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 51 of 92.
“Another point that Mr Pritam Singh made, of religious leaders being seen with political leaders during elections, if the religious leaders are lay religious leaders, they have civil and political rights. The law does not preclude them from exercising their civil and political rights. They can be members of political parties. We have had Ministers, Members of Parliament who were lay preachers. So, they hold senior positions in a religious organisation and who are lay persons who hold other jobs and businesses. As I have said, they can be Members of Parliament, they can be Ministers and you cannot be saying they cannot exercise their rights. I think it is difficult to draw bright lines. But I will agree with this point, because we have got to look at these things with care and without a party lens, to decide on what is good for Singapore. We must handle these issues with sensibility, care and wisdom. Ms Sylvia Lim spoke about religious leaders supporting this Bill and she asked what views would the Government take if they had not been supportive of the Bill. This is not the first time religious leaders and organisations have expressed a view on a piece of legislation or Government policy. They have expressed views on other issues. Sir, with your leave, can I show extracts of some letters?”
“And if a political leader is invited – taking the example that Mr Pritam Singh gave – during a period of celebration, say, celebration of the nation, a significant date for the country, say, the 50th Anniversary Celebrations. Our tradition in Singapore, as you can see from all of this, we go. They are celebrating a national event and it is important for a Minister to be there to show that all faiths, all sections of the society are celebrating the success of the nation. And does he not go simply because it coincides with the run-up to a general election which one can expect any time? I think we have to be sensible enough to say what is the occasion, is it a national event, is the Prime Minister or any other Minister being invited in his capacity as a Minister, or a senior leader in the Government, and what is the message that is being sent? Is it a celebration by the religious community of the success of Singapore? That is what we are celebrating.”
“This is the Prime Minister on 15 April 2015 at the Taoist Federation's Silver Jubilee. It sends a signal. It is important that he is there, standing together with the Archbishop and various other leaders. In the next picture, you see him at the consecration ceremony of a Hindu temple last year. It sends a signal, sends a message to all Singaporeans. Next picture. There were 40,000 people who turned up there. Does the Prime Minister say, "No, I don't go for this"? Or does he say, "I go"? He is the Prime Minister, he represents all of Singapore. Let us move on to the next slide. I have entered St Andrew's Cathedral; spoke with 400-plus pastors and we were photographed. Deputy Prime Minister went to a meeting with volunteers from RPG, I think, on 7 September. The pictures speak for themselves. It is a constant thing that we all do and that builds the trust and the bonds between the religious leaders and Government leaders. But it is not only Government leaders who do it, as you can see. You can see that it is cross-party, right? There are quite a few pictures of Workers' Party Members with religious leaders and they are across all religions. I think there is more. But I thought that was enough to make the point. [Laughter.] So, in Government, we do that. I said it has to be done with mutual understanding and that we are neutral. The religious leaders must know that we are neutral, and confidence has to be given to all religions that the Government will be fair and neutral and be the conscientious referee. So, I will repeat very strongly: these interactions, the building of bonds, are extremely important. Members will see that religious harmony in Singapore is not only because of the laws but also because of how Government leaders have behaved.”
“And, in Singapore, we do it publicly, openly and we celebrate that relationship. Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, with your permission, may I flash some slides of photographs?”
“Ms Joan Pereira said some offenders may go through the motions of the CRI without any sincere intention, to avoid criminal prosecution. Mr Desmond Choo had concerns that the CRI would be taken advantage of. Before the issuance of the CRI, we will assess the circumstances of each case carefully. But, like the young men of the Young Sikh Association, we should take a chance that the CRI will help some people and some communities to mend communal relations without having to involve the law unnecessarily. Mr Vikram Nair asked if there are plans to use the CRI more widely. It is a new initiative. We will observe how the CRI improves our response to conduct that undermines religious harmony and then learn along the way. Mr Pritam Singh made some points. I thank him for the general position that he took on the Bill. One point he made was that, in Singapore, politicians are often seen with religious leaders, and it gives a picture of mixing religion with politics. So, how do we deal with this? I would say with wisdom and commonsense and that this is normal in Singapore. We do not live apart from religion; we do not live apart from religious leaders. If you take my Ministry, MHA, it is quite an important part of what we do, interacting closely with religious leaders, constantly being photographed as well. So, for Government leaders to cut off, not have contact with religious leaders, this will not be wise. Good deep friendships between Government leaders and religious leaders are extremely important. It helps to build trust, bonds and that is important for society as a whole and allows issues to be dealt with in an atmosphere of trust. But the key is to do it with wisdom, clarity of position and mutual understanding.”
“Mr Murali Pillai asked if it would be better to vest the Attorney-General with the power to issue CRI, bringing this closer to a conditional warning. Mr Louis Ng has also asked whether the CRI can be a sentencing option for the Courts. If the person chooses not to participate in the CRI, the person's conduct will be taken into account to determine if it is appropriate to bring criminal prosecution against him. We wanted to look for a community-based way of dealing with such issues. And the CRI is voluntary. So, it is not appropriate to leave it with the Attorney-General's Chambers (AGC). This is especially important in the context of religion. We should not force people to do what their faith militates against them to do. So, we must leave it voluntary and we leave it as something that you can consider doing and then, later on, in terms of whether further action is taken, this is something that can be taken into account. Any improvement of understanding on the part of the offender should be done on a voluntary basis. This option would be better than forcing someone through the law to "reform". The CRI is a novel option. We will work with the religious leaders and communities to ensure that the actions under the CRI are appropriate and beneficial. Mr Alex Yam asked if we had taken reference from other jurisdictions. No, the CRI is not something that other countries have implemented, as far as we know. But we wanted to see how we can deal with these issues in a different, non-legal way, as far as possible. I spoke in my opening speech about how the Young Sikh Association reached out to social media influencer, Ms Sheena Phua, and dealt with it. Mr Saktiandi Supaat and Mr Alex Yam brought up this incident as well.”
“Mr Murali Pillai asked about the Minister’s powers to create offences in the MRHA. These powers will be used to create regulatory offences to facilitate disclosure requirements introduced through the MRHA. Mr Gan Thiam Poh asked how we can conduct online checks on materials and use technology to stop comments or posts which may incite religious disharmony. We have to take a balanced and pragmatic approach. We cannot regulate all online media. Instead, we restrict access to content that is against public interest when it comes to our attention. Mr Gan Thiam Poh also asked about how the ROs can be enforced against online service providers and Er Dr Lee Bee Wah asked about how action can be taken for posts on influential pages. The RO in MRHA will not apply to online service providers that merely convey the offending material. We mitigate the deleterious effects of harmful online content in other ways. Under the Broadcasting Act, the Infocomm Media Development Authority (IMDA) can direct Internet Content Providers and Internet Service Providers to remove or block access to material that is prohibited under the Internet Code of Practice. And if there is willful transmission of online falsehoods, then POFMA can be used. For social media platforms like Facebook or Twitter, IMDA can issue a takedown notice to remove offensive posts. I move now on to the Community Remedial Initiative (CRI). Many Members have expressed support for this. Assoc Prof Dr Yaacob Ibrahim has said that while there is a need for strong and decisive measures for serious cases, there are other times where engagement and dialogue will be more appropriate. We fully agree. Using the weight of the law at first instance is not always the best way to resolve religious disharmony.”
“We can still take action against them. ROs can be issued to stop them from addressing a specified group of worshippers or members of religious a group. The CRI can also be used. Ms Anthea Ong suggested the inclusion of “Stephen’s Code” in MRHA. Her suggestion may not deal with the outcome of the person's speech. That is an important aspect that we have to take into account in determining whether the law should step in for conduct of speech that is motivated by religious prejudice. Our approach is for persons who are not religious leaders, their conduct must have an additional element of being likely to disturb public peace. We have also provided a defence for a person who is pointing out in good faith conduct which could constitute an offence under section 17F, for the purposes of removal of such material. Er Dr Lee Bee Wah asked about the rehabilitation of offenders that commit criminal offences under MRHA, like inciting hatred. This is a good suggestion and we will look into it. Mr Saktiandi Supaat asked about whether we would have oversight of foreign guest speakers who come here without a permit, especially in situations where they approach individual places of worship and speak with smaller groups of people. Ms Joan Pereira had a related question on how we can facilitate whistleblowing. There are existing requirements that local organisations which bring in foreign preachers to speak in Singapore must comply with. They have to apply for the appropriate permits. There are penalties under the Employment of Foreign Manpower Act. If there are breaches and if we know of these breaches, we will not hesitate to take action, particularly when we are alerted to an egregious act which incites religious violence or disharmony.”
“For people who are not religious leaders, private speech is not covered under the offences in section 17F. If the alleged offender can prove that he made the communication in situations where the parties to the conversation intended it to be heard or seen by themselves, this will be a defence. We do not want to intrude too much. People have their views. They say it to their family members or they say it to their friends in a specific context. You do not want to necessarily criminalise all of that. But the burden is on the alleged offender to prove that. Mr Desmond Choo asked about a person who secretly videotapes the speech and communicates it. If a person does this so that action can be taken against the offensive speech in the video, then he is likely to have a defence provided in the Bill as well. The defence is tighter for religious leaders and it requires two elements – first, that they show that it was private speech and, second, that the communication was domestic. The second element narrows the first to cover circumstances, such as conversations with immediate family, and you will see other examples in the explanatory statement. The religious leader will have to show that his conduct falls within this narrower scope. The rationale for the defence is to recognise that there will be situations where the religious leader will want to speak unencumbered and can speak unencumbered. We balanced this with the potential for harm that a speech of a religious leader can cause. This is why the defence for religious leaders is scoped tighter than for persons who are not religious leaders. Ms Rahayu Mahzam said there could be situations where members of a religious group have repeated private discussions with different groups of people to preach hatred and disharmony.”
“The Courts will take reference from case law to assess the facts of the case. But nobody has felt that these laws prevented them from saying what they wanted because most people are sensible and we have created a framework within Singapore for a sensible, practical, wise way of discussing these. Prof Yaacob Ibrahim asked if MRHA offences will apply to intra-faith matters, where persons seek to insult or wound persons of a different denomination of the same religion. The answer is yes. The Bill defines religious belief or activity to mean holding a religious belief or view or engaging in religious activity. The religious practice or view of a denomination can be distinct. Assoc Prof Walter Theseira asked us to have regard to protecting social harmony, especially in cases where religious leaders stigmatise persons who do not have the same values and exhorts the Government to change policy on religious grounds. The intent again, I reiterate, is not to stifle conversation about policy issues. The role of the law and the Government is to set some boundaries on how these discussions are carried out so that the conversation can be constructive. But apart from the legal framework, the Government seeks to build constructive relationships with stakeholders involved in the debate. But we do need the law to give that framework. Mr Christopher de Souza asked about the scope of “religious leaders”. Section 8 of MRHA sets out the definition and includes designated religious leaders: priests, monks, pastors, imams. But whether someone is, in fact, a religious leader has got to be a finding of fact based on the assessment of each case. Mr Desmond Choo and Ms Rahayu Mahzam were concerned about the distinction we have drawn between private and public speech.”
“Er Dr Lee Bee Wah and Mr Douglas Foo had questions on the thresholds for offences in MRHA. Mr Douglas Foo asked if the Ministry can provide guidelines on what constitutes offensive statements. Prof Yaacob Ibrahim asked how we define “wounding” of religious feelings and was concerned that it would cover genuine differences of opinions and views. He cautioned that laws must not end up silencing all discussion of religious topics through ambiguous definitions of illegal behaviour. He also asked if proselytisation would be covered. First, the phrases “wounding of religious feelings” and “threat to public peace” are not new. They were adapted from existing offences in the Penal Code. People are free to express their views. This has to be done responsibly. Statements that denigrate another religion will, of course, cross the line. And the proof of the pudding is in the eating. We have had the Penal Code for eons and we have had the MRHA for 27 years. These terms are not new, and I do not think that anyone complains that there has not been a possibility of discussing viewpoints or that all discussion on religious topics have been silenced. I think people understand the norms and values, and there are fairly open discussions. If a debate on religious differences gets into a denigration of another religion, insults, incites violence, we will, of course, take action and we have done so in the past. Members will remember Amos Yee, who made offensive remarks against Islam and Christianity. He did this repeatedly in 2015 and 2016, and so he was charged under section 298 of the Penal Code for uttering words with deliberate intent to wound religious or racial feelings. So, we have had this law. We are just porting it over.”
“So, I think a 14-day notice period would be quite ineffective. Ms Anthea Ong said the removal of the 14-day notice period may mean that the Government no longer consults religious groups or stakeholders before the issuance of the RO. As my colleague, Senior Parliamentary Secretary Sun Xueling has said, the Government’s preference has always been for the community to resolve the issues of religious disharmony. We work closely with religious groups, there are open channels, and this close, consultative relationship has been mentioned by Members, such as Mr Louis Ng. That will continue, even as we determine the action to be taken in each case. And the person subject to the RO obviously can exercise his rights to have a review by the PCRH and, ultimately, the decision is to be confirmed or otherwise by the President. Er Dr Lee Bee Wah and Mr Alex Yam asked about how the RO would interact with POFMA. They are quite separate pieces of legislation. POFMA can be used to direct online platforms, amongst other things, to amplify the corrections to a falsehood. In some instances, of course, it can both be false and also come under MRHA, and then, one has got to decide how to deal with it. Mr Christopher de Souza asked why the PCRH can recommend varying a new RO but can only confirm or cancel a proposed direction to extend an existing RO. I congratulate him for having read the Bill so closely. This is the same arrangement for the Minister. The Minister may only direct the extension of an existing RO. He cannot change the terms of an existing RO. So, he either extends it or lets it lapse. All the terms of the RO remain the same. Hence, similarly, PCRH can only confirm or cancel the RO. Let me now move on to criminal offences under MRHA.”
“They have powers to call any person to provide information while making their recommendations. We have these pieces of legislation and I have made this philosophical point elsewhere: it is a balance of power between the Executive and the individuals and other institutions. What is the purpose you seek to achieve? How do you calibrate that balance? We have had this law for 27 years and the fact that it is successful is shown by the fact that we have not had to use it even once. It shaped values and norms in our society, and very different from every other place around us and further beyond. Mr Alex Yam also asked about recourse for individuals. If a person or religious group is aggrieved by the RO that is issued, they can make representations to the PCRH. These processes have been put in place to ensure that the Minister’s decision can be reviewed and the RO issued, if appropriate. Many Members have spoken in support of the amendment to remove the 14-day notice period in this age of the Internet. Mr Alex Yam asked how, in practice, these “new powers” can improve the effectiveness of curbing the spread of hate speech. I want to make one point. There are no new powers. The substantive powers remain the same. We are just removing the 14-day notice period. But the safeguards and the exercise of the powers remain the same. Mr Murali Pillai asked if most of the situations will involve the Internet. The RO is meant to be pre-emptive, and to prevent further harm. With the Internet and smartphones, I do not think you can talk about this is brick-and-mortar and this is the Internet. It moves from one to the other very quickly. A speech to a small group of followers in a room can be recorded and transmitted in a matter of seconds and, from there, it can go viral very quickly.”
“The approach is to ensure that our local religious organisations are sensitised to our multi-religious context. Dr Intan Mokhtar asked about the Competent Authority – what qualities are expected and to what extent the Minister will seek its counsel. The Competent Authority will be a civil servant appointed to administer the parts of the Act relating to disclosure requirements. It will be made up of officers from MHA, and they will act in accordance with the general directions of the Minister. Let me now move on to the ROs. Mr Alex Yam asked whether it would be an offence if a religious leader made public statements against a law enacted by the Government which runs counter to the beliefs of the religion. I presume he means whether such conduct would be grounds for an RO to be issued. It depends on what the religious leader says, how he says it and to whom he says it. We do not want to constrain public debate on social issues, even when done on religious grounds. But if a religious group says, you can only vote for people who are of the same religion as you, that is not acceptable and crosses the line. Dr Intan Mokhtar asks for assurances that the RO will not be used to target any religious community and Mr Alex Yam asked about the safeguards if the Government becomes “aggressively atheistic” and applies the MRHA beyond what it was drafted for. The RO has safeguards, which I had mentioned in my opening speech and I will reiterate them. The ROs will be reviewed by the PCRH, which makes recommendations to the President. The President decides whether to confirm, vary or cancel the RO. The PCRH is made up of community leaders – both religious leaders and lay persons. All the major religions are represented on the Council. They are an independent body.”
“We are very mindful of that, and we always knew that those are not areas where we can go and direct, require or impose requirements. These have been discussed. And for other organisations as well, exemptions will be granted on a case-by-case basis. We have met many of these organisations and have explained this to them. The Catholic Church came out in support of the amendments because they understood what we are trying to do. Ms Irene Quay and Ms Joan Pereira sought more details on the criteria for exemptions on leadership requirements. Without being comprehensive or exclusive, I will say we will consider the following: whether the congregation is largely made up of foreigners. There are some small religious organisations which serve exclusively a foreign community and, sometimes, it may not be practical to impose on them the requirements that we have. We will also look at the structure of the religious organisation and whether it operates as one entity across different countries. We will also, of course, look at security concerns. Er Dr Lee Bee Wah raised a good suggestion that foreign appointment holders who are granted exemptions, that they should be given basic education on our multi-religious context. We will consider that. Let me now deal with affiliations. Mr Saktiandi Supaat asked about whether local religious organisations would need to delink themselves from "unapproved" overseas organisations. Let me clarify. MRHA does not provide for powers to ask a local religious organisation to dissociate itself from a foreign affiliate. That would be too intrusive and excessive. My colleague Ms Sun Xueling made this point. We have no homegrown religion of our own and we are an open society.”
“We can ask for more information to determine the accuracy of the disclosures and also to check whether there are grounds for an RO. But we do not want to put too many requirements on these organisations. There is mutual trust. Mr Louis Ng also asked about a foreigner donating $9,999. Yes, for any threshold we set, someone can donate a dollar less. But we have to choose a threshold. If we did not set a threshold, then religious organisations will have to track every single donation and that is not feasible either. If we believe that there are influence operations going on, based on intelligence or otherwise, then we can move to an RO. Mr Louis Ng asked why the exemptions for donations disclosure also apply to foreigners on long-term passes. Religious institutions and groups in Singapore serve foreigners as well as locals who stay in Singapore. We have foreigners who live here, work here, study here, go to local religious institutions, temples, churches and so on, and they naturally donate to them and, again, we did not want to and we do not want to impose too many administrative burdens on our religious organisations. Let me now move on to leadership. Mr Louis Ng asked about what we can do about citizens or PRs who act as agents of foreign influence in local religious groups. The scope of the RO only applies to ensure that every member of the governing body is a citizen, or to remove persons who are not citizens from the governing body. Where a Singapore Citizen is acting as a conduit for foreign influence, we cannot use the RO. We will have to look at other legislation. Mr Alex Yam asked about religious organisations where leadership appointments involve an external decision, due to historical reasons. The Catholic Church is an obvious example.”
“So, I am unable to give those examples. But I will say this. If Members go back and, for those who know that we did these things, the first-generation leaders put in some practices that I must say had amazing foresight, and I say this with hindsight. Because in the last 30 years, what you have seen is that all over the world, money from the Middle East has been used to fund mosques and religious institutions. The result is that this influences and changes the practice of Islam, which itself has been changed very substantially. Our first-generation leaders put in initiatives, such as the Mosque Building Fund, where local Muslims donate to build our local mosques. And, for the building of mosques, the land is not tendered for. It is allocated, bringing down the cost. So, that, effectively, made it very unlikely that foreign funding will come in. It is amazing foresight. So, we have not been affected in the same way as a lot of other countries have been, where money from the Middle East has come in – because that money comes in with tight conditions that the preacher must have been trained in specific countries, and in all likelihood, the preachers would come from those countries. And after a while, and now you see it, the entire way in which people practise the religion changes. Mr Louis Ng spoke about the loopholes in the donation requirements. He raised some examples. Those examples have elements of deceit – where a foreigner passes off his donation as anonymous or from another person. Dr Intan Mokhtar raised similar examples. We have offences to deal with donors and religious groups that use fraud, really, to escape disclosure requirements. Section 16G of the Bill gives the Competent Authority powers.”
“We also engaged non-apex religious organisations – the larger temples and all the Catholic Orders. The Bill incorporates their feedback. We made some changes along the way, based on their feedback. The religious organisations know there will be some additional work. But they understood and accepted the rationale and the need for these safeguards. We have been working with them for more than a year. They realised the need for the amendments in maintaining religious harmony. We have assured the religious groups that we will work with them, implement these requirements in a practical manner and, where needed, we will also grant exemptions. Ms Irene Quay asked how we set the threshold at $10,000 and how this compares with money laundering and counterterrorism legislation. Money laundering thresholds take reference from standards set by the Financial Action Task Force. All amounts, however small, are covered. For terrorism financing, likewise, action is taken however small the amount. We have taken action against persons for $60. So, those actions are in a different league and are extremely strict. For MRHA, we discussed with the apex religious organisations on what an appropriate level would be. Ten thousand dollars was chosen because, by the standards of donations, it was a significant amount. We have to balance between the risk and also the effort that religious organisations have to take. If you set it at too low an amount, they will have to take a lot of effort and it may not be meaningful. Ms Irene Quay asked about examples of past cases where foreign donations have been used to influence local religious organisations. Mr Louis Ng asked whether we track foreign and anonymous donations. We do not track foreign donations to local religious organisations now.”
“We took the view that MRHA should be comprehensive in covering all the matters relating to religious harmony, whether dealing with offensive speech or safeguarding against foreign influence that affects religious harmony, which is why we also moved some provisions from the Penal Code over. We are looking separately into legislation to better counter foreign interference that is harmful to our national security and sovereignty. But that is a separate matter. Mr Christopher de Souza asked about whether leadership requirements will cover corporatised religious charitable groups. The outcomes we want, that is, that organisations that propagate, teach and practise religion should be subject to the principles which are set out in the Bill. Those principles apply, regardless of whether the organisations are societies or companies limited by guarantees. But it does not cover organisations that may have a religious background but do not have as their purpose the promotion of any religious worship or religion, or whose business does not concern religious affairs or practices or conducting, teaching or propagating any religious belief. The Act has been applied for a long time in a sensible way and we will continue to do this. There are religious organisations that set up companies to do commercial trading. I do not think those companies will necessarily be affected, but we have to look at what they are doing. Mr Christopher de Souza, Er Dr Lee Bee Wah and Ms Irene Quay expressed concern that the requirements may be too onerous. Mr Alex Yam requested that MHA engage with religious organisations to clarify these requirements. He also asked about the feedback that has been received. We have had discussions with various religious organisations.”
“Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I thank the Members who have spoken on the Bill. In my speech, Members will see that I use the phrases "wisdom", "care", "sensibility", "practicality" a number of times. That would be, in essence, what I would say to many of the questions. But let me start by saying I am heartened by the support of the Bill by everyone who spoke. There are some questions, but everyone believes that this should be done and that this is the correct thing to do. So, let me now try and address the points raised by the Members. There have been a lot of points by a lot of Members so I hope I can cover them. Mr Alex Yam asked whether there were any concerns, such as those raised in the White Paper in 1990 which required these proposed amendments. Sir, I have dealt with this in some detail in my opening speech – the changes around the world, the reasons for the amendment. I would refer to those. Mr Alex Yam also asked whether the Act will forbid the entry of new religious movements if they do not have a local presence. No, the Act does not forbid that. Religious freedom is guaranteed under the Constitution. We do not interfere with that. But the requirements in the Bill, if it becomes legislation, will apply to all new as well as existing religious groups. Next, on safeguards against foreign influence. Members agree that our religious organisations need safeguards against foreign influence. Ms Irene Quay asked whether there should be an omnibus legislation on foreign influence, instead of including these safeguards in MRHA. I think Members recognise that legislation is needed. It is a matter of where these laws need to be sited.”
“It will not be compulsory because we do not want to force a person of one religion to compulsorily, say, step into another place of religious worship if there are religious reasons why that person may not wish to do so. We do not want to compel them to do some things that they may not wish to do. We will leave it as a matter of their own conscience and what they are prepared to do. But that will be taken into account when deciding on the actions that are subsequently taken. The philosophy is that it is much better if people reach out to one another and get a better understanding of one another's religion. This will foster a better environment. So, these are the changes and they are being proposed after a lot of thought, consultations and, as Members will know, with considerable support from the different religious communities from all the major faiths. They have come out after they saw the Bill and after it was introduced in Parliament to give their support. And I hope that Members will likewise support it. [(proc text) Question proposed. (proc text)]”
“Third, the MRHA allows the Government to issue a Restraining Order (RO) to anyone who threatens religious harmony – that has been there all along. Currently, it requires a 14-day notice period to be given. With the Internet and social media, 14 days is too long. So, we will amend for the Order to take immediate effect. We will introduce the Community Remedial Initiative (CRI). It is a new tool that focuses on restoration and rehabilitation. I would like to mention, in this context, a recent interesting incident which captures the essence of what we are trying to do. Some Members may recall an incident a few days ago where the Young Sikh Association reached out to a social media influencer, Ms Sheena Phua. She had uploaded a picture showing two Sikh men in white turbans at the recent Formula One Grand Prix and referred to them as “huge obstructions”. The online firestorm began. She was accused of being racist and slighting Sikhism. It would have been entirely understandable for the Sikh community to criticise her, but the Young Sikh Association took a different path and, in many ways, a very commendable path. They reached out and invited her to visit the gurdwara so that they could educate her about Sikhism. These young men understood that, at times, insensitive and derogatory comments can come from a place of ignorance and that the better and more sustainable path is not of hate or taking sides, but of friendship, respect and learning about one another. Mr Malminderjit Singh, the secretary of the Sikh Advisory Board, called the actions of these young men and, I quote, a "First-world response to a third-world incident". I agree. This incident, in fact, encapsulates the spirit of the CRI.”
“We have to put in some circuit breakers to prevent events relating to religion from affecting us negatively. You want to allow for those religious influences but at the same time do not want them to affect us negatively. We are updating the MRHA to deal with some of the challenges that I have spoken about. Let me touch on three key proposed changes to the MRHA. First, we are moving over the religion-related offences from the Penal Code and housing them under the MRHA. The amendments will make it an offence to knowingly urge violence, on the ground of religion or religious belief, against any person or group. Protection is provided to religious groups and their members, as well as non-religious groups and the members of such groups. Action can be taken if any religious group or its member attacks another religious group using religion. But action can also be taken if a religious group, using religion, attacks a non-religious group, say, for example, they attack a Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender and Queer (LGBTQ) group or individuals on the basis of religion. But equally, if a religious group or its member is attacked by any non-religious group or person, say, again, LGBTQ, then action can also be taken. So, it is even-handed. Second, we need to put in place measures to safeguard against foreign actors who attempt to use religion to divide our local communities. The Bill introduces requirements on religious organisations to disclose foreign donations and affiliations. It also introduces local leadership requirements for religious organisations. We will not apply these requirements to spiritual leaders and preachers. It is not possible. Many of them come from overseas and it is not our intent to constrain the practice of religion.”
“The Commitment encourages day-to-day positive interactions so that people can work and live together harmoniously. Beyond institutional structures, we also have laws in place that seek to ensure that no one exploits fault lines. Because of these policies, the laws and enforcement, we have created some norms and values within Singapore which make us unique and different from many other places. We have peace and harmony. If we go back to a Pew Research Centre study in 2014 on religious diversity, it showed that Singapore was the most religiously diverse country in the world. That could make us particularly susceptible to fault lines deepening, because you are so diverse in such a small place. Yet, a 2016 Gallup World Poll ranked us first out of 140 countries for tolerance of ethnic minorities. The poll deals with ethnicity, not religion, but I think you can draw some conclusions from that. A 2019 Institute of Policy Studies and OnePeople.sg joint study also found inter-religious harmony in Singapore improving. Nine in 10 said the level of racial and religious harmony in Singapore is moderate, high or very high. I think you take the surveys and studies in context. Just because people say we are No 1 does not automatically mean we are No 1. But I think we look our lived experiences, lived realities and the findings are consistent with our lived experiences in Singapore. Let me now come to the reason for the amendments. I have described the developments around the world that we should be concerned about. It is easy for religious movements in other countries to affect us. A new way of thinking, or revolutions like the 1979 Iranian Revolution, swept through the world; the ideas, come through here, too.”
“Parts of the Internet are already turning into hothouses of hate; like-minded bigots find one another and gather online. They are helped by Internet platforms where algorithms allow hate to go viral. There are many examples. If we look at India, in 2014, photos of venerated Hindu figures were morphed in "derogatory" manner and circulated on social media. They went viral. Lots of people took to the streets, asking for the blood of the offenders. In Indonesia, you have preachers, some of whom have vast followings on social media and are influencers with a force of their own. They can mobilise huge crowds and can make part of the Muslim community susceptible to identity politics. Right next to us, on the other side, you have the "Buy Muslim First" campaign in Malaysia. It has been gaining momentum, going around on WhatsApp messages. It is now seen as a boycott of goods and services produced by non-Muslims. Government leaders have attempted to intervene but, so far, the impact has been minimal. If this continues to grow, it will stoke Muslim versus non-Muslim sentiments. The fourth trend I will touch on is foreign interference. Again, I will not go into details. It is well-documented. Members know about it and the Internet makes it much more possible. So, let me now turn to the situation in Singapore. We have been spared most of this trouble in Singapore. Over the last 60 years, the Government has been even-handed in the treatment of all religions and religious groups. We actively protect religious diversity, but also emphasise our common spaces and our shared experiences. Earlier this year, more than 300 religious organisations affirmed the Commitment to Safeguard Religious Harmony.”
“This is the party of Nehru and Gandhi. The writer, Kanchan Chandra, says that through the years, Indian politicians have swayed from one side to another, overly championing minority interests, or giving in too much to the majority's desires. And over time, this generated feelings of unfairness, from both the minority and majority religionists. Secularism is an ideal but it is difficult to get it right and get the balance right. Our Constitution guarantees the freedom of religion, but so do the constitutions of many other countries, including the United States (US). And that has not prevented the rise of identity politics. The second trend that I want to touch on is the increasing violence from conflicts that have been fueled by religious hate speech. Once hate speech is systemically developed and normalised, it destroys social cohesion, erodes shared values and lays the foundation for violence. I spoke about this quite extensively, to a great extent in this House in April. I will not go through it again. Hate speech is also fuel for religious violence. In 2018, Pew Research Centre did a study that showed that two years earlier in 2016, more than 25% of the countries in the world experienced a high incidence of hostilities involving religion. I think the point is made. If you look around, you see many examples and I gave many examples a few months ago. The third trend that I want to touch on is the Internet and social media. The Internet has been used to mobilise hatred and mob attacks. It has provided for anonymity that allows unfettered expressions and religious intolerance. Internet access has made it easier for people to be influenced by extremist ideologies. And collectively, social media can invoke irrational fear of both the majority and the minority groups.”
“If Members look at the 2015 Pew Research Centre survey, it is projected that by 2050, 87% of the world's population will be religiously-affiliated. That, we can see, is particularly so in this region – look at Indonesia, for example. Rising religiosity, by itself, can be a force for considerable good, as I explained earlier. But there can be trouble when it is exploited by bad actors, for example, for identity politics. And it can be so exploited. We see this in many places. If we look at Europe, far-right movements play up anxieties against Muslims and other minorities. If we look nearer in this region, in Myanmar, there is religious conflict between the majority Buddhists and the Rohingya Muslim minority. Buddhist monks enter the political scene and say they are defending the Buddhist Myanmar against Islamisation. If we look at Sri Lanka, some have sought to radicalise Buddhists by claims that all of Sri Lanka should be exclusively Buddhist. We had a 2013 Buddhist attack on a mosque; 2014, anti-Muslim riots which resulted in a 10-day national state of emergency; and last year, more anti-Muslim riots. The Buddhist monks have also disrupted Christian church services. The developments in India are worth noting. India was established in 1947 as a pluralist nation and home that comprises people of many religions, sects and ethnicities. Their constitution provides no particular religion with special status. A writer points out that the party that champions secularism, the Congress Party, during the 1984 national elections, moved away from being tied to secularism. It won by riding on Hindu majoritarian politics. By 2019, to regain power, the Congress Party dropped the word "secularism" from its manifesto. It tells you how far things have come.”
“And the Government, as a matter of policy, made sure that religion remained accessible to all Singaporeans who wish to access it. For example, land is continuously set aside in our residential estates. Every time we plan an estate, we take into account religious needs for worship for all religions. The Government helped to establish the Mosque Building and MENDAKI Fund, which made it easier to mobilise the community and build mosques. At the same time, the Government itself is secular. Secularism in Singapore is unique. It is not like secularism in some other countries. The example I spoke about in April this year before this House was France. There, the state will not intervene in religious matters, even if an act or speech offends other religions. We take a different position. I explained this in some detail in my Parliamentary Statement in April before this House. The Government does not privilege any religious group. But we also do not allow any religious group to be attacked or insulted. And we actively encourage interfaith dialogues, activities to foster mutual understanding and respect. At the same time, we keep to the position that no religious group should influence Government policy and decision-making. That was the background for the passing of MRHA in 1990. In the last 27 years since it was passed, there have been some significant changes. I will touch on four. First, growing religiosity and increased reliance on identity politics around the world; second, increased violence committed in the name of religion; third, the Internet and social media; and fourth, increased possibilities for interference by countries in the affairs of other countries. First, rising religiosity.”
“But, in our context, in fact in any country, if these rules were ignored, that could seriously damage our social fabric and our political, economic fabric. The White Paper then said legislation was, therefore, necessary because we wanted to take pre-emptive action to maintain religious harmony. The MRHA was passed and had these key features: one, it covered conduct that harmed religious tolerance; two, there were powers for the Minister to issue orders restraining harmful conduct; and three, a Presidential Council for Religious Harmony (PCRH) was set up, which could consider these orders. It could also consider other matters that affected the maintenance of religious harmony. Let me give a bit more context on the reasons for the introduction of the Act then. I think we all recognise the power of religion. It has been and is a force for much good. Major religions have transformed societies in positive ways. They are the bedrock of core societal values: compassion, kindness, generosity. The collective efforts of a number of different religious organisations and groups, their values and their faith have also helped to make Singapore what it is today. At the same time, we recognise that religion has also been used and can be used by bad actors as a rallying point for violence. Also, by bad actors as a rallying point to pursue political power, often with bad outcomes for societies. In 1990, the Government was very aware of the good that religion can bring about, but also how it can be abused by some. So, the question was how to keep the good, allow a large measure of freedom and also keep out the bad? The Government decided on two key principles. First, emphasise the constitutional guarantee of freedom of religion – the right of every person to practise his or her beliefs.”
“Mr Speaker, I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time". This Bill proposes amendments to the Maintenance of Religious Harmony Act (MRHA). MRHA was passed in 1990 and came into effect in 1992. In those 27 years, society, attitudes towards religion, the environment and more have changed. We reviewed MRHA and we decided to amend it, keep it relevant, keep it effective. In this speech, I will touch on three aspects. First, the background to MRHA, reasons why it was introduced in 1990; second, a brief look at relevant events around the world, the extent of religious harmony and our experience over the past 27 years; and third, set out the rationale for the amendments. My colleague, Senior Parliamentary Secretary Sun Xueling, will speak on the specific provisions in the Bill. Let me now deal with the context and background to MRHA. The rationale for MRHA was set out in a White Paper. It was published in December 1989. It highlighted several important aspects. One: religious harmony is a necessary condition for us to survive as a country. The Government needed to set out a set of “working rules” on how different religious groups interact with one another. One such rule was that religious groups should not do anything that causes disharmony, ill-will or hostility among different religious groups. This is especially so for proselytisation. A key tenet of many religions is to propagate their faith but, in Singapore, we want it to be done sensitively. Another rule, if I may highlight, is that religious groups should not venture into politics and political parties should not use religion to get popular support. The White Paper also recognised it would be unwise to assume that all religious groups will recognise the Rules of Prudence.”
“I think there are two different issues being conflated here – whether they should be engaging with students and student unions, in the context of universities, I leave it to the Minister for Education. He has explained the principles. That does not ipso facto mean that they become security risks. If they do become security risks, they will be monitored.”
“I do not quite understand the question. Can the Member explain a little bit more clearly what exactly he is asking? Assoc Prof Walter Theseira: Earlier, the Minister for Education noted that several individuals who are noted social and political activists may be unsuitable for an educational environment for one reason or another, ranging from conviction under certain public order acts to notable acts of potential disloyalty, perhaps to Singapore, and other issues. So, I just wish to ask the Minister for Home Affairs whether he believes that this also means that they should be restricted from participating in or being engaged by student groups. In other words, would there be some kind of security risks, for example, to the students?”
“On the third sub-question, I agree with the Nominated Member that it is important for students to know their rights and responsibilities. If you put it in a broader context, it is important that our young people know: (a) what their rights are; (b) the different political systems around the world; (c) how they work; (d) what is happening in the US, Western Europe, Asia and why; (e) our own path in the last 60 years; (f) why we have been relatively successful; (g) how the balance between state power and individual autonomy is struck in different societies; (h) what roles and responsibilities individuals, groups play; and (i) how to identify charlatans, those who promise the world and deliver nothing, and more. So, we do our best. But if the Nominated Member has ideas on how we can bring these points across better to younger people, we will be very happy to hear from him. Thank you.”
“As regards Assoc Prof Walter Theseira's question, the Home Team agencies have to ensure the safety and security of Singapore. They focus on persons who engage in activities that endanger national security, like terrorist acts and acts that could lead to violence, public disorder. And they take measures, including pre-emptive actions. Let me give an example. In May 2015, a 17-year-old Singapore student was arrested under the Internal Security Act after being self-radicalised and planning to engage in armed violence alongside the Islamic State in Iraq and Syria. It does not mean that agencies look at all 17-year-olds. Let me provide another couple of examples. Last month, my Ministry announced that three domestic helpers from Indonesia had been detained for terrorist-related activities. That does not mean our security agencies monitor all domestic helpers. There are close to 260,000 of them. And in 2016, we picked up eight Bangladeshi Work Pass holders who were planning to stage terror attacks in their own home country. There are about 1.4 million Work Pass holders in Singapore. We do not, and we cannot and we are unable to monitor all of them. The agencies have their ways of identifying security threats and they will take appropriate action, in context. The Member also asked about the guidelines or laws under which foreign students may participate in student activities. There are laws that set the boundaries for political activities by foreigners. They include the Public Order Act and the Public Entertainments (Speakers' Corner) Exemption Order 2016 and other legislation. Of course, in an academic setting, as part of a course, foreign students are free to engage in discussion and debate, no different from their fellow Singaporean students.”
“The Minister for Education had earlier answered parts (a), (b) and (c) of Ms Anthea Ong's question. On part (d), I think that the heart of the Member's question is about freedom of speech and the limits to that. I think her question relates to people expressing their views, that there was dishonesty, unpatriotic actions, and whether they should be allowed to say those things; and the Member has asked for the Ministry's views. There are criminal, civil laws that govern what people can and cannot say in public. These laws apply to the online space as well. If you defame, there can be civil action; sometimes, it can be criminal defamation as well. If you harass people, that can be an offence, sometimes. Civil action is also possible, civil remedies are possible. If there is speech that has been directed at some students and they believe that a criminal offence has been committed, the students can file a Police report. I am sure they are aware of that. If the Member is of the view that more regulation of the online space is necessary, going beyond the current laws and that such speech should be regulated, she can let us know precisely what she has in mind to be regulated. I assume that she is not suggesting that we prevent people from expressing their views on whether some actions are patriotic or unpatriotic. And I think the Member will know that in the online space, people will say what they like. We strengthened the Protection from Harassment Act (POHA) a few months ago to allow people to take action and give individuals more power. If what is said about them is untrue, they can take steps. If they are harassed, they can take steps. So, we are empowering the individuals. But if the Member feels that that is not adequate, she can let us know.”
“I will answer part (d) of Question No 7. The other three parts have been answered by Minister Ong Ye Kung. And with your permission, Sir, can I take Question No 7(d) and Question No 8 together?”
“Divorced or widowed foreign mothers who have custody of their minor Singaporean children would generally be able to qualify for a Long-Term Visit Pass (LTVP) or Long-Term Visit Pass-Plus (LTVP+). The LTVP or LTVP+ will facilitate their continued stay in Singapore to care for their children. Each application for LTVP/LTVP+ is assessed carefully, taking into consideration the circumstances of each case and other relevant factors, such as whether the applicant has adverse records. The vast majority of such foreign mothers have been granted long-term stay in Singapore.”
“Police Officers are trained to be sensitive to the needs of all victims, including those from the Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender and Queer (LGBTQ) community. The training covers a wide range of issues, including the causes of victim trauma, the needs of victims, the vulnerabilities faced by victims, and victim management.”
“The number of overstayers arrested in Singapore has decreased from 1,690 in 2013 to 940 in 2018. Of these 940 overstayers, 510 were Short-Term Visit Pass holders, and 107 were Work Pass holders. Another 283 were holders of Special Passes, which were issued to them for specific purposes, such as assisting in an investigation or attending Court. The remaining overstayers held other passes, for example, Long-Term Visit Pass and Student's Pass. The median overstay duration is about two months. The Immigration and Checkpoints Authority will continue to maintain its enforcement efforts to ensure that the overstayer situation is kept under control.”
“Taking videos or pictures of law enforcement officers conducting security operations can interfere with and jeopardise the operations, endangering the safety of the public and our officers. Under ordinary circumstances, the Public Order Act (POA) empowers law enforcement officers to direct a specific person to stop taking or sharing films or pictures of ongoing operations. Failing to comply is an offence which carries a punishment of up to one year imprisonment, a fine of up to $20,000, or both. For serious incidents that could cause mass public disorder, such as terrorist attacks, the Public Order and Safety (Special Powers) Act (POSSPA) provides the Police with special powers to exert further control over communications. Under POSSPA, the Commissioner of Police can issue a Communications Stop Order (CSO). It bans the taking or sharing of films, pictures, texts or audio messages of the entire declared incident area. Unlike the powers provided for in the POA, this order does not need to be directed towards any specific individual but bans all persons. Offenders who breach the CSO are liable to two years' imprisonment, a fine of up to $20,000, or both. These special powers are not available in day-to-day operations and need to be activated by the Minister for Home Affairs before they can be used.”
“Applications for Personal Protection Orders (PPOs) can either be rejected at the point the complaint is made or at the conclusion of a hearing. A very small fraction of applications for PPOs is rejected at the point the complaint is made. Generally, these applications are rejected if the allegation(s) averred are, on the face of the complaint, insufficient to satisfy the definition of "family violence" under section 64 of the Women's Charter. The vast majority of applications for PPOs proceed for a hearing. Whether the application for a PPO is granted or not depends on the facts of each case. An application for a PPO may, for example, be dismissed if the respondent shows that the force used was lawfully used in self-defence. Applications for a PPO may also be dismissed if the Court is not satisfied that a PPO is necessary for the protection or personal safety of the applicant. The statistics are as shown in the table below.”
“After a Bankruptcy Order is made, a bankrupt has to make monthly contributions to his bankruptcy estate during the period of the bankruptcy. The bankruptcy estate will then be distributed to the creditor(s) upon the bankrupt's discharge. In determining the monthly contribution, the Official Assignee or the Private Trustees-in-Bankruptcy take into consideration the bankrupt's current income, relevant work experience and age, as well as reasonable expenses which the bankrupt and his family may incur. In general, a monthly personal deductible of $1,100 is allowed, and additional deductibles may be allowed depending on the bankrupt's specific circumstances. These deductibles can be used to pay for the insurance premiums for the Home Protection Scheme and other Central Provident Fund (CPF) insurance schemes so as to protect the bankrupt and his family. Where allowed by CPF rules, CPF members can also use their CPF contributions and savings to pay for these insurance premiums.”
“The Government takes a strict approach towards ownership of landed residential property in Singapore by foreigners, including Permanent Residents, to ensure that they remain the primary preserve of Singapore Citizens, given their scarcity. Foreign ownership of landed residential properties in Singapore is restricted under the Residential Property Act and foreigners who wish to purchase such properties must seek the approval of the Minister for Law. Applicants are assessed on a case-by-case basis, taking into consideration factors, such as their economic contribution to Singapore. Foreigners that are granted approval are allowed to own only one landed residential property, and the property must be used for their own occupation. There are more stringent qualifying criteria for landed residential properties that are larger than 15,000 square feet, and those situated within a good class bungalow area.”
“There are about 3,800 civilian officers in the Ministry of Home Affairs (MHA), and 5,200 officers under the Immigration and Checkpoints Authority scheme of service whose retirement and re-employment ages follow the national framework. As for Home Affairs uniformed officers, MHA last increased their retirement age from 50 to 55 in 2013. MHA periodically reviews it to ensure that we are able to meet the manpower requirements of the Home Team, taking into consideration changes in life expectancy and years of healthy living, as well as the ability and desire of our officers to work longer. MHA is in the midst of such a review, which will be completed in the next several months.”
“Closed-circuit television (CCTV) footages of traffic accidents are part of the evidence of investigations and criminal proceedings. Police, therefore, do not generally share such footages with victims, their next-of-kin, potential claimants or alleged offenders while investigations are ongoing. A witness may tailor his evidence after seeing what is captured in the footages, resulting in inaccurate gathering of information regarding the accident. Should the alleged offender be charged in Court, the defence will generally be able to view such footages on request. The footages, however, are generally not shared with victims, their next-of-kin, and potential claimants while criminal proceedings are ongoing. Upon conclusion of the criminal proceedings, evidence tendered in Court will generally be on public record and a person who needs to have access to them may apply to the Court.”
“In future, should a fire happen within 60 minutes at the place where someone had illegally disposed of a cigarette butt, the person would be presumed to be culpable for the fire and duly charged. This makes it harder for offenders to escape justice.”
“The number of vegetation fires has increased in recent years due to factors, such as drier and hotter weather. The number in the first half of 2019 increased by 56% to 555, from 356 in the first half of 2018. The inter-agency Wildfire Task Force Committee led by the Singapore Civil Defence Force (SCDF) coordinates measures to minimise the risk of vegetation fires. During the dry season, members will step up patrols of hotspots to enable early detection, as well as adopt preventive measures, such as removing dead leaves more regularly. For example, the National Parks Board has increased patrols and inspections of nature reserves, parks and other vegetated areas to look out for possible fire hazards, such as dry leaf litter and signs of incipient fire. In addition, it is exploring the use of video analytics and drones and has constructed fire breaks to hinder the spread of fires in nature reserves. SCDF educates members of the public on steps that they can take to prevent and counter such fires. For example, extinguish embers properly if they have started a controlled fire, and do not discard refractive materials like broken glass into the vegetation, which could focus the sunlight and start a fire. Smokers should not dispose of their cigarette butts illegally. In fact, those who illegally discard cigarette butts can be charged not only under the Environmental Public Health Act for littering, but also under the Penal Code for negligent conduct, should there be a major fire thereafter. The amended Penal Code, which will come into force in 2020, will empower the Police and SCDF to take even firmer action, by introducing a new offence of causing or contributing to the risk of a dangerous fire, and a presumption clause.”
“Police investigations into Swiber Holdings Limited and its subsidiaries are still ongoing. It is inappropriate for me to comment further.”
“We have checked and have been informed that the time taken to complete the sale of such matrimonial flats upon divorce and whether there was compliance with time limits set in Court Orders are not tracked by any agency. The terms of the Court Orders, and whether any extension of time is needed by the parties, are a matter between the parties, unless the parties inform the Housing and Development Board (HDB) of the same. Parties may apply to Court for an extension of time to sell the flat. Parties can sell their HDB flat as long as they are able to reach an agreement in doing so, and HDB will process the sale accordingly. It also depends on the terms of the Court Orders.”
“The Community Disputes Resolution Tribunals (CDRT) were established on 1 October 2015 as a forum to facilitate the resolution of disputes between neighbours after other avenues, such as community mediation, have been exhausted. Between 1 October 2015 and 30 June 2019, CDRT received a total of 324 applications. Out of these 324 applications, 294 cases have been disposed of, while 30 cases are still pending as at 30 June 2019. The breakdown of cases received by CDRT for each year to date is as follows: 27 cases were received in 2015, 80 cases were received in 2016, 57 cases were received in 2017, and 108 cases were received in 2018. Between 1 January 2019 and 30 June 2019, 52 cases were received. CDRT has made a mandatory mediation order in 82 cases. This represents about 25% of the cases thus far. To date, CDRT has not made any exclusion orders. Two applications for an exclusion order were received in 2018. However, in both cases, CDRT declined to make the exclusion order.”