Christopher de Souza
Singapore
“I thank the Minister for his comprehensive reply. My supplementary question arises out of our deployment of our Multi-Role Tankers Transport. I think our airmen and soldiers, the Ministry of Foreign Affairs (MFA) and MINDEF should be commended. It was a complex high-altitude mission, and it was successful.”
“Much obliged, Sir. My supplementary questions draw from the fact that the situation displays: one, how Singapore has agency; and two, how Singapore can use the situation as a catalyst.”
“It cannot be allowed to be the master. It does not moralise. Thus, as we embrace AI, we must do so with discernment. We should use it to the extent that it facilitates decision-making, but it cannot be allowed to usurp our decision-making. Innovation cannot come at the expense of trespassing on some existing IP rights.”
“In relation to the study on the drug trafficking and the death penalty. In fact, in response to that, I think there is a very good statistic that we should elaborate on in this House and also out there in education that 15 grams of diamorphine feeds 180 drug abuses for one week.”
“The Singapore Land Authority plays an important role in unlocking the value of state land for community use. As a sportsman, I have personally seen with immense joy how underutilised spaces, such as areas under flyovers, can be transformed into safe and vibrant places for sport and recreation, whether for pickleball, futsal, badminton, te…”
“To propel our status as a hub, Singapore will need infrastructure, such as exhibition facilities, to showcase mediation capabilities, breakout rooms, bilateral mediation hearing rooms as well as printers, laptops and screens for settlement agreements to be typed out.”
The complete record
Every one of 1,264 lines we hold for Christopher de Souza, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 8 of 26.
“Would the Minister elaborate on how and whether the processes required will be raised so as to prevent another unfortunate event, such as that in Grenfell Tower in the United Kingdom (UK) or CIT Building on Toh Guan Road? Would the Minister elaborate how the stringency of the tests will balance between time and cost efficiency while minimising the chances of a costly misstep? Clause 17 of this Bill inserts Part IIIB of the Act which regulates alarm monitoring services. The new section 22M requires alarm monitoring services to take all reasonable steps to check if there is a fire before cancelling. This offence reflects the great responsibility and heavy reliance the occupants of the building have on the alarm monitoring service. If the person carelessly cancels the call, the results may be devastating. By regulating alarm monitoring services and requiring a minimum standard of conduct, this Bill increases the teamwork among all stakeholders. On the issue of resource allocation, how is the Ministry raising awareness of the MyResponder app which allows members of the public to respond or send pictures of a fire? Additionally, how effective are public education efforts on how to manage chute fires, on where to find water sources to put out a fire and on how to react when a fire is at the entrance of the unit? Given the usefulness of the fire extinguisher in the event of a fire blocking the only escape pathway out of a house, what is being done to increase the take-up rate for fire extinguishers? In recent months, the number of fires caused by Power-Assisted Bicycles (PABs) and Personal Mobility Devices (PMDs) have increased significantly. There were 54 such reported fires in the first six months of this year.”
“For instance, the compliant-fire-safety product needs to have a certificate which can only be validly issued to a Singapore Citizen, a domicile of Singapore or a body corporate incorporated in Singapore. This makes sure that the law can be actively enforced, deterring opportunistic merchants who may prey on unsuspecting customers by providing subpar products but escape from law enforcement by remaining outside Singapore. Furthermore, the new Part V in clause 26 of this Bill ensures that the whole certification, supply, installation and sales process meets the standards required. The new section 32 deals with false test reports used for certification. The new section 32A deals with giving false information to the accredited certification body. New section 32B ensures that certification process is only done by those authorised. And new section 32C regulates the supply of regulated fire products, ensuring that people do not advertise non-certified products as certified ones. New section 32D deals with installing an uncertified fire product as well as the manner in which a certified fire product is installed, making sure its quality is not compromised when it is being installed. Some offences, such as new section 32D(4), even have an enhanced offence with a jail term if harm to a person results because of that negligent or reckless act. Sir, The Straits Times article entitled "Stricter rules and factory checks for cladding on buildings" dated 9 November 2018 mentioned that, among other stricter standards, builders must conduct site testing for cladding. While the specific standard of conduct is not found in the Bill, the Bill requires certification and that installation be done not negligently and recklessly.”
“For instance, it was reported in Channel NewsAsia that International Plaza would need to have fire escape staircases leading to the outside of the building and Ling Kwang Home for Senior Citizens would require fire compartmentalisation to facilitate horizontal evacuation. Would the Minister elaborate on how the measures will be tailored to the need of the safety of the public in those buildings and how the owners will be assisted in complying with the measures imposed? Additionally, the meaning of "public building" is amended in clause 2(g) from a definition that focuses on the purposes of the building to whether or not "the public or a section of the public has access as of right, or by virtue of express or implied permission with or without payment of a fee". This is ideal, as buildings can be multi-purpose, and focuses on the rationale behind the categorising of a building as a public building, that is, safety of the public. Will current building owners who are affected by the change of definition of "public building" be notified and advised on how to comply with the new requirements? Currently, places where people assemble for religious or educational purposes are expressly excluded from the definition of "public building" in paragraph (d)(i). By way of illustration, under what circumstances would a place of worship or school be considered a public building? Would the Minister also elaborate on what would be considered a section of the public? Second, this Bill regulates more stringently the provision of fire safety devices and fire alarm monitoring services. The regulatory framework for fire safety devices is meant to ensure accountability.”
“Sir, the Fire Safety Bill seeks to minimise fire hazards. Fire has the potential to harm many more people in addition to the one who started it. Persons in the adjacent unit to where the fire started may also have their property affected and their lives threatened. The blocking of the fire escape passageways affects the people who use that passageway, not just the family in front of which the items are placed. Fire safety is a team effort and this Bill strengthens that resolve. It does so in several ways. One, it strengthens the enforcement powers. New sections 12A and 12B in clause 9 makes specified fire hazards a direct offence instead of needing a notice to be issued as a preamble to an offence. This means that people cannot take for granted that they will be served the notice to comply before getting charged with an offence. There is also increased punishment if a person continues to contravene the Act. For example, the new section 2(4), as amended by clause 2(j) of the Bill, makes it a continual non-compliance with the Act a separate offence. The new section 20A(3)(b) in clause 10 also provides for enhanced sentence for a continuing offence for non-compliance with an order to install fire safety measures. These measures increase the cost of non-compliance, ensuring that it is not more cost-effective to commit an offence than to comply with an order. Clause 10 of the Bill allows the SCDF to issue notices to building owners to provide or install fire safety measures even if they are not going through renovations if they are of the view that it is necessary for public safety. If old building structures are required to comply with the new safety code, the measures are potentially extremely onerous, especially if a renovation was not planned.”
“Firstly, the confidentiality of arbitration proceedings is especially relevant in IP cases where the very thing that is being disputed is an intangible and, sometimes and quite often, a confidential asset. Secondly, a total of 160 states have signed up to the New York Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards. Thirdly, parties have greater control over where they desire to have a matter arbitrated, for example, in a neutral jurisdiction instead of the place of business. While the new section 52C(3) of the Arbitration Act and 26C(3) of the International Arbitration Act make it clear that an arbitration award involving IP rights does not affect third-party holder of a security interest, could the Minister elaborate on how this will operate? This Bill sets out exciting changes to the IP dispute resolution landscape. What will be done to strengthen and train up capabilities of our people so that people in our legal industry can benefit from these changes? This includes arbitrators specialising in IP, legal practitioners in the field of IP and disputes, and thought leaders in arbitration, dispute resolution and IP. There is much potential in this Bill for people who develop and own IP, for instance, software engineers, designers, small medium enterprises. People who use technology in their day-to-day life will also benefit from this Bill. Why? Because IP rights are supported through a more robust dispute resolution structure. And for those reasons, I support this Bill.”
“In this way, this Bill consolidates IP proceedings in the High Court, simplifying and streamlining the process. This may also assist in enforcement overseas. As cross-border IP disputes may become increasingly common in an interconnected world, overseas enforcement is particularly important for IP disputes. However, along with this change comes concerns regarding costs. Small businesses already tend to avoid enforcing IP rights due to somewhat prohibitive costs and a potential "war of attrition". While the Bill provides for indemnity costs under certain conditions at clause 6, this is only for Geographical Indications and a trial and hearing at the High Court still costs significantly more than that of a lower Court. Furthermore, as some of the procedures were previously carried out by IPOS, what will be done to ensure that our judiciary has the necessary expertise and resources needed to replace that function? Third, this Bill makes it clear that disputes relating to IP rights are arbitrable. This is important as there is some school of thought that certain IP disputes, such as copyright and registration of trademark or patents, are non-arbitrable as it is against public policy. These are some arguments, not necessarily arguments I would agree with. For example, the Review of the Arbitration Act Committee's 2000 Report Review of Arbitration Laws espoused such a view. However, the position in the Bill is not novel. It is the position that is also made clear in Hong Kong by the Arbitration Ordinance which came into effect on 1 January 2018. There are advantages to having IP being arbitrable.”
“Although the applications may not cost as much for the applicant as a Court proceeding, these applications take a toll on the proprietor by increasing uncertainty. One or both of these kinds of third-party processes are present in other jurisdictions and regions, such as Japan, Great Britain, Europe, Australia and China. Having it in Singapore will further our position as an IP hub. These processes make patents in Singapore more robust and accurate as there are more avenues to subject them to scrutiny. Because it is ex parte, these processes are less costly and less time consuming. It is especially important for SMEs with limited resources and manpower, which is a point the Senior Minister of State alluded to in his speech earlier on. In relation to the re-examination after grant process, there is a bar in the new section 38A(5) of the Patents Act against the filing of an application where there is a pending Court proceeding in which the validity of the patent may be put in issue. Would the Minister explain why there is no similar bar in the context of an ongoing arbitration, especially if a party to the arbitration is trying to get a second bite at the cherry by filing an application? Even though arbitration proceedings are private, the proprietary holder could, possibly, apply for a stay of the re-examination application. Second, this Bill streamlines dispute resolutions by consolidating the jurisdiction for IP disputes within the High Court. Currently, certain IP disputes may be carried out at IPOS or at the various levels of Courts. For example, copyright proceedings used to be held in "a Court" but has been changed in clauses 3 and 4 to only the High Court. The jurisdiction of the Registrar at IPOS to determine infringement of a patent is removed by clause 13.”
“Sir, IP is particularly important for Singapore as we continue to look for smart solutions and invest heavily in R&D. By monetising intangible innovations, there is incentive to work on ideas and make them reality. This benefits society. The substantive law governing and protecting IP is a key ingredient in ensuring Singapore's reputation as an IP hub grows. This Bill strengthens that framework so that IP rights can be better protected in Singapore. First, this Bill introduces third party observation and re-examination after grant process. Before I go further, Sir, I should declare that I am a practising lawyer whose practice also includes IP and acted in the case that appeared in the Explanatory Statement of this Bill. Sir, the third party observation process in clause 10, the new section 32 of the Patents Act, is available before the patent is granted. This will allow the patent granted to more accurately reflect the scope that would be adequate both for the rights of the proprietor as well as other innovators in the same field. Would the Minister elaborate on how this process may affect the turnover time for patent registration in Singapore? The re-examination after grant process is found in clause 11, new section 38A of the Patents Act. This new process supplements the current procedure. Although the applicant has less control in the ex parte proceeding, the applicant does not need to spend as much financial resources and time to challenge the patent. Even as it is good to provide this alternative process of challenging a patent, would the Minister elaborate on the safeguards to prevent a proprietor of a legitimate patent from getting deluged by these applications?”
“I agree that ensuring, maintaining high quality in our educators must be an over-riding factor. If classroom sizes can be reduced while quality of teaching remains high, that is an ideal win-win. The tradeoffs will take time to iron out. In the meantime, my question is: can MOE please invest in Allied Educators and administrative support staff to ease the load on the teachers such that teachers can focus on teaching to the benefit of students? Career progression for the Allied Educators and administrative support staff is also key. My second supplementary question: in the way the Ministry of Health (MOH) is building up capability in the allied health worker force to aid the doctors in performing their duties, would MOE also build up training and continuing professional development for allied educators or even set up an Allied Educator Academy, so that teachers can be very ably partnered by Allied Educators in the education of our young? My two supplementary questions for the Minister.”
“I thank the Senior Parliamentary Secretary for his answer, and I am glad that the Ministry of Home Affairs (MHA) is taking the issue of vice seriously. Sir, the activities of Orchard Towers spill out very publicly onto the pavements of Orchard Road, especially at night. It creates an unsafe and uncomfortable environment for people who just want to have a decent meal in the buildings that surround Orchard Towers. Therefore, could MHA prioritise anti-vice raids on Orchard Towers to clean up that strip of Orchard Road? There is also an investigation into an alleged murder there. And I think this brings to bear the urgency of the task.”
“Although clause 15 provides that a vehicle may be forfeited for certain driving dangerously or without due care, they focus on drink-driving and are ill-suited to address illegal racing as racers may not be drunk when driving. Is it the case that the prosecution has to choose between possible forfeiture of the car and a higher possible sentence of reckless driving when charging for a situation involving illegal racing? Another way this Bill allows punishment to be better calibrated is by providing for compounded offences to be taken into consideration for sentencing in the new section 139AA, clause 21 of this Bill. This would give the Court a clearer picture of the driver's driving practices and habits so that the various principles of sentencing can be more accurately weighed out. In closing, Sir, I hope that educative aspects of prevention will also supplement these changes in the law to enhance the consequences of certain offences for deterrence and prevention. On the whole, this Bill prevents and deters road traffic offences and provides for a better calibrated punishment system and, therefore, I support it.”
“According to section 131, the penalty for offences without a specified penalty would be a fine not exceeding $1,000 and/or imprisonment not exceeding three months for the first offence and a fine not exceeding $2,000 and/or imprisonment not exceeding six months for subsequent offences. A lot of "not exceeding" in that sentence. But clause 2 of the Bill raises the penalty for these offences to a fine of up to $10,000 and/or imprisonment not exceeding three years for the first offence and a fine of up to $20,000 and/or imprisonment up to six years for subsequent offences. What is the rationale for raising the penalties? Will the proposed enhanced punishment be overly harsh on individuals who may have unknowingly driven a vehicle without a licence, for example, those above the age of 65 who were unaware that their licence had expired, or whatever the age cap for that is? The third theme of the Bill I want to speak on is calibration. This Bill better calibrates the punishment meted out for the particular circumstance. This is most evident by the punishment regime in clauses 13 and 14 relating to dangerous driving and driving without due care in sections 64 and 65. The Bill calibrates it according to culpability, aggravating factor of drink-driving or some other serious offence, gravity of hurt caused, and whether or not the offender is recalcitrant. Why is unauthorised speed trials and competition pegged to driving without due care or reasonable consideration under the new section 65(5)(a) and (b) and not reckless or dangerous driving under the new section 64(2C)(a) and (b)? There is a question mark after that. Unauthorised competitions are deliberate and extremely dangerous, sometimes clocking speeds that more than triple the prescribed speed limit.”
“Therefore, does the Ministry have any plans to ensure that there is support for victims of drink-driving accidents, whether it be ensuring that there be financial compensation or whether it be counselling to overcome any trauma from the incident? Besides controlling the situation through the introduction of deterrent, preventive and calibrated punishment regimes, what is the demographic of the drivers for the bulk of accidents and apprehensions made due to traffic offences? According to the General Insurance Association's review in 2018, the 4% dip in accident reports was largely attributable to fewer private-hire cars and taxis on the road. How are road safety education and campaign efforts effectively targeting these more "at-risk" demographics? What are the common root reasons for accidents? When there is change in traffic lights or roads, what is being done to lower the risk of accidents happening? Also, what plans does the Ministry have to enhance road safety to keep up with changing challenges, such as a possible increase in delivery motorbicycles, cyclists and even users of e-scooters or other PMDs who choose to flout the rules against riding on the roads? Another group of offences with enhanced penalties I would like to draw attention to is that of driving without a licence, or employing or permitting another to drive without a licence, under suspension, or under disqualification. The punishments have been raised significantly. For example, in the case of driving without a licence or permitting or employing someone to drive without a licence, the current section 43 of the Road Traffic Act does not specify a penalty.”
“The new section 65AA under clause 15 also provides for forfeiture of the vehicle in certain circumstances, such as where the driver was drink-driving and whose reckless driving or driving without due care caused death or grievous hurt. Besides ensuring that there is sufficient deterrence against drink-driving, we should also ensure that the victim of a drink-driving accident can obtain compensation. When I asked the Minister for Transport in October last year during a Parliamentary Question, the reply was "Insurance policies cannot be restricted from paying out for such liabilities incurred from drink-driving." However, at least some motor insurance policies have exemption clauses that say that the insurance company "shall not be liable in respect of: 1. Any accident, loss, damage or liability caused sustained or incurred:…(b) whilst any Insured Vehicle in respect of which indemnity is provided by this Policy is: …(iii) being driven by the Policyholder or by any person on the order of or with the permission of the Policyholder whilst under the influence of intoxicating liquor or drugs." The victim in drink-driving accidents is put in a hard position as the drink-driver may not have enough money on hand to pay the victim. This would be exacerbated if the drink-driver’s vehicle is forfeited under clause 15 of this Bill as the drink-driver would be less able to secure a loan. I am not saying that you should not forfeit the vehicle. I am in favour of forfeiting the vehicle. My concern is for the victim of a drink-driving accident being compensated.”
“The words of both proposed sections are the same but the relevant paragraphs in the explanatory statements are different. The second paragraph on clause 13 in the Explanatory Statement states that the disqualification periods "serve as a guide to the Court as the Court retains discretion whether to order the disqualification or depart from what is in the section." On the other hand, the second paragraph on clause 14 says that "Under the amended section 65, a Court that convicted a person of an offence under subsection (1) must in certain cases order that the person be disqualified from holding or obtaining a driving licence for a period starting on the date of the person's conviction, or the date of the person's release from prison." Would the Minister or the Senior Parliamentary Secretary kindly clarify how these proposed sections would operate? Disqualifications do not just prevent future traffic offences, they also deter potential traffic offences from happening. This second theme of the Bill can also be seen in enhanced punishments and the forfeiture of vehicles. One of the crimes that has enhanced punishment is section 67 driving under the influence of drugs or alcohol. Every month for the first nine months of 2018, one person lost his or her life to an accident related to drink-driving. Although the number of persons arrested for drink-driving decreased by 3.7% in 2018 compared to 2017, if I am not mistaken, the number of drink-driving accidents increased by 17.3%, with the proportion of motorcyclists increasing by 51.3%. Under clause 17, the punishment for drink-driving is roughly doubled. Instead of a minimum period of 12 months disqualification, the amended section 67(2) provides for two years for a first offender and five years for repeat offenders.”
“Pedestrians, too, suffer at the hands of reckless PMD users. So, while the focus of this Bill, which I support, is to make driving safer, I hope the authorities and the Courts can consider the serious role of reckless PMD users in causing accidents on our roads and on our pedestrian or road crossings. That should reduce the culpability of the driver of the vehicle. The other concern I have, before going in particular into the details of this Bill, is about turning into a road where the traffic light is green, while at the same time a green man allows a pedestrian to cross the same road. The presence of a green light and a simultaneous green man can cause confusion and accidents can happen. To avoid such confusion, would the rules allow for a green arrow to be coupled with a red man, or a green man to be coupled with a red arrow? This will make the road safer for drivers and pedestrians. If needed, this is possible and the traffic flow allows for such permutations. Sir, this Bill prevents further road traffic offences by providing for disqualification for longer periods and for more offences in clauses 13, 14 and 17. Such offences include certain instances of dangerous driving, driving without due care and drink-driving. There are also longer suspension periods under clause 8. In particular, the new section 46(2)(b) also allows a licence to be suspended after the person completes a prescribed course on safe driving. This prevents further road traffic offences not just by taking the driver off the road for a certain amount of time but also by correcting certain driving practices. In relation to disqualification periods, is there supposed to be a difference between how the new section 65(6) and the new section 64(2D) operate?”
“Sir, when a person drives, he or she is in charge of something very heavy and very powerful and able to barrel down the street at great speed. But the road is shared among many users and road conditions are dynamic. Dangerous or careless driving puts the driver's own life at risk and pedestrians crossing the road or walking on the pavement at risk. Their actions leave a lasting impact on the victims' lives, their families and even sometimes their own lives. In May 2018, a driver looked down briefly, veered towards the right, mounted a kerb, colliding into the centre median, a sign and a couple of railings. The accident left his passenger tetraplegic and bedbound, a condition likely to be permanent. In June 2018, while enroute home to Singapore from Malaysia, a family got into an accident. The parents passed away from the accident, leaving behind two young children. In June 2014, a five-year-old boy had to spend more than 100 days in hospital and was permanently paralysed on the right side of his body after a delivery driver failed to keep a proper lookout or a safe distance on the expressway. These real-life stories drive home the importance of driving responsibly. This Road Traffic (Amendment) Bill prevents and deters road traffic offences as well as calibrates the punishment to achieve a more accurate form of justice in the particular situation. Allow me, Sir, before I move on to other aspects of the Bill, to also speak up on behalf of drivers and pedestrians. Personal mobility devices (PMDs) travelling fast and recklessly, sometimes dart out onto the road from pavements. Such a startling appearance on road crossings causes immense danger to the drivers of vehicles and other road users and can cause death or serious injury.”
“Mr Speaker, my understanding is that the presumptions in MDA continue to be key legal tools to combat the trafficking of drugs, that is, the supply of drugs, into Singapore. I have asked the Senior Parliamentary Secretary to confirm whether my understanding is still valid and correct. And, if it is valid and correct, that is, that the presumptions continue to be legal and muscular tools, then arising out of this decision, can the accused now claim a defence that he had no knowledge just by virtue of the drugs being well-concealed? I certainly hope that an accused should not be able to avail himself of such a defence.”
“Indeed, I thank Ms Irene Quay for that clarification. Hitherto, I do not think the wording in the Order Paper Supplement suggested that explanation, but if it is a clarification, then it does put some perspective.”
“I thank Ms Irene Quay for that. I studied the Order Paper Supplement and, actually, under the functions of the council under (h) at page 7, it says "to perform such functions as the Minister may, by order publish...assign, provided such functions do not compromise the independence of the Panel." It would seem to me that this council suggested through this suggested amendment envisions practising some of the Ministerial functions. And in addition to that, at (f) at page 7, under functions of the Council, it says "to liaise with scientific, specialist and technical experts to advise the Government on examining contested facts of a specialist nature." And it seems that the Council that this amendment envisions is taking on the adjudication role of what is fact and what is not. So, I do think that we should take it seriously, the amendment, look at it for what it is and, in my considered view, the Executive plus an oversight of the Judiciary is the best way forward.”
“Mr Deputy Speaker, I would invite Mr Pritam Singh to actually look at the report. Principally, I will quote four sections of the report where it states specifically that swift action is key. Swift action is key. The importance of stemming the spread of online falsehoods – para 357(a). "Specific objectives – Provide swift access to the facts" – para 361 of the report. And in page 103 of the report, Part c: "neutralise false amplifiers,...swiftly." I think this brings to bear why in recommendation No 12 at page 133, we want to be able to discredit falsehoods swiftly. In all of these instances, I would humbly suggest to the House that our Executive, our Ministers, the officebearers who are fed with information on what is happening on the ground can make the best decisions within the limited time that they have. And if there is any delay, goodness knows what the consequences could be and that would harm Singaporeans.”
“I do not think that we should be blind to the fact that there are major issues around the world and that falsehoods can tear a multiracial and multi-religious society like Singapore, can tear it quite quickly and quite swiftly, and we must guard against that. Therefore, for principle reasons and for practical reasons, I am in support of the model of allowing the Executive to make the first instance decision, and then have it reviewed by the Courts. And we have heard the Minister state that in subsidiary legislation this is going to be an accelerated process – actually within nine days, you could get a hearing if, indeed, the complainant uses his right quickly within the 14 days that he has. So, for these reasons, I do not think we should be waving a banner of freedom of speech without understanding the consequences of what that entails in dynamic situations where falsehoods can catch like fire in hay. And for those reasons, I support the Bill.”
“But I ask Mr Pritam Singh to look through and decide practically what Singaporeans need in times of crises. And after all, in the first instance when the Executive makes the decision, that is reviewable. It is reviewable through two mechanisms, and not one. The first is a statutory appeal mechanism, and the second is judicial review. So, the Minister's decision is reviewable. I do not think we should be debating on philosophy and getting tongue-tied over illusions of philosophy. What happens if there is an endemic that is breaking out in the hospital when every minute matters? Refer to the Courts? I have great respect for the Courts, and I think as a tier above the Minister, a tier of review – I should rephrase it – a tier of review, they are best-placed to decide whether that order was correct or not to begin with, but not to put the Courts in a mix where it is such a dynamic situation. Ms Irene Quay has also discussed this issue of another body, I read the Order Paper Supplement, and I think it is called an "independent council" that looks into the issue of falsehoods. I do not agree that there is a need for that council. If one looks at the Order Paper Supplement, one of the functions of the council seems to want to replace the Ministerial decision-making and also determine what is fact. So, it seems to want to do two things: both the Executive role as well as the judicial role, when actually, there is, every time we sit, an ability to hold the Minister to account in this decision-making process. So, we have to be very clear about the nature of the beast that we are dealing with.”
“The decision-maker also needs to be equipped with the information to make the decisions speedily. The decision-maker must also be the right person to weigh in on issues of public interest. It is a dynamic situation. Let us say that there is a riot. And during the course of the riot, there is a statement that the Police killed the person because of the person's race. Now that needs an immediate intervention by the Executive in the form of a Minister to say, "That is incorrect." He has to decide whether or not it should be taken down or put up a Correction Direction in the form of what is the truth. You want to refer to the Courts for that? Half an hour later into the riot, it says that the Police are opening fire on innocent people. That is false. The Minister again, having to deal with the consequences, must look and say, "What correction must go out?", "Does it need to be taken down?", "Does another piece of information need to go up to put that in perspective, to balance it?" Refer to the Courts again? Surely not. Half an hour later, oh, another allegation, out of the blue, "The Police are trying to disarm the closed-circuit television (CCTV) to get rid of the evidence." That is false. Again, the Minister, at the time well after court hours, maybe, will have to make a decision, "What do I do? Take that down? Issue a Correction Direction?" Surely, the Minister, being the Executive, has the play of all the facts. He is in the mix. He has got the officers reporting to him. He has to make decisions very quickly, life and death. So, this may not only just be about falsehoods per se, but the consequence of what those falsehoods would lead to. Refer to the Courts? Mr Pritam Singh says philosophically, he has a disagreement; philosophically, it should not be the Courts.”
“The corrections regime encourages free speech, by ensuring that people are exposed to more viewpoints and more facts, not less. This is in line with the "marketplace of ideas" theory. In line with this, we need good public debate. Therefore, I would like to ask: what are the Government's plans to assure well-meaning members of society that they should continue to contribute to meaningful civic discussions? Mr Pritam Singh questions why the Executive needs to be part of the solution. He says that the Courts should be part of the solution in the first instance. Do we need an appropriate decision-making body? Yes. But the type of decision-making model is key. And for the record, I disagree with Mr Pritam Singh, and I do not think that the Courts are the best placed to hear this in the first instance and decide whether a takedown notice needs to be made or a Correction Direction needs to be made. Why do I say that the type of decision-making model is key? Because we should be completely aware of the nature of the threat which lies before us. It is dynamic. It evolves swiftly. Falsehoods can spread like fire in hay. They need to be curbed and responded to robustly before they can cause harm. Falsehoods can threaten public safety and create riots. So, against the nature of the beast, what factors ought to shape the model of the decision-making in the first instance? The need for speed, a nimble response. That is clear. In these situations, there is no luxury of time to make decisions, going through the Court process, and so on. In the words of the SC report, recommendation 12, "The measures will need to achieve the objective of breaking virality by being effective in a matter of hours." Hours! And that could be after Court hours. A riot can break after the Courts close.”
“" Falsehoods can undermine the concept of an objective truth. This may have the negative effect of causing citizens to disengage from public discourse altogether. In the Czech Republic, a survey showed that 53% of Czechs believed that there was both pro-Russian and anti-Russian propaganda in the Czech public space, and they could not trust anything. My next point is that legislation cannot be viewed as the antithesis to freedom of speech. To the contrary, legislation is needed to protect freedom of speech. Why? Because leaving corrections to somehow organically or innately work themselves out is simply ineffective. As a result, truth suffers. Some examples would help. In October 2014, NationalReport.net, a fake news website, published a story that street artist Banksy had been arrested in London and that the City of London Police had identified Banksy as Paul William Horner, a 36-year-old male born in Liverpool, England. This article received a total of 60,402 shares on Twitter and Facebook. By contrast, it took nine debunking articles by major news outlets, such as The Independent, The Huffington Post, and so on, to reach the same total of 60,000 shares. The point I am making is that to rely on existing legal remedies would be far too insufficient to deal with the threat at hand. As Dean of Singapore Management University, School of Law, Prof Goh Yihan stated, existing laws are limited in terms of speed, scope and adaptability. Simply put, while criminal penalties may apply to punish perpetrators, there are no legislative levers to ensure the timely correction or removal of fake news. Many people have expressed concern that the Bill will create a chilling effect on public discussions. That is far too broad a criticism.”
“Singapore must be bold in making legal moves in light of global trends which have disadvantaged the citizenry, public institutions and governments via a deluge of falsehoods. It is easy to wave a banner, whip up emotion and say freedom of speech at all cost, but much harder to sit down, study the subject and put in place measures to ensure that freedom of speech does flourish without the destructive nature of falsehoods. In essence, the proliferation of online falsehoods undermines freedom of speech. It does not promote it. Why? Because no discerning Member here could disagree with the following contention, that falsehoods, cyberbullying, trolling and hate speech corrode, rather than promote, public debate. They damage society's shared public space and reality. If non-reality is allowed to become reality, this harms society as decision-making is prejudiced by falsity. Falsehoods can unfairly inflame passions, to prevent rational debate. Falsehoods, especially when amplified by bots and trolls, can intimidate other voices, thereby preventing people from being exposed to a diversity of views. It devalues and delegitimises the voices of experts and authoritative institutions, thus undermining society's ability to engage in rational discourse based on shared facts. These can have major ramifications. The Brexit referendum is a classic example of how falsehoods can penetrate and prejudice even mature democracies. We must learn from that and prevent falsehoods from penetrating the precious crucible of public debate in Singapore. Indeed, some of the things that had been said in Brexit could have led to Michael Gove's exasperated comment during the height of the Brexit referendum campaigning in which he said, "People in this country have had enough of experts.”
“For example, the proposed section 13B mandates that the Court explain to the respondent in ordinary language the purpose and effect of a mandatory treatment order, consequences if the respondent fails to comply. Beyond these useful initiatives, are there any other measures in place to ensure that victims of harassment and abuse are given sufficient assistance when they approach the Courts for help? Seventh, the press release says that the PHC aims to hear applications for expedited POs within 48 to 72 hours of application, with applications involving risk of violence or actual violence within 24 hours. How long does the process currently take and would the Minister share what resources will be deployed to PHC so that the suggested tight deadlines are met? In conclusion, Sir, the POHA Bill is to be welcomed as it strengthens the anti-harassment regime in Singapore. As a result, Singaporeans stand to benefit. Therefore, I support the Bill.”
“For an interim disabling order in the new section 16AA, the additional requirement is that it has caused or is likely to cause the subject harm. Here, I seek a clarification of the Senior Minister of State: is the harm in this section limited to physical harm, or would it extend to other forms of harm? Here, I would point out that there is a specialised definition of harm only for the new section 8A in clause 10(e) which is "any physical harm; harassment, alarm or distress; or being caused to believe that unlawful violence will be used against the victim." On the topic of general correction orders which I have raised above, the Bill will allow general correction orders to be made against third parties, such as Internet intermediaries. Therefore, it could be envisioned that expenses can be incurred by such third parties in complying with and adhering to such orders. Thus, my question is: does the Bill ensure that such third parties are not put out of the pocket for trying to comply with these orders. The fifth point, Sir, is more of a clarification than a position. It is to be noted that the current section 15 already has the phrase "statement of fact". This section will be repealed in clause 20. Is the meaning of "statement of fact" in clause 3 meant to be different from how "statement of fact" is to be understood in the current section 15? Sixthly, this Bill makes the overall process quicker and more accessible, primarily by setting up the Protection from Harassment Court (PHC), governed by its own rules of procedure and evidence per clause 24(h). There are several features of the Bill which make it easier for litigants in person.”
“For example, in China, because a person’s car plate number was a partial match to a car belonging to a driver who had spat on a homeless elderly, the "human flesh search engine" caused a person who had consistently protested his innocence to receive blackmail calls, threatening to burn his house down. People who speak up about something controversial also get doxxed. Threats to safety, threats to family members, harassment at work, these are all possible consequences of doxxing. Third, the other ways the provisions have been strengthened include extending the protection under POs to the person’s related to the victim, making it clear that entities can avail themselves of the protection under POHA, enhancing the penalties if a contravention of a PO was between a person and his or her intimate partner or if it was towards a vulnerable person. This is to be welcomed. Fourth, the Bill broadens the kinds of orders that can be made, particularly with respect to false information. For instance, instead of requiring a person to stop publishing it unless he or she also publishes a notification drawing attention to the falsehood and what is true, a correction order, stop publication order, disabling order, targeted correction order, and general correction order may be ordered under clause 20. What would be especially useful are interim orders as the falsehoods may be spreading quickly. In some of these orders, there are additional criteria which need to be fulfilled beyond the just and equitable basis. For instance, in the new section 15E, a general correction order requires that the publication of the false statement of fact must have caused or is likely to cause serious harm to the reputation of the subject.”
“Sir, this Bill makes our regime against harassment and spreading falsehoods more effective. The legal protection from harassment is as relevant today as when POHA was first enacted in 2014. Cyberbullying is one of the social ills that POHA has sought to address. In 2014, a survey by the Singapore Children’s Society and the Institute of Mental Health of more than 3,000 students aged 12 to 17 found that one in nine had been victims of cyberbullying. In 2018, Channel NewsAsia's Talking Point surveyed 353 youths aged 13 to 19, finding that three in four had been cyberbullied and almost all had not informed their parents. Besides amendments to the criminal law addressing voyeurism, revenge porn and cyber flashing, a PO under POHA is capable of ordering published images that cause harassment, alarm or distress to be taken down. There are several commendable features of this Bill. First, clause 22 makes contravening a PO an arrestable offence in certain circumstances. This should be welcomed as it would allow for a prompter response, especially when someone is at risk of getting hurt. Second, this Bill criminalises doxxing. Social media can proliferate information that can be used to harass. Whether it be through pictures in school uniform, consistent patterns of posts, family pictures, pictures taken near a person’s home, the point is that there is a lot of information online that can be pieced together at strategic times to harass a person, and his or her family. Furthermore, online words can spark offline consequences and things can spiral out of control. Therefore, the amendments we are debating today in POHA are crucial and timely.”
“Actually, that is not what I am suggesting. I am suggesting a situation where, if you look at other threats that we are facing and one threat is drugs, that the threats morph, that the threats can change in future and, if we have a Schedule, as we do in the Misuse of Drugs Act or classification of drugs that makes a certain type of drug which has yet been concocted and has harm as being illicit to consume, then I think that is a valuable example or a valuable way of looking at whether we can develop our own criminal law in the form of the Penal Code to explore such an avenue. I am not advocating a free rein of the Minister to make, willy-nilly, new offences without coming to Parliament. That was not what I said in my speech.”
“Yes. I thank Ms Sylvia Lim for the clarification. Actually, if Ms Sylvia Lim had listened to my speech carefully, I had actually used the Misuse of Drugs Act as an example of a situation where, if there are new threats, that is, new drugs in the forms of, for example, new psychoactive substances that have hitherto not been deemed as illicit under the Misuse of Drugs Act, then to include that in the Schedule and to say that thereafter the consumption of those types of drugs would be illicit would make for a much more flexible regime. So, I am suggesting that if there are broad categories of provisions – I used CBT as an example, CBT is actually 406 but it can be read with 409 – if you look at that, the broad context of it, is it sufficiently broad as a primary legislation to encompass different permutations in subsidiary legislation? And I never asked for it to act retrospectively. So, I am looking at possibilities to make the system deter future activities through a more flexible use of legal tools. That was my point.”
“Therefore, for all the six reasons above, I ask the Ministry to seriously reconsider whether it wants to repeal section 309. If the Ministry wishes to proceed with the repeal, then I ask that a detailed study of the number of suicides following the repeal be undertaken. If the number of suicides in Singapore increases following repeal when compared to pre-repeal numbers, I ask that the Ministry consider re-introducing a provision similar to section 309 back into the Penal Code. For such a detailed study to be meaningful, mandatory reporting should be re-introduced – it should not be abolished. Otherwise, the study may be inaccurate. In essence, Sir, I urge the Government to closely examine its decision to decriminalise the offence of attempted suicide and closely monitor the impact that it has on our society. My concerns regarding the abolition of section 309 do not dilute, in any way, my strong support for the other excellent facets of this Bill. After all, the other amendments seek to protect vulnerable victims, ensure our muscular law reaches perpetrators who seek to do Singapore harm from beyond our shores, retains section 377A and introduces a sentencing framework which allows for the deployment of more accurate justice. Those are strong and commendable initiatives worthy of support.”
“There is further value in that story, that real-life story shared by Ms Ho displays why the presence of sections 305 and 306 do not cure the concerns over the decriminalisation of attempted suicide. Fourth reason, I agree with the Ministry that the stigma against those suffering from mental health should be removed. Indeed, I have spoken up in Parliament about removing such a stigma and increasing community support for those suffering from mental illness in 2018 and 2019. Such a stigma is not fair. We should not hold mental illness against the person who has it. But the removal of section 309 does not need to be part of that destigmatisation exercise. Why? Because there is a risk that the number of suicides will increase if there is no provision to deter the act. Broader society will have no legal deterrent and those attempting suicide may consider the absence of a prohibition as a licence to attempt the act. If that were to happen, society loses and we could see an increase in the number of suicides in future. I feel duty-bound to articulate that concern in this House. My fifth reason, there should be mandatory reporting of suicide attempts. Yet, this Bill removes the requirement for mandatory reporting. This, in my view, should be seriously reconsidered since removing the requirement for the mandatory reporting of an attempted suicide removes one means, a crucial means, by which the suicidal person can get the professional help he or she needs. Sixth, the retention of section 309 consolidates the moral position against euthanasia. For the record, Sir, I support laws that outlaw euthanasia for I believe that an innocent life is as precious through sufferings as it is through joys.”
“Second, the repeal of section 309 may send the signal that taking one's life is acceptable to broader society when, in my view, that is not society's thinking. Three, all the attendant treatment, support, care and counselling can be provided while still retaining the provision. Indeed, when this happens, society would benefit from the deterrent effect of the law. This means that the law would help deter some future suicides in society, while, at the same time, the people who need the counselling and care are able to receive it. I cite the inspiring words of a courageous young lady who wrote a forum page letter in the Straits Times in February 2019. I quote her: "As someone who overcame suicide and is now a passionate advocate for the sanctity of life, I am sad to see suicide being decriminalised in our nation. Suicide is truly a multifaceted and complex issue, and the law should not be excluded from having a deterrent effect on people who see death as the only option in their difficult circumstances. I gave up the idea of further suicide attempts after Police officers gently reminded me that attempting suicide was an offence. There was no need for the authorities to restrain or prosecute me, for I was cooperative and clearly in distress. In recent years, I managed to persuade a young foreigner from killing herself just by informing her the offensive nature of suicide in our nation. Human life is sacred and should not be violated, not even by ourselves." She goes on, "The decriminalisation of suicide perpetuates the erroneous message of 'my body, my choice'. When it is no longer mandatory to report a suicide attempt, people will stop reporting it as it is not a crime." – Ms Ho Lay Ping. Writing that and putting a name to it takes immense courage and I respect that.”
“This has caused me to believe that retaining a provision, such as section 377A, even if it is unenforced, continues to be a good approach for our country. The provision remains relevant and necessary. Sir, I am of the view that the environment the traditional family unit offers to children supports the state in creating the best environment for the upbringing of children. This environment should be protected. We should build it up and not tear it down. Therefore, my views expressed in 2007 have not changed. Sir, my sixth theme covers section 309. Clause 89 repeals section 309, the offence of attempted suicide. I have concerns regarding its repeal. Yes, attempted suicide is an issue which must be addressed with great sensitivity, and the topic must be respected with all the attendent empathy it so clearly deserves. However, I have looked at the Ministry's arguments for repealing section 309 and I hold a different view. Section 309 should be retained. In a way, retaining it is the more compassionate approach because, in my view, preserving the provision will save more lives. Retention of the provision has a further advantage. It prevents euthanasia from making its way to our shores. Sir, do I believe we should help members of our society who are contemplating suicide? Absolutely. Do I think we should enforce section 309 against people who attempt suicide? In most cases, no. But keeping the provision is still of immense value. Why? I humbly submit that there are six reasons. First, because it sends a normative signal that taking one's life is not the answer to life's problems, to the extent that the law prohibits it.”
“For example, in the Misuse of Drugs Act, the Minister does not need to come to Parliament to update the list of drugs, especially new psychoactive drugs. In this way, the law addressing the harms of drugs is flexible, versatile and able to respond quickly to the threat. An example of what could be done for a Penal Code provision is by introducing a Schedule for section 409 of the Penal Code. It was held by the Singapore Court of Appeal in the 2018 case of Public Prosecutor v Lam Leng Hung, Kong Hee and Others that the provision contained in section 409 on criminal breach of trust (CBT) by an agent does not cover key officers of a charity and officers of a society. If there was a mechanism for a readily amendable Schedule or subsidiary legislation, and the original offence in the primary legislation was broad enough and consistent with Parliament's intention to encompass such a situation, then rather than having to come to Parliament to amend the provision to plug loopholes, the Minister could expand on the limbs of an existing provision to tighten the law through a Schedule or subsidiary legislation. While this cannot apply retrospectively, it would be a quick and efficient way to plug loopholes for future cases. Could MHA and MinLaw consider this suggestion, please? My fifth theme covers section 377A. Sir, I support the Government's decision to retain the provision. Since speaking on the topic in Parliament in 2007, I have followed the debate in other countries and studied the multiple legal challenges in various jurisdictions which seek to redefine marriage, gender, adoption rights, spousal rights and what is taught in schools.”
“In the new subsection 4, it says that "in any written law, unless the context requires otherwise, a reference to a mandatory minimum sentence of imprisonment shall include a reference to a presumptive minimum sentence." Could the Minister elaborate on whether such a rationale applies to all existing regulatory and criminal laws or whether it is restricted to only the laws contained in the Penal Code? For example, how would subsection 4 apply to the Misuse of Drugs Act which already has a carefully calibrated deterrent-rehabilitation regime through the availability of the Drug Rehabilitation Centre at one extreme and the Long Term Imprisonments 1 and 2 options at the other extreme? In short, Sir, presumptive minimum sentences will have the advantage of creating some broad consistency in sentencing across courtrooms and across cases but allows much needed flexibility where the merits of the case justify a lower sentence. Such flexibility allows for more accurate justice. Sir, I move to my fourth theme. While it is good and necessary to carry out an extensive review of our criminal laws every 12 years or so, would MHA and MinLaw consider creating a set of legal tools which could deal with morphing criminal threats of the future? In a world where technology progresses so rapidly, the potential criminal activities and their modus operandi may be morphing so quickly that even though we have a robust new criminal law framework now, the law may still not be wide enough to address the criminal methodologies of the future. Therefore, would MHA and MinLaw consider the suggestion to introduce a Schedule or the possibility for subsidiary legislation through which the Minister can respond quickly to the morphing criminal phenomenon without needing to come to Parliament?”
“One key way is to tackle crimes committed through the Internet. The proposed section 4B(1)(c) does so by specifying that certain offences committed outside Singapore but which affect Singapore are punishable as though the act had been carried out in Singapore. This is especially useful for financial crimes which can be committed remotely, with no respect for territorial boundaries. This ensures that the arm of Singapore's law can reach overseas actors who create harm in Singapore. This is key for a highly connected hub, such as Singapore. It is an amendment that is needed and welcomed. Sir, I move on to the third theme. The new presumptive minimum sentence is another important feature of this Bill. The proposed section 303A of the Criminal Procedure Code (CPC) in clause 169 introduces more flexibility in sentencing by allowing the Court to impose a sentence less than the presumptive minimum sentence if exceptional circumstances made it unjust to impose a first-time offender with the presumptive minimum sentence. At this stage, I should declare that I am a lawyer in private practice and sometimes act as Defence Counsel in criminal cases. From my experience, it is good to give our judges the discretion to impose accurate sentences. This may involve, at times, lighter sentences where there are strong mitigating factors which put the offenders’ acts in perspective. Allowing a judge to mete out a lower sentence, even lower than the presumptive minimum, could prove very useful where an offender is quite clearly on the lower spectrum of the culpability scale. It makes for more accurate justice. However, I do have a clarification to ask.”
“That clause introduces the offence of sexual activity or image in the presence of a minor below 16 years of age. This is relevant to the proposed section 376ED and it should be supported. During the debate on the Penal Code (Amendment) Bill in 2007, Ms Ellen Lee raised the point that the exceptions to marital rape immunity are inadequate to address serious abuse in marriage. In particular, Ms Ellen Lee cited the case of PP against N where the marital relationship was already highly strained and the husband forcefully dragged her back to their matrimonial home, tied her hands, gagged her and "raped" her. The changes to section 375(4) in clause 110(b) address that and put into clear focus the victim’s interest. This is a bold move and should be supported. I am also glad that Ms Ellen Lee’s conscientious voice in 2007 has made an impact on the changes we are discussing today. Many countries talk about the rights of the accused. Yes, that is important, but a good justice system is also victim-focused. Sir, onto another topic within the first theme. Singapore-hosted webpages saw an exponential increase in child pornography content. In 2015, there were 10. But in 2016, there were 211. In the first 10 months of 2017, this number almost doubled to 412. The amendments to this Bill improve our law’s capability to deter such lewd content and punish the purveyors of it. We must protect our children. They are innocent and must be shielded from depraved and corrupt humans who seek offensive pleasure from such lewd acts. Hence, the proposed sections 377BG to 377BK, which punish purveyors of child pornography or child abuse content, are important and timely. Sir, I move on to the second theme, that is, to ensure culpability even where the criminal acts are committed overseas.”
“Sir, this Bill has the monumental task of reforming Singapore’s criminal law. It is the result of an immense effort by the many stakeholders – the Ministry of Law (MinLaw), Ministry of Home Affairs (MHA), AGC, the Law Society, the Criminal Bar and members of the public who have provided the valuable feedback. The product is a formidable piece of legislation. Sir, today, I would like to discuss six broad themes underlying the amendments and the discussions leading up to the presentation of this Bill in Parliament. The first theme is the protection of victims in vulnerable positions. In particular, vulnerable victims who are unable to defend themselves, victims of abuse within a marriage and minors who have been victimised by abusive or lewd acts. Clause 83 introduces offences which improve the law's capability to address situations where sustained abuse and neglect result in the unfortunate death of a vulnerable victim. Some of us remember the case of Annie Ee. Annie was a 26-year-old waitress with intellectual disabilities. She was physically and psychologically abused by her flatmates for eight months until she died with severe injuries. This law will ensure the perpetrators in a case like Annie Ee's will be dealt with accurately and effectively, matching culpability with an appropriate sentence. Another case. In 2015, the case of Joshua Robinson surfaced. He was found to have in his possession 5,902 obscene films, 321 of them containing child pornography, featuring children as young as two years old. Robinson had even shown a six-year-old girl an obscene video while her father was training at a gym. Many Singaporeans raised concerns that the sentence of four years' imprisonment was inadequate. Clause 117 of the Bill addresses that.”
“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 do not 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.”
“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." I thank Minister Shanmugam 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 the Ministry of Social and Family Development (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.”
“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 tranquility", 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...”
“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 IRCCs. 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".”
“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.”
“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.”
“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.”
“Additionally, since corrective training (CT) also contains rehabilitation as part of its focus, did the Ministry consider introducing a similar change to disallow backdating for CT and, if so, why was it not extended to CT? Sir, in conclusion, all stages of the criminal justice process are important. The CPC is integral to our criminal justice system. In order to achieve justice in our criminal justice system, the process must be robust yet flexible, balanced and fair. It has to take into account both the interests of not just the accused, not just the victim but also that of the broader society. Hence, I support this Bill. 4.40 pm”