Restricting Hate Speech to Maintain Racial and Religious Harmony in Singapore

Sir, as first proposition, I assume, and certainly hope there will be unanimous agreement in this House that we must preserve racial, religious harmony in Singapore. Assuming we do, then we have to consider: first, the degree to which hate speech can impact on racial and religious harmony; second, the steps that should be taken to deal with hate speech; and third, the continuum between hate speech and speech which is offensive on race and religion.

There is an overlap between the two. So, what do we do about offensive speech?

So, let me start with hate speech. It has been defined as "all forms of expression which spread, incite, promote, or justify racial hatred, xenophobia, or other forms of hatred based on intolerance."

It can fall into different categories in different platforms. For example, religious hate speech can be very powerful; political hate speech can be very powerful, especially if the politician is charismatic. It can be in general discourse, in the mass media. It can be as part of entertainment like music, theatre. This list is illustrative. It is not intended to be exhaustive.

What impact can hate speech have? With your permission, Mr Speaker, I have asked the Clerk of Parliament to place handouts on the seats, the various steps, so that I do not need to read out some of the stuff. [Handouts were distributed to hon Members.]

Look at Tab 1, hate speech leads to deep social divides. Repeated hate speech increases people's prejudices, feelings of being threatened, and propensity to violence. How does it do so? Hate speech desensitises individuals. It normalises behaviour which we will otherwise consider unacceptable. It stokes anger and fear. It provides a surge of stress hormones. It engages the amygdala, the brain centre for perception of threat.

Once that is done, it is harder for people to control their emotions; think before they act. People do not have to be extremists to be moved to violence by incendiary rhetoric. Studies show just about any person could be susceptible under the right conditions. A psychologist from Princeton has shown that distrust of an out-group, linked to anger and impulses towards violence, against that group.

Most people, most of us, are moral creatures. So, you picture morality as being in a gear. At times, it can be get disengaged and get to neutral. Morality can get disengaged when we redefine our actions as honourable and we believe that we are doing is a matter of honour. We believe the victims are deserving of their punishment – they are an out-group, and not quite human.

Dehumanisation then takes place. Distrust and contempt against the out-group can be built up. Neuro-imaging studies showed that you then do not think of these people as social beings. So, the lesson is that when hate speech is systematically developed, it becomes socially acceptable to discriminate and to oppress.

So, the important lesson is that civilisation must intervene early to prevent hate speech from becoming normalised.

Once it is normalised, dehumanisation of the out-group is very difficult to reverse. Let me set out some real world consequences of hate speech.

Of course, a classic and extreme example is the Holocaust – how hate speech was used to mobilise an entire population to commit terrible crimes. Jews were considered vermin by Nazi Germany, requiring fumigation by the Aryan state.

Rwanda is another example. In 1994, 800,000 were killed. A Hutu mother beat to death a child who lived next door because the government had told her Tutsis were her enemies, even as the child was looking at her, with its innocent eyes and they had grown up next door to each other. She justified the slaughter as "doing a favour" to the child because he had already been orphaned because the parents had been killed.

You have Pakistan: the concept of honour, shame involved. If you are a true "Muslim", a “hero", then you will be a person who has the courage to defend Islam and the Prophet by killing "kafirs". And that happened to the former Governor of Punjab, Salman Taseer, who was assassinated by his own security officer because he took positions which were considered against Islam.

You have Sri Lanka where Buddhist priests painted a picture of Buddhism as being under threat and promoted hate and violence. The Group's leader, Gnanasara Thero, suggested Halal certification is an "evil conspiracy", "spreading across the island in various guises, casting its dark shadow."

So, one could ask: what do these countries have to do with Singapore? Sri Lanka was ahead of Singapore in most indices in the late 1950s. We went there to study their systems. Why is it that religious leaders in Singapore do not say these things? It is not preordained. In fact, in Singapore, even the population opposes religious leaders saying these things. I will show you a survey which shows that.

But why is that so? It is because of our laws and over the last 54 years, and the many many things we have done to try and build a society based on mutual respect and harmony.

You know what happened in Myanmar. Hate speech was directed at the Muslim Rohingyas. Leader of one of the movements called mosques "enemy bases", urged Buddhists to boycott Muslim businesses and not have inter-faith marriages.

When you have this situation, logic, reason will not work because an entire architecture of hate has been built up. The hateful emotions have been engaged. The marketplace of ideas does not work in these circumstances.

In 2018, two PhD students did a study in Warwick University, they showed that hate speech triggered hundreds of violent crimes against refugees in Germany. But they also saw a pattern. You take a place where you can expect to see crimes against refugees – in fact, there have been crimes against refugees. But where hate speech becomes limited for a period of time, that violence decreased sharply.

Germany's Federal Ministry of the Interior's 2015 Annual Report says: "Uninhibited hate speech on the Internet can lead to individual or collective radicalisation." I am not going to read all of it. It is on the screen but it makes a point – hate speech creates "a pressure to take immediate action and it creates fertile soil for militancy and violence." The rest of it is on the screen.

Let us look at songs which spread hate. Studies have shown that music can create powerful emotions in the listener. Listening to violent music stimuli, even without lyrics or videos, can cause greater aggression than listening to no music at all.

Songs have been a very powerful medium for spreading hate speech. "Hate music" has been used to label, devalue, persecute, scapegoat particular groups of people, often minorities. White racialists use White Power music too. They use it to deny humanity of African-Americans. In fact, the way African Americans are dehumanised is to depict them in drawings, with stereotypical physical features which robs them of their humanity. And then, through music as well. Some examples of lyrics, they are on the screen, I do not want to read it out, partly because of the language. You look at references to "niggers running amok", "you cannot come up here anymore because now you are faced with the nigger foe". Hence, a lot more not mentionable, not least in Parliament.

In the 1990s, there was a study of skinheads in the US to determine factors that were able to distinguish terrorist skinheads from non-terrorist ones. White Power music was found to be important to the construction of the identity of the terrorist skinheads. Approximately 91% of terrorist skinheads limited their music consumption to White Power bands. The German government has described skinhead music as the number one gateway to violence.

Members may have heard of the Malay Power music festival in Malaysia. The Malay Power movement believes that Malaysia should be an exclusively Malay nation, immigration should end, non-Malays should be expelled.

A Malay Power band says this, and I quote, "the lesson that we can learn from Nazism is that we can take extreme racist action if the position of the Malays is affected by these factors." Just across the Causeway. A music fest featuring Malay Power nationalists called Rebellion Fest, was cancelled just this month in Malaysia.

Sir, it is all around us. There is nothing special about us that these things cannot happen here.

In summary, hate speech denigrates the out-group and says the out-group is the source of the problems; dehumanises the out-group, making violence against them justified.

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 right wing 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 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 American. 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. 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 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. 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 right-wing 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.

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 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.

The 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 mainstream. 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 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 CNA and IPS, race and religion play a large role in personal decisions of Singaporeans. If people feel that their race, 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 between the different communities. The decisive factor would be dependent upon the goodwill between 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 each other and that it just takes one mishap. 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, 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 think, 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. It is a continuum, a spectrum. There can be acceptable commentary on race, religion – offensive speech and hate speech. Offensive speech can segue into hate speech and they overlap, obviously. If you refer back to 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 between 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 – you can joke, you can insult, you can 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 and repulsive it is. If this sort of expression becomes common in public discourse, what happens?

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 sort 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. 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, 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. 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 you 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, material may be offensive for other reasons – social mores, values, child abuse and so on.

The regulation of content in the broader context is handled by IMDA. 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 is 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. 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, likely impact on the targeted community. We also have to accept different religions have entirely different histories, traditions, theologies and that 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 you 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.

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 does the weight of mainstream opinion lie. We cannot be directed by the viewpoint of a person, or persons who are extremely sensitive. Really, the approach has to be guided by common sense. 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? 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 you look at our approach to foreign preachers, in 2017, MOM, 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?

Sir, this Ministerial Statement is timely. Inflammatory speech inciting senseless violence shrouds daily life with a veneer of danger – a heightened tension.

Last month, on 15 March, the news of shootings in mosques in New Zealand caught the world's attention. At least 50 people lost their lives to senseless violence. The rifles used to commit such violence were covered in white supremacist symbols.

Since February 2019, Christian communities in Nigeria have been attacked, allegedly by Fulani militia. They were shot and killed; their houses were set on fire; they were ambushed while trying to flee. In one day, more than 50 people lost their lives and 186 homes were destroyed.

In January, during Sunday mass, a Catholic cathedral in the Philippines was bombed – twice. The second bomb exploded while they were still responding to the first one. Over 100 were wounded and at least 20 were killed. The Islamic State of Iraq and Levant later claimed responsibility for the bombings.

Sometimes, the aggressive perpetrators claim that they are carrying out the violent attacks in the name of religion. Sometimes, the attacks are done in the name of white supremacy. Sometimes, there are other reasons, but just as no single group has always been the victims of such violence, the perpetrators of such senseless violence do not come from a single group.

The pools of blood in a bombed church are as red in colour as the pools of blood in a mosque that has suffered an attack. That common redness of the blood provides reason to argue that there are individuals from every group that suffer at the hands of senseless violence. No one group can be deemed the sole perpetrator; no one group can be deemed the victim. Rather, the perpetrators are vicious, slithering ideologies which propagate violence at all cost. They claim as their enemy the innocent.

Yet, the innocent are not helpless doormats. Far from it. Instead, the innocent can choose to fight back by deploying a code of rules governing the manner in which speech relating to race and religion is used. Such rules, which prevent the proliferation of speech inciting senseless violence against race or religion, have the powerful effect of preventing mindless violence-based ideologies from snowballing into physical attacks on society.

What this means is that this motion cannot only be about deterring phobia of any one race or religious group. Instead, it should be about deterring attacks on all innocent people, regardless of religion or race.

How? By deterring inflammatory speech. What type of inflammatory speech should we be deterring? Inflammatory speech inciting senseless violence against race and religion. Why? Because such senseless speech reeking of violent intent can propel people into injuring or killing the innocent.

That gunman in New Zealand had a skewed morality. But even if he thought what he did was right, such senseless violence does not advance his cause. Why? Because it attracts far more criticism than support. Why? Because a moral code which espouses hate and which propels people into senselessly killing the innocent is wrong. Such a moral code is not moral; it is immoral.

What we are doing today through this debate is building on principles that have already been embedded in our Singapore DNA. Indeed, Article 12 of our Constitution provides unique protection to race and religion within Singapore. Therefore, what we are doing in this motion is reinforcing time-tested principles to deal with the terror of the day. Essentially, we are debating about what kind of society we want in the future by building on the cornerstones of the past.

So, I am clear that we should deter inflammatory speech inciting violence against race or religion. However, what I do not wish for is for the definition of hate speech to be broadened such that even a differing view, expressed respectfully, becomes hate speech. For a robust and meaningful exchange of ideas, it must be possible to present a different view when this is done in a respectful manner. A respectful and reasoned differing view should not be considered hate speech. For example, during the Nazi regime in Germany, any opposition was quashed and severely punished. The student group called White Rose (die Weiße Rose) "published anti-Nazi leaflets, distributed posters ... in protest to Hitler's policies". Its leaders were sentenced to death. Another example. Helmuth Hübener, a 17-year-old, disseminated pamphlets countering the Nazi messages of victory in battle and also that the war was unjust. He was executed. In trying to rightly oppose Hitler and the atrocities that were being committed by the Nazi regime, many Germans, including Colonel Claus von Staffenberg, a decorated German army officer who opposed Nazism, were executed.

I dare say that none of us in this House would support Nazism in Singapore. But it is still especially important that there be sufficient clarity about what hate speech is because the term "hate speech" can be understood very differently by different people. This is also important because harmony is based on mutual trust and understanding. Building mutual trust and understanding may require the ability to express one's thoughts respectfully in the right setting so as to clear up any misunderstandings or misconceptions. That is one reason why we have Inter-racial and Religious Confidence Circles. Therefore, when someone presents a differing view in a respectful, logical and cogently reasoned manner, with evidence to back up their position, with an eye for the good of Singapore, that cannot be taken as hate speech. Therefore, in my view, the law as it currently stands ensures and codifies the correct standard. Hence, I support sections 8 and 9 of the Maintenance of Religious Harmony Act and sections 298 and 298A of the Penal Code. These are some provisions that protect our racial and religious harmony.

Section 298 of the Penal Code was one of the criminal charges in question in Public Prosecutor v Amos Yee Pang Sang. Section 298 reads: "Whoever, with deliberate intention of wounding the religious or racial feelings of any person, utters any word or makes any sound in the hearing of that person, or makes any gesture in the sight of that person, or places any object in the sight of that person, shall be punished." The District Judge in that case found that Yee's "comments about Jesus, the central figure of Christianity, are clearly derogatory and offensive to Christians." On appeal to the High Court, the conviction was upheld and the judgment stated that the methodology in the language "has been to use coarse and hard-hitting words to arouse emotions", "using vulgarities and insults to deliberately provoke the reader and to draw him out, in the words mentioned in the charge".

It is also because of robust pieces of legislation, such as section 298 of the Penal Code, that I fully supported Minister Shanmugam's intervention in the Watain saga and the eventual banning of the Watain concert.

A strong argument can be mounted to suggest that the element of wounding religious feelings in section 298 of the Penal Code was engaged by Watain's lyrics in the distasteful songs of "On Horn's Impaled" and "From the Pulpits of Abomination", quite possibly contravening section 298.

Furthermore, a good and arguable case can be mounted that Watain would have also contravened section 298A(b) of the Penal Code because it may have "committed an act which the band knows is prejudicial to the maintenance of harmony between different religious or racial groups and which disturbs or is likely to disturb the public tranquility". The band has been very explicit that their music is the "Devil's music" and they even call their concerts "rituals" which they perform using so-called ritualistic props, such as pig's blood. After all, the "singer and frontman" of Watain has said, "whenever people take part of Watain, whether they like it or not, they are taking part of that place, a place with energies that are very real and that come into being if they are called upon".

As for "disturbing public tranquillity", that can be found in the interviews, saying that, "There would be no misunderstanding if their fans start shooting people." In an interview with Metal Blast at Bloodstock Open Air Festival in 2012, a member of the Band stated "I totally encourage any kind of terrorist acts committed in the name of Watain, absolutely... We’ve always been encouraging music to take a physical form, and that’s what happened in Norway in the early 1990s when churches were burned, and it happened many other times as well. To me it’s the very natural consequence ... in the end, being the devil's music."

Minister Shanmugam, thank you for stepping in and banning the Watain concert.

We must continue to have that conviction to do what is right, swiftly and effectively. Just as how MSF stepped in to ban the Ashley Madison extramarital dating portal to protect our family values and public morality, the Government was correct to cancel Watain’s performance.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I close with this story. A true story, arising out of the constituency I serve.

One day after the senseless massacre of the close to 50 Muslims at prayer in Christchurch, I received a WhatsApp message from the Chairman of Al-huda Mosque in Ulu Pandan. Haji Azman Kassim shared with me about how a New Zealander, Mrs Kim Forrester, turned up at the mosque that Saturday afternoon distraught and emotional. She was tearing. Within her, she felt the need to say sorry for the senseless massacre of the innocent people in Christchurch. Moved by her genuine emotion, the mosque-goers present relayed the information to Haji Azman who walked to the front of the mosque to meet her. He shared with her that he and the mosque community were deeply touched by her sincerity at which time Kim Forrester shared that the acts of senseless violence were not New Zealand, the acts did not reflect what New Zealand stood for and that she was sorry. With a warm heart Haji Azman said that he accepted her spontaneous sincerity but that she did not need to apologise. Instead, he shared that her act of sincerity builds harmony.

Picture that. A New Zealander, a lady, walking into a mosque, a day after the atrocious act. Why? Because we have something special in Singapore. She felt safe. She knew she would have an audience who would listen and not berate. A community who would welcome and not blame. And why did Haji Azman, a senior member of the mosque, so spontaneously walk out from behind his desk to meet her? Because he sensed sincerity and comradeship in grief. Who did the consoling? By a sweet twist of irony, it was Haji Azman. That for me is a picture of trust, and it occurred within an environment of trust, which is Singapore. We will all share Iftar during the fasting month at Haji Azman's invitation.

Sir, would Singapore have an environment of trust if we did not have robust provisions such as section 298 of the Penal Code? Would we have that environment of trust if we did not have organisations such as the Home Team and the ISD constantly tilling the soil to prevent fractious disharmony in our society? Would we have that environment of trust if we shied away from difficult debates and hard topics in Parliament? I don’t think so. It is because Singapore and Singaporeans are unafraid to fulfil those very duties, to carry out those very acts, that we have created an environment of trust and peace today – a constant work in progress. In that way Singapore is special, and it is one key reason why I support this Motion.

Mr Speaker, social harmony, racial and religious tolerance, robust but reasoned and respectful debate on contentious issues, all create an environment for modern societies to flourish and thrive. Hate speech, regardless who it is directed against – be it fellow citizens of different races and religions or against other communities and groups such as immigrants, those of a different ethnic origin, new citizens or even against those who proscribe to different life choices, do not profess a faith, or are of a different sexual orientation – ought to have no place in Singapore society, either now or in the future.

Hate speech per se tends to exist at one end of the spectrum as it usually hosts extreme prejudice or calls for actionable violence against individuals. The Christchurch terrorist attack on a mosque by a white supremacist exposes the dangers of hate speech that is directed at people of a particular faith with the perpetrator making his views known publicly before carrying out his gruesome act that was roundly condemned by all Singaporeans. The Workers' Party too condemns this cowardly attack. It is telling how significant our own biases and perceptions determine attitudes towards people who are different from us. A fair number of people I spoke to were surprised that more than 70% of all terrorist attacks are carried out by far right, non-Muslim and often white attackers, a fact Minister shared during his recent speech to the Religious Rehabilitation Group.

Apart from hate speech however is a potentially larger category of offensive speech, not quite a call to arms and as extreme, but expression which is deeply abhorrent, insensitive and completely unnecessary nonetheless. This category can potentially be made even larger depending on how quickly some of us get offended, making executive action open to politicisation. Given Singapore’s open economy and cosmopolitan society which is exposed to both Western and Eastern views, attitudes to what some regard as offensive speech can differ greatly amongst citizens and even those from the same religious group.

Most recently in 2017, MHA released a statement on offensive speech and expression involving race or religion. It set out the Government's position in managing issues and reiterated that Singapore’s approach to the matter sought to guarantee the safety, security and freedom of religion for all, with a view to create a common space for everyone. The annex to the MHA statement covered 14 incidents from 2005 to 2017 where the Government had to invoke the Sedition Act and Penal Code to deal with offensive speech, including the issuance of stern warnings and conditional warnings against various individuals. None of these interventions involved offensive speech in the performing arts or entertainment space. Unsurprisingly, however, 11 out of the 14 cases involved comments made online, on Facebook, on blogs or in online chatrooms.

Sir, my generation has grown up with the Internet being a large part of our lives. While the Internet has been an incredible platform in democratising information and has been a force for good in many aspects of our lives, from economics to entrepreneurship – the anonymity, immediacy, and ubiquitous nature of the Internet has also given extremists and those who revel in offensive speech a powerful podium. Combined with the political economy of social media revenue models and the unique heuristics of the Internet eco-system that highlights the sensational, hate speech is something all societies are affected by, with approaches to address it differing even amongst similar societies.

Going forward, Mr Speaker, and partly arising from the online space, my sense is that the Government and Singaporeans will have to come to terms with disagreement and contestation on a wide variety of issues because of the Internet. Many societies around the world are getting more religious with many groups more strident in their advocacy. Separately, a recent IPS survey observed that young people take a more permissive attitude to offensive speech – a fact which does not necessarily suggest that they approve of it, but they are prepared for a discussion on such issues.

In such a context, the balance between respecting individual views of a very diverse society like ours that hosts different mores, thresholds and tastes on the one hand and the importance of a fair and even-handed approach in governing a multiracial and multi-religious society on the other will become an important marker of a cohesive and united society. This cohesion and unity will be in danger if the Government is seen to be straying from its longstanding approach of strict secularism to preserve the common space that must be shared by all communities and individuals – a common space that must ensure minorities continue to deserve protection and should not be subject to mob justice. Our people will also have a critical role in adopting an even-handed attitude in living in a society that seeks to preserve the common space, and respect the fact that no one has a right to impose one’s beliefs on others.

The recent episode involving the black metal band Watain is a case in point. From public comments made by Minister and IMDA, there may be a conflation in the public mind of the regime MHA applies in deciding whether to approve or reject the entry of a religious preacher on the one hand, and the conditional approval by the IMDA of a black metal band, for example, which covers a genre of entertainment on the other. It would appear that different considerations should continue to apply in each respective case.

In the case of a preacher, it would appear that prior comments, particularly on inter-religious matters made by such a person would be relevant in deciding whether to grant such an individual entry into Singapore. Should a preacher have described those outside his faith or even within his faith in offensive terms, then a red flag ought to be raised as the Ministry has done in the past and the person prevented from entering Singapore for the purposes of addressing a congregation.

Unlike the assessment regime for entertainment however, it would not be reasonable or rational to impose conditions that require a preacher to avoid speaking about race or religion. If anything, promising not to disparage others faiths in Singapore but to be able to do so in other jurisdictions would make a mockery of the entire belief system of such an individual.

In the case of entertainment or a band, the Government appears to have a variated regime in place, one which does not hesitate to prohibit, correctly I would add, music that denigrates other religions, peoples or faiths. My understanding is that this has been imposed in the past for concerts involving even mainstream singers like Eric Clapton and other black metal bands.

By its own admission, IMDA's conditions in originally allowing Watain to perform in Singapore included the removal of songs which were religiously offensive, the band could not make references to religion or use religious symbols and that no ritualistic acts like the showering the audience in pig’s blood as had been done before in another jurisdiction, were to be performed on stage. Furthermore, given the band's history and concerns expressed by MHA, IMDA allowed the Watain concert with a rating of Restricted 18 (R18) and on the condition that it would be a very small concert with only a maximum of 200 people allowed to attend. It would also appear that IMDA and MHA's assessment included foreknowledge of Watain’s reputation, the use of anti-Christian lyrics and references to Satanism in some of their music.

On the surface of things, these conditions should have addressed concerns about race and religion since the application essentially involved an established genre of entertainment. I should also add that I was not aware opposition to Watain was prevalent amongst mainstream Christians until revealed by the Minister earlier. In rationalising its decision, IMDA stated in assessing and classifying content for arts performances and concerts, it aims to protect the young from unsuitable content, maintain community norms and values, and safeguard public interest, while enabling adults to make informed choices. Allowing adults to make informed choices is a clarion feature of a secular society that seeks to preserve the common space. It would appear that the original approach taken by IMDA correctly sought to carefully balance the competing and legitimate concerns of various segments of society.

Two days before the band’s slated performance, a widely publicised online petition made its rounds seeking to I quote "ban satanic music groups Watain and Soilwork from performing in Singapore." MHA thereafter requested IMDA to cancel the concert on the day of the scheduled performance and at the eleventh hour. Ironically, the cancellation arguably brought far more attention to the band and their music than it would have had the concert gone ahead. In fact, for a period of time on Spotify in the days following the ban, Watain had more listeners from Singapore compared to any other country in the world.

According to the IMDA's letter to The Straits Times Forum, the cancellation of the concert was due to new and serious concerns about public order, and ground reactions relating to social and religious harmony. Mr Speaker, I accept that new considerations can present themselves after approval is granted for performances and the Government is not out of place to revisit the issue.

Interestingly, in the comment section of the online petition against Watain, more than a few interventions alluded to why the Government was suddenly allowing black metal bands – many of which regularly host Satanic themes into Singapore. From an online search, it would appear that even local black metal bands have been part of our entertainment eco-system for many years now and foreign black metal bands have been allowed into Singapore previously.

For example, a band known as Mayhem are one of the founders of the Norwegian black metal scene from the 1980s, a forerunner of bands like Watain. They built on the extreme metal sound crafted by earlier groups like Venom, Slayer and Bathory. Their early years were filled with notoriety – their singer committed suicide with a gun to his head, and a picture of his corpse was used as an album cover and they were also tied to a string of church burnings in Norway. I do not think how many of us in this House are aware that Mayhem actually performed in Singapore in 2006. Deafheaven, a Grammy-nominated band, but derided by old metal heads as a "hipster" band also played in Singapore in 2014. To that end, how will the IMDA assess applications for black metal groups in future? Separately, which agency will compensate Watain’s promoters and what amount does the wasted expenditure come up to?

In conclusion, Mr Speaker, it is the secular basis of our state which also allows for selective interventions which allows the Government to accommodate totally different spiritual and moral beliefs hosted amongst different citizens. As the 1989 White Paper on the Maintenance of Religious Harmony iterated, while the Government should not be antagonistic to the religious beliefs of the population, it must remain neutral in its relations with the different religious groups, not favouring any of them in preference to the others. I would add that this expectation of neutrality should not only apply to religious groups but other civic groups and citizens in general in their dealings with the Government as well.

Overall, the Government’s careful and balanced approach to uphold a strictly secular society so as to preserve a common public space, and its principles towards religious harmony as enunciated in the 1989 White Paper on the Maintenance of Religious Harmony and separately the latest MHA's 2017 statement are sound and should be supported. But the Government must be careful not to be perceived as taking sides but instead err on the side of wisdom, especially on matters that are expressions of free speech, particularly in the entertainment and performing arts space. Instead of a hard policy such as bans, a graduated approach establishing a range of conditions like that done by IMDA in its original assessment of the Watain concert may better reflect the compromises required to create and sustain as accommodating and robust a common public space as possible.

To that end, effective laws and an activist bureaucracy are only one aspect of the solution. A robust education system which continues beyond school – one that enjoins Singaporeans to ascribe to an attitude of live and let live, respect for both the religious and non-religious, and dealing with fellow citizens with tolerance and mutual respect with the knowledge that we only have each other to lean on in good times and bad, are equally, or if not more important.

Ultimately, it is the Golden Rule – that we should not do unto others as we would not have done to us – that must be the dictum all Singaporeans, be it in the online or real world. References to the Golden Rule are found in all the Abrahamic faiths including Christianity and Islam, and separately in other faiths and belief systems such as Confucianism, Buddhism and Hinduism amongst many others. And even for those who are atheist or agnostic and do not follow any religion, such a moral principle – underpinned by mutual respect and tolerance – is one they, like all Singaporeans I would hazard, would generously support.

I support our Home Affairs Minister's Statement on "Restricting hate speech to maintain racial and religious harmony in Singapore" for two reasons.

One, anyone who cares for Singapore will appreciate and testify that racial and religious harmony is critical to our well-being and that it must be rigorously defended.

The second is this: my belief that unrestricted hate speech, especially if it turns viral, can quickly turn one racial or religious group against another and destroy the very social fabric that allows each race and religion to co-exist in harmony.

I wish to make a few points on the untenability of unrestricted freedom of speech, the adequacy of the current legal frameworks and also to seek clarifications over a few concerns I have.

On freedom of speech. Sir, there are some people who strongly believe that restricting any form of speech, no matter how hateful or destructive, is a curb on one's freedom of speech, one's rights. Proponents argue, "It is my right to say what I want to say. No one else should stop me and no one is even able to stop me for practical reasons." Sir, there are at least three objections against this argument.

Firstly, although freedom of speech is an important value, especially in a free democracy, free speech, however, is not the only important value in society. There are other values that we honour, such as the freedom of other persons to live without intimidation and harassment; such as racial and religious harmony; such as mutual respect; anti-bullying and treating other people with dignity. Freedom of speech is important but needs to be balanced against other values and interests of the rest of society.

Secondly, each of us is a member of a larger society. Rights carry responsibilities and freedom of speech ought to be exercised with due regard to those who occupy the same living space as us. Unrestricted free speech, especially hate speech, puts a risk to the order of society. I remember what my friend, management guru Dr Stephen Covey, who is the author of the bestseller "7 Habits of Highly Effective People" once said to me. He was talking about Singapore and the issues of freedom, order and discipline during one of his trips here many years ago and this is what Dr Covey said to me. He shared, "When I was younger, I yearned for freedom. As I grew older, I yearned for order." And then he said "Now that I am much older, I realised that order is freedom." Indeed, the order in Singapore gives us the freedom to practise our culture and faiths. Unrestricted hate speech threatens the very order that gives us the freedom to practise our ethnic culture and religious faiths.

Thirdly, even if restricting hate speech is not fully enforceable nor is proven to eradicate or reduce prejudices and discriminations, it is still important for society and Government to make a clear stand in principle against actions that can incite violence, hatred and bigotry.

For the above reasons, Sir, I support the proposition that hate speech should not be protected and ought to be restricted; and that unrestricted freedom of expression should not be supported.

Next, on adequacy of the current legal framework. When the Ministerial Statement was first proposed, some of my fellow Members and I had thought that there would be new pieces of legislation introduced to further restrict hate speech for the purpose of racial and religious harmony. I am glad to know that this is not so. I think the current legal framework standing on sections 298 and 298A of the Penal Code, the Maintenance of Religious Harmony Act, and sections 3 and 4 of the Sedition Act are sufficient to deter offensive and hate speeches.

I believe it is important for the Minister to reiterate and to confirm that this Statement is merely to establish clarity of the current provisions and approach and that no one, no Singaporean, needs to be alarmed that there are additional measures or safeguards against hate and offensive speech that threatens our harmony here.

On Watain. Sir, I want to next touch on the Watain episode because I think it is relevant to future similar cases. When the objection to the initially approved Watain concert was first surfaced by members of the Christian community, there were at least, I think, four factors of consideration to just let the concert go ahead. One is the right of choice for people to choose; second is the freedom of expression; the third is, I guess, the reluctance of the State to be perceived as overly paternalistic and also the reality, the tactical reality, that the concert was already given the go-ahead by IMDA and cancellation would cause inconvenience to and displeasure of the organisers and the attendees. However, as more information was uncovered on the group, it became clear that revoking the concert licence to perform was a valid move and there are good reasons for this.

The track record of Watain and its nonchalance towards acts of terrorism and going beyond its onstage satanic rituals into the realm of lawlessness and criminal activity are, to say the least, very disturbing. The Watain leader's confirmation that he totally encourages, I quote, "any kind of terrorist acts committed in the name of Watain" runs counter to what SG Secure is trying to promote.

Also, the unapologetic and blatant anti-Christian views expressed on many occasions by the Watain's frontman calling all his enemies "Christian sheep who don't dare to confront their enemy" and his encouragement of church burning. They are, to me, highly alarming and offensive.

Even members of the Malay-Muslim community, including mosque leaders, have also expressed objections to the lyrics of the group and its derogatory views towards Christians and Jews. They, too, voiced their support for the cancellation, as confirmed in a recent Berita Harian report.

It is unfortunate that, in this instance, the Government's decision was reversed so close to the event date, just a couple of days, even when it affects a small group. For that, I think an apology is due to the Watain group and the affected concert goers. But for the Government to go ahead with the concert just because it was initially approved, after knowing what it now knows or uncovered, would have been a wrong decision. Sir, two wrongs do not make a right. I, therefore, support the Minister's decision to revoke permission for the Watain concert to carry on and I hope we have learnt valuable lessons from it in the areas of better due diligence and also earlier consultations with key stakeholder groups so that future episodes can be managed more effectively.

Lastly, on clarifications. I have some clarifications that I hope the Minister can address. First, on how the public will know or is educated on what constitutes acceptable, offensive and hate speech and, second, on how the Government is going to enforce the current framework to reach a healthy and not an unhealthy state of restraint.

Offensive speech in the grey zone. As the Minister has rightly pointed out, speech comes on a spectrum and does not fall into neat categories. Whilst it is easier to identify hate speech, offensive speech is not so. I agree with the Minister that an absolutist approach of the two extremes of either totally banning or totally allowing all forms of hate and offensive speech is not wise. But this leaves a grey zone which sits varying degrees of offensive speech. Whether action is taken against the speaker depends on, as Minister has shared, the degree of offensiveness of the words and the likely impact in terms of the platform of delivery, the occasion and the reach.

In this framework of "it depends" guided by "common sense", how can an understanding be achieved with the typical Singaporean, with the man in the street, so as not to cast any unnecessary fear or any unhealthy self-censorship in society?

Where does one, for example, draw the line in debating or discussing issues, such as abortion, infidelity, LGBT issues which, to some, are rooted in religious principles and, to other people, are just secular discords based on how liberal or how conservative one is?

Where is the line between public discourse and platforms, such as private WhatsApp group chats? Should Singaporeans be advised to err on the side of caution to avoid any potentially offensive speech that can stir racial and religious harmony that may just go viral? So, these are clarifications that need to be addressed.

Sir, there ought to be a more effective way of educating the public, from younger ones to older ones, on what is acceptable, what is hate and what is offensive speech so that we attain a healthy and not an unhealthy state of restraint in society.

Clarification on enforcement. If policy makers are serious about restricting hate and offensive speech to defend our racial and religious harmony that we so value, how does the Government plan to enforce this approach?

There ought to be a clearer and publicised process by which violations are reported, for instance, and decisions by the Government to be consulted with the relevant stakeholder groups, such as key religious and non-key religious groups or leaders.

In conclusion, Sir, I am all for restricting hate speech for the sake of racial and religious harmony in our beloved country. And just because an approach may be hard to implement does not mean that we cannot learn to implement it or apply it better. So, notwithstanding my request for clarifications, Sir, I totally and strongly support the Ministerial Statement.

Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, may I start in Malay, please.

(In Malay): [Please refer to Vernacular Speech.] This is, indeed, an opportune time to discuss the issue of preserving racial and religious harmony in Singapore. As a Malay/Muslim and a minority in Singapore, I hope that my sharing can help to further contribute to and strengthen the harmony that we enjoy in Singapore.

Hate speech or offensive speech occurring elsewhere will have a significant impact on us in Singapore. Hate ideology which led to vile irresponsible action hit close to home in my ward recently. The recent attack on two mosques in Christchurch ‒ this event may seem distant but, indeed, I was shocked when I found out it was not that distant after all. It has impacted a Malay/Muslim resident in my constituency and her family.

I visited her recently at her rental flat to offer my condolences and show of support to her family.

She had just returned from New Zealand and shared stories, with her eyes full of tears and on the verge of crying, about her late eldest grandson, the late Tariq Rashid Omar, who was one of the victims in the New Zealand terror attack. Madam Zawiah Bte Mohd Tahir, 69 years old, is a Merdeka Generation lady with four children. Her eldest son, Rashid, a Singaporean, and his New Zealander wife had four children, and one of them was the late Tariq.

Upon entering her flat, she immediately showed photographs of her son and Tariq playing football and when he was a young boy. Madam Zawiah fondly recalled that Tariq used to collect “batu-batu” or stones when he was young, just like what Mdm Zawiah used to do at that age. She mentioned that this could be why she was not surprised when she learned that Tariq wanted to become a geologist and had graduated in geology in New Zealand. She shared that Tariq was a gentle, caring and devout young man, a talented soccer player who coached a junior team and had immense potential with a bright future ahead of him.

He was trying to help others during the incident at the mosque and was shot. On the day Madam Zawiah heard the shocking news, she was panic-stricken. Her only thought was to check whether she had enough savings to purchase a flight ticket to New Zealand to be with her eldest son’s family and, despite not being fluent in English, she flew there alone.

Some of our non-Muslim and Chinese business community members and volunteers in Toa Payoh East-Novena banded together to help her in any way possible, including assisting her with the costs of the urgent flight.

The late Tariq was one of many innocent lives lost among the 50 who died in Christchurch. But I feel reassured and optimistic that, even in Toa Payoh East-Novena, our community is aware of the deadly effects of hate speech on one of our own and have offered help.

So, here in the comforts of Singapore, we, too, are not immune if hate speech on different groups or segments of community proliferate globally. We have family members, Singaporeans of different religions and races travelling widely and living abroad for work as well. Here in Singapore, the social media and our openness allow us to be exposed to a myriad of information. What is important is that we exercise caution and adopt a firm stand against hate speech directed at any group or segments of society in Singapore.

(In English): My resident's story and the loss of her eldest grandchild, is just one example but I hope it should raise awareness about how hate speech could have adverse consequences for anyone when we least expect it. Indeed we have many policies and laws in place to root out behaviours and factors that threaten social harmony such as the Maintenance of Religious Harmony Act and Penal Code sections 298, 298A, 267C and 505, and also the Sedition Act. We are lauded as the model of social harmony. But let me state upfront that we should not allow offensive and hate speech to allow to normalise in Singapore. That is within our control. What happens in other countries is beyond our control.

In his Statement, the Minister posed a few questions to the House. I wish to state my views earlier on in my speech.

I fully agree with the Minister and the facts and studies he shared that addressing hate speech targeting ethnic religious communities via logic and reasoning is likely to be ineffective. Normalising it and allowing it to proliferate is dangerous.

I also agree with the Minister that restrictions on offensive speech even when it is not strictly speaking hate speech needs to be applied judiciously and I still think Singapore's current approach in dealing with offensive speech – via the assessment of words and the material and its likely impact on the targeted community is a middle ground approach to take – relative to a blanket ban on all offensive speech and material.

I believe the Government has been impartial, fair and just in applying decisions thus far, but I think we can improve on making sure the neutrality of the Government in such decisions remains strong and unwavering. The Minister has highlighted clearly that government neutrality is key and the perception of it even more. How can we ensure that neutrality remains so when future decisions are made? Can we have a council of sorts akin to the Presidential Council of Minority and Religious Rights to advise the deciding Minister on matters relating to hate and offensive speech so that the neutrality element remains guarded? It could help alleviate issues of conflict of interest if in the future the deciding Minister is of a particular religion or race impacted by the offensive or hate speech or ideology, in particular for future Governments.

In addition, hate speech and offensive speech applies to various segments, races and religions on either side of the spectrum, for example, the rise in Islamophobia globally and the risks it poses to the Muslim community. I am sure MHA has looked into this and while the financial cost burden may be there, I feel it is necessary to reiterate that additional resources must be added to our security intelligence departments to look at terrorist threats from both sides of the spectrum as well as rising Islamophobia, so that internally we have a balanced view of the threats that may hit any Singaporean, regardless of race, language or religion and take pre-emptive action if needed.

But on top of all these, what more can we do? We must never be complacent and we should embrace ideas that help to mitigate the dangers of normalisation of hate speech. We are well connected to the world. We have a high number of citizens who have Internet access and are avid consumers of foreign news and social media content.

I would like to elaborate briefly on two points. One is how we can build resilience in our future generation to identify offensive and hate speech and reject such efforts. Second, how we as a nation, can take efforts at all levels to reduce the risk of perpetuating stereotypes of segments by race or religion which can be used as fuel or seeds for hate and offensive speech.

Mr Speaker, it is troubling to note from the Institute of Policy Studies' poll recently released, or study that was recently released, which said that although more than 97% of respondents said religious leaders should not incite violence or hatred against other religions, 26.8% of respondents were open to religious extremists posting their views on social media. Why do our young have such views? Many of them, according to IPS study, are aged 18 to 25 years who indicated they would allow such views to be espoused as long as these do not instigate harm on others. Did we miss a step in our outreach to our young to educate them on the dangers of exposure to such hate posts?

My earlier story with regard to my resident highlighted the dangers, the deadly dangers, of hate speech, and it kills.

So, I hope we would initiate an inter-ministry approach, involving MHA, MCCY, MOE and MCI to look into this. I read about a school in Brazil where students are taught how to identify fake news. Maybe we can apply a similar approach in our schools and tertiary institutions and use such skills to identify hate or offensive speech so that it does not get normalised easily here.

Next, the threat of terrorism from all races and religion is a practical reason for all Singaporeans to take Islamophobia, for example, and all forms of racial and religious discrimination seriously.

We would be looking at Singapore through rose-tinted glasses if we truly believe there is no racial discrimination in Singapore, or that it is so insignificant that we do not have to worry. This absolutely necessitates the conversations we are having here. It is not uncommon to find discriminatory comments often based off negative stereotypes left on discussion platforms on social media. These comments are not malicious to be prosecuted under our legal framework, but they demonstrate a lack of understanding and unfair generalisation towards specific races or religions. Because we have the MHRA and relevant Penal Code sections, these comments are already largely self-censored, so imagine what hateful words would transpire if we did not have the Act in place.

However, to minimise discrimination and pursue social harmony, we must go beyond restricting hate speech. The Government should expand efforts to encourage racial harmony beyond school, to the workplace, as well as working with the community. Maybe more can be done to encourage even more Singaporeans of various races and religion to have friends from other races and most importantly for sharing more stories of bonds and trust between races more prevalently, in order to build up the trust premium among the different races and religion.

The risk of perpetuating of stereotypes is another issue that we should address as it can be fuel or ingredient for hate speech and ideology.

If we perpetuate stereotypes, parents for example can pass on this mistrust and stereotypes to their children, and the cycle carries on generation after generation. The mistrust and stereotyping will remain entrenched, never going away, unless we nip the problem in the bud and change these mindsets and perceptions. As such, I would like to suggest that young parents be exposed to programmes that will promote opportunities for them to mingle with people from all races and religion, and to experience their culture. We have done all these. Maybe these can be done even more at the grassroots level through sports and interest groups, for example, as mentioned by Minister Grace Fu earlier. In TEN, for example, we have cycling enthusiasts group made up of young professionals of various races and sports could be a good example to form bonds. We are trying to encourage more young parents to join these activities. Through these programmes it is hoped that they will develop positive perceptions about their fellow Singaporeans regardless of race, and hope they would guide their own children with love, not discrimination or hate. If, from stereotyping, distrust, mischief and misguidance among some people build up, then with the prevalence of hate speech and hate messages, the cracks can turn into chasms. And once this happens, what is not normal becomes the norm.

I note that with the help of the IRCC, some religious organisations of different faiths have collaborated to implement volunteer programmes, such as the blood donation drive by Masjid Khalid and Heart of God Church. I hope that such collaborations will be encouraged, as charity is an excellent platform to put volunteers and beneficiaries on the same page.

I would thus suggest that to create more opportunities for interaction. We can look into say a Buddhist volunteer who usually volunteers for the temple's charity programmes could work with Muslim volunteers at a mosque to distribute food to the needy or perform ushering duties, for example. Hindu volunteers could put together a performance to entertain elderly beneficiaries of a Buddhist temple. This is in line with the national goal of encouraging Singaporeans to be more involved in volunteer work. Religious institutions, with their large networks of beneficiaries and NGOs, are good places to start, if they open themselves to accepting volunteers of any religion.

We cannot restrict hate speech beyond the shores of Singapore, but we can de-normalise it at home, by making it not cool, by speaking out against it. As long as it is something that seeks to glorify hate speech, it must not be allowed in Singapore. This is not because Singaporeans are immature and easily swayed by hate speech, no. It is about sending a very clear message and taking a firm stand against something that threatens our social fabric. Can we do more to help others understand why certain acts or words are so offensive, that it is not a matter of being small-minded or intolerant? I wonder if we can tap on local celebrities and influencers or even more to help engage the youths and spread the message? Can we also work with our corporate partners and labour unions to educate our employers and employees to reduce efforts to perpetuate stereotypes or build whistle-blowing policy on discrimination and actions that stereotype certain segments.

On a final note, the Internet has become a toxic waste dump for hate and malice, and any news story can pretty much be manipulated to divide people, not to mention perpetuate stereotypes too. The Internet promotes a sheep-mentality that turns people into raging mobs without obtaining a full understanding of the situation. In Singapore, children as young as eight years old have access to the Internet. This is a crucial matter that we have to pay attention to. I look forward to the strengthening of our laws to rein in those who spread hate speech via Internet platforms and social media.

I would like to thank Minister Shanmugam once again for the debate and his decisive actions taken recently as well as the clear point by point explanation to explain how Singapore deals with hate speech and why it needs to be unique to our context. I hope Singapore will continue to walk the tight-rope with good balance, to preserve the peace and harmony that we enjoy. This is a never-ending goal that our leaders, religious groups, all Singaporeans must continuously strive for.

Mr Deputy Speaker, I support the current measures to curb hate speech, but I think more can be done to support it for future generations.

Mr Deputy Speaker, I rise in support of the Motion on restricting hate speech to maintain our racial and religious harmony.

Everyone believes in the importance of racial and religious harmony but what happens when hate speech and offensive speech take place? In this age of high interconnectivity, such negative expressions through messaging, music, writing and art can travel the globe at the speed of light. The mask of anonymity and the camouflage of encryption further aid the proliferation of hate speech.

A body of research and our own experiences had shown us that it is easier to pick up bad behaviour than good. Thus, we need holistic measures to prevent a downward spiral of hate speech begetting more retaliating hate speech.

History teaches us that in all communities and countries, racial and religious harmony is fragile. Hence, it is important that we nip any threats in the bud as early as possible. We cannot afford the escalation of toxic communication nor the contagion of acrimony. Hate speech should not be tolerated and those who propagate it must be made to face consequences, including punishment to serve as deterrent.

To borrow medical terminology, we need to build our herd or group immunity against hate speech through the vaccine of public education and of building trust among communities to overcome ignorance and misinformation. The greater the number of Singaporeans and residents who resist and call out hate and offensive speech, the more protection we have as a nation. Sir, in Mandarin.

(In Mandarin): [Please refer to Vernacular Speech.] To borrow a medical terminology, we need to build our collective immunity against the hate speech through the vaccine of building trust among communities to overcome ignorance and misinformation. The greater the number of Singaporeans and residents who resist and call out hate and offensive speech, the more protection we have as a nation.

(In English): We also need to strengthen our capabilities in dealing with three groups of people.

The first group is those who feel targeted but who may keep silent, bearing grudges. Subsequently, when the occurrences of hate speech become more frequent, some in this group may lose control and turn violent to hurt those they perceive as perpetrators. How can we identify the silent sufferers who may blow up and calm these "victims" before they make outbursts?

The second group is those who speak up. However, if they do not communicate in a constructive way, they may actually cause more harm and contribute to a more explosive situation. How can we help them to express and register their objections to hate speech which target them, but in ways which will not exacerbate the problem?

The third group is those traumatised by hate speech and related incidents. What happens overseas may also affect us. How do we help our people who have been traumatised by such incidents overseas?

Finally, we need to counter the propagators of hate speech by showing them in their true light. They incite hatred and even encourage criminal acts and terrorism. The music group, Watain, is one such example. Their hypocrisy and inconsistency between what they advocate and what they do should be highlighted. Even as the group encourages hate speech and urges the destruction of harmonious and constructive communities, its members continue to enjoy the convenience and even luxuries of the products of peace. These include the infrastructure and the services of people from different races and religions working hard to provide them with clean water, safe food, reliable travel and electricity which make their concerts possible. People who advocate hatred, chaos and destruction cannot have it both ways.

Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, racial and religious harmony is integral to the survival and prosperity of our nation. We must protect and nurture this precious but delicate asset to the best of our ability. We should never take it for granted but seek, instead, to constantly fortify and strengthen it.

Assalaamu'alaikum, Peace be Upon you all. What happened in New Zealand recently at the two mosques was tragic and unexpected. On behalf of all Singaporeans, I would like to sincerely offer our condolences to the families that had lost their loved ones. May their souls rest in peace and in eternal happiness.

Mr Deputy Speaker, before I begin, I would like to address a Singaporean mother and her family who lost their son in the recent Christchurch terror attack. In Malay, please.

(In Malay): [Please refer to Vernacular Speech.] I offer my condolences to Mdm Noraini Abbas from Singapore, Mr John Milne and their whole family for their family’s great loss, the late Sayyad Milne. May the late Sayyad Milne be granted a place in the highest level of Paradise in eternal happiness.

(In English): Mdm Noraini Abbas, we are with you. Singapore is with you and your family, as you mourn the loss of your beloved son, Sayyad Milne.

Mr Deputy Speaker, I really do not know where to begin or how to begin after hearing our hon Minister's speech. The various events happening worldwide have been saddening. Generation after generation, the words Hate or Hate speech have been very powerful, that causes one to act irrationally and drastically. It can be anyone unassuming, regardless of his race, colour or religious belief and to a point of, in Islam we say breaking Siratul Rahim – breaking the bonds between mankind using fear, hate, anger, jealousy, greed and even innocence.

This makes me wonder what is that trigger point that the power of hate or hate speech have over man? It can take over a person’s logical power of thinking and reasoning to reach a point of irrational behaviour, to hate and even to kill. Wisdom is gone forever from their hearts when hate takes over their mind. Who suffers? The innocent bystanders, the innocent child, the innocent people working hard to earn a living to feed their love ones.

Mr Deputy Speaker Sir, in the Minister's speech, he raised an important point and said he would like to hear the Members' opinion as to how best can we protect our country with all the issues the Minister had highlighted. A wise man once said, "Tie the rosary beads too tight and they would surely break and fall with great impact uncontrollably. Tie it too loose, they would also naturally fall apart. So best is to take the middle way, not too tight and not too loose. There is an old saying tie your camel before it goes astray."

About two weeks ago, we all read in shock about the news of a 28-year-old Australian, radicalised by Islamophobic material online, who attacked two mosques in Christchurch, killing 50 and injuring many others. Amidst the grief, despair and anger, the tragic event in Christchurch has created a cause for a deeper reflection of the significant challenges to extremism. Over the last few weeks, many news commentaries and reports have discussed gun laws, the role of social media, white supremacy and anti-Muslim rhetoric.

As a multicultural and multi-religious society, we have developments that have an impact on our social cohesion in Singapore. Positive and meaningful social exchanges between different races and religious groups create the foundation for social cohesion. Like a rich tapestry, our Singapore story is alive only because of the fine, interwoven threads of social interactions. Today, at the national, community and ground-up level, we have a number of platforms and initiatives for different communities to come together, build mutual respect and trust and deepen understanding about one another.

However, as the Christchurch incident has reminded us, there is still much work that needs to be done. Underlying tensions, prejudice and stereotypes between different races and religions continue to be a challenge. Through my involvement in Roses of Peace, a ground-up non-profit organisation working on peace-building, we have observed many cases where members of the community have experienced micro-aggressions and discrimination.

It is thus important that we face squarely the challenges we have and find ways to proactively address it. As President Halimah Yacob noted after the Christchurch incident, the most important lesson for us is to fight all forms of xenophobia and hatred perpetrated simply on the basis of a person’s religion, colour or creed. Xenophobia and hatred can cut deep divisions among us, and allowed hatred to spread, and this cannot be prevented easily.

As a community, I believe it is important for us to have honest and meaningful conversations beyond the polite niceties, of what is going on. Such conversations may be unpleasant at some points and to people in general, but this is an opportunity to talk about their own experiences, in what they face in life and to listen to others and understand and come to reach an understanding. By allowing for more honest and meaningful dialogue and interaction, we can address such misinformation as well as common stereotypes, which often serve as the primary driver of prejudice.

Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, many Members would have read about the Institute of Policy Studies report on race and religious relations in Singapore that was released last Thursday as highlighted by some Members earlier. While the survey highlighted that the vast majority of respondents affirmed that race or religion were not a barrier to social cohesion, it revealed some interesting findings which should be a cause of reflection and concern for us as a diverse and multi-ethnic society.

The survey found that one in four respondents had no qualms about letting religious extremists publish their views online or hold public meetings to talk about them. This number was much higher, close to 50%, amongst younger Singaporeans. Around 15% of respondents also found Muslims at least somewhat threatening. This was higher than any other religious group, with a notable number staying in private housing.

The hon Minister has spoken about the rise of Islamophobia over the years on multiple occasions. The recent IPS findings certainly reflect this concerning trend. As a society, it is not good enough say that 85% of Singaporeans do not espouse such sentiments. Fifteen percent is statistically significant, and in fact is roughly the size of the our entire Malay/Muslim population in Singapore. Worryingly, I also observed that many netizens online questioned the validity of the findings or simply dismissed it.

Just two days ago, Roses of Peace organised a youth forum titled, "Aftermath of Christchurch – Lessons for Singapore." About 120 youths participated in the session and we had a robust discussion on the multiculturalism in Singapore. The findings from the latest IPS study was a keen topic of discussion, and many of the youths found the findings troubling. There was a collective sense that as a country and nation, we can do better.

In this regard, I would like to raise some suggestions.

First, to provide education of our diverse, multicultural social fabric. I believe more can be done to educate our youth, from a young age, on the various religious beliefs, ethnic traditions and cultural practices in Singapore. We have such a rich cultural and social heritage that needs to be appreciated by all. Beyond the common ties that bind us, we should also focus on helping our youth understand the unique elements of each faith traditions in Singapore.

At the same time, I urge the Government to equip our students with necessary skill sets for effective dialogues and discussions on difficult and sensitive topics revolving around race and religion. This will help us be better mediators when occasional conflicts or when disputes arise.

We should also create more safe spaces in schools and community where students are free to express their religious identity and for dialogues to take place in a mature and meaningful manner. In this regard, there is value in considering have a youth wing in all Inter-religious Confidence Circles (IRCCs) in Singapore, which can take the lead in spear-heading such initiatives.

Second, dealing with spread of hate speech in the digital space. With the prevalence of smart phones and rise of extremist views that can disseminate rapidly online, the impact of hate speech is amplified. Before the Christchurch attacks, the gunman published a manifesto on social media highlighting his extremist views. The live streaming of the attacks further amplified the impact of these attacks. In addition to all the existing efforts, we must all focus on equipping society, especially our youth with the tools and skills necessary to compete effectively with extreme voices in our new digital ecosystem. In this regard, I would like to call for greater collaboration and partnership between civil society and non-profit organisations with tech companies such as Facebook, Twitter and Google to trial innovative community-based solutions. For example, we can develop a Digital Playbook to educate and equip fellow citizens with the knowledge and tools to counter hate speech and fake news. Such a book can detail the strategies that ordinary citizens can adopt to identify and push back on such propaganda.

Thirdly, although we have Racial Harmony Day, to place greater emphasis on the importance of religious harmony in Singapore, I would like to recommend the adoption of the World Interfaith Harmony Week in Singapore. This was first proposed at the UN General Assembly on 23 September 2010 by HM King Abdullah II of Jordan. Just under a month later, on 20 October 2010, it was unanimously adopted by the UN and henceforth the first week of February will be observed as a World Interfaith Harmony Week.

This week can be an occasion for us to celebrate the rich diversity of religions that harmoniously co-exist in Singapore and promote deeper appreciation and tolerance through a series of exhibitions, performances and talks.

Singaporeans tend to treat discussions on religion as sensitive and potentially divisive. However, there is an imminent need to do more to bring such conversations to intersect with a wider societal audience. This is especially so in workplaces to foster better appreciation of people’s faith, beliefs and to encourage employees to be proud of their identity. There is value for organisations to set aside one day in a year, perhaps during the Interfaith Harmony Week, to celebrate diversity in their work places. As the largest employer in Singapore, perhaps the public service can take the lead in this.

Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, Singapore's social harmony is not by chance, and it should never be taken for granted. Singapore is the world's most religiously diversed country, multiculturalism, multi-religiosity and multiracialism are key tenets of our national values.

However, to protect the peace and stability that we have, we need everyone to play a role and to play their part. Everyone has a role in calling out hate speech and not being a silent bystander.

We have been tireless in our efforts at building this precious social harmony over the past five decades. Although we often claim that we are a work in progress, I hope Singapore will shine as a beacon of hope and serve as a role model to other nations struggling with social integration at the upcoming International Conference on Cohesive Societies.

Lastly, we cannot deepen racial and religious understanding without deepening our cultural understanding. Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I would like to conclude my speech in Tamil.

(In Tamil): [Please refer to Vernacular Speech.]  In Singapore, we have to understand our culture very well so as to continuously remain as one united society, with racial and religious harmony.

For instance, in the past 13 years, for the whole month of April, the Tamil Language Festival takes place. Such language-based festivals not only help us nurture our Mother Tongue, but also help us to understand our own culture better. To enhance racial and religious harmony, such festivals about Mother Tongue should take place continuously.

In addition to understanding one’s own cultural pride and glory, it is also very important for everyone to also understand clearly the culture of other racial and religious groups. In particular, our youths having the right understanding of all races will promote harmony amongst us. Understanding culture correctly will enhance family and social ties, thereby benefiting every household and the country. For us to interact and communicate together with the people of a multi-racial society, an understanding of each other’s culture will provide great assurance.

(In English): Mr Deputy Speaker, with that, I thank Minister Shanmugam for moving the Motion and I support the Motion.