Restricting Hate Speech to Maintain Racial and Religious Harmony in Singapore

Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I thank the Minister for this important debate and I support the Motion. As I have shared in this House before, I grew up in the turbulent 1960s in Malaysia. Those years were marred with several racial conflicts that saw many lives lost. There were curfews and even as a kid, I could sense that something was wrong. Sometimes, adults would gather and speak with low voices, their eyebrows furrowed. I would then later learn that somebody whom they knew had been killed in the riots.

These racial conflicts were fuelled by hate speech between races and religions. And they happened in Singapore too. It is only because of our efforts to build racial and religious harmony that they have become much rarer today.

It is easy to take harmony for granted. But, in fact, we face new challenges to maintaining harmony. Over the world, there are people pursuing extremist ideologies. And because of our open society and the internet, we hear of them through many sources.

Hate speech is linked to radicalisation. When you are influenced to hate a certain group, it is not a big jump to then take violent actions against that group. And once that happens, it will set off a cycle of hate and even more violence. We need to continue keeping our people safe.

To preserve harmony, we need to take a firm stand against hate speech. Words can move emotion and give rise to hate, distrust and destruction. It takes weeks to create distrust and to sow the seeds of discontent. But it takes years and even generations to heal the wounds thereafter.

When restricting hate speech, we must apply the law impartially to protect all racial and religious groups. If there is any suspicion that the law is not applied impartially, it will sow discord between groups. Certain groups might even start to suspect the Government, which will undermine our society and security.

I urge anyone who hears of hate speech against your community, to make a report. Do not spread in your community that the rules are not applied fairly. That is a very dangerous perception and will spread faster than you think. When the information is clarified, it will not spread as far as the original rumour. Especially if you are a public figure or an influencer, be very careful on such matters.

I feel some senior Singaporeans, who have been through the mayhem of riots, can put their experience to good use. Government should tap on this group to be ambassadors of goodwill on the ground. In Chinese, please.

(In Mandarin): [Please refer to Vernacular Speech.] We will not tolerate anyone to spread hate speech against any race or religion. Hate speech can influence people and they might stage an attack on other races and religions. This will severely harm our racial and religious harmony and even result in a series of revenge actions.

In Singapore, we will be applying the law impartially to protect all racial and religious groups. If you hear anyone making hate speech against a certain community, please report to the Police so that Ministry of Home Affairs will have time to investigate and take actions. Do not spread words among the community that the Ministry of Home Affairs did not take any action. Such kind of rumours spreads very quickly and it is very dangerous.

Some Singaporeans have been through the mayhem of riots. I hope the Government can invite them to share their experiences so that every Singaporean can understand why there is a need to resist hate speech.

(In English): Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, in the end, we just need to remember just one thing. Hate speech goes against the founding principles of Singapore – to be one united people, regardless of race, language, or religion. We need to take a firm stand against it.

Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I want to talk about three ideas which underline Singapore's approach to hate speech – two conceptual and one practical. The first is on non-fundamentalist approach to freedom of speech and expression; the second, our pre-emptive approach to hate speech legislation and last, a warning against toothless legislation.

In 2015, the British press, unlike some newspapers in Europe, collectively decided not to republish the caricatures of Prophet Muhammad which led to the slaughter of 12 staff working in the office of Charlie Hebdo. The Guardian newspaper argued that in Britain, editorial decisions have always been guided, not just by law, but by a sense of "what is fair and tolerable within British society". The press in Singapore here too, did not publish the cartoons. Further, the version of The Economist which was distributed in Singapore had the cartoon redacted.

Tribal instincts cannot be eradicated, nor should we want to. The irrationality of love is matched, and often outmatched, by the irrationality of hate. Even as we promote our best selves, we must constrain our worst. We do this softly through education, moral suasion and social norms. But we must also do this with unequivocal force through the smite of laws and their strict enforcement.

Many countries have laws against hate speech. In the UK, laws make it an offence for a person to use "threatening, abusive or insulting words or behaviour that causes, or is likely to cause another person harassment, alarm or distress". This law has been revised over the years to include language that is deemed to incite "racial and religious hatred", as well as "hatred on the grounds of sexual orientation" and language that "encourages terrorism".

In 2016, the EU established the Code of Conduct, as a push for social media platforms to crack down on hate speech. Subsequently, four giant IT companies – Google+, Instagram, Snapchat and Dailymotion – they decided to join the EU "Code of Conduct on countering illegal hate speech online".

Our Home Affairs Minister has pointed out the relatively lax legislation both in UK and US.

This is not because they do not see hate speech as wrong, but because they see freedom of expression as right. Two wrongs do not make a right, but what do two rights make? When the right to freedom of expression is fundamental, and the right to freedom of religious belief is fundamental, what do we do?

The extreme liberal approach is to do nothing and let the two fundamentals contest in the open. That is one approach but that is certainly not ours. We cannot leave it to the law of the jungle. We cannot say, "This is not a government problem. Let the people fight it out. Let the people sort it out among themselves."

We must say, as we are doing today, "This is allowed in the public space – and that is not." Our laws must provide guidance on the clash of rights, not just in court but in everyday life. This is my first point about the non-fundamentalist nature of our approach to freedoms of expression.

My second point relates to hate speech legislation and the degree to which it should be regulated. I mentioned about the Charlie Hebdo incident and Singapore's strong stance against publishing images offensive to members of our community. In this case, because of the tragic murder, there were few critics of what we did. But remember: we had censored the images in advance of the shootings.

We did so because it was wrong, and the nature of this "wrong" is that it is against the norms of what we stand for, as well as the possible harms that could arise. In most cases, the actions we take are in advance of these harms, that is, we take a pre-emptive approach to minimise harm.

This opens us up to criticism of being overly authoritarian, of infantilising the public, or not respecting people's ability to govern, control or decide for themselves. Why so hyper-sensitive? "What is the harm?", people ask.

We may be able to outline these harms, but if we do our job well, the public may never experience them, and hence, never believe that the risk of such harm was real. This creates a very different kind of problem. A dilemma that we need to solve.

And this brings me to my last point about whether we ought to enforce our laws relating to hate speech strictly or loosely. The second method allows people to experience harm in small measure and by the logic of vaccination, builds up our resilience and ability to debate contested ideas. I agree that contestation of ideas and debate is valuable in many areas, but relating to this body of legislation, I argue for a strict application.

Why? The point has been made by Minister for Home Affairs – the nature of law flows to the nature of the country. We, in this House, can choose whether we want to be more pro-active and tough in the applications of our laws, especially when these are extended to new hard cases.

So, I would rather be conservative and safe than experimental and sorry. Many older societies have seen the fractures, fissures and wounds which once opened up are hard to heal, especially on matters relating to race and religion.

Standing against this, our existing laws may be good enough as there are adequate provisions. So, I argue that what we need is tighter and pro-active enforcement. Strong enforcement will also provide deterrent effects because knowing that the Government is serious about enforcement has real consequences on behaviour – both among the people and corporations.

In 2017, Germany became the first country in the EU to introduce a dedicated law against online hate speech that allows authorities to fine social media companies who fail to remove hate speech posts that violate German law within 24 hours. Companies could be fined up to 50 million euros under the law. This came about after the German government examined a report showing a 77% surge in hate crimes in Germany in the previous year.

As an immediate response to the law, in January and February 2017, Youtube deleted 90% of hate speech videos reported by users, Twitter deleted 1%, Facebook deleted 39%.

So, laws have effect, but not all the time. We see this in the continued existence of hate speech, instances of clear violations that persist with impunity.

Australia, for example, does not have a strong record of confronting white nationalism. In recent years, we see Government senators voting for a motion that it is "okay to be white". We have seen politicians there saying that the real cause of the New Zealand streets tragedy to be "the immigration program that allowed Muslim fanatics to migrate to New Zealand in the first place" and these politicians have gotten away scot-free. So, this is not because Australia does not have laws against hate speech, although some may argue that such laws have been weakened in recent years, but it is because there is a political culture there that tolerates such open airing of views. A flexible enforcement of laws may be one way of coping with the clash of two fundamentals, but as I have said before, it is not Singaporeans' way.

Ours is a more difficult, more rigid, and some would say, less liberal model. This may indeed be so, but it is a choice that does not denigrate freedoms in general, but instead, respects as many freedoms as possible. It certainly does not place the freedom to express hate over the freedom to practice one's religion.

Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I spoke about tribal instincts which cannot be denied. Such instincts create mistrust, hostility and as we have seen in recent days, death and dissolution. But our tribal instinct also creates heroes, when the best among us strives to protect the rest, when we see altruism, kindness, fair play, duty and sacrifice.

We cannot legislate heroism, no more than we can outlaw villainy. But we can and must use laws to give the best chance for our ambitions to do good, and to constrain, deter and severely punish those who plan to do evil.

Mr Deputy Speaker, before I begin my speech, I would like to thank Member Lee Bee Wah for her heartfelt plea to preserve our harmony. Sir, I rise in support of the Motion.

Freedom of speech comes with a cost. When this means excluding communities and fracturing our society, it is a cost that we cannot bear. In its simplest form, hate speech can manifest in a single tweet or a passing comment. Yet, malicious content and intent can easily create unfounded fear and suspicion. With the expansion of new platforms, hate speech can now come in numerous forms of expression which proliferates, incites or legitimises any form of hatred based on intolerance. In a multicultural state like Singapore, it is inevitable that societal fault lines exist. However, hate speech exploits and deepens these fault lines, creating an echo chamber, polarising our society, and threatens the very essence of our existence.

For this reason, I am glad that our approach to the increasing prevalence of hate speech has been a firm ban against it – in any form, in any medium. Whilst other countries may allow it in the name of freedom of speech, here, we recognise the very real and severe implications that hate speech can have. Such an approach has helped to prevent fault lines in our society from being exploited by individuals or groups with extremist agendas. It has become increasingly apparent that extremist groups on both ends of the spectrum feed off each other’s intolerance. By doing so, they create animosity where there were none, suspicion which was previously absent and divisions in place of unity.

With the increased prevalence of hate speech and efforts to curb it, our society now begins to question whether the provisions we have are sufficient or even necessary. Where does hate speech begin and how can we terminate its progression? Seemingly innocuous offensive comments may lead to the development of hate speech. Yet, it is difficult to draw a definitive line as to what should be banned or not. This is particularly because offensive speech exists on a continuum of varying levels of hostility. Hence, it is pertinent that such cases still be evaluated on a case-by-case basis to consider the context and content of such statements.

A similar challenge faced in eradicating hate speech is its prevalence in different mediums. Music, in particular, is an effective platform to instill and spread notions of animosity. Music can be weaponised as it easily desensitises one to hateful perceptions. The frequent exposure to such themes in unconventional genres can legitimise and deepen intolerance. Whilst Singaporeans have the freedom to access various forms of entertainment, music that undermines our social and cultural stability is untenable. Hence, the regulation of music and entertainment is crucial to preventing the spread of hate.

Whilst we may think of our multiracial and multi-religious harmony as a delicate balance that needs to be protected, there is room for constructive efforts to strengthen our community's resilience in facing hate. Within our local community, artists can provide a countervailing narrative towards hate speech. In this way, music can be utilised to deepen interactions and strengthen our community. In my role in the Malay Language Council and Malay Language Learning and Promotion Committee, I have engaged many professionals in the music, art and literature fraternities. Amongst these individuals, I am pleased to share that there is a resounding rejection against music, art and literature that purported hateful sentiments. Sir, allow me to continue my speech in Malay.

(In Malay): [Please refer to Vernacular Speech.] In the Malay community, our identity is reflected in our community's traditional practices or in the way we portray ourselves to the other communities. Hate speech will only isolate and segregate the minority communities.

In our daily actions and conduct, we should rightly display empathy and kindness. By doing so, we can reject any hate statement that has no basis whatsoever. At the same time, we must not be influenced by those who want to fan the flames of hatred between us and the other communities. We must be aware of their evil intentions that will only serve to separate us from other Singaporeans.

Graciousness and civility form the core of our identity. These values remind us that hate speech contradicts the principles that we adhere to. We must not get involved in spreading hate speech through social media. Otherwise, we will destroy our community. It is our responsibility to counter such false statements. There is a Malay saying "When you pinch the left thigh, the right thigh feels painful too" and, thus, we must be sensitive to the well-being of those who become targets of hate speech.

In our effort to fight hate speech together, we must build our resilience against statements tinged with hatred. Through literature, the arts and music, we can send messages or reminders that promote cohesion. Among all the platforms that are available to us, music is most prominent as the unifying tool that can counter influences that promote enmity.

Music activists that I have approached have unanimously rejected aspects of hate speech in their lyrics, songs and performances. These activists, who come from different backgrounds and comprise young and experienced musicians, say that the music they play contain positive elements and support the cohesion and development of society and nation.

Another specific example from our community is the Dikir Barat performance which we can use to counter hate speech.

Mr Djohan Abdul Rahman, the founder of the Andika Kencana group, as well as the former president of the Dikir Barat Federation and member of ASAS' 50 shared with me that: "Lyrics play an important role in any Dikir Barat performance. Therefore, negative lyrics that fan the flames of hatred and violence will have a negative impact on the arts community."

These influences will spread to other arts activists and participants who are accustomed to such themes through rehearsals and performances.

Therefore, Dikir Barat lyrics promote a harmonious living environment and sharing of experiences and shared values. Dikir Barat activists have consciously strived to strengthen social cohesion as a weapon to counter hate sentiments.

Cikgu Suratman Markasan, a recipient of the Cultural Medallion, as well as a Tun Sri Lanang Award winner and an important figure in the Southeast Asia Literary Council (Mastera), pointed out that literary works promoting hatred towards other communities do not represent values that are present in the Malay culture and, therefore, should not be encouraged or read.

There is a song by Ramli Sarip, where the lyrics go like this:

"Listen not to false poetry

Because it will tarnish your soul

Listen to poetry that we inherited

Passed down through the generations until today."

His song carries the theme of brotherhood and love for one another. Certainly, these are the values that we should promote.

(In English): Allow me to continue my speech in English.

Besides removing hate speech from our media platforms, the best protection against hateful sentiments is the strength of the community. This is because hate speech is not just a means of expression but a reflection of deeper attitudes and perceptions. To make our communities less susceptible to the manipulation of such hateful narratives, we need to increase the depth of our cross-cultural and religious exchanges. It comes in the most proximate groups of people we interact with: our neighbours, colleagues and peers. It is important to deepen such relations to gain a personal understanding of the cultures and customs of different peoples. Recognise that tolerance and understanding are not enough to deter hate; trust is what we need.

This is especially pertinent, given that trust is not a given in a multicultural society. Not even in Singapore. A recent IPS Survey showed that 15% of respondents found Muslims threatening. This means that Singapore’s multi-religious fabric is still vulnerable to the threat of hate speech. While in this case it reveals how continuous and heightened reporting of terrorism by some in the name of Islam has brought out misgivings to the Muslims in Singapore, more importantly, it indicates that more than just being inclusive, our communities need to be build confidence and trust with each other. This work is never done because every incident causes a backslide.

This building of trust starts from home, too. When our children have their first interactions with others from different races or religions, it helps for us to guide them along and answer their queries. More importantly, we should encourage a sense of empathy in our children to humanise Singaporeans from different racial and religious groups. It can come in the little things – inviting their friends over for festivals or advising against any hateful comments spreading on social media. As their closest advisors, we provide the next generation the way forward in the uncertain terrain of these times, often ridden with hate.

Sir, as a minority, I welcome Minister Shanmugam's and the Government's assurances on this matter. I am sure other minorities do so. Our Government's stand would give all minorities the confidence that they would be protected from the target of hate, their culture would preserved and they can practise their religions peacefully. All of us, as minorities, should play our part, too. My community, too. We should never leave this to chance. I call upon our community leaders to lead and steward the community to be appreciative of how precious our social compact is and be active to preserve.

Sir, as a Singaporean, I pledge to play my part in strengthening our social compact and contribute to the building of confidence and trust in our society. I call upon all my Parliamentary colleagues and fellow Singaporeans in making this pledge.

Sir, ultimately, as a country, we need to protect our unity. Hate speech thrives on divisions and schisms. To deny its influence, there must be a common conviction against intolerance. This means standing up for groups that are targeted by hate speech. This means providing comfort for others who feel alienated. This means feeling for others even though we belong to a different race or religious group. The challenge of hate speech means our community needs to move beyond being understanding and tolerant. We are now called upon to support, protect and defend one another.

Thank you, Deputy Speaker, Sir. I thank the Members who have spoken. I think the collective position of this House is clear. Hate speech impacts racial and religious harmony and Members agree generally that in dealing with hate speech, we have to intervene early and decisively. On offensive speech that may not be considered hate speech, Members agree that we need to have restrictions. Offensive speech can segue into hate speech, can overlap and, if we allow offensive speech into religion, politics, media, entertainment, the tone and texture of public discourse will change. Giving offence will be normalised.

I think there is broad support, based on the speeches, for the approach that I have outlined and it is very heartening that Government Members of Parliament, Opposition, Nominated Members of Parliament broadly agreed to these principles.

Let me try and deal with the specific questions.

Mr Pritam Singh asked some questions about the processes between IMDA and MHA. I have explained that in some detail in my opening speech. IMDA checked with MHA on security considerations. MHA withdrew its objections, as I explained earlier. A few days later – I think two days later – MHA gave advice to cancel. And I have explained that also at quite some length just earlier.

He also asked about the reasons for cancellation of the concert – again, I do not think he wants me to go into the detail that I have given in my opening speech. I think the Member broadly agrees with the principles but he had a question on the cancellation of Watain, specifically.

He accepted that he was not aware of the opposition of mainstream Christian viewpoint. That was an important point. And now that I have explained that to him, I think he will appreciate that; and in turn, that is relevant for the broader security considerations and assessment as well in the way that I explained in my opening speech. And I think the Member would accept that it then becomes a question of judgement.

Mr Pritam Singh also made some comparisons with bands in the past. I think in all of these things, the population, the reactions are dynamic. The population's views are dynamic. Reactions change over periods of time. We have to assess it with the facts we have and not be wishful about what it was, and what it might be in the distant future. So, population, reactions, specific bands, time period – these are all relevant considerations. You have to make an honest assessment based on all of those with the reactions that you have, whether it is mainstream reaction, and how it would impact on specific security situations as well as the broader security considerations.

The Member asked about future applications in general. I have explained the framework. There is no change in IMDA’s framework on content regulation – it has worked very well so far. They have had to apply it and they have applied it in all these years. There is also no change in MHA's approach to these issues.

IMDA in fact has to make a series of decisions – tough calls – on a broad variety of issues going well beyond the security issues. They make these calls every day. In fact, I would say security stricto sensu is in fact the easier issue, compared with the kind of issues IMDA has to deal with when faced with any kind of application.

We, MHA, give our views to MCI. We had not anticipated the subsequent developments. Both Ministries worked together. That is how the Government works. And it is not as if MCI wanted to proceed in any event, or that it was unaware of security considerations. MCI itself makes that call sometimes.

But here it is understandable that MHA picked it up – our agencies primary job is to keep in touch, close touch, with the religious communities, the leaders; we picked up on the mainstream Christian opinion within a day or so, made the security call, and discussed it with MCI.

I would add that this does not mean that there is any general ban on black metal groups – I think that was a point either the Member asked or sort of implied.

Now, let me turn to Mr Murali Pillai. He asked how to deprive commercial entities from making money and spreading hate speech. I think the points he made are valid; they need to be considered. And I think there were specific points on MRHA and ISA, and the extent of Government powers. I would say it has worked well so far. The Government's exercise of powers has been understood, and the constraints on the Government's exercise of power and safeguards in the legislation, as well as in the Constitution have been understood.

Ms Denise Phua asked what constitutes offensive speech. I have explained that earlier. We do not intervene in disagreements or arguments on public issues. WhatsApp and other platforms: I think these are legitimate questions. I cannot tell you that I have all the answers on those issues. But we will have to deal with them.

Enforcement – she asked about existing legislation and how we would fairly debate the approach. As I explained, the purpose of this debate is not to enforce something specifically. It is to set out the approach, clarify our approach, hear Members of Parliament again, have it debated – that is what this House is for. And then, hopefully with that, the population will also understand what the people's representatives are saying here, and what kind of approach we take.

Mr Christopher de Souza, Senior Parliamentary Secretary Sun Xueling, Mr Saktiandi Supaat, Ms Joan Pereira, Er Dr Lee Bee Wah, Senior Parliamentary Secretary Assoc Prof Muhammad Faishal Ibrahim, Mr Seah Kian Peng – we note their comments have been broadly supportive; they talked about how hate speech travels and how it fuels violence. Er Dr Lee spoke about her personal experiences, likewise we heard from the perspective of the minority community Members of Parliament. And Mr Seah's points on being conservative when it comes to this specific area, I think accords with what our society believes in and heels to the kind approach that we have set out.

I thank Prof Lim Sun Sun for her very powerful examples, very vivid. And I thank her for the points that she made. We do need to tackle hate speech online. I will say that we are very far from tackling it today. Nominated Member of Parliament Terence Ho made a number of points on the space for arts. I understand the points. I do not think there is any disagreement on that, that there should be cultural vibrancy. Equally, I do not think the Member disagrees that we cannot allow hate speech and we must restrict offensive speech. Those are the questions I raised for this debate. The points that he has raised more broadly on cultural vibrancy, I do not think, affect the narrower set of points I have made, and I do not think he disagrees with me.

Assoc Prof Walter Theseira made a very thoughtful speech. He made the point, tracing through the history of Islam and Christianity that is central to religion. He talked about Jesus, Martin Luther, the Prophet – all led movements to change. Yes, no arguments on that. Insofar as that is relevant to today's debate, I would say I cannot and I will not argue against that point, but also, I think the state has no role in either fomenting such change within religion or supporting one side or the other.

The second point he made was that religion should not impose its views on public policy. I will take that with the third point he made – that there has been a greater public assertion of fate. I think both points are valid. And in fact, the point that I think he is seeking to make, but perhaps did not put it quite so directly, is that if you give in to these greater public assertions of faith, and if people of religion become extremely sensitive, then there is a risk of cutting down public space. And that might then affect the secularity of government, not in the French sense, but in the sense that this Government is secular.

So, if we were to look at today's debate, I outlined one big risk in my opening speech which can arise from hate speech and offensive speech, the fault lines, the kind of violence that can arise from it and the deep splits between communities and religions, or religious groups.

Assoc Prof Walter Theseira hinted at another big risk – which is not within the frame of today's debate but I accept it as a risk – of religion either trying to influence public policy or narrowing public policy space.

And also something that he did not quite mention but flows from it – a political leadership which is not strong enough to stand on its two feet and seeks favours from particular religious groups or specific religious groups. It happens in many countries, including those in this region. That will lead to disaster; that will lead to a different type of government and public policy-making and it will not be a secular government.

The answer is you really need a strong political leadership which is fair between the different religions. People may be influenced by their religious outlook, but you do not make public policy based on a particular religious outlook, or a particular standpoint of a particular religion. Then, you will lose the faith of everybody else in society of a different outlook.

That has never been our position, and as long as the Government holds true to the values that have been set out, which I will not go into, then I think we will avoid that risk.

It is a risk. It is a risk because so many governments, both in this region and outside, have gone down that route. It is one of the easiest ways to get votes.

So, we have to make sure that we seek understanding between the religious groups, mutual respect with religious leaders in a multi-religious society. But I would suggest to Assoc Prof Theseira that that is perhaps a topic for another debate on another day, another Ministerial Statement, or the Member of Parliament can move a Motion.

Minister Grace Fu spoke about not just the rules, but also the need to make sure that we work very hard to make sure that our multi-religious approach works.

Sir, let me end this wrap-up by reading to this House the moving words of Imam Gamal Fouda of the Al Noor Mosque in Christchurch. On 22 March 2019, at a Memorial Service in Christchurch, this was what he said, and I am not going to read all of it, just some passages:

"Brothers and sisters in Islam, brothers and sisters in humanity, brothers and sisters in New Zealand. Last Friday I stood in this mosque and saw hatred and rage in the eyes of the terrorist, who killed and martyred 50 people, wounded 42 and broke the hearts of millions around the world.

Today, from the same place, I look out and see the love and compassion in the eyes of thousands of fellow New Zealanders, fellow human beings from across the globe that have filled the hearts of millions more who are not with us physically but in spirit.

This terrorist sought to tear our nation apart with an evil ideology that has torn the world apart. But, instead, we have shown that New Zealand is unbreakable. And that the world can see in us an example of love and unity. We are brokenhearted but we are not broken. We are alive. We are together. We are determined not to let anyone divide us.

The number of people killed is not extraordinary but the solidarity in New Zealand is extraordinary.

Families of the victims, your loved ones did not die in vain. Through them, the world will see the beauty of Islam and the beauty of our unity.

We are here in our hundreds and thousands unified for one purpose – that hate will be undone and love will redeem us.

Islamophobia kills. Islamophobia is real. It is a targeted campaign to influence people to dehumanise and irrationally fear Muslims. To fear what we wear, to fear the choice of food we eat, to fear the way we pray and to fear the way we practice our faith. We call upon governments around the world including New Zealand and the neighbouring countries to bring an end to hate speech and the politics of fear.

Last week’s event has proven as evidence to the entire world that terrorism has no colour, has no race and has no religion."

We need to step forward on hate speech. We need to deal decisively with offensive speech so that someone will not have to make this eulogy in Singapore. But if it happens, I hope that we will be able to respond in the same way that the New Zealanders have done. Thank you, Sir. [Applause.]