K Shanmugam
Singapore
“Bank accounts are frozen when there is reason to suspect that the bank accounts are involved in illicit activities, including money laundering activities.”
“The Singapore Police Force does not track the requested data. Distinguishing artificial intelligence (AI)-generated content typically requires more detailed forensic examination which may not be necessary in every investigation and may also not be conclusive as to whether AI-generative tools were used.”
“The Building and Construction Authority’s Code on Accessibility provides baseline requirements for accessible and inclusive buildings. It stipulates a minimum width of 1.5 metres or 1.8 metres for primary accessible routes, depending on the building type.”
“The Road Traffic (Motor Vehicles, Driving Licence) Rules under the Road Traffic Act set out the scope of the medical assessment required for motorists aged 65 and above who wish to retain their driving licences.”
“When a Police report has been made, the Police will investigate to determine if a criminal offence has been committed. If there is reasonable suspicion that a case is scam-related, the Police can direct online service providers to restrict Singapore users' access to the relevant online activity under the Online Criminal Harms Act.”
“Through intelligence sharing and coordinated enforcement actions, the cross-border operation disrupted a transnational drug trafficking syndicate and downstream drug trafficking activities, with the UK arresting seven persons so far and further investigations underway.”
The complete record
Every one of 4,552 lines we hold for K Shanmugam, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 10 of 92.
“But in terms of what they can do, the two provisions – sections 298 and 298A – they are essentially carried over and there are two separate debates, whether that is too restrictive, which is the point Ms Chandradas alluded to briefly. That is a discussion for another day. But the question here is whether we can proceed with the Bill, which is in the terms that I have described. Ms Chandradas asked about the defences under the Bill and when they will apply. The defences are scoped to provide space for honest and fair discussions about race. The defences will not apply for the offences of urging violence on the grounds of race, against racial group or its members and I do not think anyone here would suggest that we go that far. I took some trouble in my opening speech to draw the distinction between the way we approach this and how many other countries approach it. When it crosses the line into hate speech or speech that advocates violence, we say no. In fact, regardless of which community, whether it is defined by race or defined by some other characteristic, we say "No, you cannot advocate violence". We have been very clear about it. Mr Yip, Mr Zhulkarnain, Mr Parekh, Mr David, Assoc Prof Razwana, Mr Giam and Mr Vikram Nair asked for more details about the CRI. Their questions have mostly been addressed in my earlier speech, and I have also noted Mr Zhulkarnain and Mr David's suggestions for the programme. To briefly recap, the programme is similar to the CRI in the Maintenance of Religious Harmony Act. The current intent is for the CRI to apply to conduct that potentially discloses offences under the Bill, but where the actions are serious, like incitement of violence, then it is not the intention to offer CRIs. For those cases, the intention is to prosecute them.”
“Bearing in mind, we do not control the platforms and there is a limit to what we can do internationally, even within Singapore. But the Bill complements the levers available under these other legislation and we have some powers to deal with the content that seeks to undermine racial harmony in Singapore. In addition to Restraining Orders that can be issued to take down such content, offences under the Bill are provided extra-territorial effect, So, that allows us to address persons in other jurisdictions who act in a manner prejudicial to racial harmony. But actual enforcement is a separate question. Dr Syed Harun and Ms Chandradas asked if offences under the Bill will have an impact on the arts community and their work. Again, I go back to the point I made in response to Mr Giam and Ms Poa: if they have no concern today on what they are doing, then they should have no concerns about what they will be doing tomorrow or the day after the Bill becomes an Act and comes into force because the provisions are substantively similar. Ms Chandradas asked about the defences under the Bill and when they will apply. If I can go back to the earlier point, again I would say in our speeches and in the points we make, we have to be careful not to frighten one community or another community as to what the Bill covers. I think an accurate understanding of the Bill, both within the Chamber and outside the Chamber, is necessary. Of course, the Bill has new provisions: the Restraining Order, other levers beyond prosecution and the Presidential Council. Those are all additional measures; whereas previously, what we could do was either charge or not charge the person.”
“Mr Yip and Mr Zhulkarnain asked how the Bill interacts with FICA. FICA is designed to apply when the risk is specific or when the risk is quite high because of the political nature of the entity or the individual. Whereas this Bill is intended to cover broad categories of race-based entities that are assessed to be susceptible to malicious foreign influence. In 2024, we designated two politically significant persons under FICA and issued account restriction directions to five social media platforms requiring them to block 95 social media accounts linked to a foreign network. Mr Darryl David and Mr Yip asked about the effectiveness of the foreign influence safeguards. Look, the baseline safeguards that are in the Bill will not be able to completely eliminate the risk of foreign influence. Where we uncover specific risks or heightened risks, we will have to consider issuing Restraining Orders to impose additional measures against foreign influence or go to FICA and consider the levers under FICA to deal with the risks. It depends on the facts. It depends on the level of threat. That could include imposing additional restrictions on leadership, requiring all the office bearers to be Singapore Citizens if we are of the view that the designated entities have a higher risk of foreign influence. This is therefore the two-tier approach: baseline safeguards and then additional orders if there are higher risks, which is the two-tier approach suggested by Mr David. Assoc Prof Razwana asked what mechanisms are in place to allow the Ministry to take down racially problematic materials that are hosted online domestically or internationally. That covers different legislation. There is the Broadcasting Act. There is Online Criminal Harms Act.”
“Designated entities can continue to engage their counterparts overseas including in the pursuit of cultural or commercial goals and, as I said, designation in itself does not impute that they are guilty of any misconduct. Designated entities will be subject to transparency requirements. But there are no prohibitions or implications on their activities in the first instance and we have engaged many of these race-based entities. They understood and accepted the need for these safeguards to mitigate foreign influence risk. Ultimately, our intent is to safeguard Singapore from malicious foreign influence, not to curtail any legitimate exchanges, business deals or trade promotion activities conducted by our clan or business associations. Assoc Prof Razwana Begum, Mr Lee, Mr Tan and Mr Parekh asked what would be considered foreign donations and foreign affiliations under the Bill and how the Government would help entities to comply with the foreign influence safeguards. Clauses 13(5) and 14 of the Bill define "foreign donation" and "foreign affiliation". We are working out the reporting requirements. They will be prescribed in the Regulations. But let me make it clear. There will be no prohibition on accepting these foreign donations or having these foreign affiliations in the first instance. No prior or subsequent approval is required from the Ministry to accept these donations or to continue with these affiliations. The entities would only have to declare them. Similar to when such safeguards were introduced under the Maintenance of Religious Harmony Act, my Ministry will provide an information kit in due course to guide designated entities in fulfilling the requirements and will provide reasonable time for the entities to adjust to these changes.”
“But we see that countries use legislators, Members of Parliament, Ministers sometimes for pushing their own interests overseas and we are taking precautionary measures. Likewise, we have identified this sector and we are taking the precautionary measures. So, it is really finding the right balance between remaining open and protecting ourselves from malicious foreign influence and that is what the safeguards in the Maintenance of Racial Harmony Bill seek to do. Sir, nothing in the Bill in itself is meant to suggest that foreign influence is in itself undesirable. And designation under this Bill as a race-based entity does not imply any wrongdoing. It simply means that the entities or the entity has engaged in activities that relate to race, which sometimes is its raison d'etre and we all recognise that these entities are important for Singapore and they play a very a constructive role. They help build social bonds, they preserve our traditions and cultures, they strengthen business networks amongst the many other good things they do. But at the same time, the nature of their activities makes them more susceptible to foreign influence and that foreign influence is malicious then it can damage us so we need to take some precautions. So, under the Maintenance of Religious Harmony Act, all religious groups are subject to such safeguards. But for this Bill, the Maintenance of Racial Harmony Bill, given that race-based entities are a more diverse group compared to religious groups, our approach has been to have the safeguards apply only to a subset of designated entities and we believe that is enough to meet our policy intent.”
“And there were some points made about the importance of Singaporeans and our associations and entities being able to interact with foreigners and foreign entities. For a start, let me make this clear. We agree entirely that Singapore must remain open. We must be able to reach out to the world. In fact, we have to, for our success. If you look at one of the underlying themes of speeches by various government leaders over the last 60 years, it is about being open, interacting with the world. Economically, we will be finished if we do not interact. Socially, we are such a small place. We need to get ideas from outside and then we need to interact and adapt the ideas that work for us to our own situations. And likewise, geopolitically too. In every way, Singapore survives by relying on being nimble and that means understanding the world and moving ahead or trying to keep a step ahead of any others. That can only happen if you form international partnerships. So, yes, I do not think there is any difference in viewpoints or disagreement that we need the world and we need to interact with the world and we need to form partnerships. The real issue is, with the good comes sometimes the bad and clan associations, partnerships and so on can potentially be vectors of influence from countries that want to influence our politics in Singapore. Is there evidence? There are certainly some reasons to be concerned and you see evidence all over the world where there are such vectors of influence. We had FICA which was passed in this Parliament where Members of Parliament were subjected to various requirements. It does not mean that all of you are today vectors of influence. All of you. All of us. We are not vectors of influence.”
“No other entities will be designated for now, though we will not preclude designating them in the future, as the threat environment evolves. On Mr Zhulkarnain's query about whistle-blowing channels. Members of public who come across any activity which they consider suspicious, or linked to foreign interference, can let the Internal Security Department know. Mr Lee asked if there are avenues to appeal against the designations and if there would be flexibility in the leadership requirements imposed on designated entities. Designated entities will be given 14 days to submit representations to the competent authority after they have been notified of their intended designation. As part of their representations, the entity can explain why they think they should not be designated. The competent authority will take these representations into account when making the final decision on designation. The entities can appeal to be exempted from some of the requirements, including the leadership requirements and my Ministry will look at them and will be prepared to make exemptions on a case-by-case basis, if sufficient reason is given. They can also apply, the entities, to the competent authority to have their designations cancelled instead of being varied if there is a material change in the circumstances that no longer warrants designation. Mr Dennis Tan, Ms Sylvia Lim, Mr Yip Hon Weng, Mr Mark Lee, Mr Neil Parekh and Dr Syed Harun asked about the extent of foreign influence that exists in clan and business associations and if the foreign influence safeguards under the Bill would deter or act as a deterrence from individuals participating in race-based activities, would they stifle the activities?”
“This issue of umbrellas and cause-related gatherings, you got to differentiate between what this Bill does – clauses 39, 40, taken from 298 and 298A – with gathering in protected places or in being in breach of the Public Order Act. If you gather in some places in front of Parliament, in front of Istana, gathered at protected places, then you may be committing an offence. Not because you are carrying an umbrella with some motifs or you are wearing a particular headgear, but because you are doing something in a protected place that the law prohibits you from doing. It does not mean that the underlying expression of your ideas about Palestine are in themselves an offence. No. So, again with Ms Poa, I would say I understand the concerns, but please read the provisions carefully. Mr Yip Hon Weng, Assoc Prof Razwana Begum and Mr Louis Ng asked what measures are in place to address the root causes of racist conduct. How do we support victims of racism and whether there are plans to complement measures under the Bill to support this. I have explained that in quite considerable detail. Mr Mark Lee, Mr Zhulkarnain, Mr Neil Parekh and Dr Syed Harun asked which entities would be designated under this Bill. Clause 15 of the Bill describes what a race-based entity is. The definition has been kept somewhat broad because of the nature of malicious foreign influence, which can exploit a wide range of entities to further their own agenda and undermine our racial harmony. But as Minister of State Sun Xueling has mentioned, we intend to designate entities. We will take a very practical and measured approach. For a start, we only intend to designate clan and business associations that are linked to the Chinese, Malay and Indian races.”
“It is an expression of opinion. If you look at Israel-Hamas, which is another example in that context – "Free Palestine Now" – I have spoken about it. As for social media comments that are being posted and so on, it depends. Assessments have got to be made as to whether law is breached, but the basic point is the law remains essentially the same. And if the law is breached, whether it makes sense for it to be pursued and those are matters where AGC will have to come in to. "From river to sea" is another point that Ms Poa made. She asked if that would be an offence now and whether a Restraining Order can be issued. She did note that the Police said that it may have been an offence; the Police statement. I want to be careful what I say about this, because the Police statement was clear. It is up to the Police to decide what they will do about a potential offence that has been disclosed, where they have gone out in public and said they think that there may be a potential offence. I do not want to go beyond that, but if they are able to investigate, they wish to investigate because they think there was an offence, after this Bill comes into law, if Parliament passes it, they will be able to do the same now. Whether a Restraining Order should be issued, depends on clause 8 and whether clause 8 is triggered, and that, in turn, depends on the actual facts. And then the point about umbrellas with watermelons and wearing the Palestinian motif headgear, and so on, they were not offences per se under sections 298 or 298A. They would not be offences per se now and I would suggest, therefore, a careful understanding of the provisions. Otherwise, there is a serious risk that the public may be misled.”
“And Ms Poa will see, when she quoted in her speech from the Bill, and she said: while this Bill borrows the language found in the Maintenance of Religious Harmony Act, the phrase and act that causes feelings of enmity, hatred, ill will or hostility between different races in Singapore. Members will see that that is pretty much what that is in section 298A today. The point I made earlier in response to Mr Gerald Giam, section 298A has been enforced for the last 17 years and we know that it was, as far as I can tell, most Members of Parliament or all Members did not have any issues with it. So, then the second point that Ms Poa made, that Singaporeans are concerned that the Government will use such powers to further restrict what Singaporeans can do or say. There is no further restriction. It is a restriction there is in the current law and that restriction is being ported over, in fact, with a slight narrowing. There are additional provisions, as I mentioned earlier, relating to the Restraining Orders, the CRI. Those are separate points. The charging provision, as it were, remains substantially the same. On the specific examples that she has given on Mr Shaik Amar, I do not recall precisely what the facts were relating to Mr Shaik Amar. I know he said something about EIP and there was a POFMA Order issued. I do not believe he was charged and my recollection is I do not remember anything he said as crossing the criminal threshold. If he did not cross the criminal threshold then, he would not cross the criminal threshold now. On "Free Palestine Now!", I do not believe that this was considered an offence at that time it was said and I also do not believe that clauses 39, 40 will be triggered now if it is put into an Act. It is not a call for violence.”
“This is similar to the model we have adopted in other legislation, like the Internal Security Act and Maintenance of Religious Harmony Act. Obviously, that does not prevent Parliament from asking questions of the Minister or holding him accountable. So, in all of this, this is a question of judgment. Ultimately, whether the system works really depends on the integrity of the people involved – all the way – the Minister, the Council, the President, Parliament and everywhere. The Presidential Council for Racial and Religious Harmony, by bringing in senior leaders in the religious and lay community, can provide an additional rigour to the process. I can tell Members, because Ms Lim sort of alluded to it, we have certainly not put these provisions in, in the belief that the Presidential Council for Racial and Religious Harmony and the President will never disagree with the Minister. That will be an untenable supposition if that was a supposition. We are building frameworks and institutions which we hope will see Singapore through over a long period. This is all part of the institution building that has been going on over the last 60 years or so. If I can now turn to some comments that Ms Hazel Poa made, I can see that she is concerned in parts and, again, I think, Ms Poa's comments arose from not realising what is current law is and that the key charging provisions are substantially the same. Section 298A of the Penal Code criminalises acts that knowingly promote or attempts to promote on grounds of race, disharmony, or feelings of enmity, hatred or ill will between different racial groups.”
“Clause 33(5) of the Bill, empowers the Council to invite any person to attend before the Council and to examine the person orally, and consider that in the context of its deliberations on a Restraining Order. Beyond this, as the Presidential Council for Racial and Religious Harmony is intended to be an independent body, it will be allowed to regulate its own procedures within the framework of the law. Given the inherently sensitive nature of the Council's discussions and so as to provide a forum for its members to express themselves freely, the Bill provides for the proceedings of the Council to be private and secret, unless its public disclosure is expressly authorised by the Minister. Ms Sylvia Lim expressed concerns about the role of the elected President under this Bill, in making decisions on matters related to race. I have touched on this very briefly earlier. As I understand it, Ms Lim and the Workers' Party are not objecting to the Restraining Order regime, but what she does not agree with is the Presidential review of the Restraining Order. The Workers' Party's view is that the Parliament and the public checks on the Minister are adequate and there should not be an additional layer of checks through the Presidential Council and the President. This is ultimately a question of judgment. The Government's view is that Parliament and the public are essential checks on the Minister's power, but that there is also considerable value in having an additional layer of check through the Presidential Council and the President and that it is appropriate for the President, who is directly elected by the people, to act as a check on this power that can be exercised by the Minister.”
“Mr Parekh also asked about the role of the Presidential Council for Racial and Religious Harmony under the Bill. It is an advisory body. Its role was explained by Ms Sun. It will not have powers to issue binding guidelines or rules. That is not its mandate. Mr Ng asked why do we have a combined council, instead of two different councils, one for race and one for religion? We are a small place. The number of people who are upstanding lay people, community leaders, religious leaders. Rather than having two, it seemed to us it made sense, race and religion, the issues sometimes overlap. In fact, quite frequently, they may overlap, and it is not always straightforward to disentangle the two. Have good people, have one composite council, makes much more sense. It is a question of judgement. We thought that it was more effective, more efficient, helps better consultation and discussions. We had initially started off thinking that we may need two and after a lot of discussions we decided we will have one. Prof Razwana Begum, as well as Mr Louis Ng and Ms Chandradas asked about further details on the composition of the council and its procedures. As Ms Sun has mentioned, appointments to the council must seek to ensure that its representatives from the major racial and religious communities in Singapore, and those who have distinguished themselves in public service or community relations in Singapore. The Presidential Council for Minority Rights will advise on the appointments to this Council and members of the arts community who fulfil these criteria can be appointed to the Council. I do not want to prejudge. I do not want to say members of this community, or such other community would be appointed, but there is no automatic veto against the community.”
“This is one of those situations. You need the power to deal with the threats to racial harmony. The threats are real. At the same time, the Government is voluntarily frame-working in some checks on their power. And I would say, as was the point made slightly earlier, the best evidence of how these powers are likely to be used is how the Government has used very similar powers under the Maintenance Religious Harmony Act. Since 1990, when the Bill became an Act, the Maintenance Religious Harmony Act, not one order has been issued under the Maintenance Religious Harmony Act, let alone any order being extended. But having the legal framework and the power mean that everyone understands, everyone is careful and that, coupled with the whole lot of other policies that I have talked about, has meant that we have not gotten into the problems that others have gotten into. I will give you an example of one case where we did not issue an Restraining Order, but having those powers was useful. A preacher went on YouTube and talked about Buddhism and Taoism, and made some highly disparaging remarks, said that they are superstitious, and so on. An Restraining Order could have been issued. But that was not our first reaction. My Ministry officials had a chat with the preacher and said this is really not on. He understood, and he was very cooperative and withdrew his remarks, put out a new video. That is the way we do things in Singapore. No one needs to feel ashamed and we did not need to resort to issuing an order. If he had disagreed, we may have had to. But the fact that we had the power, I think helped. After that, others took reference from that. And overall, the balance has been maintained.”
“The real point is that we must have the ability to act quickly, decisively, because trust and goodwill, an understanding between our communities, once damaged, can be difficult to restore. Persons issued a Restraining Order will need to comply with it immediately. But as Minister of State Sun had mentioned, they may make representations within 14 days. The Restraining Order will then be subject to review by the Presidential Council, Cabinet and the President. To Ms Poa's question, there is no change in the maximum duration for the Presidential Council to make its recommendation. The Bill has used 44 days, counting from the day the person is issued an Restraining Order, in contrast to the Maintenance of Religious Harmony Act, which references the end period for making the representations. Extensions of Restraining Orders are also subject to the checks and balances that I had noted above. And Restraining Order cannot be varied when it is extended. If the Minister wishes to change the terms of an order, he will have to cancel the Restraining Order before issuing a fresh Restraining Order with the new terms. This will have to go through the usual review process, including confirmation by the President. Ms Poa expressed concerns about the Minister extending an Restraining Order indefinitely to keep a journalist or editor out of their work. If that is done, it will be an abuse of power. It will be an abuse of power to extend the Restraining Order just to keep a person out of work. The extension of Restraining Orders are subject to the same review process and will be considered by the Presidential Council and the President, and if the Minister has no good explanation, he can be overruled; and such an act of extension can also be scrutinised in Parliament.”
“Thereafter, the President must consider the recommendation by the Council, along with Cabinet's advice and he can cancel, confirm or vary the Restraining Order. Here, the President must act in accordance with the Cabinet's advice. But if the Cabinet disagrees with the Presidential Council for Racial and Religious Harmony, then the President has discretion. So, that is an additional safeguard. And if the President does not confirm the Restraining Order within 30 days of receiving the Council's recommendation, the Restraining Order will cease to have effect. Mr Neil Parekh, Dr Syed Harun, Ms Chandradas, Ms Poa and Mr Louis Ng asked about the thresholds for issuing Restraining Orders and the safeguards on the issuance of the Restraining Orders. Minister of State Sun Xueling's speech has covered most of these questions. Restraining Orders are pre-emptive measures and they may be issued if we know that a person is likely to commit or is attempting to commit an act without having to go through a period of investigations and prosecution to establish the criminal conduct. Really, this is necessary in the current day in the context of social media. The reference point again is the Maintenance of Religious Harmony Act. The powers are present. We have discourses on religious issues. Singapore is, I would say, a highly religious society, and if people say that is a subjective opinion, at least, we can say it is quite a religious society, a religious place, and the Maintenance of Religious Harmony Act in place for 35 years has not had any curtailing effect on how it has been used. I will come back to this point again.”
“Students are provided a safe space to understand the importance of racial and religious harmony in our multicultural society, and to develop an appreciation of different perspectives and sensitivities around racial and religious issues. I should note Mr Yip's emphasis on the importance of community participation in building racial harmony. That is a view that is shared by many Singaporeans. In a poll conducted by MDDI, three in five respondents said that both the Government and the community hold equal responsibility to strengthen race relationships. Ms Hazel Poa, Assoc Prof Razwana Begum, Mr Yip and other Members asked how we can ensure that the Restraining Orders for the Bill does not stifle race-related discussions and that the Restraining Orders are not used disproportionately. I think we can look at the Maintenance of Religious Harmony Act for reference. We have had similar powers for over 30 years, and the powers have never been used. That gives you an indication of how the Government approaches these powers. The important thing is to have the powers, but also to be very, very careful and judicious in how you use them. Second, there are safeguards in place on the use of the Restraining Order. The Restraining Orders can only be used by the Minister who has to be publicly accountable, including in this Parliament. And after the Restraining Order is issued, it has to be sent to the Presidential Council for Racial and Religious Harmony. A person subject to a Restraining Order may make representations to the Presidential Council for Racial and Religious Harmony, and that Council must make recommendations to the President whether to confirm, cancel or vary the order.”
“If anyone thinks that the law alone can achieve racial harmony, I think that person needs to have their head examined. That is just not possible. Members know that that has to be achieved through a multifaceted programme or policies, including public education. So, I welcome those questions by Mr Louis Ng and Assoc Prof Razwana Begum because it helps us explain this clearly that what the aim of the Bill, just in case members of public think that we are putting in this Bill and relying on it solely to achieve racial harmony. It is intended to achieve racial harmony but not solely. This is a key facet. It provides a framework. But then, you need a whole lot of other things. As I referred to in my earlier speech, there are thousands of activities that take place every weekend organised by People's Association (PA), which is a key nation-building agency. It makes people come together every weekend and, as a result, then, you interact with each other, you go for each other's events, you celebrate the festivals, week in, week out, throughout the year. That is one of the secret sauces that make Singapore successful. That is why PA has been a key enabler of the success of this country. That is one facet; so many other things. I have talked about the schools being integrated, housing estates being integrated. A lot these are policies. So, the legal framework tells you what you cannot do and it helps to set a set of values which are hard-wired, hopefully, into our society over time. Our Government agencies do that. Some of the other examples would be the Character and Citizenship Education lessons in schools.”
“Then, I think you can understand why we do not need a Select Committee, particularly as those additional provisions – Restraining Orders, the Presidential Council, CRI – these are modelled after the Maintenance of Religious Harmony Act. Mr Giam also asked about members of public and can they engage in racial politics. The answer is they can continue to do, after this Bill is passed, what they have been doing until now. I will just say, have a care on racial politics. If you get to the line of inciting violence, anything along those lines, which sections 298A and 298 deal with, then you could be transgressing the law. I would add one more point because this is such a fundamental misconception that we do not want to unduly alarm the public. I know sometimes speeches are made with the purpose of the public in mind. I am not suggesting that Mr Giam or anyone else has made such a speech, but it is sometimes tailored for putting out in social media. But I think all of us agree that we do not want the public to be misled. So, I would suggest that if speeches are put out, which could be misleading on their own, then some care should be taken to give the correct impression of the debate, under the Parliamentary Proceedings Act and the correct impression of the Bill, as clarified by me. Assoc Prof Razwana Begum and Mr Louis Ng what measures are in place to address the root causes of racist conduct and support victims of racism and if there are plans to complement measures under the Bill with public campaigns or education efforts promoting racial harmony, and how the public can play a role in safeguarding social cohesion. I have said a number of times, both in my earlier speech as well as outside this Chamber and in this Chamber on other occasions.”
“Some updates will be made to align the language and defences under the Bill with the equivalent provisions." So, the changes are that we actually provided for some additional defences and in fact, narrowed one of the provisions. If you look at sections 298 and 298A of the Penal Code and then you look at clauses 39 and 40 of the Bill, they are the same. As I understand from Mr Giam's speech, he accepts that today, there are no unacceptable constraints on discussing CECA, Palestinian issues and so on. Sections 298 and 298A have been in force for 17 years. If no concerns have been expressed until now, I am a slight loss – what is the additional concern with clauses 39 and 40? Up to today, I am not aware of any concerns expressed in Parliament about sections 298 or 298A of the Penal Code or any suggestion that they should be repealed. And the Penal Code has been debated a number of times, on various occasions in Parliament. The point, perhaps, was picked up by Ms Chandradas because she did say yes, the provisions are the same, but since we are coming back to Parliament, perhaps we can re-debate it or debate it anew. That is a different point. What is new is really the Presidential Council for Racial and Religious Harmony, the additional power to issue Restraining Orders and the CRIs, additional remedial orders. But they are process-related. The fundamental power, as you would see in clause 8, relates to issuing Restraining Orders; if you look at the provisions, they go back, essentially, to clauses 39 and 40. So, I think there is a degree of misconception, which then leads to concerns. For the same reason, therefore, the substantive law remains the same with the addition of some processes.”
“Thank you, Mr Speaker, Sir. I thank Members for their interventions. It is really gratifying to see that there is unanimous agreement on the need for the Bill. There are some questions, some concerns, and I do note the Workers' Party's position that they will support the Bill but not the Constitution (Amendment) Bill because they have specific concerns about the President having the power to disagree with the Minister. I will deal with that separately. Let me start with some of the misconceptions that underlie some of the questions raised. Sir, if I may deal with Mr Gerald Giam's points. He expressed, as I see it, two main concerns. One, that genuine dialogue will be curtailed. He gave examples of CECA, the Palestinian issue and so on. He also said that since this is such an important Bill, it really ought to have been sent to the Select Committee like the Maintenance of Religious Harmony Act. I appreciate his comments, but I think there is some serious misconception on what this Bill does or what it is intended to cover. I would refer Members to Annex 1 and the press release of MHA. Hopefully, that will help in responding to Mr Giam's comments, Ms Poa's comments and also some of the others who expressed some concerns. First of all, paragraph three, the second sentence: "The scope of unacceptable conduct regarding race relations will remain substantively the same as today. There is, in fact, no change in the law." If you look at paragraph 12, on the substantive provisions, because paragraph 11 sets out what is being brought over from the Penal Code. Paragraph 12 says that "the scope of the offences under the Bill is substantially the same as what is covered in the Penal Code.”
“But given that Singapore has always been a diverse country – many races, many religions, many languages – we had to and we wanted to, from this multiplicity, create one united people but without suppressing any racial, religious or linguistic identity. That has been, if I may say so, the genius of Singapore. From many, one; but without erasing multiplicity. We could not have done this without simultaneously fostering understanding, trust and acceptance amongst our many, and at the same time, making clear that we will not tolerate any bigotry or hatred or intolerance that threatens the one people that we have become. We are grateful for the progress we have made thanks to the Pioneer and Merdeka Generations of Singaporeans, but we know that we can do better and we are trying to do better. The Bill, as I have said earlier, will not be a panacea for solving all race-related challenges, but it is a powerful signal of our resolve to remain united as one people. Mr Speaker, I seek the support of all Members for this Bill. Let us send a strong signal to all the nations of the world that 60 years after we gained Independence, Singapore will remain a multiracial nation. That we will not be a Malay nation, a Chinese nation, or an Indian nation. That every Singaporean will have his place here and that he or she will be respected, and we will all be equal: language, culture, race, religion. [Applause.] Minister of State Sun Xueling will now take the House through the remaining proposals in the Bill. [(proc text) Question proposed. (proc text)]”
“Clause 41(2) of the Bill provides for the Minister to appoint community partners to deliver the programmes and MHA intends to work with OnePeople.sg and the Ministry of Culture, Community and Youth (MCCY) to design suitable programmes based on the context of the different types of offensive conduct. These programmes will have three broad elements. First, raising awareness of how the alleged offender's racist conduct impacts others. Second, initiating action by requiring the alleged offender to make amends with the aggrieved individual and community through volunteer work and other suitable engagements. Third, by encouraging amity by arranging guided reflection sessions with the alleged offender and aggrieved individual or community. But as clause 41(4) provides, it is not compulsory for an alleged offender to complete the programmes, but failure to complete can be taken into account by the Public Prosecutor in exercising prosecutorial discretion. Such cases will continue to be directly referred for prosecution. Egregious cases will not be offered the opportunity of CRI so that a clear and strong signal is sent that such conduct will be treated severely. Sir, in our multiracial society where diversity is woven into the very fabric of our identity, it is crucial that we continue to celebrate our differences while understanding and respecting one another. By fostering an environment of trust, empathy and unity, we can build a future where everyone continues to feel a deep sense of belonging and pride in being Singaporean, regardless of race. Mr Speaker, Sir, what we are trying to achieve in Singapore is not easy. It is, in fact, very difficult and very hard work.”
“That said, while there are offences in the Maintenance of Religious Harmony Act that are tiered, depending on whether the act is committed by a religious leader or a lay person, this Bill makes no such differentiation for obvious reasons. The law today does not distinguish between different categories of offenders for race-related offences. The distinction we had drawn in the Maintenance of Religious Harmony Act was unique because in the context of religion, it reflects a greater risk posed by the actions of religious leaders who exercise formal religious authority and there is no equivalent in the context of race. Instead, all persons are held to the same standard since the acts of any individual can threaten racial harmony. Again, this only reflects the existing law and does not expand the scope of criminal liability. Next, I will move to the CRI. Our starting point is this: racial incidents harm both the victim as well as the ties between the races. And criminal prosecution may be necessary, but it cannot, by itself, mend the community ties. Thus, if you have an offender, he might be offered an opportunity to participate in Community Remedial programmes as an alternative to prosecution. This is similar to the CRI in the Maintenance of Religious Harmony Act and we seek to achieve two policy objectives. First, reconciliation. It provides the alleged offender with the opportunity to make amends for his racist conduct and hopefully, by that process, he or she gets a better understanding of the community that he attacked and hopefully, creates a bond, a bridge and strengthens mutual understanding. Second, rehabilitation. It gives the offender the opportunity to learn from his mistake.”
“In bringing these offences over, we have made certain clarifications. In particular, we have received public feedback that the term "wound racial feelings" lacks clarity. Therefore, clause 40(2) replaces the term "wound racial feelings" with objective descriptions, so, at least, more objective descriptions, which are, essentially, "insults, vilifies, denigrates, threatens or abuses on the basis of race". This provides greater clarity and probably narrows the scope of conduct that would make out an offence today. "Wound racial feelings" could potentially be subjective. We have also aligned these offences with the corresponding offences in the Maintenance of Religious Harmony Act as we take an equally strong stance in dealing with threats to racial harmony and religious harmony. First, the penalties for offences in this Bill are the same as the Maintenance of Religious Harmony Act. Second, we have also introduced defences for offences under clause 40 that are already present in the Maintenance of Religious Harmony Act. These are the defence of private or domestic conduct, which allows people to have a safe space to express their views about race and religion in private or domestic settings. The defence of pointing out, in good faith, any matters for the purpose of bringing about a removal of those matters. And similar to the Maintenance of Religious Harmony Act, there will also be extraterritorial coverage for race-related offences. If the offence is committed overseas but targets Singapore and has an impact in Singapore, it will be covered. We acknowledge that it may be difficult to enforce offences outside of Singapore, but it signals our commitment to protect our racial harmony, even when the threat originates outside of Singapore.”
“What people want to see is something that will positively push people to be harmonious with each other across races. I explained the point earlier: you cannot, by law, force people to get along better with each other. That is to come through government policies, through the framework, the structure of society and how we build that DNA into society over time. And that is what we have been doing. Laws play an important role in that because if you allow bad behaviour, then these policies would not succeed. Laws are there, they provide a very strong legal framework and people know we will enforce our laws and, therefore, they reduce and deter bad behaviour. Once you stop that bad behaviour, amongst a small minority usually – laws are necessary, usually only as regards a small minority of people – then, if you do not allow for that behaviour, then there is a framework and within that, you can promote policies that will enhance racial harmony. I will refer specifically to two proposals in this Bill, one relating to race-related offences and the other CRI. My colleague, the Minister of State Sun Xueling, will cover the rest. First, on race-related offences. They are covered under clauses 39 and 40 of the Bill. Clause 39 takes what is already an offence today, that is, inciting violence under section 267C of the Penal Code and it prescribes increased penalties for a subset of that conduct where offenders do so on the basis of a belief about race. Clause 40 brings over the substance of existing race-related offences in the Penal Code, which deal with threats to racial harmony. These are: section 298, which concerns acts that wound the racial feelings of any person; and section 298A, which concerns acts that promote enmity between racial groups.”
“Thank you, Sir. This study found that nearly two-thirds, 65.4%, of respondents rated Singapore's racial and religious harmony as high or very high. That is an increase of about 8% from 2018/2019, when 57.1% said that. The number of race-related incidents reported to the Police has also largely remained stable over the years at around 10 per year, though there are some years with spikes. The Police have noticed, I have noticed, that whenever there are elections, the number of Police reports spike. But we cannot take this state of affairs for granted. We are in an age when identity politics is on the rise globally and we cannot cut ourselves off from the world. With that background, Sir, I will turn to the Bill itself. Essentially, the Bill has five aspects or five proposals. First, it brings over existing race-related offences in the Penal Code. Second, it introduces the Community Remedial Initiative (CRI). That gives the offender the opportunity to mend ties with the community that he was attacking and we provide this as an alternative to the person being charged in Court. Third, the Bill seeks to establish a Restraining Order regime. Fourth, it establishes the Presidential Council for Racial and Religious Harmony to advise on matters relating to racial and religious harmony that are referred to it by the Minister for Home Affairs or by Parliament. Fifth, it introduces safeguards against foreign influence through race-based entities. The 2024 poll on racial harmony, which I referred to, shows that the public strongly support various proposals in this Bill. Nonetheless, during public consultations, one common comment that we received was that this Bill only prevents racial disharmony and it does not promote racial harmony. I can understand the perspective.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, with your permission, may I ask the Clerk to distribute Annex 3, which summarises the key findings of this study?”
“A subsequent Bill will lay out avenues for affected individuals to seek recourse when they feel that they have been discriminated against, including racial discrimination in the workplace. Beyond that, of course, our Penal Code also sets out what conduct is not acceptable and that would include conduct in the context of race. These laws have generally served their intended purpose. The Maintenance of Racial Harmony Bill continues with that approach. The law tells us what is it that we cannot do or what remedies there are when something wrong has been done. The second part: the policies and platforms to expand and deepen our common space. If you look at 1965 and if you look at today, you will find that most people are comfortable with bonds across races. Singapore is in a much healthier place. There is understanding, there is appreciation, there is acceptance and deep bonds across racial religious lines. Of course, there are some people who will still have some different viewpoints but, on the whole, it is a very substantively different society from what it was in the 1960s, because we have been facilitating interactions between people of different backgrounds and we do this very deliberately. It is not left to chance. While I do not want to go into a discussion of the policies, maybe I can refer to a poll. The poll that MHA and MDDI conducted last year, it found that over 85% of respondents felt that race relations are better or the same compared to 10 years ago. That is in the context where, in many parts of the world, race relations have actually regressed. IPS and OnePeople.sg, also conducted a study based on a survey last year involving 4,000 Singaporean residents.”
“Second, with that framework in place, we would have to have the Government actively putting in place policies and platforms that maximise our common space, to strengthen cohesion. Just a few words on that. The law can tell you what you cannot do. The law cannot tell you "be nice to your neighbour, form friendships and bonds with your neighbours across races, across religions". That is where policies come in. So, the thousands of activities that are carried out every weekend, bringing people together and multiplicity of events and approaches, the way schools are organised, every other aspect, which is too long to go into here. But that comes in to create opportunities for people to become friends or at least form understandings and dislike each other less where there is dislike and like each other more where there is some potential for like. And over time, we would say that Singapore has progressed substantively on this front. So, let me start with the first aspect: our a strong legal framework. Our Constitution guarantees that all persons are equal before the law and entitled to equal protection under the law. So, it is the responsibility of the Government to care for the interests of the racial minorities. Minority representation in Parliament is guaranteed through our Group Representation Constituency (GRC) system. Other legislation also deal with these issues. Most recently, the Workplace Fairness Bill prohibits workplace discrimination based on some characteristics, including race. This means an employer cannot make an adverse employment decision because of the race of the jobseeker or employee.”
“The overlap of ethnic segregation in these areas, with economic and social exclusion, has led to increasing polarisation between those minority, marginalised groups and the majority in French society. Again, here, we have done it differently in Singapore. Previous Governments had the foresight to introduce the Ethnic Integration Policy (EIP) in our public housing estates. EIP has ensured a mix of races in our public housing estates. If the Government had left it to market forces, you would have seen Chinese, Malays and Indians, forming residential enclaves in different parts of Singapore, similar to what is happening in many other countries and similar to what was happening in Singapore before we introduced the EIP. If that happens, soon, schools in those areas would also become segregated. Children would have less diverse social circles and limited exposure to different cultures. They would grow up with less understanding, trust and comfort with other communities. They will carry this into adulthood and into workplaces. We put in place rules to maintain certain racial proportions in public housing, so that we would have mixing across races in every estate. Singaporeans generally appreciate the intent of this policy. The Institute of Policy Studies (IPS) conducted a survey in 2024 and 93% of the respondents agreed that it was important to have a mix of people from different races in each housing estate. In the light of these lessons, what is our approach to maintaining racial harmony? I will say there are two aspects. One, we have to have a strong legal framework which sets clear boundaries on what is not allowed in Singapore.”
“In recent years, you see a trend in many countries, including the West, politicians encouraging people to think along racial lines and adopt a "us versus them" mentality. And if this is repeated both during electoral cycles and off-electoral cycles, the racial divisions are then reinforced and become even more entrenched in society. We take a tough stance on this. Again, I trust all Members will agree with us that the exploitation of race has no place in our politics. Third, social segregation. The neighbours we have and our day-to-day interactions with them affect how we perceive the wider society. Racially segregated neighbourhoods limit opportunities to build trust between different communities. The University of California did a study in 2021 and found that racially segregated residential neighbourhoods in the US remain the "lynchpin" that sustains systemic racial inequality. This is a consequence of years of residential segregation based on race and the issue is not unique to the US. After the riots in 2001, the government in UK commissioned a study. That study found that physical racial segregation of housing estates was a key contributor for the riots then. The report described most of the white communities as living "parallel lives" from minority Asian and black groups. It commented that, "there is little wonder that ignorance about each other's communities can easily grow into fear". If we were to look at France, residential segregation can also be found in the banlieues. These are suburban areas predominantly inhabited by immigrant families usually of Arab or other African descent. Around five million people, or about 8% of the French population, live in areas classified as banlieues.”
“And as a result of the crisis, millions have been displaced from their homes. The British Broadcasting Corporation recently described the situation in Sudan as the world's worst humanitarian crisis. In our region, too, many countries have faced serious and long-standing conflict along racial lines, Myanmar being one of them. So, looking across these countries, we see three issues. First, in allowing hate speech. Many of the countries I have cited as examples earlier, such as the US, UK and France, they allow denigration of other races or religions. In the US, the Supreme Court has said that inflammatory speech, even speech advocating violence, can be protected. In Singapore, we take a different approach. As I told this House in my Ministerial Statement in April 2019, if we do not have a tough set of laws and policies against hateful and offensive speech, the tone and texture of public discourse in our society will change over time. It will create an environment that is conducive for discrimination and eventually, violence against people who can be classified in a specific category, described by skin colour or religion or some other attribute. We must not let this happen here. I trust that on this issue, we are all agreed as to where we draw the line on hate speech, on speech which advocates violence, on speech which incites violence, on speech which seeks to set aside a group and target them as the "out" group, as I have said in my Ministerial Statement. The second lesson that I think that we can learn is and this is an age-old issue: the exploitation of race for politics. Race-related issues have immense power to mobilise people, identity politics basically and it is deeply visceral. Politicians know it, and many exploit it to score political points and win elections.”
“Rumours were that the attacker was an asylum seeker but, in fact, the attacker was born in the UK. By mid-afternoon on the day of the attack, the false name of the suspect had received more than 30,000 mentions on X alone. As of September last year, the police had arrested more than 1,200 persons. This wave of riots is widely viewed as being among the most serious in British history. It exposed deep-seated racist sentiments and also other grievances, relating to immigration. There have also been other riots in the UK, arising from distrust between communities. There was a survey in 2021. That survey was conducted by the King's College, University of Manchester and the University of Saint Andrews. The survey found that more than one-third of persons from minority groups in the UK had actually experienced racist assaults, meaning physical attacks. One-third. Turning to the US, we also see evidence that race and attitudes towards racial issues, seems to divide American society. You see the endless media reports on the issue, the protests marches, the violence. You get the sense that racial issues continue to be flashpoints. And if you turn to France, a report that was published in 2023 found that 91%, more than nine in 10 of black people had been victims of racial discrimination either "often" or "from time to time". Reports of anti-semitic and anti-Muslim acts increased by almost 300% and 30% respectively, while other types of racist acts increased by around 20%. Racial tensions are present and spill into serious violence even in countries where people do not look very different from each other. If you look at the 1994 Rwandan genocide, this is one of several examples in Africa. A more recent example is the crisis in Sudan, specifically, the Darfur region.”
“Members will see that the majority of the respondents felt that the current state of race relations in Singapore was good or very good. About half agreed that Singapore's laws were adequate to protect racial harmony, 6% disagreed and the rest were somewhere in-between. Most agreed that it was both the Government's and the community's responsibility to strengthen race relations. What I would say to Members is that what we have in Singapore is actually not the natural order of things. Indeed, there is nothing natural about what we have in Singapore. We now have come to believe it to be natural. We have made it our second nature. But actually, it is not natural because human beings are wired to be tribal, based on identity, and that continues to be true in many places around the world. If you look at many countries, they are organised on the basis of formal or informal racial or religious hierarchies. That is the natural order of things. What we have in Singapore is we changed the natural order and made that changed situation second nature for us. So, this Bill has to be seen in that context. When we consider our approach to multi-racialism and laws, it is also useful to look at the experience of other countries and see what we should do or should not do. Let us look at the developed world. Again, some examples. The UK, United States (US) and France have a majority white population, but also a long history of immigration. So, they have been multiracial longer than Singapore has been independent. Race has been a flashpoint in these countries. Last year, the UK was hit with a wave of riots, between July and August 2024. The riots began with falsehoods. There was a knife attack that killed three young girls.”
“Over the years, our insistence on maintaining racial and religious harmony, and our zero tolerance for bigotry and hatred has made Singapore a very different place compared with others. If you look at a 2023 Gallup World Poll, 92% of respondents in Singapore said that Singapore was a good place to live in for racial minorities. We were ranked first out of over 130 countries and territories for this question. Another global survey by the Pew Research Center in 2021 found that 92% of respondents in Singapore think that having people of different backgrounds, including racial backgrounds, makes Singapore a better place to live in. The Government also periodically conducts domestic surveys on racial and religious harmony in Singapore. And so do non-Government entities. Most recently, in August of last year, my Ministry and the Ministry of Digital Development and Information (MDDI) polled more than 1,000 Singapore residents on their sentiments towards racial harmony. With your permission, Sir, Mr Speaker, may I ask the Clerks to distribute Annex 2, which summarises the key findings from this poll?”
“Some major Chinese organisations asked Mr Lee to make Chinese our only official language and the language of business. Mr Lee refused. He said on 3 October 1965 that, "although in Singapore 75% of the population is Chinese, the Malays form only 12%, never mind; Malay has become our national language, yet, Malay language, Chinese, Tamil and English are all equal." The four official languages were given recognition by the Republic of Singapore Independence Act and also in the Constitution. Another example: one of the first few constitutional amendments our first generation of leaders made was to create a Presidential Council for Minority Rights chaired by the Chief Justice. The Presidential Council for Minority Rights can veto any legislation that Parliament passes that it feels affects the rights and privileges of minorities in Singapore. There were several other steps that were taken to focus on a Singaporean identity which would transcend race and religion. It was an act of tremendous courage on the part of those leaders to do all of this. It would have been far easier for them to have said, "Okay, in Singapore, Chinese will be the sole official language and the Chinese will have several other legally recognised privileges." If you see the situation in advanced, developed countries, if you go to Germany, you have to speak German by and large, if you go to France, you have to speak French. If you go to the United Kingdom (UK), you generally have to speak English. So, it would have been very natural for some to have said in Singapore, Chinese should be the language of business, language of commerce and language of government. But we took a different path.”
“Although the new state of Malaysia in 1963 had Malays, Chinese, Indians and Eurasians, amongst others, there were basic differences between Singapore and Kuala Lumpur on how the state was to be organised and, in particular, the approach towards multiracialism. Singapore wanted racial equality. Kuala Lumpur favoured race-based politics. The two approaches were not reconcilable. The idea of a "Malaysian Malaysia", advocated by Singapore, brought about a very strong counter from the United Malays National Organisation (UMNO) leaders in Kuala Lumpur and Malaya. They saw this as a challenge to Malay dominance. Singapore then became an independent country. On the day of our Independence on 9 August 1965, Mr Lee said – and these are very important words. He famously said, "We are going to have a multiracial nation in Singapore. We will set the example. This is not a Malay nation; this is not a Chinese nation; this is not an Indian nation. Everybody will have his place: equal, language, culture, religion." These issues and the approaches exercised the minds of Mr Lee and his generation. The problems were seared into their minds. They had grown up in a Malaya where different races had lived together for generations as colonial subjects. Once Independence was achieved – first in the Federation of Malaya in 1957 and then in Malaysia in 1963 – the question immediately arose as to whether all citizens, regardless of their race, were to have equal status. Our founding leaders had seen how fragile a multiracial society could be. They wanted, as far as possible, to make Singapore a more racially equal society. That involved many tough decisions. For instance, the languages we speak.”
“But why such a Bill? Why do we need this? It is not usual in many countries. I think that is a more fundamental, more important question. That is because we have always treated racial harmony as being fundamental in Singapore. This Bill has to be seen in that context. Multiracialism, underpinned by racial harmony, is a foundational principle for us. Sir, as most Members will know, when Singapore gained Independence, the issues relating to racial relations were fresh in the minds of the first generation of leaders. The proximate cause were the racial riots of 1964. At that time, communal tensions were very high in both Singapore and Malaysia. On 21 July 1964, riots started. That was during a procession to celebrate the Prophet Muhammad's birthday. A glass bottle was thrown into a crowd. The crowd had about 20,000 Malay celebrants. There was then an angry exchange between Malays in the crowd and some Chinese bystanders. That resulted in violence and the violence spread all across Singapore. That was the state of the tensions at that point. It lasted 17 days before the situation stabilised; 23 people died, more than 400 were injured. Then, riots broke out again on 2 September 1964, between again the Malays and Chinese. That happened after a Malay trishaw rider was killed. The second time round, it took 12 days before calm was established; 13 people died and more than a hundred were injured. The broader context for those tensions were the arguments between Singapore and Malaysia. These arguments then led to Singapore's separation from Malaysia. Singapore's merger into the new Federation of Malaysia in 1963 had raised some very fundamental issues.”
“Members can also access this material through the MP@SGPARL app. The point that has been made by the Ministry of Home Affairs (MHA) through its press release, which I am sure the Members who are intending to speak on the Bill would have looked at, and which I would emphasise again and you will see it from Annex 1 is that most of the proposals in this Bill – certainly the substantive proposals – are not new. As long as Members understand we are consolidating from different pieces of legislation and so, when you express your concerns and so on, in a way, what you need to understand is, if you have those concerns, then they would have existed for a very long time, because this Bill does not create new provisions in a substantive manner. There are some new provisions – you can see that in the Bill and in the press releases. But I am referring to the substantive provisions. The Table in Annex 1 also provides a comparative reference between this Bill and the Maintenance of Religious Harmony Act as well as other legislation. For example, Part 2 of the Bill on the Presidential Council for Racial and Religious Harmony takes reference from the current Presidential Council for Religious Harmony. Part 3 of the Bill on "Restraining Orders Against Racial Content" and Part 4 of the Bill on "Measures Against Foreign Influence" are also similar to the Maintenance of Religious Harmony Act. Part 6 of the Bill on "Offences Relating to Race" – those are what I call the charging provisions – brings over the existing offences from the Penal Code. In the course of bringing in concepts and provisions from other existing legislation, we have made some refinements to some provisions for clarity and effectiveness. I will explain that later. Sir, first, I think the Bill itself is fairly clear cut.”
“Thank you, Sir. We will, of course, take the Constitution Bill through its formal stages separately later. At present, dealing with the Maintenance of Racial Harmony Bill, there are powers to deal with conduct which threatens racial harmony, but what you see is that they are found in different pieces of legislation. What this Bill does is to bring those powers together in one place. And so, in that sense, it consolidates. And at the same time, by presenting it in this form, we seek to affirm the importance of racial harmony in Singapore. Based on the responses we have had from members of the public when we had our consultations and when we put out the Bill, I want to make one point. This Bill is not a panacea for all racial issues. You cannot by law force people of different races to get along with one another, nor can you prevent insensitivity or racist slights from happening in everyday interactions by passing a law. That, we try to deal with, try and improve conduct, try and get people together, through a variety of policies and platforms which promote social cohesion and racial harmony. That is a huge part of it. The law can set out a framework as to what you cannot do. Sir, with your permission, may I ask the Clerks to distribute Annex 1?”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, thank you. I move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time." I will refer to this Maintenance of Racial Harmony Bill (RH Bill) as the RH Bill – short for racial harmony, which is somewhat similar sounding to the Maintenance of Religious Harmony Act, which we passed some time ago. Sir, this Bill is linked to the next Bill, the Constitution of the Republic of Singapore (Amendment) Bill. The latter amends the President's powers under the Constitution to give effect to the proposals in this Bill. Sir, I seek your permission, to debate both Bills together.”
“The Immigration and Checkpoints Authority (ICA) does not track the number of requests to amend the date of birth in passports. Some individuals have incomplete records of their date of birth in the national register. Such individuals may update their date of birth by providing verifiable documentary proof of their date of birth to ICA. If they do not have such proof, ICA will consider the specific circumstances that resulted in the incomplete records and advise the individual of the appropriate course of action. If the request to amend the date of birth is successful, ICA will update the individual's date of birth in the national register, following which the individual may apply for a new passport with the updated particulars.”
“The proportion of new citizens aged 20 years and over with (a) secondary and below qualification and (b) post-secondary qualification, is released annually in the National Population and Talent Division's "Population in Brief" publication and can also be found on the Singapore Department of Statistics' website.”
“This question has been addressed in the Ministry of Home Affairs' written reply to Parliamentary Question Nos 16, 17 and 18 on 7 January 2025. [Please refer to "Keeping Track of or Assessing Singapore Citizens or Residents Placed On INTERPOL's Red Notice", Official Report, 7 January 2025, Vol 95, Issue 148, Written Answers to Questions section.]”
“The Member may refer to my reply to Question No 62 for Oral Answer on the Order Paper for 7 January 2025. [Please refer to "Measures to Ensure Safety of Police Officers in Light of Attack Using Improvised Flamethrower", Official Report, 7 January 2025, Vol 95, Issue 148, Written Answers to Questions for Oral Answer not Answered by End of Question Time section.]”
“We constantly review our various policies and processes, including on individuals flagged with INTERPOL Red Notices. For information on the existing policies and processes, the Member of Parliament may wish to refer to the Ministry of Home Affairs' written reply to Parliamentary Question Nos 16, 17 and 18 on 7 January 2025. [Please refer to "Keeping Track of or Assessing Singapore Citizens or Residents Placed On INTERPOL's Red Notice", Official Report, 7 January 2025, Vol 95, Issue 148, Written Answers to Questions section.]”
“The Ministry of Home Affairs is looking into the case.”
“As of 31 December 2024, the Ministry of Home Affairs has blocked more than 3,800 illegal gambling websites which we assess to be likely targeted at or likely to be frequented by the Singapore public, and more than 145,000 illegal gambling transactions involving the Singapore public, amounting to approximately $37 million. These blocking measures have impeded access to illegal online gambling to some extent. However, this approach is clearly not foolproof as illegal operators can easily create new websites and we do not have the ability to know of every gambling website. We encourage members of the public to report illegal gambling websites, apps and advertisements as well as bank accounts used by illegal gambling operators to the Police. The Government has put in place various measures to help problem gamblers, such as funding Social Service Agencies to provide counselling and run support groups. Families of problem gamblers should encourage them to seek assistance by calling the National Problem Gambling Helpline at 1800-6-668-668 or visiting www.ncpg.org.sg. Regarding the Member's suggestion, there are no plans for now to allow families to request the blocking of bank accounts used by problem gamblers. Our view is that our current measures are adequate as the probable pathological and problem gambling rate has remained low and stable at about 1%.”
“In applicable cases, the executor may choose to apply for a Grant of Probate through the Family Justice Courts' Probate eService, which provides a streamlined and simplified online service for the submission of the required probate documents to the Court. As regards safeguards, it is a matter between the beneficiaries and the executor. If the beneficiaries believe that the executor is not carrying out his duties properly, they can seek recourse in the Courts. For example, the beneficiaries of the Will may apply to the Court for relief, such as an order directing the executor to do or abstain from doing a particular act in the executor's capacity as an executor. Dishonest executors may also face criminal consequences.”