Hansard, Monday, 7 October 2019

1 Mr Christopher de Souza asked the Minister for Defence what lessons can Singapore learn from the recent drone attack in Saudi Arabia and what is the Government doing to prevent and counter a similar potential attack in Singapore.

Thank you, Mr Speaker. To ensure that Singapore's air defences are robust to deal with drone attacks, we must draw important lessons from the recent drone attack on Saudi oil facilities and any such related incidents. Indeed, the SAF monitors closely the development of these drone incidents, so that we can assess the adequacy of our defence systems and to plug gaps when identified. Over the past decade, the SAF has enhanced our air defence systems against possible drone attacks.

The recent Saudi attack reflects the growing and evolving capabilities of drones that are available to both state and non-state actors who mean to do us harm. Let me provide first the spectrum of drone capabilities that we need to protect ourselves against, before elaborating on specific defence responses. Let me start with the Saudi attack. While reports still need to be confirmed, that attack shows clearly that the range and manoeuvrability of drones have increased – depending on the reports you read, from 700 to 1,500 km. These medium- and long-range drones are able to avoid radar detection and also hit their targets with great precision. I think many Members would have seen the pictures after the attacks and how precise those attacks were.

The Saudi attack was conducted by sophisticated weaponised drones and that represents one extreme of sophistication in terms of drone capabilities. If we take the other extreme where you have simple drones that can be bought in retail stores and that would intrude into restricted air space, but even though they are very simple devices, they can disrupt civilian or military air traffic because they pose safety hazards. The impact is not trivial, as the past incidents in Gatwick and Changi Airport showed. In both incidents, planes were diverted and grounded which resulted in both real and opportunity costs – amounting to millions – to airport regulators, airlines and passengers. These simple off-the-shelf drones can be modified with some know-how to avoid detection by conventional means that most commercial airports employ.

So, on one hand, very sophisticated, weaponised drones that can go up to 1,500 km; and the other extreme, toy drones that you can buy from the stores that create great impact. Between these two extremes are the class of drones that can carry simple munitions such as grenades and small arms. For example, ISIS had been successful in modifying and weaponising small drones with explosives to attack ground forces and facilities. It is documented. In August 2018, drones carrying explosives were used in an attempted attack on the President of Venezuela.

So, taken as a whole, the security threats posed by drones are therefore real and the impact can be damaging, even devastating, depending on the platform used. Against this wide spectrum of threats, there can be no single counter-response. It would neither be proportionate nor sustainable to employ sophisticated assets worth hundreds of millions of dollars to take down hobbyist drones that can be bought for less than a thousand dollars. For these threats, other tools would be required, such as regulations, deterrent fines and penalties, education, and working with relevant stakeholders including drone-hobbyist communities themselves. And I think MOT has been very busy doing that and we are passing some Bills to enhance penalties. For Changi Airport, MOT and CAAS deal with possible intrusions from drones. MHA and SPF take the lead in defending against drones in specific areas of security concern and during major events. The SAF will assist them when called upon and when needed.

Beyond these specific responsibilities by various agencies against drones in their geographic domains, the SAF remains responsible for drone attacks against Singapore by would-be aggressors, especially towards key installations. For example, the SAF recognises that terrorists can use drones as a form of attack. Within our region, an ISIS-linked individual had planned to use commercial drones to conduct bomb attacks in Malaysia. Singapore continues to be a target for regional terrorist groups, as demonstrated by the foiled terrorist attack on Marina Bay Sands in 2016. These incidents are sober reminders that the risks are not theoretical and we must remain vigilant.

Let me go through specific enhancements that the SAF has put in place over the past decade to buttress our air defences against drone attacks. First, early-warning systems. The RSAF has enhanced its early warning capability with more capable sensors like the G550 Airborne Early Warning Aircraft and Multi-Mission Radars. The assets we have in place now would have been able to detect the alleged drones used in the attack on oil facilities in Saudi Arabia.

After identification, these drones would be taken down by our Ground-Based Air Defence (GBAD) systems, which have now been upgraded with new platforms. The SPYDER system has replaced the older RAPIER system and the ASTER-30 missile system will replace the I-HAWK system. Some Members as NSmen and GBAD units would have been familiar with the old systems. The SAF is confident that these systems can protect Singapore against aerial threats from both manned and unmanned aircraft. Our air defence system is live, 24/7.

I also mentioned drones in the middle part of that threat spectrum. What do we do against these? These threats are rapidly evolving and while they may not cause large scale damage, can cause bodily harm, undermine confidence and disrupt our society. Just imagine if grenades were dropped or suicide attacks with minor explosives were used. Against such threats, as we did in NDP or during the Trump-Kim Summit held in Singapore, the SAF puts up additional sensors and counter-offensive capabilities when required during high signature events or when intelligence assessments indicate specific risks.

The SAF will continue to monitor threat developments and learn from all incidents that occur globally to provide appropriate responses to the spectrum of potential drone attacks that are commensurate with the level of threat, sustainable and cost-effective.

I thank the Minister for his response. Two supplementary questions, Mr Speaker. First, do we have military hardware, the assets, to counter the military threat of a military-grade UAV attack or a military drone attack? In particular, would our air defence continue to provide a protective umbrella over Singapore, notwithstanding the advent of military-grade drones and UAVs, and the threat they pose? The second question – I agree that the solution does not depend solely on MINDEF. Therefore, how will drone hobbyists be made to abide by rules such as to avoid air space close to key installations which in turn will help our authorities quickly detect, isolate and neutralise the real and harmful threats?

Mr Speaker, both questions are good ones and reflect the complexity of our mounting counter-responses to specific threats. So, let us take the first threat that Mr de Souza mentioned about – the sophisticated drones. There, I think, as a whole, most militaries including the SAF are more confident. Because once you go beyond a certain size, whether it is manned or unmanned, your air defence systems are up. They are low-flying, they try to avoid radar detection, you can have counter-offensive measures which deal with that using a different array of sensors, as well as responses. I would say, there, I think, the short answer is that, if the alleged components or platforms as in the Saudi attack were used, we are quite confident that we would have detected it as well as been able to neutralise it.

It is the other spectrums that are more troublesome, sometimes. Hobbyists drones – how do you deal with them? It is inappropriate to use the systems that we use against large weaponised drones, for them. Sometimes, it is ineffective. There, I would say that the industry is busily working because it is a global issue. Many airports can be affected as we saw in Gatwick and Changi; and our own scientists and SAF are also looking for appropriate measures that are sustainable and cost-effective. As well as against the intermediate set of spectrum that I talked about; in other words, larger sized drones, not as quite as big as the ones that are used in the Saudi attack but nonetheless, can carry small arms, small ammunitions and grenades, and so on and so forth.

Mr Speaker, may I ask the Minister whether there is scope to require the manufacturers of these hobbyists' drones to cooperate with MINDEF such that action can be taken?

The answer is yes. In fact, the industry has responded. For instance, certain class of drones that are by certain manufacturers have built-in software that you can key in, which incorporate coordinates of restricted zones so that the drones can never fly in. But they can be easily altered. So, you can require it and regulations will form part of our tool box against such aspects. In the main, that will help reduce the noise. In other words, you put in those regulations and, by and large, the majority of distributors and hobbyists will comply with the rules, and that reduces the noise so that you can focus on the errant drone operators.

2 Mr Saktiandi Supaat asked the Minister for Trade and Industry in light of sudden incidences of disruption of Saudi Arabia's oil supply and the potential risk of such incidences happening (a) what is the impact on Singapore's economy; (b) how will this affect the prices of our electricity supply to consumers; and (c) how will this affect prices of petrol for motor vehicles.

3 Mr Leon Perera asked the Minister for Trade and Industry with regard to the recent attack on Saudi Arabia's oil production facilities (a) what has been the impact on Singapore's oil imports from Saudi Arabia; (b) whether oil prices are expected to rise and impact inflation as a result of these attacks and their aftermath; and (c) what is being done to manage the risk of rising oil prices.

Mr Speaker, may I have your permission to answer Question Nos 2 and 3 together, please?

Yes, please.

In the immediate aftermath of the 14 September 2019 attacks on Saudi Arabia’s oil infrastructure, the benchmark Brent crude oil price surged from US$60 to US$71 per barrel. However, it retreated when Saudi Arabia and the US pledged to maintain a steady supply of oil, and has since stabilised at around US$59 per barrel. For 2019 as a whole, the Brent oil price is projected to average US$63 per barrel, lower than the US$71 per barrel in 2018.

Given that global oil prices have stabilised and oil production capacity in Saudi Arabia has returned to normal, MTI's assessment is that the impact on the Singapore economy is likely to be limited. First, our oil supply remained sufficient throughout the period of outage. Second, the impact on consumer prices is likely to be small.

However, this incident is a useful reminder to us about the importance of energy security, especially given on-going tensions in the Middle East. This is particularly pertinent to Singapore as we import almost all our energy.

The Government adopts several strategies to secure our energy supply and keep energy prices competitive. First, we ensure resilience in our energy supply by diversifying our sources of crude oil and gas. We encourage our oil and gas traders to import from multiple sources, while our oil refineries leverage their global resources and supply chains, as well as the wider oil trading eco-system, to ensure a continuous supply of crude oil if there is a disruption in any supply source.

Second, while electricity prices in Singapore cannot be insulated from global energy price movements, Singaporeans can enjoy competitive electricity prices because we continue to promote competition in our electricity market. The Open Electricity Market (OEM) is one such initiative to give households and small businesses more choices of retailers to buy electricity from. Since we launched the OEM in May this year, households and small businesses have reported savings of about 20% to 30% on their electricity bills.

I would like to thank the Senior Minister of State for the answer. I only have one supplementary question. As the Senior Minister of State had noticed, when oil prices abroad rise, it is usually symmetrical. When oil prices rise, prices at the petrol kiosks rise as well. But my question is related to the Senior Minister of State's first point, in terms of our strategy to search for alternative sources of energy. Can MTI share what are our plans in terms alternative energy sources for Singapore, going forward? My concern is that the incidence of such things happening in the Middle East may intensify or increase, particularly from drone attacks and possibly from geopolitical tensions arising out of the Middle East as well.

Mr Speaker, I can re-assure the Member that our oil trading eco-system is pretty well diversified. Our traders have sourced for oil not just from the Middle East, but places in the US as well. So, I think the diversification is a robust strategy to make sure that we are not threatened by a single source, where there may be problems that occur with that supply.

In terms of electricity, the generation comes largely from gas – whether it is piped or Liquefied Natural gas (LNG). So, in terms of electricity supply, that ensures our needs. That is something that we can be well assured about. With the diversified sources of LNG, where we can source from different places, our electricity supply is well take care of.

Sir, I would like to ask the Senior Minister of State, since the introduction of electricity market contestability, especially for households, what percentage of households has elected for alternatives other than Singapore Power (SP)?

Mr Speaker, this is something that changes from month to month, but on average, it is about 18% to 20% of the households have chosen to switch. Of course, over time, more households may come on. I do not have the updated number as of this moment, but we do see that there are fluctuations from month to month.

The following question stood in the name of Dr Intan Azura Mokhtar –

To ask the Minister for Education (a) what are the reasons and concerns leading to the cancellation of the Yale-NUS programme "Dialogue and Dissent in Singapore"; (b) whether the cancellation of the programme signals a more controlled and rigid education environment in our education institutes; and (c) whether this curtails academic freedom and the critical discourse necessary for academic richness and excellence in our education institutes.

5 Mr Seah Kian Peng asked the Minister for Education whether there are clear rules on what topics and activities are or are not allowed in our Autonomous Universities.

6 Assoc Prof Walter Theseira asked the Minister for Education (a) what are the reasons for the cancellation of the "Dialogue and Dissent in Singapore" programme at Yale-NUS College; (b) whether and under what conditions political dissent and activism in the Singapore context is a legitimate topic of academic inquiry in our Autonomous Universities (AUs); and (c) what can be done to assure AU staff and students that they continue to have the academic freedom to responsibly and critically examine social and political issues in Singapore.

Question No 4.

Mr Speaker, Sir, can I take Question Nos 4 to 6 and part of Question No 7 together, please?

Part of Question No 7? So, will Question No 7 be asked again, subsequently?

Yes, it will be.

Okay, proceed.

It is a bit of a long answer. I beg your indulgence. Members have raised three areas of concern with regard to Yale-NUS College (YNC)'s withdrawal of the project originally titled "Dissent and Resistance in Singapore".

First question they asked, what reasons underpinned the cancellation of the project. Second, the implications for academic freedom arising from the withdrawal of the project. And third, what are the rules on what topics and activities are or are not permitted in our Autonomous Universities (AUs). I will lay out the facts of the case, state MOE's views on the issue, and finally, set out the principles guiding what activities are permitted or not in all our educational institutions.

First, the facts of the case and YNC's reasons for withdrawing the project. The project was to be run by Mr Alfian Sa'at, a playwright. There have been some media exchanges between YNC and Mr Alfian Sa'at on the details of their correspondences. Rather than dwell on the details, Mr Speaker, Sir, let me focus on the pertinent facts for the House, which are as follows.

First, the "Dissent and Resistance" project was one of 14 projects on the slate for YNC’s Week 7 "Learning Across Boundaries", or LAB programme. LAB is a compulsory, credit-bearing programme for all first-year YNC students and they are required to take it. It is not an elective or a campus activity. There are clear learning and academic objectives to help students deepen and synergise different subjects they have learnt during the semester, through experiential learning.

Second fact, there was no special invitation to Mr Alfian Sa'at. He had previously been hired by YNC as a part-time instructor to teach a playwriting course and that was in the first half of 2019. So, when YNC called for project proposals, faculty members and other teaching staff like Mr Alfian Sa'at were invited, and he responded.

Third, from the moment YNC received the outline of his proposal in May 2019, it had questions about how academic objectives were to be achieved. But the discussions that followed resulted only in a cosmetic title change, from "Dissent and Resistance" to "Dialogue and Dissent". There were some adjustments to the itinerary, but no substantive change to the overall structure, content or objective of the programme.

Fourth, when YNC received the revised itinerary in September 2019, it became even more concerned. The proposed project lacked academic rigour and did not expose students to a sufficient range of perspectives. Furthermore, specific activities – a workshop to make protest placards and a visit to the Speakers' Corner – would have put students at risk of breaking the law. From YNC's perspective, if that happened to foreign students, they could lose their student visas.

So, to answer Ms Anthea Ong’s question, which was posed to the Minister for Home Affairs as Question No 7, the legal risk was real. AUs and their staff and students are not exempt from the law.

YNC continued to engage Mr Alfian Sa'at to register their concerns and work with him to revise and refine the project itinerary. Eventually, YNC concluded that there was insufficient time to revise the project before the start of the Week 7 LAB programme. It therefore decided to withdraw the project and informed affected students on 13 September 2019. YNC informed MOE of its decision as it expected some public reactions. MOE looked through the itinerary and fully supported YNC's decision.

Fifth, YNC accepts that it could have done better in its administrative processes, in organising the project and communicating their concerns on the project. It will strive to improve. But this does not change the basic fact that the proposed project was inappropriately designed. YNC tried in good faith to work with Mr Alfian Sa'at to make the necessary changes, but ran out of time and then decided to withdraw the project.

Finally, all the key facts and observations above are also stated in Yale University's own investigation report – this is Yale New Haven. The report was authored independently from YNC and based on interviews with staff, students, faculty, and Mr Alfian Sa'at.

This episode has drawn many comments. While a few disagree, most academics, including those from YNC, support the College's decision and its reasons for the decision.

As Assoc Prof Eugene Tan, a law professor from SMU and former Nominated Member of Parliament told the Straits Times, "For me, the biggest concern is…the lack of even-handedness in engaging with competing and conflicting perspectives… (There is an) absence of even a rudimentary theoretical framework to approach and to understand dissent and resistance."

Many members of the public supported YNC's decision too. But reading their comments on social media and letters to the newspapers, it is clear their reasons differ from those of academics. Their concerns were simpler and more fundamental: they did not see why inciting and teaching students to protest should be condoned in our educational institutions. This is a valid view that we cannot ignore.

One of those who made this point was Mr Goh Choon Kang, in an opinion piece published in Lianhe Zaobao, which The Straits Times later translated and published too. He worried that there were people seeking to initiate "colour revolutions" in Singapore, that is, revolutions which aim to overthrow governments. In particular, he was concerned that political dissidence had found its way into our Institutes of Higher Learning (IHLs) and asked if foreigners who backed colour revolutions were trying to extend their influence in Singapore. Zaobao and Straits Times published several letters from readers sharing Mr Goh's concern.

I know that these views make some academics and leaders within our AUs a little uncomfortable. I think this is not because they disagree with the views, but because they worry that the public and the Government will overreact, which would affect the academic freedom enjoyed by our AUs today. They also worry that the Government would henceforth disapprove of Liberal Arts education.

Let me provide the Government's take on this issue.

The worry that IHLs may be used to conduct partisan political activities to sow dissent against the Government is not unfounded. MOE had that concern too when we saw the itinerary of the "Dissent and Resistance" project. Besides making protest placards and visiting the Speakers' Corner, the programme included dialogues with personalities such as Mr Jolovan Wham and Mr Seelan Palay – both of whom have previously been convicted of public order-related offences.

It also included talks by Ms Kirsten Han and Dr PJ Thum. Dr PJ Thum has publicly suggested that “Singaporeans should celebrate Malaysia’s independence day”, and that Dr Mahathir should “take the lead in lobbying for the promotion of democracy and freedom of expression and inquiry in Southeast Asia”, because Malaysia was “a beacon for many who are struggling for democracy. Not just in Singapore but in other parts of Southeast Asia.”

Both Ms Kirsten Han and Dr PJ Thum have since announced that while the "Dissent and Resistance" project was withdrawn, they will continue their work through New Naratif, an outfit they had set up which receives significant foreign funding.

Another part of the project would have entailed watching films celebrating foreign dissidents, including Joshua Wong, the young Hong Kong activist, on the topic "Teenager versus Superpower". As for Mr Alfian Sa'at himself, in 1998, he wrote a poem entitled "Singapore You Are Not My Country". Let me quote some lines to give you a flavour of his thinking:

"Singapore, I assert you are not a country at all,

Do not raise your voice against me,

I am not afraid of your anthem"

And a later part of the poem says:

"…how can you call yourself a country, you terrible

hallucination of highways and cranes and condominiums ten minutes’ drive from the MRT?"

This is a poem and we might concede some artistic licence. But Mr Alfian Sa'at continues this attitude consistently in his activism. In 2013, when 21 Malaysians protested illegally at the Merlion Park, he apologised to Malaysians "on behalf of the Singapore Government" when the protestors were arrested by the Police.

After the 2018 Malaysian General Election, he praised the "new Malaysia", juxtaposed it favourably against Singapore, and dismissed the fear of "chaos in the streets, clashes with riot police, traffic at a standstill."

In a post over the weekend, Mr Alfian wrote of "a revival of student activism in Singapore, especially in areas such as political conscientisation". The term "political conscientisation" comes from radical left wing thought. It means agitation aimed at making people conscious of the oppression in their lives, so that they will take action against these oppressive elements. And I think this is how Mr Alfian saw his project.

I should add that a talk by AWARE was also listed in the programme, but AWARE has since clarified with YNC as well as the media that they had not agreed to participate in the programme, though they had received an invitation. [Please refer to "Clarification by Minister for Education", Official Report, 7 October 2019, Vol 94, Issue No 112, Correction by Written Statement section.]

These individuals responsible for the programme are entitled to their views and feelings about Singapore. They can write about them, even vent them on social media; in that process, even have a following. But we have to decide whether we allow such forms of political resistance free rein in our educational institutions and even taught as compulsory, credit-bearing programmes.

Some may argue that academic freedom grants universities the licence to run such programmes, in the spirit of critically engaging the minds of our undergraduates. A few may go even further to claim that dissent is good for democracies and hence so is teaching students to become dissidents.

I much prefer the test of an ordinary Singaporean exercising his common sense. He would readily conclude that taking into consideration all the elements and all the personalities involved, this is a programme that was filled with motives and objectives other than learning and education. And MOE's stand is that we cannot have such activities in our schools or IHLs. Political conscientisation is not the taxpayer’s idea of what education means.

Dr Intan and Assoc Prof Walter Theseira asked about the implications on academic freedom arising from the withdrawal of this project. Let me first make it clear that the withdrawal of the project does not undermine in any way academic standards or open inquiry. Various academics have indeed acknowledged this, and Yale University's independent assessment also came to the same conclusion.

MOE values academic freedom, as do our AUs. With academic freedom, our Universities can create new knowledge, innovate and contribute to scientific, technological, economic and social progress. Our AUs have always been places where different ideas are explored and debated, and public discourse carried out vigorously and also rigorously.

This is why a liberal arts school like YNC will have a place in Singapore's education landscape. In fact, in all our AUs, there is increasing focus on inter-disciplinary learning and development of critical thinking skills in our students. But thinking critically is quite different from being unthinkingly critical; and any course offered by our AUs must be up to mark. Otherwise it does not deserve to be part of a liberal arts programme.

Political dissent is certainly a legitimate topic of academic inquiry. Our students read and assess classic works by revolutionary figures such as Marx, Engels, Lenin, Sun Yat Sen or Mao Zedong. It would also be valuable for students in the social sciences to examine critically present day issues, such as the causes and implications of protests against climate change or globalisation, or the demonstrations currently happening in Hong Kong. Students can and should also discuss the implications of such political developments on a small country like Singapore. Such open academic inquiry will continue.

Finally, let me address Mr Seah Kian Peng's question on what activities are permitted or not on our AUs' campuses. It would not be practical or wise to be overly prescriptive in specifying what should or should not be taught in each subject. We have to leave room for AUs to exercise their good judgement. But certain principles should be made clear.

First, all educational institutions must operate within the laws of Singapore. Our laws are enacted by Parliament, which comprises Members of Parliament who are in turn elected by voters. These laws are the democratic expression of the will of the people. Our educational institutions must operate and exercise their academic freedom, within those legal limits.

This is a principle that the founding President of YNC – and the current Vice-President of Yale University – Prof Pericles Lewis, publicly committed to in 2012. Clarifying YNC's policy regarding freedom of expression, he said "any college or university must obey the laws of the countries where it operates".

Every country has their rules and laws, red lines unique to themselves. For example, I do not think the US would tolerate an American university course designed by Jihadists to promote violence, or that France or Germany would accept a course teaching that Nazism is good. These would fall foul of their laws.

Second principle: our educational institutions must not deviate from their missions to advance education and maintain high academic standards. Exploring and debating issues within the context of academic study helps students develop important critical thinking skills. This should be underpinned by rigorous intellectual reasoning, with students required to understand and interpret events and facts within a coherent intellectual framework, and at the same time to examine theories against the facts and empirical evidence, and against competing theories or arguments. This is especially important when studying complex and potentially controversial issues.

Third principle: our educational institutions should not be misused as a platform for partisan politics.

Prof Rajeev Patke, Director of YNC’s humanities division, put it very well. In an email to the College leadership, he wrote, "To study is distinct from to practise: to study 'contemporary resistance' or 'contemporary violence' or 'contemporary prejudice' is not the same as to practise resistance, violence or prejudice. We have to ensure that in our educational institutions, academic study does not get confused or compromised by courses of action and intervention which belong to the realm of individual choice."

In Singapore's democracy, there are many avenues for political parties and activists to champion their causes, and for people to make their choices and exercise their political rights. Educational institutions, and especially the formal curriculum, are not the platforms to do this.

When elections are impending, AUs will always host panel discussions comprising representatives from various political parties and seek to present a balanced range of viewpoints. Otherwise, politicians of any political party – government or opposition – may not campaign, mobilise support or advance their party politics in any of our educational institutions. This has always been the position – always been. When Political Office Holders attend events, give speeches or conduct dialogues with students, they will do so only for the purpose of discussing national policies, not to mobilise partisan political support.

Fourth principle: educational institutions must recognise Singapore's cultural and social context. Every society is a product of its history, culture and unique circumstances, which set the context of what is acceptable and how things are done. Singapore is no exception.

Our governance approach is shaped by our unique realities. We are a small, multi-racial and multi-religious country. Our margin for error is very small compared to bigger countries. Imagine if the demonstrations and riots on the streets of Hong Kong, or the political confusion in the UK, were to take place in Singapore. Our international reputation would be destroyed. Trust and confidence in Singapore, whether by Singaporeans or others, would be severely damaged. Our future would be in grave jeopardy.

Singapore has been able to progress and develop, not least because we have maintained stability. We have built strong governing institutions, engendered respect for the rule of law and engaged deeply with citizens. We have found solutions and struck compromises before the problems become so severe.

Tripartism is an example. We did not wait for protests and strikes to break out before solving the problems downstream. But instead, Government, employers and unions forged a compact amongst themselves, resolved problems and disputes upstream, and thus maintained industrial harmony. This also made Singapore an attractive investment destination.

We adopt the same approach in tackling many other challenges, be it housing, ageing population or climate change. Recognise the challenges early, take a long-term view, find solutions, discuss, find compromises and prevent problems from spiralling beyond control. We should strengthen this collective, constructive approach and avoid falling into the divisions and dissensions that plague other societies.

Mr Speaker, let me conclude. It is a fact of life that good things always get carried to excesses and then get misused. Free market competition is a good thing, and so is capitalism; they promise more jobs and better lives for people, but they are often marred by greed and exploitation. Democracy remains the best system of governance known to humankind, but faith in the system can be weakened by populism and divisive politics. Social media connect people and give voice to the previously voiceless, but falsehoods and manipulation can also proliferate in that space too.

In all these instances, society needs to recognise the problem and respond, and governments need to intervene in order to preserve the positive objectives and merits of the systems, what they set out to do. It is the same with academic freedom. We believe in this fundamental value. Modern day Galileos would not exist without our academics and researchers being free to pursue the truth, understand nature, wherever it may lead. But let us also be aware that given the state of the world today, there will be people who want to misuse it as a cloak to advance their hidden agendas, sometimes not even very hidden.

To preserve what we cherish, we must be ready to protect it when the situation calls for it. Academic freedom cannot be carte blanche for anyone to misuse an academic institution for political advocacy, for this would undermine the institution's academic standards and public standing.

Academic institutions should internalise the principles I stated earlier. At the minimum, they should not undertake activities that expose their students to the risk of breaking the law. They should not work with speakers and instructors who have been convicted of public order-related offences, or who are working with political advocacy groups funded by foreigners, or who openly show disloyalty to Singapore.

Governance everywhere, of countries, companies and educational institutions, has become far more complex because of technology and the free flow of information. Governance calls for judgement and that judgement has to reflect the country's norms. Most countries share fundamental values such as the rule of law, incorruptibility and open discourse. But the way these values are expressed will vary from country to country, depending on their histories, social values and cultures.

In some societies, individuals are more concerned about how far can I extend my fist; but in Singapore, Singaporeans worry when my fist will reach your nose. I have tried to explain Singapore’s approach. In an increasingly globalised world, we must not try to impose one country’s values and culture on others, or unthinkingly import values and culture from elsewhere into our society. We must certainly work across boundaries and learn from one another, but we must do so while understanding and respecting each other’s contexts and norms. That is the best strategy for Singapore to progress and live peacefully in a diverse and inter-connected world.

Thank you, Mr Speaker. I thank the Minister for the detailed explanation of what happened in Yale-NUS College. I have two supplementary questions. One is, with this incident, what does it mean for the future of Yale-NUS College? Will the Ministry sort of exercise greater scrutiny on YNC over the programmes it carries out or the lecturers or academics that it engages? And two, can we still continue to have a liberal arts education here in Singapore bearing in mind our local context?

I will answer the second question first and then the first. As I mentioned earlier, we value open inquiry and critical thinking amongst our students, and liberal arts education will continue to have a place in the Singapore education system. So, from that perspective, we value the partnership with Yale in running Yale-NUS College because they bring us a good quality liberal arts education. From Yale University's perspective, they value that partnership too because they can then have a liberal arts education delivered in Asia in Singapore.

In fact, I would like to add that in NUS, there is a University Scholars Programme, which is quite similar to a liberal arts education.

For the partnership between Yale and NUS to work, both sides must agree to abide by the principles I set out earlier. The withdrawal of this project does not affect the partnership. The standard of the project is so far off the mark, I think both sides agree there are no implications on academic freedom. But I would not rule out that in time to come, there will be incidents that test our partnership. When that happens, I expect both sides to have to constantly evaluate the strength of our understanding and adherence to the principles I stated earlier.

Thank you, Mr Speaker. I just have two supplementary questions for the Minister. The first is, would the Minister agree that the AUs should develop clear guidelines for assessing academic rigour and to communicate that clearly to faculty and external parties? The governance concern here is that these standards were not communicated early and properly to the relevant parties; and that makes the decision seem arbitrary.

The second question is that the Minister expressed concerns about the suitability of numerous individuals connected to the case and he outlined criteria for what makes a suitable educator or facilitator. I wish to ask if this means that the policy is, that there should be a black list of sorts, that our AUs should not engage individuals on this kind of list that would meet these criteria. I think this is concerning, because it raises the risk that Universities will overreact and put people on such a list when they should not be.

The first point is a fair one and I would expect AUs to have clear guidelines on how they set their academic standards. I believe they do have these. If it is not done robustly or detailed enough or not communicated well enough, I would encourage them to do so.

As for the second issue, I think we have to leave a lot of room for educational institutions to decide for themselves. Whether a person is suitable to be a teacher or instructor at all, that is a relevant consideration. Because, in universities, to be a tenured professor, it is a very high bar. So, it is not a new concept – it is not just the course content but the person has to meet certain standards.

I do not think it is practical to have a blacklist. We have to leave room for the Universities to exercise judgement.

Is a person who is an activist, therefore, not suitable to teach? I think, no. In fact, it is the reverse. The world over, academics and faculty are encouraged to be activists because you cannot just focus on publications and citations. To realise the impact of research and your work, faculty are encouraged to be active. So, translate your findings into patents, enterprises or, if it is in the social sciences, discuss with the Ministries your ideas and see if you can contribute to policy making. So, activism amongst faculty is actually quite encouraged.

The second question then is: how about political activism? Then, that depends on professionalism. You cannot conflate your teaching and your political activism. You cannot conflate them within a classroom; you have to keep them separate. And so long as they are kept separate, there is actually no problem. In fact, we have Members of Parliament – both PAP Members of Parliament as well as Opposition Members of Parliament – who are faculty members. And so long as they can keep those two activities separate, it is not a problem at all.

But, of course, there is a third aspect, which is, what political activism does the person stand for? I think that matters. Remember, in many American universities, if someone, if a faculty is sexist or racist, he will not be engaged, no matter how good his research is or teaching is. In Hollywood, we see the same thing. If you are convicted of a sexual offence, even if you an Oscar Academy Award winner, the studios will not engage you. Therefore, it is not just the content of the course but also what the instructor stands for. So, depending on the person's history and track record, educational institutions, I am sure, will consider carefully whether this is someone they want to engage at all.

Mr Speaker, I have one clarification for the Minister. Earlier in his answer, he mentioned that for this particular incident when the project was pulled, Yale had its own independent report after it reviewed the incident. And at the same time the Minister also articulated the Ministry's position on the matter. So, I just need to clarify whether the review of this particular project was initiated by the Ministry or was it YNC's own introspection that led them to review the matter.

The simple answer is that it was their own introspection and then they informed us after that. And, of course, as they expected, Yale University then raised an eyebrow, they wanted to find out what happened and so they did an independent report by Yale University's Vice President, Prof Pericles Lewis, and they confirmed and they are satisfied that this withdrawal does not affect academic freedom in the University.

I thank the Minister for the very comprehensive answer which I have found very assuring. I have two supplementary questions.

The first is on the four principles which the Minister had outlined. Assuming all the AUs come up with their own guidelines on what would guide them in terms of the curriculum, in the event these principles and their guidelines are not complied with, how will the Ministry intervene, if at all, and what form of interventions could these take?

My second supplementary question – and this is something I have raised previously – is that in the area of certain topics, whether it is political science or liberal arts, I think a good sensing of the local context is very important. This is where my bias is towards having more local academics than ones who are foreign-based, whether we need to achieve some form of or calibrate the right balance. So, my question to the Minister is whether something more deliberate and comprehensive could be put in place to address that.

The first question on the four principles I outlined are for all educational institutions. We would not want them to each come up with their own principles. But they have to abide by these four which, I think, are eminently reasonable principles while protecting academic freedom. If it is breached, whether there will be an intervention from the Ministry, all I can say is that I stand before this House to answer on behalf of AUs issues about sexual misconduct in campus, about how their endowment funds are raised and used, and recently about international students in AUs. So, I, as well as my colleagues in MOE, we are accountable to the House about what happens in the AUs. So, should something go wrong, it is our duty and responsibility to also work with the University to resolve the problems and be accountable to the House.

Having said that, I would not characterise the relationship between MOE and the Universities as a regulator-regulatee kind of relationship. In fact, we are constantly in conversation. They express their concerns to us and likewise; and we find compromises, consensus on how to move forward. And that is the kind of relationship we want. Just last week, we had a workplan seminar. So, one foreign academic from the UK who attended it, said that "In the UK, we will never have a forum like this where the university leadership and MOE get together to discuss about the future of universities."

On the second question, the Member has raised that several times. It is a concern that MOE shares. We are taking various steps and I would be happy to outline maybe on another occasion all the steps we are taking to encourage more local academics to join our Universities and make sure we have a strong local core.

But apart from that, on the issue of context and understanding Singapore's context and teaching and doing research within Singapore's context, I would say that it is not just for locals. A foreign faculty can also acquire that sensitivity to our context. So, I would say it is not so much on that front. It is not so much a local versus foreign issue but that I think all academics and our institutions will have to understand Singapore's context and operate within it.

Can we have the next Parliamentary Question? Ms Anthea Ong.

7 Ms Anthea Ong asked the Minister for Home Affairs with respect to the cancellation of the Yale-NUS "Dissent and Dialogue" course (a) whether he agrees that the course entails "elements that may subject students to the risk of breaking the law and incurring legal liabilities"; (b) what laws may be broken and what kinds of legal liabilities may be incurred by (i) students (ii) faculty and (iii) institution; (c) whether the Ministry provides guidelines to academic institutions on such legal risks; and (d) what is the Ministry's position on online sentiments that having a course on dissent is an "unpatriotic act" and the hate speech that is directed at Yale-NUS students.

8 Assoc Prof Walter Theseira asked the Minister for Home Affairs (a) whether and to what extent the Ministry regulates or monitors the political activities of student groups in our Autonomous Universities; (b) what are the guidelines or laws under which foreign students may participate in student activities which may have community, social, or political impact in Singapore; and (c) what can be done to assure students that they have the right to associate and act for political and social causes in Singapore responsibly and within the law.

I will answer part (d) of Question No 7. The other three parts have been answered by Minister Ong. And with your permission, Sir, can I take Question No 7(d) and Question No 8 together?

Yes, please.

The Minister for Education had earlier answered parts (a), (b) and (c) of Ms Anthea Ong's question. On part (d), I think that the heart of the Member's question is about freedom of speech and the limits to that. I think her question relates to people expressing their views that there was dishonesty, unpatriotic actions, and whether they should be allowed to say those things; and the Member has asked for the Ministry's views.

There are criminal, civil laws that govern what people can and cannot say in public. These laws apply to the online space as well. If you defame, there can be civil action; sometimes, it can be criminal defamation as well. If you harass people, that can be an offence, sometimes. Civil action is also possible, civil remedies are possible. If there is speech that has been directed at some students and they believe that a criminal offence has been committed, the students can file a Police report – I am sure they are aware of that.

If the Member is of the view that more regulation of the online space is necessary, going beyond the current laws and that such speech should be regulated, she can let us know – precisely what she has in mind to be regulated? I assume that she is not suggesting that we prevent people from expressing their views on whether some actions are patriotic or unpatriotic. And I think the Member will know that in the online space, people will say what they like. We strengthened the Protection from Harassment Act (POHA) a few months ago to allow people to take action and give individuals more power. If what is said about them is untrue, they can take steps. If they are harassed, they can take steps. So, we are empowering the individuals. But if the Member feels that is not adequate, she can let us know.

As regards Assoc Prof Walter Theseira's question, the Home Team agencies have to ensure the safety and security of Singapore. They focus on persons who engage in activities that endanger national security. Like terrorist acts and acts that could lead to violence, public disorder. And they take measures, including pre-emptive actions.

Let me give an example. In May 2015, a 17-year-old Singapore student was arrested under the Internal Security Act after being self-radicalised and planning to engage in armed violence alongside the Islamic State in Iraq and Syria (ISIS). It does not mean that agencies look at all 17-year-olds.

Let me provide another couple of examples. Last month, my Ministry announced that three domestic helpers from Indonesia had been detained for terrorist related activities. That does not mean our security agencies monitor all domestic helpers – there are close to 260,000 of them. And in 2016, we picked up eight Bangladeshi Work Pass holders who were planning to stage terror attacks in their own home country. There are about 1.4 million Work Pass holders in Singapore. We do not, and we cannot and we are unable to monitor all of them.

The agencies have their ways of identifying security threats and they will take appropriate action, in context.

The Member also asked about the guidelines or laws under which foreign students may participate in student activities. There are laws that set the boundaries for political activities by foreigners. They include the Public Order Act and the Public Entertainments (Speakers' Corner) Exemption Order 2016 and other legislation.

Of course, in an academic setting, as part of a course, foreign students are free to engage in discussion and debate, no different from their fellow Singaporean students.

On the third sub-question, I agree with the Nominated Member that it is important for students to know their rights and responsibilities. I think if you put it in a broader context, it is important that our young people know: (a) what their rights are; (b) the different political systems around the world; (c) how they work; (d) what is happening in the US, Western Europe, Asia and why; (e) our own path in the last 60 years; (f) why we have been relatively successful; (g) how the balance between state power and individual autonomy is struck in different societies; (h) what roles and responsibilities of individuals, groups play; and (i) how to identify charlatans, those who promise the world and deliver nothing, and more.

So, we do our best. But if the Nominated Member has ideas on how we can bring these points across better to younger people, we will be very happy to hear from him. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr Speaker. I thank the Minister for that reply. Earlier, the Minister for Education outlined some examples of individuals who may pose some risk in the educational setting and I wish to ask the Minister for Home Affairs whether he believes that these non-violent but political and social activists who have had certain controversies or issues with the law, do they pose a threat to our student organisations? And if so, does the Ministry monitor that or take any measures to discourage, for example, student organisations working with them and so on?

I do not quite understand the question. Can the Member explain a little bit more clearly what exactly he is asking?

Earlier, the Minister for Education noted that several individuals who are noted social and political activists may be unsuitable for an educational environment for one reason or another, ranging from conviction under certain public order acts to notable acts of potential disloyalty, perhaps, to Singapore, and other issues.

So, I just wish to ask the Minister for Home Affairs whether he believes that this also means that they should be restricted from participating in, or being engaged by student groups. In other words, would there be some kind of security risks, for example, to the students.

I think there are two different issues being conflated here – whether they should be engaging with students and student unions, in the context of universities, I leave it to the Minister for Education. He has explained the principles. That does not ipso facto mean that they become security risks. If they do become security risks, they will be monitored.

9 Ms Anthea Ong asked the Minister for Trade and Industry (a) whether there are plans to reduce greenhouse emissions by industries; (b) how much fossil fuel is (i) imported into and (ii) refined in Singapore every year; (c) how do the volumes in (b) measure up against Singapore's annual carbon emissions; (d) how much percentage increase in carbon emissions is expected following an expansion of refinery facilities; and (e) what is the strategic plan to support industries to make the urgent shifts to changing market and consumer demands to promote climate crisis responsibility.

In 2017, 190 millions tonnes of oil equivalent (Mtoe) of fossil fuels were imported into Singapore. About 55 Mtoe were refined into higher value chemicals and fuels and mostly exported for use in other countries. The rest is largely for power generation and transportation. Singapore generated 52.5 million tonnes of greenhouse gases in 2017, of which industries contribute about 60%. Around three-quarters of industries’ emissions is from the refining and petrochemicals sectors.

Under the Paris Agreement, Singapore has pledged to reduce our emissions intensity by 36% from 2005 levels by 2030 and to reduce our total carbon emissions beyond 2030. To achieve this, we have to make our economy much more carbon efficient.

For existing industries, we are encouraging companies to adopt energy efficient technologies. This year, we implemented an enhanced set of Industry Energy Efficiency schemes. From January 2019, the funding support for the adoption of energy efficient technologies under EDB’s Resource Efficiency Grant for Energy (REG(E)) and NEA’s Energy Efficiency Fund (E2F) has been increased from the previous cap of 30%, to 50% of the qualifying costs. From 2021 onwards, companies regulated under the Energy Conservation Act must establish energy management systems and regularly assess energy efficiency opportunities. NEA is also planning to launch a new grant to help companies digitalise their energy management systems.

When firms expand their operations or new firms invest in Singapore, the Government works closely with them to ensure a high standard of efficiency. For instance, the Government supported the Singapore Refining Company (SRC)'s upgrade on Jurong Island, including its co-generation plant, which has led to greater energy efficiency, higher quality products and reduced sulphur oxide emissions. This is also the case for ExxonMobil’s recent expansion of its Singapore manufacturing complex, which is one of the most efficient refineries globally. Beyond the refineries and petrochemicals sector, we also encourage companies in other sectors to be energy efficient. For instance, Facebook’s first data centre in Singapore will be a leader in energy efficiency, with features that also minimise the use of land and water.

But beyond industries, all of us as consumers, as citizens have a responsibility to mitigate climate change. For example, saving electricity, using public transport and reducing waste are good ways to cut carbon emissions. As a country, we will do our part to help address global climate change and global climate challenges.

I thank the Senior Minister of State for the response. Can I just find out if part (d) on how much percentage increase in carbon emissions is expected following an expansion of refinery facilities, has been answered, please?

Mr Speaker, I think individual refineries' expansions and their emissions are commercially sensitive. So, that is not something that I am able to share with the Member at the moment. But I would say that in principle, when we expand the presence of our refineries here, whether it is a new and or an existing one, the aim is to ensure that they are carbon and energy efficient. And let me also say that we are committed to our Paris Agreement goals that regardless of industry expansion of new plants, we want to make sure that we still cut our Emissions Intensity by 36% from 2005 levels and to peak at 2030, and to reduce beyond that.

Ms Anthea Ong.

Thank you, Mr Speaker. Can I check also with the Senior Minister of State, in terms of the contribution that we have shared that we contribute 0.11% of carbon emissions globally – does that number include the emissions from the oil refinery facilities, please?

I believe that takes into account the whole of Singapore's emissions.

10 Dr Lim Wee Kiak asked the Minister for Social and Family Development since the announcement of the increase in childcare subsidies (a) how many childcare operators have raised their fees; (b) what is the increase quantum; and (c) how much savings can be expected, taking into account the increment and subsidies.

11 Mr Dennis Tan Lip Fong asked the Minister for Social and Family Development how does the Government intend to assist parents who will not benefit from the recent increase in Government childcare subsidies, to cope with childcare fee hikes by the 220 childcare centres as well as possibly other childcare centres.

Mr Speaker, in 2020, 330, or one in five childcare centres —

Minister, are you taking both Questions together?

I am sorry. Mr Speaker, I am taking Question Nos 10 and 11 together, with your permission, please.

Please proceed.

Mr Speaker, in 2020, 330 or one in five childcare centres will be increasing their full-day childcare fees for Singapore Citizen children. The other 1,200 childcare centres will not be making any adjustments to their fees. The number of centres increasing fees in 2020 is broadly comparable to previous years. In 2018, 540 centres raised fees. In 2019, 220 did so.

From time to time, pre-schools adjust their fees to keep up with operational costs but most manage their fee increases, in order to remain competitive. In fact, with the large number of operators, every year some operator or other will make some adjustments. Of the centres raising fees in 2020, the median increase is within 5% of fees, comparable to previous years. In absolute terms, the median increase is around $35.

All pre-schools are required to inform parents and ECDA of any increase in fees by 1 September of the preceding year, so that parents can make an informed choice about their child’s pre-school. Of the centres raising fees next year, a large majority had informed ECDA even before subsidy enhancements were announced at the National Day Rally.

Among some of the centres raising fees are those run by Anchor Operators and Partner Operators. These are centres operating below the stipulated fee caps, which have been maintained at their current levels since 2014 for Anchor Operators and 2016 for Partner Operators. The industry median fees have thus remained unchanged at $856 since 2016. In fact, in 2021, we will lower fee caps for Partner Operator centres when their new five-year term begins, further reducing industry median fees.

With enhanced childcare subsidies from January 2020, the majority of working families will pay less for childcare, even with the fee adjustment in one-fifth of the childcare centres. Compared to the median fee increase of about $35, families will see the Additional Subsidy for full-day childcare increase by up to $240 per month from January 2020, depending on their income levels.

Allow me to illustrate what working families will pay for full-day childcare at an Anchor Operator pre-school with the enhanced subsidies. Suppose the fees are below fee cap, say $740, and an increase by 5% to the fee cap of $770 next January, after GST.

Family A earns $3,000 a month. They pay $40 per month at this pre-school today; from January next year, they will pay $3 per month.

Family B earns $5,000 per month. They pay $340 per month today; from January next year, they will pay $130.

Family C earns $8,000 per month. They pay $440 per month today; from January next year, they will pay $280 per month.

As you can see, pre-school expenses should fall for most families receiving Additional Subsidy, even with the fee increase in one-fifth of the childcare centres.

Let me take this opportunity to clarify that the enhancements in Additional Subsidy apply to all eligible families, regardless of the centres their children are enrolled in, as long as these childcare centres are licensed by ECDA. They do not apply only to Anchor Operator or Partner Operator childcare centres.

For families with non-working mothers or those who are earning more than $12,000 a month and hence do not qualify for the enhanced Additional Subsidy, we provide additional help for those who need it. For example, if the mother is not working because she is providing full-time care for a younger child aged 24 months and below, or is looking for employment, she may qualify for higher subsidies under Special Approval. Low-income families who face difficulties paying their monthly childcare fees even after subsidies may also apply for financial assistance.

Over the next few years, parents will increasingly have more affordable and quality pre-school options to choose from, as we increase the number of Anchor Operator and Partner Operator pre-schools, and a few more Ministry of Education (MOE) Kindergartens. By around 2025, the share of Anchor Operator, Partner Operator and MOE pre-school places will rise to 80%, up from just over 50% today.

In the medium term, as Government-supported preschools grow and come under the stipulated fee caps, we will lower their fee caps so that parents will pay around the equivalent of Primary school fees plus after-school student care fees for full-day pre-school, before means-tested subsidies kick in.

These enhancements will more than double annual Government spending on preschool, from $1 billion today. We are committed and will continue to make quality preschool more affordable and accessible to give every child a good start in life.

Dr Lim Wee Kiak.

Mr Speaker, let me thank the Minister for the clarifications as well as for clearing the air on this issue. In fact, many of us have received feedback from our residents. They have given comments that every time the Government increases subsidies, the childcare operators will increase their fees – it seems to be corresponding. But I think I thank the Minister for producing the data as well as the statistics which are very important.

It is still quite tough for middle-income families which have a few children in childcare centres, especially for those who, even with the subsidy itself, may find it tough with their monthly incomes.

The other group that I am a little bit concerned with is the non-working mothers. I think that I understand there is already additional subsidy for non-working mothers if they fulfil the criteria. My question is, currently, how many of these children who enjoy the subsidies are children of non-working mothers? Can we equalise both groups, instead of making them apply to these criteria? If we were to put working mothers or non-working mothers aside, how much more increase in terms of subsidies would the Government have to bear, rather than make the non-working mothers go and apply for additional subsidies.

I thank the Member for his questions. Every year some pre-school operators will make some adjustments to their fees. There are many operators – private, not-for profit, as well as MOE kindergartens. So, every year there will be some adjustments, whether or not we make adjustments to our subsidies. So, I hope that clears the misunderstanding. In fact, the vast majority of households earning $12,000 and below ought to see a reduction in childcare fees.

There are, of course, some centres, private operators, that charge, say thousands of dollars in fees that make adjustments in the hundreds of dollars. That is quite a different situation altogether. But for the vast majority, they should see a fall in childcare fees from January next year. And as I said, from January 2021, for Partner Operators, we will bring down the fee caps even further; and thereafter, the Anchor Operators will see a fall as well. So, that is on the Member's first question.

The second point is on families with many children. Apart from looking at total household income, for families with many dependents and more children in pre-school, we will look at it from a per capita basis, so that they can get even more support.

On non-working mothers, the support provided to them takes into account the fact that because they are working, they will need full-day childcare. By working mother, we are talking about working two days a week and that can include the informal sector as well. So, there is a degree of flexibility. In fact, working mother status is conferred if a mother works for two days a week, or roughly 56 hours a month.

We do grant special approval if mothers have care-giving needs for children younger than 24 months or if they are looking after other dependents. For those who are looking for employment, we make concessions for them and allow them to benefit from the full subsidy. And for those who are non-working mothers, what they can do is, they can go for the basic subsidy for full-day childcare, or if not and they are at home with no other care-giving responsibilities other than their young children, then, there is the option to go for kindergarten with KiFAS subsidies. So for half a day, they get pedagogical support; the other half a day, time with the parents, time with the family, family-bonding time.

12 Mr Alex Yam asked the Minister for Transport (a) what is the public feedback so far since the implementation of a ban on PMD use at void decks and common corridors at 15 towns on 1 September 2019; (b) whether the number of reported incidents has reduced since the implementation; and (c) whether the ban has had any impact on food and goods delivery during the last one month.

13 Mr Lim Biow Chuan asked the Minister for Transport what is the estimated cost of LTA's early disposal incentive for e-scooters which do not meet the UL2272 safety standard and who will bear such costs.

14 Er Dr Lee Bee Wah asked the Minister for Transport since the start of the mandatory registration of e-scooters in July 2019 (a) how many illegally modified e-scooters have been seized; (b) how does LTA keep check on e-scooter users who illegally modify their vehicles after being certified LTA-approved; and (c) whether the penalties will be enhanced for owners of illegally modified e-scooters.

Mr Speaker, may I take Question Nos 12, 13 and 14 together, please?

Yes, please.

On 21 September, a young e-scooter rider collided with an elderly cyclist, Mdm Ong Bee Eng, at Bedok North Street 3. Mdm Ong sustained serious injuries and passed away a few days later. We are deeply saddened by the incident and would like to offer our deepest condolences to Mdm Ong’s family.

This particular accident happened not on a pedestrian footpath, but on a dedicated cycling path where the speed limit is 25 km/h. Furthermore, the e-scooter was an unregistered and non-compliant device. It was bought online and that particular device model can go up to 80 km/h. Its usage is illegal.

This accident has caused public alarm over the dangers that personal mobility devices (PMDs) pose to others and has heightened fears for the safety of pedestrians using footpaths, particularly the old and the young. We share Singaporeans' concerns. With PMD use increasing, the number of accidents involving PMDs has gone up. We need footpaths to be safe for pedestrians again.We are determined to improve footpath safety back to the levels we had before PMDs were allowed onto footpaths.

On 5 August 2019, Senior Minister of State for Transport Dr Lam Pin Min explained in this House our plans to strengthen public path safety and reduce PMD-related fire risks. Given the recent developments, we will revisit these plans to see where we need to rethink our approach and to introduce additional measures. Please give us a month or two to do this thorough review.

PMDs are useful devices for first-and-last mile connectivity, if they are used responsibly. But their usage must not endanger device users and pedestrians. Ideally, there should be a clear separation of traffic – pedestrians on footpaths, active mobility devices on dedicated paths for PMDs and bicycles, and motor vehicles on roads. Because of infrastructure constraints, we allow pedestrians and bicycles to use footpaths as a second best practical solution. New towns will allow such separation, but existing towns currently do not have many dedicated paths for PMDs. This poses an immediate challenge for PMD users.

LTA is working with Members of Parliament to identify hotspots where we can do something quickly to improve safety, for example by widening footpaths and installing speed-regulating strips. We will also speed up development of dedicated paths for PMDs and bicycles. Full implementation of such infrastructure enhancements will take time, years. Meanwhile, we have to make a decision on where to allow PMDs to be used, other than on dedicated paths for PMDs and bicycles – on footpaths, or on roads, or not at all until the town is ready?

These are difficult choices. We will re-examine them and re-discuss with the stakeholders. In the meantime, we strongly urge PMD users to be extra responsible and mindful of others. If their behaviour does not improve, we may have no choice but to ban their usage completely from Singapore. This would be a loss.

Meanwhile, LTA is working with the Town Councils to implement Pedestrian Only Zones (POZs) at all town centres. As there are implementation details to iron out, we will create POZs in stages. We will do so as soon as the Town Councils are ready.

Let me now address the questions posed by Mr Alex Yam, Er Dr Lee Bee Wah and Mr Lim Biow Chuan. Mr Alex Yam asked about public feedback on the 15 Town Councils’ ban of bicycles, power-assisted bicycles and PMDs in void decks and common property areas. There have been mixed reactions, with some welcoming the move to enhance safety and others expressing concerns about reduced connectivity. There has not been a noticeable drop in reported incidents yet, as we are still in a two-month advisory period until 31 October 2019. We expect the full impact to be clearer, after the Town Councils begin enforcement action. With regard to Mr Yam's question about the impact on food and goods delivery, LTA does not have such statistics. But we have not received adverse feedback from delivery companies, as deliveries are largely done via motorcycles and delivery vehicles.

To Er Dr Lee Bee Wah's query, LTA had seized 161 non-compliant PMDs from July to September 2019. These included some which were illegally modified. Beyond mandatory inspections at the point of registration, e-scooters will be called up for inspections every two years. LTA is studying upstream measures, including import controls, to tackle the problem of non-compliant PMDs. LTA is also reviewing the penalties for illegal modification of PMDs and other offences.

Mr Lim asked about the costs of LTA's early disposal incentive for non-UL2272 devices. Under the scheme, Government covers the disposal costs and owners of registered e-scooters will qualify for an incentive of $100 if they dispose of their devices before 30 November 2019. Between 23 September and 3 October 2019, LTA received more than 2,800 applications for the early disposal incentive scheme and collected more than 940 PMDs at the designated disposal points. We strongly urge owners of non-UL2272 devices to come forward early with their devices. Every non-UL2272 device safely disposed of is one less potential fire risk.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I have five supplementary questions.

We may not have time for that.

I understand that some depend on PMDs for their livelihood, but this cannot be at the expense of the safety of millions of pedestrians using the footpaths. I would like to ask will the Ministry consider mandatory licensing for PMD riders which will only be issued after they have passed the highway code and bought third-party insurance. The second question is, can LTA get PMD owners to display their registration numbers clearly, big-big, in front and at the back of their PMDs? Recently, I was trying to look for the number; I could not find it! I hunted high and low for it. It was hiding, inside!

The third question is, will the Ministry take action against shops or individuals who help to do the modifications? The fourth question is, will the Ministry consider making speed limiter installation compulsory so that it will cut off when the PMDs exceed allowable speeds? And lastly, what is the recourse for victims of hit-and-run accidents caused by PMDs? I have just received feedback from my resident – his grandparents were hit by PMD riders at night and the youngsters did not stop to help the poor grandparents. So, what is the recourse?

I thank Er Dr Lee Bee Wah for the questions, Mr Speaker. Indeed, with respect to her first question, there are opportunities for livelihood and jobs created through the use of PMDs. We want to get the right balance between responsible behaviour and making sure that our public spaces are safe for everybody. She mentioned mandatory licensing, a test involving the equivalent of a highway code as well as third-party insurance. Some of these have already been reflected in the Active Mobility Advisory Panel report that came out recently. We are studying that and we are likely to adopt some of these measures. Certainly, as we undertake a thorough review of our process, we will be including many of these ideas in that process. For the display of the registration number, indeed, the registration number is supposed to be very prominently displayed. The reality is that there are many unlicensed PMDs that are still on our paths, on our roads, on our Park Connectors, and which is why, perhaps, the Member was unable to detect the registration number easily. The registration numbers of properly registered devices are to be properly displayed so that action can be taken against errant riders if necessary.

Indeed, once we have our compulsory inspection for each device, both in terms of the existing devices and then, going forward, for each device that is brought in, we will take action if an illegally modified device is detected. Certainly, then, we will also work to find and take action against those businesses that do this.

Compulsory speed limit would potentially be possible if we had access to every device, and again, is something that we will study comprehensively.

The Member asked about the recourse, as the fifth question, having had the experience of a hit-and-run. Certainly, the Police and LTA – depending on the exact location and the exact circumstances – will try to put together information from whatever sources we have to catch the perpetrators. But ultimately, the key message is that in all of these issues, what we are dealing with is a small number of very irresponsible and dangerous individuals. We need to find a way to educate them, to enforce against them when they act in this way and try to find ways to develop a new safety culture in our public spaces so that people can have the assurance of a safe experience on the footpaths.

Sir, while the Ministry conducts this comprehensive and thorough review, in the meanwhile, would the Government consider stopping new sales and new imports of PMDs, at least, we do not add further to the problem that we already have to manage?

Mr Speaker, I thank the Member for his suggestion. The steps we have already taken will mean that new devices and new imports need to be compliant and need to be registered. So, going forward, any new device would need to be compliant and registered with our current framework. And so, the likelihood is that what we are dealing with is the errant behaviour by people who have previously brought in very large devices, very fast devices or have illegally modified the devices. It is something to consider. We will look at it. But given the number of these devices that are already here in Singapore, on our footpaths and on our roads, I think there are other steps that we need to consider for early intervention in the first place.

End of Question Time.

[ Pursuant to Standing Order No 22(3), Written Answers to Question Nos 15-29, 31-32, 34-36, 38-39, 42-51 and 53-70 on the Order Paper are reproduced in the Appendix. Question Nos 30, 33, 37, 40-41 and 52 have been postponed to the next available sitting of Parliament. ]

[(proc text) "to amend the Air Navigation Act (Chapter 6 of the 2014 Revised Edition)", (proc text)]

[(proc text) presented by the Minister for Transport (Mr Khaw Boon Wan); read the First time; to be read a Second time on the next available Sitting of Parliament, and to be printed. (proc text)]

[(proc text) "to amend the Home Affairs Uniformed Services Superannuation Act (Chapter 126B of the 2012 Revised Edition)", (proc text)]

[(proc text) presented by the Senior Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Home Affairs (Mr Amrin Amin) on behalf of the Minister for Home Affairs; read the First time; to be read a Second time on the next available Sitting of Parliament, and to be printed. (proc text)]

[(proc text) "to amend the Women's Charter (Chapter 353 of the 2009 Revised Edition)", (proc text)]

[(proc text) presented by the Senior Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Home Affairs (Ms Sun Xueling) on behalf of the Minister for Home Affairs; read the First time; to be read a Second time on the next available Sitting of Parliament, and to be printed. (proc text)]

[(proc text) "to amend the Constitution of the Republic of Singapore (1999 Reprint)", (proc text)]

[(proc text) presented by the Senior Minister of State for Law (Mr Edwin Tong Chun Fai) on behalf of the Minister for Law; read the First time; to be read a Second time on the next available Sitting of Parliament, and to be printed. (proc text)]

[(proc text) "to amend the Judges' Remuneration Act (Chapter 147 of the 1995 Revised Edition)", (proc text)]

[(proc text) presented by the Senior Minister of State for Law (Mr Edwin Tong Chun Fai) on behalf of the Minister for Law; read the First time; to be read a Second time on the next available Sitting of Parliament, and to be printed. (proc text)]

[(proc text) "to amend the Supreme Court of Judicature Act (Chapter 322 of the 2007 Revised Edition) to provide for the renaming of the High Court as the General Division of the High Court, to provide for the jurisdiction and powers of the Appellate Division of the High Court, to make amendments to provisions relating to the Court of Appeal, to make amendments relating to requirements for leave to appeal against decisions of the General Division of the High Court and to make consequential and related amendments to certain other Acts", (proc text)]

[(proc text) presented by the Senior Minister of State for Law (Mr Edwin Tong Chun Fai) on behalf of the Minister for Law; read the First time; to be read a Second time on the next available Sitting of Parliament, and to be printed. (proc text)]

[(proc text) "to amend the Goods and Services Tax Act (Chapter 117A of the 2005 Revised Edition", (proc text)]

[(proc text) recommendation of President signified; presented by the Second Minister for Finance (Mr Lawrence Wong); read the First time; to be read a Second time on the next available Sitting of Parliament, and to be printed. (proc text)]

[(proc text) "to amend the Central Provident Fund Act (Chapter 36 of the 2013 Revised Edition)", (proc text)]

[(proc text) presented by the Minister of State for Manpower (Mr Zaqy Mohamad) on behalf of the Minister for Manpower; read the First time; to be read a Second time on the next available Sitting of Parliament, and to be printed. (proc text)]

[(proc text) Order for Second Reading read. (proc text)]

Mr Speaker, I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time."

The Income Tax (Amendment) Bill 2019 covers seven changes which were announced in this year's Budget, as well as 18 other changes arising from the periodic review to refine and to clarify Singapore’s income tax regime.

We sought views from the public on the draft Bill earlier this year. MOF has evaluated all the feedback received and incorporated them where they are relevant to the draft text of the Bill.

Let me start by highlighting the key changes that give effect to the announcements made at Budget 2019 this year.

First, as part of the Bicentennial Bonus, a Personal Income Tax Rebate of 50% of income tax payable capped at $200 will be granted to all tax resident individuals for Year of Assessment (YA) 2019. Clause 46 of the Bill provides for the change.

Second, the Not Ordinarily Resident (NOR) scheme, which was introduced in Budget 2002, will lapse after YA 2020. The last such NOR status will be granted for YA 2020 and expire in YA 2024, because it is a five-year scheme. Individuals who have been accorded the NOR status and continue to meet the conditions will continue to be granted the NOR tax concessions until their status expire. Clause 12 of the Bill provides for the change.

Third, to continue to grow Singapore’s asset management industry, the tax concessions relating to Qualifying Funds will be extended till 31 December 2024. These tax schemes will also be refined to keep them relevant and to ease compliance burden. Clauses 8, 15, and 17 of the Bill provide for these changes.

As mentioned earlier, the Ministry of Finance regularly reviews and refines the income tax regime. I will now highlight two changes arising from this periodic review of the tax regime which are found in the Bill.

First, we will ease the compliance burden for individual tax residents who are self-employed commission agents and are earning gross annual commission income of up to $50,000. This is by introducing an option for self-employed commission agents to apply a prescribed deemed expense ratio, which is set at 25% of their gross commission income. Those who do not take up this option can continue to claim tax deduction based on the actual amount of expenses incurred in the production of their commission income. This change, found in Clause 22 of the Bill, will take effect from YA 2020 for income earned in 2019.

Second, to align with international trends, and to improve accountability and promote open justice, tax proceedings before the Courts will no longer be heard privately by default. We will also discontinue the practice of redacting taxpayers' names in published decisions of such judicial proceedings. Clause 38 of the Bill provides for the change. Similar changes will be tabled for the Goods and Services Tax Act (GSTA) in relation to proceedings before the Courts under the GSTA. The changes relating to Court proceedings, under the Income Tax Act and the GSTA, will take effect on 1 January 2020. Mr Speaker, I beg to move.

[(proc text) Question proposed. (proc text)]

Mr Speaker, I stand in support of the Bill as it is generally procedural in nature. In particular, I welcome the amendment in clause 29 that amends section 39 of the current Act to broaden the Grandparent Care Relief to working mothers with "handicapped" and unmarried children.

However, I would like to outline some significant and urgent housekeeping changes that we must make in definitional interpretations with the current Income Tax Act and the amendments of this Bill.

The Explanatory Note of the Bill used the term "handicapped" and the amendment in clause 29(b) sub-paragraph used "incapacitated by reason of physical or mental infirmity".

Sir, I was shocked to find that under section 2(1) of the Act, an "incapacitated" person means infant, lunatic, idiot or insane person – a definition that, in my research through the legislative history, has not been changed for 72 years since the Income Tax Ordinance 1947 when income tax was first imposed. The reference is derogatory and as you would know well, is not reflective of the current narrative and ground realities of the disability community and our social policies. In case the House thinks that I am just concerned with semantics, let me share why this is more than just a euphemistic concern.

First, definitions and terminologies we use in our legislature reflect how far we have come as a society and have an impact on how the rest of the society carves out their responses and examines their attitudes. So, we must not leave definitional updates as an afterthought as we update our laws. As the Executive Director of the Disabled Persons Association or DPA shared with me when I checked with her on this particular definition, "for any law to define disability by incapacitation or to locate the inability to interact in the world within the disabled person goes against the UN Convention on the Rights of People with Disabilities or CRPD which locates the barriers in the environment and not the person". Singapore became a signatory of CPRD in August 2013.

Specifically, the term "incapacitated by reason of mental infirmity" goes against the spirit of the Mental Capacity Act introduced in 2008. In section 4(3), the Act says that a lack of capacity cannot be established merely by reference to (a) a person’s age or appearance; or (b) condition of theirs which might lead others to make unjustified assumptions about their capability.

Second, this discovery I made also unveiled the inconsistency and misalignment of the definition of "disability" across the legislature. As an example, the Women’s Charter defines an "incapacitated person" as a person who is wholly or partially incapacitated or infirm, by reason of physical or mental disability or ill-health or old age.

In general, the English-speaking disability rights movement has moved away from the term "handicapped" and reclaiming and attributing positive associations with the term "disabled" or "disabilities". It is seen as "outdated" by the community in Singapore. "Handicap" is still used across a multitude of legislation including the Health Sciences Authority Act, Health Products Act, the Copyright Act, and so on.

I am thankful for the numerous tax relief schemes that we have to support our disability and vulnerable communities, but I urge the Ministry to update the awful definition of "incapacitated" from 1947 and all references to "handicap" to reflect the current social norms. We should take the lead from the Singapore’s Enabling Masterplan which also implements the CRPD. The Masterplan’s definition and terminology of "disability" reflects the current and aspirational needs of the community. "Disability" is defined as "those whose prospects of securing, retaining places and advancing in education and training institutions, employment and recreation as equal members of the community are substantially reduced as a result of physical, sensory, intellectual and developmental impairments."

I also urge all other ministries to review and update all current provisions for our disability community, and in making new laws, to take the lead from MSF who leads and updates the Enabling Masterplan with the community.

Mr Speaker, I would now like to take this opportunity with the Bill to discuss how we can better engage our private sector towards achieving greater social impact with the Business and IPC Scheme, or BIPS and supporting the growth of social enterprises.

BIPS was approved during Budget 2016 for two and a half years from July 2016 to December 2018, and then extended for three more years till December 2021. The intent of the scheme is to encourage businesses to send their employees to volunteer and provide services in various areas such as legal, human resources and accounting, or even general voluntary services for institutions for public character (IPCs).

Yet both businesses and IPCs face an administratively onerous process in applying for BIPs thereby resulting in low usage of the scheme. In response to my Parliamentary Question in November 2018, we know then that between July 2016 and December 2017, or 1.5 years, only 48 businesses contributed about 17,000 volunteering hours through BIPS projects. To put this number in context, there are more than 500,000 business entities in Singapore.

I urge the Government to consider the three suggestions below gathered from conversations with community-based organisations and companies that are keen to realise the policy and impact intent of BIPS.

First, this scheme is only available for the 610 approved IPCs which are held to a higher governance standard out of 2,277 registered charities in 2018. Given that, the scheme could be made fully flexible through disbursing the $50,000 tax deduction limit to each IPC and allowing them to use the funds as they deem fit. A random audit could be conducted to deter abuses. This will also allow charities to distribute this $50,000 deduction tax limit across corporate partners in more meaningful ways that would better meet their beneficiary needs. With the current application process, there is a tendency to rush into partnerships on a first-come-first-serve basis.

Second, the current BIPS offers tax deductions based on the actual salary rates of the employees of the businesses which could be problematic given (a) the need to disclosure such sensitive information and (b) the BIPS do not have the industry knowledge and/or bandwidth to audit salary figures given by corporate partners to determine if they are true and fairly reported. I understand from the reply to my Parliamentary Question in August that the Government is currently considering using fixed man-hour rates for BIPS to increase the administrative ease of claiming tax deduction under the scheme. This is very much a step in the right direction.

But I would further suggest that the value of voluntary method be tied to the actual value of the voluntary service rendered, independent of the corporate volunteer’s salary. This value could be pre-set by the Government in the form.

Lastly, BIPS should also consider including food donations, particularly nutritional food donations which I shared in my speech for the Resource Sustainability Bill last month as part of our climate change strategy. Countries like the US and France have already legislated tax deductions for food donations. In the US, companies can claim 15% tax deduction of their taxable income based on the value of the donated food. In France, if a company makes a food donation to a registered charity, they can claim up to 60% of the value of the food as a tax rebate, depending on how near it is to the food’s expiry date.

Mr Speaker, between private businesses and social service agencies are social enterprises. Social enterprises are businesses that have a social and/or environmental agenda woven into its primary business. They help to reduce inequality and create livelihood opportunities for vulnerable communities by generating income through innovative products and services in the marketplace.

At this juncture, I would like to declare my interest as the founder of Hush TeaBar, a social enterprise that employs Deaf persons and persons who live with mental health conditions to provide a curated silent tea experience to promote mental wellness and social inclusion at workplaces. I am also a small-time impact investor.

The growth of social enterprises in Singapore has generally been organic because we do not yet have a clear national strategy on this, including recognition of these enterprises as separate legal entities in their own right. As such, we do not know the total number of social enterprises in Singapore but we do know from a response to my Parliamentary Question in February that 336 of them chose to be members of the Singapore Centre for Social Enterprises, or raiSE, as at March 2018. Out of these, 92 or 27% had an annual revenue of at least or more than $200,000, including Hush.

I remember having a conversation with an impact investor a few years back who shared that she would not think to invest in Singapore social enterprises since there are already grants given by the Singapore Government, through the Tote Board and administered by raiSE. As much as grants are welcome, they encourage innovations differently from investments.

Investments into social enterprises could be encouraged with tax rebates for impact investors. This may also help to shift mindset from conventional donations to investing in social enterprises and eventually building a larger ecosystem. The UK government introduced the Social Investment Tax Relief (SITR) in 2014 to help social enterprises attract capital in order to drive and grow their business.

I urge the Government to consider such legislative innovations to incentivise market-driven investments into local social enterprises. We must do more to create the right environment for more of these impact businesses to grow from micro-businesses to SMEs and eventually bringing our Singapore brand of social innovations overseas as part of our global citizenry.

To conclude, I would like to quote Deputy Prime Minister Heng Swee Keat at the Building our Future Singapore Together Dialogue in June 2019. I quote, "beyond partnering you in specific areas, we will work with you to create a shared future, one where every Singaporean will have a part to play."

Mr Speaker, this commitment must surely include every differently-abled and vulnerable Singaporean by recognising them in a respectful, dignified and consistent manner across our laws and policies, as well as creating enabling environments to invite and support every business and every social enterprise to contribute to a nation that cares. Because the Singaporean society that we want to be is not about bringing people into what already exists but about making a new and better space for everyone to thrive.

Mr Speaker, I thank Ms Anthea Ong for her support of the Bill, and let me take this opportunity to address some of the points that she had raised.

First, I will touch on the Business and IPC Partnership Scheme, or BIPS. As Ms Ong mentioned, this is a relatively new scheme introduced in Budget 2016 to encourage businesses to support their employees to volunteer. Since then, MCCY and NVPC have been exploring ways to refine the scheme and to make the administrative processes more convenient and seamless for both businesses and the Institutions of a Public Characters or IPCs.

Among the enhancements made to BIPS, we will, as Ms Ong highlighted, provide an option for businesses to claim tax deductions on wages based on a fixed man-hour rate. So, this will address the issues that I think the businesses and IPCs have been raising about administrative burden and confidentiality concerns. The fixed man-hour rates will be differentiated with a higher rate for skill-based volunteerism. This will also serve to encourage businesses to tap on the expertise of their employees and their services to better support the needs of the IPCs.

To further simplify the administrative process, we will be introducing a "safe harbour" for related expenses, such that IPCs need not verify supporting documentation for related expenses that make up less than 5% of the total qualifying expenditure.

We hope these enhancements will reduce the administrative burden on both our IPCs and businesses who are part of the scheme. Ms Ong also offered other suggestions for BIPS, including having food donations recognised as part of the scheme. We will take all these suggestions into consideration as we continue to improve and fine-tune this scheme.

Of course, besides BIPS, there are other existing schemes that provide more direct support for charities and IPCs. For example, under the Bicentennial Community Fund, the Government provides up to $400,000 in matching grants for donations made to each IPC this year. The VWOs-Charities Capability Fund supports charities in areas such as governance and the adoption of technology to enhance operational efficiency. Government agencies overseeing this sector will continue to review the various schemes that we have, be it on the tax side or through grants, and find ways to continue to encourage and promote a more giving society.

Ms Ong also suggested having tax relief for investors of social enterprises. Besides grants and tax incentives, she highlighted the role of impact investors and she suggested having tax reliefs for such investors to encourage the growth of social enterprises. As Ms Ong highlighted, we are currently helping social enterprises through raiSE (the Singapore Centre for Social Enterprise), and the Minister for Social and Family Development had elaborated on this, when he responded to a question in Parliament last month on the support provided to help social enterprises to grow. We will likewise study Ms Ong's suggestion on this particular area and see how we can do more to encourage the growth of our social enterprise sector in Singapore.

Finally, I would like to thank Ms Ong for her comments on the definitions of terminologies used in the Act. I would like to first assure her that we are in full compliance with the Convention on the Rights of People with Disabilities, and if you look at the terminologies and definitions used in our Acts, there is internal consistency across all our various Acts. We have taken legal advice on this, and I think there is no doubt about that matter. Nevertheless, I agree with her that language can play an important role in promoting inclusion in society and some of the terminologies do need to be updated. So, we will consider this at the next review of the Income Tax Act.

Mr Speaker, I believe I have addressed the Member's concerns and questions, and I would like to assure all Members of this House that MOF will continue to review our tax regime and our schemes regularly to ensure their relevance and effectiveness. Mr Speaker, I beg to move.

[(proc text) Question put, and agreed to. (proc text)]

[(proc text) Bill accordingly read a Second time and committed to a Committee of the whole House. (proc text)]

[(proc text) The House immediately resolved itself into a Committee on the Bill. – [Mr Lawrence Wong]. (proc text)]

[(proc text) Bill considered in Committee; reported without amendment; read a Third time and passed. (proc text)]

[(proc text) Order for Second Reading read. (proc text)]

Mr Speaker, I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time".

This Bill proposes amendments to Maintenance of Religious Harmony Act, referred to as MRHA. The MRHA was passed in 1990 and came to effect in 1992. In those 27 years, society, attitudes towards religion, the environment and more have changed. We reviewed the MRHA and we decided to amend it, keep it relevant, keep it effective.

In this speech, I will touch on three aspects. First, the background to the MRHA, reasons why it was introduced in 1990; second, a brief look at relevant events around the world, the extent of religious harmony and our experience over the past 27 years; and third, set out the rationale for the amendments. My colleague, Senior Parliamentary Secretary Sun Xueling, will speak on the specific provisions in the Bill. Let me now deal with the context and background to the MRHA.

The rationale for the MRHA was set out in a White Paper. It was published in December 1989. It highlighted several important aspects. One: religious harmony is a necessary condition for us to survive as a country. The Government needed to set out a set of “working rules” on how different religious groups interact with each other. One such rule was that religious groups should not do anything that causes disharmony, ill-will or hostility between different religious groups. This is especially so for proselytisation. A key tenet of many religions is to propagate their faith, but in Singapore, we want it to be done sensitively.

Another rule, if I may highlight, is that religious groups should not venture into politics and political parties should not use religion to get popular support. The White Paper also recognised it would be unwise to assume that all religious groups will recognise the Rules of Prudence. But, in our context, in fact in any country, if these rules were ignored, that could seriously damage our social fabric and our political, economic fabric. The White Paper then said legislation was therefore necessary because we wanted to take pre-emptive action to maintain religious harmony.

The MRHA was passed, had these key features: one, it covered conduct that harmed religious tolerance; two, there were powers for the Minister to issue orders restraining harmful conduct; and three, a Presidential Council for Religious Harmony (PCRH) was set up, which could consider these orders. It could also consider other matters that affected the maintenance of religious harmony.

Let me give a bit more context on the reasons for the introduction of the Act then.

I think we all recognise the power of religion. It has been and it is a force for much good. Major religions have transformed societies in positive ways. They are the bedrock of core societal values: compassion, kindness, generosity. The collective efforts of a number of different religious organisations and groups, their values and their faith have also helped to make Singapore what it is today.

At the same time, we recognise that religion has also been used and can be used by bad actors as a rallying point for violence. Also, by bad actors as a rallying point to pursue political power, often with bad outcomes for societies.

In 1990, the Government was very aware of the good that religion can bring about, but also how it can be abused by some. So, the question was how to keep the good, allow a large measure of freedom and also keep out the bad? The Government decided on two key principles.

First, emphasise the constitutional guarantee of freedom of religion – the right of every person to practise his or her beliefs. And the Government, as a matter of policy, made sure that religion remained accessible to all Singaporeans who wish to access it.

For example, land is continuously set aside in our residential estates. Every time we plan an estate, we take into account religious needs for worship for all religions. The Government helped to establish the Mosque Building and MENDAKI Fund, which made it easier to mobilise the community and build mosques.

At the same time, the Government itself is secular. Secularism in Singapore is unique. It is not like secularism in some other countries. The example I spoke about in April this year before this House was France.There, the state will not intervene in religious matters, even if an act or speech offends other religions.

We take a different position. I explained this in some detail, in my Parliamentary Statement in April before this House.

The Government does not privilege any religious group. But we also do not allow any religious group to be attacked or insulted. And we actively encourage inter-faith dialogues, activities to foster mutual understanding and respect. At the same time, we keep to the position that no religious group should influence Government policy and decision-making.

That was the background for the passing of the MRHA in 1990. In the last 27 years since it was passed, there have been some significant changes. I will touch on four.

First, growing religiosity and increased reliance on identity politics around the world; second, increased violence committed in the name of religion; third, the Internet and social media; and fourth, increased possibilities for interference by countries in the affairs of other countries.

First, rising religiosity. If you look at the 2015 Pew Research Centre survey, it is projected that by 2050, 87% of the world's population will be religiously-affiliated. That, we can see, is particularly so in this region – look at Indonesia, for example. Rising religiosity by itself can be a force for considerable good, as I explained earlier. But there can be trouble when it is exploited by bad actors, for example, for identity politics. And it can be so exploited. We see this in many places.

If we look at Europe – far-right movements play up anxieties against Muslims and other minorities. If we look nearer in this region, in Myanmar, there is religious conflict between the majority Buddhists and the Rohingya Muslim minority. Buddhist monks enter the political scene and say they are defending the Buddhist Myanmar against Islamisation.

If we look at Sri Lanka, some have sought to radicalise Buddhists by claims that all of Sri Lanka should be exclusively Buddhist. We had a 2013 Buddhist attack on a mosque; 2014, anti-Muslim riots which resulted in a 10-day national state of emergency; and last year, more anti-Muslim riots. The Buddhist monks have also disrupted Christian church services.

The developments in India are worth nothing. India was established in 1947 as a pluralist nation and home that comprises people of many religions, sects and ethnicities. Their constitution provides no particular religion with special status.

A writer points out that the party that champions secularism, the Congress Party, during the 1984 national elections, moved away from being tied to secularism. It won by riding on Hindu majoritarian politics. By 2019, to regain power, the Congress Party dropped the word "secularism" from its manifesto. It tells you how far things have come – this is the party of Nehru and Gandhi.

The writer, Kanchan Chandra, says that through the years, Indian politicians have swayed from one side to another, overly championing minority interests, or giving in too much to the majority's desires. And over time, this generated feelings of unfairness, from both the minority and majority religionists.

Secularism is an ideal but it is difficult to get it right and get the balance right.

Our Constitution guarantees the freedom of religion, but so do the constitutions of many other countries, including the United States. And that has not prevented the rise of identity politics.

The second trend that I want to touch is the increasing violence from conflicts that have been fueled by religious hate speech. Once hate speech is systemically developed and normalised, it destroys social cohesion, erodes shared values and lays the foundation for violence.

I spoke about this quite extensively, to a great extent in this House in April. I will not go through it again. Hate speech is also fuel for religious violence. In 2018, Pew Research Centre did a studythat showed that two years earlier in 2016, more than 25% of the countries in the world experienced a high incidence of hostilities involving religion. I think the point is made – if you look around, you see many examples and I gave many examples a few months ago.

The third trend that I want to touch on is the Internet and social media. The Internet has been used to mobilise hatred and mob attacks. It has provided for anonymity that allows unfettered expressions and religious intolerance. Internet access has made it easier for people to be influenced by extremist ideologies. And collectively, social media can invoke irrational fear of both the majority and the minority groups. Parts of the Internet are already turning into hothouses of hate – like-minded bigots find each other and gather online. They are helped by Internet platforms where algorithms allow hate to go viral.

There are many examples. If we look at India, in 2014, photos of venerated Hindu figures were morphed in "derogatory" manner and circulated on social media. They went viral. Lots of people took to the streets, asking for the blood of the offenders. In Indonesia, you have preachers, some of whom have vast followings on social media and are influencers with a force of their own. They can mobilise huge crowds and can make part of the Muslim community susceptible to identity politics.

Right next to us, on the other side, you have the "Buy Muslim First" campaign in Malaysia. It has been been gaining momentum, going around on WhatsApp messages. It is now seen as a boycott of goods and services produced by non-Muslims. Government leaders have attempted to intervene but so far, the impact has been minimal. If this continues to grow, it will stoke Muslim versus non-Muslim sentiments.

The fourth trend I will touch on is foreign interference. Again, I will not go into details. It is well-documented. Members know about it and the Internet makes it much more possible.

So, let me now turn to the situation in Singapore. We have been spared most of this trouble in Singapore. Over the last 60 years, the Government has been even-handed in the treatment of all religions and religious groups. We actively protect religious diversity, but also emphasise our common spaces and our shared experiences.

Earlier this year, more than 300 religious organisations affirmed the Commitment to Safeguard Religious Harmony. The Commitment encourages day-to-day positive interactions so that people can work and live together harmoniously. Beyond institutional structures, we also have laws in place that seek to ensure that no one exploits fault lines.

Because of these policies, the laws and enforcement, we have created some norms and values within Singapore which make us unique and different from many other places. We have peace and harmony.

If we go back to a Pew Research Centre study in 2014 on religious diversity, it showed that Singapore was the most religiously diverse country in the world. That could make us particularly susceptible to fault lines deepening, because you are so diverse in such a small place. Yet, a 2016 Gallup World Poll ranked us first out of 140 countries for tolerance of ethnic minorities. The poll deals with ethnicity, not religion, but I think you can draw some conclusions from that.

A 2019 IPS and OnePeople.sg joint study also found inter-religious harmony in Singapore improving. Nine in 10 said the level of racial and religious harmony in Singapore is moderate, high, or very high.

I think you take the surveys and studies in context. Just because people say we are number one does not automatically mean we are number one. But I think we look our lived experiences, lived realities and the findings are consistent with our lived experiences in Singapore.

Let me now come to the reason for the amendments. I have described the developments around the world that we should be concerned about. It is easy for religious movements in other countries to affect us. A new way of thinking, or revolutions like the 1979 Iranian Revolution swept through the world; the ideas, come through here too.

We have to put in some circuit breakers to prevent events relating to religion from affecting us negatively. You want to allow for those religious influences but at the same time do not want them to affect us negatively.

We are updating the MRHA to deal with some of the challenges that I have spoken about. Let me touch on three key proposed changes to the MRHA.

First, we are moving over the religion-related offences from the Penal Code and housing them under the MRHA. The amendments will make it an offence to knowingly urge violence, on the ground of religion or religious belief, against any person or group. Protection is provided to religious groups and its members, as well as non-religious groups and the members of such groups.

Action can be taken if any religious group or its member attacks another religious group using religion. But action can also be taken if a religious group, using religion, attacks a non-religious group – say, for example, they attack a LGBTQ group or individuals on the basis of religion. But equally, if a religious group or its member is attacked by any non-religious group or person – say, again, LGBTQ – then action can also be taken. So, it is even-handed.

Second, we need to put in place measures to safeguard against foreign actors who attempt to use religion to divide our local communities. The Bill introduces requirements on religious organisations to disclose foreign donations and affiliations. It also introduces local leadership requirements for religious organisations. We will not apply these requirements to spiritual leaders and preachers. It is not possible. Many of them come from overseas and it is not our intent to constrain the practice of religion.

Third, the MRHA allows the Government to issue a Restraining Order to anyone who threatens religious harmony – that has been there all along. Currently, it requires a 14-day notice period to be given. With the Internet and social media, 14 days is too long. So, we will amend for the Order to to take immediate effect.

We will introduce the Community Remedial Initiative (CRI). It is a new tool that focuses on restoration and rehabilitation.

I would like to mention, in this context, a recent interesting incident which captures the essence of what we are trying to do. Some Members may recall an incident a few days ago where the Young Sikh Association reached out to a social media influencer, Ms Sheena Phua. She had uploaded a picture showing two Sikh men in white turbans at the recent F1 Grand Prix, and referred to them as “huge obstructions”. The online firestorm began – she was accused of being racist and slighting Sikhism.

It would have been entirely understandable for the Sikh community to criticise her, but the Young Sikh Association took a different path and in many ways a very commendable path. They reached out and invited her to visit the gurdwara so that they could educate her about Sikhism. These young men understood that at times, insensitive and derogatory comments can come from a place of ignorance and that the better and more sustainable path is not of hate or taking sides, but of friendship, respect and learning about each other.

Mr Malminderjit Singh, the secretary of the Sikh Advisory Board, called the actions of these young men and, I quote, a "First World response to a Third World incident". I agree. This incident in fact encapsulates the spirit of the CRI. It will not be compulsory because we do not want to force a person of one religion to compulsorily, say, step into another place of religious worship if there are religious reasons why that person may not wish to do so. We do not want to compel them to do some things that they may not wish to do. We will leave it as a matter of their own conscience and what they are prepared to do. But that will be taken into account in when deciding on the actions that are subsequently taken. The philosophy is that, it is much better if people reach out to one another and get a better understanding of each other's religion. This will foster a better environment.

So, these are the changes and they are being proposed after a lot of thought, consultations and, as Members will know, with considerable support from the different religious communities from all the major faiths. They have come out after they saw the Bill and after it was introduced in Parliament to give their support. And I hope that Members will likewise support it.

[(proc text) Question proposed. (proc text)]

Mr Speaker, Sir, I will be speaking in my capacity as Senior Parliamentary Secretary for the Ministry of Home Affairs.

The Minister for Home Affairs has set out the broad rationale on the need for the Maintenance of Religious Harmony Act, otherwise known as the MRHA. He also explained why we need to amend the MRHA to ensure that it remains effective.

I will now set out the Government’s position and provide details on the key amendments. There are five key areas.

First, introduction of safeguards against foreign influence that affect religious harmony; second the updating of the Restraining Order; third, introduction of the Community Remedial Initiative; fourth, porting over of religion-related provisions from the Penal Code to the MRHA; and fifth, related amendments to the Penal Code.

First, safeguards against foreign influence that affect religious harmony. The Minister for Home Affairs has presented examples worldwide that show how foreign influence have impacted religious harmony in those communities. We will take active steps to prevent foreign influence from affecting our religious harmony.

Sir, all our major religious faiths and traditions originated elsewhere. Many of our religious organisations take guidance on key tenets of their faith from their counterparts or superiors who are overseas. Our religious groups serve both Singaporeans and non-Singaporeans.

So, it is not possible to say that we cannot have foreign influence. But we must safeguard against malicious foreign influence which seeks to undermine religious harmony here.

Let me provide one example from overseas. In Sri Lanka, as a result of the 2019 Easter Sunday bombings, investigations uncovered a link between extremism and funding and donations from the Middle East. The founder of the Centre for Islamic Guidance in Sri Lanka, Mohamed Aliyar, was arrested on charges related to the financing of terrorism. The Centre for Islamic Guidance was partly funded by countries in the Middle East and he was closely linked to Zahran Hashim, a radical preacher who allegedly mentored many of the Easter attack bombers.

In looking at the safeguards against foreign influence, they are structured so that there will be baseline requirements which all religious groups will be subject to. If there are specific threats, the Government can take more targeted action. These baseline safeguards were developed after extensive discussions with apex religious organisations.

First, on donations. We will require religious groups to disclose single foreign donations that are S$10,000 or more. Clause 13 gives effect to this. The disclosure threshold of S$10,000 was set after discussion with the major apex religious organisations. We wanted to balance the objective of preventing foreign influence, and not make it too onerous at the same time for religious organisations. We are not saying that any donation below S$10,000 is not a concern. Or that any donation above S$10,000 is malicious. The Government will make assessments to determine if there is malicious foreign influence. The requirements apply to monetary donations.

To reduce the administrative burden on religious groups, we have provided for exemptions to this requirement in the Bill. For example, anonymous cash donations received through donation boxes at religious institutions, or received during a collection during worship rites or services are exempted. Donations received from PRs as well as foreigners who are on long-term passes issued by ICA or MOM do not need to be disclosed. The Minister will be able to set out other types of donations that can be exempted from disclosure requirements through subsidiary legislation.

Second, on leadership. We will require the President, Secretary and Treasurer of the religious group to be either a Singapore citizen or PR. If a religious group is incorporated as a company, the requirements will apply on the positions analogous to President, Secretary, or Treasurer – for example, the Chairman, Managing Director, and Directors of the company. If the religious group was set up as a partnership, the equivalent position would be the Partners. In addition to this, the majority of the executive committee or governing body of the religious group must be Singapore Citizens. Clause 13 inserts the new sections 16D and 16E which give effect to this.

The leadership requirements do not apply to spiritual leaders, unless they hold such executive positions in the religious group.

We recognise that there are some religious groups which would not be able to meet these requirements, such as those who serve primarily foreigners who live and work in Singapore, or which are set up as single entities operating across different countries. We have been engaging some of these groups and are prepared to consider exemptions from these new leadership requirements for them. This will be granted on a case-by-case basis, as long as there are no security concerns.

Third, on foreign affiliations. Religious groups will be required to declare any foreign affiliations. Foreign affiliation is defined in the new section 16B as an arrangement with a foreign principal where the religious group is accustomed to act in accordance with its instructions, or where the foreign principal exercises total or substantial control over the religious group’s activities. The safeguard for foreign affiliations is for disclosure purposes.

We have sought to set the baseline requirements at a level that minimises regulatory burden on the religious groups. If however we have indications that there is a risk of foreign influence that can affect religious harmony, the proposed Bill will allow us to take more targeted actions in the areas of foreign donations and leadership.

Clause 5 specifically expands the current scope of the Restraining Order, otherwise known as the RO, under section 8 of the MRHA. This allows the Government to take targeted action in the areas of donation and leadership of local religious groups where there is indication that there is a risk of foreign influence that can affect religious harmony.

Under the new clause 5, a RO can be issued against a religious group to pre-empt, prevent, or reduce any foreign influence affecting the religious group which may undermine religious tolerance between different religious groups in Singapore, and present a threat to public peace and public order in Singapore.

The RO can impose additional safeguards on religious groups: (a) to prohibit or restrict receiving of anonymous donations, or of foreign donations by the religious group; (b) to ensure that every member of the governing body is a citizen of Singapore, or prohibit a specific foreigner or PR from holding office in the governing body in the religious group.

The safeguards for the issuance of the RO against religious groups will be the same as those for the issuance of RO against individuals. The Presidential Council of Religious Harmony, or PCRH, will hear representations and review the RO after it has been issued. The PCRH will be able to call any person to provide information to them and the PCRH will make a recommendation to the President, who will continue to have the power to confirm, cancel, or vary the RO.

The additional safeguards will require religious groups to take on more work. They understand that more work is required, but at the same time, the religious groups acknowledge the importance of such safeguards. They support these amendments. Any religious group that needs more time to comply with these requirements can work out appropriate interim arrangements with MHA.

I will now move on to the updating of the RO that can be issued against individuals. The MRHA currently provides that an RO can be issued against: (a) any individual who does or says anything that causes religious disharmony; (b) any religious leader or member of a religious group that mixes religion and politics, and any person inciting a religious leader or religious group to do so.

The RO can prevent this individual from addressing religious groups, or being involved in producing or distributing publications produced by religious groups.

The scope of the RO was drawn up nearly 30 years ago, before the advent of the Internet. It caters primarily to offline modes of communication. Social media has enabled offensive posts to go viral in a matter of seconds. There is now, thus, a need for the Government to update the RO to take swift action against such posts.

First, we will remove the 14-day notice period for the issuance of ROs. The RO will now be issued and take immediate effect. This allows us to stem religiously offensive posts at its source quickly, before it spreads.

Second, the scope of the RO will now include requiring the individual to stop undertaking any "communications activity" relating to the religiously offensive material. This will include the removal of any material that has been posted on the Internet.

The safeguards remain unchanged from what they were before. The individual and the religious group which the individual belongs to can make representations to the PCRH. The RO will be considered by the PCRH, and ultimately confirmed, canceled or varied by the President.

Clauses 2, 5, and 6 give effect to this.

I will now speak about the Community Remedial Initiative (CRI). To maintain religious harmony, it is not enough to just restrain bad behaviour. When there has been some damage, we need to find a way to soothe communal tensions and repair disrupted ties between the communities.

Our experience with cases of religious disharmony is that the most effective resolution occurs when the offender displays remorse over his actions and makes amends directly to the offended party. This is frequently facilitated by their religious groups.

In such cases, the benefits are twofold – first, the offender reflects on his actions and better understands the multi-religious context in which he lives; second, the offended community is given a chance to speak with and accept the apology by the offender. This goes a long way in soothing communal tensions.

There is hence a need for a new tool in the MRHA which focuses on restoration and rehabilitation. This is the Community Remedial Initiative, otherwise known as the CRI. Clause 13 introduces the new section 16H which gives effect to this.

The CRI is offered by the Minister to an alleged offender which will set out the remedial actions that can be taken to mend ties with the aggrieved community. Some examples of remedial actions under the CRI include issuance of a public or private apology, or participating in activities that promote religious harmony. In determining the appropriate actions, the Minister will consult with the religious leaders, though the final decision rests with him.

The CRI is not mandatory. The alleged offender can refuse to take up this offer and the non-completion or refusal of the CRI, will not be a criminal offence. At the same time, if the offender agrees to complete the remedial actions and does so, the Minister undertakes not to refer this case for criminal prosecution. The CRI will not be issued to every case where an individual engages in conduct which leads to religious disharmony. The Minister will have to exercise judgment in each case, to take the most appropriate course of action. For example, if the conduct is very egregious, such as when the offender incites violence, then this case is clearly not suitable for the CRI.

Cases of egregious conduct relating to religious disharmony used to be dealt with under the Penal Code, in sections 267C and sections 295 to 298A. I will now speak about the porting over of these religion-related offences from the Penal Code to the MRHA.

We wanted to make the MRHA a comprehensive Act which provides for a full range of legislative levers to deal with the maintenance of religious harmony. In the porting over of these offences, we approach it in two ways.

First, what is the offence? An offence of urging violence against another person or group is more serious than offences of insulting or ridiculing a religion. Second, who is the offender? Religious leaders have a greater ability to influence and mobilise their followers, as compared to lay persons. This is the case even when they speak to their followers in private capacities. As such, religious leaders will be subject to a lower threshold for offences.

Clause 14 inserts the new section 17E, which introduces offences of urging violence on religious grounds against any person or group, and offences of urging violence against religious groups or persons who belong to these groups. This sends a strong signal that the weaponisation of religion to urge violence or force to be used against any person is unacceptable in our society. Because of the seriousness of the outcome, that force or violence is likely to occur, any person who commits this offence will be subjected to the maximum punishment of 10 years’ imprisonment, or fine, or both. This is the most serious offence in the MRHA.

Clause 14 also inserts the new section 17F, which introduces offences of inciting hatred, ill-will or hostility against a religious group, and offences of insulting a religion or wounding the religious feelings of a person.

For offenders who are not religious leaders, an additional element needs to be proven for these offences. That is that their conduct would threaten the public peace or public order in Singapore. For religious leaders, there is no need to prove this element.

The defences for these offences are different for religious leaders and non-religious leaders. It will be a defence for offenders who are not religious leaders to prove that their conduct could reasonably be taken to indicate that the parties desired for it to be heard or seen only by themselves. In other words, private conduct will not be covered by the offence.

For religious leaders, in addition to proving that they were engaged in private conduct, there is an additional requirement that the private conduct was a domestic communication. This would cover situations where the religious leader is speaking with close family members in their household, or a small group of very close friends in his house.

There will be extra-territorial coverage for these offences. If the offence is committed overseas, targets Singapore and has an impact in Singapore, this will be covered. An example would be if a religious leader in another country urges his affiliate group in Singapore to rise up and attack another religious group, this will be considered an offence. We acknowledge that it may be difficult to enforce these offences extra-territorially. But this signals our commitment to protect our religious harmony, even when the threats originate from beyond our shores.

With the porting over of religion-related offences from the Penal Code to the MRHA, we will repeal religion-related offences in sections 295 to 297 and remove references to religion-related offences in sections 298 and 298A of the Penal Code.

We will also make related amendments to section 74 of the Penal Code. Section 74 of the Penal Code currently provides for enhanced maximum punishments of up to one-and-a-half times, where a specified list of Penal Code offences is committed in a racially or religiously aggravated manner. This includes situations where the offender demonstrates hostility towards the victim based on the victim’s religion.

The scope of section 74 will be expanded two ways. First, the scope of section 74 will be expanded to cover all offences in the Penal Code. Second, the enhancement of maximum punishments will be increased from one-and-a-half to two times, except those which are punishable with death or imprisonment for life. We will also exclude offences which have incorporated a racial aggravating factor, such as sections 298 and 298A. Clause 17 gives effect to these amendments to the Penal Code.

Mr Speaker, I have given Members an overview of the key amendments which we are proposing to the MRHA. These amendments are necessary to refresh our tool box of legislative levers, so that we can continue to respond effectively to the growing threats to religious harmony in Singapore. The amendments we have proposed today are testament to the Government's commitment to continue to safeguard religious harmony, which is vital to the peace and progress that we enjoy today.

Mr Speaker, Sir, a look around the globe will show why a Bill such as this one is needed. Around the world, enmity between religious groups have created an inability for people to practise their religion in peace. In some countries, practising one's faith has cost property, safety, lives.

Allow me, Sir, to share some examples.

In the Czech Republic, the construction of a mosque was met with petitions, street demonstrations, public hearings and vandalism to the homes of Muslim families.

In Egypt, over a span of 13 months from October 2017 to October 2018, 15 churches were violently protested against by Muslims, 11 had to be shut. Stereotypes and misconceptions about Christians and Christian practices were rampant even among school children.

In 2014, in India, altered images of Hindu kings of medieval India and a right-wing political leader sparked stone pelting, violence and damaged vehicles and religious places of a minority community.

In February 2019, in the United States, a synagogue's window was smashed on a Sabbath while the rabbi and his family, including young children were inside.

In 2014 and 2018, in Sri Lanka, Buddhist extremists attacked Muslim Sri Lankans, spreading rumors that planted fear and insecurity as well as hate speech that caused violence and riots to break out. The Christians in Sri Lanka are also not spared. In 2018, there were 86 verifiable cases of discrimination, threats and violence against Christians in Sri Lanka and 26 such incidents occurred this year, before the Easter bombings, including the disruption of a Sunday service.

Having seen what is happening around the world, should our Government just sit by and not do anything? Or should the Government take a more proactive role in securing and protecting our precious religious harmony?

Some may say that we do not need this Bill since we have never issued a single Restraining Order since the Act was passed in 1990. I respectfully take a different view, I take a different position. Why? Because the mere presence of the law does have an educative and even a deterrent effect. Just because a law is not actively used or enforced does not mean it is useless.

Some may question the need to amend the law because it seems to have been efficacious in preserving religious harmony which we still enjoy today. But, my own view is that the law needs to be amended especially to address the swiftness with which messages of violence and hatred can spread. Therefore, the amendments today, are necessary.

The virality and speed at which hate speech which harms religious harmony travels has increased greatly through the use of technology and social media. The Facebook post with altered images of venerated ancient Hindu warrior kings and a political leader is one such example. United Nations Secretary-General Anotonio Guterres told a Security Council Ministerial meeting that "the new frontier is cyber-terrorism – the use of social media and the dark web to coordinate attacks, spread propaganda and recruit new followers". The threats we face are morphing and what is needed are updated tools to be able to address these potential harms. Just because there are more tools does not mean the tools need to be utilised. Just as how the Maintenance of Religious Harmony Act was not enforced these 28 years,similarly, the powers under the amended Maintenance of Religious Harmony we are debating today should continue to be used judiciously.

To address concerns of abuse of power, Restraining Orders and extensions of Restraining Orders have to go through the Presidential Council for Religious Harmony per sections 11 and 13. They also need to be confirmed or varied by the President per section 12. These safeguards are good. However, may I ask the Minister to explain why it is that the Presidential Council for Religious Harmony can recommend varying a new Restraining Order under section 11(5) whereas the power of the Council regarding an existing order is available only to confirm or cancel but not to vary it. I ask this question in relation to the amended section 13(3).

But, overall, my view is that there are safeguards. For example, for a Restraining Order under the Maintenance of Religious Harmony Act, not only does the Presidential Council for Religious Harmony need to scrutinise the restraining order, the President also needs to confirm it, vary, cancel or refuse to confirm it. This is not just provided for under section 12 of the Act. It is also provided for under Article 22I of the Constitution. This is similar to the President's discretion to concur with a Detention Order under the Internal Security Act under Art 151(4) of the Constitution.

Even as this Bill is updated to meet the morphing threats of our times, it is important to reiterate some key principles undergirding religious freedom and the preservation of religious harmony in Singapore.

Firstly, rights must be exercised responsibly. Article 15 of the Constitution states that every person in Singapore has the right to profess, practise and propagate his religion. Paragraph 3 of Article 15 also states that every religious group has the right to manage its own religious affairs, to establish and maintain institutions for religious or charitable purposes and to acquire and own property and hold and administer it in accordance with the law. Flowing from this constitutional right, it is important that religions be given the space in Singapore to exercise those freedoms. However, freedoms must be exercised within proper boundaries. Freedoms must be used responsibly. For instance, someone cannot use the freedom as a licence to intentionally promote enmity, hatred, ill-will or hostility. This is addressed in the new section 17F(1) and (3).

The duties under-girding the offences in the new section 17F are gradated based on whether or not the person is a religious leader. It is appropriate to hold leaders to a higher standard. Since they wield greater influence and have others entrusted to their care, they should bear greater responsibility for their actions and words. However, there needs to be clarity as to who this standard applies to.

Would the Minister clarify the scope of religious leaders in the Bill? The explanatory statement states that it includes lay leaders. Would that include part-time staff, those invited to speak to recount their experience and give testimonies to a religious group; counsellors who help families overcome financial, family or marriage difficulties or the loss of loved ones; those who do or organise charitable work, such as providing rations for families in the neighbourhood? What constitutes a leader? Some religions require making an oath or taking certain vows, or going through certain ceremonial rites. Other religions do not require such a formal commissioning process to become a leader. Some religious groups formalise mentorship or open up the facilitation of small group discussions. These people still do great service as volunteers. Therefore, it would be helpful if the Minister explains the definition of "religious leader".

We need to prevent the spread of foreign radicalised teachings that promote violent extremism. One of the ways in which this objective has sought to be achieved in the Bill is by limiting the involvement of foreign persons.

However, the good work of religious groups should not be unduly hampered by safeguards against foreign influence. Historically, religious leaders from other countries have contributed greatly to Singapore’s development. Religious leaders from other parts of the world, such as England, Australia, Portugal, Ireland, China and India came to spread or practise their religion through charitable deeds. They helped set up schools, hospitals, hospices, offer midwifery services, cared for the sick and wounded during the Japanese Occupation, doing good work for the communities here. Some of these charitable institutions have been corporatised. Do the same requirements relating to Singaporeans and foreign persons apply to corporatised religious charitable groups? If so, can exemptions be granted?

Furthermore, many religious groups in Singapore have links to foreign institutions, for example, the Catholic Archdiocese of Singapore with the Vatican, the Anglicans with Canterbury, Buddhist groups with Sri Lanka and Thailand. I agree that disclosure is needed to prevent situations where there is a deliberate intent to create enmity. It is also a good move to anticipate potential divisions that hate speech can create, but I hope the discretion to give exemptions will be exercised wisely, tactfully and delicately because of the universal nature of charity, honest hard work and integrity, often found in religious values and organisations. Considering the longstanding contribution and ties that Singapore religious groups have with overseas religious groups, how flexible and nimble enough is our law to ensure that the intent of this Bill is achieved without reducing the good work of institutions here? How can we ensure that the limitations on foreign persons will not be overly onerous in institutions, orders and missionaries who continue to do sterling work in Singapore?

Allow me to say, Sir, that there is strength when people of different religions come together to work for the common good. I was touched by a recent exercise conducted by the grassroots leaders involving porridge distribution in the constituency I serve in Ulu Pandan. The rice was donated by the Singapore Buddhist Lodge, it was then cooked into delicious porridge or bubur by members of the Al Huda Mosque and then distributed by volunteers from St Ignatius Church. In fact, there were Christians, Muslims, Hindus and Buddhists who distributed the porridge within my constituency. We came together – different religions in Singapore – to offer the less-advantaged residents lovingly cooked porridge. It was very meaningful for me and those present. Many hands, one product. Being able to come together to contribute to a meaningful cause testifies to the precious religious harmony we enjoy in Singapore.

In conclusion, even as the colour red in our flag stands for universal brotherhood, we still need the legislative tools and levers to promote such a harmony in our daily living in Singapore. It is a constant work in progress. This Bill is part of that work, that constant work in progress and, therefore, and I support it.

Mr Speaker, Sir, thank you for allowing me to join in this debate.

The Bill was crafted and passed in 1990. Since its passage, the Government has not had to invoke the Bill. Now, 27 years later, observing a different environment, the Government has identified the need to update and improve this piece of legislation. So, what has changed? One could argue that the fact that we never invoked the Bill shows that our society is harmonious despite our religious differences and that perhaps we could even repeal the Bill entirely.

Sir, that would be foolish. Human societies are not static and the world has changed since 1990. Human habits and attitudes have not changed, especially when it comes to dealing with differences and diversity. The ability to provoke and incite violence may be as old as mankind. And, in recent years, we continue to see violence sparked and perpetuated in the name of religion. So, in general, Sir, I support these amendments. But, forgive the pun, the devil is in the details. I have two concerns.

The new section 17F raises several concerns to me. The provisions are meant to curb and restrain any attempt at creating ill-will and feelings of hatred towards other religious groups by either a religious leader or an individual who is not a religious leader. But for the latter, it is an offence when the action is deemed to “threaten the public peace or order in Singapore or any part of Singapore”. So, clearly, for religious leaders, given their level of influence, the bar to make their actions an offence is much lower than those of lay persons.

However, I have two concerns with this provision. In the first instance, how do we define being wounded by words of the other parties? Insults are clear. But what about genuine differences of opinions or views? After all, is religion not, by its very nature, exclusive? This was pointed out by the White Paper of 26 December 1989. I adopt a certain religion because I believe it to be the truth and everything else to be untrue. And if I utter my views about what I understand and believe to be untrue of the other religions publicly, will I be guilty of an offence?

A similar concern could be raised for those without any religious belief but who believe that certain practices of certain religions are not right and may make public statements about it. The bar in this case would be if it threatens public order or public peace. If only one person feels wounded by the words of a non-religious person expressing his or her negative views of that person’s religion, would that be sufficient condition to deem this action an offence? And what if the “wounded person” can claim publicly on social media that his religion has been insulted and others from his religion feel equally wounded, would that make it an offence? Would there be any difference if 10 others, or perhaps a thousand others, express support for him online?

And in this respect, hatred could be directed towards the person who started this all. Can that person then seek protection under the Bill as his life is now being threatened by those feeling wounded? This scenario I have painted is already happening on social media. The to-ing and fro-ing of claims and counterclaims of who is right and wrong about views of religion and religious practices is likely to spark unintended consequences, even though the origins of these spats may merely stem from a difference of views and are not motivated by hate of a particular religious group.

My concern is that the ambiguities of what being wounded constitutes and, when public order or peace is threatened, can lead to some claims of ill-will that lead to an unintended escalation and expansion of the conflicts. Hence, I hope the Minister can enlighten us.

Sir, the concerns I have raised earlier equally apply to intra-religious differences. The White Paper of 1989 also raised this as an issue for the attention of our Government. I support this, especially when we see sectarian violence in different parts of the world within the same faith community. I am particularly concerned about the Sunni-Shia divide that is evident in some parts of the world and has found its way into the region. We must not import the religious divides and violence of other countries into Singapore. I have expressed my concern about this trend on other platforms and have called for better understanding between my Sunni compatriots and the Shias who, while not great in number in this part of the world, are also Muslims. We must respect and adopt an attitude of live and let live towards each other, while feeling equally attached to our faith and our desire to do good. But I would welcome the force of this Bill to be applied to those seeking to divide the community or, for that matter, any faith community. We know that there are different sects in almost every religion and there are tensions of varying degrees between groups in every religion. So, whether in Islam or in any other religion, I believe that religious harmony must start at home and every faith community must respect differences within their own faiths.

Sir, my final point pertains to one of the reasons for the 1990 MRHA, as raised in the 1989 White Paper – aggressive proselytisation. Religious consciousness is on the rise. More people are turning towards religion. Article 15 of the Constitution guarantees the freedom of religion where “every person has the right to profess and practise his religion and to propagate it”. Again, how do we define “aggressive proselytisation”? If I merely state the truth as I believe it to be about my religion to another person of a different faith and make claims that his religion is not true, is this considered aggressive? Sir, in this era of political correctness, some would consider this aggressive.

I am not opposed to proselytisation. It is about how it is conducted. In fact, the 1989 White Paper provided many examples by different groups of what they deemed to be aggressive proselytisation. Egregious cases can be easily ferreted out. But what about those who do it through actions which are not religiously related, like showing preferences in hiring or giving certain advantages to those from the same faith? The White Paper highlighted in its section on religion and politics on the need to keep the public space as secular as possible. Interestingly, the paper also cautions that it is almost impossible for someone who is voting to base his decision on his secular half and not his religious half. Such compartmentalisation, it notes, is “neither possible nor desirable”. That is why it is absurd to ask me to decide whether I am first a Muslim or a Singaporean. So, if we agree that if it is not possible to compartmentalise ourselves, then we must be alert to the breaching of the barriers of secularism in our public life. That is, we must continue to strengthen our common spaces and ensure that religious actors cannot impose their will on public policy to the detriment of other religious groups or the public good.

Apart from these concerns of definition and interpretation, we need to be careful about how we go about implementing or prosecuting these cases. A real question is at what point do we impose aggressive punishments and restrictions. The need for strong and decisive measures against egregious cases – threats, open harassment and incitement to violence – are clear-cut. Such a posture not only protects against the stirring up of religious conflicts but sends a strong message that any attempt to incite ill-will or violence will not be tolerated. Yet, where engagement and dialogue are possible, the imposition of community service work or engagement with community groups would be more appropriate.

Sir, we can all agree on the need for the Bill to be updated to deter insidious attempts to stir up religious discord that divides communities. The digital revolution has made it easy to spread extreme opinions and such people may feel that they can be more abusive online without having to face consequences. We need to send a strong signal that the harmonious relations that we have built up over the last 54 years are precious and must be guarded jealously. Like a piece of good China, once broken, it is very difficult to put the pieces back together.

Yet, Sir, the need to be careful must not end up silencing all discussion of religious topics by making it so that the definitions of illegal behaviour are so ambiguous that no one can be sure what might be judged hateful. Ironically, this might end up deterring meaningful interfaith efforts between groups as people steer away from any activity or topic for fear of causing unintended offence. Likewise, we need to be careful not to silence civil interfaith and intrafaith conversations and debates, even about sensitive issues which can yield important insights and further deepen understandings on all sides.

Sir, we must also not lose sight that legislation can only be a part of an array of policy responses to promote tolerance and harmony. In fact, the use of law is the last resort. The basis for religious harmony also cannot be the fear of the law. For religious harmony in a society to be strong and enduring, the citizenry must uphold the values of mutual respect and appreciation towards religious diversity. In this regard, in Singapore, educational efforts as well as outreach toward youth and community groups enable people to better understand the beliefs of religious groups and to forge friendships across communities. All these efforts must continue and be strengthened. Where there are transgressions, providing platforms and avenues whereby religious groups respond and confront hateful views with arguments and information remain important.

Sir, finally, this amendment is thus about preserving our way of life and strengthening the Singapore approach to dealing with diversity and differences. Mistrust among the different faith communities can lead to the breaking up of our society. There is a need for this legislation in dealing with those planning to split the communities in Singapore. While no one can disagree with the need to use a legal response to clear-cut egregious cases, I would urge the Government to exercise sensitivity in cases where there is some ambiguity on both the alleged culprit and alleged victim. Perhaps, in such cases, the Government could consider a range of engagement efforts involving leaders from all the communities involved to resolve the dispute. So, let us not be quick to condemn the slightest provocation as it could all be a simple misunderstanding.

Sir, even though the amendment excludes what is said privately and to a small group, I would urge my countrymen to aim for a higher bar. I understand this exclusion stems from the practical difficulties in policing all corners of Singapore. Yet, the best restraint must come from all of us. What we believe is the right thing to say in public must also be the right thing to say privately. What underpins our behavior publicly and privately must be the belief that what all Singaporeans hold dear as their faith deserves to be respected, irrespective of our own beliefs and faith.

Sir, I have expressed some views that, hopefully, will help this legislation better safeguard our religious harmony. Having said that, it must be the desire of all our faith groups and leaders that we interact freely with grace and mutual respect, without the need for the law to kick in. Sir, I support the amendment.

Minister Grace Fu.

Mr Speaker, I support the Bill.

Since coming into effect in 1992, the Maintenance of Religious Harmony Act (MRHA) has been a critical complement to Singapore’s work on strengthening religious harmony. It protects our religious freedom, by making clear the boundaries of our mutual engagements. Since then, the world around us has evolved and changed. The world is at far more risk of polarising forces that divide rather than unite people. It is timely that we amend the Act to ensure that it continues to serve its original intent, today.

Globalisation has increased our connectedness with foreign cultures and communities; social media has transformed how we communicate; hate speech and violence in the name of personal beliefs and faiths are on the rise. We are facing heightening polarisation of views. Singapore is not immune to these trends and they threaten the religious harmony that we have spent decades carefully tending. We need new responses to new challenges.

The Government is not alone in holding this view. I chair the National Steering Committee on Racial and Religious Harmony, whose members comprise apex leaders from the major faith and ethnic groups. These respected leaders, and many more in Singapore, have expressed similar concerns when we discuss issues of race and religion. They understand the importance and urgency of dealing with the risks unequivocally and they have expressed strong support for the proposed amendments.

We have built a strong foundation for social cohesion in Singapore, which we must vigorously safeguard. We have proven that our communities can come together to discuss sensitive issues of race and religion seriously, candidly but respectfully, with the common goal of making Singapore a better home for everyone. This is the case whenever we discuss religious radicalisation activities, or when we discuss results of studies on race and religion in Singapore. It was the same when we debated the introduction of the Reserved Presidential Election. It was also the same when we debated the ban of the Swedish black metal band Watain from performing in Singapore, because the band advocated violence against a religion. It demonstrated the desire of our people for a cohesive society that will deal with such emotive issues publicly, transparently and calmly.

Although we are here to debate the Act, laws alone do not bring about the cohesive society that I have described. Legislative solutions cannot address the many challenges that we face. For instance, although we can implement policies, such as the Ethnic Integration Policy, we cannot legislate neighbours to interact with others of different faiths. Our schools cannot dictate that classmates must eat and play together. The same applies to our workplaces. At a more fundamental level, we cannot legislate to remove irrational fears and stereotypes, nor to accept that a set of different beliefs can coexist with ours. In other words, legislation, though important, is not sufficient.

Our social harmony has been built painstakingly over time. It is through individual actions and efforts in our everyday lives to engage one other. We offer help to one another, do business together, and attend one another’s life events, such as weddings and funerals. This approach has served us well and survey results show both inter-racial and inter-religious trust is high and rising. This requires continued effort and we, as Singaporeans, must all do our part. This was emphasised 30 years ago, in the original 1989 White Paper on Maintenance of Religious Harmony. I quote, “So long as all Singaporeans understand that they have to live and let live, and show respect and tolerance for other faiths, harmony should prevail”.

Underlying this is a shared commitment to build a home together. It is a home built on the ideal of a multiracial and multi-religious society where everyone has the freedom to choose and practise his or her religion, provided the same freedom is afforded to others. When Singapore became independent, our founding fathers made a deliberate choice to build our nation based on such a multiracial, multi-religious society, as an expression of what Singapore stands for. It was a novel idea at the time, when most newly-independent countries opted to entrench a dominant race, language and religion, because it was the easier and primordial path. It is done out of a tribal instinct to protect its identity and ensure its existence. Multiculturalism, of sharing the societal space with all races, on the other hand, has become an integral part of our Singapore identity. All of us want a society where all Singaporeans, regardless of background, feel that they are equal members of the same community. The social compact will allow us to broaden our common space, even as our society becomes more diverse.

We, the Government, are committed to working with Singaporeans, at all levels, to safeguard racial and religious harmony.

We have remained steadfast in this approach since our beginnings. The People’s Association was set up in 1960, with promoting social cohesion and connecting people from all walks of life as one of its main objectives. Grassroots organisations help to resolve local issues and bridge communities through dialogue and engagement. When faced with the communal riots in 1964, we established goodwill committees comprising racially diverse community leaders to calm the situation. This was the foundation for the Inter-Racial and Religious Confidence Circles (IRCCs) which was formalised in 2002 to foster community bonding at the local level. Today, IRCC members help resolve local issues that may arise from time to time, work on projects jointly, such as emergency preparedness, and help one another. During this year’s Hari Raya Haji, a Buddhist organisation helped to manage traffic for a neighbouring mosque so that its prayer service could run smoothly. This idea arose during an IRCC meeting, and was carried out by IRCC members.

We support efforts by religious and community leaders to promote racial and religious harmony. An Inter-Religious Harmony Circle (IRHC) comprising religious leaders and Government representatives developed and launched the Declaration on Religious Harmony in 2003. This Declaration is still recited at inter-faith events.

In June 2019, our religious leaders launched the Commitment to Safeguard Religious Harmony that affirms the shared values to safeguard our religious harmony and the norms of social interaction across religions to foster a cohesive society. The Government helped facilitate multiple engagement sessions with a wide group of religious leaders. More than 300 religious organisations have since affirmed the Commitment. Dozens of secular community organisations, companies, social service agencies and educational institutions have also expressed support for this.

Ground-up effort to promote racial and religious harmony is rising. Several community groups have facilitated candid and open dialogues on race and religion. For instance, The WhiteHatters organised a series of conversations called Ask Me Anything (AMA) where participants of diverse faiths engage religious leaders to clarify their understanding of their religions. In June, the organisers brought together the Christian, Jewish and Muslim representatives to discuss the Abrahamic faiths. In September, OnePeople.sg collaborated with CNA and Roses of Peace, a non-government organisation, to conduct dialogue sessions on race relations. The IRO, in conjunction with its 70th anniversary, held a Harmony of Faiths exhibition that showcased efforts in promoting inter-faith understanding throughout its years. The sight of 10 religious leaders representing different faiths, conducting prayers side-by-side, simultaneously and jointly, would be familiar to Singaporeans who have been to, for instance, SAF Officer Cadet Course commissioning parades, the World War II commemorative ceremonies, or watched their pre-race blessing of the F1 races. We want to tap on the collective wisdom and ideas of Singaporeans, and encourage the community to leverage MCCY’s Harmony Fund to continue developing innovative projects that promote racial and religious harmony.

Beyond programmes, more Singaporeans are also expressing interest and respect for diversity in our daily lives. In the work place, management plays an important role in creating a conducive work environment for a diverse workforce. For instance, IBM has a Cultural Adaptability Programme to enhance the level of awareness and appreciation on different beliefs and practices among their employees through structured workshops and resources. These have helped strengthen understanding among its employees and enhanced the contributions of the diverse teams. More companies should, similarly, pay attention to building race and religious competency.

Mr Speaker, at Independence, our society started out with tolerance and accommodation between communities. We grew to appreciate what we have in common and how our differences make us richer, not poorer. Today, we harness our diversity as our strength and we are a society with genuine friendships built on goodwill, trust and confidence in what it means to be Singaporean.

During my recent house visit, a Chinese resident, who is a Christian, shared with me how her Muslim neighbour would help watch her young child whenever she has to fetch another from school and her Hindu neighbour on the other side would share food with her from time to time. And their children would often be found in each other’s homes. The resident brought this to my attention because she truly appreciated the kindness and generosity of her neighbours. But above all, she knows that this relationship transcending differences in race and religion is not to be taken for granted. Such trusting and warm relationships between neighbours of different faiths can be found all around Singapore. It is the beauty of Singapore and Singaporeans.

We must continue to uphold our values and keep working hard to preserve social harmony. We must ensure that this is in the DNA of every Singaporean, so that we remain as one united people regardless of language, race and religion. Mr Speaker, Sir, I welcome and support the Bill.

Mr Speaker, amongst a number of reasons detailed by the Minister, the amendments to the Maintenance of Religious Harmony Act aim to make the Act relevant for the information age. The Bill updates what is essentially a preventive regime, albeit one that gives the Cabinet executive authority to endeavour that religion is kept out of politics. To that end, it is important to remember the socio-political context of 30 years ago, when the Bill was first debated in the House.

Generally, that era was known to be a time of heightened religiosity. The Bill was mooted only about one month after the detention of some Singaporeans who were accused of being Marxists. It is important, if not critical to note that the passage of the underlying Act in 1990 itself did not go without significant apprehension from religious groups and Members of Parliament, including differences of opinion amongst even Ministers.

Even Mr Shanmugam's speech, in his capacity as a backbencher then was noteworthy because it raised fundamental points about the separation of powers and the potential for an irrational exercise of Executive power. This was not the only difficulty. Prime Minister Lee, in his capacity as Minister of Trade and Industry and the then-Minister of National Development, Mr S Dhanabalan, both disagreed about the interplay between politics and religion in special situations where religious bodies would have no choice but to get involved in politics to overthrow a government – for example, in the event the government turn corrupt, oppressive, tyrannical.

Sir, I raise the historical difficulty with the passage of the Maintenance of Religious Harmony Act because the points and apprehensions expressed about the underlying Act continue to be of relevance today. While the Marxist arrests clouded the passage of the Act somewhat then, this Government today is not similarly encumbered insofar as the amendments to the Bill are concerned. To that end, the Workers' Party does not find the amendments mooted in the Bill before the House objectionable. Racial harmony remains a critical and important national value that must be upheld alongside the spirit of tolerance between believers of all religious groups.

Today, the confluence of the regional environment, social mores and the ubiquity of social media are perhaps of equal, if not more concern in the maintenance of religious harmony than in the 1980s. For example, the political narrative that has been developing within our closest neighbours, Indonesia, Malaysia and even regionally in Southern Thailand, while strictly speaking is not our business, is nonetheless cause for concern.

Only last week a Malay civil rights group openly called for a Vote Muslim First campaign with regard to the upcoming by-election for Tanjung Piai in Johor. The recent Indonesian Presidential Elections also saw candidates speaking to burnish their religious credentials. Mr Speaker, the age-old problem of the mixing of religion and politics has not gone away. If anything, it has become more acute. And with social media, it has become a more sensitive matter.

Going forward, this is something the Government and politicians and political party members of all political parties in Singapore need to keep an eye on as well in view of our unique context and political circumstances, and consider whether there may be some things that have to be tightened. With a difficult subject – the mixing of religion and politics – at the heart of the Act, the signals a one-party dominant government and its politicians send on the subject will have a direct bearing on how the Act will be applied and deemed relevant in years to come.

I will spend the first part of my speech to share some examples about how things can be perceived on the ground in Singapore, in spite of the spirit of the underlying Act which seeks to keep religions and politics separate.

Firstly, the more visible appearance of religious leaders alongside politicians. A well-known leader of a religious group – fronting many national initiatives including being a very senior party member and highly visible leader of the Inter-Religious Organisation and separately with links to the People's Association was seen with Prime Minister Lee during the 2015 elections. While it is unclear if the individual concerned was the Prime Minister's election agent, it is nonetheless useful for the House to pause and consider the optics of a respected member of a religious group appearing to canvass support for a politician.

To that end, how would some members of the same religious group with a different political view from that espoused by their religious leader or elder feel if they openly support another political party? Could it create or ferment tension within that religious group? Should another group or individual from within any particular religious organisation or faith rise in stature because of a disagreement or internal politics, would it be fair game for a politician from another party to canvass support for him or her? What can we reasonably foresee may happen next?

Mr Speaker, I would argue respectfully that the selection of established and well-known religious and even community personalities – who are probably forces for good in their stead – in party politics in capacities such as election agents, notwithstanding their secular appointments, muddies the already difficult distinction between religion and politics.

Secondly, all political leaders must also be mindful of their signature when engaging religious events such as large-scale prayer sessions and gatherings of any religion. Going forward, we should pause and consider the effect of politicians of all political parties attending places of worship of any faith as political leaders, as opposed to just lay congregants, visitors or well-wishes. For example, the imprudent timing of invitations by religious leaders and organisations to politicians, particularly in the run-in to elections would inevitably have a signaling effect on the religious laity of any faith to support the politician in question.

Thirdly, even events that take place in this House can be open to close scrutiny and test the long-held approach of the state as a neutral arbiter when it comes to matters of faith. In the first sitting that took place in this House following the tragic mosque shootings in Christchurch in March this year, this House observed a moment of silence for the victims of that massacre. Only a mere month later, many Christians perished in Sri Lanka in a series of suicide bombings there. I am aware that some Christian Singaporeans privately wondered why Parliament did not observe a moment of silence for those Christians who perished in Sri Lanka as well.

Sir, perceptions, particularly when it comes to matters of faith can take a life of their own and it behooves politicians of all stripes, and our religious leaders to take a moment to reflect on how we should navigate this space in future so the House can ensure that this Government remains trusted as a neutral arbiter in matters of faith. Would more religious or quasi-religious invitations or relationships between the state and citizens be better managed through the unifying and ceremonial role of the President or some other platform? This is something the Government would need to assess and consider carefully.

Sir, why is this renewed conversation in the context of the MRHA relevant? Firstly, it is because the Minister and Cabinet have significant powers under the Act to slap a Restraining Order on anyone the Government deems to be moving in the realm of politics from the safety of the pulpit or under the garb of religion. With no prospect of judicial review to adjudicate the rationality of executive fiat, clarity in how the law is applied and impartiality from the Government is paramount, not just in words but in action.

Secondly, it must not be that politicians, or it must not be interpreted or perceived that politicians are allowed to engage religious groups how they deem fit, but the faithful can only engage a political matter if, for example, they speak positively about the Government or its policies. But if they publicly raise objections or disagreements about government policy, in line with the Second Reading of the Act in 1990, the Maintenance of Religious Harmony Act portends that action could be taken against them. What the perception of such a one-way conversation or approach would ultimately do is to undermine and damage the Government’s case if it seeks to use the Act in future to move against elements that it deems to be mixing religion and politics.

As we look towards tomorrow’s Singapore, and as we enter the 4G era, this House must ensure that the public space continues to be a secular and safe space for all Singaporeans, regardless of creed. While the terrain of religion and politics is not without its difficulties, it is critical that restraint, mutual respect and equanimity define how both politicians and religious leaders operate in Singapore where being a successful multi-racial and multi-religious society is a significant value proposition in our neighbourhood and for our survival as one people.

Mr Speaker, it is worthwhile to note that the original Act has not been employed since its passage into law and to my understanding, no Restraining Orders have been issued in the last almost 30-odd years. I have one clarification on the Bill. One important change is the removal of a check on Executive power. Under the Act today, a 14-day notice period operates to inform the Presidential Council for Religious Harmony about the impending issuance of a Restraining Order. Under the Bill before the House today, the Government seeks to remove any requirement to notify the Council, ostensibly because it seeks to move quickly against an offender. I wish to clarify with the Minister, in the event a religious leader is slapped with a restraining order to remove an offending post – from his or her Facebook page for example – and he or she does not do so, what recourse, legislation or regulations will the Government turn to, to see that the offending statement or statements is speedily removed particularly if it cannot be classified as a false statement of fact?

In conclusion, Sir, the Workers’ Party notes the challenges presented by the interplay of religion and politics in a multi-racial and multi-religious society like ours. Whatever our political views, religion can be exploited and the use of religion to split communities is a renewed concern given the advent of fast-moving communications technology. A multi-racial and multi-religious Singapore and the way our people accommodate differences and diverse views and display a genuine tolerance towards one another is a key strength of this country. Therefore the Workers' Party supports these amendments, notwithstanding our concerns about the application of the underlying Act.

Mr Speaker, Sir, religious views are a personal matter. But when they threaten the multi-racial harmony of our society, the Government needs to step in to protect our hard-won harmony.

The Maintenance of Religious Harmony Act (MRHA) has served us well in preserving the peace and harmony in our multi-racial society. But we need to update the law to reflect the current needs. The media has exposed how many users of the Internet have used it to promote hidden agendas. Today, there are also less scrupulous religious groups that use these platforms to attack, disrupt and spread extremist views or hostility towards other religions.

And we know how a post on the Internet can go viral rapidly, especially when it relates to sensational topics. We cannot afford to wait 14 days or more to allow Restraining Orders (RO) to kick in for the offending online content to be removed. I would like to ask, if a post is suspected to be both fake news and hurting religious harmony, how will these orders interact with the mechanism under POFMA? Can the Minister consider penalties for those who deliberately circulate such offending content, especially if they are influential pages?

Under the framework of offences, any individual who urges violence against any person or group on the basis of religion or violence against any religious group or member faces imprisonment of up to 10 years or a fine, or both. A religious leader or anyone posing a risk of disturbing public peace who incites hostility against a religion, insults someone's religion or wounds their religious feelings face imprisonment of up to five years or a fine, or both.

While I agree that these acts have potentially serious consequences that deserve heavy penalties, things like wounding religious feelings can be rather subjective. Sometimes, it may simply be due to misunderstanding or clashing cultures and no ill will was truly intended. May I ask how does one determine if something is to be considered sufficiently offensive to breach the law? The Government has consulted with religious groups in enacting this Bill and I hope they will continue to consult with the relevant religious groups when applying the laws too, as well as conduct dialogues with relevant stakeholders and affected parties after the laws are applied. The end goal should be to determine why certain acts are deemed offensive and how to prevent them from happening in future.

On this note, I am glad to see the introduction of the Community Remedial Initiative (CRI), where offenders will be asked to make amendments to offended parties and be given opportunities to understand how they did wrong in the context of a multi-racial society. After all, many offences happen as a result of a lack of empathy and ignorance, rather than pure malice.

I also hope we can nurture a society that is more sympathetic but act decisively when the need arises. In previous cases, some people who insulted other races and religions were doxxed and had their livelihoods affected, with some even losing their jobs. If we can rehabilitate criminals, can we do the same for cases under MRHA?

Religion has a huge impact and influence on many. Certainly, it can evoke strong emotions. Hence, there is reasonable cause for concern over foreigners taking advantage of this fact to try to abuse religion to establish their own agenda. The Bill aims to deter this by requiring key appointment holders or equivalent to be Singaporeans or PRs. However, for smaller organisations, this requirement may be hard to meet. I understand the Government is willing to grant exemptions on a case-by-case basis, or for cross-border or historical organisations.

For foreign appointment holders who get exemptions, it may be good for them to be given some basic education on the framework of our religious harmony practices so that they know the consequences if they breach the MRHA law.

Sir, religious harmony is always work in progress and the Bill brings about many necessary improvements to preserve this harmony that is responsible for making Singapore a safe and stable country to live and do business in. In Chinese, please.

(In Mandarin): [Please refer to Vernacular Speech.] With the advancement of communication technologies, foreign groups and social media will have an increasing influence on our religious groups. Sometimes, they may bring in views that could damage religious harmony here. Hence, the amendments this time are targeted at these two areas.

Sometimes, what is considered as an insult to other religions can be subjective. Therefore, I hope the Government can consult religious leaders first before banning certain types of remarks, and hold dialogues with relevant religious groups after the enforcement.

I am also pleased to see that the Government can order the offenders to understand other religions or issue a public apology. It is a more proactive way of correcting wrong views besides banning.

Key appointment holders of religious groups must be Singaporeans or Permanent Residents. However, for smaller religious groups, it may be a tall order. I hope the Government can make decisions on a case-by-case basis. If foreigners are to become key personnel, they must first attend lessons to understand the principles of maintaining religious harmony in Singapore. I support this Bill.

Mr Speaker, the Maintenance of Religious Harmony Act reflects a shared consensus among Singaporeans that religiously driven politics and divisive speech would be fatal to the One People that we aspire to be.

This Bill gives us the opportunity to ask if we share the same consensus today, in a globalised world where religious ideas, for good or ill, flow as easily across borders as trade does, and where people feel affinity with religious and social causes far away. I believe the answer must be yes. While religious Singaporeans can be proud that they share the faith with brethren in many countries, we must have a consensus that the practice of faith here must be sensitive to our own multi-religious context. If so, then we must accept that the state must have some means of enforcing this.

This principle is not against religious teachings. In the New Testament, Jesus was asked whether Jews should pay taxes to the Roman authorities. He responded that they should "render unto Caesar the things that are Caesar’s, and unto God the things that are God’s." It is legitimate for the practice of religion to adapt to the requirements of the secular state and society.

All religions have a right to make rules of moral and ethical conduct that followers are expected to live up to. But when these rules of conduct contrast with secular law, or with the established norms of society, then the proponents of any religion face a hard decision.

Do they seek to explain why the way of life prescribed in the religion is superior, more ethical or moral, to persuade those who wandered astray to return to the fold? Or do they condemn such behaviours, portray those who have lapsed as sinners, encourage followers to ostracise or ex-communicate those who do not live according to their principles?

Sir, we must welcome religious movements and leaders who constructively articulate their vision of a moral and just life. We may disagree with some of their precepts but not their commitment to bettering humanity. However, we must caution against the condemnation of our fellow Singaporeans simply based on behaviour which strays from the precepts of a particular religion. And we must be cautious even when such criticism applies only to co-religionists.

Let me put this in the context of the question of the family. Nearly every religion is concerned with the nature of the family. There are rules for marriage and separation, proper sexual relations and other family affairs. Sir, the facts are that the nature of the family today is very different from that existing when most of our great religions were founded. Women can, and do, live independent of men today. A divorcee or widow is no longer condemned to penury or forced into a second marriage by society. Single parents and blended step-families exist. There are Singaporeans of different sexual orientations. While many different types of family relationships exist, I believe all aspire to having a happy family life.

Sir, we accept today that for the most part, how a Singaporean chooses to love and live their life is a private matter. The state may have some interest in it to promote social order and the national interest, but this interest cannot and must never be religiously motivated. The exception, of course, is Muslim Law for the family life of Muslims. But the general policy must be secular in a multi religious society like Singapore.

But this position that the state should refrain from interfering with private family life is at odds with the position taken by many great religions. Today, religious leaders in many countries routinely demand changes in family policy so that religious principles are enforced with the full weight of the state. They do so either because in those countries the right of free speech is nearly absolute, or because there is a state religion and hence there is little difference between theology and public policy. Their situation is not the same as in Singapore. This right, if applied indiscriminately in Singapore, would lead to the shrinking of the secular space in Singapore.

In recent years, some religious leaders here have established clear positions against the repeal of section 377A of the Penal Code and have thrown their moral weight behind this. The language used has, sometimes, been alarmist and unaccommodating. Some have also stigmatised those whose personal lives do not conform to religious precepts, including single parents and persons of different sexual orientations.

It is true that several mainstream religions do not accept these ways of life. But a common view among some religions does not by itself justify the use of the pulpit to influence public policy. Nor does it mean that these acts from the pulpit have no consequences; they harm the feelings of those they condemn and they create real risks of discrimination or violence against these minority groups. Thus, while the primary aim of MRHA must be to protect religious harmony, I ask the Ministry to also have regard to protecting social harmony.

Again, Sir, I support the right of every religion to prescribe principles of life for their followers. But I hope religious leaders will promote their precepts constructively, rather than destructively. I hope that they will speak to our common humanity, rather than divide us.

Sir, in closing, I believe MRHA has been effective precisely because it reflects a shared consensus. Singaporeans who disturb the religious peace accept that they are in the wrong and they voluntarily change their ways. This consensus is hard won. Indiscriminate use of the law would create contention rather than consensus. The significant expansion of powers under this Bill raises that risk. While this Government has demonstrated that moral suasion and dialogue are the preferred tools to enforce the law, I pray that a future Government will also respect that wise precedent. I stand in support of the Bill.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I am a practicing Roman Catholic and a person of faith.

When we speak of the Maintenance of Religious Harmony Act or the MRHA, it is oft said that its mark of success for this legislation is the fact that it has not been invoked since it was first codified into law almost 30 years ago.

With revivalism of religious faith in 1980s, the Government and society in general has been concerned with how religious fervour may prove to be fertile ground for fanaticism or radicalism. The late 1980s and the early 1990s saw numerous incidents that were citied in the Internal Security Department’s report that was annexed to the White Paper proposing the enactment of the MRHA.

Examples of aggressive and insensitive proselytisation, of intra-religious sectarianism, as well as issues of the use of faith for political ends are still as important today as they were when the MRHA was first formulated. At this point, I would like to ask if the Ministry would be able to update the House that besides the reasons already publicly raised by a number of political office holders for updating of the Act, are there any other concerns such as those raised in the previous ISD report that have also accelerated the need to amend the Act at this point in time.

Equally, the concerns on the reach of the MRHA that were raised when the law took effect in 1992 also remain today and should be rightly addressed so that we are without a doubt of the pure and noble intent of this Bill – which is to safe guard the harmony of Singapore, that we have fought hard to build.

Let me quote you just some of the reactions I read online after this Amendment Bill was presented to Parliament. They include lines such as: "Patriotic Church much like China", "Will we ban fasting too?", "Aggressive atheism in disguise", "All religious heads must now be pro-Government".

I must hasten to add that while these are minority views, a few come from level-headed people who I know. I would perhaps say that if not for this Amendment Bill, there would be many who would not be aware of the content of the MRHA, to begin with.

On this front, my next request is for the MHA to engage more publicly with religious organisations and assist in the information dissemination process of what the amendments of the Act itself would mean or not mean for the practice of religion. What are the plans that MHA have to engage people of faith as well as the society at large?

Religions like Islam and Christianity are what some would term as holistic religions, ones where adherents follow a code of life that is all-encompassing, where participation in the political life of society is informed by faith as well. Section 8(1)(b) and (d) were points of concern in 1990. It may be helpful today to state clearly what would constitute offences.

Would it therefore be an offence if, in the event that the government of the day, enacts or proposes a law that would run counter to the core tenets or beliefs of an established religion or religions in Singapore, and religious leaders of those faiths issue a public letter to their faithful or preach a message against it, against the intent of the law, I must add, and not the Government itself? Would it constitute something that a Restraining Order will be issued against as the message – even though religious and measured in nature – may cause some members of the congregation to be dissatisfied? Would it constitute a political cause in this case?

In addition, while the Government is accommodatively secular, allowing religions to function and practice freely in Singapore, we cannot guarantee that a future Government will not become aggressively atheistic and therefore apply the MRHA beyond what it was originally drafted for. What safeguards are there to prevent this?

Returning to a point I made earlier about how the Act is being more responsive, as pointed out by a number of Political Office Holders who spoke when the Bill was introduced. The key component of the Act will now be able to respond to the alarming speed by which hate speech and fake news can spread on social media, and how something inflammatory that may have been a slow boil during the 1990s can now heat up in the web in mere minutes and translate to real, explosive tensions offline.

I last spoke about how Singapore can easily be a target for disinformation operations because of our openness and connectivity during the Second Reading on POFMA. Over one third of the world is on Facebook alone. Much of how we interact with each other today is through social media. As a majority of the world moves into the unfettered online world, it also means old tropes of racism, misogyny and hate now have a free amplifier to spread and reinforce their views and perhaps even encourage others to violence.

In the amendments to section 8(4), (5) and (6), the Minister can now directly and immediately issue a Restraining Order rather than the 14 days later stipulated under the current section 8(6). Speed is of the essence, and as seen in the Christchurch massacre and also in the recent Sri Lankan Buddhist-Muslim clashes, having the ability to shut down hate speech to viral is paramount.

That, however is in theory, could the Ministry share with the House how in practice the new powers granted would improve the effectiveness of curbing the spread of speech that would incite hatred? In addition, what recourse by which those who have been issued a restraining order can seek redress if they truly believe that they have expressed a legitimate view and not hate speech? With regard to POFMA, how will the MRHA interface with it so that we have a seamless process to target fake news, hate speech and rumour-mongering?

It is heartening that in proposing the amendments, MHA has consulted broadly, and the apex organisations of religious groups in Singapore have accepted and supported the proposals. Can I ask that the Minister share with the House what were the concerns, if any, and perhaps even objections that were raised by religious leaders who were consulted, and how those concerns were appropriately addressed.

I applaud the Act’s innovativeness, especially for the introduction of the Community Remedial Initiative – CRI for short. As mentioned by Minister Shanmugam earlier, it has taken fruit even before we passed this amendment, from the recent example of a young influencer who accepted the invitation of the Young Sikh Association to learn more about their faith and traditions after posting an insensitive social media comment about two Sikh men she encountered at an event. Under what circumstances would a CRI be effective and are there examples in other jurisdictions that has shown its effectiveness? Also, if the Minister does not issue a CRI, but one is undertaken independently, at the initiative of both the offender and the aggrieved, will this be taken into consideration?

I agree with the need to prevent foreign influence in Singapore but am cautious about how we would qualify “foreign influence” in practice. The amendments propose restrictions on the leadership appointments of religious organisations and donations, for example. However, the appointment of religious leaders is complex. Most religions are universal by nature, belonging to global networks, alliances and associations. Some, like particular Buddhist sects and Roman Catholicism, or different denominations in Christianity, have global leaderships. How would the Act, in practice, address the peculiarities of some leadership appointments that may involve a global or external decision?

In addition, according to the Ministry, the proposed Act would mean out of around 2,500 religious organisations here today, about 100 will not be able to meet this requirement. Could the Minister provide examples of organisations that would be required to seek exemptions? What would happen to these organisations should the exemptions not be provided? Could the Act also become a prohibition for the entrance of new religious movements or denominations and sects if they do not already have a local presence? How would this be of impact to the constitutional guarantee of freedom of religion under Article 15 of the Constitution?

Mr Speaker, Sir, we live in an increasingly polarised world. Singapore is fortunate as an example of a country that has bucked the trend of racial and religious tensions. Just looking at a recent Pew Research Centre survey makes for cold sweat. In this research, it points out the percentage of people who agree that people should be able to make statements that are offensive to minority groups publicly, and this was done in just 2015. In the United States, 67% of people agree that they should be able to do so. In the Asia Pacific, of which Singapore is situated, 27%, close to 30% of people, believe that they should be allowed to make inflammatory statements that are offensive to minority groups publicly.

Mr Speaker, we should not allow ourselves to be polarised like that which has happened in other countries, and the amendments are much needed so that we avoid the vitriol that comes from misunderstanding, and avoid any tears that would come from our inaction, and avoid walls that may be erected to divide us because of distrust, and most of all, Sir, never allow blood to flow on our streets because we fail to confront hatred. Mr Speaker, not withstanding the questions I have posed, I support the Bill.

Mr Speaker, in the Ministry's press release on this Bill on 2 September, the Government restated the two principles underpinning the Maintenance of Religious Harmony Act passed nearly 30 years ago. The two principles stated were: first, that followers of different religions should exercise moderation and tolerance towards each other and their beliefs, and not instigate religious enmity and hatred; and secondly, that religion and politics should be kept separate.

I would like to touch on both aspects in my speech and also seek a clarification on a specific clause of the Bill.

First, moderation and tolerance. The debate on any curtailment of religious freedom is difficult because our Constitution guarantees freedom of religion as a fundamental liberty. Article 15(1) provides that every person has the right to profess and practise his religion, and to propagate it. Thus, it is a fundamental right of a person not only to believe in the god he chooses, but to manifest that belief in action, and to spread the belief to non-believers. Today's debate is really one about the extent of this right.

Singaporeans value the peaceful co-existence of multiple religions in Singapore, and the Workers' Party values this as well. Over the weekend, I visited the home of a resident who was obviously a devout follower of his faith. When I asked him about his views on other faiths, he said, "I believe what I believe, not because you are wrong, but because my god is the right god for me."

Singaporeans on the whole embody a spirit of moderation. To that end, we agree that the agenda setting in religious matters should be done by Singaporeans. The Government has expressed concern that some foreign brands of religiosity, if imported, may not be appropriate and may cause tensions on religious grounds to arise. We do not dismiss this risk.

The Bill imposes reporting requirements on religious groups regarding their foreign affiliations and donations, and may require certain donations from foreign principals to be returned or surrendered. The Bill also empowers the Minister to require the removal of foreigners from the governing bodies of religious institutions if such persons are deemed by the Government to have priorities that are inappropriate. There have been news reports that the major religious groups in Singapore support these amendments.

Nevertheless, Article 15(3) of the Constitution provides that every religious group has the right to manage its own religious affairs. It could be argued by some that the powers in the Bill constitute an erosion of the autonomy of religious groups. Earlier in his Second Reading speech, the Minister did say that it was not the intention of the Government to constrain the practice of religion – and that is a welcome statement. To this end, it is important for the Ministry to further elaborate on why the Government believes that the Bill is fully consistent with Article 15.

Next, separation of religion and politics. Although this Bill does not specifically deal with the separation of religion and politics, it is useful to remind ourselves of what the separation of religion and politics entails. This is especially timely, in view of the impending General Election.

During the debate on the Act 30 years ago, it was acknowledged that it is not possible to strictly divorce religion from politics. This impossibility is true today and probably for all ages. Like Mr Alex Yam before me, I am a Catholic myself and I am to be guided by the Church’s teachings. The tenets of Christianity exhort Christians to promote social justice. In the Biblical book of the prophet Isaiah, it is written: “Seek justice, encourage the oppressed. Defend the case of the fatherless, plead the case of the widow”.

Advocacy for the voiceless is every Christian’s calling. This is a force for good in Singapore as we address concerns about class divides and move to foster an inclusive society. However, while individuals may order their actions based on their faiths, the picture takes on a more sensitive hue when religious leaders openly champion social or political causes. The Government has previously voiced its concern about the possible misuse of religious authority.

While the focus of today’s Bill is on foreign interference, we should be vigilant that Singapore’s own religious leaders do not polarise their congregations along party political lines. On this, I wish to share some observations.

In the run-up to the debate on this Bill, there has been open support for the Bill expressed by religious leaders. Religious authority is being thrown behind the Government’s legislation, both publicly and also to specific congregations. Is that mixing religious authority with politics? As far as I know, the Government has welcomed this open support. But if the religious leaders had instead gone the other way, that is, express concern or opposition to the Bill, would the Government have put its foot down and issued an order requiring them to stop?

Let us look at other examples. Is it appropriate for a religious leader to exhort his congregation during a General Election to “Vote for Stability”? Or is it right for a religious leader to be publicly seen, walking into a Nomination Centre in party uniform with a political party’s candidates on Nomination Day? It is already brewing on the ground that some religious institutions are developing reputations for being supportive of certain political parties. Any decision by religious leaders to take an openly partisan stance bears the risk of causing tension between followers who ascribe to their leaders’ political allegiances and those who do not. If unchecked, there is a possibility that, over time, there would be a polarisation of society along political lines, caused not by foreign influences, but by Singapore’s own religious leaders. Such a prospect could fracture social cohesion and divide society.

Sir, before I end, I would like to ask for a clarification on the Bill regarding the proposed section 16F. This section states that a Restraining Order issued by the Minister has effect “despite the provisions of any other written law in force.” The explanatory note to the Bill touches on section 16F but is not clear as to how a restraining order could be contrary to a written law. Without clarification, the section reads as if a Restraining Order may breach other laws or be illegal in some manner. Could the Ministry explain what this is all about, please?

Finally, Sir, let me conclude. The Maintenance of Religious Harmony Act was controversial at the time it was passed. The then First Deputy Prime Minister Mr Goh Chok Tong told the House that the Cabinet had not been unanimous in deciding whether to legislate, and decided to mull over it and consult widely for several years. When the Bill was presented, he said, “In a sense, this Bill is a recognition of a retrogression, or potential deterioration, in religious harmony.”

Sir, the Workers’ Party shares this concern of the Government and is prepared to work with the Government on this aspect.

Mr Speaker, Sir, this Bill promises a more robust approach to safeguarding religious harmony. By restricting foreign influence on our religious institutions, we also allow our national and religious identities to intersect more closely. Last, this Bill is built for speed, given the very large harm that can result from religious insult within a very short time.

I see this Bill as one among a slew of others to protect our rights and the kind of society we have pledged to be. The Singapore model of protecting rights has always been one that relies on restrictions of freedoms, in an explicit recognition that rights without restrictions are empty.

If everyone is completely free to do whatever we want, then we yield our individual freedoms to those with the most power, which in modern society has tended to be those with the most wealth. Countries which we consider to be democratic today are perhaps merely plutocracy well disguised.

I give two examples of laws which appear to trample on freedoms but yet provides the most freedoms for the most of us. The Land Acquisition Act is recognition that the rights of private property owners are sometimes subordinate to the claims of the state. The ethnic quota guideline in our public housing estate is evidence that the right to freely transact on the market is conscribed by the larger goals of racial harmony through every day lived experience of all races. The restriction of hate speech is the latest in a series of these, a vital link in preserving the high quality of public discourse.

Each restriction of vital freedoms is not to deny that such freedoms are important, but is our way of recognising that such freedoms exist within a universe of rights.

In his Ministerial Statement on Restricting Hate Speech to Maintain Racial and Religious Harmony, the Minister for Home Affairs and Law Mr Shanmugam had defined hate speech as "all forms of expression which spread, incite, promote, or justify racial hatred, xenophobia, or other forms of hatred based on intolerance."

Our revulsion for hate speech stems from two sources. First, it is morally wrong, that is, wrong in principle; second, it has the potential to cause great harm. And it is this latter which carves out the three main areas which the current legislation address.

First, the harm against society. Hate speech divides us, sets man against man, tribe against tribe; it stirs us up, it inflates and inflames our emotions.

Second, and on the other end of the spectrum, it dampens our responses to and normalises outrageous behaviour. What may once have given us pause may now be shrugged off and accepted. In this way, we lose our collective public morality. In February 2019, the United Nations Secretary-General Mr Antonio Guterres called hate speech a "menace to democratic values, social stability, peace". And he pointed out the dangers of allowing hate speech to move onto the mainstream. He said, and I quote him, "With each broken norm, the pillars of humanity are weakened." We cannot allow the norms of Singapore to become so lax that hate against each other's religion goes unpunished by law.

Third, hate speech moves individuals to take radical action. In the name of overweening but ultimately false causes, we have seen Nazis against Jews during the Holocaust, Hutus against Tutsis in Rwanda, Sinhalese Buddhists against minorities in Sri Lanka.

In Singapore, our Minister-in-charge of Muslim Affairs, Mr Masagos has said that there have been external influences trying to "re-shape" how Muslims live their lives, including being "exclusivist". There is also the longstanding risk, with terrorist groups calling on Muslims to establish an Islamic caliphate. Let me now quote Mr Masagos again. He said, "All these ideas are new ideas, which are ideas from old texts or interpretation of old texts. So, these need to be addressed by our own scholars."

So, what can we do against the force of religious beliefs? Other countries have found their own solutions. In the US, speech is prohibited if it is likely to lead to "imminent lawless action". The German Criminal Code criminalises the incitement of hatred against, or insult of, a racial or religious group. And in the UK, it is a crime to incite hatred on the grounds of religion. But it protects freedom of expression to a high degree, to such an extent that one can ridicule and insult, abuse any religion or its followers.

The Singapore approach. Like many countries, Singapore finds hate speech wrong in principle. Like some of these countries, Singapore is willing to use the strongest institution at our disposal – our laws – to bind this wrong because of the harm it does to our society.

Our approach distinguishes itself in two ways.

First, we are nesting it within an eco-system of laws that promote a high quality of public life and discourse. The Select Committee on Deliberate Online Falsehoods, which I was a Member of, heard expert advice which argues that the "visible hand" of the state is needed to fight fake news. Lies mixed with religious fervor presents an explosive cocktail.

Second, our willingness to give force to this "invisible hand". This is not always the case – in some countries, something can be recognised to be wrong and harmful but still remain unbound either because there is a lack of political will or because it lies outside the political culture.

In Singapore, we recognise that in our best selves, we can rise above our primordial instincts, we can forbear from rash, unreasoned action, we listen to others, we can be dispassionate and rational. We value religious and racial harmony. But let us not be conceited enough to think that we are our best selves all the time, or even most of the time. Let us not be naive to think that what happened in history cannot and will not happen again. From this principle, we are therefore are justified in making our laws more robust, in a climate where strident views are rising, and much that cannot be said in the past, is now freely promulgated online.

There will always be critics who say that yes, they agree that religious harmony is important, but we should not be so ready to make new laws. We should trim our legal reach and give more respect and freedoms to the citizens. To do otherwise is to disrespect the ability of citizens to hold mature political dialogue.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I have spoken on the need for realism above. A second, perhaps more sustained argument could be that the amendments make the laws more robust, which runs the risk of over-zealous application.

Sir, if the risk is between over-zealous application of the law, which can be ameliorated by members of the Judiciary, or that of under-protection of vulnerable groups of minorities, which does not appear to have any recourse, save the mercy and fair-mindedness of online mobs, then, to me, the former is far superior.

In short, Sir, I support this Bill because we, in this House, we cannot say something is important and, at the same time, we shirk from the hard work of regulating it.

Sir, my speech will be in Malay.

(In Malay): [Please refer to Vernacular Speech.] Sir, the Maintenance of Religious Harmony Act was enacted in 1992. The two key principles of this Act are; first, that followers of religions in Singapore live their religious lives moderately, practise tolerance towards religious differences and do not do anything that can cause hatred and enmity. Secondly, politics and religion should be separated.

I will touch on these two principles but before that, I would like to seek a clarification from the Minister on one new section being introduced which can be found in this amendment Bill, which is section 17(F). Briefly, what I understand from the Explanatory Note is that a person is deemed to have committed an offence if he wilfully becomes involved in acts that insult a religion or the religious beliefs or the activities of others in Singapore, whereby those acts; one, cause hatred towards another religion; two, injure the feelings of followers of other religions; and three, will affect the law and public order.

I will share an example and I hope that the Minister can provide a clarification based on the example given, whether an offence had taken place as stated under section 17 in the following situation.

An Islamic religious leader or preacher said during a sermon that Islam teaches that Jesus was a prophet and not the son of God as taught in Christianity. He then says that any religion that says otherwise that Jesus is the son of God, then the followers of that religion will be punished in hell. While delivering the sermon, the preacher also delivers that message in a fervent manner. If a video recording of that session is shared on the Internet. I think it is very likely that the majority of Christians will feel offended and angry because they feel that the preacher has insulted their faith.

However, from the perspective of the preacher, his intention was simply to deliver Islamic teachings to Muslims and he had no intention or motive to injure anyone's feelings or cause any friction in a multi-religious society.

Sir, based on my interpretation of section 17(F) and the next section, that is section 17(G), which states that motive or intent is irrelevant in determining whether a person has committed an offence as stated under section 17(F). The preacher that I mentioned in my example will be deemed to have committed an offence under the Maintenance of Religious Harmony Act even though the preacher's real motive is to share the teachings that are found in the Quran.

I would like to seek some explanation and clarification from the Minister on this matter, and if such a situation occurs, whether the preacher will be charged under section 17(F).

Sir, moving on, I would like to touch on two key principles of the Act, which are; first, to live a religious life moderately and practise tolerance towards religious differences and not do anything that can cause hatred and enmity. The second principle is that politics and religion should be separated.

Sir, Singaporeans are constantly reminded of the importance of integration between the difference races and religions to create and preserve harmony. There is constant emphasis on messages stating moderation and tolerance as key elements to achieve integration.

Every religion directs its followers to work towards achieving and maintaining racial harmony. I believe that every religion calls for moderation and tolerance for the sake of harmony amongst humankind. But, Sir, what is the meaning of moderation and tolerance in religion? Does moderation and tolerance mean that the followers of a religion have to compromise their religious values and practices, like making themselves ‘less Islamic’, and so on? Do the followers of a particular religion have to do something prohibited or that contravenes the values and teachings of the religion, before he can be considered as someone who practises moderation and tolerance? Personally, I believe that tolerance, as a pillar of religious harmony in a plural society like Singapore, is achievable without having to sacrifice the values and faith of any follower. In short, there is no need to be less Islamic.

Sir, I would like to share my experience while studying in Australia. I was amazed by the way Australian society practises tolerance by respecting the beliefs and teachings of a religion. My father's friend, Mr A, sent his daughter to a renowned public secondary school for girls in Melbourne. Mr A sought permission from the school to allow his daughter to practise Islam by wearing an attire that covers her modesty based on Islamic teachings. The school allowed Mr A's daughter to wear the tudung. In fact, his daughter was also allowed to wear long-sleeve blouses and loose-fitting clothes which, nevertheless, still comply with the school's uniform requirements in terms of colour and pattern.

Although Australia is a multi-ethnic country where its people come from all over the world, they still adhere to their country's principle of religious freedom. As a nation and a plural society, they recognise the need to respect the teachings and beliefs of followers from various regions. They do not practise tolerance by asking followers of a religion to compromise their faith or ‘to be less Islamic’ for the sake of integration. Instead, tolerance is practised in Australia by respecting the beliefs and principles of a religion and by taking steps to render support so that the religious practices of any follower of religion is not impacted, which was what took place in the example I just shared.

Sir, another principle of this Act is the separation of religion and politics. I do not quite agree with this principle. As a Muslim, Islam is understood as a way of life. Islam encompasses all aspects of life, including politics and the way to practise politics. And I understand that Christianity also believes that it is unlikely that religion can be separated from politics.

Sir, Parliament, as the highest institution in creating laws, also allows for religious elements in the process of appointing Members of Parliament through the swearing-in and oath-taking ceremony. We can see during the ceremony that Members of Parliament who are Christians can hold the Bible when taking their oaths and they conclude their oaths with the phrase "So, help me God".

However, Sir, I agree that it is certainly wrong to use religion in order to gain political advantage. I believe such a thing is prohibited in any religious teaching. This is because religion is meant to shape individuals who are morally upright and pure of heart so that he can contribute as best as he can towards the development of society and nation, and not to use it for one's own interests or certain interests.

Sir, the maintenance of religious harmony is a collective role and responsibility, particularly among religious and community leaders. Each member of society must strive to give mutual respect to other faiths and to practise true tolerance in order to maintain and further strengthen religious harmony in our nation. Thank you, Sir.

Mr Speaker, Sir, in October 1965, Mr William Cheng, Principal Assistant Secretary of Administration of MOE mooted the idea of a pledge. It was meant to inculcate national consciousness and patriotism in schools. The then Minister for Education, Mr Ong Pang Boon, sent two drafts worked out by his Ministry's staff to the late Mr S Rajaratnam, then Minister for Foreign Affairs.

Mr Rajaratnam believed that language, race and religion were potentially divisive factors, and the Pledge emphasised that these differences could be overcomed if we stay united as a country. He believed that the Pledge emerged against the backdrop of a struggle to forge a sense of nationhood and to build “a Singapore we are proud of”.

More than 50 years after our Pledge was written, in Singapore's very first study by the Institute of Policy Studies and OnePeople.sg on the state of racial relations, four out of 10 Singaporeans said that they decide what a person's behaviour and views will be like based on their race even before they interact with them.

Every now and then in the papers things happen that reflect very vividly the complexities of race and religious tensions in Singapore. The changes to the Maintenance of Religious Harmony Act are timely as it deals with the complex trends the world and Singapore are currently facing.

The rolling news flows in the global village have given race and religious phenomena increased visibility and potency. Our people are not immune from that. For example, attacks against Christians in Pakistan or against Muslims in India, new incidents of anti-Semitism in Western Europe and hate crimes against Muslims in the US or Europe immediately take on a global dimension. The worldwide ripples of these incidents have vividly underscored the sensitivity of religious issues in the global village. It is even more critical now as compared to 50 over years ago and Singapore must safeguard itself from these changes.

I do have a couple of clarifications on the Bill. First, the distinction between private and public speech and foreign interference. Under section 17F, if a religious leader is accused of inciting religious hatred or ill will, he would be able to defend himself by proving his message was meant only for a domestic gathering and that he could not have anticipated that it would reach unintended audiences. However, this is potentially problematic. Incitement – unlike insult – can cause serious harm even if the leader's words are heard only by a small circle. If someone had secretly video-taped the speech and then propagate it, the harm would still have been done. The speaker must still be as culpable as the propagator because he had spoken the words.

Next, the Community Remedial Initiative is laudable. It matters because when everything is viewed starkly in black and white and no one is given the chance to make amends, mistrust flourishes. It splits communities down religious fault lines even more starkly than ever. Once communities are divided in this way, tensions will spill over quickly. The connection between religious tolerance and stable societies is clear. However, the question remains: how many times will we allow a person who makes religiously intolerant comments to participate in this initiative? Even though inflammatory comments can be removed online, this digital age ensures that the impact is immediate and long lasting. Nothing is really quite forgotten. The damage is done. Should there be a limit to the Community Remedial Initiative to not only individuals but also organisations on how many times they can participate in it?

Next, it is encouraging to note that our youths clearly care about religious harmony. It was nearly unanimous among the 18- to 25-year-old Singaporean respondents in the same survey that it was either unacceptable or very unacceptable for religious leaders to make insensitive comments on other religions. In addition, 97.2% of those in this age group felt that it was either unacceptable or very unacceptable for religious leaders to incite violence or hatred against other religions. However, the very same younger netizens might also guard online spaces more vigorously through accepting views of different nature, even though these views might seem offensive to some. How can we better bring about awareness amongst our youth that while people can express their views, they should also be cognisant that some discourses should not be accorded a platform, especially in multi-racial and multi-religious Singapore, that the enhancement of this Act is not the restriction of what they can say, but it is for the pursuit of higher ideals?

“Regardless of race, language or religion” cannot be words recited daily in our National Pledge for a brief moment in the morning and then conveniently ignored for the remainder of the day. Let us always remember that Singapore worked hard to lay the foundation for religious harmony and maintain it over the years. We did not achieve this by accident. The timely changes to this Bill are welcomed as they deal with the nuanced, complex trends in this world today. With this, I support the Bill.