Sedition (Repeal) Bill

Order for Second Reading read.

2.11 pm

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

This Bill repeals the Sedition Act and makes related amendments to other legislation.

The crime of Sedition has its origins in English common law. It was originally designed to protect the monarchy and the British government from civil unrest and dissent among its people. Sedition laws were first introduced in Singapore through the Sedition Ordinance 1938, when Singapore was a British colony.

The Sedition Act, in its current form, has its roots in the Sedition Ordinance 1948, which was introduced by the British to the Federation of Malaya in 1948 in part to curb local opposition to British colonial rule. The Act criminalises conduct with seditious tendencies. Those tendencies are defined in section 3 of the Act including: (a) bringing into hatred or contempt or exciting disaffection against the Government; (b) exciting citizens or residents to attempt to change in unlawful ways, any matter legally established; (c) bringing into hatred or contempt or the exciting of disaffection against the administration of justice in Singapore; (d) raising discontent or disaffection amongst the citizens of Singapore or residents in Singapore; and (e) promoting feelings of ill-will and hostility between different races or classes of the population in Singapore.

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

Some of the key aspects of the Sedition Act are no longer relevant and have not been relevant for a long time. Those provisions have not been used for prosecution. Those provisions which remained in the law up to today, have not been used for a long time.

For instance, the excitement of disaffection against the Government should not be criminalised. I think if it is, a lot of people including many in this House, would be considered criminals.

It had not been done away sooner because some of the other provisions were relevant. But over time, as other laws come into place, which were originally covered by the Sedition Act, including: "(a) conduct which impugns the integrity and impartiality of Judges or undermines public confidence in the administration of justice in Singapore", have already been dealt with under the common law of contempt, but now there is the Administration of Justice Act; "(b) inciting violence with the objective of effecting change to policies in Singapore" have now and for some time found a place in other legislation; and "(c) ill-will or hostility between groups of people in Singapore".

But one aspect, which is not in any other legislation, which remains relevant and has not been dealt with, therefore, is conduct that promotes feelings of ill-will and hostility between different groups in the population, not just along racial or religious lines but other lines as well. So, racial and religious lines are already covered but other classes of the population are not covered.

We will, therefore, be making related amendments as we repeal the Sedition Act. We will be making related amendments to the Penal Code and the Criminal Procedure Code to ensure that that aspect to safeguard social cohesion in Singapore is maintained.

Sir, let me just touch on the amendments to the Penal Code. We now have laws that deal with conduct that threatens racial and religious harmony, as I had said. They include sections 298 and 298A of the Penal Code as well as, of course, the Maintenance of Religious Harmony Act.

Beyond racial and religious harmony, we must also continue to safeguard social cohesion between other groups of the population. They could be organised along lines of language, socio-economic status and other groups. The Bill, therefore, amends section 267C of the Penal Code to cover this.

Section 267C today only covers the use of documents or electronic records. It will be amended to cover speeches and other forms of communication, because they are equally relevant.

The Bill raises the threshold of section 267C by requiring proof of a mental fault element. The person must have intended for the violence or disobedience to the law or breach of the peace to occur, or knew or had reason to believe that these were likely to occur as a result of his words or actions.

Compared to section 3(1)(e) of the Sedition Act, the offence threshold for the amended section 267C will be higher.

The Bill also amends section 267C to define the phrase "counselling disobedience to the law" as providing instruction, advice or information that promotes disobedience to the law. The amendment is intended to provide greater clarity on the scope of the offence and its application.

Next, I will touch on the amendments to the Criminal Procedure Code.

The offences currently under the Sedition Act are arrestable. It allows the Police to move quickly.

Once the Sedition Act is repealed, to ensure that the Police can continue to be effective in investigations where particularly social cohesion is concerned, we propose to amend the Criminal Procedure Code (CPC) to make the following offences arrestable.

Section 298 of the Penal Code, which criminalises the deliberate wounding of any person's racial or religious feelings.

Section 298A of the Penal Code, which criminalises the promotion of disharmony between different racial or religious feelings.

Section 505 of the Penal Code, which criminalises, among other behaviour, the making, publication or circulation of material with the intent to incite any group of persons to commit an offence against another group of persons.

Section 267C is already an arrestable offence. No amendment is needed in this regard.

In conclusion, with that, I beg to move. Thank you, Mdm Deputy Speaker.

Question proposed.

Mdm Deputy Speaker: Mr Leon Perera.

2.18 pm

Mr Leon Perera (Aljunied): Mdm Deputy Speaker, the Government has set out its rationale for the repeal of the Sedition Act Bill. It said that it had used the Sedition Act in the past to address various forms of conduct that weaken our social fabric and undermine our institutions. However, new laws were introduced to deal with these concerns in a more "targeted and calibrated manner", such as the Maintenance of Religious Harmony Act (MRHA), Protection from Online Falsehoods and Manipulation Act (POFMA), Administration of Justice Act, Undesirable Publications Act, Newspaper and Printing Presses Act (NPPA) and specific provisions under the Penal Code.

MHA has said that for this reason, it finds that the Sedition Act is of limited application and can be repealed. But as a result, various provisions in other Acts are being amended.

Madam, I do not oppose this Bill but will pose some clarifying questions to the Minister on areas of concern.

Firstly, under section 5(1) of the Sedition Act, "No prosecution for an offence under section 4 shall be begun except within six months after the offence is committed: provided that for the purposes of this subsection a prosecution shall be deemed to be begun against any person when a warrant or summons has been issued in respect of any charge made against that person and based on the facts or incident in respect of which the prosecution afterwards proceeds."

This would appear to create a time limit for prosecution for any offences committed under the Sedition Act. This plays a useful role of helping to reduce the risk of a suspect being investigated too long after the event and relevant evidence may not be fully available.

With the consequential amendment to section 267C of the Penal Code, this time limit for prosecution would not seem to apply anymore.

I would like to ask the Minister to confirm this and if it is so, what is the basis for making this change? Should not the time limit for prosecution provision have also been added as an amendment to the Penal Code in this Bill in the same way that this Bill makes the offences described in sections 298, 298A and 505 of the Penal Code arrestable, because they are arrestable in the now to be repealed Sedition Act? That is my first point.

Secondly, the new section 267C of the Penal Code will be amended to clarify that "counselling disobedience to the law" includes but is not limited to providing instruction, advice or information that promotes disobedience to the law.

My concern here is with the phrase "information that promotes disobedience to the law and such order". I would like to clarify whether the act of merely conveying information about the topic of civil disobedience without any specific intent to induce someone to commit a specific act of civil disobedience would count as an offence.

For example, a lecturer may teach a module on the history of civil disobedience as part of a course in history or politics or citizens may convey information to one another on social media about acts of civil disobedience that have been committed elsewhere or in the past or ideas relating to the philosophical arguments for and/or against civil disobedience.

If there is no specific intent to induce a person to commit a specific act of civil disobedience in Singapore that can be demonstrated from the said sharing of information, would this still constitute an offence? I think it should not but I welcome the Minister's assurance on this point.

My third point, Madam, is that this Bill makes offences under 298 and 298A arrestable, which the Minister just alluded to, meaning that the Police may arrest without a warrant.

No doubt these powers were already in the now to be repealed Sedition Act. However, I would like to ask for clarification about why these offences are now being made arrestable in the Penal Code for the following reasons.

At paragraph 11 of the MHA press release accompanying the First Reading of this Bill, MHA pointed out that the offences under the Sedition Act are arrestable and stated that with its repeal, making this change is "to ensure that the Police can continue to act swiftly and effectively when dealing with egregious cases that affect social cohesion". Hence, MHA proposes to make, among other things, sections 298 and 298A in the Penal Code that deal with conduct that threatens social cohesion and harmony arrestable.

The problem is, sections 298 and 298A are broadly worded. By way of contrast, even the offences in the colonial-era Sedition Act contains safeguards and exceptions to protect legitimate, non-seditious speech, which these sections of the Penal Code do not appear to contain.

Section 3(1) of the now to be repealed Sedition Act defines a seditious tendency and includes in section 3(1)(e) "to promote feelings of ill-will and hostility between different races or classes of the population of Singapore."

Critically, however, section 3(2) of the now to be repealed Sedition Act sets out a list of exceptions to specify what shall not be deemed as seditious and I quote from this section 3(2) of the now to be repealed Sedition Act, "Notwithstanding subsection (1), any act, speech, words, publication or other thing shall not be deemed to be seditious by reason only that it has a tendency: (a) to show that the Government has been misled or mistaken in any of its measures; (b) to point out errors or defects in the Government or the Constitution as by law established or in legislation or in the administration of justice with a view to the remedying of such errors or defects; (c) to persuade the citizens of Singapore or the residents in Singapore to attempt to procure by lawful means the alteration of any matter in Singapore; or (d) to point out, with a view to their removal, any matters producing or having a tendency to produce feelings of ill-will and enmity between different races or classes of the population of Singapore, if such act, speech, words, publication or other thing has not otherwise in fact a seditious tendency." Section 4 then sets out the list of offences under the Sedition Act.

In contrast, sections 298 and 298A of the Penal Code as amended by this Bill do not have such express exceptions or safeguards.

Perhaps the safeguards come in the requirement that there must be "deliberate intention" to wound the religious or racial feelings of any person in section 298.

In section 298A, the offender must know that they are promoting or attempting to promote feelings of ill will and so on between different racial or religious groups or must know that they are committing an act which is prejudicial to the maintenance of harmony between different religious or racial groups in which disturbs or is likely to disturb public tranquility.

However, I am not sure if such requirements in section 298 and 298A of the Penal Code really provide for the same safeguards as section 3(2) of the Sedition Act. In particular, I am concerned about the scope of the new section 298A(b).

What if someone points out something which they know is prejudicial to the maintenance of harmony between different religious or racial groups and is likely to disturb public tranquility but they are doing so for the purpose of trying to point it out so as to remove it? This would fall under the exception to section 3(2)(d) of the Sedition Act, which is now to be repealed but with the Sedition Act to be repealed, that would not be an exception in the amended Penal Code. So, will the Police investigate such conduct as a potential offence?

Madam, because of the safeguards in the Sedition Act but which are not in sections 298 and 298A of the Penal Code that are in this Bill, I do not think that the offences under the Sedition Act versus 298 and 298A of the Penal Code are a like-for-like swap or porting over, as it were.

MHA's rationale for adding arrestability to these two offences, aside from merely porting these over from the Sedition Act, is also so as "to ensure that the Police can continue to act swiftly and effectively in dealing with egregious cases that affect social cohesion".

However, is there a threshold for what constitutes egregious and if so, what are some of the criteria for it? Determining such offences involves judgement and by making these offences arrestable and giving the Police the power to arrest without a warrant, would that not increase the risk of the wrong judgement being made, which might potentially inflame a delicate situation further? How would that risk be mitigated and managed?

And my last point, Madam. Section 298 and 298A of the Criminal Procedure Code were amended when the Maintenance of Religious Harmony Act was amended back in October 2019. I would like to clarify if those amendments are already in force. The Singapore Statutes Online facility does not reflect any MRHA amendment being enforced from 2019. The last amendment reflected there is in 2011.

If the amendments to the MRHA passed by Parliament in 2019 are not yet in force, why is this the case?

Mdm Deputy Speaker: Minister K Shanmugam.

2.27 pm

Mr K Shanmugam: Thank you, Madam. I wanted to say I thank Members for the overwhelming support for this Bill to repeal the Sedition Act. The fact that only Mr Perera wanted to speak, I think, does suggest overwhelming support. And he supports it as well, so, I thank him for that. I will address the clarifications that Mr Perera has raised.

I think the first question that he asked is the time limit for prosecution. Under the Sedition Act, actions have to be brought within six months and there is no time limit under the amended provisions.

To understand this, I think we need to look at the Sedition Act a little carefully. We are talking about very different offences. Let me make that clear.

The six-month time limit is in section 5 of the Sedition Act. Section 5, then, must relate back to section 4, for example, 4(1)(a), where any person who does or attempts to do or makes any preparation to do anything which would have a seditious tendency. So, what is important is seditious tendency. That, in turn, brings you back to section 3(1), which defines what seditious tendency is.

A seditious tendency is a tendency to bring into hatred or contempt or to excite disaffection against the Government. If you look at (d), "to raise discontent or disaffection amongst the citizens of Singapore or the residents in Singapore"; (e), "to promote feelings of ill-will and hostility between different races or classes of the population of Singapore".

So, if you went out there and you said something that makes people upset with the Government of Singapore, under section 3(1)(a), that is an offence. If you raise the discontent or disaffection amongst the citizens, it does not matter whether it is against the Government or not, that is also an offence.

So, it is a very extreme legislation and we are doing away with it and you can understand why a time limit of six months has been put.

As I said earlier, I think on the strict wordings of section 3, Mr Leon Perera would have committed offences several times. I am likely to have committed offences several times as well, both in my previous incarnation and now, because it talks about raising discontent, disaffection amongst the citizens of Singapore and exciting disaffection against the Government. These all really have not been relevant for a very long time.

Over a period of time, different provisions come up, as I explained in my Second Reading opening speech. For example, the Administration of Justice Act on contempt of Court, on interfering with proceedings in Court, on bringing that disrepute to the Judiciary. So, there is legislation that deals with that.

Section 267C takes some parts of section 4. That is really on violence, getting people to violently do something and contrary to the law. There is no complete taking of the Sedition Act and putting it in. What you now have with the other pieces of legislation are completely different animals. The essence or the heart of the Sedition Act is actually being done away with.

So, the rationale for the six months has got to be seen in the context of what the Sedition Act provides. In the other legislation, in normal criminal cases, you take the normal criminal approach, which is that there is no time limit on prosecuting offences.

So, for example, if you look at section 267C, which is the amendment that is coming along, section 267C of the Penal Code is an existing provision with no time limits. It originally dealt with usage, making, printing, reproducing, distributing, communicating any incitement to violence. So, you can see it is a very different type of offence, counselling disobedience to the law or to lawful order of a public servant, which is likely to lead to a breach of the peace. So, it is that sort of offence. It has got nothing to do with exciting disaffection against the Government or making people unhappy. It is a very direct focused offence and we are making some changes there, including to the mental elements.

Specifically, we are covering statements made, words uttered and reproduction sale, offer for sale and importation of documents. That is the reason why the six months' requirement under the Sedition Act is not being ported over because, basically, most of the key elements of the Sedition Act, which kept the colonial rule in place, are being done away with. Bits and pieces which are relevant for modern Singapore have already been moved out into other legislation. Now, one last bit is being moved out.

The second point that Mr Perera makes on the counselling of civil disobedience and the mental element. Again, if you look at section 267C, conveying information about civil disobedience is, in and of itself, not an offence under section 267C because if you look at section 267C, it has got (1)(a), (b), (c), (d), then it says, in the proposed amendments, the person does any of these things, intending for violence, disobedience to the law or such lawful order or breach of the peace to occur. So, the person must have intended for the violence or the disobedience or the breach of the peace to occur, or knowing, or having reason to believe, that such consequences would occur. And, likewise, under 267(2)(d), there is also a requirement for knowing or having reason to believe an intention. So, the mental elements are set out in the proposed amendments, which are at a higher level than what the Sedition Act requires.

The third point Mr Perera makes is why is it being made arrestable. Again, I think you need to compare sections 298 to 298A, which are already in our Statute books, with section 3(1). I just took the House through section 3(1). As I mentioned, a large number of us would probably have run afoul of section 3(1) at one point of time.

The reason for lower thresholds in section 3(1) is due to its own history of maintaining colonial rule. You have got to look at section 3(1) and you have got to see what is important is that section 3(1)(a), "A seditious tendency is a tendency to bring into hatred or contempt or excite disaffection against the Government". And then, of course, you have got (b), (c), (d), (e), some of which have been moved over in the past and one aspect is being moved over now.

And then, section 3(2) says it shall not be deemed to be seditious by reason only that you are trying to show that the Government has been misled or mistaken; or you are pointing out errors or defects in the Government as by law established; or you are trying to persuade citizens of Singapore, the residents in Singapore to attempt to procure by lawful means the alteration of any matter in Singapore; or to point out, with a view to their removal, any matters producing or having a tendency to produce feelings of ill-will and enmity between different races or classes.

So, you see this is really nothing to do with the offences that are now found in other legislation, including the slight amendments to section 267C which is on counselling disobedience to the law or the view to breaking of the law.

The Sedition Act section 3(2)(d) has some reference to producing feelings of ill-will and enmity between different races or classes, but you must look at it in the light also of section 3(3), which says the intention of the person charged at the time he did some of these things, seditious words are irrelevant. Your intention is irrelevant. If you did what you did and it has these tendencies, then you are liable under the law. Your intention, your knowledge is completely irrelevant. So, it is a very different animal, very different kind of offence and one could almost say very sui generis. We are not going down that route.

If you look at sections 298 and 298A, which, by the way, is not an issue today, "whoever by words, spoken or written, or by signs or visible representation, promote or attempts to promote, on the grounds of religion or race, ill-will and commits any act which he knows is prejudicial to the maintenance of harmony between different religious groups". That is section 298A. So, the element of intention is incorporated in section 298A(b). Section 298 refers to deliberate intention. It is relevant today insofar as offences are being made arrestable.

So, one can ask: does it have to be made arrestable? What is the prejudice? Those are fair questions. I do not think the question can be asked by reference to the Sedition Act which, as I have said, deals with quite different subjects and the exceptions do not make sense in the context of these provisions. But I think it is legitimate to ask. Do you need to make it arrestable? I think a counter question is: what is the prejudice if it is made arrestable? It allows the Police to move faster, it allows the Police to intervene and these are serious matters. And that is a matter of judgement.

I think Mr Perera's fourth and final point is whether the MRHA amendments are already in force. No, they are not yet in force. I think we answered a Parliamentary Question in September. The amendments were passed in 2019 but, normally, with many such legislation, which affect a large group of people on the ground – here, it is all the religious organisations – they have to make disclosures, they have compliance requirements. You cannot just bring the Act into force without making sure – religious organisations are differently resourced. Some are well-resourced, some are less well-resourced. Some are essentially a very small operation – to give time to all of them to resource themselves, to be able to comply with the requirements of the legislation. In fact, you have got to take time to educate them, talk to them about the requirements.

We also have to make sure that our own systems are set up to be able to receive the information that comes through. Another subject which I have spoken about quite frequently in this House is that we are short of officers and we now have to find officers who can be trained to deal with these specific returns that the religious groups will be giving. So, there are a number of different factors here.

We will do this as quickly as we can. I have said the training of the Investigation Officers on the thresholds for the amended offences is ongoing and that will take a little bit of time. But, on the ground, as in the religious organisations, also need a little bit of time. And our systems need a little bit of time. We will bring it into force as soon as all these things are in sync.

Madam, once again, I thank Members for their support of the Bill.

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.