Considerations for Classifying "Red Lines: Political Cartoons and the Struggle Against Censorship" as Objectionable under Undesirable Publications Act

5 Mr Zhulkarnain Abdul Rahim asked the Minister for Social and Family Development and Minister-in-charge of Muslim Affairs what are the considerations and significance of IMDA classifying the book "Red Lines: Political Cartoons and the Struggle Against Censorship” as objectionable under the Undesirable Publications Act (UPA) to the Muslim community.

The Minister for Social and Family Development and Minister-in-charge of Muslim Affairs (Mr Masagos Zulkifli B M M): Mr Speaker, the book titled "Red Lines: Political Cartoons and the Struggle Against Censorship" was classified by IMDA as objectionable under the Undesirable Publications Act. It contained material that denigrated several religions and religious figures. These included caricatures from the Charlie Hebdo magazine of the Prophet Muhammad, which demean the Prophet and are extremely offensive to Muslims.

We found it shocking that demeaning and insulting images of the Prophet should be published anywhere. These images had led to rioting and deaths in parts of the world, including in France, United Kingdom, Middle East, Africa and Indonesia. Major media publications including in western countries have refrained from publishing the offensive caricatures.

MUIS reviewed the "Red Lines" book and found it contained several caricatures of the Prophet, as well as others that incited discrimination against Muslims, mocked the Holy Quran and the Prophet, and demeaned Islam. MUIS determined that these images are offensive to Muslims. MUIS also said that such content that negatively depicts Islam and Muslims, or any religion for that matter, are not acceptable, and even more so in a multi-religious society such as Singapore. Hence, MUIS supports IMDA’s classification of this book. I am certain the Muslim community also supports this move.

Beside the caricatures of the Prophet and Islam, the book also included images insulting to other religions. The authors may say that they do not intend for the publication to be insulting or demeaning, and their intention is to educate, but the Government rejects that. It is unacceptable to publish such caricatures and insulting images of the Prophet in the name of free speech, academia or otherwise. Let me reiterate that MUIS determined that the images are indeed offensive to Muslims. I can only imagine the feelings of our people, Muslims and non-Muslims, if such images are allowed to be published in Singapore.

In our multiracial and multi-religious society, it is vital that we treat every religion with respect and not denigrate religious communities. Instead, we should encourage dialogue and greater understanding among different religious communities, so that we strengthen our social fabric.

The harmonious race and religious relations that we enjoy in Singapore today require constant care and attention of the Government and the society at large. We do not want to risk anything that will begin unravelling the peace and harmony we enjoy from the due respect and consideration that everyone gives to each other. We remain committed to working closely with all our religious communities to preserve and strengthen our racial and religious harmony, which is a bedrock of our cohesive society. Mr Speaker, in Malay please.

(In Malay): [Please refer to Vernacular Speech.] Mr Speaker, the book titled "Red Lines: Political Cartoons and the Struggle Against Censorship" was classified by IMDA as objectionable under the Undesirable Publications Act (UPA) because it contained material that denigrated several religions and religious figures. The Islamic Religious Council of Singapore (MUIS) reviewed the book and found that it contained several caricatures Prophet Muhammad, as well as other important figures that will incite discrimination against Muslims, mocked the Holy Quran and our Prophet, and demeaned Islam. MUIS determined that these images are offensive to many Muslims. MUIS also said that such content that negatively depicts Islam and Muslims, or any other religions for that matter, are not acceptable, and even more so in a multireligious society such as Singapore. Hence, MUIS supports IMDA's classification for this book. I am certain the Muslim community also supports this move.

Aside from caricatures of the Prophet and Islam, the book also contained images that denigrated other religions. The authors may say that the book is not intended to insult or demean anyone, and instead, their intention is to educate. The Government rejects this justification. Publishing such caricatures and images that insult the Prophet or other religions is unacceptable, even when it is in the name of free speech, academia and so on.

The harmonious race and religious relations that we enjoy in Singapore today can easily unravel and we must give it constant care and attention together.

Mr Speaker: Ms Tin.

Ms Tin Pei Ling (MacPherson): I thank the Ministers for the reply. I fully agree that any insult to religions, especially in Singapore, is unacceptable. I would just like to ask whether the political nature of the cartoons in the publication has got any part to play in the decision.

The Minister for Communications and Information (Mrs Josephine Teo): Mr Speaker, I thank Ms Tin for her supplementary question. Political cartoons are not, in themselves, the problem. Some are already in circulation. It is very clear that "Red Lines" was disallowed for its offensive religious content. I have spoken about it, Minister Masagos has further elaborated on why these are of great concern in our multicultural, multi-religious context.

In my earlier reply, I have also said that IMDA had, in the last five years, deemed six other publications to be objectionable, for denigrating various religious communities. None of them were about politics either. They either contained offensive and prejudicial comments about other religions or espoused polemical religious teachings which were likely to cause ill will and hatred amongst the different religious groups in Singapore. "Red Lines" is objectionable for similar reasons. [Please refer to “Clarification by Minister for Communications and Information”, Official Report, 12 January 2022, Vol 95, Issue No 46, Correction by Written Statement section.]

Mr Speaker: Mr Zhulkarnain.

Mr Zhulkarnain Abdul Rahim (Chua Chu Kang): Mr Speaker, I thank both the Ministers for the clarifications. I think any words or images that are offensive to any religion is hurtful and the hurt remains. I have two supplementary questions for Minister Masagos. Given that the content in such publications can be replicated or duplicated and made viral in today's context, what can any members of the public – whether Muslim or otherwise – do to report or express their concerns to MUIS, especially if they feel that certain publications or images would be offensive to any particular group.

My second question is on the Undesirable Publications Act. The definition of a publication as "objectionable" is within the context of enmity or hatred between different races or difference religions. The question is, what about publications that may create hostility within the Muslim community itself? Would MUIS play a role in the determination of such publications being offensive? I would be grateful for such clarifications.

Mrs Josephine Teo: Mr Speaker, I apologise for keeping my mask on earlier, I have obviously become so used to it. Mr Zhulkarnain's questions are very important and let me address the first part of it first and I think Minister Masagos would probably like to supplement.

Social media platforms have terms of service, community standards as well as feedback mechanisms for users to flag or report inappropriate content. IMDA certainly expects them to adhere to their very own standards strictly. But in addition, when IMDA is alerted to the existence of websites that glorify, insight or endorse ethnic, racial or religious hatred, strife or intolerance, it may deem such content as prohibited material under the Broadcasting Act's Internet Code of Practice. Local content providers can be required to take down the content. IMDA can also direct Internet service providers in Singapore to block access to such websites.

In 2020, not so long ago, there was in fact a Facebook post by the NUS Atheist Society that was highly offensive to both Muslims and Christians. IMDA assessed that the post contains prohibited content on the grounds of national harmony and is in the clear breach of the Internet Code of Practice. IMDA issued a request to Facebook to remove the post and Facebook subsequently blocked it from access by users in Singapore. And so, that stand is very clear and also very consistent.

To Mr Zhulkarnain's other question regarding the role of MUIS. IMDA seeks the views of relevant agencies before making its decision on content that could affect religious harmony, and this is inclusive of content that may compare different religions or within the same religion, have different views. In the case of "Red Lines" and other content related to Islam, IMDA did and continues to seek the views of MUIS.

Mr Masagos Zulkifli B M M: Mr Speaker, Islam puts the love of our Prophet at the highest plane among men. So you would expect Muslims to react when the Prophet's dignity is conned or when he is really ridiculed. Now, when Muslims are rightfully indignant at any derogatory remarks or insults made of the Prophet, but we must nonetheless, be guided by our prophetic principles of compassion, graciousness and magnanimity.

I say this because the Prophet himself, faced this when he was alive. In fact, once, when a group of men prayed publicly for death and calamity to befall him, A'ishah, his wife, wanted to do the same thing, to pray for death and calamity for the same people who prayed that on the Prophet. The Prophet stopped her and counselled her that, "Allah, our God, is gentle and he loves gentleness." So, I call upon fellow Muslims to follow what our religion teaches us: To conduct ourselves in the most exemplary way, even when we are rightfully hurt and indignant by the act put against our religion or our Prophet. Let us live by our laws because we can and where they are such literature that incite or endorse ethnic, racial or religious hatred, strife or intolerance, we will prevent them from happening and from such literatures from being published and distributed in Singapore.

As mentioned by my colleague, Minister Josephine Teo, members of the public who have concerns on a particular content in publications should inform IMDA, whether it is of one religion to another; persons against another religion; or even within the religion or their community. IMDA will always seek input from the relevant agency before it makes its decision on content regulation. In this example, IMDA had consulted MCCY and MUIS if the Islamic content involved was indeed derogatory, insulting and hurtful and they were so.

So, we hope that while we are indignant, we know the the content yet to be distributed are hurtful and derogatory to our religion, to our Prophet, I counsel ourselves, my fellow Muslims in my community, to behave and conduct in the most exemplary way.

Mr Speaker: Ms Yeo Wan Ling.