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 55 of 92.
“These amendments must be read or looked at together with the proposed amendments to the Protection from Harassment Act (POHA), which will be coming up for Second Reading tomorrow. It means that such intimate partners can get Personal Protection Orders (PPOs) on an expedited basis and that perpetrators will get more severe penalties. Previously, only married partners can apply for PPOs under the Women's Charter. Now, under the proposed amendments to POHA, the timelines for getting a PPO will be comparable to that under the Women's Charter. So, intimate partners, usually women, who are in a relationship but not married, who fear violence. This is a significant step towards giving them greater protection. Again, based on Parliamentary rules, I cannot go too much into the details on POHA. But my intention is that it must be fast, it must be quick, and they must be able to get remedies. My colleague, Senior Minister of State Edwin Tong, will take Parliament through POHA tomorrow. In the Penal Code, new offences in respect of abuse of vulnerable victims which lead to death or other forms of grievous hurt will also be introduced. But going back to intimate partners, therefore, on the one side, the penalties to be enhanced; and on the other side, easier access to PPOs. Of course, there is the underlying psychological problem, that if the woman does not want to leave and continues to suffer the abuse, then our agencies or the VWOs will have to try to find a way of identifying this woman – usually women – and then, encourage them to take the steps. Now, I am moving on to the abuse leading to death of vulnerable victims. New offences are being introduced, where there is serious abuse of vulnerable victims. I remind Members of another case, Daniel Nasser, two years old.”
“All Penal Code offences committed against such vulnerable victims will be made arrestable, regardless of whether the underlying offence is itself arrestable. That will allow the Police to intervene quickly. Penalties will also be enhanced for specific offences committed against persons who are in an intimate or close relationship with the offender, even if they are not married. Promoting Alternatives to Violence (PAVE) is a voluntary welfare organisation (VWO) which works closely with a variety of other agencies, including the Government. They told me about this case, which was one of the reasons why I decided we ought to change the law here. They helped a lady by the name of Cindy. Cindy had suffered horrific abuse from her live-in partner. She was found by the Police in the year 2000, almost completely blind, with slash wounds all over her body and with broken bones. She had suffered horrific abuse over the eight years. Quite unspeakable. The two young children she had with the abuser witnessed all of this abuse, which took place almost daily. In many serious domestic abuse cases, the abuser exploits the trust of the victim to abuse them. The victims often find it difficult to leave such partners due to the emotional and psychological manipulation which is frequently found in such relationships. If the offender commits specific offences like rape, wrongful confinement, causing hurt, against intimate partners or those in a close relationship, the offender will be subject to twice the maximum penalties that are normally prescribed for such offences. These amendments will mean that such perpetrators who abuse victims, where the victims trust and depend on them, the abusers will face much more severe punishments.”
“Thank you, Mr Speaker, Sir, for allowing me to speak. The Senior Parliamentary Secretary has given the Government's view on some of the key proposed amendments. I intend to set out the Government’s position on two major areas of the law which we are amending. One, better protection of vulnerable victims; and second, dealing with sexual offences. We are setting out new offences and enhancing penalties where minors are involved. Some additional conduct of a sexual nature will be specifically criminalised. First, protection for vulnerable victims. We want to provide stronger protection for those who cannot protect themselves. First, we will enhance maximum punishment for offences committed against such victims. Second, we will introduce new offences where such victims are abused. The first category of vulnerable victims are children below 14 years old; second, vulnerable persons due to mental or physical disabilities; and third, domestic workers. Penalties for all offences in the Penal Code committed against these vulnerable victims will be enhanced, up to twice the maximum penalties prescribed for these offences. Members of this House will remember the case of Annie Ee. Annie had low intelligence quotient (IQ). She lived with her so-called close friends. They abused her by beating her daily. They made her do all the household chores and they kept her salary. Annie was not capable of protecting herself. She suffered for eight months and then she died. With the new amendments, if a person like Annie Ee is assessed to be substantially unable to protect herself, then her abusers will be liable to up to twice the maximum punishment. They will be charged for the offence of voluntarily causing grievous hurt; so up to 20 years' imprisonment. This is in clause 17 of the Bill.”
“You then have another case, with a similar set of facts. I think fairness requires that, in both cases, the outcome is similar, so that there is consistency. Consistency does not mean leniency, please do not mistake me. Consistency means you have decided to charge, then you will decide in a subsequent case to charge. If you have decided to give conditional warning and the factors are broadly similar, then you will tend towards giving a conditional warning. But, of course, you will look at whether there are any other factors. So, it is more that there has got to be a certain consistency in the way the law is applied and processed, not just in the Courts. Of course, we can look at the precedence for consistency, but also from the perspective of the Police and AGC. That is what I meant.”
“The second point is that MHA gives consideration to the offenders, when, really, more concern and care should be given to the victims. I absolutely agree. The impact on the victims is very important. Not just for the victim but also to deter similar conduct and it will protect others. The reason why the crime rate in Singapore is so low is because people generally understand a few things: one, if you commit an offence, it is likely that you will be caught; second, if you are caught, there is a very high likelihood that you will be charged, depending on the offence. If you are charged, there is a very high likelihood that you will be found guilty because the investigation will be thorough, the facts will be presented, there is a professional set of lawyers dealing with it and the Courts are staffed by highly trained lawyers. So, if the evidence is presented, properly assessed, then it is likely to result in a conviction. But, of course, if there is no evidence, or the evidence is weak, it will be thrown out. In fact, AGC would often not even proceed on the basis of there being no adequate evidence. So, this framework is well understood on the ground. Which is one of the reasons why the crime rate is low as well in Singapore. You cannot do something and get away with it, by and large. How is it balanced, what were the factors that are taken into account, I have said in specific cases in my answer. But I agree that as a method of approach and principle, yes, of course, what has happened to the victim is extremely important and nothing I say detracts from that. Third, we have to send a strong signal. What I meant by "like-for-like" was this: you have a set of facts, a certain decision was taken to prosecute or to give a conditional warning.”
“Let me try and answer that. Who makes the decision on assessment for rehabilitation? I went into the factors in some detail just now. The investigating officers and their superiors make the Police assessment. They do this every day. It is not just for victims of sexual offences, but other offences, too. But of course, within the framework of the law. That is why you take into account the severity of the offence, the impact on the victim, the need to deter others. It is a whole set of frameworks. Within that, you also look at the offender and you make an assessment based on how cooperative he has been. You are sitting down, you are talking to him, you see whether he confessed or he tried to hide. What does his conduct show about him? It does not mean that the assessments will be perfect. But these are highly trained officers who do this every day; they make an assessment. That is then discussed with the AGC, which makes the final decision, taking into account the legal framework and the overall set of factors. Sir, it is a careful process. It is not often that MHA or the Singapore Government is being accused of being soft on these sorts of issues. Usually, the complaints are the reverse, that not enough mercy is shown. We have made that an article of faith that we are tough. We are tough on crime, we are tough on the causes of crime and, as the fact that we are putting up amendments to the Penal Code shows, there was never any intention and never any practice of being soft. I think we err on the side of being tough. At the same time, you look at the facts of each case and, where it is possible to exercise discretion, you do it. That is done by the Police as well as by AGC.”
“As the cases at the AUs show, most who were given conditional warnings did not re-offend. Out of the 15 who received warnings, one student re-offended, and he was dealt with severely; he went to jail. Sir, we take a very stern view of sexual misconduct. Several perpetrators have been prosecuted and put behind bars. But the rigid meting out of uniform penalties will not serve the wider public interest. Er Dr Lee Bee Wah also asked about victim care and public education. One area which we continuously review is how to further improve on the support given to victims of sexual crimes who experienced emotional, psychological damage and stress. Over the years, we have made significant improvements to Police processes and the way Police officers interact with victims. We have trained a group of specialist investigation officers to handle sexual crime cases. We have rolled out the One-Stop Abuse Forensic Examination (OneSafe) Centre, where victims of rape can undergo interviews and forensic medical examinations at a single private location without having to go between the Police station and the hospital. We have a response framework to ensure that victims of sexual crimes are attended to quickly and a victim care programme that provides emotional support. Er Dr Lee Bee Wah asked if we would consider a public education campaign about the harms of taking and distributing voyeuristic videos. We certainly will, but I think a very good public education campaign will be if Parliament passes the amendments later today. That will be given concerted publicity, to raise awareness about the new sexual offences, including voyeurism, when it is classified as a standalone offence, and the enhanced penalties.”
“Members have not specifically asked about Mr Nicholas Lim’s case, involving Ms Monica Baey. Let me, nevertheless, point some of the facts out by reference to the broader position I put out. Mr Nicholas Lim is on thin ice with his conditional warning. The factors that were taken into account in his case were set out in the Police statement. If he offends within the period of 12 months, he will be charged for the offence relating to Ms Monica Baey and the new offence. The case has been dealt with. So, it is, therefore, best that I do not go into it in detail on the factors. But briefly, there were factors which could have justified charging him, the primary one, of course, being that he had done something very wrong. These factors were weighed against other factors, which would justify giving him another chance. The Police weighed both sets of factors and decided that a conditional warning was appropriate. It was one of those cases, quite usual, normal for the Police, where the decision was based on judgement. Police assessed him to be remorseful and likely to reform. He confessed voluntarily within minutes of the offence being committed and well before any Police report was made. He was cooperative with the Police. He had not circulated the video. That had been deleted. Other factors have also been mentioned in the Police statement. A conditional warning has been an effective deterrent for offenders who have had good propensity to reform. Even after the stipulated crime-free period, the warning remains an internal record for calibrating future prosecutorial decisions. Perpetrators who receive warnings are told in clear terms that if they re-offend, they will face serious consequences.”
“They will also, of course, consider the circumstances of the victim, the impact of the offence on the victim and the need for deterrence. Generally, there would be no reason for the Police to show any leniency, if the following aggravating factors are present: (a) a person has previous convictions or was warned for similar offences; (b) premeditation and deception in committing the offence, for example, by using hidden pinhole cameras, masking his face, covering closed-circuit television (CCTV) cameras, or other means to evade detection; (c) the video had been shared or circulated; or (d) the perpetrator was not remorseful or had been uncooperative in the investigation. Let me illustrate by reference to a case in 2015. A 23-year-old man filmed a woman showering at Republic Polytechnic. The accused had committed the offences over a period of four months. He tried to evade detection by covering his face with a towel, covering up CCTVs in the vicinity and did not own up voluntarily. The man was charged and sentenced to 10 weeks’ imprisonment. Another illustration: five men were jailed between six months and three years for engaging in serial acts of voyeurism and sharing videos of their victims in an online forum. There had been questions on conditional warning. A conditional warning means that (a) an offender has been put on notice; (b) he would know that the authorities have enough evidence and are prepared to press charges against him if he does not reform; (c) if he commits a fresh offence during this period, he would be liable to be prosecuted for both the current offence and the subsequent fresh or new offence; in other words, he is not let off the hook for the earlier offence; he will pay for both.”
“That is why, as I said earlier, we have reviewed the Penal Code provisions, and are proposing new offences and seeking to enhance penalties. Let me now answer the questions on how the Police and AGC exercise discretion in such cases. Broadly, the approach is to consider the specific facts and circumstances of the case, the severity of the offence, including the evidence, and aggravating or mitigating factors. The Police will also consider how other similar cases had been treated to ensure consistency. In the interest of fairness, like cases should be treated like other like cases. The Attorney-General, as the Public Prosecutor, makes the final decision based on his prosecutorial discretion. Specific facts, and I say this by way of illustration, could include previous criminal record, if any; level of remorse, whether the offender comes clean, cooperates; and whether any videos of the victim have been posted online or otherwise shared. The Police also assess the likelihood of rehabilitation. The Police make such assessments regularly, when making decisions. This is part of their professional craft. They will then recommend the course of action: to prosecute, or give a conditional warning, or a stern warning, or to take no further action. AGC will make the final decision. I should add that in these cases, the assessment of future conduct and possible rehabilitation is quite important. This is so even when the offender had done similar acts previously, which will, of course, weigh against him. The Police will look at all the factors, including the level of remorse, whether he owned up voluntarily, the likelihood of reform and the likelihood of re-offending.”
“We are creating new laws as well but we must also enforce them appropriately. When a woman’s privacy has been violated, the follow-up actions must ensure that she is treated with dignity and respect, and her concerns must be addressed and she must be supported. The criminal legal framework must deal with the offender in a way that ensures the specific victim’s safety, deal with the specific offender and deter other would-be offenders. In this respect, when such violation takes place in, say, NUS, there are actions that NUS has to take and there are actions that the Police have to take. Police will investigate, decide on the best course of action after investigations, whether to prosecute, not prosecute, and what is the right thing to do on all the factors, ensure that their decision will protect the victim and uphold deterrence and safety. Sir, Singapore is one of the safest places in the world for women and children. Our laws and the way we enforce our laws have ensured that. Let me give some brief statistics. Based on the Police's 2018 Public Perception Survey, the perception of overall safety and security in Singapore among locals was 93%. How do women feel? Specifically, women and their perception of safety in their neighbourhood – 87% – nearly nine in 10 feel safe in their neighhourhood. Seventy-four percent of women feel safe walking alone in their neighbourhood at night. These figures have been consistently high over the years, and we want to make sure that that continues. Women ought to feel safe. Members can be assured that the Government is committed to continue keeping the environment safe and being tough on such offences.”
“But we will be debating it and, of course, these changes were conceptualised, put through, drafted and tabled in Parliament before the latest discussions on these issues. The proposals show the Government’s underlying approach and philosophy towards sexual offences where the victims are, of course, predominantly women. We take it very seriously, we want to send a very strong signal that would deter would-be offenders and protect victims, who, as I said, are predominantly women. The Penal Code changes have been thought through for over a year now. All of this – being tough, taking a no-nonsense approach – does not mean that every offender must be or will be automatically charged in Court. The Police and AGC must look at the facts of each case and exercise discretion. Let me give an example. There was an NUS student, he had taken videos of children in a toilet in a shopping mall, which happened over two days in 2015. He was caught, arrested by the Police. He was charged. After he was charged, the Police and AGC received a medical report from his doctor at the Institute of Mental Health (IMH). The assessment was that his risk of re-offending was low and he would benefit from continual mental health treatment. If he was put in jail, that could get affected. The fact that he did not have any prior history was also relevant. In the end, AGC directed the Police to withdraw the charges and he was given a 24-month conditional warning. He has since completed the 24-month warning period; no further re-offending, and he has remained crime-free. The data I have shown indicates in several other cases prosecutions were carried out for offenders. We must have tough laws. In fact, we are going to make them even tougher if Parliament agrees.”
“I had, some time ago, asked the Ministry of Home Affairs (MHA) to review sexual offences, in particular, offences against: (a) children – people will remember the Joshua Robinson case; and (b) women – outraging modesty, insulting modesty and other offences. And I had also given directions to toughen our laws in these areas. Following the review by the Penal Code Review Committee as well as my Ministry, we decided that some new offences should be specified in law and sentences for some existing offences should be enhanced. We have proposed new offences to deal with sexual exploitation of minors. We have also proposed new standalone offences for voyeurism, distribution of intimate images, commonly known as "revenge pornography"; and sexual exposure over the Internet, commonly known as "cyber-flashing". Voyeurism is now dealt with under "Insulting the Modesty of a Woman" in the Penal Code. The proposal is to make it a standalone offence and increase the penalties. We have also proposed the updating of some existing offences to deal with technological developments which enable predatory behaviour. This is all set out in the Penal Code (Amendment) Bill, tabled in Parliament in February. It will be debated later today. If Parliament passes the Bill into law, then voyeurism, usually known as "Peeping Tom" behaviour, as well as the making, possessing, accessing and distributing of voyeuristic materials, will all be criminalised as specific offences. It will be presumed that the victims in such recordings did not consent to being recorded. That deals with the evidential challenge sometimes of identifying victims in such recordings, and the penalties will be enhanced. Because of Parliamentary rules, I should not go into any further detail on the proposed changes.”
“The one National University of Singapore (NUS) student who re-offended had originally been issued with a conditional warning for a voyeurism offence he committed in 2015. He re-offended in 2017, and the Police prosecuted him in Court for both his 2015 and 2017 offences. He was sent to jail for eight months and fined S$2,000. So, beyond these 56 cases, there were an additional eight cases reported directly to the Police. Of these eight, there was insufficient evidence in six cases, and investigations in another two cases are ongoing. The Police had earlier also clarified some factual inaccuracies in media reporting of cases for AY2015/2016 and AY2017/2018. There were 25 cases of sexual offences brought before the NUS Board. Of these 25, 17 were reported to the Police. Nine of the 17 were prosecuted in Court. The Courts handed down imprisonment terms in five of those cases; they gave supervised probation for three cases and gave discharge not amounting to an acquittal in one case. In another seven of the 17 reported cases, the Police administered conditional warnings. And the last case is pending investigation. One of the media articles had also erroneously published that there were 13 repeat offenders. Based on Police records, there was only one repeat offender, and I had referred to that case earlier. These numbers show that some have been prosecuted. Depending on the facts, others have been given a second chance. There are no "free passes" to university students or anyone else. Let me give some background to our approach.”
“At the outset, Sir, let me say this: no woman or man should have to suffer the indignity of her or his modesty being insulted or outraged. That is not acceptable. As a society, we must make sure these values are maintained. People must feel safe, as they go about their life. Our laws must and enforcement must underpin these values. The questions by Members relate to: (a) the statistics relating to sexual offences in our universities; (b) the way in which the Police and the Attorney-General's Chambers (AGC) exercise their discretion in deciding to prosecute or not prosecute an offender, and the general approach taken by Police and AGC on cases relating to sexual misconduct. Let me deal with the two points. Mr Leon Perera and Er Dr Lee Bee Wah have asked about the cases of sexual misconduct in the AUs that were reported to the Police. Earlier, the Ministry of Education had informed Parliament that from Academic Year (AY) 2015/2016 to AY2017/2018, 56 cases of sexual misconduct were reported to the AUs and 37 of these cases were reported to the Police. There was insufficient evidence to make out offences in two cases, and investigations in another four cases are ongoing. Of the remaining 31 cases, 16 were prosecuted in Court. There were jail sentences in 10 cases. Supervised probation was imposed by the Courts in four cases and a discharge not amounting to an acquittal was given by the Court in one case. And the sentencing for one case where the offender has been convicted is still pending. So, that leaves a remainder of 15, out of the total of 31 cases. In 13 of these cases, a conditional warning was given. Two others were given a stern warning. Fourteen of the 15 students who were administered warnings, or 93%, did not re-offend.”
“Sir, with your leave, can I take the next three questions, Question Nos 8, 9 and 10 together?”
“The Member asks about why the Court accepted a document in evidence. The Courts make their decisions independently. We will know the reasons for a decision, if they give the reasons in a judgment. There was also no conclusion or finding made by the Singapore Medical Council Disciplinary Tribunal (DT) as to whether the memorandum was admitted into evidence or relied on by the Court in granting the Personal Protection Order (PPO). The DT observed that there was "no clear evidence" that the PPO had been granted because of the disclosure of the memorandum. At the very most, the facts showed that the memorandum had been produced in the application for a PPO (see Singapore Medical Council v Dr Soo Shuen Chiang [2018] SMCDT 11 at [25]). PPO proceedings are held in the Family Justice Courts (FJC). Proceedings in FJC are conducted in camera. Likewise in this case. In addition, FJC had not issued its grounds of decision. There is thus no appeal filed by either party to the PPO proceedings. Therefore, there are no publicly known facts as to whether the memorandum was, indeed, admitted into evidence or relied on by FJC. The Singapore Medical Council has taken steps to pursue an appeal against the DT's decision. On appeal, the Court could possibly look into the surrounding facts, including the circumstances in which the memorandum was procured. Further, whether the memorandum was accepted by FJC, and the weight FJC placed on it in granting the PPO are issues that may also potentially arise on appeal.”
“It may not always be possible in all cases to wait for a trial to commence or be concluded, a process which may take weeks or months, before releasing relevant facts to the public. When the Police assess that it is necessary to release information earlier, they will do so, while being careful not to prejudice any investigations or legal proceedings that may follow.”
“In addition to the infractions, the Police were concerned from the security perspective as well, for a number of reasons. The man made repeated references to Rochalie Drive, and pressed Mr Li on the security arrangements at the Prime Minister's home. The questions he asked showed that he already knew Mr Li's identity. The man had picked up Mr Li without possessing a street hailing licence and had criminal antecedents: (a) a conviction in 2014 for taking a vehicle without the owner’s consent under the Road Traffic Act; (b) with the offence of Driving a Motor Vehicle without Insurance in respect to Third-Party Risks under the Motor Vehicles (Third-Party Risks and Compensation) Act taken into consideration; (c) a warning for theft in dwelling in 2002; and (d) a report made against him for criminal intimidation in 2014. When asked by the media, the Police confirmed these investigations. The Minister for Home Affairs directed the Police to state the man's antecedents, without disclosing his name. It was in the public interest for the Police to give a fuller explanation and background why they were investigating the matter. If the Police did not set out their security concerns, the public may not grasp why the Police were investigating the matter, and may even misunderstand the Police's actions. It was important to provide the public relevant and specific facts, in order to maintain public confidence in the Police Force. The Member has also asked about Rules and Guidelines on what information can be published. Police decisions on what information to disclose are guided by existing legal requirements. With the proliferation of social media, public agencies will from time to time need to release information faster than used to be the case.”
“Ms Sylvia Lim's questions refer to the incident where Mr Li Yipeng was taken for a ride on 15 March 2019. The man was driving a private, rented car. The car was not licensed for ride sharing. Five months earlier, in November 2018, Grab had terminated the man's contract for driving a private hire car without proper decals and also for suspected touting. Since the man did not have a car licensed to pick up passengers, he could not, amongst other things, pick up passengers from the roadside. The man recognised Mr Li Yipeng as the Prime Minister's son. He picked up Mr Li who was waiting for a hail taxi. Mr Li is a vulnerable person. It is public knowledge that Mr Li has Asperger's syndrome, a mild form of autism spectrum disorder (ASD) characterised by significant difficulties in social interaction and in non-verbal communication. This is compounded by Mr Li's albinism, which results in his having very poor eyesight. The driver then filmed his interactions with Mr Li using his handphone, apparently while driving, and subsequently circulated the videos. In the confined setting of his car, the man can be heard in a video, repeatedly asking Mr Li to confirm his identity, residential address and security arrangements. Leaving aside Mr Li's background, it is very troubling when an individual picks up any vulnerable person, whether adult or child, and puts that person in such a situation. I am sure the Member, like most people, will be deeply concerned by what happened. The man put Mr Li in an uncomfortable situation, apparently exploited the situation, filmed it, and then circulated it. The videos came to the Police's attention. The man’s conduct in the videos showed, prima facie, infractions of the law. The Police began investigations immediately.”
“The number of business e-mail impersonation scams has increased over the past five years, from 98 cases in 2014 to 378 cases in 2018. The amount cheated has increased in tandem, from about $11 million in 2014 to about $57 million in 2018. The Police do not track the amount of money recovered from scams. Whenever monies are recovered, the Police will apply to the Courts to have them returned to the rightful owners. These scams are usually conducted by overseas criminal syndicates, and thus it is not easy to recover the monies. The Police have been working with stakeholders, such as the Singapore Business Federation, Singapore International Chamber of Commerce, Institute of Singapore Chartered Accountants, and the Accounting and Corporate Regulatory Authority to step up public education on business e-mail impersonation scams. These efforts include sending out advisories in email broadcasts to members, disseminating pamphlets during outreach events, and posting of advisories on their web portals and social media platforms. The Police have also sent out advisory messages to about 80,000 individual businesses. The Police have also set up an Anti-Scam Helpline (1800-722-6688) and the www.scamalert.sg website. Businesses and members of the public are encouraged to visit the website to learn about the various types of scams and the steps to take to avoid becoming a victim.”
“Land held by the Government is released for sale to the private sector for development mainly via open tender through the Government Land Sales (GLS) programme. The lease tenure for land sold under the GLS programme does not exceed 99 years and is determined prior to launch.”
“Currently, under our International Arbitration Act, parties who wish to challenge an arbitral award may apply to the High Court to set aside a final award. However, they may only do so on limited grounds relating to issues of jurisdiction, procedural irregularity, fraud, corruption or public policy. These grounds are as set out in Article 34(2) of the UNCITRAL Model Law on International Commercial Arbitration and section 24 of the International Arbitration Act. There is no avenue for parties who wish to appeal to our Courts on a point of law in the award in international arbitrations. My Ministry is currently reviewing the International Arbitration Act, taking into account the experience of other jurisdictions. One of the amendments we are considering will allow parties to appeal to the Courts on a question of law arising out of an arbitration award, provided that they have agreed to contract in or opt in to this mechanism. Such appeals could be heard in the High Court, with safeguards to prevent frivolous or vexatious appeals. Proponents of this option have said that it enhances party autonomy and injects greater flexibility for parties to opt for an appeal process to the Courts if they wish to do so, while preserving certainty and finality. My Ministry intends to conduct a public consultation on this and other enhancements to the International Arbitration Act and will release further details in due course.”
“Arbitration is a popular means of resolving commercial disputes. One of the reasons for its popularity is that it allows parties to have the autonomy to choose how their dispute should be resolved. This includes options like where the dispute should be heard and who should hear the dispute. Singapore has, over the years, become a popular seat of international commercial arbitration. According to the White & Case and Queen Mary University of London's International Arbitration Survey in 2018, Singapore and the Singapore International Arbitration Centre (SIAC) were ranked as the third most preferred arbitration seat and arbitral institution in the world respectively, and first in Asia. SIAC announced in its 2018 Annual Report that it has, for the second year running, received over 400 cases from parties in 65 jurisdictions. The total sum in dispute for all new case filings in 2018 was US$7.06 billion (S$9.65 billion), an increase as compared with 2017.1 The Ministry keeps track of developments in international best practices to ensure that our framework stays responsive to users' evolving needs. Significant changes to the International Arbitration Act over the years include broadening the definition of an arbitration agreement and providing recourse against negative jurisdictional rulings by an arbitral tribunal. These changes reflect Singapore's commitment to support international commercial arbitration by enhancing the suite of options available for users, strengthening Singapore's position as the preferred destination for premier legal services. As part of my Ministry's efforts to update the legal framework, my Ministry has noted that in certain other jurisdictions, parties to an arbitration may appeal against an award on a question of law.”
“CNB has also been engaging National Service commanders and educators on a sustained basis, to raise their awareness and understanding of Singapore’s drug control policies, as well as to rally their support for anti-drug advocacy. A DrugFreeSG Community Roadshow was held in April 2018 to enhance outreach in the heartlands, targeting parents. Two more will be organised in 2019. These are just some examples of CNB's preventive drug education efforts. We have seen encouraging results. We will need to continue countering the increasingly widespread portrayal in the popular media of drug consumption as being a socially acceptable activity.”
“As the Member pointed out, New Psychoactive Substances (NPS) have been wrongly perceived by some people to be less addictive and less dangerous. Nothing could be further from the truth. These drugs are known to have adverse, irreversible physical and psychological effects. The Central Narcotics Bureau (CNB) adopts a targeted approach to raise awareness about the harms of drugs. Since 2016, CNB has been driving an online campaign to strengthen the resilience of our youths against drug misinformation. They are provided with facts about the harms of drugs, including NPS, to counter the false information being propagated online that downplays the danger. CNB has enhanced its social media platforms to push out its messages. Many of the anti-drug videos posted online by CNB have been widely viewed. CNB will continue with these social media campaigns to feature bite-sized infographics and youth-centric content. To address the increasingly liberal attitudes among youths, the National Council Against Drug Abuse launched a "Feed Ambition. Fight Temptation" campaign in October 2018. Opinion leaders were roped in to engage youths in a mentorship programme, encouraging them to pursue their passion and stay away from drugs. Youths are also given the opportunity to take greater ownership in the fight against drugs. In December last year, a new illustrated book "Captain Drug Buster versus Dr Wacko: The Final Showdown" was published. This was a collaboration with young illustrators. The book educates children on the harms of drug abuse, and serves as a resource for parents and educators to start the conversation on drugs with the young ones. We will make copies of the book widely available.”
“We need to deal decisively with offensive speech so that someone will not have to make this eulogy in Singapore. But if it happens, I hope that we will be able to respond in the same way that the New Zealanders have done. Thank you, Sir. [Applause.]”
“Last Friday, I stood in this mosque and saw hatred and rage in the eyes of the terrorist, who killed and martyred 50 people, wounded 42 and broke the hearts of millions around the world. Today, from the same place, I look out and see the love and compassion in the eyes of thousands of fellow New Zealanders, fellow human beings from across the globe that have filled the hearts of millions more who are not with us physically but in spirit. This terrorist sought to tear our nation apart with an evil ideology that has torn the world apart. But, instead, we have shown that New Zealand is unbreakable. And that the world can see in us an example of love and unity. We are brokenhearted but we are not broken. We are alive. We are together. We are determined not to let anyone divide us. The number of people killed is not extraordinary but the solidarity in New Zealand is extraordinary. Families of the victims, your loved ones did not die in vain. Through them, the world will see the beauty of Islam and the beauty of our unity. We are here in our hundreds and thousands unified for one purpose – that hate will be undone and love will redeem us. Islamophobia kills. Islamophobia is real. It is a targeted campaign to influence people to dehumanise and irrationally fear Muslims. To fear what we wear, to fear the choice of food we eat, to fear the way we pray and to fear the way we practise our faith. We call upon governments around the world, including New Zealand and the neighbouring countries, to bring an end to hate speech and the politics of fear. Last week’s event has proven as evidence to the entire world that terrorism has no colour, has no race and has no religion." We need to step forward on hate speech.”
“That will lead to a different type of government and public policymaking and it will not be a secular government. The answer is that you really need a strong political leadership which is fair among the different religions. People may be influenced by their religious outlook, but you do not make public policy based on a particular religious outlook, or a particular standpoint of a particular religion. Then, you will lose the faith of everybody else in society of a different outlook. That has never been our position, and as long as the Government holds true to the values that have been set out, which I will not go into, then I think we will avoid that risk. It is a risk. It is a risk because so many governments, both in this region and outside, have gone down that route. It is one of the easiest ways to get votes. So, we have to make sure that we seek understanding among the religious groups, mutual respect with religious leaders in a multi-religious society. But I would suggest to Assoc Prof Walter Theseira that that is perhaps a topic for another debate on another day, another Ministerial Statement, or the Member of Parliament can move a Motion. Minister Grace Fu spoke about not just the rules, but also the need to make sure that we work very hard to make sure that our multi-religious approach works. Sir, let me end this wrap-up by reading to this House the moving words of Imam Gamal Fouda of the Al Noor Mosque in Christchurch. On 22 March 2019, at a Memorial Service in Christchurch, this was what he said, and I am not going to read all of it, just some passages: "Brothers and sisters in Islam, brothers and sisters in humanity, brothers and sisters in New Zealand.”
“He talked about Jesus, Martin Luther, the Prophet – all led movements to change. Yes, no arguments on that. Insofar as that is relevant to today's debate, I would say I cannot and I will not argue against that point, but also, I think the state has no role in either fomenting such change within religion or supporting one side or the other. The second point the Member made was that religion should not impose its views on public policy. I will take that with the third point he made, that there has been a greater public assertion of fate. I think both points are valid. In fact, the point that I think he is seeking to make but perhaps did not put it quite so directly, is that if you give in to these greater public assertions of faith, and if people of religion become extremely sensitive, then there is a risk of cutting down public space. And that might then affect the secularity of the government, not in the French sense, but in the sense that this Government is secular. So, if we were to look at today's debate, I outlined one big risk in my opening speech which can arise from hate speech and offensive speech, the fault lines, the kind of violence that can arise from it and the deep splits between communities and religions, or religious groups. Assoc Prof Walter Theseira hinted at another big risk – which is not within the frame of today's debate but I accept it as a risk – of religion either trying to influence public policy or narrowing public policy space. And also something that he did not quite mention but flows from it – a political leadership which is not strong enough to stand on its two feet and seeks favours from particular religious groups or specific religious groups. It happens in many countries, including those in this region. That will lead to disaster.”
“And then, hopefully with that, the population will also understand what the people's representatives are saying here, and what kind of approach we take. Mr Christopher de Souza, Senior Parliamentary Secretary Sun Xueling, Mr Saktiandi Supaat, Ms Joan Pereira, Er Dr Lee Bee Wah, Senior Parliamentary Secretary Muhammad Faishal Ibrahim, Mr Seah Kian Peng – we note their comments have been broadly supportive. They talked about how hate speech travels and how it fuels violence. Er Dr Lee Bee Wah spoke about her personal experiences. Likewise, we heard from the perspective of the minority community Members of Parliament. And Mr Seah Kian Peng's points on being conservative when it comes to this specific area, I think accords with what our society believes in and heels to the kind of approach that we have set out. I thank Prof Lim Sun Sun for her very powerful examples, very vivid. And I thank her for the points that she made. We do need to tackle hate speech online. I will say that we are very far from tackling it today. Nominated Member of Parliament Terence Ho made a number of points on the space for arts. I understand the points. I do not think there is any disagreement on that, that there should be cultural vibrancy. Equally, I do not think the Member disagrees that we cannot allow hate speech and we must restrict offensive speech. Those are the questions I raised for this debate. The points that he has raised more broadly on cultural vibrancy, I do not think affect the narrower set of points I have made, and I do not think he disagrees with me. Assoc Prof Walter Theseira made a very thoughtful speech. He made the point, tracing through the history of Islam and Christianity that is central to religion.”
“And it is not as if MCI wanted to proceed in any event, or that it was unaware of security considerations. MCI itself makes that call sometimes. But, here, it is understandable that MHA picked it up – our agencies' primary job is to keep in touch, close touch, with the religious communities, the leaders; we picked up on the mainstream Christian opinion within a day or so, made the security call, and discussed it with MCI. I would add that this does not mean that there is any general ban on black metal groups – I think that was a point either the Member asked or sort of implied. Now, let me turn to Mr Murali Pillai. He asked how to deprive commercial entities from making money and spreading hate speech. I think the points he made are valid; they need to be considered. And I think there were specific points on MRHA and ISA, and the extent of Government powers. I would say it has worked well so far. The Government's exercise of powers has been understood, and the constraints on the Government's exercise of power and safeguards in the legislation as well as in the Constitution have been understood. Ms Denise Phua asked what constitutes offensive speech. I have explained that earlier. We do not intervene in disagreements or arguments on public issues on WhatsApp and other platforms. I think these are legitimate questions. I cannot tell you that I have all the answers on those issues. But we will have to deal with them. On enforcement, the Member asked about existing legislation and how we would fairly debate the approach. As I explained, the purpose of this debate is not to enforce something specifically. It is to set out the approach, clarify our approach, hear Members of Parliament again, have it debated. That is what this House is for.”
“And now that I have explained that to him, I think he will appreciate that, and, in turn, that is relevant for the broader security considerations and assessment as well in the way that I explained in my opening speech. And I think the Member would accept that it then becomes a question of judgement. Mr Pritam Singh also made some comparisons with bands in the past. I think in all of these things, the population, the reactions are dynamic. The population's views are dynamic. Reactions change over periods of time. We have to assess it with the facts we have and not be wishful about what it was, and what it might be in the distant future. So, population, reactions, specific bands, time period – these are all relevant considerations. You have to make an honest assessment based on all of those with the reactions that you have, whether it is mainstream reaction, and how it would impact on specific security situations as well as the broader security considerations. The Member asked about future applications in general. I have explained the framework. There is no change in IMDA’s framework on content regulation – it has worked very well so far. They have had to apply it and they have applied it in all these years. There is also no change in MHA's approach to these issues. IMDA, in fact, has to make a series of decisions – tough calls – on a broad variety of issues going well beyond the security issues. They make these calls every day. I would say security stricto sensu is, in fact, the easier issue, compared with the kind of issues IMDA has to deal with when faced with any kind of application. We, MHA, give our views to MCI. We had not anticipated the subsequent developments. Both Ministries worked together. That is how the Government works.”
“Thank you, Deputy Speaker, Sir. I thank the Members who have spoken. I think the collective position of this House is clear. Hate speech impacts racial and religious harmony and Members agree generally that, in dealing with hate speech, we have to intervene early and decisively. On offensive speech that may not be considered hate speech, Members agree that we need to have restrictions. Offensive speech can segue into hate speech, can overlap and, if we allow offensive speech into religion, politics, media, entertainment, the tone and texture of public discourse will change. Giving offence will be normalised. I think there is broad support, based on the speeches, for the approach that I have outlined, and it is very heartening that Government Members of Parliament, Opposition, Nominated Members of Parliament broadly agreed to these principles. Let me try and deal with the specific questions. Mr Pritam Singh asked some questions about the processes between IMDA and MHA. I have explained that in some detail in my opening speech. IMDA checked with MHA on security considerations. MHA withdrew its objections, as I explained earlier. A few days later – I think two days later – MHA gave advice to cancel. And I have explained that also at quite some length just earlier. Mr Pritam Singh also asked about the reasons for cancellation of the concert. Again, I do not think he wants me to go into the detail that I have given in my opening speech. I think the Member broadly agrees with the principles, but he had a question on the cancellation of Watain, specifically. He accepted that he was not aware of the opposition of mainstream Christian viewpoint. That was an important point.”
“On the other hand, I was concerned again about the normalising effect of such a sermon. If we allow an Imam to exhort victory against Christians, can we prevent Christian preachers from saying similar things about Muslims, or followers of other religions? Or taking some passages in the Old Testament out of context? What will then be the consequence if this becomes a regular occurrence in religious sermons of the different faiths? These things have a momentum, action and reaction. Let us say we have this on a regular basis. What do you think the atmosphere will be like in our common meeting places? So, the Imam was charged. A line was drawn. He apologised to Christian leaders and the Rabbi of Singapore. To show that this was a matter of principle and that we accepted that the Imam meant no actual ill-will or malice, I met him openly, in a mosque, after his conviction, had breakfast with him before he was asked to leave Singapore. But the principle was established. In 2010, we had a Christian pastor insulting, trivialising, ridiculing the beliefs of Buddhists and Taoists, a gentleman by the name of Rony Tan recorded on video and uploaded. ISD spoke with him. He apologised. In 2010, another Christian pastor, Mark Ng, denigrating Taoist beliefs. Compared praying to Taoist deities to “seeking protection from secret society gangsters”. ISD spoke with him. He and his church apologised.”
“That was said in Indonesia just before the elections for the governor. We have banned him. He has also said Muslims should not take Jews and Christians as protectors or friends, otherwise they will become Jews or Christians. One is in Zimbabwe and the other is now, I think, in Malaysia. Very eloquent. Thankfully, Singaporeans take a different view. The 2019 IPS Study shows that 82% of our people believe that a religious leader should not be influencing people's votes in elections. Eight-two percent of Muslims in Singapore also believe that. So, for foreign preachers, we disallow even if they may not say something offensive in Singapore. If they have been offensive elsewhere, their offensive teachings are available online, you allow them into Singapore, you then allow them to build up a following in Singapore. So, we do not allow them because, eventually, that can become seriously divisive – like not shaking hands, not greeting one another, not voting for candidates of another race or religion. Sometimes, we will not know everything the preacher has said elsewhere. And sometimes, we have to make a judgement on the degree to which what he has said elsewhere is offensive. Let me now turn to how we have dealt with preachers in Singapore. In 2017, a preacher in a local mosque, Imam Nalla, recited a supplication that called for God to grant victory – some people said it is help – over Jews and Christians during Friday congregational prayers. This passage is not in the Quran. A video of his supplication went online. Imam Nalla was charged. He was fined S$4,000. He was on Work Pass and was asked to leave Singapore. Why did we take this step? I have explained it in Parliament. Charging a cleric is a serious step.”
“Very charismatic and powerful but that is why we banned him. Segregationist, divisive, he said "we should not greet someone else". So, we have HDB flats, we live next to one another. The Muslim does not greet the Christian and the Christian does not greet the Muslim. What happens to the Hindus as well? The second video, again with your permission, Sir, Dr Zakir Naik, can I let that be shown?”
“Of course not. Would we proscribe Edward Gibbons, "Decline and Fall of Roman Empire", because it had a famous section detailing what he thought were the deleterious effects of Christianity on Civilisation? Again, we do not ban that. We have to take into account the context. Here, the context of what is acceptable in Western traditions is relevant. We are not as liberal as many Western societies and our approach differs. But we have allowed some books, movies, performances and concerts even though a variety of different religious groups have found them objectionable. In doing that, we assess the reaction of our community, whether there are immediate security issues or longer-term security issues, by building in deeper fault lines, or whether we think that even though they are unhappy, this is not going to contribute to deepening of fault lines. So, reaction of the community itself is part of the mix in assessing the security issues, as I have explained earlier. If Members look at our approach to foreign preachers, in 2017, the Ministry of Manpower, in consultation with MHA, rejected the applications of two foreign Christian preachers to speak in Singapore. One of them had described Allah as "a false god" and various other things. The other spoke about "the evils of Islam and the malevolent nature of Islam" and more things. We also banned two Muslim preachers. One is Mufti Menk, Zimbabwean Islamic preacher. With your permission, Sir, can the video be played?”
“I will also caution we have to assess the impact, reaction of the majority in the specific community and the security implications of that opinion, which I have referred to earlier. We have to assess where the weight of mainstream opinion lies. We cannot be directed by the viewpoint of a person or persons who are extremely sensitive. Really, the approach has to be guided by commonsense. Again, I would like to hear from Members, should we change this approach? There are two possibilities which will allow an absolute, objective approach. Ban everything that is deemed insulting, offensive by anyone, or allow everything that is insulting, offensive, and I have explained why that will eventually lead to trouble. Members will see that either absolute approach is really not doable. So, I think Members will probably agree with me that the absolute approach is undesirable, so that brings up back to the pragmatic approach that the Government takes as the only tenable one for our society. It can be a bit messy but it has worked so far with relative success and with a bit of give and take. So, how has this approach been applied in practice? Let us look at books. We banned Satanic Verses in 1989. It is considered a literary work by many. However, every Muslim country banned it. Our mainstream Muslim community took offence. But we have allowed other books, films even when other religious communities were unhappy, based also on our security assessments. For example, western traditions accept wider levels of contestation. And Singaporeans, I think, will agree that it is unthinkable to ban a lot of western literature and philosophy because some may find it objectionable. For instance, would we ban Bertrand Russell's "Why am I not a Christian?" because it is critical of the faith?”
“The mosque also received a voicemail: "God is a pig. God is pork." It has happened in regional countries as well, throwing of pigs' heads into mosques; entertainment which is denigrating and disrespectful of a race or religion. The impact, therefore, will be different, depending on who says it and the context. We also consider the occasion, the nature of the event, and the reach: there is a difference between saying it to 50 people in a private setting compared with publicising it generally. These factors are not exclusive. Assessment of the impact is partly subjective based on the nature of the words, the other factors, and the likely impact on the targeted community. We also have to accept that different religions have entirely different histories, traditions, theologies. These shape their outlook, even today. Each group reacts differently to different things. So, when considering impact, it is not just immediate reaction. Other key issues are the security implications of the reaction. And that can be immediate, it could also be longer term, by deepening fault lines, creating more tension. That is the context of the earlier part of my speech. I do not want to repeat all of that. But as long as Members understand, this part fits in with what I said earlier. So, we have to assess. The Government is neutral. We proactively accommodate different groups. We recognise their different histories, traditions and we make practical adjustments. On that basis, we take a practical approach, assess the impact of reaction of the different communities. It often involves assessment of potential reaction of the targeted community when we have to decide to allow or ban something.”
“The regulation of content in the broader context is handled by the Infocomm Media Development Authority (IMDA). The Ministry of Home Affairs (MHA) deals, more narrowly, with prevention of violence, the security aspects arising from offensive speech and directed at racial and religious divides. Let me now deal with these two points. First, we look at the words themselves. Are the words, in themselves, derogatory, offensive, insulting to a particular race or religion? I have given various illustrations of offensive words. Again, I really do not want to read them out. It is in Tab 6. Amos Yee, for example, talking about the Muslim community, Tab 6 on the handouts that you have, "They follow a sky wizard, they are dumb. He is a paedophile", and he gives a four-letter description of Christians; described Buddhists, Taoists. Of course, the US has given him asylum; we are quite happy about that. If you want illustrations of offensive lyrics, again, I do not need to read them but it is in Tab 7, and it is also on the screen. You have "Hozier – Take me to Church", "I'll worship like a dog at the shrine of your lies" and so on. You can see there are plenty of materials all around. So, what is the second factor that we consider? What is the likely impact of the speech? Who says it? It has more salience, for example, if said from the pulpit or at an election rally. Consider the possible range of the different types of actions: religious leaders criticising another religion, telling his people that people of a particular religion should be ostracised; a political leader saying people of a certain religion, race, should not have rights in Singapore, these people are not good for Singapore; throwing a pig's head into a mosque. It happened in Philadelphia in 2015.”
“Mosques are brothels", displayed a pig's head picture on a halal lookalike logo. Gan Huai Shi, "Malays are rodents", ridiculed pilgrimage to Mecca. And, of course, Amy Cheong again, she was a Malaysian residing in Singapore. I can give Members other examples. But I can also say, thankfully, it is much, much less in Singapore compared with other countries. Most people will think this sort of speech as unacceptable. Again, why have we not had the levels of such speech that you find in other countries? Our position so far has been very practical and nuanced. We take the view that offensive speech should generally not be allowed in public discourse. And the current legal framework – I am not going to go into it – but the Penal Code, sections 298, 298A; the Maintenance of Religious Harmony Act, section 8; the Sedition Act, sections 3 and 4; set out the legal framework. But as I have said repeatedly, the legal framework is just the legal framework. You got to work with people to also internalise it in day-to-day living, the lived reality of Singaporeans. This legal framework, however, requires us to assess, inter alia, the impact of the offensive words on the feelings of the targeted groups. How do we approach it? We approach it this way. First, we look at the words, the material – how offensive are they? Second, we look at what is the likely impact of the speech: how would, for example, the community which is the target of the offensive speech react? In this context, let me make one point clear again. I am speaking about offensive speech in relation to race, religion and in the context of preserving racial, religious harmony, preventing unrest, violence. In a broader context, the material may be offensive for other reasons – social mores, values, child abuse and so on.”
“That is why we have restrictions on offensive speech, even when it is, strictly speaking, not hate speech. This is an important point, and I hope this is a point on which Members in this House can agree. Some people asked me what is the purpose of this Motion because they think that, at the end of it, we must have some legislation. No. This is a debate simpliciter; we set out our approach, we set out what has guided our approach. We want to hear the Members of Parliament because it is important for the next generation of Singaporeans to understand a bit of the history, to see what the ideals are, and how we should go forward. If people want the approach to be changed, then we should hear it in the House and that will educate the young people one way or the other. So, it is important that we have a proper discussion. That is the only purpose of this debate and Motion. If we agree that there must be restrictions on offensive speech, then the question is what should be the extent of the restrictions? On this, do we think that Singaporeans are sui generis, that unlike others, we will not engage in offensive speech and hate speech because that is our inherent nature? Do we believe that? If we had not tried so hard for so long to keep it under check, through laws and work very hard on racial and religious harmony, will we have the situation we have today? Let me give you a few examples. This is in Tab 5 of your bundle. In 2009, a couple was charged for distributing highly offensive material on the Prophet, on Islam, and they sent it to Muslims. Nicholas Lim, a young man, he made a post by reference to Malays, in response to a letter in the Straits Times' Forum page, "Can cabs carry uncaged pets?" Benjamin Koh, he made a posting, "Muslims are pigs.”
“If we normalise offensive speech, after a while, the tone and texture of public discourse will change. Giving offence to others will become normalised. Offensive speech, in the long run, can also lead to dehumanisation. There is emerging work in the field of neuroscience that if an individual observes another member of his own species experiencing pain, he would experience non-conscious neuro-simulation which leads to empathy. But such empathy is only triggered when the person is part of your in-group. Offensive speech, which implies that their target lacks morals, lacks intelligence, lacks dignity, in fact, is even more insidious because listeners may get a false sense that they are not internalising these sorts of descriptions because they are funny. But you are being drip-fed the notion that the out-group is stupid, ignorant, immoral, sinful and, ultimately, leading to dehumanisation. When you think of them as subhuman, therefore, you may no longer be bound by moral constraints. Subconsciously, the brain will not feel empathy for them. It is a slower process compared with hate speech. Hate speech moves on turbo charge; offensive speech is on the same trajectory but slower. It can take time. But end result is the same. If you look at our pledge and the ideals, "We, the citizens of Singapore, pledge ourselves as one united people, regardless of race, language and religion". How can we be one united people when everyday it is accepted that one race or another, one religion or another, can be publicly insulted, ridiculed and attacked? Over time, the effect will be felt in every aspect of life – schools, jobs, neighbourhoods, politics. The environment will be conducive for discrimination, eventually violence.”
“It is a continuum, a spectrum. There can be acceptable commentary on race, religion, or offensive speech and hate speech. Offensive speech can segue into hate speech and they overlap, obviously. If Members refer back to the definition of hate speech which I gave earlier, it covers offensive speech, and remember the German Criminal Code which covers insults. At the same time, there may be factual observations which are necessary. For example, in a multiracial, multi-religious society, sometimes you have to speak frankly about the issues facing one community or another and to focus on the issues and to try and find solutions. There may be a need to point out the differences among the races for a variety of public policy reasons. That sort of speech is necessary, unavoidable. I am not referring to that here. The point is: should we allow offensive speech in general mainstream discourse, even if it is not hate speech? Say, for example, you can regularly, in public discourse, including theatre, songs, politics, religion, joke, insult, laugh at, denigrate people of another race, another religion, what do you think will happen? Take offensive theatre, the Ventriloquist Jeff Dunham, US, his puppets, include Jose the Mexican immigrant, Achmed the dead terrorist. You can imagine what he would do with these. He peddles in offensive views of various races and women, performs to sell-out crowds in America, he is one of the highest paid comedians in the world. Audience: mainly white Americans. Members may remember a lady, Amy Cheong, who made nasty comments about Malays, their weddings in void decks. You can see it on the screen, I am not going to read it out. You can see how offensive and repulsive it is. If this sort of expression becomes common in public discourse, what happens?”
“And he talked about fault lines, and how it is going to take a long time, 20, 30, 40 years to work on this and why we need to find common ground, be tolerant, accommodative, take a multiracial, multilingual, multi-religious, multicultural approach and that one race or religion does not foist itself on another. Prime Minister Lee in 1987 also set out our approach, that is Tab 4 in your bundle. He pointed out the most straightforward way to destabilise Singapore is to have racial and religious discord. He said never assume that free and open discourse will magically lead to truth and enlightenment. Members will recall what I said earlier about logic not coming into play in this situation. He referred to the 1950 riots, the 1964 riots, the 1969 riots and the Singapore Government's unwavering commitment in pursuing multiracial policies, taking action against chauvinist agitators and he said – this is an important line – "in race, we come up against atavistic human instincts which will take generations to overcome. They can be whipped up and, once blood has been shed, the years of nation-building we have done will come to naught.” The experience of other countries shows when you are clear, you have firm laws prohibiting hate speech, you deal fairly with all communities, then you can start building a multiracial, multi-religious, harmonious society. I hope there will be agreement in this House that hate speech, whatever form it takes – religious, political, entertainment – in all its different forms, is unacceptable and we should continue to prohibit hate speech and deal with it firmly, in the way we have done so far. That brings me to my next point. How should we deal with offensive speech? Speech does not fall into neat categories – hate, non-hate, offensive.”
“He said, "With each broken norm, the pillars of humanity are weakened." He has assigned a team to scale up the response to hate speech and present a global plan of action, on a fast-track basis. We are told regularly that we should be more like the US and the UK, the Gold Standard for Free Speech. But their experiences suggest that serious consequences can follow when you are lax about hate speech. What is our experience? Our experience recognises that race and religion are fault lines, they are gut issues. They can be very emotive. If you go to a 2016 survey by Channel NewsAsia (CNA) and the Institute of Policy Studies (IPS), race and religion play a large role in the personal decisions of Singaporeans. If people feel that their race or religion is under attack, the potential for violence increases. If I can quote Mr Lee Kuan Yew, "No amount of troops would be able to stop the trouble if there was real hatred among the different communities. The decisive factor would be dependent upon the goodwill among neighbours." We prohibit hate speech. We also take quick action when there is hate speech and the speaker will be advised to stop. ISD will take action depending on the severity of what is being said and the possible consequences. Of course, the person who conceptualised, crystallised our approach is the late Mr Lee Kuan Yew. In 1999, reflecting back, he said this – it is Tab 3 in what we have handed out. He talked about having done the easier part, getting people into housing estates, schools, putting them together. How it will be much more difficult to get people to accept one another and that it just takes one mishap.”
“Britain, of course, has an admirable, long tradition of free speech. You argue different positions, you get clarity. But hate speech like this targeting ethnic, religious communities does not appeal to logic. It is not capable of being rebutted by logic. The intention is that the recipients of hate speech should be filled with hate and they are turned into hate machines in the false belief that God requires that. How does logic and open debate counter this? So, Britain's lax approach attracted a lot of people like Abu Hamza who went about spreading his message of hate and London became a centre for many of these hate mongers. Finsbury Park mosque, where Abu Hamza preached, has been described as a global magnet for militants. From the late 1990s to 2003, the attendees included Richard Reid, the shoe bomber for whom you can thank for having to take off your shoes each time you go past in an airport. Zacarias Moussaoui, one of the 9/11 attackers. So, in New Zealand, shortly after the Christchurch incident, New Zealand’s chief censor banned the shooter’s manifesto, "The Great Replacement". The basis for the banning is that the manifesto tries to inspire murder and terrorism. That has now led to a debate, "Oh free speech is being curtailed." The usual arguments. "Better to trust people to form their own conclusions than suppress hate speech altogether." The shooter himself confessed he developed his views from the Internet. He said, "You will not find the truth anywhere else." The conclusion he formed: kill as many Muslims as possible. In the United Nations (UN) last month, February 2019, the UN Secretary-General called hate speech a "menace to democratic values, social stability, peace." He pointed out the dangers of allowing hate speech to move into the mainstream.”
“It did not extend that far. It said the right to freedom of expression has got to be balanced against the right of others to have their religious feelings protected. The German Criminal Code criminalises incitement of hatred against, or insult of, a racial or religious group. The same section also criminalises the glorification of Nazi rule. Just note that in the German Criminal Code it covers insults which may not quite be hate speech but could be offensive speech. I will come back to this later. In the United Kingdom (UK), it is a crime to incite hatred on the grounds of religion. But you can in the UK ridicule, insult, abuse any religion, beliefs, practices or the followers of such religions. So, in the UK in 2018, more than one quarter of all Britons – that is more than 12 million people – witnessed hate speech. The majority were on social media, involved anti-immigrant, anti-refugee language, racist abuse, anti-Muslim comments. So, the UK now finds itself fighting on two fronts – right-wing extremists as well as Islamic extremists. The security services are investigating a possible contact between the Christchurch gunman and the rightwing extremists in the UK. The UK's Lead Anti-Extremism Commissioner has said and I quote, "frightening amount of legal extremist content is available online", fuelling far-right activism. At one point, a preacher, Abu Hamza, was Britain’s most high-profile hate preacher. He was finally convicted in 2006 for soliciting murder, inciting racial hatred in his inflammatory "sermons". He had been preaching since 1997. In his sermons, he described Jews as the enemy of Islam. He told followers to bleed the "enemies of Islam". They should not rest until they have created a Muslim state.”
“The Christchurch killings were motivated by white supremacist ideology. White supremacist graffiti covered the attacker’s rifles. The Prime Minister of New Zealand has called for a global fight against rightwing extremists. Meanwhile, Islamic militant groups are using the Christchurch attacks to push their own message of hate, that the West is at war with Islam. So, what should we do about this? Before we look at Singapore, it is useful to look very briefly at how some other countries have dealt with hate speech. If you look at the US, speech is a very high threshold. Before you can prohibit speech, it must be directed to inciting or producing "imminent lawless action" and is likely to incite or produce such action. So, it must be of such a nature as to produce "imminent lawless action" and it is likely to incite the production of such action. So, very, very high threshold. Even speech advocating violence by Ku Klux Klan is protected under their free speech rules. So, you see speeches which are anti-Semitic, speeches which denigrate African-Americans, the Hispanics, politicians who denigrate religions and ethnic groups. One example is Steve King, a US congressman. He has praised Mr Wilders from the Netherlands who has, in turn, called the Prophet “a paedophile, a mass murderer, a terrorist and madman” and has said the Quran is worse than Mein Kampf and has called for the closure of mosques. So, Steve King praises him. In Europe, some countries there have broader prohibitions than Americans. In 2018, the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) gave an important decision. The Austrian courts had convicted a lady who had called the Prophet Muhammad a paedophile. She appealed. The ECHR ruled that the conviction did not violate her freedom of expression.”