Hansard, Tuesday, 4 February 2025

1 Ms Hazel Poa asked the Minister for Education (a) whether the Ministry has conducted investigations into an alleged assault at Admiralty Secondary School on 7 January 2025; (b) if so, whether results of the investigations can be released; (c) whether any investigations have also been conducted on the suicide of an ex-student of Admiralty Secondary School in 2023, in particular, allegations that school leaders and the school principal dismissed the student's complaints about being bullied; and (d) whether any actions have been taken against perpetrators or school leaders involved in each case.

Mr Speaker, Sir, with your permission, may I request for my response to also address Written Question No 27 in today’s Order Paper and a written Parliamentary Question which is scheduled for a subsequent Sitting, please.

Please proceed.

I invite Members to seek clarifications if need be. I will also make some broader comments on how we should handle such incidents as a society.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I thank Members of Parliament and members of the public for showing concern for the well-being of our students. The Ministry of Education (MOE) takes a serious view of any act of bullying or violence. No one should be bullied. No one wants to be bullied. No one should bully.

MOE monitors these cases that are reported to or are identified by our schools, whether the incidents happen in or outside schools, online or offline. While cases of physical bullying are relatively stable and manageable, other associated issues have arisen, especially online, to compound our concerns.

First, the virality of social media postings has heightened sensitivities and increased social media vigilante actions. These can normalise the extremes and hinder rehabilitative actions.

Second, the unhelpful involvement of even a minority of adults can complicate the situation and compound the challenges faced in guiding our students.

Let me now touch on the Admiralty Secondary School incidents. For Admiralty Secondary School, in the last five years, there was an average of about two incidents of bullying per year per 1,000 students, both within and outside of school. This is no higher than the national average of bullying cases in secondary schools.

Regarding the alleged assault case at Admiralty Secondary on 7 January, preliminary investigations by MOE reveal that it was not an incident of bullying, but an altercation that happened between two new Secondary 1 students during transition between periods. This resulted in one student striking the other on the head with a plastic water bottle, giving rise to a cut on that student’s head. The form teacher intervened immediately on witnessing the scene and separated the students. The injured student received first aid for the cut on his head, while the school leaders called for an ambulance to convey him to hospital.

Based on MOE’s investigations so far, the school had acted appropriately to support the student’s well-being. The school had ensured that he received medical care in a timely manner. During his medical leave, the school maintained communication with his parents, provided learning support for the child and monitored his well-being. The student has since returned to school. The school has also been assisting the Police in their ongoing investigations of the case.

The student who struck the other student has been suspended, is counselled and will face further disciplinary actions when he returns to school. The school will also facilitate the restoration of relationships between the two students when they are both back in school. The objective of these educative and restorative efforts is to help students learn and grow through these experiences.

Sir, we understand the anxieties of parents whose children are or have been involved in fighting or bullying incidents, but please allow the school and the authorities to deal with the cases and carry out the necessary disciplinary and restorative actions professionally. Without the full facts, let us not speculate or jump in to complicate matters further.

Regarding the incident involving a former student of Admiralty Secondary School who fell from height in 2023, MOE is deeply saddened by this loss and our condolences are with her family and loved ones.

Sir, the causes and possible triggers for suicides are complex and multifaceted. When it happens, our school leaders seek to extend help to affected students and families and work closely with families in managing their grief.

When our schools manage these situations, MOE maintains strict confidentiality and does not disclose details of the incidents or the child’s family circumstances to the public out of respect for the family’s privacy and in view of the sensitive nature of these matters.

However, this often leaves our school leaders and teachers vulnerable to misunderstanding, leading to online attacks and abuse of our teachers and staff while they continue to exercise restraint and sensitivity to the families. Given that this particular student’s case has now been made known to the public, I would like to assure Members of the House that the school had gone above and beyond in supporting this student when she was experiencing emotional challenges. When the school was informed that the student was going through some friendship issues, the school took action to guide the affected students to resolve their differences and to reconcile. A dedicated team comprising experienced school staff and school counsellor extended counselling to her and facilitated restorative conversations amongst the schoolmates. Even after this incident, when the student experienced other challenges, the school continued to provide support and intervention over several months.

Throughout this process, the school staff maintained communication with the student’s family, reaching out to work with and support them. The one-sided allegations lobbed at Admiralty Secondary do not reflect the full picture. They do not do justice to the efforts that the school had made to help the student and her family in her time of need. The outcome was not something anyone wished to see happen. But the intent and efforts of the school to help the child and the family, seeking to partner the family, should not be doubted.

Mr Speaker, Sir, at this juncture, while I will not comment on the specifics of various cases, let me share some broader reflections on how we should respond as a society to these and similar ones that have arisen.

When such incidents happen, some of us, including adults, may react reflexively or emotionally. The court of public opinion, often with an incomplete view, then reacts and complicates an already difficult situation.

MOE is particularly concerned when adults take to social media or turn up in our schools to threaten our staff, demanding action on behalf of their children, or even threatening the other children. This is wrong. MOE will not tolerate such actions. We will do all that is necessary, including taking firm action in accordance with MOE’s Engagement Charter and our laws to safeguard the well-being of our staff and students while we work to counsel and discipline the students involved.

While these incidents are few, they incur disproportionate amount of time and bandwidth to manage and must not be allowed to grow. While a small number of parents may think the schools have not done enough in their eyes to address their grievances, we can all be confident that our teachers have the best interests of our students at heart and will deal with all of them, take care of them impartially, and not just a few or selected ones.

It is useful to remember that it is one thing for children to fight and quarrel. It is quite another for adults to jump in, take sides, aggravate the quarrel and detract us from guiding our children towards reconciliation and rehabilitation. In the recent incidents, school leaders were flamed online, the school was unfairly represented and the steadfast efforts of our educators to support all affected students were left unacknowledged and unappreciated. Mr Speaker, Sir, and Members of this House, I am sure we can all agree that we can and must be better than this.

I understand that many of us care deeply about the well-being of our students. Compassion forms the foundation of a strong, nurturing society that we all strive to build. While MOE continues to take a firm stance against bullying, take care of our children and staff, help feuding parties to heal and guide our children in the proper ways, we – as parents and the wider community – can also partner our teachers and play our part by reminding ourselves of the following.

One, what we hear and see online may not be what it is, especially when we only choose to hear and see what we want.

Two, he who shouts the loudest and fastest, may not be the most innocent nor most accurate.

Three, swinging the sword of vigilantism in the dark, online and in real life, always hurts the innocent ones that one may claim to protect.

Four, broadcasting the extremes will normalise the extremes and encourage even more extreme behaviours.

Five, when we amplify one-sided perspectives, we should have a care if we are not being used to further the agenda of specific individuals. Providing partisan support to feuding parties would only fuel the fire and embolden the feuding parties to be even more strident, making reconciliation more difficult.

Six, retributive justice must be coupled with rehabilitative justice. Punishment alone, without due care to rehabilitate, is not in line with the long-term developmental interests of our children.

Seven, hate begets hate. Respect begets respect. An eye for an eye, makes us all blind and robs us of our future and humanity.

Eight, we are our children’s most important role models. If we act like bullies, offline or online, they will too. Threatening, doxxing and being disrespectful to other children and teachers are not actions that make our children better. This is also not how we demonstrate to our children that we care for them and protect them.

Nine, subverting the schools’ authority, by appealing to external “higher” authorities or seeking to use the media to attack and cast aspersions on our schools and teachers, will make us all losers. Ultimately, our children will no longer respect authority. Such actions also take up the precious time and bandwidth of our teachers, at the expense of other children and parents who deserve more.

Ten, when we, as adults and parents, shield our children who have done wrong from punishment, we are teaching them the wrong lessons – that perhaps they do not have to take responsibility for their actions, that perhaps someone else is always at fault, or that they will always be bailed out.

So, Mr Speaker, Sir, let us work together. Let us not let the unrepresentative actions of a small minority colour the perception and behaviour of our children, our parents, our teachers and our schools. As parents and members of the public, let us work with our teachers to be positive role models, carefully considering how we should respond in ways that are helpful and kind. By sharing and responding to information thoughtfully and respectfully, we contribute to building a wiser and more compassionate society.

Ms Poa.

I thank the Minister for the reply. I agree with the Minister that rehabilitation is very important and it is very difficult to maintain a fine balance between punishment and rehabilitation.

I would like to ask whether MOE tracks the outcome of the rehabilitation efforts, for example, in terms of how many of the bullies or attackers repeat the offence.

Mr Speaker, Sir, we thank Ms Hazel Poa for supporting MOE's stance towards management of bullying or violence cases. As I have mentioned, these cases are few in our schools and the recidivism rate is also very low.

2 Ms Hazel Poa asked the Minister for Home Affairs what is the outcome of Police investigations into an alleged assault at Admiralty Secondary School that took place on 7 January 2025.

On 7 January 2025 at about 2.00 pm, the Police were alerted to an alleged assault involving two male students, which occurred at Admiralty Secondary School.

One of the students sustained injuries and was conveyed to the hospital. The persons involved are known to one another and are assisting with investigations. It would not be appropriate for me to comment further at this point.

3 Mr Ang Wei Neng asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs whether Singapore will be (i) providing more humanitarian aid to Gaza in light of the recent ceasefire and (ii) facilitating the raising of funds from local residents to further support the re-building of Gaza.

Mr Speaker, with your permission, my reply will cover Mr Ang Wei Neng’s question as well as the question that was set for written answer and filed by Mr Zhulkarnain Abdul Rahim in today’s Order Paper. And I also hope to address question for oral answer filed by Mr Alex Yam for the Sitting on or after 5 February 2025.

Please go ahead.

All these questions relate to the situation in Gaza and Singapore’s humanitarian response.

First, Singapore welcomes the multi-phase ceasefire and hostage release agreement that was announced on 15 January 2025. We urge all parties to abide by its terms and enable humanitarian assistance to flow. Fortunately, we have seen an increased delivery of humanitarian aid into Gaza in the last two weeks. This is vital to alleviate the dire humanitarian situation. The unimpeded delivery of aid must continue. And we urge both sides to reach an agreement for the subsequent phases to achieve, hopefully, a permanent ceasefire, the release of all hostages and to allow for the long-term reconstruction of Gaza.

Since the start of the Israel-Hamas conflict in October 2023, Singapore and Singaporeans have contributed significantly. We have, so far, conveyed six tranches of humanitarian assistance to Gaza. These six tranches account for more than S$19 million. In fact, Minister Maliki Osman just visited Jordan two weeks ago to witness the handover of the sixth tranche, which comprising almost S$1.3 million that were raised by the Rahmatan Lil Alamin Foundation (RLAF), and this was given to the Jordan Hashemite Charity Organisation and to the United Nations Children's Fund (UNICEF). We are making plans for a seventh tranche of humanitarian aid and this will consist of food, essential supplies and medical supplies. This will be conveyed by the Republic of Singapore Air Force's (RSAF's) Multi-Role Tanker Transport aircraft and we will deliver these to our Jordanian partners. I have just spoken to the Jordanian Foreign Minister yesterday to confirm these arrangements.

Let me reiterate Singapore's appreciation to our regional partners in the Middle East, especially Jordan, Egypt, the United Arab Emirates and Cyprus, for their support in facilitating our humanitarian assistance to Gaza. We look forward to doing more together and we hope to be able to provide more help the civilians in Gaza as they rebuild their homes and their lives.

Our contributions would not have been possible without the generous support of Singaporeans and the hard work of organisations like RLAF and the Singapore Red Cross. I hope that Singaporeans will continue to contribute to these fundraising efforts. In fact, RLAF will be embarking on further fundraising for Gaza during the holy month of Ramadan.

The reconstruction needs for Gaza will be significant and Singapore will continue to contribute either bilaterally or in partnership with others. We also stand ready, through our Enhanced Technical Assistance Package to support training programmes in Gaza in collaboration with the Palestinian Authority.

Mr Alex Yam asked whether the ongoing tensions in the region pose any immediate or foreseeable implications for Singapore's diplomatic interests and regional stability in the Middle East. Singapore remains deeply concerned about the volatile situation. As stated in my written reply to a Parliamentary Question in May 2024, a wider conflict will have serious implications on the safety and security of everyone, including our Singaporeans who are living in the Middle East and Singaporean companies operating in that region. I added that greater regional tensions would also impact international energy markets, commercial aviation and global supply chains.

Therefore, we continue to monitor very closely the developments in the Middle East and we are grateful that our strong ties with various partners in the Middle East have prevailed. In fact, working together has given us opportunities to deepen these diplomatic relations and that is why we have been able to convey timely humanitarian assistance to the civilians in Gaza.

Mr Zhulkarnain and Mr Yam also asked about the role that Singapore can play in contributing to sustaining the ceasefire agreement, and promoting regional peace and stability. I understand the intent behind these questions, but I think we need to be realistic and we need to be circumspect about the role that we can play. What we can do, from far away, is to encourage all the parties to reach an agreement for a permanent ceasefire in Gaza and to pursue a longer-term solution. But we need to understand the complexity and the deep historical entanglements of this conflict in the Middle East, and there will be no quick and easy solution.

Singapore supports the right of the Palestinian people to a homeland of their own. We believe that the only viable path for achieving a comprehensive, just and durable solution to this long-standing conflict is a negotiated two-state solution, consistent with the relevant UN Security Council resolutions. We hope that the leaders on both sides will find the political will, courage and imagination to resume direct negotiations, although we know that these will be very difficult in light of the painful 16 months that have just passed.

Mr Ang.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I thank the Minister for the comprehensive reply. In the last round, when the local Muslim foundation did a fundraising, our Nanyang residents were encouraged and also contributed to the fundraising and we are looking forward to the next fundraising round that is coming in the next month, during the Ramadan period.

I would like to ask a supplementary question to the Minister. If there is a permanent ceasefire, will the Singapore Government consider trying to build a school or hospital so that we can be involved in the reconstruction of Gaza?

I thank the Member's residents and indeed Singaporeans all over who have contributed generously and, I am sure, will continue to contribute generously during the holy month of Ramadan.

There are many needs in Gaza and we will focus especially on our partnership with the Palestinian Authority in particular, on capacity building. And that means, especially on education, on scholarships. We are, in fact, expanding our scholarships to both at the undergraduate and postgraduate levels to deserving Palestinian scholars who will get in on their merit. We will also work closely to provide training opportunities for the bureaucrats in the Palestinian Authority, because they need to step up capacity if they are able to engage not only in reconstruction but ultimately, in administering a state of their own in a constructive way. And that is the only way to really give long-term hope to the people of Palestine who deserve so much more.

So, watch this space. We will continue to work very closely with the Palestinian Authority and our partners throughout the Middle East.

Mr Zhulkarnain Abdul Rahim.

Mr Speaker, I thank the Minister for answering my question. Besides the good work and the fundraising of our people to assist the civilians in Gaza, in the midst of all these fundraising, can there be greater involvement from the Ministry of Foreign Affairs to, possibly, help Singaporeans understand the complexities or what the Minister mentioned, the deep historical entanglements, during the process of our fundraising? So that besides doing what we can for others, we can remind ourselves what we have here in Singapore and what we can hope to achieve in the future for Palestinians when we host them in Singapore.

Mr Zhulkarnain has actually raised quite a profound point. That, first, we count our blessings in Singapore. That we are able to live at peace with security, a multiracial, multi-religious, multilingual society. A tiny city-state in the heart of Southeast Asia.

Even as we count our blessings, we do not take it for granted. What has happened in the Middle East, as indeed in many other troubled spots in the world, can also act, if we are not careful, to divide us or to polarise us in our responses to events far away. I consider it a blessing that in all these months, we have been able to keep our society together. We recognise that there may be differences in resonance or in reactions to the same incident. But that has not stopped us from being united, by being cohesive, by being constructive and, in fact, being open-hearted and generous across all communities. This is a very important point.

I should also add that in all my interactions with the Palestinian Authority over the years and with our Arab partners in the Middle East. They have always been very intrigued. The Member has been with me on our visit and so has Mr Gerald Giam. They have been very intrigued when they looked at the composition of our delegation and how that diverse crew can work so closely together and be constructive.

Singapore's position when we interact with the Palestinians is, first, they are just interested in how we do it. And that is why, when we offer capacity-building programmes and focus on education, focus on training, focus on helping them come up to speed with public administration, with digitalisation and finance and all the other aspects, it has got extra resonance and there is extra interest.

I also remind them that, in fact, Gaza is about half the size of Singapore and it has got a population one-third of Singapore. Which means, actually, Singapore is a more crowded, congested placed than Gaza. Again, the peace, the security, the cohesion and, of course, the economic success of Singapore stand as a beacon of hope and of what is possible in the future. So, it is these intangible elements that, in fact, give us more salience.

But without overstating a point – at the end, we are far away and we are small. We are not in the immediate neighbourhood. We cannot rebuild Gaza. But we can stand as a positive example of a successful multiracial, multi-religious society which has learned to hang together, to confront challenges collectively and we have succeeded, so far, for 60 years.

Mr Alex Yam.

Sir, I would like to ask the Minister two supplementary questions. One, with regard to the donations that have been provided. As of January this year, through RLAF, we have provided S$19 million in terms of aid to the people of Gaza. What is also important in the minds of Singaporeans who have contributed most generously to this effort, is the assessment of the effectiveness of the aid provided and whether it has been properly accounted for? Our partners there, as we witnessed during our visit with the Minister last year, have been very helpful but I think it bears reassuring to our donors in Singapore that they are properly accounted for.

Secondly, how does Singapore assess the credibility and sustainability of the current ceasefire agreement and what diplomatic tools do we have, especially our very developed relations with countries in the region that can be leveraged upon, to encourage both parties in this conflict to uphold?

The humanitarian support has been provided in several separate channels. First, that is the delivery of emergency humanitarian aid: food, essential supplies, medical supplies. And for that, I should highlight the role of our RSAF in delivering these physical supplies on the ground and through even heli-drops. And as I said, there will be another mission to send further supplies to Jordan in the coming weeks. So, that is one channel.

Another channel is money. As I had illustrated just now, Minister Maliki was in Jordan. Almost $1.3 million dollars were donated to the Jordan Hashemite Charity Organisation and to UNICEF focusing especially and obviously, on children.

The third modality. Members might recall that we have doctors in Singapore who have been providing teleconsultation for the more complicated cases resulting from injuries in Gaza. And I want to make a shout-out for them. I am quite sure if we asked for volunteers, doctors, nurses, physiotherapists, occupational therapists, would line up to go, but my concern is to make sure that it can be done safely. So, for that, I will not make any commitments at this stage.

And then the fourth, as I illustrated earlier, is in our ongoing interactions with the Palestinian Authority – capacity building, education and scholarships. So, we will continue to do more of this. We will also continue to be very mindful that we need to make sure all our contributions are properly accounted for and used to benefit the widest group who need it the most.

Could the Member share his second supplementary question again?

Mr Speaker, to the Minister, how does Singapore access the credibility and sustainability of the current ceasefire agreement and what diplomatic tools do we have, especially in terms of our developed relations with countries in the region, that we can leverage upon to encourage both parties in this conflict to uphold it for the long haul.

Mr Speaker, this is an area where we do need to be circumspect and to understand the limits of our role. What we have in place now is a multi-phase ceasefire. In fact, only the first phase has been agreed and so far, despite initial anxieties, it seems to be progressing. Members have all seen the release of hostages and a ceasefire continues to hold.

On the point of the hostages, I should also mention the fact that I was very glad to see five Thai hostages released. These are people who are completely innocent who have nothing to do with the conflict there. They have been held hostage for more than a year. I was very glad to see them released as well.

Having said all that, phase two and phase three are going to be very, very complicated. And they will depend, as I said earlier, on the political will, the imagination and the courage of the leaders on all sides to actually sit down and work through those very complicated negotiations that will be needed. There is a very limited role for us here, in respect of that.

Both the Israelis and the Palestinians whom we have engaged know our position. We stand for peace. We stand for development. We believe the Palestinians need their own state. But we believe this can only come about through a negotiated two-state solution. And the two parties need to meet directly, face-to-face and to work out these complicated details. That is the only way you are going to get a comprehensive, just and durable solution. But we should approach this from a position of humility and goodwill, and whatever we can contribute, in our own small way, we will continue to do so,

And let us just reflect also – this is the season when we are still celebrating Chinese New Year, looking forward to Ramadan, SG60. This is also a reason for us to reflect on what we have achieved in Singapore and what to avoid, what to do more of and how to be a relevant and constructive example to other parts of the world.

Last supplementary question. Mr Dennis Tan.

Thank you, Mr Speaker. I thank the Minister for his answers and I do appreciate Minister's answers on support in terms of capacity building, as well as education. I do support that.

I would like to ask a supplementary question. Beyond financial assistance, is there any role that Singapore can play to provide more, perhaps, technical assistance to help with the infrastructural reconstruction, rebuilding, for example, the homes, hospitals, schools and public utilities? Because, as we can imagine, these are very dire and urgent needs on the ground at this moment.

Mr Tan is right, there are dire needs on the ground and there are dire infrastructural needs – housing, utilities, water, electricity, hospitals, schools.

But, actually, the key impediment to all this still remains a sustainable peace. And until there is an assurance of that, and because as the Member has said, actually the limiting factor is not money. There are more than enough donors, even in the Middle East alone, who will be quite happy to contribute. But it is an assurance of peace, an assurance that there is a political solution and that whatever is built will benefit everyone fairly and will not be destroyed again in the next paroxysm of violence.

4 Mr Pritam Singh asked the Minister for Education what is the Ministry's assessment of the employment landscape for polytechnic graduates in 2025 in view of the results of the latest Graduate Employment Survey 2024 which showed that fewer graduates secured full-time permanent jobs.

Mr Speaker, Sir, may I have your permission for my response to this Parliamentary Question (PQ) to also cover matters raised in the PQs by Dr Wan Rizal1, Ms See Jinli Jean, Mr Leong Mun Wai2, Mr Liang Eng Hwa, Mr Pritam Singh and Ms Foo Mee Har3, which are scheduled for the Sittings on and after 4 February 2025. And if need be, may I invite these Members to seek clarifications following my response, please.

Please go ahead.

Mr Speaker, Sir, employment rates are affected by various factors such as the economic and labour market conditions. Some fluctuations from year-to-year are to be expected. More importantly, we must continue to monitor and respond to the longer-term secular trends, beyond the shorter-term cyclical fluctuations, that may affect the employability of our graduates.

While the labour market remained tight in 2024, with job vacancies remaining higher than pre-pandemic levels, 2024 saw lower hiring demand and fewer vacancies compared to 2023, which would have contributed to the survey findings for 2024. Based on the 2024 Graduate Employment Survey conducted by the five polytechnics, about 45% of graduates were economically active. Among this group, there was a decrease in the full-time permanent employment rate and an increase in the unemployment rate as compared to 2023.

The impact was also uneven across course clusters. Some course clusters, such as health sciences, and humanities and social sciences continued to see strong employment outcomes. Graduates from course clusters, such as engineering, and information and digital technologies had higher unemployment rates. And this could be due to cyclical sectoral changes, such as the downturn in the tech sector, which also affected hiring demand.

We have also observed that some graduates have received full-time permanent job offers but have declined them for various reasons, including a perceived lack of work-life balance, or the offered pay not meeting their expectations. We will continue to monitor if this trend persists and if it has a longer-term impact on graduates' employment outcomes.

The polytechnics will continue to equip students with the necessary and in-demand skills and competencies by working closely with industry partners to ensure that our curriculum remain relevant and responsive to the evolving job market demands, as well as to provide quality internship opportunities for students. The polytechnics further support students by providing Education and Career Guidance as part of the curriculum, which includes resume writing and interview skills training. Those who require more support in finding a job can also tap on the career matching services and digital resources offered by Workforce Singapore's and the National Trades Union Congress' (NTUC's) Employment and Employability Institute.

For 2025, given global economic uncertainties, we will continue to monitor the situation closely together with the polytechnics and industry partners.

Mr Pritam Singh.

Thank you, Mr Speaker. Just to clarify with the Minister, I think that in his preamble to the reply, he mentioned that I had an additional question in future Sittings or so. I do not have any questions for future Sitting. This is the only one.

Yes.

I have two questions, Mr Speaker. One, according to the Polytechnic Graduate Employment Survey 2024, the unemployment rate for fresh undergraduates rose from 7.3% in 2023, to 12.5% in 2024, comparable to the numbers at the height of the COVID-19 pandemic. Is the Minister concerned about the prospect of under-employment amongst polytechnic graduates, and would he direct the polytechnics to track under-employment data in future iterations of the Graduate Employment Survey?

I understand that the Ministry of Education (MOE) is concerned about under-employment, when it determines how many places are open in universities for different students, for example, for computer science. And I am wondering whether there is a similar concern at the polytechnics and the number of students who apply for polytechnic courses. The Minister mentioned in his reply that the numbers seem higher for engineering, and information and digital technologies-related courses, and hence, the concern would also apply with regard to under-employment here.

The second question I have is that almost 10 years have passed since this House debated MOE's Applied Study in Polytechnics and ITE Review (ASPIRE) report, which sought to strengthen applied education at polytechnics and the Institute of Technical Education (ITE). What is the Ministry's assessment of the progress made in the ASPIRE report's recommendations in equipping polytechnic graduates with: one, strong skills foundation; and two, sector linkages with industry to help enhance programme offerings, so as to ensure good job outcomes for our polytechnic graduates?

Mr Speaker, Sir, if I may answer the Member's questions together and put in context some of the data that has been discussed.

Over time, we have seen the following trends. The first is that the number of polytechnic graduate students that are continuing further studies has increased. So, the base of the people that are going into full-time employment directly has decreased. So, this is an important point.

Within the group of people who are going into full-time employment – this is what we are talking about in this particular survey – the long-term secular trend, more polytechnic graduates go on to study immediately before they enter the job market. That is, in some sense, a positive trend. Then, those who go directly into work are the remainder 45% or so, and within this 45%, that is where we get the uptick of last year, about a 5% of this 45%, in change in the unemployment. So, that is the first point.

The second point to Mr Singh's question about measuring under-employment. This is not something that is easy to do because the definition of under-employment varies across different sectors and perceptions, from the International Labour Organization (ILO) to NTUC and even the Ministry of Manpower, they have different ways of trying to measure it. It also depends on who you ask. If you ask the students whether they are under-employed, I think the answer is quite different than if you ask the boss whether they think their employee is under-employed, especially for fresh graduates. So, I think there is some limitation in what we can do.

Having said that, the larger issue that we have to appreciate is how do we make sure that our polytechnic graduates, or for that matter, ITE graduates, and even our university graduates, can get fulfilling jobs that earn them a good salary, not just at the entry point, but also throughout their career? We have to do this on a few fronts – and this is also in response to the progress that we have made on the ASPIRE report.

The first thing that we need to do, is that we need very close industry-and-polytechnic, industry-and-ITE, and industry-and-university collaborations. Because it takes us two to three years to produce a graduate and we must be able to work with the industry to forecast demand, not just in terms of numbers, but the type of skills required in a few years' time. This is by no means an easy job, because even the industry will know that in two to three years' time, the type of skillsets that are required and are most marketable may change and may evolve over time. But the first thing is for us to make sure that we work closely with the industries, the Ministry of Trade and Industry, to forecast the demand.

The second thing is that in a fast-evolving world, I think nobody will be able to say, "My course will fit nicely into a particular job in two to three years' time". What we need to equip our people with are not just the skillsets of a particular job, but also adjacent competencies that allow them to pivot into what we call adjacent jobs or complementary jobs that will make them much more employable. Some of these are hard skills, some of these are soft skills. Some of these are skills that allow them to work with other partners across different nationalities so that we can widen the market opportunities for them, so that they can pivot, not necessarily just at the beginning, but also throughout their career.

So, this is how we must continue to work to make sure that our courses are relevant with industry input and at the same time, equip our people with the skills that are complementary, fungible, that they can have wider options, rather than be narrowly type-cast or siloed into specific sectors. And that is what the ASPIRE report has tried to do and will continue to progress on these fronts.

Mr Singh.

Thank you, Mr Speaker. I note Minister's points about the transit of polytechnic graduates into degree courses and understandably so. I think in the previous decade, MOE had also envisage the cohort participation rate for students entering universities to be on the increase and it is 42% now compared to previously. And of course, the other factor is we have got applied learning universities now as well and that may in itself be a positive fillip with regard to the ASPIRE report.

But in regard to the numbers of students who are not transiting to the university directly, on the applied learning front, does the Minister see gaps and issues that can be improved so that the employment prospects of students, polytechnic graduates specifically, can withstand some of these secular trends?

Mr Speaker, Sir, just two comments in response to Mr Singh's supplementary questions. Yes, indeed. This is always a work in progress to make sure that our courses are relevant. The skills learnt by our students are also relevant and current. We have to make sure that every year, we have to refresh the curriculum. Even if it is the same course, we have to refresh the curriculum with the industries' input, with what we sense in the market, so that we can meet the longer-term secular needs, longer-term trends beyond just a cyclical short-term trends. So, that is one thing that we do and we must continue to do.

The second thing that has come through here is also, increasingly, we have what we call the Work-Study diploma or Work-Study degree. These are applied learning programmes in collaboration with the industries. This is also another strong mechanism for us to make sure that our courses are relevant and are able to meet the just-in-time demand of the industries. We hope to be able to expand the number of Work-Study programmes, because this will make it more current, not just for the pre-employment training, but also for the continuing education and training. This is the best way for us to tighten the nexus between frontier business practices and academia, so that we can churn out students with the skillsets that the industries need.

We must continue on both fronts – both the work-study part, and the tight nexus between industry and the education institutions.

We are more than halfway through Question Time and we are only at Question No 4. So, I am going to confine supplementary questions to only those who have filed PQs.

5 Mr Desmond Choo asked the Minister for Sustainability and the Environment in light of the recent flash floods in Singapore caused by the monsoon surges in recent months (a) whether the Ministry will consider conducting additional in-depth reviews on the adequacy of our drainage systems to deal with such monsoon surges; and (b) whether the current investments by the Government to improve drainage infrastructure are sufficient.

6 Mr Saktiandi Supaat asked the Minister for Sustainability and the Environment in light of the monsoon surges in January 2025 (a) how many different areas reported flooding of (i) up to 0.5 metre (ii) between 0.5 and 1 metre and (iii) more than 1 metre above ground level; (b) out of these areas, how many have reported previous incidents of flooding in the past five years; and (c) what is the Ministry’s strategy to prevent and respond to flooding situations going forward.

Mr Speaker, may I have your permission to take two oral Parliamentary Questions (PQs), Question Nos 5 and 6 in the Order Paper together? In addition, I will address one written PQ filed by Miss Rachel Ong for the 4 February 2025 Sitting.

These three PQs relate to the recent monsoon surges and drainage improvement efforts and with your permission, I will respond to these PQs together.

Please proceed.

In January this year, Singapore and the region experienced two monsoon surges which brought about prolonged rain. The first monsoon surge lasted four days from 10 January to 13 January, and the second monsoon surge lasted three days from 17 January to 19 January. From 10 January to 11 January, a total of 255.2 millimetres of rainfall was recorded at Changi, which is more than our average monthly rainfall of 222.4 millimetres in January.

Over these two monsoon surges in January 2025, there was one incident of flooding, which occurred at Jalan Seaview. Jalan Seaview is a low-lying area subject to tidal influence. Since the 1980s, a tidal gate has been put in place in the outlet drain downstream of Jalan Seaview, to help mitigate tidal flood risks for this area.

On 10 January, heavy rain coincided with high tide and this led to the flooding at the side road bend, a stretch of about 50 metres, of Jalan Seaview. The flooding on the road was about 0.3 metres and lasted close to three hours due to the high tide. The house next to this road experienced flooding within its car porch area. Based on the Public Utilities Board's (PUB's) records, in the past five years, this is the only stretch of road along Jalan Seaview that has experienced flooding.

While PUB had upgraded the roadside drains at Jalan Seaview in 2014 to increase their drainage capacity, some areas in the vicinity of Jalan Seaview are still susceptible to flooding as the road levels are marginally above the high tide level. The longer-term plan is to reclaim and build "Long Island" which will protect the East Coast area, including Jalan Seaview, from rising sea levels and tidal floods. Agencies have initiated technical studies and are engaging the public and stakeholders to shape the plans for "Long Island".

We encourage developments in low-lying areas, including at Jalan Seaview, to put in place their own flood protection measures, such as deploying flood protection devices. To help residents and businesses, PUB has been issuing flood protection devices, such as flood barriers and inflatable sand bags, as part of the annual monsoon preparation and providing guidance on how to deploy these devices properly in a timely manner.

Climate change will increase flood risks in Singapore due to more extreme and unpredictable rainfall. PUB adopts a multi-pronged approach to enhance Singapore's flood resilience.

First, PUB continually upgrades our drainage infrastructure. The Government has made significant investments over the decades to upgrade drainage infrastructure, with about $2.5 billion spent since 2011. We have successfully reduced flood prone areas from approximately 3,200 hectares in the 1970s to less than 25 hectares today. PUB conducts regular reviews on the adequacy of the existing drainage system and considers the latest drainage design standards and climate change data. There are 19 ongoing drainage upgrading works, with six more projects slated to commence in 2025. We will spend about $150 million on these projects in FY2025. We are currently reviewing the drainage infrastructure plan for the next review cycle of FY2026 to 2030.

That said, it is neither practical nor prudent in land-scarce Singapore to keep building more drains or expanding our drainage infrastructure. Doing so, would require significant land and financial resources, which would then not be available for other important uses. To put things into perspective, flooding in Singapore is localised and typically subsides within an hour. It is, hence, more effective to build up flood resilience at a systems level, where building owners, developers, as well as the wider community, all play their part alongside the Government.

To this end, PUB works closely with building owners and developers on measures that have to be taken at the individual development level to strengthen flood resilience. PUB's Code of Practice on Surface Water Drainage provides requirements on minimum platform and crest levels for buildings and flood protection measures that building owners and developers must implement to protect their premises. Amendments to the Sewerage and Drainage Act were passed in November 2024 to ensure that owners and developers continue to operate and maintain the flood protection measures in their premises properly after implementation.

PUB also proactively engages the community to better prepare for and respond to flood incidents. PUB works with the National Environment Agency (NEA) to forecast intense rainfall and issue early warning of potential floods to better prepare the public ahead of flood incidents. PUB launched its flood preparedness campaign "Get Flood-Wise" in November 2024 and worked with partners, such as Grab and BlueSG, to share flood readiness tips with drivers and commuters.

Managing flood risks is a collective effort between the Government, businesses and the public. I encourage everyone to play their part in enhancing Singapore's flood resilience.

Mr Desmond Choo.

I thank the Minister for the reassurance that there are future plans to protect our coastal low-lying areas. I have two supplementary questions. The first one is, because it will take some time for us to build "Long Island" or longer infrastructure improvements, so, what are the interim measures, including more pumps that can be deployed quickly, especially when we are going to expect more of such monsoon-type of weather events?

The second one is, we have committed to certain investments in the longer run. Now that we start to see more frequent occurrences, do we expect to invest even more? And if so, are we in a process of determining how much this would be?

Thank you, Mr Speaker. I thank the Member for these questions. I think they are very thoughtful. Indeed, I think we need to look at both short-term as well as long-term measures. I think in the short run, we would like to see how we can prepare the public including residents, better, faster and give them more effective means to protect themselves, including the availability of more devices to protect their own property.

Whether the pumps will be really effective in the case of Jalan Seaview, that may be doubtful because we are talking about the coincidence of both intense rain and high tide. So, it is difficult to pump something out if the tide is against you. What we really need to do is, where we can, for example, in Marina Barrage, we will start pumping ahead of time, prepare as much as we can, but still, more importantly is to get the local community, especially in the flood prone areas to be prepared themselves.

So, awareness, public engagement, early warning, advising public to sign up to PUB's channel for information. We are also working with the Land Transport Authority (LTA) to make some of these warning ahead of time more effectively through more platforms. These are all works in progress.

And in the longer term, we will want to review our flood drainage system, in tandem with our coastal protection system, because these are two sides of the same coin. In intense rain with high tide, as we have seen recently, we need to manage both together, and that is the reason why PUB is now the coastal protection agency. It is really to bring consideration, at the same time, plan for it and be prepared to invest in effective infrastructure that we have said that we are going to invest in significantly. We will review the plans, as I have said earlier on, for the next cycle of 2026 to 2030. We are in the process of doing that.

But the point that I like to make is that, even as we are able to foresee a greater occurrence of such extreme weather events, sometimes it is just not financially wise for us to prepare for the extreme events, because that will mean dedicating a lot of land, a lot of financial resources to protect us for those events that may not occur so regularly or in places where it does not occur regularly.

It is still the same message, that while the Government will look at improving our infrastructure, we need community, we need businesses, we need owners to also undertake protection measures to protect themselves, protect their properties and protect their families.

Mr Saktiandi Supaat.

Thank you, Mr Speaker. I just have two supplementary questions. One is with regard to Minister's answer earlier, about the collaboration with NEA. Can the Minister share how the Ministry intends to collaborate with other agencies to ensure a coordinated flood response in the future, if it gets too extreme, that sort of scenario?

Second is, I think, the Minister shared earlier about flood mitigation measures for housing and corporates or individuals. Can the Minister share whether it is possible to have financial or logistical support available for residents and businesses affected by the floods and whether there can be budget allocation for future flood mitigation?

I think I have alluded in the earlier reply that we are working with NEA for better forecasts and also giving us more localised forecasts. Because, I think, when it comes to flooding, it is very localised, especially in Singapore when our floods occur in very small areas. So, it is all the more important for us to get very high resolution of forecasts in the very near term. So, that is something that we are working on, including with NEA and the Meteorological Service Singapore to have more sensors and better modelling in flood projection.

We are also working with LTA to try to get some of these traffic advisories out faster. For example, we are working to include some of these warning advisories in the ERP 2.0 so that we can receive the early warnings as we are driving. We are also working with the Singapore Police Force and the Singapore Civil Defence Force when it comes to emergencies related to floodings, in case there is a need to protect and save lives. So, there is close coordination between PUB and many related agencies.

On the need for financial support, I would say that actually the measures that we are putting in place really start from a very basic design. So, when it comes to developers, for example, we are expecting them to start putting in some of these budgets so that they can plan the infrastructure, the protection measures, as and when they are planning. This will be reflected in the land price and also in the development costs that they will be including in their development plans.

As to businesses as well as in the residential areas, I think PUB works very closely with them. In fact, over the years, we have been reducing the flood-prone areas significantly. I mean, when I was a child growing up, I remember that floods occurred in much wider areas more frequently, and many more businesses, including some in Chinatown, for example, quite regularly suffered from the impact of heavy rain and flooding. I think over the years, this has significantly been reduced. As I have mentioned, in the most recent monsoon surges, we only had one significant reported flood incident.

As and when they are needed, we will offer more help and we will keep a very close contact with the public and the businesses when it comes to engaging them on deployment of flood protection devices.

7 Mr Neil Parekh Nimil Rajnikant asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs (a) whether an assessment of Singapore-US bilateral ties under the Biden administration can be given; (b) what are the key achievements of Singapore-US relations during the tenure of the Biden government; (c) how will Singapore continue building on ties with the US under President Trump; (d) why does US engagement in the Asia Pacific remain critical for the region’s prosperity, security and growth; and (e) how does Singapore envisage US-China ties under the new Trump administration.

Mr Speaker, Mr Neil Parekh has asked a very topical question, which I have had to update just in the last few days. He has asked for an assessment of Singapore-United States (US) bilateral ties.

Singapore and the US enjoy a substantive, multifaceted and a very long-standing partnership. The fundamentals of this mutually beneficial relationship have been nurtured across both Democratic and Republican Administrations over the past 60 years. Bipartisan.

Singapore worked closely with the Administration of former President Joe Biden. During this time, our bilateral ties broadened, we institutionalised cooperation in areas including space, critical and emerging technologies and nuclear energy. For example, in 2023, we established the US-Singapore Critical and Emerging Technology Dialogue, which bolsters our collaboration in cutting-edge technology. In December 2024, the US-Singapore 123 Agreement entered into force and in January this year, we signed a Memorandum of Understanding Concerning Strategic Civil Nuclear Cooperation. Together, these agreements and partnerships will deepen civil nuclear cooperation, it will enable us to better understand how advanced nuclear energy technologies can potentially support our clean energy needs.

In 2024, we also commemorated the 20th anniversary of the US-Singapore Free Trade Agreement (USSFTA). This was the US’ first FTA with an Asian country and, in fact, remains its only FTA with an ASEAN country. The USSFTA contributed to the tripling of bilateral trade since 2004 and has allowed the US to consistently maintain a trade surplus with Singapore.

Today, the US is our top trading partner in services, our second largest trading partner in goods and our largest foreign investor. In fact, if you add up the stock of US foreign direct investment (FDI) into Singapore, the US has invested more in Singapore than it has invested cumulatively in China, India, Japan and Korea combined. Quite a shocking statistic. The US has invested more in Singapore than it has invested in India, China, Japan and Korea combined. That is why we have 6,000, in fact, more than 6,000 US firms based in Singapore, creating jobs and opportunities for Singaporeans.

Meanwhile, Singapore is the third largest Asian investor in the US and there are some 200 Singapore companies in 40 states. Together, our bilateral trade and investments between the US and Singapore generate over 350,000 jobs in the US.

We have also worked well with President Donald Trump during his first term. In October 2017, President Trump invited then-Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong to visit the US. And of course, in June 2018, President Trump came to Singapore to attend the US-North Korea Summit. In 2019, then-Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong and President Trump signed the Protocol of Amendment to the 1990 Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) Regarding the United States Use of Facilities in Singapore. This extended the MOU by a further 15 years and it underscores our strong bilateral defence relationship and Singapore’s support for the US strategic presence in our region. We look forward to working closely again with President Trump to further deepen bilateral ties in the years ahead.

The US presence in our part of the world has actually helped to provide security, stability and economic opportunities in the Asia Pacific for the past 80 years. The US is ASEAN’s second-largest trading partner and the largest source of FDI into ASEAN. It has also supported ASEAN economic initiatives, especially capacity building in areas like digital trade, trade facilitation and the development of micro, small and medium enterprises. The US has also cooperated closely with ASEAN on emerging issues like clean energy and cybersecurity.

But the world is now at a new inflection point, probably at a point which we have not faced for almost a century. The liberal world order that prevailed after the Second World War, which was characterised in three dimensions: one, domestically, usually democracy and human rights; two, economically, by global supply chains and economic integration; and three, at the international level by the development of international institutions, the United Nations, the Bretton Woods institutions, international law, international norms and rules. That liberal world order, which, in fact, has been quite conducive for Singapore’s progress in the last 60 years, is now being eroded and it is being eroded because it has lost domestic political support in many parts of the world. And I set that out so that we can also situate the changes which are happening within the US and the unfolding drama of its relations with its own treaty allies, with Europe, with China, with Southeast Asia. And therefore, how we need to respond to this profound challenge.

The US’ relationship with China is, in fact, the most consequential relationship in the world. How these two superpowers interact with one another has deep implications for global stability and prosperity. Right now, I would characterise it as a significant lack of strategic trust between these two superpowers. And we are all witnessing a bifurcation, a decoupling of the global economy as a result of that. But again, if you look at the headlines over the last few days, it is not just the US and China, but also its relationship within its own allies and neighbours in its own hemisphere, and its evolving relationship with the European Union (EU).

And the challenge, therefore, is how Singapore and Southeast Asia should respond. We believe there needs to be an omni-directional engagement on our part with all the multiple poles of power that are emerging. That means, engaging with the US, engaging with China, India, the EU, Africa and South America. And you would notice our intensive diplomacy and economic engagement across the world. The signing of FTAs like the Regional Comprehensive Economic Partnership Agreement, which is ASEAN with China, Japan, Korea, Australia and New Zealand. You would have noticed the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP), which initially was supposed to include the US. The US pulled out, the rest continued and the TPP has grown since then. You would also have noticed that we have now signed FTAs with the Pacific Alliance, which is Mexico, Colombia, Peru and Chile, and we also signed one with Mercosur, which is Brazil, Argentina, Uruguay and Paraguay.

It is worth noting that all these FTAs that Singapore has been able to sign have occurred despite the mood against globalisation. And in fact, if you look at the variety of governments in charge of these countries, they range across a very wide political spectrum. But the point is we can still continue to engage and make common calls as widely as possible in order to expand opportunities and to look for stability.

With the US, ASEAN and the US elevated relations to a Comprehensive Strategic Partnership in 2022 and we were able to adopt a Leaders’ level statement on cooperation on the ASEAN Outlook on the Indo-Pacific as well as on artificial intelligence.

Specifically, with respect to Singapore, we will have to continue to play a constructive, inclusive role in a nimble way given our size. So, that means, we have to be consistent, reliable and a trustworthy host to enterprises from all over the world, including the US and China. We will uphold the rule of law and sanctity of contract. We will act decisively and firmly against individuals and companies that flout the rules. Or maybe, let me rephrase that more colloquially. It means playing it straight, it means saying the same thing to everyone and it means doing what we say. At a time of tension, instability and volatility, our Singapore branding and the way we speak and behave, in fact, becomes more valuable.

Mr Neil Parekh.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I have a supplementary question for the Minister. I would like to get his assessment on the likely impact on Singapore of the recent tariffs imposed on China, Mexico and Canada.

I know we are under time pressure so, obviously, I cannot give the Member a comprehensive answer to all that and, in any case, the news is still unfolding.

But just take a step back, I think tariffs and emerging tariffs are a reality going forward. I will take some risk and say that I do not anticipate us being on the hit list for direct tariffs because, as I said earlier in my answer, the US has a surplus in as far as the trade balance with us is concerned.

Having said that, even if you assume that there are no tariffs, no direct tariffs against the export of Singapore products and services, the fact that we are a small open economy and that trade constitutes more than three times our gross domestic product means if there is any friction, if there is any degradation of economic integration global supply chains and world trade, we will be impacted indirectly.

So, this is an area which we are watching very, very closely but I hope Members in this House will recognise that it still means we need to keep calm, we need to keep our eyes open. But we need to be very careful in what we say and how we behave and playing it straight, saying the same thing to everyone and meaning, and doing what we say, is valuable. But I do need to prepare Singaporeans that it will be a turbulent ride in the months or years to come.

8 Ms Joan Pereira asked the Minister for Home Affairs (a) what assistance has been provided to the victims of the unauthorised home address changes performed on the ICA website; and (b) what punishment will be meted out to the perpetrators who did the changes.

9 Mr Leong Mun Wai asked the Minister for Home Affairs whether the recent cases of unauthorised change of address using ICA's e-service have affected other Government services such as the distribution of CDC Vouchers and the calculation of Government benefits payable to the affected individuals.

10 Mr Leong Mun Wai asked the Minister for Home Affairs whether the Immigration and Checkpoints Authority will be conducting a comprehensive review of all electronic change of addresses done within the past six months through the “Others” module, which allows the change of address by a proxy, to ascertain the authenticity of the change of addresses.

11 Ms Hazel Poa asked the Minister for Home Affairs whether the procedure for a change of home address is being reviewed.

12 Mr Leong Mun Wai asked the Minister for Home Affairs whether the Government will consider implementing stricter rules or guidelines to regulate the photocopying of physical NRICs to reduce the likelihood of such information being misused.

Mr Speaker, may I have your permission to address Question Nos 8 to 12 raised by Ms Joan Pereira, Mr Leong Mun Wai and Ms Hazel Poa in today's Order Paper, and Mr Mohd Fahmi bin Aliman’s question scheduled for a future Sitting.

Please go ahead.

The Ministry of Digital Development and Information (MDDI) has related questions in this Sitting and will address Mr Fahmi’s question on Singpass in its reply.

First, let me explain the procedure for changing one’s registered address with the Immigration and Checkpoints Authority (ICA). The fraudulent changes of address had occurred through the “Others” module in ICA’s system for electronic change of address (eCOA). The “Others” module had been introduced for the benefit of non-digitally savvy residents, such as the elderly or disabled. It enables them to change their address online without having to make an in-person trip to ICA, by getting a proxy to help them. The proxy would log into the system using his or her own Singpass account and apply for a change of address for the individual by keying in the individual’s National Registration Identity Card (NRIC) number and date of issue of the NRIC. A physical personal identification number (PIN) mailer would then be sent to the individual at his new address. The proxy would log into the eCOA system a second time and with the PIN, complete the change of address for the individual.

In designing and building our digital services, we have to make practical trade-offs between absolute security and useability. In the case of the eCOA service, there were safeguards in place, including the need to authenticate the proxy via Singpass log-in, the use of NRIC number and date of issue of the NRIC of the person whose address was to be changed, and the use of a physical PIN mailer.

At that time, these were assessed to represent an acceptable balance between absolute security and useability. However, we now recognise that this service could be and was exploited by malicious actors. A key problem is that there was criminal action: people gave up their Singpass account to be misused. This criminal action, which was not anticipated, was the key reason why malicious actors were able to exploit the “Others” module in the eCOA service. They had first used Singpass accounts which had been relinquished, as proxies to initiate the change of address for another individual. Using the date of issue of NRIC as one of the three safeguards was reasonable, but proved not adequate, as malicious actors managed to get hold of the information.

ICA has since introduced an additional security feature which is face verification when individuals use their Singpass account to log into the “Myself” module of the eCOA service to change their own residential address. This module has been resumed since 14 January 2025. The “Others” module and the “Myself and my family” module will remain suspended until additional safeguards can be put in place.

The Government places high priority on the security of our digital services from illegal and malicious actors. This is both to maintain public confidence and to protect the public from harm. We constantly test and improve the security of our systems and will continue to do so.

Second, let me address questions about the impact of the unauthorised changes of addresses and what assistance has been provided to the victims. ICA has reviewed all eCOA applications made through the “Others” module since October 2020, when the eCOA service was launched. ICA has ascertained that unauthorised changes took place only in the recent months, from August 2024 onwards. ICA has found that the suspects tried to change the registered addresses of 99 individuals. They succeeded in changing the addresses of 71 of the individuals.

ICA and the Singapore Police Force (SPF) have been working with the Government Technology Agency of Singapore (GovTech) and other Government agencies to mitigate the impact on these affected individuals. ICA has reached out to all 99 individuals to verify and restore the correct addresses. ICA is also assisting them to replace their physical NRIC, which will have a new date of issue.

ICA is also working with other Government agencies to comprehensively assess the impact of the fraudulent change of address for the 71 individuals, in particular those whose address registered in ICA’s system had been used by other agencies to administer their schemes since the fraud began. These checks are ongoing. Agencies will provide the appropriate assistance and restoration if there has been any adverse impact on the calculation or disbursement of Government benefits, including Community Development Council (CDC) Vouchers, to these individuals.

Of the 71 individuals whose addresses were successfully changed, the suspects went on to take over the Singpass accounts of 16 of the individuals. They did so by performing a password reset for the Singpass account and requesting for a physical PIN mailer to be sent to the newly registered address.

Out of an abundance of caution, GovTech has suspended the Singpass accounts of all 99 affected individuals to prevent unauthorised activity, and has been in contact with them to reset and secure their Singpass accounts. SPF is also coordinating with Government agencies and private entities to stop or reverse any fraudulent activity originating from the 16 compromised Singpass accounts. If there have been monetary losses arising from the compromised Singpass accounts, Police will work with agencies and financial institutions to remediate the losses wherever possible.

Third, Ms Joan Pereira asked what punishment would be meted out. Thirteen suspects have been arrested by the Police and investigations are ongoing. Four men have already been charged in court for offences under the Computer Misuse Act 1993. These offences carry penalties of imprisonment of up to three years, a fine of up to $10,000, or both, for first-time offenders. Details of the arrests and the offences for which the suspects have been charged are contained in SPF’s news releases. SPF will be making known other details in due course as its investigations progress further.

Finally, regarding the photocopying of NRICs, under the Personal Data Protection Commission’s Advisory Guidelines, organisations are generally not allowed to collect, use or disclose copies of NRIC, as they contain personal data. Exceptions apply only where required under the law, or when it is necessary to accurately identify an individual. Organisations that fail to comply with these Guidelines may be in breach of their obligations under the Personal Data Protection Act.

Ms Joan Pereira.

Thank you, Speaker. I have one supplementary question for the Minister of State. I would like to ask why ICA suspended the eCOA's service only on 11 January 2025. Could ICA not have acted sooner?

I thank the Member for her supplementary question. ICA had started investigating cases of unauthorised changes of address in September 2024. Initially, the cases appeared unconnected. Time was needed to investigate and triangulate information from various reports made.

By December 2024, ICA had uncovered how the unauthorised changes of addresses were effected and what they were used for. In parallel, ICA was also reviewing the technical aspects of improving the security of the eCOA system.

Following an internal assessment, ICA decided to suspend the eCOA service and did so on 11 January 2025. In hindsight, ICA could have taken steps to cease the service earlier in December 2024 when the modus operandi was established. But these are judgement calls that public officers have to make every day. The Ministry of Home Affairs (MHA) is reviewing with ICA what lessons we can draw from this incident.

Ms Hazel Poa.

I thank the Minister of State for her answers. Upon a change of address, does the Ministry currently send letters to both the new and old addresses in order to verify that the change is genuine? And secondly, would the Ministry consider reinstating the venue of changing residential address to be at Neighbourhood Police Posts (NPPs)?

I thank the Member for her supplementary questions. Currently, the mailers are sent to the new address but, like I had shared in my response earlier, ICA is reviewing how this service is conducted and has instituted the use of facial verification under the "Myself" module. So, for the other modules, like "Myself and family members" as well as "Others", ICA is still reviewing what would be the best way forward in order to safeguard our electronic services.

I am sorry. Could I ask about the second question again, please?

Updating addresses at NPPs.

I thank the Member for that question. There have been instances in the past where there have been questions raised in this House about manpower issues that the SPF faces. So, many of our NPPs have gone towards a "man-less" operation model. But what will happen is, if there are individuals who walk into our NPPs and ask for help to change their address, they will be guided to ICA for them to change their addresses at ICA.

Order. End of Question Time. The Clerk will now read the Orders of the Day and the Notices of Motions. Leader of the House.

[Pursuant to Standing Order No 22(3), provided that Members had not asked for questions standing in their names to be postponed to a later Sitting day or withdrawn, written answers to questions not reached by the end of Question Time are reproduced in the Appendix.]

Leader of the House.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I believe that the next item on the Order Paper, which is the Maintenance of Racial Harmony Bill, as well as the second item, the Constitution of the Republic of Singapore (Amendment) Bill, will be moved by the Minister for Home Affairs. Mr Speaker, I believe you will also be asking for them to be debated together.

Mr Speaker, may I seek your consent and the general assent of Members present to move that the proceedings on the item under discussion be exempted from the provisions of Standing Order No 48(8) to remove the time limit in respect of the Minister for Home Affairs' speeches.

I give my consent. Does the Leader of the House have the general assent of hon Members present to so move?

[(proc text) Hon Members indicated assent. (proc text)]

[(proc text) With the consent of Mr Speaker and the general assent of Members present, question put and agreed to. (proc text)]

[(proc text) Resolved, "That the proceedings on the item under discussion be exempted from the provisions of Standing Order No 48(8) to remove the time limit in respect of the Minister for Home Affairs' speeches". – [Ms Indranee Rajah.] (proc text)]

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

Minister for Home Affairs.

Mr Speaker, Sir, thank you. I move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time."

I will refer to this Maintenance of Racial Harmony Bill (RH Bill) as the RH Bill – short for racial harmony, which is somewhat similar sounding to the Maintenance of Religious Harmony Act, which we passed some time ago.

Sir, this Bill is linked to the next Bill, the Constitution of the Republic of Singapore (Amendment) Bill. The latter amends the President's powers under the Constitution to give effect to the proposals in this Bill. Sir, I seek your permission, to debate both Bills together.

Please proceed.

Thank you, Sir. We will, of course, take the Constitution Bill through its formal stages separately later.

At present, dealing with the Maintenance of Racial Harmony Bill, there are powers to deal with conduct which threatens racial harmony, but what you see is that they are found in different pieces of legislation. What this Bill does is to bring those powers together in one place. And so, in that sense, it consolidates. And at the same time, by presenting it in this form, we seek to affirm the importance of racial harmony in Singapore.

Based on the responses we have had from members of the public when we had our consultations and when we put out the Bill, I want to make one point. This Bill is not a panacea for all racial issues. You cannot by law force people of different races to get along with one another, nor can you prevent insensitivity or racist slights from happening in everyday interactions by passing a law.

That, we try to deal with, try and improve conduct, try and get people together, through a variety of policies and platforms which promote social cohesion and racial harmony. That is a huge part of it. The law can set out a framework as to what you cannot do.

Sir, with your permission, may I ask the Clerks to distribute Annex 1?

Go ahead. [A handout was distributed to hon Members. Please refer to Annex 1.]

Members can also access this material through the MP@SGPARL app.

The point that has been made by the Ministry of Home Affairs (MHA) through its press release, which I am sure the Members who are intending to speak on the Bill would have looked at, and which I would emphasise again and you will see it from Annex 1 is that most of the proposals in this Bill – certainly the substantive proposals – are not new.

As long as Members understand we are consolidating from different pieces of legislation and so, when you express your concerns and so on, in a way, what you need to understand is, if you have those concerns, then they would have existed for a very long time, because this Bill does not create new provisions in a substantive manner.

There are some new provisions – you can see that in the Bill and in the press releases. But I am referring to the substantive provisions.

The Table in Annex 1 also provides a comparative reference between this Bill and the Maintenance of Religious Harmony Act as well as other legislation.

For example, Part 2 of the Bill on the Presidential Council for Racial and Religious Harmony takes reference from the current Presidential Council for Religious Harmony. Part 3 of the Bill on "Restraining Orders Against Racial Content" and Part 4 of the Bill on "Measures Against Foreign Influence" are also similar to the Maintenance of Religious Harmony Act. Part 6 of the Bill on "Offences Relating to Race" – those are what I call the charging provisions – brings over the existing offences from the Penal Code.

In the course of bringing in concepts and provisions from other existing legislation, we have made some refinements to some provisions for clarity and effectiveness. I will explain that later.

Sir, first, I think the Bill itself is fairly clear cut. But why such a Bill? Why do we need this? It is not usual in many countries. I think that is a more fundamental, more important question. That is because we have always treated racial harmony as being fundamental in Singapore. This Bill has to be seen in that context. Multiracialism, underpinned by racial harmony, is a foundational principle for us.

Sir, as most Members will know, when Singapore gained Independence, the issues relating to racial relations were fresh in the minds of the first generation of leaders. The proximate cause were the racial riots of 1964. At that time, communal tensions were very high in both Singapore and Malaysia.

On 21 July 1964, riots started. That was during a procession to celebrate the Prophet Muhammad's birthday. A glass bottle was thrown into a crowd. The crowd had about 20,000 Malay celebrants. There was then an angry exchange between Malays in the crowd and some Chinese bystanders. That resulted in violence and the violence spread all across Singapore. That was the state of the tensions at that point. It lasted 17 days before the situation stabilised; 23 people died, more than 400 were injured.

Then, riots broke out again on 2 September 1964, between again the Malays and Chinese. That happened after a Malay trishaw rider was killed. The second time round, it took 12 days before calm was established; 13 people died and more than a hundred were injured.

The broader context for those tensions were the arguments between Singapore and Malaysia. These arguments then led to Singapore's separation from Malaysia.

Singapore's merger into the new Federation of Malaysia in 1963 had raised some very fundamental issues. Although the new state of Malaysia in 1963 had Malays, Chinese, Indians and Eurasians, amongst others, there were basic differences between Singapore and Kuala Lumpur on how the state was to be organised and, in particular, the approach towards multiracialism. Singapore wanted racial equality. Kuala Lumpur favoured race-based politics. The two approaches were not reconcilable.

The idea of a "Malaysian Malaysia", advocated by Singapore, brought about a very strong counter from the United Malays National Organisation (UMNO) leaders in Kuala Lumpur and Malaya. They saw this as a challenge to Malay dominance. Singapore then became an independent country.

On the day of our Independence on 9 August 1965, Mr Lee said – and these are very important words. He famously said, "We are going to have a multiracial nation in Singapore. We will set the example. This is not a Malay nation; this is not a Chinese nation; this is not an Indian nation. Everybody will have his place: equal, language, culture, religion."

These issues and the approaches exercised the minds of Mr Lee and his generation. The problems were seared into their minds. They had grown up in a Malaya where different races had lived together for generations as colonial subjects. Once Independence was achieved – first in the Federation of Malaya in 1957 and then in Malaysia in 1963 – the question immediately arose as to whether all citizens, regardless of their race, were to have equal status.

Our founding leaders had seen how fragile a multiracial society could be. They wanted, as far as possible, to make Singapore a more racially equal society. That involved many tough decisions. For instance, the languages we speak. Some major Chinese organisations asked Mr Lee to make Chinese our only official language and the language of business. Mr Lee refused. He said on 3 October 1965 that, "although in Singapore 75% of the population is Chinese, the Malays form only 12%, never mind; Malay has become our national language, yet, Malay language, Chinese, Tamil and English are all equal."

The four official languages were given recognition by the Republic of Singapore Independence Act and also in the Constitution.

Another example: one of the first few constitutional amendments our first generation of leaders made was to create a Presidential Council for Minority Rights chaired by the Chief Justice. The Presidential Council for Minority Rights can veto any legislation that Parliament passes that it feels affects the rights and privileges of minorities in Singapore.

There were several other steps that were taken to focus on a Singaporean identity which would transcend race and religion.

It was an act of tremendous courage on the part of those leaders to do all of this. It would have been far easier for them to have said, "Okay, in Singapore, Chinese will be the sole official language and the Chinese will have several other legally recognised privileges."

If you see the situation in advanced, developed countries, if you go to Germany, you have to speak German by and large, if you go to France, you have to speak French. If you go to the United Kingdom (UK), you generally have to speak English. So, it would have been very natural for some to have said in Singapore, Chinese should be the language of business, language of commerce and language of government. But we took a different path.

Over the years, our insistence on maintaining racial and religious harmony, and our zero tolerance for bigotry and hatred has made Singapore a very different place compared with others. If you look at a 2023 Gallup World Poll, 92% of respondents in Singapore said that Singapore was a good place to live in for racial minorities. We were ranked first out of over 130 countries and territories for this question.

Another global survey by the Pew Research Center in 2021 found that 92% of respondents in Singapore think that having people of different backgrounds, including racial backgrounds, makes Singapore a better place to live in.

The Government also periodically conducts domestic surveys on racial and religious harmony in Singapore. And so do non-Government entities. Most recently, in August of last year, my Ministry and the Ministry of Digital Development and Information (MDDI) polled more than 1,000 Singapore residents on their sentiments towards racial harmony.

With your permission, Sir, Mr Speaker, may I ask the Clerks to distribute Annex 2, which summarises the key findings from this poll?

Please go ahead. [A handout was distributed to hon Members. Please refer to Annex 2.]

Members will see that the majority of the respondents felt that the current state of race relations in Singapore was good or very good. About half agreed that Singapore's laws were adequate to protect racial harmony, 6% disagreed and the rest were somewhere in-between. Most agreed that it was both the Government's and the community's responsibility to strengthen race relations.

What I would say to Members is that what we have in Singapore is actually not the natural order of things. Indeed, there is nothing natural about what we have in Singapore. We now have come to believe it to be natural. We have made it our second nature. But actually, it is not natural because human beings are wired to be tribal, based on identity, and that continues to be true in many places around the world. If you look at many countries, they are organised on the basis of formal or informal racial or religious hierarchies. That is the natural order of things. What we have in Singapore is we changed the natural order and made that changed situation second nature for us. So, this Bill has to be seen in that context.

When we consider our approach to multi-racialism and laws, it is also useful to look at the experience of other countries and see what we should do or should not do. Let us look at the developed world. Again, some examples. The UK, United States (US) and France have a majority white population, but also a long history of immigration. So, they have been multiracial longer than Singapore has been independent.

Race has been a flashpoint in these countries. Last year, the UK was hit with a wave of riots, between July and August 2024. The riots began with falsehoods. There was a knife attack that killed three young girls. Rumours were that the attacker was an asylum seeker but, in fact, the attacker was born in the UK. By mid-afternoon on the day of the attack, the false name of the suspect had received more than 30,000 mentions on X alone. As of September last year, the police had arrested more than 1,200 persons.

This wave of riots is widely viewed as being among the most serious in British history. It exposed deep-seated racist sentiments and also other grievances, relating to immigration. There have also been other riots in the UK, arising from distrust between communities.

There was a survey in 2021. That survey was conducted by the King's College, University of Manchester and the University of Saint Andrews. The survey found that more than one-third of persons from minority groups in the UK had actually experienced racist assaults, meaning physical attacks. One-third.

Turning to the US, we also see evidence that race and attitudes towards racial issues, seems to divide American society. You see the endless media reports on the issue, the protests marches, the violence. You get the sense that racial issues continue to be flashpoints.

And if you turn to France, a report that was published in 2023 found that 91%, more than nine in 10 of black people had been victims of racial discrimination either "often" or "from time to time". Reports of anti-semitic and anti-Muslim acts increased by almost 300% and 30% respectively, while other types of racist acts increased by around 20%. Racial tensions are present and spill into serious violence even in countries where people do not look very different from each other.

If you look at the 1994 Rwandan genocide, this is one of several examples in Africa. A more recent example is the crisis in Sudan, specifically, the Darfur region. And as a result of the crisis, millions have been displaced from their homes. The British Broadcasting Corporation recently described the situation in Sudan as the world's worst humanitarian crisis. In our region, too, many countries have faced serious and long-standing conflict along racial lines, Myanmar being one of them.

So, looking across these countries, we see three issues.

First, in allowing hate speech. Many of the countries I have cited as examples earlier, such as the US, UK and France, they allow denigration of other races or religions. In the US, the Supreme Court has said that inflammatory speech, even speech advocating violence, can be protected. In Singapore, we take a different approach.

As I told this House in my Ministerial Statement in April 2019, if we do not have a tough set of laws and policies against hateful and offensive speech, the tone and texture of public discourse in our society will change over time. It will create an environment that is conducive for discrimination and eventually, violence against people who can be classified in a specific category, described by skin colour or religion or some other attribute.

We must not let this happen here. I trust that on this issue, we are all agreed as to where we draw the line on hate speech, on speech which advocates violence, on speech which incites violence, on speech which seeks to set aside a group and target them as the "out" group, as I have said in my Ministerial Statement.

The second lesson that I think that we can learn is and this is an age-old issue: the exploitation of race for politics. Race-related issues have immense power to mobilise people, identity politics basically and it is deeply visceral. Politicians know it, and many exploit it to score political points and win elections.

In recent years, you see a trend in many countries, including the West, politicians encouraging people to think along racial lines and adopt a "us versus them" mentality. And if this is repeated both during electoral cycles and off-electoral cycles, the racial divisions are then reinforced and become even more entrenched in society. We take a tough stance on this. Again, I trust all Members will agree with us that the exploitation of race has no place in our politics.

Third, social segregation. The neighbours we have and our day-to-day interactions with them affect how we perceive the wider society. Racially segregated neighbourhoods limit opportunities to build trust between different communities.

The University of California did a study in 2021 and found that racially segregated residential neighbourhoods in the US remain the "lynchpin" that sustains systemic racial inequality. This is a consequence of years of residential segregation based on race and the issue is not unique to the US.

After the riots in 2001, the government in UK commissioned a study. That study found that physical racial segregation of housing estates was a key contributor for the riots then. The report described most of the white communities as living "parallel lives" from minority Asian and black groups. It commented that, "there is little wonder that ignorance about each other's communities can easily grow into fear".

If we were to look at France, residential segregation can also be found in the banlieues. These are suburban areas predominantly inhabited by immigrant families usually of Arab or other African descent. Around five million people, or about 8% of the French population, live in areas classified as banlieues. The overlap of ethnic segregation in these areas, with economic and social exclusion, has led to increasing polarisation between those minority, marginalised groups and the majority in French society. Again, here, we have done it differently in Singapore.

Previous Governments had the foresight to introduce the Ethnic Integration Policy (EIP) in our public housing estates. EIP has ensured a mix of races in our public housing estates. If the Government had left it to market forces, you would have seen Chinese, Malays and Indians, forming residential enclaves in different parts of Singapore, similar to what is happening in many other countries and similar to what was happening in Singapore before we introduced the EIP.

If that happens, soon, schools in those areas would also become segregated. Children would have less diverse social circles and limited exposure to different cultures. They would grow up with less understanding, trust and comfort with other communities. They will carry this into adulthood and into workplaces.

We put in place rules to maintain certain racial proportions in public housing, so that we would have mixing across races in every estate. Singaporeans generally appreciate the intent of this policy. The Institute of Policy Studies (IPS) conducted a survey in 2024 and 93% of the respondents agreed that it was important to have a mix of people from different races in each housing estate.

In the light of these lessons, what is our approach to maintaining racial harmony? I will say there are two aspects.

One, we have to have a strong legal framework which sets clear boundaries on what is not allowed in Singapore. Second, with that framework in place, we would have to have the Government actively putting in place policies and platforms that maximise our common space, to strengthen cohesion. Just a few words on that.

The law can tell you what you cannot do. The law cannot tell you "be nice to your neighbour, form friendships and bonds with your neighbours across races, across religions". That is where policies come in. So, the thousands of activities that are carried out every weekend, bringing people together and multiplicity of events and approaches, the way schools are organised, every other aspect, which is too long to go into here. But that comes in to create opportunities for people to become friends or at least form understandings and dislike each other less where there is dislike and like each other more where there is some potential for like. And over time, we would say that Singapore has progressed substantively on this front.

So, let me start with the first aspect: our a strong legal framework. Our Constitution guarantees that all persons are equal before the law and entitled to equal protection under the law. So, it is the responsibility of the Government to care for the interests of the racial minorities. Minority representation in Parliament is guaranteed through our Group Representation Constituency (GRC) system.

Other legislation also deal with these issues. Most recently, the Workplace Fairness Bill prohibits workplace discrimination based on some characteristics, including race. This means an employer cannot make an adverse employment decision because of the race of the jobseeker or employee. A subsequent Bill will lay out avenues for affected individuals to seek recourse when they feel that they have been discriminated against, including racial discrimination in the workplace.

Beyond that, of course, our Penal Code also sets out what conduct is not acceptable and that would include conduct in the context of race. These laws have generally served their intended purpose. The Maintenance of Racial Harmony Bill continues with that approach. The law tells us what is it that we cannot do or what remedies there are when something wrong has been done.

The second part: the policies and platforms to expand and deepen our common space. If you look at 1965 and if you look at today, you will find that most people are comfortable with bonds across races. Singapore is in a much healthier place. There is understanding, there is appreciation, there is acceptance and deep bonds across racial religious lines. Of course, there are some people who will still have some different viewpoints but, on the whole, it is a very substantively different society from what it was in the 1960s, because we have been facilitating interactions between people of different backgrounds and we do this very deliberately. It is not left to chance.

While I do not want to go into a discussion of the policies, maybe I can refer to a poll. The poll that MHA and MDDI conducted last year, it found that over 85% of respondents felt that race relations are better or the same compared to 10 years ago. That is in the context where, in many parts of the world, race relations have actually regressed. IPS and OnePeople.sg, also conducted a study based on a survey last year involving 4,000 Singaporean residents.

Mr Speaker, Sir, with your permission, may I ask the Clerk to distribute Annex 3, which summarises the key findings of this study?

Yes, please proceed. [A handout was distributed to hon Members. Please refer to Annex 3.]

Thank you, Sir. This study found that nearly two-thirds, 65.4%, of respondents rated Singapore's racial and religious harmony as high or very high. That is an increase of about 8% from 2018/2019, when 57.1% said that. The number of race-related incidents reported to the Police has also largely remained stable over the years at around 10 per year, though there are some years with spikes. The Police have noticed, I have noticed, that whenever there are elections, the number of Police reports spike.

But we cannot take this state of affairs for granted. We are in an age when identity politics is on the rise globally and we cannot cut ourselves off from the world. With that background, Sir, I will turn to the Bill itself.

Essentially, the Bill has five aspects or five proposals.

First, it brings over existing race-related offences in the Penal Code.

Second, it introduces the Community Remedial Initiative (CRI). That gives the offender the opportunity to mend ties with the community that he was attacking and we provide this as an alternative to the person being charged in Court.

Third, the Bill seeks to establish a Restraining Order regime.

Fourth, it establishes the Presidential Council for Racial and Religious Harmony to advise on matters relating to racial and religious harmony that are referred to it by the Minister for Home Affairs or by Parliament.

Fifth, it introduces safeguards against foreign influence through race-based entities.

The 2024 poll on racial harmony, which I referred to, shows that the public strongly support various proposals in this Bill. Nonetheless, during public consultations, one common comment that we received was that this Bill only prevents racial disharmony and it does not promote racial harmony.

I can understand the perspective. What people want to see is something that will positively push people to be harmonious with each other across races. I explained the point earlier: you cannot, by law, force people to get along better with each other. That is to come through government policies, through the framework, the structure of society and how we build that DNA into society over time. And that is what we have been doing.

Laws play an important role in that because if you allow bad behaviour, then these policies would not succeed. Laws are there, they provide a very strong legal framework and people know we will enforce our laws and, therefore, they reduce and deter bad behaviour. Once you stop that bad behaviour, amongst a small minority usually – laws are necessary, usually only as regards a small minority of people – then, if you do not allow for that behaviour, then there is a framework and within that, you can promote policies that will enhance racial harmony.

I will refer specifically to two proposals in this Bill, one relating to race-related offences and the other CRI. My colleague, the Minister of State Sun Xueling, will cover the rest.

First, on race-related offences. They are covered under clauses 39 and 40 of the Bill.

Clause 39 takes what is already an offence today, that is, inciting violence under section 267C of the Penal Code and it prescribes increased penalties for a subset of that conduct where offenders do so on the basis of a belief about race.

Clause 40 brings over the substance of existing race-related offences in the Penal Code, which deal with threats to racial harmony. These are: section 298, which concerns acts that wound the racial feelings of any person; and section 298A, which concerns acts that promote enmity between racial groups. In bringing these offences over, we have made certain clarifications.

In particular, we have received public feedback that the term "wound racial feelings" lacks clarity. Therefore, clause 40(2) replaces the term "wound racial feelings" with objective descriptions, so, at least, more objective descriptions, which are, essentially, "insults, vilifies, denigrates, threatens or abuses on the basis of race". This provides greater clarity and probably narrows the scope of conduct that would make out an offence today. "Wound racial feelings" could potentially be subjective.

We have also aligned these offences with the corresponding offences in the Maintenance of Religious Harmony Act as we take an equally strong stance in dealing with threats to racial harmony and religious harmony. First, the penalties for offences in this Bill are the same as the Maintenance of Religious Harmony Act.

Second, we have also introduced defences for offences under clause 40 that are already present in the Maintenance of Religious Harmony Act. These are the defence of private or domestic conduct, which allows people to have a safe space to express their views about race and religion in private or domestic settings. The defence of pointing out, in good faith, any matters for the purpose of bringing about a removal of those matters.

And similar to the Maintenance of Religious Harmony Act, there will also be extraterritorial coverage for race-related offences. If the offence is committed overseas but targets Singapore and has an impact in Singapore, it will be covered.

We acknowledge that it may be difficult to enforce offences outside of Singapore, but it signals our commitment to protect our racial harmony, even when the threat originates outside of Singapore. That said, while there are offences in the Maintenance of Religious Harmony Act that are tiered, depending on whether the act is committed by a religious leader or a lay person, this Bill makes no such differentiation for obvious reasons.

The law today does not distinguish between different categories of offenders for race-related offences. The distinction we had drawn in the Maintenance of Religious Harmony Act was unique because in the context of religion, it reflects a greater risk posed by the actions of religious leaders who exercise formal religious authority and there is no equivalent in the context of race. Instead, all persons are held to the same standard since the acts of any individual can threaten racial harmony. Again, this only reflects the existing law and does not expand the scope of criminal liability.

Next, I will move to the CRI. Our starting point is this: racial incidents harm both the victim as well as the ties between the races. And criminal prosecution may be necessary, but it cannot, by itself, mend the community ties. Thus, if you have an offender, he might be offered an opportunity to participate in Community Remedial programmes as an alternative to prosecution. This is similar to the CRI in the Maintenance of Religious Harmony Act and we seek to achieve two policy objectives.

First, reconciliation. It provides the alleged offender with the opportunity to make amends for his racist conduct and hopefully, by that process, he or she gets a better understanding of the community that he attacked and hopefully, creates a bond, a bridge and strengthens mutual understanding.

Second, rehabilitation. It gives the offender the opportunity to learn from his mistake. Clause 41(2) of the Bill provides for the Minister to appoint community partners to deliver the programmes and MHA intends to work with OnePeople.sg and the Ministry of Culture, Community and Youth (MCCY) to design suitable programmes based on the context of the different types of offensive conduct.

These programmes will have three broad elements. First, raising awareness of how the alleged offender's racist conduct impacts others. Second, initiating action by requiring the alleged offender to make amends with the aggrieved individual and community through volunteer work and other suitable engagements. Third, by encouraging amity by arranging guided reflection sessions with the alleged offender and aggrieved individual or community.

But as clause 41(4) provides, it is not compulsory for an alleged offender to complete the programmes, but failure to complete can be taken into account by the Public Prosecutor in exercising prosecutorial discretion. Such cases will continue to be directly referred for prosecution. Egregious cases will not be offered the opportunity of CRI so that a clear and strong signal is sent that such conduct will be treated severely.

Sir, in our multiracial society where diversity is woven into the very fabric of our identity, it is crucial that we continue to celebrate our differences while understanding and respecting one another. By fostering an environment of trust, empathy and unity, we can build a future where everyone continues to feel a deep sense of belonging and pride in being Singaporean, regardless of race.

Mr Speaker, Sir, what we are trying to achieve in Singapore is not easy. It is, in fact, very difficult and very hard work. But given that Singapore has always been a diverse country – many races, many religions, many languages – we had to and we wanted to, from this multiplicity, create one united people but without suppressing any racial, religious or linguistic identity. That has been, if I may say so, the genius of Singapore. From many, one; but without erasing multiplicity.

We could not have done this without simultaneously fostering understanding, trust and acceptance amongst our many, and at the same time, making clear that we will not tolerate any bigotry or hatred or intolerance that threatens the one people that we have become.

We are grateful for the progress we have made thanks to the Pioneer and Merdeka Generations of Singaporeans, but we know that we can do better and we are trying to do better. The Bill, as I have said earlier, will not be a panacea for solving all race-related challenges, but it is a powerful signal of our resolve to remain united as one people.

Mr Speaker, I seek the support of all Members for this Bill. Let us send a strong signal to all the nations of the world that 60 years after we gained Independence, Singapore will remain a multiracial nation. That we will not be a Malay nation, a Chinese nation, or an Indian nation. That every Singaporean will have his place here and that he or she will be respected, and we will all be equal: language, culture, race, religion. [Applause.]

Minister of State Sun Xueling will now take the House through the remaining proposals in the Bill.

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

Minister of State Sun Xueling.

Mr Speaker, the Minister for Home Affairs has provided the context and set out the broad rationale for the Maintenance of Racial Harmony Bill. He also explained two of the five proposals on race-related offences and the Community Remedial Initiative (CRI).

In my speech, I will provide details on the remaining three proposals: first, establishing a Restraining Order regime to enable the Government to act quickly and pre-emptively against content that threatens racial harmony; second, establishing the Presidential Council for Racial and Religious Harmony to advise on matters relating to the maintenance of racial and religious harmony in Singapore; and third, introducing safeguards against malicious foreign influence for race-based entities.

I will start with the Restraining Order regime. This lever is not new in our statutes. The Maintenance of Religious Harmony Act already has a Restraining Order regime against content that threatens religious harmony. This was deemed necessary because the Internet, social media and smartphones can enable offensive content to go viral very quickly.

A 2024 poll conducted by MDDI, involving more than 1,000 Singapore residents, provided three insights: first, one in two respondents have encountered content in the online space that might be considered racist or racially insensitive; second, two in three agreed that allowing racially offensive content to spread could threaten racial harmony; and third, seven in 10 agreed with the need for racially offensive content to be removed as quickly as possible.

The Government shares the view that there should be levers to quickly remove content that could undermine our racial harmony and prevent such content from being further disseminated. Therefore, clause 8 of the Bill will enable the Minister for Home Affairs to make Restraining Orders against persons involved in the communication, production or distribution of content that prejudices the maintenance of racial harmony in Singapore. This will complement existing levers, such as the Broadcasting Act and Online Criminal Harms Act, which provide ex-post powers against egregious race-related content on platforms, such as social media services.

Specifically, a racial content Restraining Order under the Bill may do one or more of the following: (a) prohibit a person from communicating or distributing specified information or material; (b) prohibit a person from addressing a specified audience on a specified subject; (c) require a person to take all reasonably practicable steps to ensure that any specified information or materials are no longer available to the general public in Singapore; (d) prohibit a person from printing, editing, assisting, or contributing to, any publication or a specified publication; and (e) prohibit a person from holding office in an editorial board or committee of any publication.

There is one area where race is in a slightly different position as compared with religion, with regard to their respective roles in politics in Singapore. That difference is reflected in the difference between the Restraining Order regime under the Bill, and that in the Maintenance of Religious Harmony Act.

Religion is a deeply personal issue. We have, as a society, emphasised that as a multi-religious but secular state, religion should not be mixed with politics. This is a foundational principle of our society.

In the context of race, we have laws which deal with communal politics. But given our multiracial community, race features in some of our political structures. For example, we have the GRCs. We also have constitutional provisions to ensure that a President from a minority race will be elected periodically. Good faith discussions about race have always been an important part of our political discourse and will continue to be so. It would therefore not be right or possible to completely disallow racial discourse in politics. Thus, this will not be one of the grounds for the issuance of a racial content Restraining Order in this Bill. However, any behaviour that creates enmity between races, such as whipping up of communal feelings, denigration of a person’s race or encouragement of violence, have been and will continue to be prohibited by the law.

The Restraining Order takes immediate effect once issued and this mirrors the amended Restraining Order process when the Maintenance of Religious Harmony Act was amended in 2019. There is no need to first establish that the person is engaging in criminal conduct, as the intent is to quickly stop the spread of content that could potentially undermine social cohesion. Failure to comply with the Restraining Order will be an offence.

The Government will be very careful when exercising its powers to issue Restraining Orders. The fact that no Restraining Orders have been issued to date, since the Maintenance of Religious Harmony Act was introduced in 1990, is reflective of this. But neither is this an indication that the Restraining Order regime is not necessary. On the contrary, the mere existence of the regime is a deterrent against conduct that disrupts religious harmony. The same logic applies to the Restraining Order regime under this Bill.

The issuance of Restraining Orders will be subject to stringent safeguards. All Restraining Orders will be reviewed by a Presidential Council for Racial and Religious Harmony, which I will elaborate on in the next proposal. The person who is issued a racial content Restraining Order will be able to make representations to the Presidential Council for Racial and Religious Harmony. The Presidential Council for Racial and Religious Harmony’s independent recommendation on the Restraining Order will thereafter be sent to the President, followed by the Cabinet’s advice to the President. If the Cabinet’s advice is different from the Presidential Council for Racial and Religious Harmony’s recommendation, the President will be able to act in his discretion to confirm, cancel or vary the Restraining Order.

Moving to the next proposal, clause 3 in this Bill will establish the Presidential Council for Racial and Religious Harmony, which will replace the existing Presidential Council for Religious Harmony. The Presidential Council for Racial and Religious Harmony will comprise representatives from the major racial and religious communities in Singapore and those who have distinguished themselves in public service or community relations in Singapore. As with the existing Presidential Council for Religious Harmony, our intent is to ensure that the new Presidential Council for Racial and Religious Harmony adequately represents the racial and religious diversity in our society.

The proposal to replace the existing Presidential Council for Religious Harmony with the Presidential Council for Racial and Religious Harmony recognises that issues of race may have religious dimensions and vice versa. Therefore, having a single council would facilitate consultation by the Minister or Parliament on issues given the close relationship between race and religion in Singapore.

To this end, the Presidential Council for Racial and Religious Harmony will have the following functions: one, to consider and report to the Minister or Parliament on matters affecting the maintenance of racial and religious harmony in Singapore which are referred to the Presidential Council for Racial and Religious Harmony by the Minister or by Parliament; and two, to consider and make recommendations to the President on Restraining Orders.

In the context of this proposal, we will be introducing the Constitution of the Republic of Singapore (Amendment) Bill. The Bill comprises amendments to the Constitution to enable the President to act in his discretion: (a) in deciding whether to act on the Presidential Council for Minority Rights’ advice on Presidential Council for Racial and Religious Harmony appointments; and (b) in confirming, cancelling or varying a Restraining Order in cases where the Cabinet’s advice is different from the Presidential Council for Racial and Religious Harmony’s recommendation. These are the same powers that the President has today in relation to the Presidential Council for Religious Harmony and we are extending it to the new Presidential Council for Racial and Religious Harmony.

We have consulted the President on these amendments as they pertain to his discretionary powers. The President supports the amendments.

Moving to the last proposal, we want to safeguard our racial harmony from malicious foreign influence. Our starting point is this: as a small, open and digitally inclusive society, Singapore is vulnerable to external actors exerting malicious foreign influence to achieve their own agenda. We had thus introduced safeguards against malicious foreign influence for religious groups under the Maintenance of Religious Harmony Act in 2019. Similarly, entities that promote the interests of a racial group or discuss issues relating to race are potential entry points for malicious foreign influence, which may seek to exploit race for their own agenda and undermine our racial harmony.

Singaporeans understand the foreign influence risks. The same MDDI poll I mentioned earlier provided the following insights: one, nearly seven in 10 respondents agreed that Singapore’s racial harmony could be threatened by malicious foreign influence; two, more than seven in 10 respondents agreed that there should be laws to protect race-based entities from malicious foreign actors.

Clause 15 empowers a competent authority to designate a race-based entity if considered necessary or expedient to pre-empt, prevent or reduce any foreign influence that may undermine racial harmony in Singapore. An entity may be designated by the competent authority if it: one, represents or promotes the social, economic, political, educational, linguistic, cultural or other interests of any race; or two, discusses any issue relating to any race.

We recognise that there is a wide range of entities that engage with race-related issues. As a policy stance, we will start off in a practical and measured manner by only designating race-based entities assessed to have a higher potential of being vectors for malicious foreign influence, rather than subjecting all race-based entities to the measures.

In the first instance, we will designate clan associations and business associations linked to the Chinese, Malay and Indian races. We will need time to assess the entities in these categories before we can inform them whether they will be designated. Clans and business associations, including those focused on trade promotion that are assessed not to be linked to the Chinese, Malay and Indian races, will not be designated at this juncture. However, we do not preclude designating such entities in the future, as the foreign influence landscape evolves.

I understand that there may be some anxiety amongst business associations as to whether they will be designated. I will make two points: first, designation is not a reflection of any wrongdoing by the entity and should not be perceived as such; second, business associations and organisations whose objects, purposes or activities do not relate to any race, will not be designated. Each designation decision will be made holistically and on its own merits. The list of designated entities will be made public to promote transparency.

Clauses 18, 19, 20, 23 and 24 of the Bill will introduce baseline measures against malicious foreign influence that designated race-based entities will have to comply with. These baseline measures are similar to those that all religious groups under the Maintenance of Religious Harmony Act have to comply with.

First, designated entities will need to disclose donations accepted from foreign or anonymous sources. The disclosure requirements will be set out in the subsidiary legislation and will take reference from the Maintenance of Religious Harmony Act as much as possible.

Second, designated entities will need to disclose foreign affiliations. This refers to arrangements or agreements where foreign persons or organisations have a position of control or power over the race-based entity.

Third, designated entities will need to disclose the leadership composition of their governing body.

Fourth, designated entities will need to comply with the following leadership requirements: one, their responsible officers must be Singapore Citizens or Singapore Permanent Residents (PRs). Responsible officers include the chairperson of the board of directors, the chief executive officer or the company secretary of a company; or the president, secretary and treasurer of a society; and two, the majority of the governing body, or anyone exercising functions analogous to a governing body member, are required to be Singapore Citizens.

For the first three measures, I wish to highlight that the focus is on disclosure. There will not be a blanket prohibition for designated entities to stop accepting foreign donations or to end foreign affiliations. They just need to disclose these matters on an annual basis to MHA.

The Government is prepared to grant exemptions to specific baseline measures on a case-by-case basis.

Clause 32 provides an avenue for designated entities to apply to the Minister for exemption from some or all of the baseline measures. There is a similar process for religious groups under the Maintenance of Religious Harmony Act. All entities will be notified ahead of being designated and will be provided time to submit their representations.

Clause 27 empowers the Minister to issue foreign influence Restraining Orders to impose stepped-up measures on a specific race-based entity. The intent is to pre-empt, prevent or reduce any malicious foreign influence affecting the entity which may undermine racial harmony and present a threat to public peace and public order. This is the same threshold for a foreign influence Restraining Order to be issued under the Maintenance of Religious Harmony Act.

These stepped-up measures against a designated entity may do one or more of the following:

Prohibit the entity from accepting any donation from a specified foreign principal or any anonymous donation;

Require the entity to return or dispose of any donation from a specified foreign principal or any anonymous donation;

Prohibit the entity from forming or maintaining a specified foreign affiliation; and/or

Prohibit the entity from appointing, admitting or retaining a specified individual – whether or not the individual is a Singapore Citizen – as a member of its governing body, or require the entity to remove any individual who is not or who ceases to be a Singapore Citizen as a member of its governing body.

These powers will, amongst others, mitigate the risk of Singapore Citizens becoming proxies for a foreign principal to exert influence over the race-based entity. Of note, while this policy intent is also relevant for religious groups, such a lever is not currently present in the Maintenance of Religious Harmony Act. Therefore, the Maintenance of Religious Harmony Act will be amended to introduce a similar provision.

Foreign influence Restraining Orders will also be reviewed by the Presidential Council for Racial and Religious Harmony, and must be confirmed by the President, similar to the racial content Restraining Orders I spoke about earlier. Mr Speaker, in Mandarin, please.

(In Mandarin): [Please refer to Vernacular Speech.] Today, we are introducing the Maintenance of Racial Harmony Bill. This Bill was announced by then-Prime Minister Lee in his 2021 National Day Rally Speech. At that time, we were in the thick of the COVID-19 pandemic and you might recall that several racist incidents were widely publicised on social media. It reminds us that although Singapore has come a long way in our race relations since our early years, racial harmony is not the natural order of things. We have to continue to work at it.

This Bill is the latest in our suite of measures to strengthen social cohesion and safeguard racial harmony in Singapore.

This is a new Bill but, in fact, much of what is in the Bill is not new. Similar provisions already exist in the Maintenance of Religious Harmony Act, which was enacted in 1990 and amended in 2019. This Bill aligns what we have for both race and religion, since the objectives of the Maintenance of Religious Harmony Act also apply in the context of racial harmony.

This Bill has five key proposals:

port over existing race-related offences in the Penal Code;

introduce the CRI;

establish the Presidential Council for Racial and Religious Harmony;

establish the Restraining Order regime; and

introduce safeguards against foreign influence for race-based entities.

I will further elaborate on the proposals dealing with the Restraining Order regime and safeguards against foreign influence for race-based entities.

The Bill will enable the Minister for Home Affairs to make Restraining Orders against persons involved in the communication, production and distribution of content that prejudices the maintenance of racial harmony in Singapore. The Restraining Order regime allows us to take action pre-emptively against conduct that has the potential to inflame tensions between racial groups before it goes viral and causes irreparable damage to our social cohesion.

This will complement existing levers, such as the Broadcasting Act and Online Criminal Harms Act, which provide ex-post powers against egregious race-related content on platforms such as social media services.

I wish to assure Members that the Government will be very careful when exercising its power to issue Restraining Orders. The fact that no Restraining Orders have been issued to date since the Maintenance of Religious Harmony Act was introduced in 1990 is reflective of this. Restraining Orders are also subject to a variety of safeguards. For instance, they must be reviewed by the Presidential Council for Religious Harmony.

The introduction of the Restraining Order regime is in line with the public's views that racially offensive content should be removed quickly to prevent the erosion of racial harmony. The Restraining Order is intended to provide more levers to preserve our social cohesion, not to silence legitimate opinions on race even if the Government may disagree with them.

The last proposal in this Bill will introduce safeguards against malicious foreign influence. As we know, Singapore is vulnerable to external actors exerting malicious foreign influence to achieve their own agenda. They may do so in many ways, for instance, by seeding ideas that are incompatible with our multiracial society. Entities that promote the interests of a racial group or discuss issues relating to race are therefore potential entry points for such malicious foreign influence.

We recognise that there is a wide range of entities that engage with race-related issues. As a policy stance, we will start off in a practical and measured manner by only designating race-based entities assessed to have a higher potential of being vectors for malicious foreign influence, rather than subjecting all race-based entities to the measures.

In the first instance, we will designate clan associations and business associations linked to the Chinese, Malay and Indian races. We will need time to assess these entities in these categories before we can inform them whether they will be designated. Clans and business associations, including those focused on trade promotion, that are assessed to be not linked to the Chinese, Malay and Indian races will not be designated at this juncture. However, we do not preclude designating such entities in the future as the foreign influence landscape evolves.

I understand that there may be some anxiety amongst business associations as to whether they will be designated. Here, I would like to make two points. First, business associations and organisations whose objects, purposes or activities do not relate to any race will not be designated. Second, designation is not a reflection of any wrongdoing by the entity and should not be perceived as such.

Each designation decision will be made holistically and based on its own merits. The list of the designated entities will be made public to promote transparency. Our estimate is that the designations will cover more than 300 race-based entities in the first instance.

The baseline measures for designated race-based entities are similar to those that all religious groups are currently required to comply with under the Maintenance of Religious Harmony Act. Designated entities will need to disclose foreign donations and anonymous donations, foreign affiliations and their leadership compositions. They will also need to comply with certain leadership requirements, such as the requirement for their top office-bearers to be Singapore Citizens or PRs.

All entities will be informed of MHA's intention to designate them and will be given 14 days to make representations or seek clarifications before the designation takes place. The Government is also prepared to grant exemptions to specific baseline measures on a case-by-case basis.

To be clear, the baseline measures for designated race-based entities are meant to be a preventive measure. Being designated does not mean the entity is being targeted or has been compromised by a foreign actor. We are also not instructing designated race-based entities to stop receiving foreign donations or to end any foreign affiliations. They just need to disclose these matters on an annual basis to MHA. When subsequently operationalising the Bill, MHA will provide an information kit to designated entities to guide them in complying with the requirements.

(In English): Mr Speaker, Sir, racial harmony will always remain a work-in-progress in Singapore. We build on efforts and learn from the lessons of the past. It is also our responsibility to plant new seeds in accordance with new circumstances and realities. This Bill does that.

The Government will continue to do our part, but it will take a whole-of-society effort to sustain the progress we have made so that future generations of Singaporeans too will enjoy the peace and harmony that we enjoy today.

Mr Yip Hon Weng.

Mr Speaker, Sir, this Bill is timely and necessary. Racial harmony is not something we can take for granted. It is not just about avoiding conflict. It is about creating a society where we all feel at home.

This Bill possesses the potential to achieve its objectives. However, its success depends on how it is implemented and perceived by the community. I have some clarifications.

First, Mr Speaker, Sir, I have clarifications about the racial content Restraining Orders in Part 3 of the Bill. These are important tools. But like all tools, they need to be handled carefully. The power of racial content Restraining Orders is undeniable, but with that power comes an inherent challenge: balancing enforcement with the preservation of freedom of expression. How do we ensure that these orders are not misused to stifle legitimate discourse?

These includes artistic expressions, like parodies, satire or critiques of societal issues that touch on race. While some content may indeed cross the line, how do we draw boundaries between harmful speech and those forms of expression that are vital for a vibrant and open society? Could the current approach inadvertently silence voices that challenge the status quo in a way that promotes reflection and growth? How will we ensure that these laws do not become a tool for shutting down uncomfortable but necessary conversations about race and identity?

Education is as critical as enforcement. Are there plans to pair these measures with public campaigns that teach empathy, respect and dialogue? Racial harmony is not just about avoiding offence. It is about understanding each other's struggles and aspirations. Beyond penalties, how does this Bill encourage connection?

Laws alone do not build harmony. Harmony thrives when people see each other as neighbours, not strangers. How can this legislation inspire bridge-building between communities?

Second, Mr Speaker, Sir, Singapore's openness is undoubtedly a strength, but it also makes us vulnerable to external risks. Part 4 of the Bill rightly addresses the challenge of foreign influence. However, it is critical that we proceed carefully to avoid unintended consequences.

A recurring phrase in the Bill states that "it is for the accused to prove, on the balance of probabilities, that the accused took all reasonable steps to comply." This wording imposes a significant burden of proof on individuals, particularly volunteers who already juggle public service responsibilities. The penalties involved are substantial and this could inadvertently discourage Singaporeans and PRs from stepping forward to take on leadership roles in local associations. How can we ensure that this legislation does not unintentionally deter participation in community and cultural leadership?

Moreover, how do we define and differentiate "foreign influence" from "global collaboration"?

Many local associations maintain deep historical ties with overseas organisations, preserving our cultural heritage over decades, if not centuries. Could the broad definition of "foreign affiliation" unintentionally create barriers for such groups? Would this legislation impact non-profit or cultural organisations with harmless international connections? Transparent and proportionate enforcement will be critical to allaying such concerns.

Additionally, I seek clarification on how this Bill will interact with the Foreign Interference (Countermeasures) Act (or FICA) passed in 2021. Are there overlapping provisions and, if so, how will both pieces of legislation complement one another? Clarity is essential to avoid unnecessary duplication of compliance requirements.

Finally, how do we measure the effectiveness of these safeguards in Part 4? Regular reviews and transparent monitoring will be necessary to ensure the measures effectively strengthen racial harmony without hindering meaningful international partnerships or discouraging our community's engagement with global networks.

Third, Mr Speaker, Sir, I am particularly encouraged by the CRI in clause 41. Offering an alternative to prosecution is a progressive step, but it also raises a few questions too. How do we decide who qualifies for this programme? And how will it address the underlying prejudices or misunderstandings that led to the offense? We should also evaluate its impact. Will participants truly understand the importance of racial harmony or will they simply view it as another box to tick?

Community involvement is key. Will grassroots leaders and organisations play a role in shaping or running these programmes? Their involvement could bring authenticity and trust to the process. What happens if someone does not complete the programme? Will there be room for appeals or second chances? And how does this initiative fit into the overall Bill? Could it serve as a softer, community-based complement to the more stringent Restraining Orders?

Lastly, Mr Speaker, Sir, policies alone do not build harmony. People do. That is why constructive engagement with the public is so important. Part 5 of the Bill outlines oversight mechanisms. Will there be regular public consultations to ensure these measures remain relevant and effective? Listening to people's lived experiences can make our policies stronger.

How will the Presidential Council for Racial and Religious Harmony work with communities on the ground? Solutions must feel inclusive and co-created, not imposed from above. Education is critical too. How can we make public awareness campaigns engaging for everyone to understand their role in maintaining harmony? Empowered communities are harmonious communities.

In conclusion, Mr Speaker, Sir, Singapore's journey towards racial harmony has not been without its challenges. The painful lessons of the 1950s and 1960s – the racial unrest, the scars of the Maria Hertogh riots – serve as stark reminders of how fragile harmony can be. But they also gave rise to a commitment, a collective will, to build something stronger, something lasting. We are here today because of the hard work, the courage and the vision of those who came before us, who understood that racial harmony is not just a hope, it is a necessity.

We have come far. The 2023 Gallup World Poll ranked us first among 135 countries as a great place for racial minorities to live – 92% of those polled said they felt welcomed. Yet, we cannot let these positive numbers lull us into complacency. The 2024 MDDI poll also reminds us that nearly half of our fellow Singaporeans still see racism as a problem and more than half have experienced racial insensitivity online. These are not just statistics. They are a call to action.

We must continue to push forward. We must strive for an environment where every Singaporean, whether born here or new to our shores, understands that racial harmony is not just a policy – it is a shared responsibility. There is no place in Singapore for the biases that divide us. We must make it clear, now and always, that racism has no place here.

Mr Speaker, Sir, racial harmony is not a static achievement. It is a living, breathing reality that requires constant care, constant work. This Bill is an important step, but it is only the beginning. Today, I have raised in my speech questions that we must answer together: first, how do we ensure that our efforts to protect harmony does not come at the expense of meaningful, honest dialogue and freedom of expression? Second, how do we safeguard our openness to the world without allowing foreign influence to undermine our unity? Third, how do we ensure that the CRI is more than just a programme, but a true opportunity for understanding and healing? And lastly, how do we engage every member of our community in the ongoing work of nurturing racial harmony?

Let us remember that true harmony is not just about avoiding conflict. It is about building connections, about recognising our shared humanity, acknowledging our differences and yet, seeing what unites us. Singapore is often hailed as a model of multiracial harmony. But models cannot stay static. They must evolve, just as we must.

We owe it to ourselves, to our children and to our future generations to keep moving forward – towards a Singapore where every individual feels seen, heard and valued. This Bill gives us the tools to make that vision a reality. But it is up to us to inspire the kind of harmony that goes beyond legislation, to inspire the kind of harmony that lives in the hearts and minds of every Singaporean.

Let us legislate for harmony, but let us also live it. Let us empower every Singaporean to not just be a passive observer, but an active guardian of the harmony we hold so dear. I support the Bill.

Mr Gerald Giam.

Mr Speaker, the Maintenance of Racial Harmony Bill seeks to address the complexities of race relations in Singapore. It introduces measures to regulate racial discourse, counter foreign interference and strengthen community cohesion. However, it is important this Bill fosters racial harmony without unintentionally stifling essential public discourse and silencing marginalised voices.

Racial harmony is a cornerstone of our society and I think we all agree that it cannot be achieved through legislation alone. Enduring racial harmony requires genuine understanding and open dialogue among all communities.

However, the broad Ministerial powers under this Bill risk deterring legitimate public discourse that is essential for fostering intercommunal dialogue and strengthen social cohesion. For instance, public critiques of systemic discrimination or policies affecting certain racial groups could be misconstrued as vilifying or denigrating others, even when the intent is to raise awareness or advocate for positive change. Forums discussing global events, like the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, or domestic policies such as the Comprehensive Economic Cooperation Agreement (CECA) could risk being labelled as racially inflammatory, despite their role in constructive discourse.

It is important to distinguish between speech that on one hand, incites hatred and violence, which should be prevented, and speech that fosters understanding and calls out racial inequalities, which we should encourage. Constructive conversations, including in public forums, are necessary for addressing racial issues and strengthening intercommunal trust.

While the Bill includes defences for private communication and calling out racism in good faith, individuals may still be uncertain about their practical application. The need to prove good faith intent or the private nature of a conversation could create hesitation to engage in discussions on race. This uncertainty may discourage open dialogue and cause such conversations to go underground or in echo chambers within the Internet.

Since the legislative intent as expressed during this debate may be referenced by the Courts, could the Minister clarify, with specific examples, the types of speech, including the ones I raised, that will or will not fall within the scope of this legislation?

I note that unlike the Maintenance of Religious Harmony Act, which explicitly prohibits the mixing of religion and politics, this Bill does not contain a similar prohibition on the mixing of race and politics. Can the Minister confirm then that members of the public can engage in public discussions on racial issues without an outright legal restriction?

Foreign influence operations can exploit racial and communal fault lines, destabilising our society and undermining social cohesion. Countering foreign interference is a necessary component of maintaining racial harmony. The ability to monitor and regulate race-based entities, and to take action against harmful external influences, is an important step in protecting Singapore's racial harmony and national security, and I acknowledge the Government's efforts in addressing this issue.

The Bill introduces measures such as designating entities and issuing Restraining Orders. The Workers' Party supports the inclusion of these provisions. It is important, however, that these powers are exercised judiciously, with transparency and accountability to maintain public trust. Ensuring that decisions are seen as fair and impartial will be crucial to the effectiveness and legitimacy of these measures.

I support the introduction of the Community Remedial programme, which offers an alternative to prosecution by encouraging participants to reflect on their actions and fostering rehabilitation. To be effective, the programme should engage participants in meaningful dialogue with members of other racial groups, allowing for deeper understanding and reflection on the impact of their actions. Could the Minister share more details on the structure and content of the Community Remedial programme? How will its effectiveness be measured to ensure it leads to genuine rehabilitation and behavioural change?

Sir, unlike the Maintenance of Religious Harmony Act in 1990, this Bill did not undergo the same level of Parliamentary scrutiny through a Select Committee. Instead, the Government feedback unit, Reaching Everyone for Active Citizenry (REACH), conducted a public consultation last year, but the feedback collected remains largely opaque, with only summarised data shared publicly. A Select Committee provides a more transparent and rigorous process, allowing for in-depth scrutiny, public engagement and expert input, particularly from minority communities most affected by such legislation.

The Government's Forward Singapore report underscores the need to strengthen our social compact through deeper citizen engagement. Yet, for an issue as fundamental as race relations, bypassing the Select Committee process weakens participatory democracy. A strong democratic system requires more than just electoral participation. It must also ensure meaningful avenues for policy-making input, robust public consultations and rigorous legislative scrutiny. The Government should uphold these principles by ensuring that future legislation of similar significance is subject to the full scrutiny of a Select Committee.

Mr Speaker, the Workers' Party supports the Maintenance of Racial Harmony Bill, particularly measures to counter foreign interference, but we urge the Government to ensure that safeguards are in place to protect civil liberties and encourage open conversations about race.

Order. I propose to take a break now. I suspend the Sitting and will take the Chair at 3.55 pm.

Sitting accordingly suspended

at 3.27 pm until 3.55 pm.

Sitting resumed at 3.55 pm.

[Deputy Speaker (Mr Christopher de Souza) in the Chair]

[(proc text) Debate resumed. (proc text)]

Mr Louis Ng.

Sir, I support this Bill which will strengthen our ability to address threats to racial harmony. The Bill does this holistically through not just quick and pre-emptive responses, but through community-based approach.

I commend MHA for its broad consultation with the public and community leaders. We all have a stake in a multiracial and multi-religious society. The consultative process for the Bill reflects this priority.

I have three points of clarification to raise.

My first point is on the function of the Presidential Council for Racial and Religious Harmony. This will replace the Presidential Council for Religious Harmony. The Presidential Council for Racial and Religious Harmony is supposed to comprise representatives from all major racial and religious communities in Singapore.

Race and religion are two distinct matters. Context, considerations and nuances for racial and religious matters will differ. Representatives from major racial communities may not be best placed to opine on religious matters and vice versa. Can the Minister share if the Ministry considered setting a distinct council for racial matters? Can the Minister share the rationale for having a combined council for racial and religious matters and how this is preferable to having distinct councils?

Next, under section 9 of Schedule 1 on the Presidential Council for Racial and Religious Harmony, vacancy among its members does not affect the validity of the Presidential Council for Racial and Religious Harmony's proceedings.

Presumably, the requirement that representatives from all major racial and religious communities in Singapore are present on the Presidential Council for Racial and Religious Harmony are to ensure that perspectives of all communities are considered. While the quorum requirement ensures that at least half of members must be present, the Presidential Council for Racial and Religious Harmony is also set up such that every member plays an important role in representing their racial or religious community. For instance, under the current Presidential Council for Religious Harmony, there is one representative for each major religious group. It is difficult to imagine a decision concerning a particular religious group without the representative from that group present.

Without being prescriptive as to the procedures of the Presidential Council, can the Minister share if the chairperson of the Presidential Council for Racial and Religious Harmony should ensure the presence of representatives when decisions affecting their communities are deliberated and made?

My second point is on Restraining Orders. When a Restraining Order is first imposed, the President may cancel, confirm or vary the Restraining Order if the advice of the Cabinet is contrary to the recommendation of the Presidential Council for Racial and Religious Harmony. However, when it comes to the extension of a Restraining Order, the President can only cancel a direction or confirm the direction without variation.

Can the Minister share why the President does not have the discretion to vary the direction when it comes to the extension of a Restraining Order? Can the Minister also share what measures are available to address the root causes of racist conduct which necessitate the Restraining Order in the first place?

When it comes to offences relating to race, the Bill introduces the possibility of community remediation. Individuals subject to a Restraining Order may similarly require intervention to address ideologies and misconceptions underlying the conduct. What steps will be taken to address the root causes of the conduct attracting the Restraining Order?

My third and final point is on remediation for serious offenders. The Bill will provide for a CRI-Race. Under CRI-Race, persons who have engaged in conduct prejudicial to racial harmony can take remedial action for their conduct. Completing the programme can be taken into account by the Public Prosecutor in deciding whether to prosecute a race-related offence under the Bill.

Underlying the CRI-Race is the principle of restorative justice. The offender will have the opportunity to learn and make amends. This restores any damaged community relations and can even serve to strengthen ties. However, the CRI-Race will not be offered if the offence is egregious. The Ministry has stated that criminal prosecution will be pursued to send a signal of non-tolerance for serious racial offending.

I agree that prosecution may be necessary in serious cases. Appropriate punishment is also a form of repairing community relations by reinforcing healthy norms on race relations. However, punishment and rehabilitation are not mutually exclusive. Even serious offenders who are jailed, must eventually return and re-integrate into society. For these serious offenders, time in prison alone does not necessarily mean they will emerge with any better understanding of race relations.

It may be even more important for these serious offenders to participate in programmes targeted to address deep-seated ideologies and misconceptions. These programmes should incorporate community-based approaches.

Can the Minister share what programmes are available for the rehabilitation of serious race offenders who are not eligible for CRI-Race? How do we ensure that their time in prison does not have the adverse effect of radicalising these individuals even further? Sir, notwithstanding these clarifications, I stand in support of the Bill.

Ms Hazel Poa.

Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, racial and religious differences have always been challenging issues. With globalisation and the spread of different cultures and information, both within countries and across borders, even more sensitivity is needed to deal with these topics. If and when discussions on race and religion cross certain boundaries and cause hurt, disharmony, hostility or even violence among communities, it would be appropriate for the state to intervene in the interest of maintaining public order and peace.

The Maintenance of Racial Harmony Bill that we are debating today needs to strike a fair and reasonable balance between the freedom of speech and expression and the preservation of public order, peace and racial harmony. This is a very fine balance.

The Progress Singapore Party (PSP) supports laws to protect our order and peace in our multiracial and multi-religious country. Harmonious and peaceful relations between different races and religions is something that we should never take for granted in Singapore.

However, we also value the fact that freedom of speech and expression is a fundamental right enshrined in our Constitution. It is freedom of speech that allows for creativity, the exchange of ideas and opinions and improvements beneficial to society. It is also freedom of speech that allows us to seek accountability from those in power.

While discussions involving race can be sensitive, but honest and responsible discussions on racial relations and topics are necessary for better inter-racial understanding and mutual respect. We must not allow such discussions to be stifled and driven underground by overly restrictive legislation. As such, we seek greater clarity from the Government on the type of behaviour or expressions that will be prohibited under the Bill.

Firstly, can the Minister give us some examples of scenarios where, in the Ministry's view, a Restraining Order would be needed to preserve public order and peace, and where we could not use any other existing legislation to achieve the same outcome of peace and order?

Secondly, while this Bill borrows the language found in the Maintenance of Religious Harmony Act, the phrase "an act that causes feelings of enmity, hatred, ill will or hostility between different races in Singapore" is broad enough to potentially cover many instances over a whole spectrum of seriousness.

Singaporeans are, therefore, naturally concerned that the Government will use such executive powers to further restrict what Singaporeans can do or say. We would like to seek the Minister's clarification on if and, if so, how, the use of this Act will be calibrated to ensure that a fair and appropriate balance will be struck between the right of Singaporeans to their freedom of speech and expression, and our public order and peace. We will set out a few examples here to frame this debate.

The first is the incident involving Mr Shaik Amar who made comments about EIP on social media in July 2024. He had commented that EIP does not benefit ethnic minority households and only causes them significant financial detriment when they sell their flats. While he received a Correction Direction under the Protection from Online Falsehoods and Manipulation Act (POFMA) for this comment, would that attract a Restraining Order under this Bill? Assuming the answer is yes, does this mean that there are potentially cases that could and, in practice, would attract both a Correction Direction under POFMA and a Restraining Order under this Bill if the conditions are satisfied?

The second is in relation to conflicts, such as the Israel-Hamas war. I will provide three examples.

Firstly, will making comments, such as "Free Palestinians Now!" online attract a Restraining Order under this Bill? Such comments may be made online by a very large number of people. Considering that, what factors will push a case beyond the tipping point, such that a Restraining Order will be imposed?

Furthermore, considering that millions of comments are posted every day on social media, practically speaking, how does the Ministry intend to monitor these comments? How much manpower and spending by the Ministry is justifiable to monitor comments like these?

Secondly, in February 2024, the Police stated that the use of phrases, such as "from the river to the sea" can lead to racial tensions and may be an offence under section 298A(a) of the Penal Code 1871, which will be abolished under this Bill. Would individuals who use phrases, such as "from the river to sea, Palestinians will be free", online or offline, now be subject to a Restraining Order under this Bill or prosecuted under clause 40 of the Bill?

Finally, what about individuals using an umbrella painted with watermelon images during their day to day, or wearing a keffiyeh at their university graduation ceremony? Would individuals committing such acts be subject to a Restraining Order or prosecuted under clause 40 of the Bill?

Sir, previous prosecutions and convictions under section 298A have been for very egregious remarks or acts. For example, in 2017, Muslim imam Mr Nalla Mohamed Abdul Jameel Abdul Malik, was convicted under section 298A for promoting enmity between different religious groups. In 2015, Mr Amos Yee was convicted under section 298 of wounding the religious feelings of Christians for describing Jesus Christ in an offensive manner.

In other cases, the Attorney-General's Chambers (AGC) chose not to prosecute. These include Ms Amy Cheong's hurtful remarks online regarding Malay weddings in 2013 and Ms Sangeetha Thanapal's claim in 2018 that casual racism was common.

Will the enactment of this Bill lead to more types of actions and speech attracting Restraining Orders or prosecutions under clause 40? Would the Minister issue Restraining Orders to Ms Amy Cheong or Ms Sangeetha Thanapal under the Bill if they said the same things today? Notably, Ms Sangeetha Thanapal's comments had been made overseas, which is now explicitly covered by the Bill under clause 38.

More critically, will the Bill be used to restrict discussions of racially sensitive topics, such as EIP, the deployment of Malay national servicemen, the racial breakdown of death row inmates or the "Chinese, Malay, Indian and Others" (CMIO) model?

Next, we note that under the Maintenance of Religious Harmony Act, the Council has 30 days to make its recommendations to the President; under this Bill, that period has been extended to 44 days.

Given that a Restraining Order will take immediate effect upon its service on the person restrained before the Council makes its recommendations, we would like to ask for the reason for this extension from 30 to 44 days.

We are also concerned about the effect of clause 8(2)(d) and (e) on journalists and editors. Clause 8(2)(d) can prohibit a person from editing or contributing to "any publication". Clause 8(2)(e) goes further to prohibit a person from holding office in any editorial board. Considering that the Restraining Order can be extended "one or more times" for up to two years each, this means that an editor or journalist could potentially be kept out of his work indefinitely. Can the Minister clarify whether our concerns are valid and how these two clauses will be used? Deputy Speaker, in Mandarin, please.

(In Mandarin): [Please refer to Vernacular Speech.] For a long time, race and religion have been sensitive topics. When discussions about race and religion lead to disharmony, hostility or even violence between communities, it is appropriate for the Government to intervene to maintain public order and peace.

The Maintenance of Racial Harmony Bill, being read the second time today, needs to strike a good balance between freedom of speech and maintaining public order, peace and racial harmony.

Singapore is multiracial and multi-religious society, and our racial and religious harmony has not come easily and cannot be taken for granted. PSP, therefore, supports using legislation to maintain harmony between races and religions. However, we also cherish the freedom of speech granted to us by the Constitution. Freedom of speech is a fundamental right that promotes creativity, social progress and the exchange of ideas. It also allows us to hold those in power accountable.

While discussions involving race can be sensitive, it is necessary to discuss racial issues in an honest and responsible manner to promote understanding and mutual respect between races.

These sensitive racial topics include the impact on housing prices by HDB's EIP, our country's CMIO racial classification system, the racial distribution of death row inmates and the deployment of Malay National Servicemen. While not everyone will agree with these statements, discussing these topics in a rational, responsible, non-malicious and non-hostile manner can promote national and social development.

Singapore's existing laws already limited citizens' ability to express themselves freely in many ways and we do not wish to see this Bill to further curtail speeches.

We hope the Government can clearly explain under what circumstances it will issue Restriction Orders and what behaviours or expressions it will target. We hope the Minister can clarify how this Bill will strike a fair and appropriate balance between citizens' right to freedom of speech and public order and peace.

(In English): Deputy Speaker, PSP has serious concerns that the powers under this Bill will dampen important discussions. I have provided several examples of speech and actions, which I hope that the Minister can clarify whether the powers in this Bill will be used against such speech or actions.

The Government already has many powers under laws, such as the Internal Security Act, POFMA and FICA to act against false speech, acts that threaten national security and foreign interference in our politics. Protests are only allowed at Hong Lim Park and protest permits are not granted for sensitive topics. The ability of Singaporeans to freely express themselves is already very circumscribed and limited by existing laws.

Recognising the importance of maintaining racial harmony, PSP will support this Bill despite our reservations. But we hope greater clarity can be given in order not to dampen reasonable discussions or expressions involving race.

Mr Zhulkarnain Abdul Rahim.

Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, Singapore has come a long way since the racial riots of 1964, we have progressed together as a nation regardless of race, language or religion. However, racial harmony, just like our peace and stability, is not something that we can take for granted.

A recent study revealed that 56% of respondents are of the view that racism is an important problem in Singapore, up from 46% in 2016. This trend underscores the need for proactive measures to address the underlying causes of racial tensions. Fortunately, a significant majority, about 70%, acknowledges that legislative tools are still useful in safeguarding racial and religious harmony in our society. This Bill, thus, presents an opportunity to strengthen our commitment in fostering a cohesive and inclusive society.

Before I seek specific clarifications in this Bill, I would like to highlight the importance of: firstly, the roles that we all play to maintain racial harmony; and secondly, the continued importance of our existing race-based integration policies and organisations which complements the objectives set out in this Bill.

While I applaud that the Bill introduces legal tools, such as ROs and community remedial measures, I believe that we must also tackle the root causes of racial tensions and, at the heart of it, racism.

This Bill is not a panacea. We as a society must do our part to safeguard against prejudices and discrimination through indirect means, like casual racism. Now, it remains a pervasive issue, often dismissed as unintentional or harmless. Yet, research shows that such behaviors perpetuate discrimination and exclusion. Whether in a family setting or workplace, this must be addressed with both clarity and conviction.

The work needed to maintain racial harmony cannot be left to the enforcement mechanism in this Bill or any other piece of legislation. It must begin in our schools, our workplaces and our homes.

For instance, we can introduce stronger education initiatives, like compulsory racial sensitivity training in schools and workplaces, to counter unconscious biases. At workplaces, we can encourage positive interracial interactions by fostering a culture of understanding and empathy. Businesses can also establish concrete anti-discrimination policies that evolve with and reflect current societal attitudes.

When every individual, regardless of race, language or religion, feels respected and valued, then racial harmony is not just enforced, but deeply ingrained in our society.

With more mixed-race marriages, naturalised Singaporeans and younger Singaporeans identifying with a shared identity rather than along ethnic distinctions, some have called for the revisiting of race-based policies or integration policies, like the CMIO classification, the Housing and Development Board's (HDB's) EIP and our Self-Help Groups as well.

However, while we aspire to be colour blind, we cannot close our eyes to the realities on the ground nor abandon the foundations that have been built by generations before us. Our policies remain crucial to maintaining racial harmony in Singapore.

For instance, our self-help groups, continue to mobilise resources and deliver targeted interventions along communal lines. Having volunteered in this space for many years before I became a Member of Parliament, I have seen how self-help groups provide an additional avenue for assistance and navigate through cultural or religious sensitivities that had risen.

Next, policies like EIP go beyond housing but right to the heart of our integration as a society. It is not just about putting different people from different races together in the same block or in the same precinct. It is more than that. It shapes generations and how we mould ourselves together. Once people of different races live together, they become neighbours and they become friends, their children grow up together, they help one another and learn to live together.

Regardless of whether we speak less of our mother tongues or erase race from our identity cards, our race and identity stays with us wherever we go. We can have various legislations or campaigns but, ultimately, racial harmony depends on each and every one of us.

That is why, while this Bill grants significant powers to intervene in racial disputes, a community-led approach will be more effective in supplementing and fostering long-term racial harmony. No amount of laws can change the heart of a community.

With that I move to my clarifications, Mr Deputy Speaker.

My first set of clarifications relate to the provisions that protect our racial organisations against foreign influence trying to exploit racial lines or undermine our racial harmony. This Bill draws parallels with FICA in respect of Restraining Orders. Under FICA, such interference includes actions that incite or are likely to incite feelings of enmity, hatred or ill will between different groups in Singapore, endangering public peace and order.

Just like hon Member Mr Yip Hon Weng, I join him in his clarifications on the overlap between FICA and this Bill. Why are similar provisions required in two separate legislations and whether given the possible overlap, how will the Ministry appropriately ensure that the powers in both legislations will be exercised judiciously?

Secondly, to date, there have been no public reported prosecutions under FICA. However, its provisions remain a critical safeguard against foreign interference. Has FICA been enforced since its implementation?

Thirdly, I note the automatic inclusion in this Bill for clan and business associations linked to the Chinese, Malay and Indian races. What about individual businesses that do not belong to such associations but have deep links to foreign organisations?

Fourthly, I understand that MHA has stated that at this juncture it is not necessary nor desirable for the safeguards in this Bill to apply to all race-based organisations because they are a much larger and more diverse group. However, can the Minister assure the House that MHA will continually review the list by monitoring race-based organisations and their activities? In this regard, will there be an avenue for reporting by members of the public or whistle-blowers for MHA to follow up on investigation or further assessment?

My next set of clarifications relate to CRI as envisaged under clause 41 of the Bill. This provision allows offenders to participate in reparative programmes, such as community service or educational workshops, as an alternative to custodial sentences or fines.

Similar restorative justice programmes exist globally, such as in New Zealand's family group and conferences and Canada’s indigenous sentencing circles. Locally, we have seen success with community-based sentencing in other areas, such as youth rehabilitation programmes. By emphasising rehabilitation over punishment, CRI aligns with our broader goal of fostering understanding and harmony.

Firstly, may I ask the Minister whether CRI or a similar scheme for maintenance of racial harmony, has been implemented locally or globally before? What are the intended outcomes for CRI for the perpetrators or the individuals or the community affected by the offence. I appreciate that the Minister has stated that CRI will involve creating awareness on the impact on affected community, making amends or amendments or suitable reparations.

And thirdly, guided reflections for offenders. I hope that CRI will be tailored to the specific circumstance depending on the racial sensitivities. It could include structured programmes, such as racial sensitivity workshops, where offenders can engage in facilitated discussions to understand the impact of their actions, the hurt and learn about different cultures; secondly, community service through inter-racial community projects, in order to foster deeper empathy and understanding; and thirdly, dialogue sessions between the offenders and members of the affected community to promote reconciliation.

And thirdly, for such CRI, would the close or immediate family members of the offender be involved or be a participant as well? Because this may help the rehabilitation of the offender on a long-term basis if his close family or home environment is also taken into consideration.

Fourthly, to build public trust in CRI, we must ensure transparency and rigor in its implementation. What are the measures that the Ministry will take in this regard? Would there be clear published guidelines on the detailed criteria for eligibility and programme requirements for CRI? Whether there will be public awareness campaigns to educate the public on the benefits of restorative justice and reconciliation? How will the Minister ensure that proper resources are allocated and provided to the necessary organisations that will be implementing the CRI? Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, in Malay, please.

(In Malay): [Please refer to Vernacular Speech.] Mr Speaker, this Maintenance of Racial Harmony Bill aims to further strengthen the legal safeguards for racial harmony. Singapore has long built a harmonious multiracial and multi-religious society and it is our responsibility to work together in preserving our way of life for future generations. Therefore, I support and agree with the safeguards and the establishment of a special Presidential Council for Racial Harmony.

As a Malay-Muslim and a minority in Singapore, we benefit from the safeguarding of racial harmony, which is a cornerstone of our country, so that there will be no repeat of the racial riots that our people experienced during our country's early years of independence. Here, I would like to share the story of my late mother during those racial riots, an experience that taught me a valuable lesson.

My late mother witnessed the procession to commemorate Prophet Muhammad's birthday in the early 1960s when racial riots broke out in Singapore. At that time, my grandfather, who was a police officer, was part of the police contingent participating in the procession. My mother and her three older sisters, along with my grandparents, boarded a bus to return home. This bus was also carrying several other passengers of various races – there were Chinese, Malays and even a Sikh. The driver was Chinese. On the way home, their bus came to a halt when the rioters blocked their bus and began throwing bottles and stones at it.

At that moment, everyone on the bus was worried about their safety. However, there was only one thing in their minds regardless of whether they were Malay, Chinese or Indian. They all just want to get home safely. Eventually, a few young men got off the bus to clear a path for their vehicle to drive quickly away from that place. This incident left a profound impact on my mother, who was still very young at the time.

My mother advised me: although we were of different races and religions, all of us in Singapore are like passengers in the same bus, heading in one direction towards the same destination. Therefore, we must take care of each other. Since young, she instilled in me the importance of racial harmony in Singapore's multiracial society.

Hence, I welcome any legislation that will continue to maintain and safeguard racial harmony in our country. At the same time, Singapore can take a more proactive approach towards racial harmony that goes beyond law enforcement and fosters a society built on mutual understanding, dialogue and integration.

(In English): Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, in my Malay speech, I shared the account of my late mother whose family was stuck in a bus right in the middle of the 1960s racial riots. The passengers in the bus consisted of families from various races – Malay, Chinese and Indian. At that time, when crowds ran amok and chaos engulfed them, the only thing that the passengers wanted was safety and safe passage home for everyone on the bus. They did not care if the rioters outside were of any particular race.

Just like the passengers on that bus, we fellow Singaporeans must continue to take care of one another, regardless of how we look, the language we speak or from where our families first originated. The world is increasingly conducive for the divisive. We are all on the same boat, heading in one direction towards the same destination. Racial harmony in our nation is integral to our survival and progress.

This Bill is a testament to Singapore's unwavering commitment to racial harmony. However, its success will depend on careful implementation, balancing legal enforcement with education, dialogue and community empowerment. We can create a society where racial harmony is not just a policy goal but a lived reality for all Singaporeans.

Mr Deputy Speaker, I would like to end with a quote from the seminal speech, given by Singapore's first Minister for Foreign Affairs, Mr S Rajaratnam, to the United Nations (UN) General Assembly on 21 September 1965 on the occasion of Singapore’s admission to the UN:

"The cultural and political development of my country has for decades been based on free intercourse and exchange of ideas drawn from many races, from many continents. The multiracial and multi-cultural character of my country has made us somewhat skeptical of those who preach the superiority and exclusiveness of one culture and one race. In a multiracial society, one soon learns that no one people has a monopoly of wisdom and that one's own culture is not without flaws. This not only breeds tolerance for different viewpoints but also a readiness to learn and borrow from the accumulated wisdom of other people. We shall, therefore, bring to the world of the UN, the attitude and approaches of a multiracial nation, aware that independence and interdependence of peoples and nations are not incompatible goals to pursue."

Those words, Mr Deputy Speaker, echo true since 1965 until today and on the occasion of this year's SG60 of our nation building, let us work together to build a Singapore that is united in its diversity, resilient in its values and steadfast in its pursuit of racial harmony, a shining united light in the sea of global polarising challenges. Mr Deputy Speaker, I stand in support of this Bill.

Mr Dennis Tan.

Mr Deputy Speaker, I support the Maintenance of Racial Harmony Bill. But I have some questions and concerns to the proposed provisions in this Bill relating to clans and business organisations which would be designated as race-based entities under this Bill.

I declare that I am an honorary adviser of the Singapore Teochew Poit Ip Huay Kuan.

Mr Deputy Speaker, according to MHA, clans and business associations linked to the Chinese, Malay and Indian races would be designated as race-based entities under this Bill and be subject to measures to curb possible foreign influence. It was reported that according to MHA's preliminary estimation, this Bill, once passed, will result in the designation of more than 300 such entities in Singapore.

CNA reported that according to MHA, organisations that promote the interest of a racial group or subgroup are potential entry points for such influence, and that entities may be designated if their objectives and activities represent the interest of any race or issues relating to it and that "designation is deemed necessary or expedient to preempt, prevent or reduce any foreign influence that may undermine racial harmony in Singapore."

Mr Deputy Speaker, while I agree that clans and business associations linked to races should be protected from foreign political influence and interference, I am concerned with the potential impact the new rules may have on our clan associations and other race-based associations whose focus may be cultural and economic and not political.

Clauses 18 to 22 of this Bill provide for regulations imposing reporting obligations on designated entities.

Clause 18(1) requires that designated entities will generally be required to report the foreign donations and anonymous donations that they accept, subject to the regulations to be provided. Clause 18(2) sets out various matters that may be prescribed by the regulations to be included in the reports to be submitted by designated entities. They include the classes of foreign donations and anonymous donations that need not be reported.

May I ask the Minister what would be the classes or types of foreign donations which designated entities will be required to be reported? Would these be categorised by a monetary limit?

Clause 19(1) requires designated entities to report their foreign affiliations according to the subsidiary legislations. Clause 19(2) sets out various matters to be prescribed by the regulations which must be included in such reports by the designated entities. Clause 19(2)(b) mentions the possibility of "classes of foreign affiliations, if any, that may not be reported".

May I ask the Minister what are the possible affiliations being considered by MHA at this point in time to be excluded from the reporting process and if so, what are the considerations?

I would also like to ask the Minister whether MHA is presently aware of the extent to which our clan and business associations receive donations from foreign counterparts and entities, and if so, to share some details so that we can better understand the extent of such financial support such organisations are currently receiving and have a better appreciation of the likely risks that such organisations may face. It would also enable Members of Parliament to appreciate MHA's concern about the risk of foreign interference on such clans and associations, leading to MHA tabling such requirements.

Mr Deputy Speaker, while the declaration of details relating to foreign donations to clans and business organisations may be a control measure to minimise or prevent foreign political interference with the local clans or business associations, I am concerned that the reporting requirements should not overly burden the management of our clan and business organisations, especially the smaller clans, which may already have their hands tied running their organisations, recruiting younger members and ensuring their continuing relevance and contributions to modern society in Singapore.

I hope that MHA will also be empathetic to organisational constraints, especially in smaller clans and business associations, when regulations are introduced for easier administrative compliance. After all, many of these office-bearers and members are volunteers and staff support may be limited, especially for the smaller clans and associations. This is also bearing in mind the likely penalties which may arise from non-compliance are quite stiff.

I would further like to ask the Minister to confirm for good order that the presence of foreign-based donations, whether from a foreign counterpart clan or business association or from even a foreign business entity with business interests, is in itself and unlike in FICA not prohibited and not regarded to be unwelcome.

I say this because there are possibly mutual benefits from such donations if such clans and associations find it difficult to raise funds while foreign businesses may find that it is a good marketing avenue for their businesses and products. While MHA can follow up on declared foreign entities, if it deems necessary, I hope that there will not be unnecessary stigma relating to foreign donations per se as long as there is no political interference.

I would also like to know whether the financial contributions to joint projects between local clans or business organisations and their foreign counterparts come under the clauses of this Bill. If so, I am concerned that their inclusion may discourage joint projects which may be beneficial to the development of our local clans or business organisations.

Mr Deputy Speaker, I will next touch on leadership restrictions imposed by this Bill on designated entities like clans and business organisations.

Clauses 23 to 26 of this Bill impose basic leadership restrictions on such designated entities. The provisions require that more than half of the total number of seats on the governing body of any designated entity must be occupied or held by Singapore Citizens. For governing bodies with fewer than three seats, all of them must be occupied or held by Singapore citizens. Responsible officers of designated entities must be Singapore Citizens or Singapore PRs.

Mr Deputy Speaker, I support these provisions. In fact, I will go one step further to ask that responsible offices of designated entities must be Singapore Citizens only as opposed to Singapore Citizens and PRs are effectively nationals of another country. While their support and participation in clans and business organisations should be encouraged and allowed, the leadership of such entities should remain with those with no other nationality than that of Singapore. Mr Speaker, in Mandarin, please.

(In Mandarin): [Please refer to Vernacular Speech.] Mr Deputy Speaker, I support the Maintenance of Racial Harmony Bill, but I have some questions and concerns about the provisions in the Bill regarding clan associations and business associations. I declare that I am an honorary advisor to the Teochew Poit Ip Huay Kuan in Singapore.

According to the Bill, clan associations and business associations will be required to declare details of foreign donations. The Government's aim is to reduce or prevent foreign political interference in local clan associations and business associations. I can understand this. However, I am concerned that the reporting requirements may impose unnecessary administrative burdens on these organisations, especially smaller ones.

Many clan associations are already facing numerous challenges in their operations, including attracting new generations of members, maintaining the associations' operations and ensuring their continued relevance and contribution to a modern Singapore society. Therefore, the process of declaring foreign donations should not create additional administrative burdens for them.

I hope that MHA will show more empathy towards smaller clan associations and business associations when implementing these new regulations. After all, many association directors and members are volunteers, and these associations have limited manpower and resources. Severe penalties on unintentional oversights will put significant pressure on these organisations.

Furthermore, I also would like to ask the Minister to clarify that foreign donations themselves are not unwelcome or universally prohibited, because this is not like FICA. After all, donations from foreign clan associations, business associations or foreign counterparts may provide support for local associations or business organisations that are short of funds. At the same time, donations also give foreign companies more exposure in the market. This is a mutually beneficial relationship. Of course, MHA may follow up on declared foreign entities when deemed necessary, but I hope that this will not lead to unnecessary prejudice against foreign donations themselves.

(In English): My Deputy Speaker, notwithstanding my concerns and questions, I support the Bill.

Mr Mark Lee.

Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I strongly support this Bill and its aim of reinforcing Singapore's commitment to racial harmony. This is a principle that has anchored our social stability and will continue to be vital as our society becomes more interconnected. The introduction of clear measures to address emerging risks is timely and necessary.

As we implement this Bill, it is important to provide clarity for trade associations and foreign chambers of commerce so that they can continue their work in strengthening economic partnerships and fostering international collaboration. We must ensure that these business-focused organisations continue to be able to operate effectively within this framework and reinforce Singapore's standing as a trusted global business hub.

I therefore have five clarifications for the Minister.

First, one key area requiring clarification is the classification of trade associations under this Bill. The Bill states that organisations promoting the interests of specific racial groups may be designated as race-based entities, subjecting them to restrictions on foreign affiliations, mandatory disclosures and leadership requirements. It is unclear whether local or foreign chambers of commerce and business trade associations, which primarily focus on trade facilitation, investment promotion and industry collaboration, would fall under this classification.

For instance, within Singapore Business Federation, we have representation from Singapore Chinese Chamber, Indian and Malay Chamber of Commerce, American Chamber of Commerce, China Enterprises Association, European Chamber of Commerce and the Japanese Chamber of Commerce and Industry. Each of them plays crucial roles in facilitating trade, investment and cross-border business relations. These associations serve an economic purpose, focusing on bilateral trade policies, market access and regulatory advocacy, and not promoting any racial agenda.

I would like to ask the Minister to confirm if trade-based organisations will be exempted from designation, given their distinct function from community-based racial entities.

My second clarification is related to restrictions on foreign donations and affiliations. Some foreign trade associations receive funding from overseas business networks, foundations, corporate sponsorships and membership fees from foreign companies. Under this Bill, such funding could be classified as foreign donations and subject to regulatory scrutiny.

For example, if a multinational corporation sponsors a networking event hosted by a trade association, would this be deemed a foreign donation requiring disclosure or approval? If so, even though the Bill does not prohibit a designated trade association from accepting such sponsorships, the compliance implications for multinational enterprises could be significant.

Their internal risk assessment may classify sponsorship of a designated entity as a potential regulatory exposure, leading them to reconsider or, in the worst case, withdraw financial support. This could in turn discourage multinational companies (MNCs) from engaging with trade associations in Singapore, limiting the ability of these associations to organise industry events, foster business collaborations and advocate for trade and investment growth.

Another common practice is industry collaborations between local and foreign business councils. For example, if a Singapore-based association receives funding from an ASEAN business counterpart, would that funding be classified as a foreign donation? The implications of such a designation could hinder industry collaboration across markets.

My third clarification is in relation to leadership restrictions requiring more than 50% of governing body members to be Singapore Citizens. While the intent is to prevent undue foreign influence, this could pose practical challenges for foreign chambers and trade associations that rely on senior representatives from multinational corporations. These individuals bring industry expertise, strengthen bilateral ties and advocate for business-friendly policies. Would such advocacy be hindered by restrictions on non-Singaporean leadership in trade organisations?

Would the Minister therefore consider flexibility in leadership requirements for trade associations that do not engage in racial or political advocacy?

Fourth, I would like to seek clarification on the subject of foreign affiliations. In today’s fast-changing world, trade associations must remain nimble, flexible and responsive to support businesses and strengthen international partnerships. Trade associations frequently sign MOUs and establish partnerships with overseas trade bodies, embassies and government-linked investment agencies to promote cultural, as well as business exchanges, facilitate trade and strengthen international cooperation. These agreements are a regular and necessary part of global business engagement, allowing Singapore companies to expand their networks and access new markets.

Under this Bill, would such partnerships be subject to foreign influence reporting requirements and if so, what criteria would determine whether a Memorandum of Understanding or collaboration falls under these regulations? Clear and well-defined guidelines will enable them to continue fostering global collaboration seamlessly while upholding Singapore's strong social fabric.

Finally, I seek clarification on whether local and foreign trade associations will be clearly informed of the criteria used to classify them as race-based entities. As these organisations focus on business, trade facilitation and international collaboration, it is important they understand the basis for their classification under this Bill. If an association appeals against its designation, clear guidelines are essential to ensure transparency in classification criteria and assessment factors. This will help trade associations operate with confidence while ensuring compliance. I ask the Minister whether these classifications will be made transparent in advance and what the appeal process for exemptions will entail.

Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, maintaining racial harmony is a fundamental pillar of our society and this Bill reinforces our collective commitment to safeguarding it. At the same time, Singapore has been recognised as a trusted hub for trade and investment, with a strong reputation for regulatory clarity and openness to global partnerships.

As we implement this Bill, let us give assurances to our trade associations and foreign chambers of commerce such that they can continue to play their role in strengthening business ties and facilitating international collaboration. Barring my clarifications, I fully support the Bill.

Ms Sylvia Lim.

Mr Deputy Speaker, I shall speak briefly on both Bills.

First, on the Maintenance of Racial Harmony Bill. The Maintenance of Racial Harmony Bill has several aims. Besides porting over and modernising existing offences, it also gives new powers to the Minister for Home Affairs to issue Restraining Orders to prevent the communication of content considered to be prejudicial to racial harmony in Singapore. The Bill further seeks to curtail foreign influence in race-based organisations, such as clans, through requirements such as reporting foreign donations and foreign participation in these organisations.

Sir, before I proceed, I declare that I am an Honorary Adviser of two organisations: Sai Ho Piat Su and Teochew Poit Ip Huay Kuan. That said, the views expressed in my speech today are my own.

Sir, we can all agree that the management of race relations and indeed, the management of Singapore society as a whole, should be decided by Singaporeans and Singaporeans alone. There is a risk that foreign entities may attempt or may already have attempted to channel their race-based agenda through Singapore-based entities.