with that.

Madam, how do we inspire citizens in this way? How do we ourselves ensure that we remain inspired by this Singapore story and this Singapore cause, so as to be able to inspire others? Not mainly through prioritising outward, ostentatious displays of national symbols devoid of the real feeling, the heart, the passion. Not that way. It is possible to fall into the trap of ritualistic homage to the symbols, while the real passion for what those things symbolise atrophies and dies away.

So, we should not fall into the trap of saying, for example, that certain HDB blocks are more patriotic because they display more flags and others less so because they display fewer. That may not be the case and there could be various reasons why some blocks have more flags than others.

Madam, we should not inspire love of our symbols and our country by counterpoising our nation against another and cultivating resentment towards other countries. For it is said – that patriotism is the love of one's people, nationalism is the hatred of others. I hope that ours can be a patriotism that does not seek to validate itself through juxtaposition against some "other" nation. Hatred is a form of energy that can bind a nation, but to the wrong end. Rather, we should show the world that Singaporeans want to better ourselves and the world without putting anyone else down.

So, how do we inspire our fellow Singaporeans to respect and love our national symbols? I would like to conclude my speech with a humble attempt to answer this question, in the spirit of encouraging every citizen to find their own answer to it.

I think we inspire our citizens and ourselves to respect these precious national symbols by showing the world, through our deeds and words, that these symbols represent, not a perfect country in its finished form, not a creed set in stone, as many ideas that govern public life will evolve over time. Rather, these symbols represent something far more precious. And that something is hope. The hope that lives in our hearts.

What sort of hope is that? Hope that this place, this land, this people will always strive to get better and better and better in achieving the high ideals of our pledge, one of the symbols being protected by this Bill, even if those ideals never become perfectly embodied in our national life. Like how, in mathematics, the line of an asymptote infinitely approaches the axis, but never quite touches it.

Hope that we, as a people, will always be free to choose our destiny. Many Singaporeans would argue, and I include myself here, that aspects of our democratic system are in need of reform. But that is why we stay and fight to make things better. Our pledge does not say we already are a democratic society. Our pledge calls on us to build a democratic society. It is a work in progress, this building and defending of what has been built. It is a work that will never end. And it needs all of us to be builders.

So, while we may disagree and debate robustly over what the ideals of our pledge concretely mean in day-to-day policies and practice, while we may disagree about many things unconnected to the ideals of the pledge, we should strive to nurture this hope in our own hearts and the hearts of our fellow Singaporeans, all of us – as teachers, colleagues, members of political parties, co-religionists, social media practitioners, opinion leaders, artists, scholars and as parents, as children, as members of families. This striving should infuse our writing, our social media posts, our scholarship, our words and deeds.

For at the end of the day, while our nation will never be perfect, these symbols represent our hope that the Singaporean people, in this land, will always strive to honour the angels of our better nature.

Mdm Deputy Speaker, in our national language, please.

(In Malay): [Please refer to Vernacular Speech.] Madam, I support the National Symbols Bill in making meaningful and necessary changes. When we say something is symbolic, sometimes, it means that it is less valuable or less important, compared to everyday bread-and-butter issues. However, symbols matter. The symbols of our nationhood should be viewed by all Singaporeans as precious.

Why? Because they symbolise our hard-fought Independence and our national sovereignty. And why is our national sovereignty important? It is important because it is equivalent to our national freedom – our freedom to choose our own destiny as a people, through the institutions of our democratic society, the democratic society that we all pledged to build.

Madam, our pledge calls on all of us to be one people, regardless of race, language or religion. Today, I want to talk about how we should be one people, regardless of political views or affiliation.

I can confidently say that from many conversations with Singaporeans, that displaying the flag is not associated with any political leanings. My Workers' Party colleagues and I are incredibly proud to give out flags on National Day, just like other Members of this House from all parties. And I have met many Singaporeans who are true patriots, who belong to different political parties.

It is my hope that all of us who have faith in this democratic society would serve as advocates and role models as citizens who believe that our national symbols should be respected by everyone, regardless of their political leanings. This can be achieved by inspiring our citizens about what Singapore is and what it can be, not through law enforcement, even though this, inevitably, has a role.

So, how can we inspire our people?

It is not through outward displays of national symbols devoid of real feelings, heart and passion. It is also not through associating and cultivating hate towards other countries.

To me, we inspire our citizens and ourselves to respect these precious national symbols by showing the world that these symbols represent hope.

I hope we, as a people, will always be free to choose the life that we desire. Our pledge calls on us to build a democratic society. It is a work in progress and we must continue working on it and defending what has been built. And it needs all of us to build it together.

While we may disagree and debate robustly over what the ideals of our pledge concretely mean in day-to-day policies, we should strive to nurture this hope in our hearts and the hearts of fellow Singaporeans.

Mdm Deputy Speaker: Mr Yip Hon Weng.

5.30 pm

Mr Yip Hon Weng (Yio Chu Kang): Mdm Deputy Speaker, this Bill is a welcome move. Many Singaporeans when travelling abroad would have seen how national flags are quite freely used on apparel and luggage bags. Hence, some of them would question why other countries can be liberal with the use of national symbols whilst what is permitted in other countries may not be allowed in Singapore.

As such, I welcome the overarching objectives of clause 14 of the Bill, which allows the President to create such regulations relating to our national symbols as the President deems fit. However, I have some clarifications on the Bill and the proposed regulations.

Firstly, Mdm Deputy Speaker, there should be more clarity on the use and design guidelines for national symbols. I believe this will be met with the flexibility of making the regulations pursuant to the Bill.

One problematic area is that of commercial advertisements. There were instances in the past where the lion head symbol was used to promote products and services which had no relation with the Government. Often, the symbol was used for innocuous purposes, such as to highlight that the product was made in Singapore. However, such usage may have created the misimpression that the products and services had some form of official endorsement.

Under the current circumstances, what if the users were to use part of the symbol or, for example, to use the symbol in different colours as they try to circumvent the rules?

We also need more comprehensive guidelines for the use of the flag's image without requiring official approval on attire, decoration and products. Without clear guidelines, businesses may misuse our national symbols to give the impression that the product or service is authorised by the Government. For example, if security guards who do not work for Government services or public agencies have been spotted with the flag emblem on their uniforms, would that or should that be an offence?

It is pertinent to reduce ambiguity. This is to ensure that the rules can be properly endorsed but without the need to constantly consult the relevant bodies or burden them with onerous approval processes.

Secondly, Mdm Deputy Speaker, how specific will the proposed regulations be with regard to the use of national symbols? Also, as equally important, how will penalties be enforced? The interpretation of designs can be highly contentious. Something that is considered disrespectful to someone may be interpreted in an entirely different manner by another. Will there be a framework to provide guidance to our designers? Does the Government intend to get experts to provide views on its assessment? If a notice is served on an offender, what is the timeline given to remove the offending act before enforcement action is taken?

How many cases were prosecuted under the Singapore Arms and Flag and National Anthem (SAFNA) Act and Rules for such offences in the past? Related to this, should there be a need to define "use" and what offences can carry a prosecution? Is the Bill also intended to cover the use of the national symbols in documents, for example?

Thirdly, Mdm Deputy Speaker, I wish to share some concerns specifically with regard to our national flag. A question I would like to raise is whether social groups are allowed to use the national flag and other national emblems in their activities. While this could ostensibly be perceived as a patriotic gesture, it could, in fact, be an attempt to gain wider public support for their activity and their causes. These groups may be locally registered as a society or as a Singapore chapter of a global organisation. They could also be simply a group with a common cause.

Next, there are buildings where you have several flag poles lined up in a row. May I ask the Minister when our national flag is flown on the flag pole, can a social group fly its flag at the next flagpole alongside our national flag? I raise this because it could mislead the public by giving the impression that the Government stands alongside a social group and its beliefs.

Flag desecration is a serious offence. We have read of instances where people have burnt decorations put up for National Day and arrests have been made by the Police. Last year, a 24-year-old man was charged with cutting and damaging multiple National Day Parade banners and, most recently, a 39-year-old man set a flag on fire, and he was arrested.

May I ask whether it is an offence for the image of our flag and national emblems to be put on paraphernalia which are used for offerings for religious activities, say, during the Hungry Ghost Festival or any other festivals? A person can also use this as an anti-Government gesture under the pretext of practising his or her religious belief.

Lastly, Mdm Deputy Speaker, Singapore is a young nation. As we journey along, there may be new symbols being introduced. Does the new legislation cover the addition of new symbols? How will the National Emblems (Control of Display) Act 1949 be amended?

In conclusion, Mdm Deputy Speaker, our national flag and emblems are more than just visual representations. Our national flag, especially, represents the values and ideals that we hold dear. When we were children, we were taught to stand and put our hands over our hearts, facing our national flag and say the national pledge in school. We stood to sing the national anthem. Our children, including my children, continue this practice today.

Respect for our national symbols is consistent across economic, racial and religious grounds. Our national symbols are emblems of our unity, thoughts and purpose as a nation. These symbols are not mere pieces of decoration nor objects to be honoured for themselves. They are honoured for what they represent. The use of our national flag and symbols thus offers opportunities for Singaporeans to express our patriotism and such patriotism is more important now than ever before.

After 57 years, we are at a crossroads in our nation's journey. Our social compact must evolve and respond to both opportunities and challenges. Through the Forward Singapore exercise, we must come together, examine our values and aspirations, build consensus and, in doing so, refresh our social compact.

Our national symbols play an important and unifying role. It allows us to demonstrate our patriotism and express pride in our unique multicultural and multi-religious society. I support the Bill.

Mdm Deputy Speaker: Mr Mark Chay.

5.37 pm

Mr Mark Chay (Nominated Member): Mdm Deputy Speaker, Singapore is a young nation, as are our national symbols. These representations of our nationhood were developed because these visible, identifiable symbols are necessary in defining and unifying Singaporeans. As a multicultural and diverse nation, our national symbols have been instrumental in creating and cementing our identity.

Therefore, I stand in support of the Bill, which seeks to promote appropriate use of national symbols while allowing for their wider use by Singaporeans to express national pride and solidarity. This will give Singaporeans the clarity and flexibility in their use whilst preserving the honour and respect that our national symbols deserve.

The significance of our national symbols cannot be understated. Our national athletes compete, often overseas, in packed stadia. When they compete, they do not just represent themselves but the very best of Singapore and what Singapore stands for.

I can tell you, when you are behind the blocks, looking up at stands filled with tens of thousands of spectators and you see a Singapore flag, it fills your heart, and you dig deep to give off more for our country. When our athletes win, we often see them take their national flags to the podium to show their patriotism and to acknowledge the support from home which enabled them to achieve greatness and do Singapore proud.

I would like to share a personal story 22 years ago when I was an athlete. In 2000, I represented Singapore at the FINA World Cup in Australia. I swam well enough to make the finals, just two lanes away from the world record holder. When I watched the replay on TV that night, I was disappointed to see that next to my name where the Singapore flag should have been was a grey box. For reasons I do not know, the TV production crew did not have the graphic of the Singapore flag. I felt very sad at that instance. Sad because I felt, in a way, deprived of the ability to share my glory with Singapore. So, to me, this underscores the significance of our national flag and our national symbols.

As a former national athlete, I would like to say that every call to the national team is a moment of immense pride. It is a privilege which our national athletes do not take lightly. It is an honour to wear our national flag emblazoned on the jersey, track suit or swimming cap.

On the matter of wearing the national flag on the team kits, I would like to ask two questions. One, what is the process for National Sports Associations (NSAs) and other organisations to seek approval for the national flag or symbols to be on the team uniform? Two, are there guidelines for the type of national teams that can have the national flag or symbols on the uniform? For example, can a youth team wear the national flag on the kit?

To conclude, our national symbols evoke immense pride. They facilitate opportunities to build solidarity during both challenging times like COVID-19 and during celebratory occasions like international competitions. They stir up the national spirit and stimulate civic duty in the elements and colours that remind us of the values Singaporeans should embody.

Most importantly, too, Mdm Deputy Speaker, these symbols are an immediate point of connection, camaraderie and respect amongst our people across the world. These are positive things that we, as Parliamentarians, should encourage and I am firm in my support of the Bill.

Mdm Deputy Speaker: Ms Joan Pereira.

5.41 pm

Ms Joan Pereira (Tanjong Pagar): Mdm Deputy Speaker, I support the proposal in the Bill to enable the Minister to allow the national flag to be flown outside the National Day period. Having these displays during significant occasions, such as the Olympics, would be a wonderful way for Singaporeans to express their national pride and unity.

In my constituency, there is a group of citizens who face some challenges if they wish to express their patriotism. They live in public rental flats where their units face each other. They have neither available space near their front doors nor at the back, outside the kitchen windows, because that is where they hang their laundry.

I hope we can facilitate the good intent of these Singaporeans and help them to showcase their national pride. While the Residents' Committees do hang the flags on parapets or railings of stairwells at these blocks, these are projects by group committees. For individuals who want to do so on their own initiative, they need some help and support. Would the Ministry share what alternatives there are for these residents?

The Bill states that offenders may be fined up to $30,000 or jailed for up to six months, or both, for an offence under the regulations. Offenders must be given the chance to explain why they made their mistakes. It should be explained and communicated very clearly to all what constitutes the misuse of national symbols.

Public education is very important. What measures has the Ministry planned for to educate members of the public?

The enforcers should also be understanding and not penalise offenders straightaway. While there will be a minority who intentionally misuse national symbols, more likely than not, these are genuine mistakes. I hope they would be advised accordingly instead of being fined. Madam, in Mandarin.

(In Mandarin): [Please refer to Vernacular Speech.] In my constituency, there are residents who live in public rental flats where their units face each other. They have no available space to hang the national flag either near their front door or outside the kitchen windows because that is where they hang their laundry. Would the Ministry share what alternatives they have to showcase their patriotism?

The Bill states that offenders may be penalised for misuse of national symbols. MHA should give the offenders a chance to explain because it could be a misunderstanding. I hope the authorities will educate the public on what constitutes misuse of national symbols.

(In English): Madam, I support the Bill.

Mdm Deputy Speaker: Mr Darryl David.

5.45 pm

Mr Darryl David (Ang Mo Kio): Mdm Deputy Speaker, national symbols of a country represent the collective identity of the nation, the values that a nation subscribes to and the aspirations of its people. For example, the five stars on our national flag represent the ideals of Singapore and our national anthem captures the enduring hope and spirit of Singaporeans for progress.

Since the Singapore Arms and Flags and National Anthem Act (SAFNA) was adopted, other symbols, such as the lion head symbol and Vanda Miss Joaquim, which are closely associated with the Singapore identity have also been listed as national symbols. Although these symbols have come to represent us, they are not accorded the same level of protection from misuse as our state crest, national flag and national anthem because these additional symbols are not covered under SAFNA.

The introduction of the National Symbols Bill to replace SAFNA is thus timely and appropriate and will also help to provide greater flexibility and clarity to the use of national symbols.

Notwithstanding my support for the Bill, I wish to seek clarifications concerning how the national symbols will be regarded and managed after the Bill has been introduced.

First of all, the issue of flexibility. Under the proposed National Symbols Bill, seven additional national symbols like the Presidential standard, Presidential coat of arms, Presidential seal, national pledge, public seal, lion head symbol and national flower will be accorded protection status alongside the three national symbols that are originally protected under SAFNA.

Some symbols like the Presidential standard, Presidential coat of arms, Presidential seal and public seal would largely not be very commonly used and displayed by the public, unlike other symbols like the national flag, national anthem, national pledge or even the lion head symbol or national flower.

These latter five symbols are those that the public would be most familiar with and are also likely to be the ones that are most used in our everyday life, especially during national occasions. I hope that the Government will consider allowing members of the public more flexibility in using them so that these symbols can be part of our everyday lives and are close to our hearts instead of being abstract concepts or displays that we occasionally see. Greater flexibility to access and display these symbols will foster familiarity but still keeping the sense of respect while having the sense of national pride and collective ownership of these symbols that are, essentially, part of our Singapore identity.

Mdm Deputy Speaker, in the past, we had amended the rules for when the national flag could be flown. In 2007, the National Day period was extended from 1 July to 30 September, and, in 2020, the rule was amended to allow the flag to be displayed from April to June 2020 as a mark of solidarity during the COVID-19 crisis.

I would like to propose for the Government to consider extending the period of when the national flag could be flown, without a flagpole and night illumination, from 1 January to 31 December every year. Or, from a different perspective, to abolish having a fixed period when the flag can be flown. If the aim of extending the period from July to September in the past was to allow for a greater display of patriotism, then why not allow Singaporeans and residents to display their love and patriotism for the country all-year round?

On the issue of clarity, the disrespecting of national symbols in some cases, such as the willful and intentional defacing of the flag, for example, is quite clear and such cases must be dealt with accordingly. However, as more symbols get designated as national symbols and come under the proposed new laws, it would be good if the Government could provide some guidance as to how the symbols should be used respectfully and just what constitutes an offence regarding the treatment of a national symbol under the new law.

The guidelines of use must be explicitly communicated to prevent members of the public and merchants from contravening the use of those symbols. This was mentioned earlier, I believe, by my Parliamentary colleague, Mr Yip Hon Weng and, at present, I do believe that several companies and merchants have used the lion head symbol on their product packaging to publicise that their products are made in Singapore.

Would such usage of the lion head symbol be allowed under the National Symbols Bill? If yes, would there be an application process to use national symbols on product packaging and publicity collaterals, such as company brochures and banners? Would there be an office set up to process such applications and assess the merits of using national symbols on commercial platforms?

Of course, it would be impossible to capture everything under the law or to have prescriptive guidance for all possible use of the symbols. Many of us would agree that exercising common sense and good judgement in how we should treat our national symbols would suffice on most occasions when the symbols are used. However, there could be some instances where it might not be clear as to just what constitutes "disrespecting a national symbol".

For example, if you search for "Singapore national anthem on electric guitar" on the Internet, which some of us might be tempted to do that right now on our devices, you will find a mellow, reggae-inspired version of "Majulah Singapura" on YouTube. Personally, I did not find that remix or that version of our national anthem offensive or disrespectful. In fact, the comments on the remix were all largely positive. However, would such a remix or interpretation of our national anthem be considered disrespectful under the new law and lead to a financial penalty or some measures taken against the artiste?

Similarly, if parts of, or even the entire Singapore pledge were fused into a performance piece, would that be okay, or would the performer be taken to task if he or she did not get prior clearance from the authorities? There was also the case of a migrant worker who loved Singapore so much that he got the lion head symbol tattooed on the back of his neck. Would this be allowed under the new proposed laws?

Again, I understand that one cannot have detailed prescriptions for everything, but it would be good if the Government could provide some clear guidance in this area.

Mdm Deputy Speaker, our national symbols are quintessential to the Singapore identity. Many Singaporeans, and even foreigners, have come to associate the national symbols as synonymous with Singapore and the Singapore brand and what Singapore stands for. The national symbols are also cultural symbols, each capturing a unique portion of Singapore's history and the aspirations of our country and people.

Singaporeans should thus be more acquainted with the history of the symbols and what those symbols stand for. One of the approaches to increasing Singaporeans' awareness of the symbols is to allow them to come into contact with these symbols more freely and more spontaneously in their everyday lives and to conduct more public education on what the symbols mean. Safeguards, of course, notwithstanding, I end my speech in firm support of the Bill.

Mdm Deputy Speaker: Minister of State Low Yen Ling.

5.52 pm

Ms Low Yen Ling: Mdm Deputy Speaker, I would like to thank all Members – Mr Louis Ng, Mr Leon Perera, Mr Yip Hong Weng, Mr Mark Chay, Ms Joan Pereira and Mr Darryl David – for their speeches and their views on the Bill.

The national symbols belong to Singapore and all Singaporeans. They represent our state and people. They embody our most cherished ideals, values and aspirations. They are a manifestation of our shared identity. As our founding Prime Minister, the late Mr Lee Kuan Yew believed, the symbols have and I quote, "every reason to endure as the emblems of the state" and "will evoke loyalty and unity in our people".

The Bill reflects our intention to uphold and cultivate this unity and patriotic sense of collective ownership of the national symbols, like what Mr Leon Perera mentioned earlier.

We have consulted citizens and fellow Singaporeans widely over the last two years for this Bill, which reflects the wishes and suggestions of what we have heard and learned from Singaporeans. Singaporeans are proud of the national symbols and recognise the duty of respect we have towards them.

As we seek to replace the SAFNA Act with the National Symbols Act, Members Mr Louis Ng and Mr Yip Hon Weng have asked for greater clarity on possible changes to the symbols.

Let me first address the points raised by Mr Louis Ng regarding clause 13 of the Bill, which seeks to empower the President to amend any aspect or description of a symbol, by Proclamation in the gazette. Mr Louis Ng observed that the Bill allows the aspect or description of any symbol to be, and I quote, "amended by notification in the gazette without requiring the approval of Parliament" and "appears to be incongruent with the sacrosanct nature of the symbols." He wishes to know the circumstances in which such amendments may be made and if the public would be consulted before any such amendments.

I would like to state that we do not envisage amending or altering the symbols in any significant way. As Mr Louis Ng pointed out, the national symbols and their official meanings are well-established and widely recognised by Singaporeans. Clause 13 of the Bill will likely only be used to make minor and technical updates when needed, for example, the enhancement of the digital file quality of the official images of the symbols. We do not envisage this clause to be used frequently or in any significant way.

Under the SAFNA Act, the description of the national anthem, state crest and national flag are all already set out in the subsidiary legislation. In exercising the power of amendment under clause 13, the President will be acting on the advice of the Cabinet. In the event that any significant amendment to a symbol is being considered in accordance with the wishes of the people of Singapore, we will take the public's views into consideration and, if significant changes are needed, Parliament will be consulted.

Mr Yip Hon Weng raised a related point, namely, whether the legislation would cover the addition and inclusion of newer symbols. I wish to clarify that Parliament will need to amend the Bill to add a new national symbol.

For now, we do not foresee the need or wish to add any new national symbols. The Citizens' Workgroup for National Symbols had studied this matter and had polled Singaporeans for their views in March 2021. Most respondents had "reflected a preference for no new additions to the current set of national symbols".

I want to assure Members that any significant changes to the symbols will not be undertaken lightly. There will be ways, apart from the law, that we can recognise and appreciate significant symbols and images that may evolve in the future as we continue to build our sense of national identity.

I want to thank all the six Members who spoke passionately, who spoke with a lot of conviction for their support to do more to let Singaporeans express their national pride through our national symbols, such as Mr Leon Perera and also Mr Darryl David.

Let me now address the questions related to giving Singaporeans greater flexibility to use the national symbols to express their national pride.

Mr Darryl David asked if we could consider extending or even abolishing the fixed period when the flag could be flown. I would like to share with him that in our public consultations held over 24 months, greater flexibility was very much welcomed. However, those we engaged also consistently raised the concern that over-liberalisation would diminish the stature of the symbols and lead to more incidences of misuse. Some of the respondents and participants also highlighted that hanging the flag, when the National Day period – July, August, September – comes around every year, is a form of national ritual that affirms our patriotism and love for Singapore, not unlike the daily pledge-taking or singing of the national anthem in schools.

We have, therefore, taken a calibrated approach towards liberalising the use of the national symbols by trying to lower the barriers to the most common uses, whilst putting in checks and balances, safeguards to protect the dignity and stature of our national symbols.

Mr Louis Ng, Mr Mark Chay, Mr Darryl David and Mr Yip Hong Weng asked about the guidelines on the use of the national symbols and the process by which permission for their use can be sought.

Mr Louis Ng highlighted the need for the approval process to be "accessible, low-cost, and simple" enough for well-intentioned individuals, such as independent creatives.

On a related note, Mr Mark Chay asked about the approval process for NSAs to use the national flag or other symbols on their sporting attire and whether there are guidelines under which national teams can use the flag or other symbols on their uniforms.

Mr Darryl David, in his speech, also asked about the approval process for using the lion head symbol on product packaging and suggested that the guidelines be explicitly communicated to prevent the public and merchants from contravening the use of those symbols.

Similarly, during his speech, Mr Yip Hon Weng asked for more clarity on the usage and design guidelines for the national symbols, including (a) their uses in commercial advertisements; (b) how detailed the proposed regulations will be; (c) clearer examples on how the image of the national flag could be used on attire, decoration and products in cases where no official approval is required; and (d) if a guiding framework will be developed to help designers navigate this process.

Madam, I thank the Members for highlighting all these important considerations because the symbols belong to our people. We wish for fellow Singaporeans to have more opportunities to display and celebrate their national pride. As we allow for more flexibility in the use of the symbols, we will also ensure that the guidelines on their usage are easily accessible and easily understood, especially for cases where no prior approvals will be needed.

Presently, we have in place a simple process for anyone wishing to seek approval for the use of a national symbol. Depending on the context of the nature of use, this process will continue after the Bill comes into effect. This process will also remain free for users.

As pointed out by Mr Mark Chay, there are specific administrative processes required to use the national symbols in some cases, like in the instance of the attire for Team Singapore athletes. This is to ensure the accurate and dignified representation of our country outside Singapore by our sporting ambassadors.

For example, currently, approvals for use of the image of the flag on the team attire for national athletes are channelled through Sport Singapore, the public body providing recognition and support for NSAs. Approvals for other organisations that wish to use the national flag on their attire, including youth teams that may not belong to any NSA, is granted through MCCY on a case-by-case basis.

Under the Bill, we plan to further streamline this process by having a simplified set of guidelines in place to facilitate the respectful and non-commercial use of the image of the flag on attire, including sporting attire, where users are not required to obtain any prior approval. However, Sport Singapore will continue to work closely with NSAs to advise them on the respectful use of the image of the flag on their team attire.

All updates and changes regarding the use of the symbols will be clearly shown on the National Heritage Board (NHB)'s website when the subsidiary legislation has been enacted.

Madam, let me now turn to the guidelines to ensure respectful use of the national symbols as we expand their usage.

We agree with both Mr Yip Hon Weng and Mr Darryl David that clear and accessible guidelines on the use of the national symbols are important to give the public and users the assurance that the national symbols are treated with due respect. Currently, those who wish to use the national symbols can find on the NHB website the background, guidelines, FAQs and requirements for use of each symbol. Individuals or organisations can seek clarification or report prima facie misuse of a national symbol by submitting a simple enquiry form via the NHB website.

The question of how we ought to define disrespectful use is an important one which had come up in our public engagements, including those with the creative industry. Some clear examples of disrespectful use which we have encountered and dealt with in the past include works with the image of the flag alongside images featuring nudity and violence. These are considered disrespectful use. Using the design of the flag on undergarments is considered disrespectful use. Displaying images of a damaged or a torn flag in the context of denigrating the nation is considered disrespectful use. Mr Yip Hon Weng's example of applying an image of the flag on paraphernalia to be burned as religious offerings would fall into this category.

Very often, and in many cases, the context, nature of use and intent behind the use of the symbols have to be carefully considered to determine if the usage of the image was disrespectful or inappropriate – the context, nature of use, intent of the use.

Mr Darryl David brought up several examples, such as remixing the national anthem, using the pledge in a performance, or getting a tattoo, a permanent tattoo, not a temporary one as I had mentioned in my opening speech, getting a tattoo image of the lion head.

To reduce ambiguity, I want to assure Members we intend to develop more specific guidelines based on clearly articulated principles to establish common standards of what might constitute respectful and what might constitute disrespectful treatment of the national symbols. For instance, whether on attire or decoration, any use of the image of the flag should avoid it being easily soiled or stepped upon.

For other symbols like the national anthem, guidelines would include using the complete official lyrics and music when rearranging the anthem and ensuring that the anthem is not incorporated into any other medley or composition. For both the anthem and the pledge, the guidelines would also address questions on potential commercial uses of these symbols.

We also intend to make provisions under the Bill for a stop order to be issued against disrespectful use of the national symbols. Failure to comply with a stop order would constitute an offence. So, if you think about it, the use of the stop order would reduce uncertainty about what constitutes an offence. This will also help to clearly address cases of misuse.

Like what Mr Darryl David mentioned in his speech, it is really not possible for the guidelines to cover all possible scenarios. Earlier on, I cited some examples. I think it is clearer to everyone.

We are also very mindful that the guidelines should not be too rigid or too prescriptive, as this might inhibit creativity and greater use of the national symbols. I want to assure all Members in the House that MCCY will carefully consider the points which have been raised by Members in our next steps of development. I want to assure everyone that we aim to provide as much clarity on the usage and design guidelines for the national symbols as we can. The updated guidelines will be published once the regulations under the Bill are enacted in 2023.

We will also continue to keep open channels for the public to feed back or seek clarification on their intended use of the national symbols or to report any potential misuse. I also want to assure the Members that we aim to strike a good balance between giving Singaporeans the latitude to use the national symbols creatively and ensuring due respect for them.

Madam, the third group of questions I would like to address pertains to safeguarding the symbols. Mr Louis Ng, Ms Joan Pereira, Mr Leon Perera and Mr Yip Hon Weng raised questions about penalties for those who knowingly, or unknowingly, misuse the national symbols under the Bill.

These questions are, indeed, important. Before I address them in detail, I would like to reiterate the principles underpinning the proposed legislative framework. The objective here is to provide greater flexibility for members of the public to use the national symbols to identify with our nation.

I think Members would agree with me that with greater flexibility comes greater responsibility. Sounds familiar? This really means that stronger safeguards are necessary to ensure that individuals and organisations use the national symbols in a respectful manner. Penalties should be reasonable and commensurate with the severity of the misuse.

We envision that the broad categories of offences under the new regulations will include, for example, using a national or Presidential symbol that conveys state sanction or authority without permission; using a national or Presidential symbol outside the prescribed manner; and failure to cease disrespectful use when ordered to do so.

So, the questions raised by Mr Louis Ng, Ms Joan Pereira and Mr Yip Hon Weng pertain to each of the three categories I have just mentioned.

In response to Mr Louis Ng's question whether the Government would consider creating an enhanced punishment for those who misuse the national symbols to mislead others, I would like to state that egregious offences like the desecration or deliberate burning of the flag, as well as the intentional use of the state crest, flag or Presidential symbols to misrepresent the Government or deceive the public, would attract higher penalties.

On the other hand, as Mr Leon Perera mentioned, minor infractions, such as the inadvertent failure to remove the flag after a designated display period, will not incur such penalties.

Mr Yip Hon Weng asked if an image of the flag on the uniforms of security guards would be viewed as an offence. I want to assure him and all the Members who spoke that, in practice, MCCY and NHB do not impose penalties as a first course of action. Our approach for these cases would be to educate and inform the public on the guidelines and request that the flag be removed.

For other similar cases of misuse, such as inadvertently hanging the flag the wrong way, we also find that this approach of public education and raising public awareness works very well.

We agree with Ms Joan Pereira and Mr Leon Perera about the importance of public education and public awareness to prevent any unintentional misuse of the national symbols. Individuals who have inadvertently misused a symbol should be given a chance to explain and not be penalised for an honest mistake.

In addition, we note Ms Joan Pereira's observation about the lack of a suitable area to display the flag for certain residents, such as those in public rental housing flats. Ms Joan Pereira will be happy to note that MCCY will take this into consideration and address this in our engagements with other public agencies as part of our plans to promote respectful use of the flag.

We share Ms Joan Pereira's view on the broader point of ensuring that everyone has the opportunity to demonstrate their love for the country, through the display of the national flag from their homes and with the rest of the community.

The precise offences and maximum penalties for these offences are still being deliberated and will be carefully calibrated to ensure that they are proportionate. Depending on the facts, misuse of the symbols could also amount to offences under other legislation.

Mr Yip Hon Weng asked about the number of cases prosecuted under the current SAFNA Act and Rules. To our knowledge, there have been Police investigations, but not prosecutions or composition of offences under the SAFNA Act and Rules. For example, in 2018, a social media user posted an image of our national flag being torn apart to reveal an image of another country's flag. The user was issued a stern warning for contravention of the SAFNA Rules.

While there has not been any prosecutions and composition of offences under the SAFNA Act and Rules, certain misuses of the national symbols were dealt with under other legislation, such as the Penal Code 1871, where some of the offenders were punished with imprisonment. Singaporeans have, generally, treated the National Symbols with respect and we are confident that they will continue to do so.

Mr Yip Hon Weng asked about the time given to an offender to cease disrespectful use of a symbol before enforcement action is taken after a stop order. I want to assure him that we will provide a reasonable timeframe that would give the user sufficient time to explain his or her position and use. Further details, such as the prescribed person and the appeals authority and processes, will be set out in the subsidiary legislation.

The National Emblems (Control of Display) Act 1949 governs the display of foreign national emblems in Singapore. Mr Yip Hon Weng raised a question about this Act, how it would be amended. Under the Bill, that Act will be renamed the Foreign National Emblems (Control of Display) Act 1949 to make the distinction that it deals with foreign national emblems.

Madam, in closing, I would like to underline what Ms Joan Pereira had highlighted earlier in her English and Mandarin speeches on the importance of public education. I agree with her that most people do not set out to intentionally misuse the symbols. More often than not, it is likely due to genuine mistakes. This has, generally, been our experience.

We have also received feedback through the Citizens' Workgroup and in-depth consultations with stakeholders that public education would be key to the success of this Bill – public education and raising public awareness. As such, while the proposed legislative changes, such as the stop order, aim to address concerns on possible misuse of the symbols, I want to assure Members that we will focus on public education to ensure that members of the public are aware of the guidelines and do not inadvertently use the flag or other symbols disrespectfully.

We will, likewise, increase public awareness of how to suitably display national symbols like the flag, at relevant junctures, such as the National Day period.

Madam, I thank all the six Members for their passionate speeches, their questions, their inputs to the Bill that is before us today.

The National Symbols belong to all Singaporeans because they represent the values and ideals that we hold dear. We hope that the Bill will foster greater pride and the use of the national symbols among Singaporeans. As we give expression to the love we have for Singapore, we affirm our identity as a nation, as one united people, as one Singapore. The symbols, under the National Symbols Bill will serve as visual reminders of our aspirations and obligations as Singaporeans and inspire us to greater unity and purpose. On that note, I thank all the six Members for their support of the Bill. Madam, I beg to move.

Mdm Deputy Speaker: Are there any clarifications? None.

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. – [Ms Low Yen Ling].

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