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 62 of 92.
“The Traffic Police (TP) and Land Transport Authority (LTA) evaluate applications for road closures very carefully. Apart from the safety and security of the participants of the event, another key consideration is that emergency services, such as hospitals, must remain accessible. Also, road users and members of the local community, such as residents and business owners, should not be overly inconvenienced. If the potential inconvenience and disruption to emergency services cannot be adequately addressed, the application will be rejected. For the Standard Chartered Singapore Marathon 2017 (SCSM 2017), Ironman Asia, the event organiser, submitted an application for road closures. TP and LTA evaluated it in consultation with Sport Singapore (SportSG) and the Singapore Civil Defence Force (SCDF). As part of the evaluation, the initial proposed road closures were significantly reduced in scale, to minimise the impact to the public and ensure that establishments, such as hospitals, remained accessible. LTA also conducted a walk-through with Ironman Asia before the event. Raffles Hospital was consulted by Ironman Asia and agreed to the road closure plans. In particular, it was agreed that the portion of North Bridge Road between Rochor Road and Ophir Road would be converted into a two-way road, to allow vehicles to access the hospital via Rochor Road. In the event that emergency vehicles were required to travel within the road closure areas, access would be facilitated by Auxiliary Police outriders, who would escort the emergency vehicles. The road closure permit required Ironman Asia to comply with and execute these approved road closure plans.”
“At present, the Reformative Training (RT) pre-sentencing report mandated under section 305(3) of the Criminal Procedure Code already includes an assessment of an offender’s mental condition by a Singapore Prison Service (SPS) psychiatrist. The SPS psychiatrist is a professional who is familiar with the design of the RT regime and how it works to achieve the intended outcomes and benefits for the individuals placed under the regime. He or she would make an independent assessment based on professional judgement. If the Court deems it necessary, it can exercise its discretion to direct that the SPS psychiatrist be cross-examined, or that further expert evidence or a second opinion be obtained, including from a Court-appointed psychiatrist. It would not be desirable or necessary to impose a general requirement that an independent report from a Court-appointed psychiatrist be obtained in all cases, which will apply even to cases where there is no disagreement with the RT pre-sentencing report. Doing so is likely to prolong the offender's remand period for the further opinion to be prepared.”
“It has a number of different facets, if you look at it within Singapore, then you look at it outside of Singapore. Within Singapore, we are very clear on the framework. We have complete freedom of religion. We encourage the different faiths to carry on, you have seen the consequences, we are ranked one of the most religiously diverse societies in the world. So, we guarantee freedom of religion, including to the minorities and, in fact, we support them. Both Members of Parliament as well as officeholders turn up at many of these events. The line that we draw and, if you look at it, the Penal Code has legal provisions. The Maintenance of Religious Harmony Act has a framework. But essentially, if I were to identify one principle, do not do harm unto others, do not advocate violence, do not put down somebody else's religion. As long as you keep to that, propagate your faith. That, I think, has seen us being an oasis of religious peace in a world that is highly troubled. So, when we look at foreign preachers, we would have to look at who is bringing them in, we will have to talk to them, and we will have to look at the context of their sayings. But on the whole, we take a fairly conservative approach in that whatever you have said elsewhere, if those represent your viewpoints, like what I just said, if someone calls Allah a false God and then he wants to come into Singapore and say, "Well, you know, that was in a different context", I think, nevertheless, it runs the serious risk of people following such a preacher, and then they go on to look at what else he has said elsewhere and the context is not always apparent to people to be understood. So, I think it is better for us to be careful.”
“I started out by saying, often, it will be quite clear whether we should or we should not allow, and I gave you a passage. Let us say, a preacher says the following, he describes Islam, communism and other societal problems, including human trafficking, categorising all of them together, as "goliaths standing at our door", describes Allah as a false God, asks for prayers for those held captive in the darkness of Islam, refers to Buddhists as "tohuw people", which is a Hebrew word for lost, lifeless, confused and spiritually barren individuals, who can be saved by converting to Christianity. Do you believe we should invite him into Singapore and interview him, or should we ban him outright?”
“Let us look at specific facts. Will you answer my question, so that we can take this discussion further?”
“Let us take someone who says, referring to Islam, communism and other societal problems, such as human trafficking, are referred to as "goliaths standing at our door". He had also described Allah as a false God, asked for prayers for those held captive in the darkness of Islam, refers to Buddhists as "tohuw people", which is a Hebrew word for lost, lifeless, confused and spiritually barren. Do you think we should invite him into Singapore and give him an interview? Let me know.”
“Mr Zaqy Mohamad asked about the effectiveness of banning such foreigners, given the accessibility of digital platforms. There are obviously limits to the extent to which we can prevent access to such content, in particular, through the Internet. But this does not mean that we should make it even easier for such foreigners to spread their views more directly and personally to Singaporeans and build up a following here by allowing them to come into Singapore and giving them a physical platform. Preaching and grandstanding "live" and in person are quite different a proposition from doing so on the Internet.”
“Sir, we hold a clear position on the preaching of religious intolerance and we draw a line on teachings that seek to divide our society along religious lines. Second, we should also be clear that a foreigner's entry into Singapore is neither automatic nor a right. It is a privilege. It will only be granted if we assess that his entry will not harm Singapore's interests. In this context, the foreigner who wants to deliver a talk in Singapore, if the talk is related to religion, race or politics, he has to obtain a Miscellaneous Work Pass (MWP) from the Ministry of Manpower (MOM) because the issues are sensitive. MOM will consult other agencies in its assessment of MWP applications. Each application is assessed on its own merits, through a process. From a security perspective, one of the principles is that a foreigner should not have antecedents of radical preaching and teachings. For example, if he has advocated violence or promoted segregationist, intolerant teachings that are inimical to our multiracial, multi-religious society, he will not be allowed in. It is not material whether the previous comments were made in relation to Singapore or whether they intend to touch on these issues when they speak here. If they hold views that are inappropriate or unacceptable in our context, then it is not in our national interest to give them a platform in Singapore, whether to propagate their teachings or to build up their followings. It is also not material to consider how large their following is in Singapore. We should be concerned even if a small number in Singapore take in their radical, intolerant or segregationist teachings. And we should not allow them to preach or speak here to spread these viewpoints amongst Singaporeans and build up anger amongst the different faiths.”
“Sir, with your leave, can I take Question Nos 6 and 7 together?”
“These proposed reforms have more recently been taken up in discussions at various international fora. The details are not yet fully developed. For instance, in July this year, the United Nations Commission of International Trade Law (UNCITRAL) tasked one of its constituent Working Groups to consider concerns regarding ISDS and whether reform was desirable in light of any of the identified concerns. ICSID also recently announced that it will be commencing a review of its rules and regulations to address a number of related issues. Singapore welcomes a discussion of the issues arising out of the current ISDS framework. We take the view that it is important to first carefully consider what the gaps are, and all of the proposed reforms – whether they involve fine-tuning the existing ISDS framework or structural reform – in detail. To this end, MinLaw has been participating in the international dialogue on this issue. We look forward to the development of an ISDS framework that is fair, workable, and cost-effective.”
“MinLaw works closely together with our partners in the legal industry to steer Singapore's overall development and growth as a hub for international dispute resolution, including in the area of investment arbitration. Top international arbitral institutions which handle investment arbitration, such as the International Centre for Settlement of Investment Disputes (ICSID), already have a presence or regularly undertake investment arbitration in Singapore. The Singapore International Arbitration Centre this year also released a set of Investment Arbitration Rules to handle such cases. Investor-State dispute settlement (ISDS) typically involves arbitration of investment-related disputes that arise against the backdrop of international investment agreements or free trade agreements. In these cases, investors may directly bring a foreign state to arbitration, without having to involve their home state as a party to the proceedings. Some concerns have been raised over the present regime for ISDS, such as the independence of arbitrators, the lack of a mechanism to dismiss unfounded claims early, and the absence of a review mechanism to ensure coherence and correctness in arbitral decisions, amongst others. A number of countries, including Singapore, have sought to address some of these concerns in their recent trade and investment treaties, for example, by adopting codes of conduct for arbitrators and building in expedited claims dismissal mechanisms into such agreements. Some quarters of the international legal community have advocated for more structural reform, such as the establishment of an appellate body for appeals against decisions of arbitral tribunals, or a new multilateral investment court as a permanent tribunal.”
“The 0.9-hectare parcel which currently forms part of the premises occupied by the St John's Home for Elderly Persons (SJH) will return to the state upon expiry of the tenancy in 2021. This land parcel is currently zoned Civic and Community Institution in the Urban Redevelopment Authority's Master Plan. Options being studied by agencies include introducing new community and social facilities that could serve the needs of the larger population over time. The detailed plans will be firmed up in due course. SJH is currently redeveloping and consolidating its operations within a separate 0.33-hectare parcel that it holds on a 30-year lease till 2045. Agencies will continue to work with SJH to ensure a smooth transition.”
“The Ministry of Law regularly reviews the means test which applicants have to satisfy for civil legal aid. Our last review was conducted in 2013, to allow approximately 25% of Singapore Citizens and Permanent Residents to qualify for legal aid, up from 17% previously. To qualify for legal aid, an applicant's disposable income cannot be more than S$10,000 per year and his disposal capital cannot be more than S$10,000. Disposable income is different from gross income. Disposable income allows for permitted deductibles (such as the expenses of the applicant and his dependants, Central Provident Fund contributions and rent) to be excluded. For example, an applicant with three dependants and a gross annual income of S$60,000 may have an annual disposable income of less than S$10,000 after excluding all permitted deductibles. In this way, the permitted deductibles take into account the specific circumstances of the individual. In the 2013 review, permitted deductibles were raised to account for increases in the cost of living. In addition, a new deductible was introduced for family proceedings which involve children or protection orders to help the most vulnerable persons in a family dispute be eligible for legal aid. All these amendments help vulnerable applicants of limited means qualify for legal aid.”
“From 2008 to 2016, the Immigration and Checkpoints Authority (ICA) granted Singapore Citizenship (SC) to around 20,000 individuals each year, of whom around 4,300 were married to Singaporeans. ICA is unable to break down the data by whether these individuals had any SC or non-SC children. Foreigners on work passes are not eligible for SC. They must have obtained Permanent Resident status before their SC application will be considered.”
“Between 2014 and 2016, there were, on average, about 220 accidents involving pedestrians at signalised pedestrian crossings and zebra crossings each year. Most occurred because the motorist had failed to drive safely. The Traffic Police (TP) use cameras to deter and detect irresponsible driving. Red-light and speeding cameras have been deployed at high-risk areas. TP also conducts enforcement operations at pedestrian crossings. To support its investigations into accidents, TP also obtains footages from the camera networks of other Government agencies, including the Land Transport Authority, the Immigration and Checkpoints Authority and the Housing Development Board. The availability of images from in-vehicle cameras has also helped. In December 2014, TP's "E-Feedback on Road Users" portal was enhanced to allow members of the public to upload video footages. TP investigates all submitted footages. Penalties for irresponsible driving are heavy. A motorist who has caused death through rash driving is liable for an imprisonment term for up to five years, a fine, or both. The Ministry of Home Affairs is currently reviewing the penalties to ensure that they remain an effective deterrent against irresponsible driving. Notwithstanding TP's various efforts, pedestrians, cyclists and users of personal mobility devices must themselves exercise due care before crossing the road, even when they have the right of way. They should always check for traffic to make sure that the road is clear before crossing.”
“Between 2012 and 2016, on average, 20 jaywalkers were killed each year. Elderly pedestrians were especially vulnerable, accounting for about 60% of the fatalities. A 2015 study conducted by the Traffic Police (TP) found that a key reason for jaywalking was that pedestrians did not consider jaywalking as unsafe to themselves or to other road users. This, of course, is a gross misperception. TP has stepped up its engagement efforts against jaywalking, especially vis-à-vis elderly pedestrians. In November last year, TP launched the Road Master Test Kit. The self-administered test kit allows elderly pedestrians to assess their eyesight, hearing and reaction time, and provides information on the risks of jaywalking. TP has been using the test kit to educate and engage elderly road users at Senior Activity Centres and community events. To date, TP has distributed a total of 4,000 test kits and will continue to do so. TP also conducts wider engagement and education activities, such as the "Singapore Road Safety Month", "Shell Traffic Games" and "Use Your RoadSense" campaigns. These campaigns help raise awareness of jaywalking as part of their wider emphasis on pedestrian and motorist safety. In addition, the Singapore Road Safety Council launched an online video in October 2017 to remind pedestrians on how to stay safe, including using only designated crossings, underpasses and overhead bridges, to cross the road.”
“The Police do not impose an age restriction on persons who are allowed to buy objects like blades and knives from retailers and do not have the intention to do so for now. It is neither practical nor effective to regulate their sale as many of them, like kitchen knives and Swiss-army knives, are common items used for a myriad of everyday activities. However, anyone found in possession of blades and knives in a public area without a lawful purpose may be liable for the offence of possessing an offensive weapon under the Corrosive and Explosive Substances and Offensive Weapons Act. The penalty is up to three years' imprisonment and caning of not less than six strokes.”
“Between 2007 and 2016, an average of about 1,700 persons were arrested annually for physical assault in public areas. About one-fifth were foreigners. Our tough laws and effective enforcement serve as important deterrence. For instance, where the physical assault had caused grievous hurt, the offender is liable to be imprisoned for up to 10 years, and also to be fined or caned. These laws and punishments must apply equally to both locals and foreigners. The Police conduct regular patrols and licensing checks in areas that tend to see more incidents of physical assaults, such as public entertainment outlets. The Police also work with the operators of such outlets on measures to minimise occurrences, including installing more closed-circuit television (CCTV) cameras and improving the lighting.”
“In the event of a terror attack, affected members of the public should "run, hide, tell". When it is safe to do so, the public should call 999, send a text message (SMS) to 71999 if it is not safe to talk, or provide the information through the SGSecure app. There is no need nor time to physically make a report at a Police Post. Our security forces will respond as quickly as possible. Police Officers and Auxiliary Police Officers in the vicinity, as well as the Police's Emergency Response Teams (ERTs), will be among the first to arrive on the scene. The ERTs conduct high-visibility patrols at locations with heavy human traffic, including hospitals, to deter would-be attackers and to be able to respond quickly to incidents.”
“He hosted advertisements for 12 sex workers on a website and was sentenced to two years’ imprisonment and a fine of $83,000. The Police also disrupt online vice by terminating the phone numbers used for the activity and blocking their websites.”
“Over the past five years, the Police have arrested 790 persons for abetting vice activities, such as operating illegal brothels. About 12% of these offenders were involved in illegal brothels in Housing and Development Board (HDB) flats. An offender convicted of managing a brothel under the Women’s Charter faces a fine of up to $10,000, or up to five years’ imprisonment, or both. In cases where the Police have received complaints and detected brothels in HDB flats, the Police will also investigate the owner of the flat. If the owner is complicit in the vice activities, he will also face prosecution under the Women’s Charter. If the owner is not complicit, the Police may serve a notice on him, which would allow him to be prosecuted if his flat is used for vice activities a second time. The Police will also notify HDB, which will take stern action if the flat owner is found to have misused his flat, including imposition of fines, compulsory acquisition and debarment from buying another HDB flat. These actions against the flat owner create a strong deterrence and the Police have not seen the same HDB flats being used for vice activities twice. The Police advise HDB flat owners to ensure that their tenants are not using their flats for illegal activities. Brothels in HDB flats typically rely on the Internet to advertise their services. The Women’s Charter was amended last year to tackle online vice. A new offence was created to criminalise the operating or maintaining in Singapore of any website or other remote communication service that offers or facilitates the provision of sexual services in return for payment. In May this year, the first person was convicted of this offence.”
“Yes. "We have taken the Attorney-General's advice. We will start counting from the first President who exercised the powers of the Elected President" − so, no rewriting of history here − that was "Dr Wee Kim Wee. That means we are now in the fifth term of the Elected Presidency. We also have to define the ethnic group of each of the Elected Presidents we have had so far. There is no practical doubt, but as a legal matter, we have to define it".”
“Sir, can I please read what the Prime Minister actually said, and put it on record?”
“Thank you, Sir. I will use up the 30 seconds and sit down. So, we were very clear. It is a policy matter. And that is on the record. The Prime Minister took the same position; he explained in Parliament: we decide, but we took AGC's advice. The next day, Deputy Prime Minister Teo Chee Hian, and subsequently, Minister Chan Chun Sing, took the same positions. Did anyone say: "We are going to decide this way because this is the way that AGC has told us that we have to decide"? That would make no sense, because Parliament is sovereign. Ms Lim must know Parliament is sovereign. If there is a certain legal approach, then we can change the law. You have got to read whatever statements I have made in the overall context that Parliament is sovereign. Its will is sovereign − and the real issue is: can we achieve what we want, within the current framework of taking this approach? Or do we need to make some changes? I think it is quite clear. Thank you, Sir.”
“That is a legal argument AGC put forward, and that is a point that the Court of Appeal also makes. But that is quite different from the Prime Minister, in Parliament, explaining that: "Look, you know, these are the steps we have taken. We have also taken AGC's advice." He is telling that to the Members. It is the truth, but it is irrelevant as a matter of law. Surely, the Member knows the difference. Let me, therefore, summarise and say this, Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir. The Government made it clear, right from the time when the Prime Minister issued instructions, in terms of within Cabinet and then set out a letter explaining what he wanted to do, the terms of reference; and then, when the Constitutional Commission was set up, he also explained to the public that having a minority representation is an important issue and he wants the Constitutional Commission to consider that issue, amongst other issues. Then, we have the Constitutional Commission's report. The Government made clear in the White Paper exactly what its approach was, including on the reserved elections. And then, we explained it on the ground, district by district. I said on record − and I am happy to be shown any other part; Ms Lim suggests that I said something else, somewhere else − that is quite untrue, I am very clear and careful about what I say and I am happy to be confronted with anything else I might have said. I said: this is a policy matter for us to decide. And that we are taking advice on a number of issues. I am paraphrasing because I do not have it in front of me. Why would I go and say it is a policy matter if I thought it was a pure legal issue? If Ms Lim is right, then I was misleading all of Singapore.”
“This argument that it was unconstitutional does not have any leg to stand on, because the Constitution provided for Parliament to legislate, and Parliament legislated. Nobody is suggesting that Dr Wee was elected. It is an untruth that is attributed to the proceedings. What is suggested is that he was the first person to exercise the powers of an Elected President. And is there any legal impediment for us to start counting from there? These are questions which others may just decide for themselves. But we will usually ask AGC for advice on these things. And that is exactly what − you know if you look at the context − we decide, and we check with AGC. The Prime Minister said it, Deputy Prime Minister Teo on second day said it, and Minister Chan said it a few months later. The Court of Appeal, as a matter of law, said AGC's advice is irrelevant. AGC also argued in Court that their advice is irrelevant. Absolutely so. Because for the legal question of whether a provision is unconstitutional or constitutional − and Ms Lim really should know about this, instead of spending so much time making a point out of nothing − the question before the Court is: this particular provision in the Presidential Elections Act, is that constitutional or unconstitutional? What does the Court have to do? The Court has got to look at the constitutional provisions, it has got to look at the provisions in the legislation. It can have a reference to Parliamentary debates, if the provisions are not clear, and decide how it interprets, which is what the Court of Appeal did. And in that context, what one party − the Government's lawyers told the Government, or what the other party's lawyers told the other party − Dr Tan Cheng Bock − are completely irrelevant.”
“There are a number of questions that can be asked and there were also provisions relating to minority rights and so on. And I said that we are asking AGC to advise us on a number of questions. That was, I think, on the CNA transcript. So, the Prime Minister was entirely right to say: we will start counting from here, the next elections will be reserved for a Malay President and we have taken advice from AGC. What Ms Lim is saying is that we are starting to count from here because of AGC's advice. That was never suggested. We start counting, we are a careful Government, we make a policy decision, but we take advice to see whether there are any impediments. And this Government, as a rule, generally does not publish legal opinions that it gets. If it can be done according to the law, we do it. If the law has to be changed to achieve policy objectives, we do it. And I said it upfront, well before the Parliamentary proceedings. And the Prime Minister was totally clear. And the Court of Appeal said the Prime Minister was very clear. What Deputy AG Hri Kumar said in court is: you do not try and take every Member of Parliament's speech and every Minister's speech and then try and interpret it as if it is statutory interpretation. You go back to the legislation. And we had a long spiel, totally irrelevant, about the QC's advice. Ms Lim knows what happened to the QC's advice in Court, she carefully omits saying anything about that. And we know how QC's advice can be obtained. What matters is what the Court of Appeal has said. And the Court of Appeal has been very clear. They said that the Prime Minister has been very clear. They looked at the proceedings. They looked at the legislation.”
“The Court of Appeal has confirmed that it was for Parliament to decide. Ms Lim said she was present. She heard that this Judge asked that question; that was said, this was said. Why does Ms Lim not read the judgment? There is only one person in this House whom the Courts have held to be misleading Parliament and he is not from the PAP. Only one person, after evidence is heard − Ms Lim knows whom the High Court held was misleading Parliament. So, I suppose Ms Lim knows all about misleading Parliament. The Court of Appeal's judgment makes clear a number of things. First, the constitutional text is clear that Parliament can choose from any of the five terms preceding the 2017 elections. Second, the Prime Minister's speech in Parliament on the constitutional amendments made it clear that Parliament intended to give itself the discretion to specify the last term of President Wee as the first term to be counted for purposes of deciding whether an election is reserved. Members can read the part Ms Lim quoted from the Prime Minister. I do not see anything that is ambiguous. The point is this − and we are not changing history here; Ms Lim is a lawyer, she knows this − Dr Wee, in the second term, exercised the powers of an Elected President. There is nothing ambiguous about that. That is a matter of clear law. Parliament could have started counting from Dr Wee; could have started counting from an earlier President. Parliament decided to start from Dr Wee. It was made very clear that it was a policy decision. But in the context of that, for example, if we wanted to start from Dr Wee, are there any legal impediments to start counting from Dr Wee? I am just talking about one question amongst many that can arise.”
“Mr Deputy Speaker, I would like to make a few points. First, the Government has been always very clear and upfront on the policy objectives of this hiatus-triggered reserved elections framework. It has been 46 years since we have had a Malay President and our challenge was how to achieve both meritocracy and multiracialism where qualified candidates from different races can regularly be elected to be our Head of State. When the Prime Minister announced the appointment of the Constitutional Commission to review the Elected Presidency system, he said, our President is the Head of State, he represents all Singaporeans in our multiracial society. As such, it is important that the minorities have a chance to be elected and that this happens regularly. Second, the Government has always been clear that when it comes to the counting, it is a policy matter for Parliament to decide. Ms Sylvia Lim protests far too much. I made this clear upfront. In a dialogue session held after the Government released its White Paper, I was asked the following question: when would the circuit breaker to hold the Reserved Election after a racial group has not been represented in Presidential Office after five continuous terms come into effect? What was my reply? "The most direct answer is actually, the Government can decide. When we put in the Bill, we can say we want it to start from this period. It is … a policy decision…" CNA reported it. It is still on record.”
“I see. I am sorry. Then, I apologise. Anyway, I would say that we have to be careful about linking an entire religion to terrorism. Terrorism is not a threat that will go away anytime soon. It threatens our very existence as one of the most religiously diverse and harmonious societies in the world, where different religious faiths have been able to co-exist peacefully. We must resolve never to allow that and maintain the precious harmony that we have here. As to the religious identity of that man, I based myself on what I read earlier in the morning but I stand corrected. Maybe I should say, "I do not know". Thank you, Sir. [Applause.]”
“And I said that Muslim Singaporeans also have a duty to react in a way which will encourage closer ties. Freedom to practise a religion should not mean a total ban on the discussion of practices, which is similar to the point Mr Leon Perera made. That will hinder a healthy, economically productive life and active citizenry. It should allow us to discuss practices that impact on others in society. We must be prepared to debate this but handle it sensitively. Many of these points are still relevant 15 years later, today. I will emphasise one of the points on terrorism. It is not tied to any one religion. The man who killed more than 50 people and injured several hundreds yesterday in Las Vegas, as far as I know, is not a Muslim. So, we have to be careful about linking, and I stand corrected, as this is what I heard Er Dr Lee saying — Er Dr Lee Bee Wah (Nee Soon): I did not make that comment.”
“Singapore's approach, as I have sketched out, is to build a Singapore identity that can accommodate diversity and celebrate our different racial and religious identities whilst at the same time creating a broad common space that we all share as Singaporeans and can build our sense of solidarity as one nation. That is an ongoing journey. It has to be continuously adjusted and refined as circumstances evolve, both locally and internationally. In that context, the stronger religiosity that we have been experiencing across all religions is a source of strength, as long as we get the framework right. And we have to pay close attention to this. Almost 15 years ago, I spoke in this House during the debate on the White Paper following the JI arrests. I shared my view that it is an ideological battle that has to be won, and it is incumbent on all of us, as Singaporeans, to first reach across racial lines to build stronger ties across communities, ties that bind us more closely. That is the only way to cut terrorism from its base. We have to win the fight for hearts and minds. I said then that each of us must take a deep and honest look at ourselves, examine our attitudes, mindsets towards our Muslim brothers and sisters, and ask in our heart of hearts, do we respect and value them as Singaporeans, and accept them as equals? Or are we just being superficial and politically correct? Are we showing them, with sincerity, that we genuinely want to build deep links? That is vital. That will define where our society is headed and that will determine whether we are able to come together as one people to celebrate the rich diversity amongst us and be the stronger for it or be divided by the differences and allow suspicion and negativity to tear our society apart.”
“We are studying whether we need to move more quickly and have more options to deal with this particular issue appropriately and decisively when there is hate speech. Third, prevention of radicalisation. Mr Murali Pillai and Dr Intan Mokhtar spoke on the importance of community actors − parents, spouses, teachers and youths − playing their part in identifying whether someone close to them is showing signs of radicalisation. There were constructive suggestions on how we can support these people to help. Minister Dr Yaacob Ibrahim has highlighted some of the current initiatives. We will study those suggestions and see how we can support them further. Fourth, the Islamic College. Dr Yaacob spoke about this. The Singapore Islamic College, when set up, can train a new generation of religious teachers who will understand our multi-religious and multiracial context. We support what Dr Yaacob has said. Fifth, dealing with segregationist teachings. Our religious groups and leaders are generally very supportive of our efforts to build and maintain religious harmony in Singapore. They know how important it is that our religions co-exist harmoniously and why we need to maintain our common spaces. Religion can, and has been, a source of strength for our society, but we must also watch out for exclusivist, intolerant practices because that can deepen our fault lines and weaken our entire society. I spoke earlier about this. So, we are reviewing the Maintenance of Religious Harmony Act to see how we can best deal with this issue. Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, since 1965, we have come very far in terms of integration. But I think everyone would agree that we have not arrived, and one never knows whether there is such a thing as having arrived.”
“This is Dr Zakir Naik, who will not come to Singapore, but you can assume that Mufti Menk and Dr Naik are all around the region preaching. And their videos are available. Many people go and buy them, including Singaporeans. But such is what is happening and they are feted and welcomed for their viewpoints. So, you can imagine. You can have a sense of what is happening in this region. A religious leader telling people they cannot vote for someone of another religion. I think Singaporeans will say that is not acceptable. And if we allowed that kind of teaching in Singapore, you can easily imagine what else might be said by people. It will move on to race. If you are one race, you should vote for a person of that race. It happens in other places. This is a broad canvas of the kind of problems we face, some of the challenges, the approaches we take. In concrete terms, what are we looking at in this context? First, let me talk about restrictions on foreign preachers. Foreign preachers who do not share our values of religious harmony will not be allowed to preach in Singapore. I spoke about their possible influence earlier. As such an open society, we cannot avoid being influenced by external developments. But we have to try our best to insulate ourselves from overseas events and foreign doctrines which can do us serious harm. We are studying how we can tighten the process and ensure that such preachers do not come into Singapore to preach. Second, hate speech. Social media emboldens some people to say terrible and evil things. Mr Murali Pillai and Mr Desmond Choo said such comments have the potential to inflame emotions and can go viral. There are laws today. We have used them.”
“We have to be careful not to import those religious conflicts here. Mr Alex Yam, Ms Sun Xueling and other Members have said our Muslim community has taken the lead. They have put in place a code of ethics for religious teachers and, on the ground, Ms Rahayu Mahzam shared that members of the Muslim community actively speak out against extremist preachings. That reaffirms that Singapore Muslims object to the misguided teachings of ISIS. Our National Council of Churches has spoken up against undesirable practices of foreign Christian preachers. Mufti Menk, whom Members saw in the video, was not the only preacher I banned. A few weeks ago, we banned two Christian preachers who had made several Islamophobic comments. The National Council of Churches came out after that. Those two preachers had been contacted by churches in Singapore. They were coming to speak, we said no. And the National Council of Churches came out and told all churches to be careful whom they invite. And that is good. We do need to really look at our practices. Do they promote tolerance? Do they promote integration? Or do they tend to divide? We need to draw a clear line between what is acceptable and what is not acceptable. We have to develop our own style in the practice of religion, situated within the context of our multi-religious, multiracial society. Mixing of religion and politics is another dangerous area and we need to guard against that because that is happening quite a bit around the region. Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, may I seek your permission to have another video shown, please?”
“This religious leader was originally from India, he is in Zimbabwe. He used to come to Singapore regularly to preach. Three years ago, we banned him. There was some unhappiness, but I think Members will understand why. He said that "it is the biggest sin and crime for a Muslim to wish a non-Muslim Merry Christmas or Happy Deepavali", and I suppose the same goes for "Happy Chinese New Year". This is dangerous. Divisiveness. Our common space will shrink. And different segments of the community will drift apart. So, we made no apologies for taking that approach, banning that. Because we cannot allow this sort of preaching to take hold in Singapore and gain followers. Taken to extremes, such preaching can have very serious consequences. For example, in 2016, a Muslim shopkeeper in Glasgow was stabbed by a fellow Muslim to death a day after he put up a Facebook posting wishing customers "Happy Easter". We need to be careful about foreign preachers who may not understand our context. I agree with Mr Muhamad Faisal Manap that religious teachings must be aligned with our national values. Our religious bodies do draw on religious leadership from abroad. For example, MUIS has a Distinguished Visitors' Programme. Many distinguished Islamic scholars come and share their experiences. Likewise, for other religions. And that is to be welcomed. We did not say no to that. But it is important to be clear on the practices which will not work here and we have to be careful that we do not import the religious conflicts from other countries, even as we sympathise and offer help, where appropriate. Mr Pritam Singh said our first loyalty should always remain to Singapore even if our common sense of humanity makes us feel for the plight of others in conflicts overseas. And I fully agree.”
“And Mr Muhamad Faisal Manap talked about open-mindedness, respecting the differences of people and national values. Precisely. Next, let me move on to religious teachers. There is also a problem if a religious teacher tells his followers that they cannot make friends with people of other faiths or an employer. Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, in this context, may I seek your permission to show a video, please?”
“You have to make sure your schools are open for all races. You have to have the NS system. The hallmark of our predecessors was to take the general ideas and then successfully convert them into practical steps. And if we want to change any of that, let us have a care. The Member said we need to focus on the day-to-day. Yes, we do. And I believe I have explained that. At the same time, let us not forget that symbolism and seats of power matter. For example, if every Cabinet Minister and every Member of this House were from one race, I think it will be a very different matter, would it not? And the Member accepts that, because he accepted that multiracialism is necessary in the corridors of power as well. As for the point that the cure must not be worse than the disease, again, I accept that. It is a general statement. But also remember there are some aspects of the disease that look pretty terrible, like Iraq, like the massacres in the former Yugoslavia, like Syria. So, we share the same aspirations. We need to convert those aspirations into practical realities in a way which is doable in the context of Singapore. Ms Rahayu Mahzam spoke about the Muslim-only launderette in Johor. Narrow-mindedness in the name of Islam seeks to drive a wedge between Muslims and non-Muslims. The owner was asked to stop that discriminatory practice or shut down. We would not want something like that in Singapore. The tendencies and the risks are there and we need to guard against them. And I agree with some of the points made in this context by Mr Pritam Singh and Mr Muhamad Faisal Abdul Manap. Mr Pritam Singh said neighbours willing to be open-minded, live-and-let-live attitude. Precisely. That is what we need to encourage.”
“So, we might as well acknowledge that and then try and build bonds and a common identity. The Member made a number of other points about, for example, playing in common corridors. That, as I have mentioned earlier, was a deliberate Government policy of building HDB estates in a way which integrates people. The Member also made a number of general statements, as I listened, and they seem to be almost everything that we are already doing. For example, have some controls on speech relating to race and religion and, at the same time, also create some space for talking about them. Indeed, I would be happy if Members see it that way. That is what we are doing. And the Member said repression is not an answer. Exactly. And I can assure the Member and everybody else, like he quoted, Saddam Hussein is not a model for this Government. In Iraq, what you had was a minority suppressing the majority in the first place, quite brutally, and, now, what is being suggested is that the minority is being oppressed. That is not a model for us. Neither is Marshal Tito a model for us. Our model is the governance that Mr Lee Kuan Yew, Dr Goh Keng Swee, Mr S Rajaratnam and others provided. That is the model that we have taken. And that model, for example, allowed the Member, a person from a minority community to go from an HDB flat, playing with other races − a deliberate Government policy − to top schools and then to Oxford. And I believe the state paid for most of that. So, in a sense, Mr Leon Perera symbolises the success of Singapore's multiracial approach. So, I agree with all the broad concepts from the general points that the Member has made. But governance has to go beyond generalities. You have to build the integrated communities in HDB estates.”
“We have some goals and ideals, but we also need to be realistic and practical, and mobilise the community along the different lines that mobilisation is possible and, at the same time, keep reminding ourselves that while we mobilise the community to help those who are less well-performing, we also remind them that they are Singaporeans and they should help everybody else. And then, the self-help groups moved, provided tuition support for those of other races. They opened their doors after having started helping their own. And, of course, most of the load then goes on to CDAC because they have the most centres. So, again, it is something where the anchorage, the majority community, voluntarily takes on a greater share of the burden. It is not easy to achieve in most places. And the Government encouraged all of this. Ten years ago, the four self-help groups came together with CDAC and they have OnePeople.sg. The name speaks for itself. What Assoc Prof Daniel Goh spoke about, the approaches are already happening. Basically, the self-help groups and communal bodies are not mutually exclusive to fostering integration, if properly managed. The different challenges require different solutions. The education programmes that Assoc Prof Goh spoke about, they already exist. And I am sure Dr Janil Puthucheary, who heads up OnePeople.sg, would be happy to give the Member a briefing, so that he will have a better understanding of what they do. What we need is a greater understanding of what we already do in many areas. Mr Leon Perera acknowledged that we are not a fully race-blind society. I think that is acknowledging the obvious. Channel NewsAsia surveys showed this last year and this year. Other surveys show that there is a line among the races.”
“Mr Gan Thiam Poh said that there is scope to improve our appreciation of other religious groups. I agree with him. Let me move on to how do we encourage greater integration. Many Members − Ms Sun Xueling, Dr Tan Wu Meng, Mr Liang Eng Hwa and others, spoke about the importance of each one of us as individuals, doing our part. Ms Sun Xueling called for all Singaporeans to take a small step forward, so that the distance among the races narrow. We need that. Singaporeans need to come together. They need to understand one another better; not drift apart and withdraw into our own racial and religious communities. We have to create more common spaces. Mr Alex Yam said racial and religious harmony must go beyond tokenism. Yes. We need genuine acceptance, we need genuine respect, and to honour one another. It is important that every citizen feels part of this society and has a strong sense of belonging. We need to create common spaces, bring people together, facilitate interactions and build strong, meaningful relationships. In this context, Assoc Prof Daniel Goh made some remarks on self-help groups. Let me share some personal experiences. I served as President of SINDA for I think five or six years. The ideal is, of course, that self-help groups should not exist and we should have race-neutral help groups. The reality: CDAC, MENDAKI, SINDA, Eurasian Association, they are able to mobilise more volunteers from the respective individual communities, get more support that way. As SINDA President, I told SINDA, let us get more non-Indian volunteers. So, we went out on a recruitment drive. At the end of the day, we did get more non-Indian volunteers, but the percentage was 11%; 89% was still Indian. It is a journey.”
“In 2008, RSF ranked us 144 out of 173 countries, below Guinea, Sudan, Pakistan, amongst others. Thus, I pointed out in 2009, that at about the same time RSF came out with their report, the International Herald Tribune (IHT) had a news story on Guinea, in fact, it was one or two days before I made my speech. And IHT said that people were being gunned down by a "brutal military junta"; women were being raped on the streets. But in RSF's eyes, their press freedom was higher than ours. And RSF, of course, continues to rank us poorly. In 2017, it ranked us 151 out of 180 countries, below countries like Guinea again; Gambia, where journalists were detained, media outlets shut down, Internet disconnected, international phone calls banned last year; South Sudan, where it was described as having one of the world's most serious refugee crisis, suffering the effects of a devastating civil war; Afghanistan is ranked ahead of us; Pakistan is ranked ahead of us. I would invite RSF to please go there. So, we have to be discerning about these rankings and how they are done and what are the political objectives behind them. And sometimes, ignore them, when they are patently false and not hold them up as a mantra. With that, I will say, we should be doing quite well in comparison with many other countries when it comes to religious diversity and guaranteeing religious minorities. And really, you do not need studies and reports. You look at our lived reality. What is the experience? Your experience, my experience, the experience of our people. We know the answer. We can agree on the whole that we are going in the right direction. But it is always work in progress. I think Mr Pritam Singh used that phrase in a similar context in his speech.”
“In May 2017, she said: "There is … a role for government to help people and build up organisations in society to promote and defend Britain's values and stand up to the extremists who want to undermine our values and impose their twisted beliefs onto the rest of us." We go to Germany, Chancellor Angela Merkel said: German attempts to create a multicultural society had, I quote, "utterly failed". She was very frank. Since the 1960s, many Turkish citizens moved to Germany for work. They stayed in Germany. They started families. The assumption was that the new immigrants settling in Germany would, over time, naturally assimilate themselves. But what, in fact, happened was the creation of parallel, isolated societies. The German government is now playing a more interventionist role. We have been fortunate that 50 years ago, our leaders had the foresight to deal with this problem without being clouded by ideology. They were practical. They were focused. And their ideology was, "we want everybody to be together", which is a noble ideology. Other countries' experience reminds us that we have to continue to build on the strong foundations that our country has had. We have to continue to be activist. Ms Sun Xueling cited the Pew Research Centre study on religious diversity that Singapore is ranked top amongst 232 countries. Mr de Souza cited several studies. I would say this though. I am usually careful of such studies and reports. They have ranked us sometimes at the top and sometimes at the bottom. You need to check the methodology and the people who do these reports. For example, if I could digress and make a point here: take the Reporters sans frontières' (RSF's) Reporters without Borders' ranking on press freedom. I have spoken about this before in 2009.”
“We were activists in this respect. We have had an activist policy of fostering inter-religious and interracial harmony. Many examples: EIP, several Members have spoken about it, the building up of our neighbourhoods. Dr Tan Wu Meng raised the need to ensure that they have sufficient interaction in spaces in the new HDB estates. HDB, when they design, they safeguard spaces where the communities can gather. For new block designs, there are additional areas for interaction beyond the void deck, for example, precinct pavilions, three-generation playgrounds, roof-top gardens. There are dedicated spaces like community centres for people from different races to gather, bond. Our national school system, with English as the medium of instruction; National Service (NS). In fact, we are often accused of being too interventionist and too focused on race. I do not think one can be too interventionist in this context. [Deputy Speaker (Mr Charles Chong) in the Chair] It is useful to say what is now being said in other parts of the world with regard to race relations and integration. Let me quote Prime Minister Theresa May, who said in June of this year, and I quote: "…there is, to be frank, far too much tolerance of extremism in our country." Some people would hold up Britain as a model of free speech, as the kind of country that perhaps achieves a good balance between being too strict and being too lax. But this is what the Prime Minister had to say: "…our country needs to come together to take out this extremism; and we need to live our lives not in a series of separated, segregated communities, but as one truly United Kingdom." Has Britain gotten it right, the balance? Have we gotten it right? Are we repressive?”
“What we can realistically achieve is a strong national identity, a Singaporean identity, which will overlay our separate racial, religious identities, and that framework can create a vibrant society. Second, what is the reality of race relationships today? Let me again, in this context, quote President Obama as to how he had seen it during his own journey. And I quote: "The emotions between the races could never be pure… whether we sort out our demons or salvation, the other race would always remain just that: menacing, alien and apart." I quote this to show that even in a country that is often held out as the model of democracy, this is how a successful African-American, a future President, saw race relationships at one point in time. For us in Singapore, I think it is safe to say, we have generally moved quite far from seeing another race as "menacing, alien and apart." That is the measure of our success. How have race relationships changed in the US in the course of the Obama Presidency? In a New York Times/CBS News poll in April 2009, a few months after he took office, 65% of Americans regarded race relations as generally good. This was 100 days after President Obama's inauguration. Of them, 59% of African-Americans, and 65% of white Americans thought race relationships were good. The same poll, done seven years later, July 2016, last year, 69% of Americans believed race relations were generally bad; with only 26% saying they were generally good. That was a 40% drop between 2009 and 2016. That is the reality in most places. The fault lines are difficult to deal with in many countries. How can we deal with racial and religious fault lines? We have never believed that a laissez-faire approach in creating a national identity for a multiracial society will work.”
“It is worth recalling this history, as we note the troubled race relations across the world. We do not in Singapore have movements titled, "Black Lives Matter" or counter movements "Blue Lives Matter". Because for us, All Lives Matter. Terrorism, radicalisation, extremism, these challenges have to be met with the same dedication and resolve by us affirming the fundamental principle − multiracialism. Sir, how far can we go in this direction? Mr Murali Pillai made some good points on this. We often hear this suggestion: why do we even need to talk about race? Can we not just say we are all Singaporeans? Or as the late Mr Rajaratnam said: let us have a homogenous Singaporean race. I will make three points in this context. First, what is behind the ideal, the desire to do away with racial identity and create a single identity? Can that be achieved? Second, what is the reality of racial identities today? And third, how can we deal with them? First, this idea of trying to do away with our individual racial identities. Can this be achieved? Many have thought this not possible. For example, Du Bois said, and I quote: "he who ignores or seeks to override the race idea in human history ignores and overrides the central thought of all history." Mr Rajaratnam would, of course, have been aware of this when he formed his own views. And Mr Rajaratnam took a different view. A noble ideal. Looking at current trends, the kind of centrifugal forces that society is facing, including Singapore, online, there are different pulls and pushes. I think many will agree it is going to be challenging to achieve a homogenous race of Singaporeans in the near term.”
“Let us recall what Mr Lee Kuan Yew said at Independence, "We are going to have a multiracial nation in Singapore. We will set the example. This is not a Malay nation; this is not a Chinese nation; this is not an Indian nation. Everybody will have his place: equal; language, culture, religion." Moving, inspiring, determined. That was the Singapore we worked for. That is the Singapore we want, and that is the Singapore we must work for. It is useful to consider in context Dr Martin Luther King's famous "I have a dream" speech. That speech, as many Members might know, was made in 1963, two years before Mr Lee spoke, but I think we can save it in the same timeframe. To quote a few key parts of that speech, Dr King said, "I have a dream that my four children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the colour of their skin but by the content of their character. I have a dream that one day little black boys and black girls will be able to join hands with little white boys and white girls and walk together as sisters and brothers." Dr King said this in America where a Judge had said, in 1965, "Almighty God created the races White, Black, Yellow, Malay and Red, and he placed them on separate continents... The fact that he had separated the races shows that he did not intend them to mix." This was from a Judge in 1965. In Dr King's America of 1963, he had to speak what he spoke about as a dream. Mr Lee, in Singapore in 1965, spoke in determined tones as to what Singapore will be. It was a vision for which we were thrown out of the Federation. Fifty years later, it has become more of a reality. It is a reality we have worked for these 50 years. It is not a perfect reality, but we are on the right path.”
“We have arranged for Safety seminars. We use the Safety and Security Watch Groups. This is focused on the members and employees. Last week, Deputy Prime Minister Teo launched the SGSecure Guide for Workplaces. By early next year, 150,000 of these guides would be sent out to workplaces. It is a partnership with MOM. MOM is taking an active role in this. Third, social media influencers. Mr Desmond Choo spoke about the importance and need for influencers to be part of the first responders when an attack happens. We entirely agree. MHA and MCI are engaging high profile influencers to reach out to different segments of the community when an attack happens. Next, we have to also consider building resilience in the community. After an attack, society needs to pull itself together and stay united. Mr de Souza called this "winning the psychological battle". This is the key part of SGSecure's work. Several Members have made this point − a united community is a key factor in defeating terrorism. If you look at other countries, recent experience shows, once there is a terrorist attack, then there is heightened suspicion among communities. In the current climate, that almost inevitably means Islamophobia. London police collected data after the London Bridge attack this year. They noted a fivefold increase in Islamophobic attacks. If you try and strengthen trust after an attack, it is too late. We need to strengthen cohesiveness and our unity now, do what we have been doing and add on to it. As Members have emphasised, this means going back to one of the fundamental principles of our society, which is multiracialism. Let me spend a little bit of time because this is, in some ways, the essence of what I am going to say.”
“The second is the community response, both to help prevent an attack and when an attack occurs, to deal with the aftermath. The community must, first of all, be made aware of the threats, to the extent that we can make them aware of it. They have to be prepared, know how to protect themselves, and must be able to mobilise the rest of the community and protect the community as a whole. And after an attack, we need to also mobilise people, make people come together to stand united. This is the key objective of SGSecure. SGSecure was launched by the Prime Minister about a year ago. Today, we have nearly one million devices with the SGSecure app. Our officers have knocked on more than 400,000 houses. We have spoken with 220,000 households, about one in two. Members of Parliament who do house visits will know that ratio. We have had 38 Emergency Preparedness Days around Singapore in different constituencies, 16 Crisis Response Exercises in neighbourhoods, and visited and spoken at more than 160 schools. All this was done within a year. I think the SGSecure team has done an outstanding amount of work, working with our partners − PA, the Ministry of Manpower (MOM), the Ministry of Communications and Information, the Ministry of Education, the Ministry of Culture, Community and Youth and the Ministry of Defence. But much more needs to be done and has to be done. In the context of speaking about communities, how do we deal with workplaces? Ms K Thanaletchimi spoke about this, the importance of ensuring that companies are ready. I agree. We are trying to do so. We have enhanced the bizSAFE framework to help businesses be prepared in the case of an attack. We are encouraging companies to develop contingency plans if their premises come under attack.”
“Laws in this region and some countries allow prisoners to be released even before they are de-radicalised. They are free to plot and are capable of inflicting harm. The third type of threat that we face, of course, is self-radicalisation. It happens in Singapore as well. Three Singaporeans have gone to the Middle East. You saw one of them recently in the video. Two of them brought their families. The number detained under the ISA has increased, as Mr de Souza pointed out. Since 2015, we have also picked up over 40 foreign workers, domestic helpers included, who have been radicalised online by ISIS propaganda. There have been several calls for Singaporeans to copy attacks using vehicles, knives and day-to-day implements. We do not say much about this, but it is there. I do not know how many Members realised but, last year, we picked up someone who was intending to go off to the Middle East to fight. He was a driver of a large dump truck. The fourth aspect of the problem is divisive preachings. It is an insidious threat which seeks to divide society along racial, religious lines and I will say more about it later. In the context of these threats, what is our response? I will share three aspects. First, deterrence and protection. I call it the kinetic aspect. How would the Police respond? What are the operational responses to terror attacks? We have spoken about it frequently. So, I do not intend to go into details. I think most Members will know. Secondly, yesterday, Parliament passed the Infrastructure Protection Bill. It hardens our infrastructure, our buildings. There is a cost to be paid and that cost is imposed on us by the terrorists. So, we have no choice. That is the first aspect of response.”