Update on Incident where Social Media Post was Taken Down by Israeli Embassy in Singapore

1 Mr Zhulkarnain Abdul Rahim asked the Minister for Home Affairs with regard to the social media posting that was taken down by the Israeli embassy in Singapore on 24 March 2024 (a) whether there are further steps to be taken; and (b) whether a person responsible for such posting on a social media account that is owned or managed by a foreign embassy in Singapore will enjoy diplomatic immunity from jurisdiction and prosecution under our laws.

The Minister for Home Affairs (Mr K Shanmugam): Sir, external developments, especially those as emotionally charged as the conflict in the Middle East, often spill across borders. They can cause tensions between people who feel differently about and who identify with different sides of the issue.

And we in Singapore have been affected by these forces as well. We see in particular a divide in the reactions between the Malay/Muslim community on the one side and the Jewish and Christian communities on the other side. Many in the Malay/Muslim community see the injustice in what is happening in Gaza. The Jewish community meanwhile feels deeply the pain inflicted by Hamas’ act of terror on 7 October 2023. There are sections of the Christian community who feel that any attack on Israel is an attack on Christianity – while not all Christians feel that way, there are some who feel that way and have expressed those views. Other communities may also empathise with one side of the conflict more than the other.

Deeply held feelings can also result in words or actions that offend other communities. Between 7 October 2023 and 31 March 2024, the Police received 43 reports regarding alleged offensive remarks or actions targeted at members of the Jewish or Muslim communities in Singapore.

The Government will intervene against acts which can affect our social harmony. Members know we have laws such as the Maintenance of Religious Harmony Act, the Penal Code has provisions, the Protection from Harassment Act – they all set out the boundaries on what is acceptable conduct.

In this context, let me also say something about protests. We have seen how tensions have boiled over in many countries. In Berlin, pro-Palestinian protestors have clashed with the police, with hundreds of people arrested. At United States (US) universities, exchanges between different groups of pro-Israel and pro-Palestine student protestors have become increasingly acrimonious. Students on both sides have faced harassment and assault.

Ironically, some of the leading US universities are beginning to say that freedom of expression does not mean that one can say or do anything one wants.

What we see happening in many places overseas is that the protests have often become violent. People occupy buildings, prevent others from going about their daily businesses, cause significant disamenities and disruption to the public. And often, that leads to damage and harm. They may start off well-intentioned, led by honest, idealistic people. I mean, people often say, "What's wrong with protests, expression of views?" And I can understand that. Often, people genuinely feel the need and they are not violent people. They do not want to create trouble. But what happens is that when there are these protests, they often get infiltrated, as we can see from elsewhere, by others with their own agendas. These others who infiltrate these protests often try and engineer violence.

The New York Times and other media outlets have run stories on what is happening in the US right now. The Mayor of New York has reportedly criticised outside agitators for being on campus grounds training and co-opting the protests. He was concerned with, and I quote, “young people…being influenced by those who are professionals at radicalising children”. The New York Times ran an article, quoting a student saying that a big part of the protests was people coming in from the general Los Angeles area and putting on a demonstration that caused widespread disruption. These are on the University of California, Los Angeles (UCLA) campuses.

There are also reports which, on the other hand, deny that outsiders have been significantly involved. I think it is difficult to know the true facts, but looking at protests – and we have been studying them, Hong Kong, Sri Lanka, other places – I think it is fair to say, often, there is a group which has legitimate aims, wants to be peaceful, but there are often others who use these events where people gather, to then engineer violence and put the police on the defensive, and try and egg the police on, to try and engage in forcibly preventing acts of violence, and then, it escalates.

Likewise, our own view is that: if we allow protests on this issue, initially, it may be peaceful, but over time, as the protests take a life of their own, there could be some violence, breach of the peace and law, occupying of buildings in Singapore; we are no different from other places.

We should accept that individuals who engage in offensive or violent conduct, however, are a very small minority in our society and I suspect in many other places too. We in Singapore have not had many serious incidents pitting one racial or religious group against another. Most Singaporeans understand the importance of safeguarding our social cohesion, and the value of mutual respect and tolerance. Even where views on the conflict have differed, people in Singapore have been relatively measured and rational in the way we have approached the issues.

Beyond the law, we have to work actively, and we do work actively, on strengthening our social compact by building mutual trust and understanding across our ethnic and religious communities. At the leadership level, the Ministry of Home Affairs (MHA) and Ministry of Culture, Community and Youth (MCCY) facilitate platforms where senior religious and community leaders engage with one another frequently. The platforms include the National Steering Committee on Racial and Religious Harmony, as well as the Racial and Religious Harmony Circles in every constituency.

At the people-to-people level, MCCY provides support for inter-faith and inter-ethnic initiatives that bring different communities together, including dialogues which encourage mutual understanding and respectful interactions across different communities.

Let me now turn to the social media post by the Israeli Embassy that was raised by Mr Zhulkarnain. Foreign embassies and diplomatic staff in Singapore enjoy diplomatic immunity under the law, unless they waive it. Amongst other things, this means that they enjoy immunity from our criminal jurisdiction.

Nevertheless, MHA shared our concerns with the Ministry of Foreign Affairs (MFA) when the post was put up. We shared our concerns immediately. MFA agreed that the post was offside and should be taken down. MFA then engaged the Israeli Embassy on the post and asked that it be taken down. As Members would know, the Embassy took down the post immediately.

Members will remember what I said in public – that the post was completely unacceptable. The Israeli Ambassador asked to see me. I met him last week. He apologised for the post having been put up. He said it was wrong for the post to have been put up. The post was not authorised by him and the officer responsible for the post will be sent back, away from Singapore. And he said that this would never happen again.

I pointed out to him that embassies are entitled to have their point of view. But where what has been said affects Singapore, in this case the harmony and safety within Singapore, especially the security as well of our minority communities, we have to step in. Posts like what the Embassy put up have the potential to create tension between our Jewish and Muslim communities, and may also put our Jewish community, in particular, at risk.

The Police received a report on the post. The Police, in consultation with the Attorney-General’s Chambers, have assessed that no further action was to be taken. Members would understand the Israeli Embassy’s actions are covered by the principle of sovereign immunity.

Mr Speaker: Mr Zhulkarnain Abdul Rahim.

Mr Zhulkarnain Abdul Rahim (Chua Chu Kang): Thank you, Sir. I thank the hon Minister for the response. I agree with the Minister's statement that such offensive posts put all communities at risk, including our Jewish community here.

I have two supplementary questions. Firstly, in such conduct of online posts, how can MHA ensure that such postings, if deemed offensive, can be taken down swiftly and urgently, given the sensitive nature of such potential postings? The second supplementary question is how do we ensure, assuming diplomatic immunity in future cases are waived, that due process in open court can be dealt with sensitively, given that it may play out in the court of public opinion and escalates certain tensions or emotions on the ground?

Mr K Shanmugam: Sir, can I just clarify with the Member, maybe I did not hear fully. On the first question, is he referring to posts by any member of public or is he referring to posts by embassies?

Mr Zhulkarnain Abdul Rahim: Specifically, just on embassies. So, specific to embassies' posts.

Mr K Shanmugam: I will provide an answer with context. If it is by members of the public, of course, we have a variety of powers, under different pieces of legislation. There is the Online Criminal Harms Act, the Maintenance of Religious Harmony Act, the Broadcasting Act. If you look at the different pieces of legislation, depending on what infringements there are, there are powers to block access. There are powers under the Maintenance of Religious Harmony Act to even issue a restraining order. Though the very fact that we have never issued a restraining order since the legislation came into force – I think it is nearly 30 years – shows how useful the legislation has been and also shows the nature of the community we have in Singapore.

But if it is specifically an embassy, the starting point is there would be sovereign immunity. So, you would not be able to, for example, issue directly an order to the embassy to remove a posting on its website. You could look at more general steps, like blocking entire access to the platform, but that would be a very high signature step and I think we need to be careful. In these cases, when an embassy puts up a post, I think the way to handle it is the way we handled it – talk to the embassy.

If they refuse, and I do not want to be going too much into hypotheticals, but for example, if they refuse to take it down, then there are the usual diplomatic steps that one country can take vis-à-vis another country. But you got to assess the nature of the infringement, as it were, and how you calibrate it. It can be calibrated to how you give access or how many people you allow in the embassy to be in Singapore or you ask some to leave, in an extreme case; you have seen those sorts of things happen. Even when they are spying you cannot charge them, let alone when they put up a post.

So, that is part of international law. We will have to act in accordance with international law but within that framework, we will have to see what is possible to do.

On the Member's second question, Sir, it is, I think, very hypothetical that any embassy would waive diplomatic immunity and allow another country to charge them. It has happened infrequently, but it is extremely hypothetical. What countries will normally say is, "Look, we will deal with the person by sending him back and then deal with him in our own way". Members may recall the case of Mr Ionescu from Romania. The Romanians charged him after he went back to Romania.

So, if there is a case where immunity is waived, then the short answer to the question, Sir, is that the prosecution can make an assessment as to the nature of the case if it feels that this may stir up anger and create a spectacle with potentially violent consequences. They can always apply for it to be heard in camera, but they have got to show public interest, I think. Short of taking action if the embassy waives immunity, there are other steps that can be taken under various pieces of legislation as well.

Mr Speaker: Ms Nadia Samdin.

Ms Nadia Ahmad Samdin (Ang Mo Kio): Thank you, Speaker. Just one short follow-up supplementary question. I understand, hon Minister, that there are limitations in the directions that could be provided. However, was there any consideration, given the sensitive nature of the post, to request for a clarification, given that the embassy's post took the original video out of context, as well as perhaps an apology as many in the community, from various communities, were quite upset about the post?

Mr K Shanmugam: Sir, as Members will know, we made very clear what our views were and the embassy immediately took down the post and, as I made clear to Members just now, the Ambassador met me and he apologised for the post and said that it should never have been put up and that it will not be repeated and the officer involved would be dealt with by being sent home. I think those are pretty serious steps.

Mr Speaker: Mr Leong Mun Wai.

Mr Leong Mun Wai (Non-Constituency Member): Mr Speaker, I noted from the Minister's reply that the embassy staff in question for this case has left Singapore. I have one additional supplementary question for the Minister. Did the Israeli Embassy or any other embassies take any other actions to state their case in the Israel-Hamas conflict since 7 October 2023 and what actions has the Government taken in response?

Mr K Shanmugam: Sir, on the first part, if the Member was paying attention, he would have realised I did not say the staff has been sent back. On the second question, as far as I know, the embassy has not said anything to me, neither has the ambassador said anything to me, beyond what I have said to Members. The Member may wish to ask the MFA for any other clarifications.