Freedom of Speech and Political Activities by Foreigners in Singapore

7 Ms Anthea Ong asked the Minister for Home Affairs with respect to the cancellation of the Yale-NUS "Dissent and Dialogue" course (a) whether he agrees that the course entails "elements that may subject students to the risk of breaking the law and incurring legal liabilities"; (b) what laws may be broken and what kinds of legal liabilities may be incurred by (i) students (ii) faculty and (iii) institution; (c) whether the Ministry provides guidelines to academic institutions on such legal risks; and (d) what is the Ministry's position on online sentiments that having a course on dissent is an "unpatriotic act" and the hate speech that is directed at Yale-NUS students.

8 Assoc Prof Walter Theseira asked the Minister for Home Affairs (a) whether and to what extent the Ministry regulates or monitors the political activities of student groups in our Autonomous Universities; (b) what are the guidelines or laws under which foreign students may participate in student activities which may have community, social, or political impact in Singapore; and (c) what can be done to assure students that they have the right to associate and act for political and social causes in Singapore responsibly and within the law.

The Minister for Home Affairs (Mr K Shanmugam): I will answer part (d) of Question No 7. The other three parts have been answered by Minister Ong. And with your permission, Sir, can I take Question No 7(d) and Question No 8 together?

Mr Speaker: Yes, please.

Mr K Shanmugam: The Minister for Education had earlier answered parts (a), (b) and (c) of Ms Anthea Ong's question. On part (d), I think that the heart of the Member's question is about freedom of speech and the limits to that. I think her question relates to people expressing their views that there was dishonesty, unpatriotic actions, and whether they should be allowed to say those things; and the Member has asked for the Ministry's views.

There are criminal, civil laws that govern what people can and cannot say in public. These laws apply to the online space as well. If you defame, there can be civil action; sometimes, it can be criminal defamation as well. If you harass people, that can be an offence, sometimes. Civil action is also possible, civil remedies are possible. If there is speech that has been directed at some students and they believe that a criminal offence has been committed, the students can file a Police report – I am sure they are aware of that.

If the Member is of the view that more regulation of the online space is necessary, going beyond the current laws and that such speech should be regulated, she can let us know – precisely what she has in mind to be regulated? I assume that she is not suggesting that we prevent people from expressing their views on whether some actions are patriotic or unpatriotic. And I think the Member will know that in the online space, people will say what they like. We strengthened the Protection from Harassment Act (POHA) a few months ago to allow people to take action and give individuals more power. If what is said about them is untrue, they can take steps. If they are harassed, they can take steps. So, we are empowering the individuals. But if the Member feels that is not adequate, she can let us know.

As regards Assoc Prof Walter Theseira's question, the Home Team agencies have to ensure the safety and security of Singapore. They focus on persons who engage in activities that endanger national security. Like terrorist acts and acts that could lead to violence, public disorder. And they take measures, including pre-emptive actions.

Let me give an example. In May 2015, a 17-year-old Singapore student was arrested under the Internal Security Act after being self-radicalised and planning to engage in armed violence alongside the Islamic State in Iraq and Syria (ISIS). It does not mean that agencies look at all 17-year-olds.

Let me provide another couple of examples. Last month, my Ministry announced that three domestic helpers from Indonesia had been detained for terrorist related activities. That does not mean our security agencies monitor all domestic helpers – there are close to 260,000 of them. And in 2016, we picked up eight Bangladeshi Work Pass holders who were planning to stage terror attacks in their own home country. There are about 1.4 million Work Pass holders in Singapore. We do not, and we cannot and we are unable to monitor all of them.

The agencies have their ways of identifying security threats and they will take appropriate action, in context.

The Member also asked about the guidelines or laws under which foreign students may participate in student activities. There are laws that set the boundaries for political activities by foreigners. They include the Public Order Act and the Public Entertainments (Speakers' Corner) Exemption Order 2016 and other legislation.

Of course, in an academic setting, as part of a course, foreign students are free to engage in discussion and debate, no different from their fellow Singaporean students.

On the third sub-question, I agree with the Nominated Member that it is important for students to know their rights and responsibilities. I think if you put it in a broader context, it is important that our young people know: (a) what their rights are; (b) the different political systems around the world; (c) how they work; (d) what is happening in the US, Western Europe, Asia and why; (e) our own path in the last 60 years; (f) why we have been relatively successful; (g) how the balance between state power and individual autonomy is struck in different societies; (h) what roles and responsibilities of individuals, groups play; and (i) how to identify charlatans, those who promise the world and deliver nothing, and more.

So, we do our best. But if the Nominated Member has ideas on how we can bring these points across better to younger people, we will be very happy to hear from him. Thank you.

Assoc Prof Walter Theseira (Nominated Member): Thank you, Mr Speaker. I thank the Minister for that reply. Earlier, the Minister for Education outlined some examples of individuals who may pose some risk in the educational setting and I wish to ask the Minister for Home Affairs whether he believes that these non-violent but political and social activists who have had certain controversies or issues with the law, do they pose a threat to our student organisations? And if so, does the Ministry monitor that or take any measures to discourage, for example, student organisations working with them and so on?

Mr K Shanmugam: I do not quite understand the question. Can the Member explain a little bit more clearly what exactly he is asking?

Assoc Prof Walter Theseira: Earlier, the Minister for Education noted that several individuals who are noted social and political activists may be unsuitable for an educational environment for one reason or another, ranging from conviction under certain public order acts to notable acts of potential disloyalty, perhaps, to Singapore, and other issues.

So, I just wish to ask the Minister for Home Affairs whether he believes that this also means that they should be restricted from participating in, or being engaged by student groups. In other words, would there be some kind of security risks, for example, to the students.

Mr K Shanmugam: I think there are two different issues being conflated here – whether they should be engaging with students and student unions, in the context of universities, I leave it to the Minister for Education. He has explained the principles. That does not ipso facto mean that they become security risks. If they do become security risks, they will be monitored.