Restricting Hate Speech to Maintain Racial and Religious Harmony in Singapore

2.30 pm

Mr Speaker: Ministerial Statement. Minister for Home Affairs.

The Minister for Home Affairs (Mr K Shanmugam): Mr Speaker, Sir, on 7 March 2019, the Government cancelled the permit for a concert due to be performed by Watain. Eight days later on 15 March, a white man shot and killed 50 people – all Muslim – in two mosques in Christchurch. Three days after that, on 18 March, a man of Turkish origin shot and killed three people in the Netherlands. Five days after that, on 23 March, ISIS' last stronghold fell.

Four events, four countries, 16 days. All four tell us how different societies deal with race and religion.

Is there a larger picture showing inter-connections among the four events? I will suggest to this House that there is such a larger picture, with possible lessons.

Sir, hate speech, racial, religious harmony. This is an issue of considerable consequence to our society. I therefore propose to make a Ministerial Statement and it is important that we hear Members of Parliament.

I will move a Motion later for my Statement to be considered by Parliament and that will allow Members of Parliament to speak on the Statement. I hope that we can reach some level of clarity, agreement, on how we should frame, apply, our rules on speech, so as to maintain racial, religious harmony.

But one point to note, as a matter of record, regulation of content of entertainment, in general, is one of MCI's important functions. Ensuring, among other things, that we deal with hate speech, to prevent conflict, violence between people of different races, so as to maintain internal security is one of my Ministry's core functions. My Ministry as a whole, and ISD, in particular, spend a lot of time on this. So, my speech will focus on this latter aspect: hate speech, racial and religious harmony.

I will cover the following areas.

First, I will deal with what hate speech is. An example of hate speech: political leader calling members of a racial, religious group "vermin" that "needs to be exterminated". I will share using research in neuroscience how hate speech interacts with the brain, how logic and reasoning are ineffective.

Second, I will touch on the experience of other countries, how they have attempted to deal with hate speech.

Third, l will discuss offensive speech as opposed to hate speech and our approach towards it.

Fourth, I will discuss the Christchurch shooting and the lessons that we can learn from it.

Fifth, I will discuss specifically the cancellation of the Watain concert.

Sixth, I will deal with the arguments that have been made against our approach in dealing with offensive speech.

And finally, I will discuss the role of social media in propagating hate speech.

Sir, with your permission, may I display some slides on the LED screens? I think this has been discussed, some specific slides.

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

Mr K Shanmugam: Sir, as first proposition, I assume, and certainly hope there will be unanimous agreement in this House that we must preserve racial, religious harmony in Singapore. Assuming we do, then we have to consider: first, the degree to which hate speech can impact on racial and religious harmony; second, the steps that should be taken to deal with hate speech; and third, the continuum between hate speech and speech which is offensive on race and religion.

There is an overlap between the two. So, what do we do about offensive speech?

So, let me start with hate speech. It has been defined as "all forms of expression which spread, incite, promote, or justify racial hatred, xenophobia, or other forms of hatred based on intolerance."

It can fall into different categories in different platforms. For example, religious hate speech can be very powerful; political hate speech can be very powerful, especially if the politician is charismatic. It can be in general discourse, in the mass media. It can be as part of entertainment like music, theatre. This list is illustrative. It is not intended to be exhaustive.

What impact can hate speech have? With your permission, Mr Speaker, I have asked the Clerk of Parliament to place handouts on the seats, the various steps, so that I do not need to read out some of the stuff. [Handouts were distributed to hon Members.]

Look at Tab 1, hate speech leads to deep social divides. Repeated hate speech increases people's prejudices, feelings of being threatened, and propensity to violence. How does it do so? Hate speech desensitises individuals. It normalises behaviour which we will otherwise consider unacceptable. It stokes anger and fear. It provides a surge of stress hormones. It engages the amygdala, the brain centre for perception of threat.

Once that is done, it is harder for people to control their emotions; think before they act. People do not have to be extremists to be moved to violence by incendiary rhetoric. Studies show just about any person could be susceptible under the right conditions. A psychologist from Princeton has shown that distrust of an out-group, linked to anger and impulses towards violence, against that group.

Most people, most of us, are moral creatures. So, you picture morality as being in a gear. At times, it can be get disengaged and get to neutral. Morality can get disengaged when we redefine our actions as honourable and we believe that we are doing is a matter of honour. We believe the victims are deserving of their punishment – they are an out-group, and not quite human.

Dehumanisation then takes place. Distrust and contempt against the out-group can be built up. Neuro-imaging studies showed that you then do not think of these people as social beings. So, the lesson is that when hate speech is systematically developed, it becomes socially acceptable to discriminate and to oppress.

So, the important lesson is that civilisation must intervene early to prevent hate speech from becoming normalised.

Once it is normalised, dehumanisation of the out-group is very difficult to reverse. Let me set out some real world consequences of hate speech.

Of course, a classic and extreme example is the Holocaust – how hate speech was used to mobilise an entire population to commit terrible crimes. Jews were considered vermin by Nazi Germany, requiring fumigation by the Aryan state.

Rwanda is another example. In 1994, 800,000 were killed. A Hutu mother beat to death a child who lived next door because the government had told her Tutsis were her enemies, even as the child was looking at her, with its innocent eyes and they had grown up next door to each other. She justified the slaughter as "doing a favour" to the child because he had already been orphaned because the parents had been killed.

You have Pakistan: the concept of honour, shame involved. If you are a true "Muslim", a “hero", then you will be a person who has the courage to defend Islam and the Prophet by killing "kafirs". And that happened to the former Governor of Punjab, Salman Taseer, who was assassinated by his own security officer because he took positions which were considered against Islam.

You have Sri Lanka where Buddhist priests painted a picture of Buddhism as being under threat and promoted hate and violence. The Group's leader, Gnanasara Thero, suggested Halal certification is an "evil conspiracy", "spreading across the island in various guises, casting its dark shadow."

So, one could ask: what do these countries have to do with Singapore? Sri Lanka was ahead of Singapore in most indices in the late 1950s. We went there to study their systems. Why is it that religious leaders in Singapore do not say these things? It is not preordained. In fact, in Singapore, even the population opposes religious leaders saying these things. I will show you a survey which shows that.

But why is that so? It is because of our laws and over the last 54 years, and the many many things we have done to try and build a society based on mutual respect and harmony.

You know what happened in Myanmar. Hate speech was directed at the Muslim Rohingyas. Leader of one of the movements called mosques "enemy bases", urged Buddhists to boycott Muslim businesses and not have inter-faith marriages.

When you have this situation, logic, reason will not work because an entire architecture of hate has been built up. The hateful emotions have been engaged. The marketplace of ideas does not work in these circumstances.

In 2018, two PhD students did a study in Warwick University, they showed that hate speech triggered hundreds of violent crimes against refugees in Germany. But they also saw a pattern. You take a place where you can expect to see crimes against refugees – in fact, there have been crimes against refugees. But where hate speech becomes limited for a period of time, that violence decreased sharply.

Germany's Federal Ministry of the Interior's 2015 Annual Report says: "Uninhibited hate speech on the Internet can lead to individual or collective radicalisation." I am not going to read all of it. It is on the screen but it makes a point – hate speech creates "a pressure to take immediate action and it creates fertile soil for militancy and violence." The rest of it is on the screen.

Let us look at songs which spread hate. Studies have shown that music can create powerful emotions in the listener. Listening to violent music stimuli, even without lyrics or videos, can cause greater aggression than listening to no music at all.

Songs have been a very powerful medium for spreading hate speech. "Hate music" has been used to label, devalue, persecute, scapegoat particular groups of people, often minorities. White racialists use White Power music too. They use it to deny humanity of African-Americans. In fact, the way African Americans are dehumanised is to depict them in drawings, with stereotypical physical features which robs them of their humanity. And then, through music as well. Some examples of lyrics, they are on the screen, I do not want to read it out, partly because of the language. You look at references to "niggers running amok", "you cannot come up here anymore because now you are faced with the nigger foe". Hence, a lot more not mentionable, not least in Parliament.

In the 1990s, there was a study of skinheads in the US to determine factors that were able to distinguish terrorist skinheads from non-terrorist ones. White Power music was found to be important to the construction of the identity of the terrorist skinheads. Approximately 91% of terrorist skinheads limited their music consumption to White Power bands. The German government has described skinhead music as the number one gateway to violence.

Members may have heard of the Malay Power music festival in Malaysia. The Malay Power movement believes that Malaysia should be an exclusively Malay nation, immigration should end, non-Malays should be expelled.

A Malay Power band says this, and I quote, "the lesson that we can learn from Nazism is that we can take extreme racist action if the position of the Malays is affected by these factors." Just across the Causeway. A music fest featuring Malay Power nationalists called Rebellion Fest, was cancelled just this month in Malaysia.

Sir, it is all around us. There is nothing special about us that these things cannot happen here.

In summary, hate speech denigrates the out-group and says the out-group is the source of the problems; dehumanises the out-group, making violence against them justified.

The Christchurch killings were motivated by white supremacist ideology. White supremacist graffiti covered the attacker’s rifles. The Prime Minister of New Zealand has called for a global fight against right wing extremists. Meanwhile, Islamic militant groups are using the Christchurch attacks to push their own message of hate, that the West is at war with Islam.

So, what should we do about this? Before we look at Singapore, it is useful to look very briefly at how some other countries have dealt with hate speech.

If you look at the US, speech is a very high threshold. Before you can prohibit speech, it must be directed to inciting or producing "imminent lawless action" and is likely to incite or produce such action. So, it must be of such a nature as to produce "imminent lawless action" and it is likely to incite the production of such action. So, very, very high threshold. Even speech advocating violence by Ku Klux Klan is protected under their free speech rules. So, you see speeches which are anti-Semitic, speeches which denigrate African-Americans, the Hispanics, politicians who denigrate religions and ethnic groups. One example is Steve King, a US congressman. He has praised Mr Wilders from Netherlands who has in turn called the Prophet “a paedophile, a mass murderer, a terrorist and madman” and has said the Quran is worse than Mein Kampf and has called for the closure of mosques. So, Steve King praises him.

In Europe, some countries there have broader prohibitions than American. In 2018, the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) gave an important decision. The Austrian courts had convicted a lady who had called the Prophet Muhammad a paedophile. She appealed. The ECHR ruled that the conviction did not violate her freedom of expression. It did not extend that far. It said the right to freedom of expression has got to be balanced against the right of others to have their religious feelings protected.

The German Criminal Code criminalises incitement of hatred against, or insult of, a racial or religious group. The same section also criminalises the glorification of Nazi rule. Just note that in the German Criminal Code it covers insults which may not quite be hate speech but could be offensive speech. I will come back to this later.

In the UK, it is a crime to incite hatred on the grounds of religion. But you can in the UK ridicule, insult, abuse any religion, beliefs, practices or the followers of such religions. So, in the UK in 2018, more than one quarter of all Britons – that is more than 12 million people – witnessed hate speech. Majority were on social media, involved anti-immigrant, anti-refugee language, racist abuse, anti-Muslim comments.

So, the UK now finds itself fighting on two fronts – right-wing extremists as well as Islamic extremists. The security services are investigating a possible contact between the Christchurch gunman and the right-wing extremists in the UK. The UK's Lead Anti-Extremism Commissioner has said and I quote, "frightening amount of legal extremist content is available online", fuelling far-right activism.

At one point, a preacher, Abu Hamza, was Britain’s most high profile hate preacher. He was finally convicted in 2006 for soliciting murder, inciting racial hatred in his inflammatory "sermons". He had been preaching since 1997. In his sermons, he described Jews as the enemy of Islam. He told followers to bleed the "enemies of Islam". They should not rest until they have created a Muslim state.

Britain, of course, has an admirable, long tradition of free speech. You argue different positions, you get clarity. But hate speech like this targeting ethnic, religious communities does not appeal to logic. It is not capable of being rebutted by logic. The intention is that the recipients of hate speech should be filled with hate and they are turned into hate machines in the false belief that God requires that. How does logic and open debate counter this?

So, Britain's lax approach attracted a lot of people like Abu Hamza who went about spreading his message of hate and London became a centre for many of these hate mongers. Finsbury Park mosque where Abu Hamza preached has been described as a global magnet for militants. From late 1990s to 2003, the attendees included Richard Reid, the shoe bomber for whom you can thank for having to take off your shoes each time you go past in an airport. Zacarias Moussaoui, one of the 9/11 attackers.

So, in New Zealand, shortly after the Christchurch incident, New Zealand’s chief censor banned the shooter’s manifesto, "The Great Replacement". The basis for the banning is that the manifesto tries to inspire murder and terrorism. That has now led to a debate, "Oh free speech is being curtailed." The usual arguments. "Better to trust people to form their own conclusions than suppress hate speech altogether." The shooter himself confessed he developed his views from the Internet. He said, "You will not find the truth anywhere else." The conclusion he formed: kill as many Muslims as possible.

The UN last month, February 2019, the UN Secretary-General called hate speech a "menace to democratic values, social stability, peace." He pointed out the dangers of allowing hate speech to move into mainstream. He said "With each broken norm, the pillars of humanity are weakened." He has assigned a team to scale up the response to hate speech and present a global plan of action, on a fast-track basis.

We are told regularly that we should be more like the US and UK, the Gold Standard for Free Speech. But their experiences suggest that serious consequences can follow when you are lax about hate speech.

What is our experience? Our experience recognises that race and religion are fault lines, they are gut issues. They can be very emotive. If you go to a 2016 survey by CNA and IPS, race and religion play a large role in personal decisions of Singaporeans. If people feel that their race, religion is under attack, the potential for violence increases. If I can quote Mr Lee Kuan Yew, "No amount of troops would be able to stop the trouble if there was real hatred between the different communities. The decisive factor would be dependent upon the goodwill between neighbours."

We prohibit hate speech. We also take quick action when there is hate speech and the speaker will be advised to stop. ISD will take action depending on the severity of what is being said and the possible consequences. Of course, the person who conceptualised, crystallised our approach is the late Mr Lee Kuan Yew. In 1999, reflecting back, he said this – it is Tab 3 in what we have handed out. He talked about having done the easier part, getting people into housing estates, schools, putting them together. How it will be much more difficult to get people to accept each other and that it just takes one mishap. And he talked about fault lines, and how it is going to take a long time, 20, 30, 40 years to work on this and why we need to find common ground, tolerant, accommodative, take a multiracial, multilingual, multi-religious, multicultural approach and that one race or religion does not foist itself on another.

Prime Minister Lee in 1987 also set out our approach, that is Tab 4 in your bundle. He pointed out the most straightforward way to destabilise Singapore is to have racial and religious discord. He said never assume that free and open discourse will magically lead to truth and enlightenment. Members will recall what I said earlier about logic not coming into play in this situation. He referred to the 1950 riots, the 1964 riots, the 1969 riots and the Singapore Government's unwavering commitment in pursuing multiracial policies, taking action against chauvinist agitators and he said – this is an important line – "in race, we come up against atavistic human instincts which will take generations to overcome. They can be whipped up and once blood has been shed, the years of nation building we have done will come to naught.”

The experience of other countries shows when you are clear, you have firm laws prohibiting hate speech, you deal fairly with all communities, then you can start building a multiracial, multi-religious, harmonious society. I think, I hope there will be agreement in this House that hate speech, whatever form it takes – religious, political, entertainment – in all its different forms is unacceptable and we should continue to prohibit hate speech and deal with it firmly, in the way we have done so far.

That brings me to my next point. How should we deal with offensive speech? Speech does not fall into neat categories – hate, non-hate, offensive. It is a continuum, a spectrum. There can be acceptable commentary on race, religion – offensive speech and hate speech. Offensive speech can segue into hate speech and they overlap, obviously. If you refer back to definition of hate speech which I gave earlier, it covers offensive speech and remember the German Criminal Code which covers insults.

At the same time, there may be factual observations which are necessary. For example, in a multiracial, multi-religious society, sometimes you have to speak frankly about the issues facing one community or another and to focus on the issues and to try and find solutions. There may be a need to point out the differences between the races for a variety of public policy reasons. That sort of speech is necessary, unavoidable. I am not referring to that here. The point is: should we allow offensive speech in general mainstream discourse, even if it is not hate speech?

Say, for example, you can regularly, in public discourse including theatre, songs, politics, religion – you can joke, you can insult, you can laugh at, denigrate people of another race, another religion, what do you think will happen? Take offensive theatre, the Ventriloquist Jeff Dunham, US, his puppets, include Jose the Mexican immigrant, Achmed the dead terrorist. You can imagine what he would do with these. He peddles in offensive views of various races and women, performs to sell-out crowds in America, he is one of the highest paid comedians in the world. Audience: mainly white Americans.

Members may remember a lady, Amy Cheong, who made nasty comments about Malays, their weddings in void decks. You can see it on the screen, I am not going to read it out. You can see how offensive and and repulsive it is. If this sort of expression becomes common in public discourse, what happens?

If we normalise offensive speech, after a while the tone and texture of public discourse will change. Giving offence to others will become normalised. Offensive speech, in the long run, can also lead to dehumanisation.

There is emerging work in the field of neuroscience. That if an individual observes another member of his own species experiencing pain, he would experience non-conscious neuro-simulation which leads to empathy. But such empathy is only triggered when the person is part of your in-group.

Offensive speech, which implies that their target lacks morals, lacks intelligence, lacks dignity, in fact, is even more insidious because listeners may get a false sense that they are not internalising these sort of descriptions because they are funny. But you are being drip-fed the notion that the out-group is stupid, ignorant, immoral, sinful and, ultimately, leading to dehumanisation. When you think of them as subhuman, therefore you may no longer be bound by moral constraints. Subconsciously, the brain will not feel empathy for them.

It is a slower process compared with hate speech. Hate speech moves on turbo charge; offensive speech is on the same trajectory but slower. It can take time. But end result is the same.

If you look at our pledge and the ideals, "We the citizens of Singapore, pledge ourselves as one united people, regardless of race, language and religion". How can we be one united people when everyday it is accepted that one race or another, one religion or another, can be publicly insulted, ridiculed and attacked?

Over time, the effect will be felt in every aspect of life – schools, jobs, neighbourhoods, politics. The environment will be conducive for discrimination, eventually violence. That is why we have restrictions on offensive speech, even when it is, strictly speaking, not hate speech.

This is an important point and I hope this is a point on which Members in this House can agree.

Some people asked me what is the purpose of this Motion because they think that at the end of it, we must have some legislation. No. This is a debate simpliciter; we set out our approach, we set out what has guided our approach. We want to hear the Members of Parliament because it is important for the next generation of Singaporeans to understand a bit of the history, to see what the ideals are, and how we should go forward. If people want the approach to be changed, then we should hear it in the House and that will educate the young people one way or the other. So, it is important that we have a proper discussion. That is the only purpose of this debate and Motion.

If we agree that there must be restrictions on offensive speech, then the question is what should be the extent of the restrictions? On this, do we think that Singaporeans are sui generis, that unlike others, we will not engage in offensive speech and hate speech because that is our inherent nature? Do we believe that? If we had not tried so hard for so long, to keep it under check, through laws and work very hard on racial and religious harmony, will we have the situation we have today?

Let me give you a few examples. This is in Tab 5 of your bundle. In 2009, a couple was charged for distributing highly offensive material on the Prophet, on Islam, and they sent it to Muslims. Nicholas Lim, young man, he made a post by reference to Malays, in response to a letter in the Straits Times' Forum page, "Can cabs carry uncaged pets?" Benjamin Koh, he made a posting, "Muslims are pigs. Mosques are brothels", displayed a pig's head picture on a halal lookalike logo. Gan Huai Shi, "Malays are rodents", ridiculed pilgrimage to Mecca. And, of course, Amy Cheong again, she was a Malaysian residing in Singapore.

I can give you other examples but I can also say, thankfully, it is much, much less in Singapore compared with other countries. Most people will think this sort of speech as unacceptable. Again, why have we not had the levels of such speech that you find in other countries?

Our position so far has been very practical and nuanced. We take the view that offensive speech should generally not be allowed in public discourse.

And the current legal framework – I am not going to go into it – but the Penal Code, sections 298, 298A, the Maintenance of Religious Harmony Act, section 8, the Sedition Act, sections 3 and 4, set out the legal framework. But as I have said repeatedly, the legal framework is just the legal framework. You got to work with people to also internalise it in day-to-day living, the lived reality of Singaporeans.

This legal framework, however, requires us to assess, inter alia, the impact of the offensive words on the feelings of the targeted groups. How do we approach it?

We approach it this way. First, we look at the words, the material – how offensive are they? Second, we look at what is the likely impact of the speech: how would, for example, the community, which is the target of the offensive speech, react?

In this context, let me make one point clear again. I am speaking about offensive speech in relation to race, religion and in the context of preserving racial, religious harmony, preventing unrest, violence.

In a broader context, material may be offensive for other reasons – social mores, values, child abuse and so on.

The regulation of content in the broader context is handled by IMDA. MHA deals, more narrowly, with prevention of violence, the security aspects arising from offensive speech and directed at racial and religious divides.

Let me now deal with these two points.

First, we look at the words themselves. Are the words, in themselves, derogatory, offensive, insulting to a particular race or religion? I have given various illustrations of offensive words. Again, I really do not want to read them out. It is in Tab 6. Amos Yee, for example, talking about the Muslim community, Tab 6 on the handouts that you have, "They follow a sky wizard, they are dumb. He is a paedophile", and he gives a four-letter description of Christians; described Buddhists, Taoists. Of course, the US has given him asylum; we are quite happy about that.

If you want illustrations of offensive lyrics, again, I do not need to read them but it is in Tab 7, and it is also on the screen. You have "Hozier – Take me to Church", "I'll worship like a dog at the shrine of your lies" and so on. You can see there is plenty of materials all around.

So, what is the second factor that we consider? What is the likely impact of the speech? Who says it? It has more salience, for example, if said from the pulpit or at an election rally.

Consider the possible range of the different types of actions: religious leaders criticising another religion, telling his people that people of a particular religion should be ostracised; a political leader saying people of a certain religion, race, should not have rights in Singapore, these people are not good for Singapore; throwing a pig's head into a mosque. It happened in Philadelphia in 2015. The mosque also received a voicemail: "God is a pig. God is pork." It has happened in regional countries as well, throwing of pigs' heads into mosques; entertainment which is denigrating and disrespectful of a race or religion.

The impact, therefore, will be different, depending on who says it and the context. We also consider the occasion, the nature of the event; and the reach: there is a difference between saying it to 50 people in a private setting compared with publicising it generally. These factors are not exclusive.

Assessment of the impact is partly subjective based on the nature of the words, the other factors, likely impact on the targeted community. We also have to accept different religions have entirely different histories, traditions, theologies and that shape their outlook, even today. Each group reacts differently to different things.

So, when considering impact, it is not just immediate reaction. Other key issues are the security implications of the reaction and that can be immediate, it could also be longer term, by deepening fault lines, creating more tension. That is the context of the earlier part of my speech.

I do not want to repeat all of that but as long as you understand, this part fits in with what I said earlier. So, we have to assess. The Government is neutral. We proactively accommodate different groups. We recognise their different histories, traditions and we make practical adjustments. On that basis, we take a practical approach, assess the impact of reaction of the different communities.

It often involves assessment of potential reaction of the targeted community when we have to decide to allow or ban something.

I will also caution we have to assess the impact, reaction of the majority in the specific community and the security implications of that opinion, which I have referred to earlier. We have to assess where does the weight of mainstream opinion lie. We cannot be directed by the viewpoint of a person, or persons who are extremely sensitive. Really, the approach has to be guided by common sense. Again, I would like to hear from Members, should we change this approach?

There are two possibilities which will allow an absolute, objective approach. Ban everything that is deemed insulting, offensive by anyone, or allow everything that is insulting, offensive, and I have explained why that will eventually lead to trouble.

Members will see that either absolute approach is really not doable. So, I think Members will probably agree with me that the absolute approach is undesirable, so that brings up back to the pragmatic approach that the Government takes as the only tenable one for our society. It can be a bit messy but it has worked so far with relative success and with a bit of give and take.

So, how has this approach been applied in practice? Let us look at books. We banned Satanic Verses in 1989. It is considered a literary work by many. However, every Muslim country banned it. Our mainstream Muslim community took offence.

But we have allowed other books, films even when other religious communities were unhappy, based also on our security assessments. For example, western traditions accept wider levels of contestation. And Singaporeans, I think, will agree that it is unthinkable to ban a lot of western literature and philosophy because some may find it objectionable. For instance, would we ban Bertrand Russell's "Why am I not a Christian?", because it is critical of the faith? Of course not. Would we proscribe Edward Gibbons, "Decline and Fall of Roman Empire", because it had a famous section detailing what he thought were the deleterious effects of Christianity on Civilisation? Again, we do not ban that.

We have to take into account the context. Here, the context of what is acceptable in Western traditions is relevant. We are not as liberal as many Western societies and our approach differs. But we have allowed some books, movies, performances and concerts even though a variety of different religious groups have found them objectionable.

In doing that, we assess the reaction of our community, whether there are immediate security issues or longer term security issues, by building in deeper fault lines, or whether we think that even though they are unhappy, this is not going to contribute to deepening of fault lines.

So, reaction of the community itself is part of the mix in assessing the security issues, as I have explained earlier.

If you look at our approach to foreign preachers, in 2017, MOM, in consultation with MHA, rejected the applications of two foreign Christian preachers to speak in Singapore. One of them had described Allah as "a false god" and various other things. The other spoke about "the evils of Islam and the malevolent nature of Islam" and more things.

We also banned two Muslim preachers. One is Mufti Menk, Zimbabwean Islamic preacher. With your permission, Sir, can the video be played?

Mr Speaker: Yes, please. [A video was shown to hon Members.]

Mr K Shanmugam: Very charismatic and powerful but that is why we banned him. Segregational, divisive, he said "we should not greet someone else". So, we have HDB flats, we live next to each other. The Muslim does not greet the Christian and the Christian does not greet the Muslim. What happens to the Hindus as well?

The second video, again with your permission Sir, Dr Zakir Naik, can I let that be shown.

Mr Speaker: Yes, please. [A video was shown to hon Members.]

Mr K Shanmugam: That was said in Indonesia just before the elections for the governor. We have banned him. He has also said Muslims should not take Jews and Christians as protectors or friends, otherwise they will become Jews or Christians. One is in Zimbabwe and the other is now, I think, is in Malaysia. Very eloquent.

Thankfully, Singaporeans take a different view. The 2019 IPS Study shows that 82% of our people believe that a religious leader should not be influencing people's votes in elections. Eight-two percent of Muslims in Singapore also believe that.

So, for foreign preachers, we disallow even if they may not say something offensive in Singapore. If they have been offensive elsewhere, their offensive teachings are available online, you allow them into Singapore, you then allow them to build up a following in Singapore. So, we do not allow them because eventually that can become seriously divisive – like not shaking hands, not greeting each other, not voting for candidates of another race or religion.

Sometimes, we will not know everything the preacher has said elsewhere. And sometimes, we have to make a judgement on the degree to which what he has said elsewhere is offensive.

Let me now turn to how we have dealt with preachers in Singapore.

In 2017, a preacher in a local mosque, Imam Nalla, recited a supplication that called for God to grant victory – some people said it is help –over Jews and Christians during Friday congregational prayers. This passage is not in the Quran. A video of his supplication went online. Imam Nalla was charged. He was fined of S$4,000. He was on Work Pass and was asked to leave Singapore.

Why did we take this step? I have explained it in Parliament. Charging a cleric is a serious step. On the other hand, I was concerned again about the normalising effect of such a sermon. If we allow an Imam to exhort victory against Christians, can we prevent Christian preachers from saying similar things about Muslims, or followers of other religions? Or taking some passages in the Old Testament out of context? What will then be the consequence if this becomes a regular occurrence in religious sermons of the different faiths? These things have a momentum, action and reaction. Let us say we have this on a regular basis. What do you think the atmosphere will be like in our common meeting places?

So, the Imam was charged. A line was drawn. He apologised to Christian leaders and the Rabbi of Singapore. To show that this was a matter of principle and that we accepted that the Imam meant no actual ill will or malice, I met him openly, in a mosque, after his conviction, had breakfast with him before he was asked to leave Singapore. But the principle was established.

In 2010, we had a Christian pastor, insulting, trivialising, ridiculing beliefs of Buddhists and Taoists, gentleman by the name of Rony Tan recorded on video and uploaded. ISD spoke with him. He apologised.

In 2010, another Christian pastor, Mark Ng, denigrating Taoist beliefs. Compared praying to Taoist deities to “seeking protection from secret society gangsters”. ISD spoke with him. He and his church apologised.

Mr Speaker, I repeat: this Government makes no apologies for its zero tolerance of bigotry.

Should the Government take a hands-off approach? Some people have argued: Singapore is secular. So, we should not be banning material that is offensive to Christians, offensive to others because we are a secular Government. Why are we intervening? Leave it to the people.

Let me respond by referring to the French example.

France has this ideology: the state will not intervene in religious matters because it is secular. They term it "Laicite". French secularity means people can publish material that is offensive to any religion. If you look at Tab 8, you will see a series of cartoons published by Charlie Hebdo. You have cartoons on the Trinity, cartoons of the Pope holding a condom-like sacrament and various other cartoons.

Just give you a sense. When we talk about in broad terms about free speech, people do not really understand sometimes what they are talking about. These cartoons bring right down to the brass tacks what we are talking about and whether you think free speech should extend to this sort of speech.

The Catholics were deeply unhappy. They brought law suits. Terrorists did not sue. They used it as an excuse to attack Charlie Hebdo in the name of Islam. No excuse for what they did. After the Charlie Hebdo attack, Mr Bilahari Kausikan, our then Ambassador-at-Large, gave a speech. He said that the French state had hobbled itself by its own absolutist beliefs. He said the state should be able to stop such publications. The EU and French Ambassadors responded. They wrote to The Straits Times Forum pages. They said that Europe did impose some constraints against the abuse of freedom of speech, especially against anti-Semitic speech. Mr Bilahari responded and pointed out the double standards protect one group – the Jews – while standing by the vilification of another religion – Islam – in the name of free speech. In fact, one can add, in the vilification of the Catholic church as well.

Essentially, the French position is the right of anyone to vilify a religion is absolute. I think you can legitimately ask why should that right to publish override the right of a religious group not to have its texts, beliefs, practices, ridiculed? And what about obligations of citizens to preserve harmony, unity. Do citizens not have such obligations? And if free speech is really absolute, then why prevent anti-Semitic speech?

Should we adopt the same "secular" approach that France takes? Take a hands-off approach, allow these cartoons, and other offensive material, ridicule, hate speech directed at any race or religion?

This secular Government is completely neutral. It does not privilege any religious group, nor does it allow any religious group to be insulted and attacked. This secular Government guarantees freedom of religion. It protects all, including minorities, from threats, violence. It works closely with IROs, IRCCs, religious leaders to ensure a common understanding of what binds us as Singaporeans, that we all work towards religious harmony. That is the fundamental assurance one gets in Singapore.

Does not matter who you are, what religion you believe in, you are free to believe in any religion, including not to believe. You and members of your faith will be protected from hate speech, unacceptable offensive speech. The state will strive in every way possible to achieve racial, religious harmony.

That is the secularity we adopt. That is different from saying Government should take a hands-off approach, in the name of secularity, allow people to spread hate speech, promote violence.

The French approach is illustrative of another interesting point. It is guided by a dark history that the rest of Europe shares, specifically, the anti-Semitism which led to the Holocaust, and the complicity of almost all European countries in the persecution of Jews during WWII. Thus, in some European countries, it is an offence to even deny the Holocaust. These include Austria, Belgium, Czech Republic, France, Germany, Luxembourg, Poland, Romania, Slovakia.

But really does one have to wait until a Holocaust type of nightmare, against a particular group, before you act against hate speech? Not for us to say the French or European approaches are right or wrong. Europe has a long tradition, a proud heritage. But our experience of nationhood and the value system of our respective cultural traditions convince us the European approach will not work for us.

Now, Europe is grappling with other issues: immigration, multiculturalism and anti-Semitism is again on the rise in Europe. Extreme right-wing populist movements, in some cases neo-fascist, are rising across Europe. Obviously, the liberal values of racial and religious tolerance are not shared by a fairly significant number of Europeans at this point in time.

Tolerance of hate speech does not breed tolerance of difference. We have to decide what works for us. Singapore is only 54 years old this year. Racial and religious tolerance is slowly being rejected in older societies than ours, which claim to be liberal. Prudent for us, not to take Singapore’s values, unique and new in history for granted.

You look at our history, fault lines. The 2016 CNA-IPS Survey on Race Relations – it is Tab 9 and it is also on the screen. Sixty-three percent of Malays, 62% of Indians and 72% of others thought there was a majority Chinese privilege. Even nearly 50% of Chinese thought there was such a privilege.

If you look at another table, on the same tab, 40% of minorities felt that the majority race was demanding for more rights. If you look at relevance of policies, thankfully, most of our citizens felt that our existing legislation, Racial Harmony Day, Maintenance of Religious Harmony Act, were very good things to have.

If you look at racism as a persisting concern, nearly half the respondents acknowledge the persistence of racism as a problem.

Even Chinese, when you ask about their friends, they say 42% are either mildly racist or racist.

Openness to race discussion – two-thirds felt that discussions on race was disconcerting because it could be offensive and lead to tension.

So, you can see we have done well but the fault lines remain and they run deep and they can be exploited. When two-thirds of Singaporeans believe that mere talking about racial issues causes tension, what do you think about offensive speech?

Studies have shown we react differently to people from different races. "The human brain fires differently, when dealing with people outside of one's own race," I am quoting a study on that.

We are more likely to trust those from the same race. And I quote, "Shutting our eyes to the complexities of race does not make them disappear, but does make it harder to see that colour blindness often creates more problems than it solves."

You look at the former Yugoslavia – Muslims, Christians lived side by side for nearly 500 years – and not just 54 years – substantially similar genetic make-up, shared history and Yugoslavia broke up: genocide and atrocities.

Let me now turn to the Christchurch shooting. It just suffered its worst ever mass shooting. Right-wing terrorist, acted out his hate-filled ideology wanted to create fear among the Muslim community in New Zealand. The response of the New Zealand Prime Minister and the people of New Zealand, have been quite amazing, and there is much for us to learn from them.

The Prime Minister embraced the Muslim community, showed that she sincerely shared in their pain and loss. And the people of New Zealand have displayed great strength and resilience. They have shown the world how to respond to a terrorist attack – not with hate, but with rejection of the message of the terrorist.

In Singapore, we have been building up the resilience of our citizens, through the SGSecure movement. We do not have the history that New Zealand does, and our population is much more diverse. Nevertheless, I can only hope that as a nation, we can respond in the same way, in the face of terror.

New Zealand has a relatively small Muslim population, compared to us. New Zealand police have, in recent years, taken steps to understand, and engage their Muslim community. They have even employed a number of our officers, for this purpose, including two Muslim officers from the Security Command who have relocated there.

Let me now turn to the Watain concert. The lyrics and the beliefs of the band denigrate Christianity. Seriously offensive. Their own fans acknowledge this. Natural therefore that Christians would take offence.

IMDA received the application from the organiser at the end of December 2018. MHA was then informed of the application. After considering: MHA initially told IMDA that MHA objected to the concert. IMDA then requested a reconsideration of MHA's position. IMDA also proposed its detailed licensing conditions and requirements for the concert for MHA's consideration.

The restrictions were quite substantive: the concert would be classified R18; removal of songs that may be potentially sensitive; no religious symbols used during the concert; no reference to religion in the band's on-stage dialogue; content should not denigrate any faith or promote any cult practices, nor advocate or promote violence in any way; no ritualistic or satanic acts; and a number of other conditions.

MHA then informed IMDA that while it was still concerned, it will leave it to IMDA to decide on issuing such a restricted licence. That restricted licence was issued on 5 March. On 7 March, MHA asked IMDA to consider cancelling the concert, that is, two days later, and IMDA cancelled the licence in view of MHA's serious concerns.

The initial assessment was that if the band did not perform offensively in Singapore, that should be acceptable. Two days before concert, MHA received reports of mainstream Christians being very concerned, offended. My officers met with Christian leaders, leaders of other religions. Our Members of Parliament gave feedback – both Christian and non-Christian Members of Parliament and many others.

Given that many Christians felt this was deeply offensive and denigrating, MHA advised IMDA to cancel. It was my decision that MHA should so advise IMDA. My officers and I take in account both the reaction of the Christian community, and as I explained earlier, it is not just the reaction of the community but the broader security implications of that reaction, both immediate and the medium and longer term consequences.

So, it was a judgement call. The band comes from a largely Christian country – 67% of the Swedes belong to the Church of Sweden. With the restrictions imposed, we assessed that the concert should be all right. Our assessment was, however, different from what actually transpired. So, when you make assessments, sometimes, the reality will turn out to be different.

Why were the Christians offended such that they did not want Watain to perform in Singapore under any condition? Because of what Watain stood for, its philosophy. And you need to understand a little bit about Watain.

The frontman of Watain, Erik Danielsson, has said this about his creation – I am not going to read it in detail. It is Tab 10 in your tabs and it will also be flashed on screen. But he said it is potential to attract fanatical people. He accepts. He says that they do promote lawlessness, violence, crime, madness, all hopefully for the love of the devil and the primal urge to express it. He says, "We are not talking about ethics and morals, we are talking where no laws exist, and no morals exist."

His views on Christians, "All our enemies are Christian sheep. We go about doing our thing, pissing in their living rooms". Music does have the potential to make people do bad things. He was asked whether he feared that he would be misunderstood and that someone might go and start shooting in a mall. And he said that, "That would not be a misunderstanding. I totally encourage any kind of terrorist acts committed in the name of Watain, absolutely. That is the way it works.”

The interviewer then repeated the question, just to be sure; and he doubled down, "We have always been encouraging music to take a physical form. When churches were burned, to me, it is the very natural consequences of being the devil's music. What matters is the effect this has, the effect of those church burnings had on the people who were terrible! They were f------- afraid, they were sh-tting in their pants, because, according to the media, there were a bunch of Satanists burning down churches and murdering people. It is like holding your hand, iron grip that takes hold around people's throats. That is what was important about church burnings, more important than any time than a church is set on fire."

And he said that, "That has never been a line that we have been afraid to cross."

You can read the quotes in detail. I have asked for the quotes to be circulated because there are people who said context is important and I agree. That is why I have set out the context, as provided by the band itself.

The band's lyrics are also denigrating and they are in Tab 11 – I am not going to go into them, but you can read them with the background of the philosophy motivating the lyrics. Then, Members may then ask, given all of this, why did we, in the first place, give permission for the band to perform?

As I said earlier, we thought that if we told them that they will not play any lyrics that are offensive to Christians and imposed other conditions, there are going to be about 200 people there, that would strike an appropriate balance.

But church leaders and others we spoke with, understood our rationale. They nevertheless felt that we should not allow this particular performance.

So, when we concluded that this was a mainstream view, widespread and assessed the consequent security issues, we decided that the concert had to be cancelled. Our assessment of public sentiment turned out to be correct, because a subsequent REACH survey showed that, first of all, that 60% were aware of the cancellation. Of those who were aware, 86% of Christians agreed with the cancellation. That I think will be natural. But 64% of all who had heard about the cancellation, Christian and non-Christian, also agreed with the cancellation. Twenty-eight percent thought that it should not have been cancelled.

Buddhists, Muslims: nearly 70% agreed. Free thinkers, less so: 44%.

I recognise some Singaporeans disagree with the Government. For example, Ms Chew Wei Shan, a former teacher. She set out her views quite articulately in a post. There were also others as well. Essentially, their point is the Government is being "self-righteous" in trying to govern other people's lives and decisions. Audience can listen to metal music without being influenced by a band's beliefs. NCCS and churches can advise their members not to go to the concert. No need for a ban.

Seen in isolation: these are valid points. The argument in essence is: why should I not listen to what I want to? Why should you, the Government, or the church, tell me what I can listen and what I cannot listen to?

The reality, however, as we have seen, is not so simple. The larger picture, it is not about whether the Government should tell you what music you can or cannot listen to. You can listen to Watain concerts, for example, on Spotify, at least as of now. The issue here is about whether the Government should give Watain licence to perform publicly in Singapore. And the Government has a responsibility to not just the individuals who like the music, but also the majority of Singaporeans who would be offended. And it is not just one Watain concert. If we allowed this concern, we will have to allow other such concerts.

Then, what about other performance arts? What about drama? What about visual performances? We must allow similar hate and offensive speech, and I think if you see the lyrics and what they say, it goes well into the territory of hate speech. We must allow, on the principle of fairness.

Then, what about political, religious discourse? Logically, we should allow, based on the same reasoning. But assume for the time being, we can draw some line that says "no" to political and religious discourse but only in music and entertainment, you will still then have a lot hate speech in the mainstream through entertainment.

The question then would be: do you agree with the evidence, that hate speech, hate music, can cause deep splits, divisions within society, that it can normalise hateful sentiments, allow discrimination?

Would those people who are unhappy with the ban of Watain be willing to accept the following consequences of their position. Will they accept that over time the fault lines of race and religion will be greater? I have shown you the research. Do they accept that hate speech then would become normalised? And do they also accept the consequences of that? Then, they are being honest. If they say "yes", I accept all of these, I still think we should have absolute freedom of speech, we should have the freedom to have hate speech through entertainment in Singapore, regardless of the consequences.

If they are willing to say, "I accept that similar concerts entertainment attacking Islam, Buddhism and other religions should also be allowed." They have to say that. You cannot say, "I only accept it in respect of one religion."

And if we allowed Watain, do we also allow Malay Power music? Members will recall what I said earlier. These bands call for an end of immigration to Malaysia, and for non-Malays to be expelled from the country. And they say they draw their inspiration from Nazi Germany.

Because if we allowed Watain, what grounds would we have to ban other groups with similar messages? And then, do we allow Chinese Power music as well? Where do you draw the line? It does not exist now. But if Malay Power is allowed to thrive, you are sure we would not have Chinese Power music as well?

And why not go further? If we can allow Watain and their lyrics and their philosophy, should we now allow the kinds of cartoons that Charlie Hebdo has published? They were so repulsive that when we first want to distribute it, the Parliament Secretariat said this is too offensive to distribute in Parliament. And I said that is the very purpose to bring across to people reality, what it is that we are talking about.

Should we agree to the mass media reprinting the Danish cartoons? Consider the Danish experience. In 2005, a Danish publication ran 12 editorial cartoons under the title "The Face of Muhammad". One depicted the Prophet with a bomb in his turban. Another showed him in heaven telling suicide bombers that heaven had run out of virgins. Ambassadors from Muslim countries petitioned the Danish government to condemn the cartoons and punish the responsible parties. The government said it had no right to interfere with the freedom of the press. A year later, the Danish and Norwegian embassies in Syria were set on fire. A mob burned down the Danish embassy in Lebanon.

What do you think will be the consequences if we allowed the same within Singapore? What do you think our Muslim population will think? Will it unite us or divide? What do you think will be the consequences for us within the region towards Singaporeans and Singapore?

I hope Members, when they speak, will not flinch from these questions and run into generalities on free speech. You got to ask, in brass tacks: What do you mean? What should be the restrictions? Should we restrict these things? Should we not? If we do not, are we prepared for the consequences?

If you honestly say "Yes, we accept all these possible consequences," that would be an honest statement. But if you put it in these terms and that you accept these consequences, you will be in a small minority. I do not think many Singaporeans will support such a position.

Let me explain by reference to some surveys again. In the 2013 IPS Survey, 95% of Malays said race was important to identity. This is in Tab 12 of the tabs. Eighty-five percent of Chinese and Indians said the same; 97% of Muslims said religion was important for identity; 91.4% of Christians said that and 89.5% of Catholics said the same. Eighty-five percent of the respondents said that a police report should be made when someone pokes fun at racial, religious groups; 87% of the respondents said a report should be made when someone insults another racial or religious group in a public setting; 86% of respondents said a report should be made when there is material criticising other religions or racial beliefs.

If you look at Tab 13, the latest IPS Survey which came out just a few days ago, 28 March 2019, talks about "Religion in Singapore: The Private and Public Spheres", 65% of Singaporeans identified themselves as "at last somewhat religious." Forty-two percent said they prayed at least once a day. That is a very high level of religiosity. It ranged from 31% to 77%. Eighty-seven percent of Muslims and Christians read religious scripts outside of a worship service.

Eighty-eight percent had at least some confidence in Parliament. I think that shows that the public generally believes in Parliament and the legislative process has generally been fair, certainly with respect to religion and race. Seventy-seven percent said religious extremists should not be allowed to hold public meetings to express their views. And 73% said religious extremists should not be allowed to publish their views online. But I should add that of the younger respondents, 45% of those between 18 and 25, were more open to such views being published online. That is another reason why we should have this discussion here and a broader discussion outside. I think the younger generation also needs to understand what is it that they are saying "Yes" to and what the consequences are.

Ninety-seven percent said that a religious leader should not make insensitive comments about another’s religion and 95% said a religious leader should not encourage his followers not to mix with members of another religion. And 88% thought a religious leader should not even point out flaws in another religion to the congregants even behind closed doors.

That is our society. It is religious, but Singaporeans believe in giving everyone their own religious space. They frown upon conflicts, do not approve of offensive religious speech and insults. They believe that the Police should act when there are insults or criticisms directed at another religion, let alone hate or offensive speech.

These views have been moulded by our own experiences and our understanding of why we have racial, religious harmony in Singapore. These findings show the support of Singaporeans for the approach we have taken so far.

Some commentators online have also said dark suggestions of a Christian conspiracy, they have a hold on Government; Government bowed to their power; over-representation of Christians in institutions of power. They try to turn it into a "Christians vs others" debate. I say these people are nasty, opportunistic and dangerous. I made the decision in my capacity as Minister for Home Affairs, enshrined with the responsibility of guarding national security and religious harmony. No one – Christian or otherwise – influenced me. I am not a Christian. I also decided to ban two Christian preachers in 2017. So, what does one make of that?

Mr Speaker, so long as a government believes in the principles that I have set out is in this House and such a government is in charge, no matter who the Minister for Home Affairs is – Christian, Muslim, Hindu or agnostic – that government would make such decisions on the basis of national interest.

Having initially made the decision to allow the concert, we had new information on how the community was reacting. What do you do? If we were only interested in tactical considerations, we would have let the concert proceed. But that is not the right thing to do. The right thing – more difficult to do – is to cancel and explain to the public why we cancelled it. But I should caution at the same time it is not possible for the Government to accept any community's viewpoint on all issues, on every performer, for every concert, in every art form. We will give due consideration to the views of all communities. But, ultimately, the Government will have to decide, based on the principles I have set out.

I have no doubt we will have to make many more such pragmatic decisions on concerts, books, materials which some will consider irreverent or even derogatory of religion. We cannot and would not ban everything, however slight the offence. But the Government will be fair, even-handed and has to be practical. But I reiterate – where hate speech is concerned, where offensive speech is concerned, where vast numbers of any community finds it deeply wounding, we will not hesitate to take action.

The REACH Survey that I cited earlier shows the majority agreed with Government’s cancellation of the Watain concert. But let ask ourselves: what if the majority did not feel that something deeply offensive to a minority community should be banned? Should we, therefore, allow such an event? The majority of Germans in the 1930s may not have objected to vile anti-semitism of the Nazis. But that does not mean the majority view was correct. I hope we would always have a Government that insists on doing the right thing to protect any community in Singapore, no matter how small, no matter what the majority might feel.

Let me now turn, finally, to the role of social media. The social media has fundamentally changed the complexion of public discourse. Hate speech and offensive speech travel much faster, gain wider audience than before.

I had earlier quoted a study in Germany. What was telling about that study is that when there were Internet outages or service disruptions to Facebook, incidence of anti-immigrant violence dipped in the very places where they were high. Social media platforms have shown themselves to be unable, unwilling to deal with hate and offensive speech. They have not taken real responsibility for the content circulating on their platforms. They earn money by advertising. The more eyeballs, the better. Using algorithms, they can deliver news reports that are likely to elicit outrage and responses.

I have put in Tab 14 some fairly offensive pictures. They are also on screen – white woman being violated by immigrants and someone is killing her child meanwhile. Twitter refused to take it down. Not in breach of Twitter's Hateful Conduct Policy.

In the case of the Christchurch shootings, Facebook failed to quickly shut down and remove the live-stream video from its platform. The video was viewed 4,000 times before it was taken down. But that is a small number, compared with the circulation on WhatsApp. And Facebook will tell you it cannot do anything about that because of encryption.

I think the Prime Minister of New Zealand did well when she called for social media companies to take responsibility for the contents they published. "It cannot be a case of all profits and no responsibility,” she said. The Australian Prime Minister has talked about imposing criminal charges on social media companies that are not responsible.

Mr Speaker, I drafted the speech before Mr Zuckerberg's latest statement. That, obviously, has to be studied carefully. Prior to the shootings in Christchurch, it was said that white racialist hate speech cannot be taken down, should not be taken down. In a few days, that position seems to have changed. We will need to deal with this.

The Bill that has been tabled on Deliberate Online Falsehoods is one step. We will have to consider what else.

Let me now conclude, Mr Speaker, Sir, by saying the following. Our approach to race and religion has largely been successful. The lived reality of Singaporeans is the test. In a Gallup World Poll in 2016, Singapore ranked top out of 140 countries for tolerance of ethnic minorities. In the 2016 CNA-IPS survey on race relations, which I referred to earlier, the respondents strongly endorsed issues relating to multiculturalism. Ninety-six percent agreed or strongly agreed with the statement “I have respect for people from all races”.

And President Obama said this in 2015 about Singapore. One of the reasons why Singapore has been so successful is because we "have been able to bring together people who may look different, but they all think of themselves as part of Singapore". He said, "That has to be a strength, not a weakness, but that requires leadership and a government being true to those principles".

I started this speech by referring to four events in four countries and asked if there might be a larger picture. What is the larger picture? If you look at Tab 15, my speech has attempted to sketch that picture. On the spectrum of race and religious relations, we are in the positive part of the spectrum because of the way we have structured our legal, social framework and all the things we have done to maintain racial, religious harmony.

What has been happening in Iraq and Syria is an illustration of what can happen when things go badly, not just in terms of race and religion, but also other things. They are in the deeply negative part of the spectrum. New Zealand represents a warning and alert to us that even a country which can fairly be described as heaven on earth can suffer a serious attack. It shows how hate speech can fuel crazy people. And what happened in New Zealand can happen elsewhere. So, New Zealand is positive on the spectrum, but uninhibited hate speech can have terrible consequences.

The Netherlands, Utrecht. Problems that extremism poses, even in advanced, prosperous societies, is shown up by that attack. Integration issues in Europe are a flashing amber light. And German Chancellor Angela Merkel has said: "The multicultural concept is a failure, an absolute failure." She was talking about Europe. We do not want that in Singapore. The former British Prime Minister David Cameron said: "We have failed to provide a vision of society to which [different cultures] feel that they want to belong. We have even tolerated these segregated communities behaving in a way that runs counter to our values."

For us, cancelling of Watain was one discrete step. Why we did that can only be understood by understanding the larger picture of why we are in the positive part of the spectrum. And that is why we are different from so many others.

4.00 pm

Our current racial and religious harmony did not fall ready-made from the sky. It is not part of the "natural order" of things. There is nothing "natural" about it. We engineered this over many decades. People accuse us of "social engineering". "So what?" I ask.

We imposed ethnic quotas in housing to prevent racial enclaves in our housing estates and possible ghettoes – banlieus, as they are called in France. I am sure I am not pronouncing it right. We have GRCs to ensure minority representation in Parliament. Look around this House: could we have guaranteed this number of Malay and Indian Members if not for GRCs? We have the Presidential Council for Minority Rights which checks that Bills passed by Parliament do not discriminate against any racial or religious community.

We have protection of minorities written into the Constitution. We have the Maintenance of Religious Harmony Act. Everybody knows in Singapore, we will have no hesitation arresting any bigot of whatever persuasion. Anyone who burns the Bible or Quran or any Holy Book in the name of freedom of speech, ISD will deal with him.

We long ago stopped Christian preachers from evangelising insensitively amongst Muslims. We have had a recent case in Clementi of an attempt to evangelise to Muslim boys and the Police are investigating.

We have the current harmony because we did all this. Not despite; but because. We took no chances. We brooked no agitation on race and religion. We refused to let the State bow to any religious or racial group, minority or majority.

In Singapore, we organise ourselves horizontally. All races and religions are treated equally on the same level. Most other countries in Asia, if not all, either explicitly or implicitly, organise themselves vertically on the basis of ethnic-religious hierarchy, including a liberal democracy like Japan.

Our uniqueness in this respect should not be under-estimated. Equality of races and religions is not the natural order of things. It has to be defended. On the very first day of our existence as a sovereign, independent State, the founding Prime Minister said, "This is not a Chinese nation, not a Malay nation, not an Indian nation."

From the beginning, the Government determined it will base its legitimacy by appealing to all Singaporeans, not just the majority Chinese. That determination to be multi-racial, multi-religious; that determination that no one will be squatted upon on account of his race or religion, the colour of his skin, or the language he speaks, that is why we became independent and we mean to keep it that way.

If anything, we are prepared to err on the side of caution and risk over-reacting to preserve harmony, rather than take chances and risk explosions. The late Mr Lee Kuan Yew, reflecting back in a New York Times interview, said in 2010, "I’ve got to tell the next generation, please do not take for granted what’s been built. I believe [our younger generation] has come to believe that this is a natural state of affairs… They think you can put it on auto-pilot. I know that this is never so."

Let us heed his warning. What we have in Singapore is precious, hard fought. But we are only 54 years old, a multi-racial meritocracy, unique, but the values are not yet so deeply embedded to be unassailable.

Mr Speaker, I invite Members to consider the questions I have raised and, just in case they have not taken them down, the list of questions is also in the tab, so that you can refer to it as you speak.

Sir, I beg to move, "That the Ministerial Statement on Restricting Hate Speech to Maintain Racial and Religious Harmony in Singapore be considered by Parliament." Thank you, Sir. [Applause.]

Question proposed.

Mr Speaker: Mr Christopher de Souza.

4.05 pm

Mr Christopher de Souza (Holland-Bukit Timah): Sir, this Ministerial Statement is timely. Inflammatory speech inciting senseless violence shrouds daily life with a veneer of danger – a heightened tension.

Last month, on 15 March, the news of shootings in mosques in New Zealand caught the world's attention. At least 50 people lost their lives to senseless violence. The rifles used to commit such violence were covered in white supremacist symbols.

Since February 2019, Christian communities in Nigeria have been attacked, allegedly by Fulani militia. They were shot and killed; their houses were set on fire; they were ambushed while trying to flee. In one day, more than 50 people lost their lives and 186 homes were destroyed.

In January, during Sunday mass, a Catholic cathedral in the Philippines was bombed – twice. The second bomb exploded while they were still responding to the first one. Over 100 were wounded and at least 20 were killed. The Islamic State of Iraq and Levant later claimed responsibility for the bombings.

Sometimes, the aggressive perpetrators claim that they are carrying out the violent attacks in the name of religion. Sometimes, the attacks are done in the name of white supremacy. Sometimes, there are other reasons, but just as no single group has always been the victims of such violence, the perpetrators of such senseless violence do not come from a single group.

The pools of blood in a bombed church are as red in colour as the pools of blood in a mosque that has suffered an attack. That common redness of the blood provides reason to argue that there are individuals from every group that suffer at the hands of senseless violence. No one group can be deemed the sole perpetrator; no one group can be deemed the victim. Rather, the perpetrators are vicious, slithering ideologies which propagate violence at all cost. They claim as their enemy the innocent.

Yet, the innocent are not helpless doormats. Far from it. Instead, the innocent can choose to fight back by deploying a code of rules governing the manner in which speech relating to race and religion is used. Such rules, which prevent the proliferation of speech inciting senseless violence against race or religion, have the powerful effect of preventing mindless violence-based ideologies from snowballing into physical attacks on society.

What this means is that this motion cannot only be about deterring phobia of any one race or religious group. Instead, it should be about deterring attacks on all innocent people, regardless of religion or race.

How? By deterring inflammatory speech. What type of inflammatory speech should we be deterring? Inflammatory speech inciting senseless violence against race and religion. Why? Because such senseless speech reeking of violent intent can propel people into injuring or killing the innocent.

That gunman in New Zealand had a skewed morality. But even if he thought what he did was right, such senseless violence does not advance his cause. Why? Because it attracts far more criticism than support. Why? Because a moral code which espouses hate and which propels people into senselessly killing the innocent is wrong. Such a moral code is not moral; it is immoral.

What we are doing today through this debate is building on principles that have already been embedded in our Singapore DNA. Indeed, Article 12 of our Constitution provides unique protection to race and religion within Singapore. Therefore, what we are doing in this motion is reinforcing time-tested principles to deal with the terror of the day. Essentially, we are debating about what kind of society we want in the future by building on the cornerstones of the past.

So, I am clear that we should deter inflammatory speech inciting violence against race or religion. However, what I do not wish for is for the definition of hate speech to be broadened such that even a differing view, expressed respectfully, becomes hate speech. For a robust and meaningful exchange of ideas, it must be possible to present a different view when this is done in a respectful manner. A respectful and reasoned differing view should not be considered hate speech. For example, during the Nazi regime in Germany, any opposition was quashed and severely punished. The student group called White Rose (die Weiße Rose) "published anti-Nazi leaflets, distributed posters ... in protest to Hitler's policies". Its leaders were sentenced to death. Another example. Helmuth Hübener, a 17-year-old, disseminated pamphlets countering the Nazi messages of victory in battle and also that the war was unjust. He was executed. In trying to rightly oppose Hitler and the atrocities that were being committed by the Nazi regime, many Germans, including Colonel Claus von Staffenberg, a decorated German army officer who opposed Nazism, were executed.

I dare say that none of us in this House would support Nazism in Singapore. But it is still especially important that there be sufficient clarity about what hate speech is because the term "hate speech" can be understood very differently by different people. This is also important because harmony is based on mutual trust and understanding. Building mutual trust and understanding may require the ability to express one's thoughts respectfully in the right setting so as to clear up any misunderstandings or misconceptions. That is one reason why we have Inter-racial and Religious Confidence Circles. Therefore, when someone presents a differing view in a respectful, logical and cogently reasoned manner, with evidence to back up their position, with an eye for the good of Singapore, that cannot be taken as hate speech. Therefore, in my view, the law as it currently stands ensures and codifies the correct standard. Hence, I support sections 8 and 9 of the Maintenance of Religious Harmony Act and sections 298 and 298A of the Penal Code. These are some provisions that protect our racial and religious harmony.

Section 298 of the Penal Code was one of the criminal charges in question in Public Prosecutor v Amos Yee Pang Sang. Section 298 reads: "Whoever, with deliberate intention of wounding the religious or racial feelings of any person, utters any word or makes any sound in the hearing of that person, or makes any gesture in the sight of that person, or places any object in the sight of that person, shall be punished." The District Judge in that case found that Yee's "comments about Jesus, the central figure of Christianity, are clearly derogatory and offensive to Christians." On appeal to the High Court, the conviction was upheld and the judgment stated that the methodology in the language "has been to use coarse and hard-hitting words to arouse emotions", "using vulgarities and insults to deliberately provoke the reader and to draw him out, in the words mentioned in the charge".

It is also because of robust pieces of legislation, such as section 298 of the Penal Code, that I fully supported Minister Shanmugam's intervention in the Watain saga and the eventual banning of the Watain concert.

A strong argument can be mounted to suggest that the element of wounding religious feelings in section 298 of the Penal Code was engaged by Watain's lyrics in the distasteful songs of "On Horn's Impaled" and "From the Pulpits of Abomination", quite possibly contravening section 298.

Furthermore, a good and arguable case can be mounted that Watain would have also contravened section 298A(b) of the Penal Code because it may have "committed an act which the band knows is prejudicial to the maintenance of harmony between different religious or racial groups and which disturbs or is likely to disturb the public tranquility". The band has been very explicit that their music is the "Devil's music" and they even call their concerts "rituals" which they perform using so-called ritualistic props, such as pig's blood. After all, the "singer and frontman" of Watain has said, "whenever people take part of Watain, whether they like it or not, they are taking part of that place, a place with energies that are very real and that come into being if they are called upon".

As for "disturbing public tranquillity", that can be found in the interviews, saying that, "There would be no misunderstanding if their fans start shooting people." In an interview with Metal Blast at Bloodstock Open Air Festival in 2012, a member of the Band stated "I totally encourage any kind of terrorist acts committed in the name of Watain, absolutely... We’ve always been encouraging music to take a physical form, and that’s what happened in Norway in the early 1990s when churches were burned, and it happened many other times as well. To me it’s the very natural consequence ... in the end, being the devil's music."

Minister Shanmugam, thank you for stepping in and banning the Watain concert.

We must continue to have that conviction to do what is right, swiftly and effectively. Just as how MSF stepped in to ban the Ashley Madison extramarital dating portal to protect our family values and public morality, the Government was correct to cancel Watain’s performance.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I close with this story. A true story, arising out of the constituency I serve.

One day after the senseless massacre of the close to 50 Muslims at prayer in Christchurch, I received a WhatsApp message from the Chairman of Al-huda Mosque in Ulu Pandan. Haji Azman Kassim shared with me about how a New Zealander, Mrs Kim Forrester, turned up at the mosque that Saturday afternoon distraught and emotional. She was tearing. Within her, she felt the need to say sorry for the senseless massacre of the innocent people in Christchurch. Moved by her genuine emotion, the mosque-goers present relayed the information to Haji Azman who walked to the front of the mosque to meet her. He shared with her that he and the mosque community were deeply touched by her sincerity at which time Kim Forrester shared that the acts of senseless violence were not New Zealand, the acts did not reflect what New Zealand stood for and that she was sorry. With a warm heart Haji Azman said that he accepted her spontaneous sincerity but that she did not need to apologise. Instead, he shared that her act of sincerity builds harmony.

Picture that. A New Zealander, a lady, walking into a mosque, a day after the atrocious act. Why? Because we have something special in Singapore. She felt safe. She knew she would have an audience who would listen and not berate. A community who would welcome and not blame. And why did Haji Azman, a senior member of the mosque, so spontaneously walk out from behind his desk to meet her? Because he sensed sincerity and comradeship in grief. Who did the consoling? By a sweet twist of irony, it was Haji Azman. That for me is a picture of trust, and it occurred within an environment of trust, which is Singapore. We will all share Iftar during the fasting month at Haji Azman's invitation.

Sir, would Singapore have an environment of trust if we did not have robust provisions such as section 298 of the Penal Code? Would we have that environment of trust if we did not have organisations such as the Home Team and the ISD constantly tilling the soil to prevent fractious disharmony in our society? Would we have that environment of trust if we shied away from difficult debates and hard topics in Parliament? I don’t think so. It is because Singapore and Singaporeans are unafraid to fulfil those very duties, to carry out those very acts, that we have created an environment of trust and peace today – a constant work in progress. In that way Singapore is special, and it is one key reason why I support this Motion.

Mr Speaker: Order. I propose to take a break now. I suspend the Sitting and will take the Chair at 4.40 pm.

Sitting accordingly suspended

at 4.17 pm until 4.40 pm.

Sitting resumed at 4.40 pm

[Mr Speaker in the Chair]

Restricting Hate Speech to Maintain Racial and Religious Harmony in Singapore

Debate resumed.

Mr Pritam Singh (Aljunied): Mr Speaker, social harmony, racial and religious tolerance, robust but reasoned and respectful debate on contentious issues, all create an environment for modern societies to flourish and thrive. Hate speech, regardless who it is directed against – be it fellow citizens of different races and religions or against other communities and groups such as immigrants, those of a different ethnic origin, new citizens or even against those who proscribe to different life choices, do not profess a faith, or are of a different sexual orientation – ought to have no place in Singapore society, either now or in the future.

Hate speech per se tends to exist at one end of the spectrum as it usually hosts extreme prejudice or calls for actionable violence against individuals. The Christchurch terrorist attack on a mosque by a white supremacist exposes the dangers of hate speech that is directed at people of a particular faith with the perpetrator making his views known publicly before carrying out his gruesome act that was roundly condemned by all Singaporeans. The Workers' Party too condemns this cowardly attack. It is telling how significant our own biases and perceptions determine attitudes towards people who are different from us. A fair number of people I spoke to were surprised that more than 70% of all terrorist attacks are carried out by far right, non-Muslim and often white attackers, a fact Minister shared during his recent speech to the Religious Rehabilitation Group.

Apart from hate speech however is a potentially larger category of offensive speech, not quite a call to arms and as extreme, but expression which is deeply abhorrent, insensitive and completely unnecessary nonetheless. This category can potentially be made even larger depending on how quickly some of us get offended, making executive action open to politicisation. Given Singapore’s open economy and cosmopolitan society which is exposed to both Western and Eastern views, attitudes to what some regard as offensive speech can differ greatly amongst citizens and even those from the same religious group.

Most recently in 2017, MHA released a statement on offensive speech and expression involving race or religion. It set out the Government's position in managing issues and reiterated that Singapore’s approach to the matter sought to guarantee the safety, security and freedom of religion for all, with a view to create a common space for everyone. The annex to the MHA statement covered 14 incidents from 2005 to 2017 where the Government had to invoke the Sedition Act and Penal Code to deal with offensive speech, including the issuance of stern warnings and conditional warnings against various individuals. None of these interventions involved offensive speech in the performing arts or entertainment space. Unsurprisingly, however, 11 out of the 14 cases involved comments made online, on Facebook, on blogs or in online chatrooms.

Sir, my generation has grown up with the Internet being a large part of our lives. While the Internet has been an incredible platform in democratising information and has been a force for good in many aspects of our lives, from economics to entrepreneurship – the anonymity, immediacy, and ubiquitous nature of the Internet has also given extremists and those who revel in offensive speech a powerful podium. Combined with the political economy of social media revenue models and the unique heuristics of the Internet eco-system that highlights the sensational, hate speech is something all societies are affected by, with approaches to address it differing even amongst similar societies.

Going forward, Mr Speaker, and partly arising from the online space, my sense is that the Government and Singaporeans will have to come to terms with disagreement and contestation on a wide variety of issues because of the Internet. Many societies around the world are getting more religious with many groups more strident in their advocacy. Separately, a recent IPS survey observed that young people take a more permissive attitude to offensive speech – a fact which does not necessarily suggest that they approve of it, but they are prepared for a discussion on such issues.

In such a context, the balance between respecting individual views of a very diverse society like ours that hosts different mores, thresholds and tastes on the one hand and the importance of a fair and even-handed approach in governing a multiracial and multi-religious society on the other will become an important marker of a cohesive and united society. This cohesion and unity will be in danger if the Government is seen to be straying from its longstanding approach of strict secularism to preserve the common space that must be shared by all communities and individuals – a common space that must ensure minorities continue to deserve protection and should not be subject to mob justice. Our people will also have a critical role in adopting an even-handed attitude in living in a society that seeks to preserve the common space, and respect the fact that no one has a right to impose one’s beliefs on others.

The recent episode involving the black metal band Watain is a case in point. From public comments made by Minister and IMDA, there may be a conflation in the public mind of the regime MHA applies in deciding whether to approve or reject the entry of a religious preacher on the one hand, and the conditional approval by the IMDA of a black metal band, for example, which covers a genre of entertainment on the other. It would appear that different considerations should continue to apply in each respective case.

In the case of a preacher, it would appear that prior comments, particularly on inter-religious matters made by such a person would be relevant in deciding whether to grant such an individual entry into Singapore. Should a preacher have described those outside his faith or even within his faith in offensive terms, then a red flag ought to be raised as the Ministry has done in the past and the person prevented from entering Singapore for the purposes of addressing a congregation.

Unlike the assessment regime for entertainment however, it would not be reasonable or rational to impose conditions that require a preacher to avoid speaking about race or religion. If anything, promising not to disparage others faiths in Singapore but to be able to do so in other jurisdictions would make a mockery of the entire belief system of such an individual.

In the case of entertainment or a band, the Government appears to have a variated regime in place, one which does not hesitate to prohibit, correctly I would add, music that denigrates other religions, peoples or faiths. My understanding is that this has been imposed in the past for concerts involving even mainstream singers like Eric Clapton and other black metal bands.

By its own admission, IMDA's conditions in originally allowing Watain to perform in Singapore included the removal of songs which were religiously offensive, the band could not make references to religion or use religious symbols and that no ritualistic acts like the showering the audience in pig’s blood as had been done before in another jurisdiction, were to be performed on stage. Furthermore, given the band's history and concerns expressed by MHA, IMDA allowed the Watain concert with a rating of Restricted 18 (R18) and on the condition that it would be a very small concert with only a maximum of 200 people allowed to attend. It would also appear that IMDA and MHA's assessment included foreknowledge of Watain’s reputation, the use of anti-Christian lyrics and references to Satanism in some of their music.

On the surface of things, these conditions should have addressed concerns about race and religion since the application essentially involved an established genre of entertainment. I should also add that I was not aware opposition to Watain was prevalent amongst mainstream Christians until revealed by the Minister earlier. In rationalising its decision, IMDA stated in assessing and classifying content for arts performances and concerts, it aims to protect the young from unsuitable content, maintain community norms and values, and safeguard public interest, while enabling adults to make informed choices. Allowing adults to make informed choices is a clarion feature of a secular society that seeks to preserve the common space. It would appear that the original approach taken by IMDA correctly sought to carefully balance the competing and legitimate concerns of various segments of society.

Two days before the band’s slated performance, a widely publicised online petition made its rounds seeking to I quote "ban satanic music groups Watain and Soilwork from performing in Singapore." MHA thereafter requested IMDA to cancel the concert on the day of the scheduled performance and at the eleventh hour. Ironically, the cancellation arguably brought far more attention to the band and their music than it would have had the concert gone ahead. In fact, for a period of time on Spotify in the days following the ban, Watain had more listeners from Singapore compared to any other country in the world.

According to the IMDA's letter to The Straits Times Forum, the cancellation of the concert was due to new and serious concerns about public order, and ground reactions relating to social and religious harmony. Mr Speaker, I accept that new considerations can present themselves after approval is granted for performances and the Government is not out of place to revisit the issue.

Interestingly, in the comment section of the online petition against Watain, more than a few interventions alluded to why the Government was suddenly allowing black metal bands – many of which regularly host Satanic themes into Singapore. From an online search, it would appear that even local black metal bands have been part of our entertainment eco-system for many years now and foreign black metal bands have been allowed into Singapore previously.

For example, a band known as Mayhem are one of the founders of the Norwegian black metal scene from the 1980s, a forerunner of bands like Watain. They built on the extreme metal sound crafted by earlier groups like Venom, Slayer and Bathory. Their early years were filled with notoriety – their singer committed suicide with a gun to his head, and a picture of his corpse was used as an album cover and they were also tied to a string of church burnings in Norway. I do not think how many of us in this House are aware that Mayhem actually performed in Singapore in 2006. Deafheaven, a Grammy-nominated band, but derided by old metal heads as a "hipster" band also played in Singapore in 2014. To that end, how will the IMDA assess applications for black metal groups in future? Separately, which agency will compensate Watain’s promoters and what amount does the wasted expenditure come up to?

In conclusion, Mr Speaker, it is the secular basis of our state which also allows for selective interventions which allows the Government to accommodate totally different spiritual and moral beliefs hosted amongst different citizens. As the 1989 White Paper on the Maintenance of Religious Harmony iterated, while the Government should not be antagonistic to the religious beliefs of the population, it must remain neutral in its relations with the different religious groups, not favouring any of them in preference to the others. I would add that this expectation of neutrality should not only apply to religious groups but other civic groups and citizens in general in their dealings with the Government as well.

Overall, the Government’s careful and balanced approach to uphold a strictly secular society so as to preserve a common public space, and its principles towards religious harmony as enunciated in the 1989 White Paper on the Maintenance of Religious Harmony and separately the latest MHA's 2017 statement are sound and should be supported. But the Government must be careful not to be perceived as taking sides but instead err on the side of wisdom, especially on matters that are expressions of free speech, particularly in the entertainment and performing arts space. Instead of a hard policy such as bans, a graduated approach establishing a range of conditions like that done by IMDA in its original assessment of the Watain concert may better reflect the compromises required to create and sustain as accommodating and robust a common public space as possible.

To that end, effective laws and an activist bureaucracy are only one aspect of the solution. A robust education system which continues beyond school – one that enjoins Singaporeans to ascribe to an attitude of live and let live, respect for both the religious and non-religious, and dealing with fellow citizens with tolerance and mutual respect with the knowledge that we only have each other to lean on in good times and bad, are equally, or if not more important.

Ultimately, it is the Golden Rule – that we should not do unto others as we would not have done to us – that must be the dictum all Singaporeans, be it in the online or real world. References to the Golden Rule are found in all the Abrahamic faiths including Christianity and Islam, and separately in other faiths and belief systems such as Confucianism, Buddhism and Hinduism amongst many others. And even for those who are atheist or agnostic and do not follow any religion, such a moral principle – underpinned by mutual respect and tolerance – is one they, like all Singaporeans I would hazard, would generously support.

Mr Speaker: Prof Lim Sun Sun.

4.56 pm

Prof Lim Sun Sun (Nominated Member): Hon Members of the House, allow me to walk you through a few simple steps. You take one racially charged social media post, add a sprinkling of likes and shares, then layer on a litany of toxic comments. Torch your volatile mixture with an algorithm that draws eyeballs and clicks. And there you have it – the simple formula for Manufacturing Hate 4.0. These are the everyday ingredients and steps for producing hate speech. How did these ingredients come so easily within the grasp of you and me? In short, information infrastructures.

The Minister has spoken today about the dangers of hate speech and its adverse impact on our social fabric. I will speak on how the digitalisation of our information infrastructures has made hate speech an increasingly lethal threat. One that demands a concerted response, both societally and individually.

Digital information infrastructures including social media such as Facebook, and participatory media such as Reddit, allow hate to propagate in innovative and insidious ways. I will highlight two issues of concern.

The first is an alarming practice termed as platform antagonism. This refers to the use of fake identities in social media platforms to discredit particular ethnic, cultural or religious groups. In a study by academics from IT University of Copenhagen, published in 2018 in the journal Critical Discourse Studies, Johan Farkas, Jannick Schou and Christina Neumayer studied fake Muslim pages on Facebook. These pages were purportedly by Muslim extremists living in Denmark who were plotting to rape and kill Danish citizens. They were apparently also agitating to dismantle institutional structures and transform Denmark through the imposition of sharia law.

By spreading such combative posts, images and videos, these fabricated pages quickly triggered thousands of user comments and shares. Although some readers questioned the veracity of these pages and reported them to Facebook, the majority continuously echoed the antagonistic discourse pitting Muslims against Danes. The anonymous page administrators were also careful to delete comments that suggested these pages could be fake.

Through this systematic construction of hostility between the two groups using visually arresting and emotive content, the page owners sought to normalise antagonism. They depicted these two groups as being fundamentally incompatible with each other, thereby sowing discord and legitimising discrimination.

Platform antagonism is thus a potent variant of online hate speech that is facilitated by our digital information infrastructures.

A second issue of concern is disguising racist and nationalist views as dark humour on participatory media. Participatory media include platforms such as Reddit, YouTube and Tumblr that allow for the uploading and sharing of user generated content. A study by Robert Topinka of the University of Sussex, published in 2018 in the journal New Media & Society, analysed user-generated images and posts based on the photograph of Alan Kurdi. This three-year-old boy became the tragic face of the Syrian refugee crisis of 2015 when his body was washed up on a Turkish beach. This poignant image of Kurdi would be repurposed and ridiculed in a community of interest within Reddit.

The specific subreddit r/ImGoingToHellForThis had over half a million subscribers and claims to mock political correctness in the interest of promoting free speech. Posts on this subreddit are patently and unabashedly racist and nationalist. In response to Kurdi's death, posts emerged that made light of his demise. Using macabre humour, they denigrated immigrants from the developing world and poked fun at refugees. In so doing, these posts used humour to mask what were fundamentally racist and nationalist views. Topinka, the author of the study, concluded that, I quote, “cloaks including humour and visual remediation can provide cover if not sanction for such discourses…[and] reproduce one of the most dominant and destructive political trends of our times".

I have spoken today about only two trends in our digital landscape that allow hate speech to run riot, but there are very many more. Emboldened by anonymity, fuelled by interactivity and powered by mass connectivity, online hate speech can sweep through communities swiftly and insidiously if left unchecked.

If I could ask the Members of the House to reflect on your not-so-distant youth, recall how you felt when you turned 30. I reckon that you saw it as a major milestone, a definitive step into adulthood. You felt sufficiently capable to make a difference in the world and mature enough to tackle life's challenges.

Mr Speaker, the World Wide Web is 30 this year. Is it the confident mature grown-up striding boldly into adult life? If the Christchurch shooting is anything to go by, I think not. A medium that enables a cold blooded killer to broadcast carnage by his own hand to millions of viewers is hardly mature.

Indeed, the inventor of the World Wide Web Sir Tim Berners Lee alluded to the fact that his creation is still in its awkward teen years. He declared that, I quote, "when you grow up, you have to accept responsibility, you have to realise that free speech is great but hate speech is not."

As it stands, today's information infrastructures make it difficult to contain hate speech. A fleeting like, a casual share, a throwaway comment – all these micro actions can come together in a digital patchwork to create a tapestry of hostility. Social media and participatory platforms have made it all too simple to produce and spread hate speech.

We cannot therefore surrender authority for our communication to technological infrastructures, even as hard-wired algorithms increasingly rob us of our agency. Instead, we must strive, individually and collectively, to restore humanity to our interpersonal interactions. To this end, there are two things each of us must do – exercise rationality and practise restraint.

First, in exercising rationality, we must confront our own biases and our inclinations to fall prey to them. Recognise that we can be easily swayed by sensationalist content that is emotive in nature. Resist the urge to confirm only our own beliefs and remain open to a healthy diversity of views.

Second, in practising restraint, remember that online, even though we cannot be seen and we cannot see others, that there are humans on the other side of the screen. Refrain from making baseless, inflammatory comments that disparage others. Above all, do not condone or share hate speech. Mr Speaker, in Chinese, please.

(In Mandarin): [Please refer to Vernacular Speech.] The terror attack at Christchurch tells us that the Internet, being a communication medium, presents certain problems. It can allow people harbouring hatred to freely produce and spread hate speech which is harmful to the society. Our society must act to change the online environment to prevent the harmful effects of hate speech and online falsehoods. As individuals, we must also exercise rationality and be careful when consuming online information and interacting with others online. Our individual efforts can help deter the widespread propagation of hate speech.

(In English): Mr Speaker, a great deal more must be done to overhaul our information infrastructures so that hate speech and online disinformation are minimised, if not obliterated. Incentive structures and revenue models must be recalibrated to make the online environment more positive and edifying. Until and unless such measures see the light of day, each of us must exercise rationality and restraint to prevent the rise of Manufacturing Hate 4.0.

5.05 pm

Mr Murali Pillai (Bukit Batok): Mr Speaker, Sir, I express my support of the Government's current approach to restrict hate speech with a view to maintain racial and religious harmony in Singapore.

The hon Minister in his Statement outlined the findings of scientific neurological research on the impact of hate speech on humans. It accords with my own research on the matter. The objective of the speakers is to prey on the human psyche to divide our communities along racial and religious lines by and, as said by the hon Minister, displacing logic and reasoning through desensitising individuals to verbal aggression, in part because it normalises what is usually socially condemned behaviour.

Research also shows that there is no difference in the impact of hate speech as opposed to offensive speech. It only takes more time for humans to be similarly influenced with respect of offensive speech.

Against that backdrop, the first point I wish to make is that we must continue to "invest" heavily in ensuring that, as a country, we remain united so that such seeds introduced by hate and offensive speeches will not take root in our multi-racial and multi-religious community.

The reality is that in this modern era, it is difficult to prevent people from hearing or reading hate and offensive speeches. It is not as easy as turning off the radio.

Hate and offensive speeches as well as fake news assail us through so many platforms, many of which are from overseas. We need to work hard on "immunising" our people and strengthen our social defence against these speakers.

In this regard, I will, shortly, in my Tamil speech, highlight how easy it is for members of a race to feel alienated by playing on ethnic sentiments.

I will, thereafter, in my Malay speech, highlight how regular outreach efforts between members of different religious backgrounds, such as through joining hands to celebrate each other's cultural festivals and help the less fortunate irrespective of their race and religion, is singularly powerful to guard against anyone who tries to separate us along racial and religious lines through hate speech. Sir, in Tamil, please.

(In Tamil): [Please refer to Vernacular Speech.] In any society, we can find some people expressing their views to the extent of creating hatred against others. However, we have to be careful when such expressions go to the extent of instigating racial issues. Let me give an example.

Recently, a market operator issued a notice in Hindi instead of the Tamil Language. It went viral in the social media and many Tamils came to know about this incident and were angry. Such anger is understandable.

However, the problem got worse when some people in social media said that henceforth Hindi will be used to replace Tamil Language. They said that Hindi would become an official language.

These views are not true. Such hateful views evoke unnecessary and wrong emotions.

It was only after Minister Iswaran had explained about these false exchanges that many felt comforted.

Minister Iswaran had assured that Tamil Language is one of four official languages of Singapore. He also said that henceforth translations should be done in a responsible and careful manner.

After Singapore's independence, it was written in our Constitution that Tamil Language will be one of the official languages. Even then, the thought of another language replacing Tamil has risen.

Many arouse racial feelings and try to divide our society. We have to examine such incidents. We must courageously confront such efforts that try to divide our society.

(In Malay): [Please refer to Vernacular Speech.] People who are involved in hate speech seek to divide society along religious lines and try to create an "us" versus "them" situation. The objective is to create a perception that one group within a society is different and more important than the rest.

In this way, the group that feels that they are superior will be insensitive towards discrimination and, in fact, commit acts of violence towards others.

Knowing this, if the bonds within our society are strong and cannot be undone either along racial or religious lines, hate speakers will not succeed in their efforts.

Here, I would like to commend the efforts by religious leaders in Singapore who place importance on cooperation with their peers from other religions in order to show that we are a cohesive society and are united.

One example of such a religious leader in Bukit Batok is Dr Suhami Mustar, the Executive Chairman of Ar-Raudhah Mosque.

For the past few years, the mosque has been reaching out to disadvantaged families in Bukit Batok regardless of race or religion.

For instance, the mosque organises activities to entertain families in Bukit Batok during the celebration of various festivals, like Chinese New Year, Deepavali, Christmas as well as Hari Raya Puasa.

These celebrations are jointly organised with other religious organisations like the Catholic Church, the Taoist temple and the Hindu temple.

The recipient families, comprising community members from different races and religions, will naturally sense the close friendship between different races and religions.

It is not just that. In the spirit of brotherhood, these religious organisations also help one another.

For example, during the Hari Raya Haji prayers last year, two of our Taoist temple organisations built a tent at Bukit Batok Central for the benefit of around 1,000 Muslims so that they can perform their Hari Raya prayers led by an Ustaz from the Ar-Raudhah Mosque.

The congregants were able to perform their prayers properly and did not get wet despite the heavy rain at that time.

We are truly fortunate to have far-sighted religious leaders like Dr Suhami and his peers from the various religions in Bukit Batok.

We must continue to strengthen inter-racial and inter-religious relations so that hate speech, which can potentially divide our different races and religions, will not take root in our society in order to safeguard Singapore's cohesiveness and solidarity.

(In English): Sir, the next point I wish to make is that, having regard to the emerging trends, especially involving the social media, there is a basis to consider strengthening the current framework. On the phenomenon of weaponising social media, this has been dealt with in depth in the report of the Select Committee on Deliberate Online Falsehoods which made 22 recommendations, and I would not say more on this.

I do think, however, that there is a need to see how we can prevent or deprive any commercial entity or person from making money by being platforms or providing support for hate and offensive speeches that may create disaffection along racial and religious lines. We could consider adapting the provisions dealing with terrorism financing. This will make corporations and people think twice before deciding to support such hate and offensive speeches.

Next, I suggest a re-think on the decision to oust judicial review of Government action under the Maintenance of Religious Harmony Act and the Internal Security Act to deal with hate speech incidents that affect the maintenance of racial and religious harmony.

In some quarters, there is a concern about the possibility for the wide-ranging powers vested with the executive arm of our Government to be abused in future. In fact, I received an e-mail from my resident expressing this point.

Judicial review by the judiciary, which is an independent branch of our Government, will provide an important assurance and signalling effect to people having such concerns. This does not mean that the judiciary will substitute its decision on the matter; the narrow focus of judicial review is to ascertain the legality, rationality and procedural propriety of the executive’s decision.

I shall now conclude. Last month, I attended an Officers Cadet Course Commissioning Parade at SAFTI MI. It was a proud moment for all gathered there; particularly the officer cadets and parents. I was delighted to see about 10 religious leaders standing side by side and offering prayers and blessings to the newly commissioned officers drawn from different races and religions. This has been a longstanding tradition of the SAF. The Chief of Navy, who was seated beside me, mentioned to me that each time a Navy vessel is launched, our religious leaders will be in attendance to offer prayers and blessings too.

Having enjoyed relative peace and security for so long, we may be tempted to take such things for granted. The reality is that in many parts of the world today, this is not at all common. The peace and security we enjoy is a direct result of the painstaking efforts of succeeding generations of our Government leaders, fully backed by fellow Singaporeans, to ensure that we preserve multiracial and religious harmony. In the words of the hon Minister, he said, "We took no chances."

Our unity and future as a nation will continue to depend in large part on how we manage race and religious issues. It is therefore of paramount importance that we continue to be vigilant and guard against the propagation of hate and offensive speeches that affect the maintenance of racial and religious harmony in Singapore.

5.17 pm

The Minister for Culture, Community and Youth (Ms Grace Fu Hai Yien): Mr Speaker, Singapore's approach to achieving and preserving social harmony is informed by both history and societal context.

In the early 1820s, when our immigrant forefathers first arrived in Singapore, they naturally formed enclaves based on where they came from or the language they spoke. The enclaves were further entrenched by our colonial rulers who divided Singapore into ethnic residential areas.

The years leading up to our independence in 1965 were fraught with many challenges that threatened to tear our society apart. The social bonds formed amongst the people were fragile; the slightest provocation or tension could incite violent conflict. Our students today are still taught about the painful lessons of the Maria Hertogh riots in 1950 and the 1964 Race Riots.

We managed to overcome those challenges. We nurtured a sense of community and belief in a common destiny, by choosing to build a nation based on justice and equality for all. A nation where you and I are co-equals as citizens. As the late Mr Lee Kuan Yew said, "Everybody will have his place: equal; language, culture, religion".

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

The strong community relations we enjoy today arose neither by accident nor by the laws of nature. We strove to enable every community to have its own space to practise its culture and customs. At the same time, we sought to maximise our common space so that Singaporeans can live, work and play side by side in mutual respect, sharing common experiences, and growing a sense of shared identity.

We have a nuanced approach towards racial and religious relations. Every Singaporean has the right and freedom to practise beliefs of choice, to enjoy past-times of choice, and to appreciate arts and culture of choice. But such a right cannot be an unfettered one. For a small country like Singapore, how we exercise this right should also consider the impact on our fellow Singaporeans. We live side by side with others of different races and religions, and in close proximity. Thus, every Singaporean has to be accommodating and practise give and take. This means giving up a bit of one’s own space and comfort for others, but in return, we can expect others to do the same for us.

In Singapore, our Constitution, laws and policies have been the traditional backstop against hate speech and incitement to violence. The Minister for Home Affairs has touched extensively on the rationale of our policies. But can we assume the absence of offensive speech or communal violence in our society means there is social harmony and cohesion? Mr Lee Kuan Yew once said, "No amount of troops would be able to stop the trouble if there was real hatred between the different communities. The decisive factor would be dependent upon the goodwill between neighbours".

Indeed, forging a united people needs more than just the absence of denigration and discrimination and more than law enforcement. For while law enforcement can arguably remove hatred, it cannot fill the void with respect and empathy. A strong cohesive society starts from tolerance, and over time, moves to accommodation. From accommodation, we progress to an appreciation of commonalities and differences. Finally, friendships built on goodwill, trust and confidence in one another will form and must form. It is a process that requires continued effort.

To this end, we have been expanding opportunities for Singaporeans to grow a deeper understanding of one another through honest dialogues, across a range of topics. For instance, Ask Me Anything (AMA) is a community-led series of conversations where different religious leaders take turns to clarify common misconceptions about their beliefs and practices, as well as engage on sensitive issues. AMA is one of the initiatives under MCCY's BRIDGE, or Broadening Religious and Racial Interaction through Dialogue and General Education, which provides safe spaces for such honest and open dialogues to take place. Over 200 people turned up at one recent session on Catholicism in December 2018 to learn more from members of the Catholic Archdiocese. I participated in one of the facilitated breakout groups, and witnessed how questions that seemed sensitive could be asked and discussed extensively but calmly in a supportive environment; allowing participants to clarify their doubts; get a better understanding about each other without imposing beliefs on one another; and developing trust through deeper understanding.

Beyond religious issues, MCCY’s Youth Conversations have allowed more than 8,000 youths to come together and share perspectives on issues of national importance such as social divides, vulnerable communities and environmental sustainability. In 2019, a panel will be formed to further engage youths. The aim is to articulate a youth vision for Singapore in 2025 and an SG Youth Action Plan, which will cover areas ranging from jobs and employment to mental health.

We will continue to support and expand these platforms and spaces where our citizens can engage one another candidly, discuss their perspectives, and if necessary, agree to disagree respectfully. We will also continue to learn from experiences and best practices internationally about promoting and preserving social harmony. We will be holding the International Conference on Cohesive Societies in June this year, where we will bring together policy-makers, community and religious leaders and academics from Singapore, from the region and the wider world to share experiences, discuss ideas and promote collaboration.

Our religious and community leaders continue to spend much time and attention reaching out regularly to one another to build mutual trust and understanding. This is not only through regular conversations, but also through informal activities such as the annual Harmony Games organised by members of the National Steering Committee on Racial and Religious Harmony. Our religious and community leaders have also showed solidarity in trying times. For instance, after the Lou Engle incident last year, the Christian and Muslim community came together and showed how our strong inter-religious bonds would not be weakened by insensitive remarks.

Second, we must continue to appreciate how our different cultures and religions make Singapore richer and more vibrant.

Our museums and heritage institutions foster deeper understanding of our diverse cultural heritage anchored on our shared history. We express our national pride in the rich diversity of our hawker culture in our ongoing UNESCO bid. Indeed, life would be worse off if our hawker centres all sold food of one single race, or if we could not sit together with friends of other races to eat our meals. Fortunately, we can have food from all races all at one hawker centre catering to different dietary requirements, and together with our friends and neighbours of different races and religions.

Our vibrant and diverse arts scene also helps promote understanding across communities, through works that reflect our multi-cultural identity, as well as works that introduce us to foreign cultures. Many arts productions, through their exploration of humanity and societal issues, also remind us of universal commonalities while recognising our differences. Whether you enjoy performances at the Esplanade’s Pesta Raya – Malay Festival of Arts, or appreciating art works at the National Gallery Singapore, the arts are a powerful platform to unify people of different backgrounds.

We should continue to celebrate one another’s festivals. Those organised by the People's Association (PA) and the Inter-Racial and -Religious Confidence Circles (IRCCs) provide opportunities for people of diverse backgrounds to come together and appreciate our different music, dances and much more.

Third, we need to continuously build and nurture strong bonds with one another. I am glad to note there are survey results showing that more people are having friends of different races. We need to keep at it.

Sports is an activity that brings people from all walks of life together. We will strive to provide children and youth with more opportunities to play with one another from a young age, through the ActiveSG Clubs and Academies.

We have also expanded participation in Outward Bound Singapore (OBS). Students from different schools and different backgrounds will have common experiences and bond by facing challenges together. We hope that through these experiences, people will form meaningful friendships with one another, regardless of race, language or religion.

At the same time, we will continue to encourage a more caring and giving community. We will provide more platforms for collaboration, volunteerism and giving. For instance, we are expanding the SG Cares Community Networks to better connect volunteers and other resources to areas of need.

To conclude, Singapore's social cohesion and harmony is fundamental to our survival, prosperity and identity. But more than that, it is a testament to how we have succeeded in making our diversity a strength. Our diversity is not a challenge or a weakness. Because of our different cultures, beliefs and practices, each of us is able to bring something special and make a unique contribution to the Singapore story. We have woven a beautiful tapestry from many different coloured strands and it is what defines us as Singaporeans – a key to our identity.

We have no illusions that our social harmony is fragile and precious, and we must strive constantly to protect and strengthen it. Ultimately, defeating hateful ignorance and building a cohesive society depends on all Singaporeans; not just the Government, but every one of us. Each and every one of us can and must contribute to building a more united Singapore, by reaching out, listening to one another, and building trust one encounter at a time. Our nation will then always be a home for all Singaporeans, bound by friendship and a common destiny. Mr Speaker, allow me to finish my speech in Mandarin, please.

(In Mandarin): [Please refer to Vernacular Speech.] Singapore's racial and religious harmony is fundamental to our survival and key to our economic prosperity. Mutual respect and tolerance between the various races and religions are already embedded in our national consciousness. Although there have been no racial conflicts in the past 50 years, the global rise of populism and religious extremism has allowed race and religion to be exploited to divide societies. Our community organisations must continue their efforts to maintain our social harmony.

In Singapore, while each community has its space, we must also expand the common space so that Singaporeans can live, work and play together with a spirit of inclusiveness and mutual respect. Through participation in shared activities and the building of shared experiences, people will understand and trust one another better. This contributes to strengthening our national identity.

Our Constitution and laws protect the interests of different communities, including the prohibition of hate speech and behaviour that incite violence. However, building social cohesion and a shared national identity cannot be achieved through legislation alone. Our goal is to move from simply preventing discrimination, towards a people united in hearts and minds. This is the process of moving from tolerance, accommodation and celebrating our diversity to mutual trust. It requires constant effort from both the Government and the people.

Singapore's long-term peace and stability require Singaporeans to reach out and listen to each other, communicate and build mutual trust, one encounter at a time. Singapore is a home for all of us, bound by friendship and a common destiny. Let us uphold the principle of safeguarding cultural and religious diversity, march towards the goal of a united nation regardless of race, language and religion and write a unique, exciting chapter of our Singapore Story.

5.31 pm

Ms Denise Phua Lay Peng (Jalan Besar): I support our Home Affairs Minister's Statement on "Restricting hate speech to maintain racial and religious harmony in Singapore" for two reasons.

One, anyone who cares for Singapore will appreciate and testify that racial and religious harmony is critical to our well-being and that it must be rigorously defended.

The second is this: my belief that unrestricted hate speech, especially if it turns viral, can quickly turn one racial or religious group against another and destroy the very social fabric that allows each race and religion to co-exist in harmony.

I wish to make a few points on the untenability of unrestricted freedom of speech, the adequacy of the current legal frameworks and also to seek clarifications over a few concerns I have.

On freedom of speech. Sir, there are some people who strongly believe that restricting any form of speech, no matter how hateful or destructive, is a curb on one's freedom of speech, one's rights. Proponents argue, "It is my right to say what I want to say. No one else should stop me and no one is even able to stop me for practical reasons." Sir, there are at least three objections against this argument.

Firstly, although freedom of speech is an important value, especially in a free democracy, free speech, however, is not the only important value in society. There are other values that we honour, such as the freedom of other persons to live without intimidation and harassment; such as racial and religious harmony; such as mutual respect; anti-bullying and treating other people with dignity. Freedom of speech is important but needs to be balanced against other values and interests of the rest of society.

Secondly, each of us is a member of a larger society. Rights carry responsibilities and freedom of speech ought to be exercised with due regard to those who occupy the same living space as us. Unrestricted free speech, especially hate speech, puts a risk to the order of society. I remember what my friend, management guru Dr Stephen Covey, who is the author of the bestseller "7 Habits of Highly Effective People" once said to me. He was talking about Singapore and the issues of freedom, order and discipline during one of his trips here many years ago and this is what Dr Covey said to me. He shared, "When I was younger, I yearned for freedom. As I grew older, I yearned for order." And then he said "Now that I am much older, I realised that order is freedom." Indeed, the order in Singapore gives us the freedom to practise our culture and faiths. Unrestricted hate speech threatens the very order that gives us the freedom to practise our ethnic culture and religious faiths.

Thirdly, even if restricting hate speech is not fully enforceable nor is proven to eradicate or reduce prejudices and discriminations, it is still important for society and Government to make a clear stand in principle against actions that can incite violence, hatred and bigotry.

For the above reasons, Sir, I support the proposition that hate speech should not be protected and ought to be restricted; and that unrestricted freedom of expression should not be supported.

Next, on adequacy of the current legal framework. When the Ministerial Statement was first proposed, some of my fellow Members and I had thought that there would be new pieces of legislation introduced to further restrict hate speech for the purpose of racial and religious harmony. I am glad to know that this is not so. I think the current legal framework standing on sections 298 and 298A of the Penal Code, the Maintenance of Religious Harmony Act, and sections 3 and 4 of the Sedition Act are sufficient to deter offensive and hate speeches.

I believe it is important for the Minister to reiterate and to confirm that this Statement is merely to establish clarity of the current provisions and approach and that no one, no Singaporean, needs to be alarmed that there are additional measures or safeguards against hate and offensive speech that threatens our harmony here.

On Watain. Sir, I want to next touch on the Watain episode because I think it is relevant to future similar cases. When the objection to the initially approved Watain concert was first surfaced by members of the Christian community, there were at least, I think, four factors of consideration to just let the concert go ahead. One is the right of choice for people to choose; second is the freedom of expression; the third is, I guess, the reluctance of the State to be perceived as overly paternalistic and also the reality, the tactical reality, that the concert was already given the go-ahead by IMDA and cancellation would cause inconvenience to and displeasure of the organisers and the attendees. However, as more information was uncovered on the group, it became clear that revoking the concert licence to perform was a valid move and there are good reasons for this.

The track record of Watain and its nonchalance towards acts of terrorism and going beyond its onstage satanic rituals into the realm of lawlessness and criminal activity are, to say the least, very disturbing. The Watain leader's confirmation that he totally encourages, I quote, "any kind of terrorist acts committed in the name of Watain" runs counter to what SG Secure is trying to promote.

Also, the unapologetic and blatant anti-Christian views expressed on many occasions by the Watain's frontman calling all his enemies "Christian sheep who don't dare to confront their enemy" and his encouragement of church burning. They are, to me, highly alarming and offensive.

Even members of the Malay-Muslim community, including mosque leaders, have also expressed objections to the lyrics of the group and its derogatory views towards Christians and Jews. They, too, voiced their support for the cancellation, as confirmed in a recent Berita Harian report.

It is unfortunate that, in this instance, the Government's decision was reversed so close to the event date, just a couple of days, even when it affects a small group. For that, I think an apology is due to the Watain group and the affected concert goers. But for the Government to go ahead with the concert just because it was initially approved, after knowing what it now knows or uncovered, would have been a wrong decision. Sir, two wrongs do not make a right. I, therefore, support the Minister's decision to revoke permission for the Watain concert to carry on and I hope we have learnt valuable lessons from it in the areas of better due diligence and also earlier consultations with key stakeholder groups so that future episodes can be managed more effectively.

Lastly, on clarifications. I have some clarifications that I hope the Minister can address. First, on how the public will know or is educated on what constitutes acceptable, offensive and hate speech and, second, on how the Government is going to enforce the current framework to reach a healthy and not an unhealthy state of restraint.

Offensive speech in the grey zone. As the Minister has rightly pointed out, speech comes on a spectrum and does not fall into neat categories. Whilst it is easier to identify hate speech, offensive speech is not so. I agree with the Minister that an absolutist approach of the two extremes of either totally banning or totally allowing all forms of hate and offensive speech is not wise. But this leaves a grey zone which sits varying degrees of offensive speech. Whether action is taken against the speaker depends on, as Minister has shared, the degree of offensiveness of the words and the likely impact in terms of the platform of delivery, the occasion and the reach.

In this framework of "it depends" guided by "common sense", how can an understanding be achieved with the typical Singaporean, with the man in the street, so as not to cast any unnecessary fear or any unhealthy self-censorship in society?

Where does one, for example, draw the line in debating or discussing issues, such as abortion, infidelity, LGBT issues which, to some, are rooted in religious principles and, to other people, are just secular discords based on how liberal or how conservative one is?

Where is the line between public discourse and platforms, such as private WhatsApp group chats? Should Singaporeans be advised to err on the side of caution to avoid any potentially offensive speech that can stir racial and religious harmony that may just go viral? So, these are clarifications that need to be addressed.

Sir, there ought to be a more effective way of educating the public, from younger ones to older ones, on what is acceptable, what is hate and what is offensive speech so that we attain a healthy and not an unhealthy state of restraint in society.

Clarification on enforcement. If policy makers are serious about restricting hate and offensive speech to defend our racial and religious harmony that we so value, how does the Government plan to enforce this approach?

There ought to be a clearer and publicised process by which violations are reported, for instance, and decisions by the Government to be consulted with the relevant stakeholder groups, such as key religious and non-key religious groups or leaders.

In conclusion, Sir, I am all for restricting hate speech for the sake of racial and religious harmony in our beloved country. And just because an approach may be hard to implement does not mean that we cannot learn to implement it or apply it better. So, notwithstanding my request for clarifications, Sir, I totally and strongly support the Ministerial Statement.

5.42 pm

The Senior Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Home Affairs and National Development (Ms Sun Xueling): Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, last week, IPS released an important survey on the role of religion in the public and private space. Of the 1,800 Singapore residents interviewed, one in four found it acceptable for religious extremists to publish their views on the Internet or social media. A significantly higher proportion of younger people found the publication of extreme views acceptable, with almost half of those surveyed aged 18 to 25 saying they would allow such publication.

This is similar to the feedback received from some younger members of the public who disagreed with the cancellation of the Watain concert. They raised questions about the Government’s moral authority to police music, performances and artistic content.

I can understand this sentiment. Aspiring to have the freedom to express what one feels, the liberty to read and enjoy what one feels like, is seen to be a hallmark of a free and democratic society.

There are also other aspects of freedom that I think are important. The freedom to decide on one’s choice of religion and to practice it, the freedom to not be discriminated against because you are of a different race or religion.

I am sure we agree that we want all of the above freedoms. But what happens when these two sets of freedom collide or are on a trajectory to collide?

Some may be skeptical about why these two sets of freedom can collide. They can. If one were to ridicule or taunt believers of another religion, he may feel he is entitled to his “freedom of speech”, but the recipient can feel that he is entitled to be offended. And what about the recipient’s freedom of not being discriminated against?

These are difficult issues and each party is entitled to their own opinions and their rights. If we leave them to engage in a public disagreement, this could result in an escalating crescendo of extreme views against each other. And what if this spills into real action in the real world? So, someone has to act. And oftentimes, this ends up being the Government enforcement agency’s responsibility. If the enforcement agency does not act, the parties may take matters into their own hands.

The Government’s overview on music, performances and art is based on classification ratings, tied to age-appropriateness and consideration for public sensitivity. The IMDA regulates this. Not the MHA.

MHA is principally focused on public order issues and with that the maintenance of racial and religious harmony as it can impact public order. So, why did MHA get involved in the ban on Watain? MHA does not look at music and artistic content. MHA took into consideration the lyrics, views espoused by the band, and whether this would be significantly disrespectful, in this case, to the mainstream Christian community. In other cases, it could touch significantly on the sensitivities of other groups in Singapore. So, on religious harmony grounds, MHA recommended that Watain not be allowed to perform in Singapore.

But I feel the whole episode provides a few learning points. Firstly, agencies need to explain to the public that they are not making a value judgement on the art form. In the ban on Watain, there is no value judgement on black metal music. The fact of the matter is that the MHA was principally concerned about the words and the message that were being put out by the band, and the feelings, in this case, from the mainstream Christian community. It was not a value judgement on the genre of music.

Secondly, agencies need to be seen to be acting even-handedly towards different racial and religious groups. Minister Shanmugan has shared that bans on religious preachers in the past have been imposed on religious preachers across different religions. This even–handed approach is a point that is important to various racial and religious groups and needs to be repeated often.

Thirdly, while a judgement call has to be made on whether music and performances harm racial and religious harmony, such judgement calls should take place as early as possible so as to minimise confusion to arts practitioners and misunderstanding from the public that the Government makes decisions based on pressure from religious groups. So, we should look at processes and see how we can avoid a repeat.

On hindsight, we are all omniscient and prescient. Enforcement agencies will always be the whipping boy because they have to make a judgement call. If there is no public disorder, they are deemed to have over-reacted. If there is public disorder, they are seen to be lacking in preparation. Government agencies get no bonus points for active intervention to create a harmonious society. And over time, a harmonious society is taken as a given.

But, really, is it? Are we saying that society can magically chug along, and as active individuals in our society, we do not impact the course our society takes? I cannot believe that, and I do not think our young people will agree either. We are actually making a stand, taking action every day, in the words we speak, in what we do and what we do not do. Our actions or lack thereof have consequences.

So, we need to ask ourselves: how do we want the tone and texture of discourse to be in our society? Do we want civility, respect, consideration in our general discourse and public expressions of speech? The trade-off may be some restraint and the inability to be "spontaneous". Or do we want absolute freedom and anything goes – potentially insults, taunts, offensive speech, in the name of freedom of expression? Should different lines be drawn just because it is on social media, or in arts and entertainment?

We need to strike a balance. On the one hand, we cannot have a free for all situation so that one can step all over another and expect the other not to react or retaliate. On the other hand, we also do not want a situation where civil and considered discourse on all matters related to religion, race, or a group’s values or orientation be avoided or tip-toed around so as to avoid any possibility of causing offence. In fact this debate we are having in this House, in a considered way, shows that such issues can and should be discussed. As long as we understand what we are trying to achieve, and how we can work together to achieve them.

In the words of the great American singer and song-writer Bob Dylan, who won the US Presidential Medal of Freedom in 2012 and the Nobel Prize in Literature in 2016, he once said, "A hero is someone who understands the responsibility that comes with his freedom." His songs gave a voice to his generation, mobilising them and motivating them. And he understood the balance that even artists have to strive to achieve.

As we aspire to greater freedoms, with the stability and prosperity our society affords us, let us also have a care for those who may be impacted by our decisions, impacted by our words, and also those who toil to safeguard what we have. Our pursuit for freedoms brings a lightness to our spirit, but let us not forget those who carry our burdens for us – anchoring our racial and religious harmony for the prosperity and stability of Singapore. Mr Speaker in Chinese, please.

(In Mandarin): [Please refer to Vernacular Speech.] At the recent terrorist attack in Christchurch, the gunman killed 51 Muslims who were praying in the mosque. They were all unarmed. According to the gunman, it is the online hate speech and contents that have incited his racial discrimination and violent behaviour towards the Muslims.

It is thus clear that we cannot underestimate the influence of speech and literature. Sometimes, speech and literature can lift one's spirit and give people courage. But sometimes, they can also give rise to hatred and violence. We have to be particularly wary about speech and literature that involves racial and religious discrimination. Because, race and religion is the basic identity of a person. If a person is discriminated or insulted because of his birth, background, skin colour, religion and faith, it is equal to questioning the legitimacy of his very existence. And this can easily trigger hatred and conflict between races and religions.

How do we handle these speeches and literature that involves racial and religious discrimination?

Fortunately, Singapore has, since the early days of its independence, established racial and religious harmony as the pillar of our society, based on our own experience, lessons drawn from other countries and the understanding of the human nature. Our laws strictly forbid words and actions that instigate racial and religious enmity.

However, besides laws, I think the more important question is that whether each and every Singaporean has got enough sensitivity towards racial and religious discrimination. Can we practise what we believe in our daily lives to fulfil our commitment to social harmony, and strike a balance between personal freedom and the freedom of others?

Some may ask, I am not a terrorist, I just want to listen to some music and watch some videos. Some contents may contain racial and religious discrimination, but I can discern good from bad, I will not become terrorist. Can the Government have some confidence in me and not interfere with my freedom?

To this question, what I will say is this: When racial and religious discrimination creeps into the public view through various media, you may not be hurt, but the dignity of some other people may have already been hurt.

This is like someone insulting and bullying you, then putting a video of his action on the web, how will you feel?

Do not do unto others what you will not want others to do to you. We all hope that we live in a caring and courteous society, not one that is full of hatred and conflict.

Racial discrimination and religious discrimination, be it in the form of words or actions, may not have hurt you but it may have hurt other Singaporeans. When we see such words or actions, we should not remain an indifferent bystander, we should step forward, express our position and stop them.

As members of the Chinese community, if we do not step forward and stand up for our Christian or Muslim friends today, we may be the one who would be hurt tomorrow.

If you look at tragedies that have happened at our neighbouring countries, you will know that ethnic genocide may not be very far from us. For example, in 1998, during Indonesia’s Black May riot which targeted the Chinese community, there were almost 1,000 Chinese killed and nearly 500 Chinese women raped in Jakarta alone. During the 1965 ethnic cleansing in Indonesia, about 50,000 Chinese were slaughtered.

As a Singaporean, I would like to thank the Pioneer Generation for creating a harmonious environment. Racial and religious harmony need our continuous effort to maintain. Although Singapore may look peaceful now, it does not mean that we can lower our guard and be indifferent to it. When one of us steps forward to defend our social harmony, we should support him, and be grateful for his courage and sense of responsibility.

As a mother, I hope that Singapore has a peaceful future. I also hope that the younger generation of Singaporeans will work together with me to create a beautiful world without racial discrimination, religious discrimination, hatred or violence for our next generation.

5.56 pm

Mr Terence Ho Wee San (Nominated Member): Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, let me first start by saying it is clear we must manage hate speech and curb messages that can damage our social fabric. The multicultural diversity in Singapore is something precious we need to protect. Music that promotes hate against one group and potentially divide social need to be tightly regulated.

I have three points to make. One, as someone leading an arts company that presents concerts here and overseas, I would like to make a suggestion that the agencies responsible for licensing content coordinate better. Decisions made must be communicated earlier, so show organisers can make the necessary plans without incurring unnecessary expenses. Last minute changes of decisions are also not ideal, and should be kept to a minimum.

Two, while we make sure that we regulate hate speech and protect our social fabric, we also need to make sure that we do not end up reducing the space for creative expression and imagination. Creative expression does need space to flourish and a willingness to challenge boundaries. While we must be responsible for what we say or do in the public arena, we also need to understand creative expressions often should not be taken literally.

Three, as society matures and the populace becomes more educated, I hope the Government can continue to focus on helping citizens make informed decisions and appreciating the diversity of creative expressions. In the sphere of arts, culture and entertainment, there will always be a diversity of world views and values represented.

I trust my fellow citizens. I am sure Singaporeans want to keep the diversity of choices they now have even as we shield the vulnerable and the young from hateful and divisive messages. In Mandarin, please.

(In Mandarin): [Please refer to Vernacular Speech.] Making Arts and Culture for Harmony. Singapore's racial harmony did not come easy. Cultural diversity is our valuable spiritual wealth. A Zaobao report on 24 March 2019 pointed out aptly that "by seeking agreement while shelving differences, Singapore uses the advantage of a multi-cultural society to draw on each other's strength and build resilience among its citizens, so that it can face challenges brought about by an increasingly polarised world, with confidence."

Arts and culture play an important role in social cohesion by allowing communities of different race, background, religion and language to have a common space to continue, combine and create valuable works based on their ethnic culture. Different ethnic groups have different cultural identities; we must first respect and understand each other before we can reach consensus in values. Hence, I have three points to make in this area:

First, I hope that Government Ministries and public agencies can coordinate and communicate better. Before performance licenses are granted, agencies must do in-depth studies and consult professional opinions. Agencies should also conduct more dialogues to understand from the organiser the content and nature of the performance. We must work together to avoid last minute cancellation because this will lead to mistrust in the relevant agency and people will question its authority. I hope the relevant agencies can make it clear what is allowed and what is prohibited, so that more arts companies can have a better understanding and take proactive measures when planning their future performances.

Second, we need more space for creative expression and challenge the boundaries so that arts can flourish and sublime. To create unique and forward-looking works in a multi-cultural society, we must think about and work towards tapping on our strength of "harmony in diversity" and endearing arts to the public.

Third, as society matures and the populace becomes more educated, I hope the government can increase the communication and be more transparent when making sensitive decisions, so that people can have a deeper understanding. Hold dialogues if necessary. I hope the Government can realise that art performances and production need a wider space for imagination to fully represent the essence and diversity of their content.

Arts groups and artistes must build a high level of cultural confidence, cultural awareness and cultural responsibility, with the prerequisite of ensuring national harmony and safety. Arts and culture can be a centripetal force, allowing people from the different ethnic communities to work together to build a uniquely Singapore multicultural society so that Singapore can become an endearing and liveable home for everyone!

(In English): Artistes and arts groups can make arts as an integral part of everyone's everyday life. Bringing together people of different races, religions, and backgrounds, and creating a shared understanding across our various communities. As we say, "We cannot touch music, but music can touch you." I hope the artistic expression and imagination created by our artistes and arts groups can bring people together as a nation, uplifting our spirits.

Mr Deputy Speaker: Mr Saktiandi Supaat.

6.02 pm

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

(In Malay): [Please refer to Vernacular Speech.] This is, indeed, an opportune time to discuss the issue of preserving racial and religious harmony in Singapore. As a Malay/Muslim and a minority in Singapore, I hope that my sharing can help to further contribute to and strengthen the harmony that we enjoy in Singapore.

Hate speech or offensive speech occurring elsewhere will have a significant impact on us in Singapore. Hate ideology which led to vile irresponsible action hit close to home in my ward recently. The recent attack on two mosques in Christchurch ‒ this event may seem distant but, indeed, I was shocked when I found out it was not that distant after all. It has impacted a Malay/Muslim resident in my constituency and her family.

I visited her recently at her rental flat to offer my condolences and show of support to her family.

She had just returned from New Zealand and shared stories, with her eyes full of tears and on the verge of crying, about her late eldest grandson, the late Tariq Rashid Omar, who was one of the victims in the New Zealand terror attack. Madam Zawiah Bte Mohd Tahir, 69 years old, is a Merdeka Generation lady with four children. Her eldest son, Rashid, a Singaporean, and his New Zealander wife had four children, and one of them was the late Tariq.

Upon entering her flat, she immediately showed photographs of her son and Tariq playing football and when he was a young boy. Madam Zawiah fondly recalled that Tariq used to collect “batu-batu” or stones when he was young, just like what Mdm Zawiah used to do at that age. She mentioned that this could be why she was not surprised when she learned that Tariq wanted to become a geologist and had graduated in geology in New Zealand. She shared that Tariq was a gentle, caring and devout young man, a talented soccer player who coached a junior team and had immense potential with a bright future ahead of him.

He was trying to help others during the incident at the mosque and was shot. On the day Madam Zawiah heard the shocking news, she was panic-stricken. Her only thought was to check whether she had enough savings to purchase a flight ticket to New Zealand to be with her eldest son’s family and, despite not being fluent in English, she flew there alone.

Some of our non-Muslim and Chinese business community members and volunteers in Toa Payoh East-Novena banded together to help her in any way possible, including assisting her with the costs of the urgent flight.

The late Tariq was one of many innocent lives lost among the 50 who died in Christchurch. But I feel reassured and optimistic that, even in Toa Payoh East-Novena, our community is aware of the deadly effects of hate speech on one of our own and have offered help.

So, here in the comforts of Singapore, we, too, are not immune if hate speech on different groups or segments of community proliferate globally. We have family members, Singaporeans of different religions and races travelling widely and living abroad for work as well. Here in Singapore, the social media and our openness allow us to be exposed to a myriad of information. What is important is that we exercise caution and adopt a firm stand against hate speech directed at any group or segments of society in Singapore.

(In English): My resident's story and the loss of her eldest grandchild, is just one example but I hope it should raise awareness about how hate speech could have adverse consequences for anyone when we least expect it. Indeed we have many policies and laws in place to root out behaviours and factors that threaten social harmony such as the Maintenance of Religious Harmony Act and Penal Code sections 298, 298A, 267C and 505, and also the Sedition Act. We are lauded as the model of social harmony. But let me state upfront that we should not allow offensive and hate speech to allow to normalise in Singapore. That is within our control. What happens in other countries is beyond our control.

In his Statement, the Minister posed a few questions to the House. I wish to state my views earlier on in my speech.

I fully agree with the Minister and the facts and studies he shared that addressing hate speech targeting ethnic religious communities via logic and reasoning is likely to be ineffective. Normalising it and allowing it to proliferate is dangerous.

I also agree with the Minister that restrictions on offensive speech even when it is not strictly speaking hate speech needs to be applied judiciously and I still think Singapore's current approach in dealing with offensive speech – via the assessment of words and the material and its likely impact on the targeted community is a middle ground approach to take – relative to a blanket ban on all offensive speech and material.

I believe the Government has been impartial, fair and just in applying decisions thus far, but I think we can improve on making sure the neutrality of the Government in such decisions remains strong and unwavering. The Minister has highlighted clearly that government neutrality is key and the perception of it even more. How can we ensure that neutrality remains so when future decisions are made? Can we have a council of sorts akin to the Presidential Council of Minority and Religious Rights to advise the deciding Minister on matters relating to hate and offensive speech so that the neutrality element remains guarded? It could help alleviate issues of conflict of interest if in the future the deciding Minister is of a particular religion or race impacted by the offensive or hate speech or ideology, in particular for future Governments.

In addition, hate speech and offensive speech applies to various segments, races and religions on either side of the spectrum, for example, the rise in Islamophobia globally and the risks it poses to the Muslim community. I am sure MHA has looked into this and while the financial cost burden may be there, I feel it is necessary to reiterate that additional resources must be added to our security intelligence departments to look at terrorist threats from both sides of the spectrum as well as rising Islamophobia, so that internally we have a balanced view of the threats that may hit any Singaporean, regardless of race, language or religion and take pre-emptive action if needed.

But on top of all these, what more can we do? We must never be complacent and we should embrace ideas that help to mitigate the dangers of normalisation of hate speech. We are well connected to the world. We have a high number of citizens who have Internet access and are avid consumers of foreign news and social media content.

I would like to elaborate briefly on two points. One is how we can build resilience in our future generation to identify offensive and hate speech and reject such efforts. Second, how we as a nation, can take efforts at all levels to reduce the risk of perpetuating stereotypes of segments by race or religion which can be used as fuel or seeds for hate and offensive speech.

Mr Speaker, it is troubling to note from the Institute of Policy Studies' poll recently released, or study that was recently released, which said that although more than 97% of respondents said religious leaders should not incite violence or hatred against other religions, 26.8% of respondents were open to religious extremists posting their views on social media. Why do our young have such views? Many of them, according to IPS study, are aged 18 to 25 years who indicated they would allow such views to be espoused as long as these do not instigate harm on others. Did we miss a step in our outreach to our young to educate them on the dangers of exposure to such hate posts?

My earlier story with regard to my resident highlighted the dangers, the deadly dangers, of hate speech, and it kills.

So, I hope we would initiate an inter-ministry approach, involving MHA, MCCY, MOE and MCI to look into this. I read about a school in Brazil where students are taught how to identify fake news. Maybe we can apply a similar approach in our schools and tertiary institutions and use such skills to identify hate or offensive speech so that it does not get normalised easily here.

Next, the threat of terrorism from all races and religion is a practical reason for all Singaporeans to take Islamophobia, for example, and all forms of racial and religious discrimination seriously.

We would be looking at Singapore through rose-tinted glasses if we truly believe there is no racial discrimination in Singapore, or that it is so insignificant that we do not have to worry. This absolutely necessitates the conversations we are having here. It is not uncommon to find discriminatory comments often based off negative stereotypes left on discussion platforms on social media. These comments are not malicious to be prosecuted under our legal framework, but they demonstrate a lack of understanding and unfair generalisation towards specific races or religions. Because we have the MHRA and relevant Penal Code sections, these comments are already largely self-censored, so imagine what hateful words would transpire if we did not have the Act in place.

However, to minimise discrimination and pursue social harmony, we must go beyond restricting hate speech. The Government should expand efforts to encourage racial harmony beyond school, to the workplace, as well as working with the community. Maybe more can be done to encourage even more Singaporeans of various races and religion to have friends from other races and most importantly for sharing more stories of bonds and trust between races more prevalently, in order to build up the trust premium among the different races and religion.

The risk of perpetuating of stereotypes is another issue that we should address as it can be fuel or ingredient for hate speech and ideology.

If we perpetuate stereotypes, parents for example can pass on this mistrust and stereotypes to their children, and the cycle carries on generation after generation. The mistrust and stereotyping will remain entrenched, never going away, unless we nip the problem in the bud and change these mindsets and perceptions. As such, I would like to suggest that young parents be exposed to programmes that will promote opportunities for them to mingle with people from all races and religion, and to experience their culture. We have done all these. Maybe these can be done even more at the grassroots level through sports and interest groups, for example, as mentioned by Minister Grace Fu earlier. In TEN, for example, we have cycling enthusiasts group made up of young professionals of various races and sports could be a good example to form bonds. We are trying to encourage more young parents to join these activities. Through these programmes it is hoped that they will develop positive perceptions about their fellow Singaporeans regardless of race, and hope they would guide their own children with love, not discrimination or hate. If, from stereotyping, distrust, mischief and misguidance among some people build up, then with the prevalence of hate speech and hate messages, the cracks can turn into chasms. And once this happens, what is not normal becomes the norm.

I note that with the help of the IRCC, some religious organisations of different faiths have collaborated to implement volunteer programmes, such as the blood donation drive by Masjid Khalid and Heart of God Church. I hope that such collaborations will be encouraged, as charity is an excellent platform to put volunteers and beneficiaries on the same page.

I would thus suggest that to create more opportunities for interaction. We can look into say a Buddhist volunteer who usually volunteers for the temple's charity programmes could work with Muslim volunteers at a mosque to distribute food to the needy or perform ushering duties, for example. Hindu volunteers could put together a performance to entertain elderly beneficiaries of a Buddhist temple. This is in line with the national goal of encouraging Singaporeans to be more involved in volunteer work. Religious institutions, with their large networks of beneficiaries and NGOs, are good places to start, if they open themselves to accepting volunteers of any religion.

We cannot restrict hate speech beyond the shores of Singapore, but we can de-normalise it at home, by making it not cool, by speaking out against it. As long as it is something that seeks to glorify hate speech, it must not be allowed in Singapore. This is not because Singaporeans are immature and easily swayed by hate speech, no. It is about sending a very clear message and taking a firm stand against something that threatens our social fabric. Can we do more to help others understand why certain acts or words are so offensive, that it is not a matter of being small-minded or intolerant? I wonder if we can tap on local celebrities and influencers or even more to help engage the youths and spread the message? Can we also work with our corporate partners and labour unions to educate our employers and employees to reduce efforts to perpetuate stereotypes or build whistle-blowing policy on discrimination and actions that stereotype certain segments.

On a final note, the Internet has become a toxic waste dump for hate and malice, and any news story can pretty much be manipulated to divide people, not to mention perpetuate stereotypes too. The Internet promotes a sheep-mentality that turns people into raging mobs without obtaining a full understanding of the situation. In Singapore, children as young as eight years old have access to the Internet. This is a crucial matter that we have to pay attention to. I look forward to the strengthening of our laws to rein in those who spread hate speech via Internet platforms and social media.

I would like to thank Minister Shanmugam once again for the debate and his decisive actions taken recently as well as the clear point by point explanation to explain how Singapore deals with hate speech and why it needs to be unique to our context. I hope Singapore will continue to walk the tight-rope with good balance, to preserve the peace and harmony that we enjoy. This is a never-ending goal that our leaders, religious groups, all Singaporeans must continuously strive for.

Mr Deputy Speaker, I support the current measures to curb hate speech, but I think more can be done to support it for future generations.

6.17 pm

Ms Joan Pereira (Tanjong Pagar): Mr Deputy Speaker, I rise in support of the Motion on restricting hate speech to maintain our racial and religious harmony.

Everyone believes in the importance of racial and religious harmony but what happens when hate speech and offensive speech take place? In this age of high interconnectivity, such negative expressions through messaging, music, writing and art can travel the globe at the speed of light. The mask of anonymity and the camouflage of encryption further aid the proliferation of hate speech.

A body of research and our own experiences had shown us that it is easier to pick up bad behaviour than good. Thus, we need holistic measures to prevent a downward spiral of hate speech begetting more retaliating hate speech.

History teaches us that in all communities and countries, racial and religious harmony is fragile. Hence, it is important that we nip any threats in the bud as early as possible. We cannot afford the escalation of toxic communication nor the contagion of acrimony. Hate speech should not be tolerated and those who propagate it must be made to face consequences, including punishment to serve as deterrent.

To borrow medical terminology, we need to build our herd or group immunity against hate speech through the vaccine of public education and of building trust among communities to overcome ignorance and misinformation. The greater the number of Singaporeans and residents who resist and call out hate and offensive speech, the more protection we have as a nation. Sir, in Mandarin.

(In Mandarin): [Please refer to Vernacular Speech.] To borrow a medical terminology, we need to build our collective immunity against the hate speech through the vaccine of building trust among communities to overcome ignorance and misinformation. The greater the number of Singaporeans and residents who resist and call out hate and offensive speech, the more protection we have as a nation.

(In English): We also need to strengthen our capabilities in dealing with three groups of people.

The first group is those who feel targeted but who may keep silent, bearing grudges. Subsequently, when the occurrences of hate speech become more frequent, some in this group may lose control and turn violent to hurt those they perceive as perpetrators. How can we identify the silent sufferers who may blow up and calm these "victims" before they make outbursts?

The second group is those who speak up. However, if they do not communicate in a constructive way, they may actually cause more harm and contribute to a more explosive situation. How can we help them to express and register their objections to hate speech which target them, but in ways which will not exacerbate the problem?

The third group is those traumatised by hate speech and related incidents. What happens overseas may also affect us. How do we help our people who have been traumatised by such incidents overseas?

Finally, we need to counter the propagators of hate speech by showing them in their true light. They incite hatred and even encourage criminal acts and terrorism. The music group, Watain, is one such example. Their hypocrisy and inconsistency between what they advocate and what they do should be highlighted. Even as the group encourages hate speech and urges the destruction of harmonious and constructive communities, its members continue to enjoy the convenience and even luxuries of the products of peace. These include the infrastructure and the services of people from different races and religions working hard to provide them with clean water, safe food, reliable travel and electricity which make their concerts possible. People who advocate hatred, chaos and destruction cannot have it both ways.

Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, racial and religious harmony is integral to the survival and prosperity of our nation. We must protect and nurture this precious but delicate asset to the best of our ability. We should never take it for granted but seek, instead, to constantly fortify and strengthen it.

6.21 pm

Assoc Prof Walter Theseira (Nominated Member): Mr Deputy Speaker, I support the Ministerial Statement that Singaporeans should be united in standing against hate speech, for the protection of racial and religious harmony in Singapore. I support the broad principle that we should have a calibrated approach to address offensive speech that may injure racial and religious harmony. But that is a motherhood statement. So, let me get down to details.

Sir, I do not think it is sufficient for the Government as a matter of public policy to take religions and cultures as they are, when deciding what is offensive speech. There are inherent contradictions between the great and historic truths embodied in different religious and cultural traditions. When these contradictions surface in public, people may and do take offence. This contradiction can only be resolved with the state promoting an enlightened and neutral secularism that respects all religions and races but which also firmly pushes back on attempts to encroach on the public space to the detriment of all.

Sir, let me explain what I mean by this basic contradiction. I believe this House accepts that every major religion has at heart certain great truths about the purpose of life and the way we should live a meaningful life. Those who are non-religious also seek meaning and purpose in life. This is a natural response to the question of human existence.

But the problem is that all these great truths cannot be truthful all at once; and even if by divine providence they are, human practice inevitably corrupts the truth. Because great truths compel us to put principles into practice, the end result is that offence can and will be taken.

Consider the following. Christianity would not exist if Jesus had not driven out the merchants and the money changers from the Temple and created the conditions for a social revolution.

The Protestant churches would not exist if Martin Luther had not published his 95 theses against the abuses of the medieval Catholic Church.

Islam would not exist if the Prophet, peace be upon him, had not put divine revelation into practice by mobilising society against the injustice of his time.

All of these acts, while creating great religions would have caused great offence to the entrenched communities of the time.

The problem is that beliefs and culture are not just private matters. The world's great religions are great because they provide us a framework of how to live. The racial groups that make up Singapore likewise have centuries of culture and practice which still guide modern life. And so it is inevitable that one man's belief or culture when put into the public sphere may give offence to another. A basic example is the prohibition on food, which can be religious or cultural. What do you do when simple consumption of food in plain sight – whether it is pork, beef, alcohol, other animals – is normal to some but gives offence to others? What about refusal to consume food that is thought to be consecrated to another religion or to be unclean? What if that also gives offence?

Sir, the list could go on. But the point is clear. This is the essential contradiction we are faced with. A great truth that motivates people to live their lives according to a higher purpose must at some point face entrenched interests and different ways of life. As a result, many great truths when put into practice, will be regarded as deeply offensive, just as others regard it as the gospel truth.

What then should the state do? First, I believe the state should reinforce a secular public policy space based on the founding principle that we are a multi-racial and religious society.

The public space is a common resource, a deep wellspring that sustains and refreshes the common spirit. If we had one overwhelmingly dominant religion and/or race then the question is one of tolerance of minorities and not of what the public space should be like. But as a multi-racial and religious society, each of our communities has different ideas about that public space. Our society must keep that common wellspring clear. If we each seek to dye the water according to our own particular persuasion, we will soon find that there is nothing but darkness there.

Therefore, the state must directly address, manage, and even reject when necessary attempts by religious and ethnic groups to advance public policy based on their own versions of the truth. This is so even when several religions or groups claim common cause. To take a current issue, many Singaporean Christians and Muslims believe that homosexual behaviour is offensive to their ideals of what the public space and the family should be. This is not the time to debate these views. The point is what is offensive to one group may not be so to another. To advocate public policy on the basis of shared religious interests, or a common feeling of offence across groups, risks normalising a dangerous principle, that religiously or racially held interests can shape the public sphere. Once that principle is normalised, no single religion or racial group can feel safe.

Next, our religious and racial communities must accept that they have a role to play in balancing the public exercise of their faith with an understanding that sensitivity bordering on intolerance will inevitably put each community against the other.

Sir, we are witnessing a shift towards the more public assertion of faith. While the vast majority today agree that our laws should not be based on religion, personal conscience matters. In the 2019 "Religion in Singapore: The Private and Public Spheres" Institute of Policy Studies report, Mathews, Lim and Selvarajan found that nearly two in three Christians, Catholics, and Muslims claimed they would follow religious principles over a conflicting secular law. Moreover, a substantial minority of Christians, Catholics and Muslims believe it is acceptable for religious leaders to speak on changes to the law which are in conflict with religious principles.

Taken by itself, there is nothing wrong with putting principles into action this way. It is an authentic expression of the human spirit in public life. But the question for us is whether we are able to accept and make such religiously motivated arguments without giving or taking offense, and whether we can come to a consensus to accept a settled question of public policy even when it conflicts with our personal principles. In short, any assertiveness based on religious principle must be matched by an equal open mindedness to accept honest disagreements without taking offence.

Sir, Government policy cannot replace the role of the community. I agree that Government must continue to pursue a balanced framework that takes into consideration deep-seated harm to an entire community and not just the most sensitive members of that community. But what happens when the tenor of sensitivity changes with time, and what was formerly regarded as a secular problem becomes an article of faith? This is not an abstract problem. Even a balanced framework will be gradually driven into a corner where everything causes an offence and nothing is accepted if our racial and religious groups become more intolerant over time.

So, we are back to the deep question: who gets to decide if something gives offense? This debate will not settle the question. I share the Minister's views that it must be taken outside to the public as well but I have two principles to offer.

First, the question of offence cannot simply be left to community views, given the strict laws we have in place. In a multi-religious and racial society, this may lead to the "weaponisation" of the law against other communities and the public space, as Prof Cherian George has argued. The state must work with the community to robustly defend the public space.

Second, intent must be considered together with the question of offence. When the intention is to honestly criticise or to promote an alternative social or religious principle that conflicts with entrenched interests, this is the contest of ideas at work and we suppress it at our own peril. Indeed, the early Catholic Church, Islam, and the Protestant Church spread despite repression because society recognised the great truths embodied in these religious ideals. Academics, journalists and civil society alike need the freedom to ask and answer inconvenient questions about race and religion that may offend some. Of course, some honestly held views today are considered so offensive that I do not think we will see them contested openly in the near future. The issue of conversion is also deeply sensitive. But that does not mean we should not try to advance the principle that intent matters and not just the degree of offence taken.

Mr Deputy Speaker, as the Government notes, Singapore’s racial and religious harmony is not a natural product. It is the result of careful cooperation between the state and society. But we should go beyond just taking community views or considerations as given. To do otherwise would be to cede the public space slowly over time as each community uses their power to shape the public space in accordance with their own way of life.

Sir, the good thing about being a multi-racial and religious society is that each of us will quickly realise in one sphere or another of life we are a minority. We must promote an enlightened secularism to protect the public space in the interests of all. We must remember that while each of us belong to minorities of our own, we share a common spirit as human beings and citizens of Singapore. Mr Deputy Speaker, I support the Motion.

6.32 pm

Mr Mohamed Irshad (Nominated Member): Assalaamu'alaikum, Peace be Upon you all. What happened in New Zealand recently at the two mosques was tragic and unexpected. On behalf of all Singaporeans, I would like to sincerely offer our condolences to the families that had lost their loved ones. May their souls rest in peace and in eternal happiness.

Mr Deputy Speaker, before I begin, I would like to address a Singaporean mother and her family who lost their son in the recent Christchurch terror attack. In Malay, please.

(In Malay): [Please refer to Vernacular Speech.] I offer my condolences to Mdm Noraini Abbas from Singapore, Mr John Milne and their whole family for their family’s great loss, the late Sayyad Milne. May the late Sayyad Milne be granted a place in the highest level of Paradise in eternal happiness.

(In English): Mdm Noraini Abbas, we are with you. Singapore is with you and your family, as you mourn the loss of your beloved son, Sayyad Milne.

Mr Deputy Speaker, I really do not know where to begin or how to begin after hearing our hon Minister's speech. The various events happening worldwide have been saddening. Generation after generation, the words Hate or Hate speech have been very powerful, that causes one to act irrationally and drastically. It can be anyone unassuming, regardless of his race, colour or religious belief and to a point of, in Islam we say breaking Siratul Rahim – breaking the bonds between mankind using fear, hate, anger, jealousy, greed and even innocence.

This makes me wonder what is that trigger point that the power of hate or hate speech have over man? It can take over a person’s logical power of thinking and reasoning to reach a point of irrational behaviour, to hate and even to kill. Wisdom is gone forever from their hearts when hate takes over their mind. Who suffers? The innocent bystanders, the innocent child, the innocent people working hard to earn a living to feed their love ones.

Mr Deputy Speaker Sir, in the Minister's speech, he raised an important point and said he would like to hear the Members' opinion as to how best can we protect our country with all the issues the Minister had highlighted. A wise man once said, "Tie the rosary beads too tight and they would surely break and fall with great impact uncontrollably. Tie it too loose, they would also naturally fall apart. So best is to take the middle way, not too tight and not too loose. There is an old saying tie your camel before it goes astray."

About two weeks ago, we all read in shock about the news of a 28-year-old Australian, radicalised by Islamophobic material online, who attacked two mosques in Christchurch, killing 50 and injuring many others. Amidst the grief, despair and anger, the tragic event in Christchurch has created a cause for a deeper reflection of the significant challenges to extremism. Over the last few weeks, many news commentaries and reports have discussed gun laws, the role of social media, white supremacy and anti-Muslim rhetoric.

As a multicultural and multi-religious society, we have developments that have an impact on our social cohesion in Singapore. Positive and meaningful social exchanges between different races and religious groups create the foundation for social cohesion. Like a rich tapestry, our Singapore story is alive only because of the fine, interwoven threads of social interactions. Today, at the national, community and ground-up level, we have a number of platforms and initiatives for different communities to come together, build mutual respect and trust and deepen understanding about one another.

However, as the Christchurch incident has reminded us, there is still much work that needs to be done. Underlying tensions, prejudice and stereotypes between different races and religions continue to be a challenge. Through my involvement in Roses of Peace, a ground-up non-profit organisation working on peace-building, we have observed many cases where members of the community have experienced micro-aggressions and discrimination.

It is thus important that we face squarely the challenges we have and find ways to proactively address it. As President Halimah Yacob noted after the Christchurch incident, the most important lesson for us is to fight all forms of xenophobia and hatred perpetrated simply on the basis of a person’s religion, colour or creed. Xenophobia and hatred can cut deep divisions among us, and allowed hatred to spread, and this cannot be prevented easily.

As a community, I believe it is important for us to have honest and meaningful conversations beyond the polite niceties, of what is going on. Such conversations may be unpleasant at some points and to people in general, but this is an opportunity to talk about their own experiences, in what they face in life and to listen to others and understand and come to reach an understanding. By allowing for more honest and meaningful dialogue and interaction, we can address such misinformation as well as common stereotypes, which often serve as the primary driver of prejudice.

Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, many Members would have read about the Institute of Policy Studies report on race and religious relations in Singapore that was released last Thursday as highlighted by some Members earlier. While the survey highlighted that the vast majority of respondents affirmed that race or religion were not a barrier to social cohesion, it revealed some interesting findings which should be a cause of reflection and concern for us as a diverse and multi-ethnic society.

The survey found that one in four respondents had no qualms about letting religious extremists publish their views online or hold public meetings to talk about them. This number was much higher, close to 50%, amongst younger Singaporeans. Around 15% of respondents also found Muslims at least somewhat threatening. This was higher than any other religious group, with a notable number staying in private housing.

The hon Minister has spoken about the rise of Islamophobia over the years on multiple occasions. The recent IPS findings certainly reflect this concerning trend. As a society, it is not good enough say that 85% of Singaporeans do not espouse such sentiments. Fifteen percent is statistically significant, and in fact is roughly the size of the our entire Malay/Muslim population in Singapore. Worryingly, I also observed that many netizens online questioned the validity of the findings or simply dismissed it.

Just two days ago, Roses of Peace organised a youth forum titled, "Aftermath of Christchurch – Lessons for Singapore." About 120 youths participated in the session and we had a robust discussion on the multiculturalism in Singapore. The findings from the latest IPS study was a keen topic of discussion, and many of the youths found the findings troubling. There was a collective sense that as a country and nation, we can do better.

In this regard, I would like to raise some suggestions.

First, to provide education of our diverse, multicultural social fabric. I believe more can be done to educate our youth, from a young age, on the various religious beliefs, ethnic traditions and cultural practices in Singapore. We have such a rich cultural and social heritage that needs to be appreciated by all. Beyond the common ties that bind us, we should also focus on helping our youth understand the unique elements of each faith traditions in Singapore.

At the same time, I urge the Government to equip our students with necessary skill sets for effective dialogues and discussions on difficult and sensitive topics revolving around race and religion. This will help us be better mediators when occasional conflicts or when disputes arise.

We should also create more safe spaces in schools and community where students are free to express their religious identity and for dialogues to take place in a mature and meaningful manner. In this regard, there is value in considering have a youth wing in all Inter-religious Confidence Circles (IRCCs) in Singapore, which can take the lead in spear-heading such initiatives.

Second, dealing with spread of hate speech in the digital space. With the prevalence of smart phones and rise of extremist views that can disseminate rapidly online, the impact of hate speech is amplified. Before the Christchurch attacks, the gunman published a manifesto on social media highlighting his extremist views. The live streaming of the attacks further amplified the impact of these attacks. In addition to all the existing efforts, we must all focus on equipping society, especially our youth with the tools and skills necessary to compete effectively with extreme voices in our new digital ecosystem. In this regard, I would like to call for greater collaboration and partnership between civil society and non-profit organisations with tech companies such as Facebook, Twitter and Google to trial innovative community-based solutions. For example, we can develop a Digital Playbook to educate and equip fellow citizens with the knowledge and tools to counter hate speech and fake news. Such a book can detail the strategies that ordinary citizens can adopt to identify and push back on such propaganda.

Thirdly, although we have Racial Harmony Day, to place greater emphasis on the importance of religious harmony in Singapore, I would like to recommend the adoption of the World Interfaith Harmony Week in Singapore. This was first proposed at the UN General Assembly on 23 September 2010 by HM King Abdullah II of Jordan. Just under a month later, on 20 October 2010, it was unanimously adopted by the UN and henceforth the first week of February will be observed as a World Interfaith Harmony Week.

This week can be an occasion for us to celebrate the rich diversity of religions that harmoniously co-exist in Singapore and promote deeper appreciation and tolerance through a series of exhibitions, performances and talks.

Singaporeans tend to treat discussions on religion as sensitive and potentially divisive. However, there is an imminent need to do more to bring such conversations to intersect with a wider societal audience. This is especially so in workplaces to foster better appreciation of people’s faith, beliefs and to encourage employees to be proud of their identity. There is value for organisations to set aside one day in a year, perhaps during the Interfaith Harmony Week, to celebrate diversity in their work places. As the largest employer in Singapore, perhaps the public service can take the lead in this.

Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, Singapore's social harmony is not by chance, and it should never be taken for granted. Singapore is the world's most religiously diversed country, multiculturalism, multi-religiosity and multiracialism are key tenets of our national values.

However, to protect the peace and stability that we have, we need everyone to play a role and to play their part. Everyone has a role in calling out hate speech and not being a silent bystander.

We have been tireless in our efforts at building this precious social harmony over the past five decades. Although we often claim that we are a work in progress, I hope Singapore will shine as a beacon of hope and serve as a role model to other nations struggling with social integration at the upcoming International Conference on Cohesive Societies.

Lastly, we cannot deepen racial and religious understanding without deepening our cultural understanding. Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I would like to conclude my speech in Tamil.

(In Tamil): [Please refer to Vernacular Speech.] In Singapore, we have to understand our culture very well so as to continuously remain as one united society, with racial and religious harmony.

For instance, in the past 13 years, for the whole month of April, the Tamil Language Festival takes place. Such language-based festivals not only help us nurture our Mother Tongue, but also help us to understand our own culture better. To enhance racial and religious harmony, such festivals about Mother Tongue should take place continuously.

In addition to understanding one’s own cultural pride and glory, it is also very important for everyone to also understand clearly the culture of other racial and religious groups. In particular, our youths having the right understanding of all races will promote harmony amongst us. Understanding culture correctly will enhance family and social ties, thereby benefiting every household and the country. For us to interact and communicate together with the people of a multi-racial society, an understanding of each other’s culture will provide great assurance.

(In English): Mr Deputy Speaker, with that, I thank Minister Shanmugam for moving the Motion and I support the Motion.

Debate resumed.

Mr Deputy Speaker: Ms Rahayu Mahzam.

6.48 pm

Ms Rahayu Mahzam (Jurong): Mr Deputy Speaker, in the wake of the horrific Christchurch shootings, Australian Senator Fraser Anning said, "Muslims may be the victims today; usually, they are the perpetrators." He also said that the real cause of bloodshed on New Zealand streets is the immigration programme which allowed Muslim fanatics to migrate to New Zealand in the first place. These remarks are hurtful to Muslims, especially during a time of grief, exposes an ignorance of the true Islamic faith and a lack of acknowledgment that terrorism does not choose its victims.

Many people all around the world condemned his insensitive remarks and some labelled his statement as hate speech. There were, however, those who appeared to show support for the Senator. This was highlighted in the commentary by Michael Yong featured by CNA, where the writer expressed concern regarding the nearly 10 petitions set up on Change.org, a popular petition site, to protect Anning's right to freedom of speech. He also referred to posts and groups standing "in solidarity" with Anning and calling for people to "respect his freedom of speech". The numbers of these groups of people may be relatively smaller and their views are not mainstream opinions but this fact is still disconcerting.

Just last week in Singapore, the Institute of Policy Studies published a working paper on religion. The findings of the survey, which were part of a global study, alluded to some worrying facts. Researchers noted that a sizeable number of Singaporeans have no qualms about allowing religious extremists to publish their views online or hold public meetings to talk about them. Roughly four in 10 younger people aged between 18 and 25 years old felt that publishing was acceptable, possibly because of this group's increasingly liberal attitudes towards free speech.

Mr Deputy Speaker, the "freedom of speech" argument is often raised when there is action by authorities that is perceived to restrict one’s rights. There is an almost automatic perception that restriction is bad and would gnaw on our civil liberties. Proponents of free speech often argue that it is a fundamental right. It is said that we need to allow for the marketplace of ideas to flourish and people should be allowed to come to their own conclusions about matters. In Singapore, there is a particular concern that the presence of many stringent rules would silence many, because of the fear of crossing the line. It limits open and meaningful discourse which may actually help clarify doubts and strengthen communal relations.

We do need to embrace diversity of opinions and allow for a healthy discourse of even the most sensitive of issues. It leads to better understanding and diversity can be a strength if ideas can be synergised and used for the good of the people. However, differences in views can also be a potential divisive factor that can tear our social fabric. Worse, an extreme view; an expression that spreads, incites, promotes or justifies racial or religious hatred can be damaging to a community.

We, therefore, need a good framework in place that allows for open and candid discussions in safe spaces and for appropriate restrictions to be implemented to safeguard and protect our harmony. I believe we also need a multi-pronged approach by having both legislation and education to address this issue. We need to also ensure that our people are edified, are sensible and sensitive, know what to reject and object to and that the right with free speech comes with responsibility and accountability for what is said.

As a matter of principle, I believe there is general agreement amongst the public that we need to take effort to maintain racial and religious harmony in Singapore. Most people would agree that we should do this through education, through the creation of common spaces and opportunities for social bonding as well as creation of safe spaces for meaningful discourse. Many, possibly a lesser number, would agree that appropriate legislation needs to be in place to manage inappropriate conduct or expression that could incite racial or religious hatred. My personal view is that we need to have legislation. We cannot do without drawing a line that sets out what is criminal, what is unacceptable to a society. Appropriate punishment deters unsavoury conduct and helps shape the society’s norms.

The difficulty is that what is expressed may lie in a spectrum of what is deemed hateful or offensive. If something said is offensive but falls short of being hateful, then what do we do? I do not think we can just let it slide. There must be a response as offensive speech also damages a society, albeit at a different pace. An indifference to something that is offensive can potentially normalise that expression in the long run and desensitise people to what is unacceptable.

The Government cannot take a hands-off approach. I believe that there needs to still be some legislative restriction depending on the situation but there needs to also be a whole lot of edification and an effort to sensitise the individual making the offensive speech to understand the harm he or she is causing to the community.

On this note, I believe the approach taken with Imam Nalla, some time back when he recited a supplication which offended the Jews and the Christians, was a correct one. He had to receive the punishment but the resolution of the matter was done in a respectful manner and he apologised to the Christian leaders and the Rabbi. The line was drawn in that matter.

As we come across various instances of inappropriate conducts in the future, there needs to be a calibration and assessment of the harm done to the community. I think it would be impossible to set out an exhaustive definition of offensive expressions and we would probably have to look at each case in context. I therefore accept and agree with the Government’s current framework of assessing in material the context and the impact to the particular community towards which the harm may be caused, and in particular to benchmark it to the mainstream views within the community.

As we go down the spectrum of hateful and offensive expressions, we would reach the milder end of the expressions. There may be casual racism, inappropriate stereotype jokes, unspoken discomfort and even silent intolerance of another community. I do not think it is practical or even meaningful to legislate regulations for these conduct. But there is still a need to educate and allow for discourse.

In this regard, I refer to another piece of finding from the recent IPS paper which I referred to earlier which has caused me great concern. More than 70% of Singaporeans feel that people of different faiths can get along when living close together, but some 15% find Muslims threatening. Researchers found that those who dwell in private housing were more likely to think that Muslims are threats, compared with those who dwell in HDB flats. IPS senior research fellow Dr Mathew Mathews said, "There is little question that global terror and how it has often been associated with Muslims has fed into the minds of a small group of Singaporeans, who thus feel that Muslims are threatening."

It is a solemn reality that Muslims here in Singapore must face. But I think there is much that could be done to create opportunities for greater understanding and for strengthening inter-racial relations. Mr Deputy Speaker, allow me to speak in Malay.

(In Malay): [Please refer to Vernacular Speech.] I refer to the latest Working Paper by the Institute of Policy Studies (IPS). One of the published findings was about the percentage of Singaporeans that find Muslims threatening. Fifteen percent of the respondents stated this. This is certainly not the perception of the majority of respondents that were surveyed. However, to me, the number is not small.

This is a reality that Muslims in Singapore have to overcome. The issue of terrorism around the world and the past actions of ISIS to spread their message certainly had an impact on non-Muslims. We can decide how we want to face these issues. We can choose to feel anger or disappointment but this will not change anything. I think we can adopt a more positive approach by seeking opportunities to continue building good relations with the other communities in Singapore. We can portray the true beauty of Islam and offer the hand of friendship to our fellow non-Muslim members of society. I am confident that with this approach, the other communities will gain a better understanding of our religion and values.

(In English): Mr Deputy Speaker, allow me to conclude in English. As a minority in Singapore, there are occasions when some things said or done by others from other races or religion may offend me or my community. Often, such conduct comes from a space of ignorance and not malice. There is therefore a great need to continue to foster relations between people from different communities and allow for better understanding.

I am truly grateful though for the ability to practise my religion without fear for my safety. I am truly grateful that many in the community can look beyond my tudung and embrace me for who I am. I am truly grateful for a Government that speaks out against Islamophia even before it became fashionable to do so and continues to take the effort to protect interests of all in the community, including the minority groups.

I am, therefore, supportive of the Government’s efforts in putting appropriate restrictions to maintain racial and religious harmony in Singapore.

Mr Deputy Speaker: Er Dr Lee Bee Wah.

6.57 pm

Er Dr Lee Bee Wah (Nee Soon): Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I thank the Minister for this important debate and I support the Motion. As I have shared in this House before, I grew up in the turbulent 1960s in Malaysia. Those years were marred with several racial conflicts that saw many lives lost. There were curfews and even as a kid, I could sense that something was wrong. Sometimes, adults would gather and speak with low voices, their eyebrows furrowed. I would then later learn that somebody whom they knew had been killed in the riots.

These racial conflicts were fuelled by hate speech between races and religions. And they happened in Singapore too. It is only because of our efforts to build racial and religious harmony that they have become much rarer today.

It is easy to take harmony for granted. But, in fact, we face new challenges to maintaining harmony. Over the world, there are people pursuing extremist ideologies. And because of our open society and the internet, we hear of them through many sources.

Hate speech is linked to radicalisation. When you are influenced to hate a certain group, it is not a big jump to then take violent actions against that group. And once that happens, it will set off a cycle of hate and even more violence. We need to continue keeping our people safe.

To preserve harmony, we need to take a firm stand against hate speech. Words can move emotion and give rise to hate, distrust and destruction. It takes weeks to create distrust and to sow the seeds of discontent. But it takes years and even generations to heal the wounds thereafter.

When restricting hate speech, we must apply the law impartially to protect all racial and religious groups. If there is any suspicion that the law is not applied impartially, it will sow discord between groups. Certain groups might even start to suspect the Government, which will undermine our society and security.

I urge anyone who hears of hate speech against your community, to make a report. Do not spread in your community that the rules are not applied fairly. That is a very dangerous perception and will spread faster than you think. When the information is clarified, it will not spread as far as the original rumour. Especially if you are a public figure or an influencer, be very careful on such matters.

I feel some senior Singaporeans, who have been through the mayhem of riots, can put their experience to good use. Government should tap on this group to be ambassadors of goodwill on the ground. In Chinese, please.

(In Mandarin): [Please refer to Vernacular Speech.] We will not tolerate anyone to spread hate speech against any race or religion. Hate speech can influence people and they might stage an attack on other races and religions. This will severely harm our racial and religious harmony and even result in a series of revenge actions.

In Singapore, we will be applying the law impartially to protect all racial and religious groups. If you hear anyone making hate speech against a certain community, please report to the Police so that Ministry of Home Affairs will have time to investigate and take actions. Do not spread words among the community that the Ministry of Home Affairs did not take any action. Such kind of rumours spreads very quickly and it is very dangerous.

Some Singaporeans have been through the mayhem of riots. I hope the Government can invite them to share their experiences so that every Singaporean can understand why there is a need to resist hate speech.

(In English): Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, in the end, we just need to remember just one thing. Hate speech goes against the founding principles of Singapore – to be one united people, regardless of race, language, or religion. We need to take a firm stand against it.

7.03 pm

Mr Seah Kian Peng (Marine Parade): Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I want to talk about three ideas which underline Singapore's approach to hate speech – two conceptual and one practical. The first is on non-fundamentalist approach to freedom of speech and expression; the second, our pre-emptive approach to hate speech legislation and last, a warning against toothless legislation.

In 2015, the British press, unlike some newspapers in Europe, collectively decided not to republish the caricatures of Prophet Muhammad which led to the slaughter of 12 staff working in the office of Charlie Hebdo. The Guardian newspaper argued that in Britain, editorial decisions have always been guided, not just by law, but by a sense of "what is fair and tolerable within British society". The press in Singapore here too, did not publish the cartoons. Further, the version of The Economist which was distributed in Singapore had the cartoon redacted.

Tribal instincts cannot be eradicated, nor should we want to. The irrationality of love is matched, and often outmatched, by the irrationality of hate. Even as we promote our best selves, we must constrain our worst. We do this softly through education, moral suasion and social norms. But we must also do this with unequivocal force through the smite of laws and their strict enforcement.

Many countries have laws against hate speech. In the UK, laws make it an offence for a person to use "threatening, abusive or insulting words or behaviour that causes, or is likely to cause another person harassment, alarm or distress". This law has been revised over the years to include language that is deemed to incite "racial and religious hatred", as well as "hatred on the grounds of sexual orientation" and language that "encourages terrorism".

In 2016, the EU established the Code of Conduct, as a push for social media platforms to crack down on hate speech. Subsequently, four giant IT companies – Google+, Instagram, Snapchat and Dailymotion – they decided to join the EU "Code of Conduct on countering illegal hate speech online".

Our Home Affairs Minister has pointed out the relatively lax legislation both in UK and US.

This is not because they do not see hate speech as wrong, but because they see freedom of expression as right. Two wrongs do not make a right, but what do two rights make? When the right to freedom of expression is fundamental, and the right to freedom of religious belief is fundamental, what do we do?

The extreme liberal approach is to do nothing and let the two fundamentals contest in the open. That is one approach but that is certainly not ours. We cannot leave it to the law of the jungle. We cannot say, "This is not a government problem. Let the people fight it out. Let the people sort it out among themselves."

We must say, as we are doing today, "This is allowed in the public space – and that is not." Our laws must provide guidance on the clash of rights, not just in court but in everyday life. This is my first point about the non-fundamentalist nature of our approach to freedoms of expression.

My second point relates to hate speech legislation and the degree to which it should be regulated. I mentioned about the Charlie Hebdo incident and Singapore's strong stance against publishing images offensive to members of our community. In this case, because of the tragic murder, there were few critics of what we did. But remember: we had censored the images in advance of the shootings.

We did so because it was wrong, and the nature of this "wrong" is that it is against the norms of what we stand for, as well as the possible harms that could arise. In most cases, the actions we take are in advance of these harms, that is, we take a pre-emptive approach to minimise harm.

This opens us up to criticism of being overly authoritarian, of infantilising the public, or not respecting people's ability to govern, control or decide for themselves. Why so hyper-sensitive? "What is the harm?", people ask.

We may be able to outline these harms, but if we do our job well, the public may never experience them, and hence, never believe that the risk of such harm was real. This creates a very different kind of problem. A dilemma that we need to solve.

And this brings me to my last point about whether we ought to enforce our laws relating to hate speech strictly or loosely. The second method allows people to experience harm in small measure and by the logic of vaccination, builds up our resilience and ability to debate contested ideas. I agree that contestation of ideas and debate is valuable in many areas, but relating to this body of legislation, I argue for a strict application.

Why? The point has been made by Minister for Home Affairs – the nature of law flows to the nature of the country. We, in this House, can choose whether we want to be more pro-active and tough in the applications of our laws, especially when these are extended to new hard cases.

So, I would rather be conservative and safe than experimental and sorry. Many older societies have seen the fractures, fissures and wounds which once opened up are hard to heal, especially on matters relating to race and religion.

Standing against this, our existing laws may be good enough as there are adequate provisions. So, I argue that what we need is tighter and pro-active enforcement. Strong enforcement will also provide deterrent effects because knowing that the Government is serious about enforcement has real consequences on behaviour – both among the people and corporations.

In 2017, Germany became the first country in the EU to introduce a dedicated law against online hate speech that allows authorities to fine social media companies who fail to remove hate speech posts that violate German law within 24 hours. Companies could be fined up to 50 million euros under the law. This came about after the German government examined a report showing a 77% surge in hate crimes in Germany in the previous year.

As an immediate response to the law, in January and February 2017, Youtube deleted 90% of hate speech videos reported by users, Twitter deleted 1%, Facebook deleted 39%.

So, laws have effect, but not all the time. We see this in the continued existence of hate speech, instances of clear violations that persist with impunity.

Australia, for example, does not have a strong record of confronting white nationalism. In recent years, we see Government senators voting for a motion that it is "okay to be white". We have seen politicians there saying that the real cause of the New Zealand streets tragedy to be "the immigration program that allowed Muslim fanatics to migrate to New Zealand in the first place" and these politicians have gotten away scot-free. So, this is not because Australia does not have laws against hate speech, although some may argue that such laws have been weakened in recent years, but it is because there is a political culture there that tolerates such open airing of views. A flexible enforcement of laws may be one way of coping with the clash of two fundamentals, but as I have said before, it is not Singaporeans' way.

Ours is a more difficult, more rigid, and some would say, less liberal model. This may indeed be so, but it is a choice that does not denigrate freedoms in general, but instead, respects as many freedoms as possible. It certainly does not place the freedom to express hate over the freedom to practice one's religion.

Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I spoke about tribal instincts which cannot be denied. Such instincts create mistrust, hostility and as we have seen in recent days, death and dissolution. But our tribal instinct also creates heroes, when the best among us strives to protect the rest, when we see altruism, kindness, fair play, duty and sacrifice.

We cannot legislate heroism, no more than we can outlaw villainy. But we can and must use laws to give the best chance for our ambitions to do good, and to constrain, deter and severely punish those who plan to do evil.

7.13 pm

The Senior Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministers for Education and Minister for Social and Family Development (Assoc Prof Dr Muhammad Faishal Ibrahim): Mr Deputy Speaker, before I begin my speech, I would like to thank Member Lee Bee Wah for her heartfelt plea to preserve our harmony. Sir, I rise in support of the Motion.

Freedom of speech comes with a cost. When this means excluding communities and fracturing our society, it is a cost that we cannot bear. In its simplest form, hate speech can manifest in a single tweet or a passing comment. Yet, malicious content and intent can easily create unfounded fear and suspicion. With the expansion of new platforms, hate speech can now come in numerous forms of expression which proliferates, incites or legitimises any form of hatred based on intolerance. In a multicultural state like Singapore, it is inevitable that societal fault lines exist. However, hate speech exploits and deepens these fault lines, creating an echo chamber, polarising our society, and threatens the very essence of our existence.

For this reason, I am glad that our approach to the increasing prevalence of hate speech has been a firm ban against it – in any form, in any medium. Whilst other countries may allow it in the name of freedom of speech, here, we recognise the very real and severe implications that hate speech can have. Such an approach has helped to prevent fault lines in our society from being exploited by individuals or groups with extremist agendas. It has become increasingly apparent that extremist groups on both ends of the spectrum feed off each other’s intolerance. By doing so, they create animosity where there were none, suspicion which was previously absent and divisions in place of unity.

With the increased prevalence of hate speech and efforts to curb it, our society now begins to question whether the provisions we have are sufficient or even necessary. Where does hate speech begin and how can we terminate its progression? Seemingly innocuous offensive comments may lead to the development of hate speech. Yet, it is difficult to draw a definitive line as to what should be banned or not. This is particularly because offensive speech exists on a continuum of varying levels of hostility. Hence, it is pertinent that such cases still be evaluated on a case-by-case basis to consider the context and content of such statements.

A similar challenge faced in eradicating hate speech is its prevalence in different mediums. Music, in particular, is an effective platform to instill and spread notions of animosity. Music can be weaponised as it easily desensitises one to hateful perceptions. The frequent exposure to such themes in unconventional genres can legitimise and deepen intolerance. Whilst Singaporeans have the freedom to access various forms of entertainment, music that undermines our social and cultural stability is untenable. Hence, the regulation of music and entertainment is crucial to preventing the spread of hate.

Whilst we may think of our multiracial and multi-religious harmony as a delicate balance that needs to be protected, there is room for constructive efforts to strengthen our community's resilience in facing hate. Within our local community, artists can provide a countervailing narrative towards hate speech. In this way, music can be utilised to deepen interactions and strengthen our community. In my role in the Malay Language Council and Malay Language Learning and Promotion Committee, I have engaged many professionals in the music, art and literature fraternities. Amongst these individuals, I am pleased to share that there is a resounding rejection against music, art and literature that purported hateful sentiments. Sir, allow me to continue my speech in Malay.

(In Malay): [Please refer to Vernacular Speech.] In the Malay community, our identity is reflected in our community's traditional practices or in the way we portray ourselves to the other communities. Hate speech will only isolate and segregate the minority communities.

In our daily actions and conduct, we should rightly display empathy and kindness. By doing so, we can reject any hate statement that has no basis whatsoever. At the same time, we must not be influenced by those who want to fan the flames of hatred between us and the other communities. We must be aware of their evil intentions that will only serve to separate us from other Singaporeans.

Graciousness and civility form the core of our identity. These values remind us that hate speech contradicts the principles that we adhere to. We must not get involved in spreading hate speech through social media. Otherwise, we will destroy our community. It is our responsibility to counter such false statements. There is a Malay saying "When you pinch the left thigh, the right thigh feels painful too" and, thus, we must be sensitive to the well-being of those who become targets of hate speech.

In our effort to fight hate speech together, we must build our resilience against statements tinged with hatred. Through literature, the arts and music, we can send messages or reminders that promote cohesion. Among all the platforms that are available to us, music is most prominent as the unifying tool that can counter influences that promote enmity.

Music activists that I have approached have unanimously rejected aspects of hate speech in their lyrics, songs and performances. These activists, who come from different backgrounds and comprise young and experienced musicians, say that the music they play contain positive elements and support the cohesion and development of society and nation.

Another specific example from our community is the Dikir Barat performance which we can use to counter hate speech.

Mr Djohan Abdul Rahman, the founder of the Andika Kencana group, as well as the former president of the Dikir Barat Federation and member of ASAS' 50 shared with me that: "Lyrics play an important role in any Dikir Barat performance. Therefore, negative lyrics that fan the flames of hatred and violence will have a negative impact on the arts community."

These influences will spread to other arts activists and participants who are accustomed to such themes through rehearsals and performances.

Therefore, Dikir Barat lyrics promote a harmonious living environment and sharing of experiences and shared values. Dikir Barat activists have consciously strived to strengthen social cohesion as a weapon to counter hate sentiments.

Cikgu Suratman Markasan, a recipient of the Cultural Medallion, as well as a Tun Sri Lanang Award winner and an important figure in the Southeast Asia Literary Council (Mastera), pointed out that literary works promoting hatred towards other communities do not represent values that are present in the Malay culture and, therefore, should not be encouraged or read.

There is a song by Ramli Sarip, where the lyrics go like this:

"Listen not to false poetry

Because it will tarnish your soul

Listen to poetry that we inherited

Passed down through the generations until today."

His song carries the theme of brotherhood and love for one another. Certainly, these are the values that we should promote.

(In English): Allow me to continue my speech in English.

Besides removing hate speech from our media platforms, the best protection against hateful sentiments is the strength of the community. This is because hate speech is not just a means of expression but a reflection of deeper attitudes and perceptions. To make our communities less susceptible to the manipulation of such hateful narratives, we need to increase the depth of our cross-cultural and religious exchanges. It comes in the most proximate groups of people we interact with: our neighbours, colleagues and peers. It is important to deepen such relations to gain a personal understanding of the cultures and customs of different peoples. Recognise that tolerance and understanding are not enough to deter hate; trust is what we need.

This is especially pertinent, given that trust is not a given in a multicultural society. Not even in Singapore. A recent IPS Survey showed that 15% of respondents found Muslims threatening. This means that Singapore’s multi-religious fabric is still vulnerable to the threat of hate speech. While in this case it reveals how continuous and heightened reporting of terrorism by some in the name of Islam has brought out misgivings to the Muslims in Singapore, more importantly, it indicates that more than just being inclusive, our communities need to be build confidence and trust with each other. This work is never done because every incident causes a backslide.

This building of trust starts from home, too. When our children have their first interactions with others from different races or religions, it helps for us to guide them along and answer their queries. More importantly, we should encourage a sense of empathy in our children to humanise Singaporeans from different racial and religious groups. It can come in the little things – inviting their friends over for festivals or advising against any hateful comments spreading on social media. As their closest advisors, we provide the next generation the way forward in the uncertain terrain of these times, often ridden with hate.

Sir, as a minority, I welcome Minister Shanmugam's and the Government's assurances on this matter. I am sure other minorities do so. Our Government's stand would give all minorities the confidence that they would be protected from the target of hate, their culture would preserved and they can practise their religions peacefully. All of us, as minorities, should play our part, too. My community, too. We should never leave this to chance. I call upon our community leaders to lead and steward the community to be appreciative of how precious our social compact is and be active to preserve.

Sir, as a Singaporean, I pledge to play my part in strengthening our social compact and contribute to the building of confidence and trust in our society. I call upon all my Parliamentary colleagues and fellow Singaporeans in making this pledge.

Sir, ultimately, as a country, we need to protect our unity. Hate speech thrives on divisions and schisms. To deny its influence, there must be a common conviction against intolerance. This means standing up for groups that are targeted by hate speech. This means providing comfort for others who feel alienated. This means feeling for others even though we belong to a different race or religious group. The challenge of hate speech means our community needs to move beyond being understanding and tolerant. We are now called upon to support, protect and defend one another.

7.28 pm

Deputy Speaker: Minister Shanmugam.

Mr K Shanmugam: Thank you, Deputy Speaker, Sir. I thank the Members who have spoken. I think the collective position of this House is clear. Hate speech impacts racial and religious harmony and Members agree generally that in dealing with hate speech, we have to intervene early and decisively. On offensive speech that may not be considered hate speech, Members agree that we need to have restrictions. Offensive speech can segue into hate speech, can overlap and, if we allow offensive speech into religion, politics, media, entertainment, the tone and texture of public discourse will change. Giving offence will be normalised.

I think there is broad support, based on the speeches, for the approach that I have outlined and it is very heartening that Government Members of Parliament, Opposition, Nominated Members of Parliament broadly agreed to these principles.

Let me try and deal with the specific questions.

Mr Pritam Singh asked some questions about the processes between IMDA and MHA. I have explained that in some detail in my opening speech. IMDA checked with MHA on security considerations. MHA withdrew its objections, as I explained earlier. A few days later – I think two days later – MHA gave advice to cancel. And I have explained that also at quite some length just earlier.

He also asked about the reasons for cancellation of the concert – again, I do not think he wants me to go into the detail that I have given in my opening speech. I think the Member broadly agrees with the principles but he had a question on the cancellation of Watain, specifically.

He accepted that he was not aware of the opposition of mainstream Christian viewpoint. That was an important point. And now that I have explained that to him, I think he will appreciate that; and in turn, that is relevant for the broader security considerations and assessment as well in the way that I explained in my opening speech. And I think the Member would accept that it then becomes a question of judgement.

Mr Pritam Singh also made some comparisons with bands in the past. I think in all of these things, the population, the reactions are dynamic. The population's views are dynamic. Reactions change over periods of time. We have to assess it with the facts we have and not be wishful about what it was, and what it might be in the distant future. So, population, reactions, specific bands, time period – these are all relevant considerations. You have to make an honest assessment based on all of those with the reactions that you have, whether it is mainstream reaction, and how it would impact on specific security situations as well as the broader security considerations.

The Member asked about future applications in general. I have explained the framework. There is no change in IMDA’s framework on content regulation – it has worked very well so far. They have had to apply it and they have applied it in all these years. There is also no change in MHA's approach to these issues.

IMDA in fact has to make a series of decisions – tough calls – on a broad variety of issues going well beyond the security issues. They make these calls every day. In fact, I would say security stricto sensu is in fact the easier issue, compared with the kind of issues IMDA has to deal with when faced with any kind of application.

We, MHA, give our views to MCI. We had not anticipated the subsequent developments. Both Ministries worked together. That is how the Government works. And it is not as if MCI wanted to proceed in any event, or that it was unaware of security considerations. MCI itself makes that call sometimes.

But here it is understandable that MHA picked it up – our agencies primary job is to keep in touch, close touch, with the religious communities, the leaders; we picked up on the mainstream Christian opinion within a day or so, made the security call, and discussed it with MCI.

I would add that this does not mean that there is any general ban on black metal groups – I think that was a point either the Member asked or sort of implied.

Now, let me turn to Mr Murali Pillai. He asked how to deprive commercial entities from making money and spreading hate speech. I think the points he made are valid; they need to be considered. And I think there were specific points on MRHA and ISA, and the extent of Government powers. I would say it has worked well so far. The Government's exercise of powers has been understood, and the constraints on the Government's exercise of power and safeguards in the legislation, as well as in the Constitution have been understood.

Ms Denise Phua asked what constitutes offensive speech. I have explained that earlier. We do not intervene in disagreements or arguments on public issues. WhatsApp and other platforms: I think these are legitimate questions. I cannot tell you that I have all the answers on those issues. But we will have to deal with them.

Enforcement – she asked about existing legislation and how we would fairly debate the approach. As I explained, the purpose of this debate is not to enforce something specifically. It is to set out the approach, clarify our approach, hear Members of Parliament again, have it debated – that is what this House is for. And then, hopefully with that, the population will also understand what the people's representatives are saying here, and what kind of approach we take.

Mr Christopher de Souza, Senior Parliamentary Secretary Sun Xueling, Mr Saktiandi Supaat, Ms Joan Pereira, Er Dr Lee Bee Wah, Senior Parliamentary Secretary Assoc Prof Muhammad Faishal Ibrahim, Mr Seah Kian Peng – we note their comments have been broadly supportive; they talked about how hate speech travels and how it fuels violence. Er Dr Lee spoke about her personal experiences, likewise we heard from the perspective of the minority community Members of Parliament. And Mr Seah's points on being conservative when it comes to this specific area, I think accords with what our society believes in and heels to the kind approach that we have set out.

I thank Prof Lim Sun Sun for her very powerful examples, very vivid. And I thank her for the points that she made. We do need to tackle hate speech online. I will say that we are very far from tackling it today. Nominated Member of Parliament Terence Ho made a number of points on the space for arts. I understand the points. I do not think there is any disagreement on that, that there should be cultural vibrancy. Equally, I do not think the Member disagrees that we cannot allow hate speech and we must restrict offensive speech. Those are the questions I raised for this debate. The points that he has raised more broadly on cultural vibrancy, I do not think, affect the narrower set of points I have made, and I do not think he disagrees with me.

Assoc Prof Walter Theseira made a very thoughtful speech. He made the point, tracing through the history of Islam and Christianity that is central to religion. He talked about Jesus, Martin Luther, the Prophet – all led movements to change. Yes, no arguments on that. Insofar as that is relevant to today's debate, I would say I cannot and I will not argue against that point, but also, I think the state has no role in either fomenting such change within religion or supporting one side or the other.

The second point he made was that religion should not impose its views on public policy. I will take that with the third point he made – that there has been a greater public assertion of fate. I think both points are valid. And in fact, the point that I think he is seeking to make, but perhaps did not put it quite so directly, is that if you give in to these greater public assertions of faith, and if people of religion become extremely sensitive, then there is a risk of cutting down public space. And that might then affect the secularity of government, not in the French sense, but in the sense that this Government is secular.

So, if we were to look at today's debate, I outlined one big risk in my opening speech which can arise from hate speech and offensive speech, the fault lines, the kind of violence that can arise from it and the deep splits between communities and religions, or religious groups.

Assoc Prof Walter Theseira hinted at another big risk – which is not within the frame of today's debate but I accept it as a risk – of religion either trying to influence public policy or narrowing public policy space.

And also something that he did not quite mention but flows from it – a political leadership which is not strong enough to stand on its two feet and seeks favours from particular religious groups or specific religious groups. It happens in many countries, including those in this region. That will lead to disaster; that will lead to a different type of government and public policy-making and it will not be a secular government.

The answer is you really need a strong political leadership which is fair between the different religions. People may be influenced by their religious outlook, but you do not make public policy based on a particular religious outlook, or a particular standpoint of a particular religion. Then, you will lose the faith of everybody else in society of a different outlook.

That has never been our position, and as long as the Government holds true to the values that have been set out, which I will not go into, then I think we will avoid that risk.

It is a risk. It is a risk because so many governments, both in this region and outside, have gone down that route. It is one of the easiest ways to get votes.

So, we have to make sure that we seek understanding between the religious groups, mutual respect with religious leaders in a multi-religious society. But I would suggest to Assoc Prof Theseira that that is perhaps a topic for another debate on another day, another Ministerial Statement, or the Member of Parliament can move a Motion.

Minister Grace Fu spoke about not just the rules, but also the need to make sure that we work very hard to make sure that our multi-religious approach works.

Sir, let me end this wrap-up by reading to this House the moving words of Imam Gamal Fouda of the Al Noor Mosque in Christchurch. On 22 March 2019, at a Memorial Service in Christchurch, this was what he said, and I am not going to read all of it, just some passages:

"Brothers and sisters in Islam, brothers and sisters in humanity, brothers and sisters in New Zealand. Last Friday I stood in this mosque and saw hatred and rage in the eyes of the terrorist, who killed and martyred 50 people, wounded 42 and broke the hearts of millions around the world.

Today, from the same place, I look out and see the love and compassion in the eyes of thousands of fellow New Zealanders, fellow human beings from across the globe that have filled the hearts of millions more who are not with us physically but in spirit.

This terrorist sought to tear our nation apart with an evil ideology that has torn the world apart. But, instead, we have shown that New Zealand is unbreakable. And that the world can see in us an example of love and unity. We are brokenhearted but we are not broken. We are alive. We are together. We are determined not to let anyone divide us.

The number of people killed is not extraordinary but the solidarity in New Zealand is extraordinary.

Families of the victims, your loved ones did not die in vain. Through them, the world will see the beauty of Islam and the beauty of our unity.

We are here in our hundreds and thousands unified for one purpose – that hate will be undone and love will redeem us.

Islamophobia kills. Islamophobia is real. It is a targeted campaign to influence people to dehumanise and irrationally fear Muslims. To fear what we wear, to fear the choice of food we eat, to fear the way we pray and to fear the way we practice our faith. We call upon governments around the world including New Zealand and the neighbouring countries to bring an end to hate speech and the politics of fear.

Last week’s event has proven as evidence to the entire world that terrorism has no colour, has no race and has no religion."

We need to step forward on hate speech. We need to deal decisively with offensive speech so that someone will not have to make this eulogy in Singapore. But if it happens, I hope that we will be able to respond in the same way that the New Zealanders have done. Thank you, Sir. [Applause.]

Mr Deputy Speaker: Pursuant to Standing Order 44(2), the Motion to consider the Ministerial Statement on Restricting Hate Speech to Maintain Racial and Religious Harmony in Singapore lapses at the conclusion of debate.