Minister outlines Republic's approach to preserving racial harmony and tackling hate speech
By Linette Lai, Political Correspondent, The Straits Times, 2 Apr 2019
Singapore is prepared to err on the side of caution to preserve racial harmony, said Law and Home Affairs Minister K. Shanmugam, stressing that good relations among different communities in Singapore "didn't fall ready-made from the sky".
"There is nothing natural about it. We engineered this over many decades," he told Parliament yesterday in a 90-minute ministerial statement on Singapore's approach to tackling hate speech.
"If anything, we are prepared to err on the side of caution and risk overreacting to preserve harmony, rather than take chances and risk explosions."
He traced the smooth ties among Singaporeans to the country's founding leaders, recounting how they were determined for Singapore to be a multiracial, multi-religious society organised horizontally - in which all races and religions are treated equally and on the same level.
"Our uniqueness in this respect should not be underestimated. Equality of races and religions is not the natural order of things; it has to be defended," he said.
Mr Shanmugam quoted founding prime minister Lee Kuan Yew, who had said: "This will not be a Chinese nation, not a Malay nation, not an Indian nation."
The late Mr Lee, reflecting in a New York Times interview, said in 2010: "I believe (our younger generation) has come to believe that this is a natural state of affairs... They think you can put it on auto-pilot. I know that this is never so."
He urged Singaporeans to heed Mr Lee's warning, saying: "What we have in Singapore is precious, hard fought."
In his speech, the minister also dwelt on Singapore's approach to secularism and set out his decision to cancel black metal band Watain's local concert.
Setting out the effects of hate speech, Mr Shanmugam said it "disengages" morality and dehumanises its victims.
Once normalised, such mindsets are hard to reverse and result in deep social divides.
Although offensive speech may not veer into the territory of hate speech, it can have the same impact in the long run. In fact, it can be even more insidious as people are "drip-fed" such harmful notions.
He highlighted how some comedians use racist caricatures in their skits, and recounted a woman making disparaging comments about Malay weddings at void decks. "If we normalise offensive speech, after a while, the tone and texture of public discourse will change."
Turning to the Singapore brand of secularism, he said the Government does not take a hands-off approach on matters of race and religion. It actively works to foster good relations among different communities from a practical, nuanced and neutral position.
This sets it apart from countries like France, where secularism means the state will not interfere in religious matters and people can publish material that vilifies any religion, Mr Shanmugam said.
"Why should that right to publish override the right of a religious group not to have its texts, beliefs, practices ridiculed?" he asked. "What about obligations of citizens to preserve harmony and unity?"
When deciding on such issues, the Government assesses the reaction of the majority in the affected community, the security implications of that opinion, and where the weight of mainstream opinion lies.
On the Watain ban, Mr Shanmugam quoted an interview with the band's frontman Erik Danielsson, who had said: "I totally encourage any kind of terrorist acts committed in the name of Watain... That is the way rock and roll works."
Critics of the Watain ban had hit out at the Government's "self-righteous" behaviour, with some saying people can listen to the band without being influenced by its beliefs, and churches can urge their members not to attend such concerts.
By Linette Lai, Political Correspondent, The Straits Times, 2 Apr 2019
Singapore is prepared to err on the side of caution to preserve racial harmony, said Law and Home Affairs Minister K. Shanmugam, stressing that good relations among different communities in Singapore "didn't fall ready-made from the sky".
"There is nothing natural about it. We engineered this over many decades," he told Parliament yesterday in a 90-minute ministerial statement on Singapore's approach to tackling hate speech.
"If anything, we are prepared to err on the side of caution and risk overreacting to preserve harmony, rather than take chances and risk explosions."
He traced the smooth ties among Singaporeans to the country's founding leaders, recounting how they were determined for Singapore to be a multiracial, multi-religious society organised horizontally - in which all races and religions are treated equally and on the same level.
"Our uniqueness in this respect should not be underestimated. Equality of races and religions is not the natural order of things; it has to be defended," he said.
Mr Shanmugam quoted founding prime minister Lee Kuan Yew, who had said: "This will not be a Chinese nation, not a Malay nation, not an Indian nation."
The late Mr Lee, reflecting in a New York Times interview, said in 2010: "I believe (our younger generation) has come to believe that this is a natural state of affairs... They think you can put it on auto-pilot. I know that this is never so."
He urged Singaporeans to heed Mr Lee's warning, saying: "What we have in Singapore is precious, hard fought."
In his speech, the minister also dwelt on Singapore's approach to secularism and set out his decision to cancel black metal band Watain's local concert.
Setting out the effects of hate speech, Mr Shanmugam said it "disengages" morality and dehumanises its victims.
Once normalised, such mindsets are hard to reverse and result in deep social divides.
Although offensive speech may not veer into the territory of hate speech, it can have the same impact in the long run. In fact, it can be even more insidious as people are "drip-fed" such harmful notions.
He highlighted how some comedians use racist caricatures in their skits, and recounted a woman making disparaging comments about Malay weddings at void decks. "If we normalise offensive speech, after a while, the tone and texture of public discourse will change."
Turning to the Singapore brand of secularism, he said the Government does not take a hands-off approach on matters of race and religion. It actively works to foster good relations among different communities from a practical, nuanced and neutral position.
This sets it apart from countries like France, where secularism means the state will not interfere in religious matters and people can publish material that vilifies any religion, Mr Shanmugam said.
"Why should that right to publish override the right of a religious group not to have its texts, beliefs, practices ridiculed?" he asked. "What about obligations of citizens to preserve harmony and unity?"
When deciding on such issues, the Government assesses the reaction of the majority in the affected community, the security implications of that opinion, and where the weight of mainstream opinion lies.
On the Watain ban, Mr Shanmugam quoted an interview with the band's frontman Erik Danielsson, who had said: "I totally encourage any kind of terrorist acts committed in the name of Watain... That is the way rock and roll works."
Critics of the Watain ban had hit out at the Government's "self-righteous" behaviour, with some saying people can listen to the band without being influenced by its beliefs, and churches can urge their members not to attend such concerts.
Seen in isolation, these are valid points, Mr Shanmugam said, adding that Singaporeans should look at the bigger picture.
If the Watain concert got the go-ahead, the Government would have to permit future shows with similar themes.
Over time, this could deepen racial and religious faultlines and normalise hate speech, he said.
He also dismissed online comments suggesting a "Christian conspiracy" influenced the Government's decision, and that Christians are over-represented in institutions of power.
"They tried to turn it into a 'Christian versus others' debate. These people are nasty, opportunistic and dangerous," he said. "No one, Christian or otherwise, influenced me. I am not a Christian. I also decided to ban two Christian preachers in 2017. So, what does one make of that?"
He added in his closing speech that one of the risks of a weak political leadership is it seeks favours from specific religious groups, warning that this approach "will lead to disaster".
"So, many governments, both in this region and outside, have gone down that route. It is one of the easiest ways to get votes," he said. "You really need a strong political leadership which is fair between the different religions."
Mr Shanmugam also said hate speech has travelled faster and farther because of social media, and Singapore needs to do more to deal with it as social media platforms are unable or unwilling to do so.
If the Watain concert got the go-ahead, the Government would have to permit future shows with similar themes.
Over time, this could deepen racial and religious faultlines and normalise hate speech, he said.
He also dismissed online comments suggesting a "Christian conspiracy" influenced the Government's decision, and that Christians are over-represented in institutions of power.
"They tried to turn it into a 'Christian versus others' debate. These people are nasty, opportunistic and dangerous," he said. "No one, Christian or otherwise, influenced me. I am not a Christian. I also decided to ban two Christian preachers in 2017. So, what does one make of that?"
He added in his closing speech that one of the risks of a weak political leadership is it seeks favours from specific religious groups, warning that this approach "will lead to disaster".
"So, many governments, both in this region and outside, have gone down that route. It is one of the easiest ways to get votes," he said. "You really need a strong political leadership which is fair between the different religions."
Mr Shanmugam also said hate speech has travelled faster and farther because of social media, and Singapore needs to do more to deal with it as social media platforms are unable or unwilling to do so.
The Protection from Online Falsehoods and Manipulation Bill is one step, but further steps must be taken, he added.
In all, 16 MPs spoke after his speech, with some such as Ms Denise Phua (Jalan Besar GRC) and Nominated MP Walter Theseira asking about the grey areas where offensive speech is concerned.
"It is inevitable that one man's belief or culture, when put into the public sphere, may give offence to another," Dr Theseira said, citing how the consumption of specified food may be normal for one religious group but offensive to others.
Ms Phua added: "Where is the line between public discourse and platforms like private WhatsApp group chats?"
Yesterday, the House observed a minute of silence to remember the victims of the attacks on two New Zealand mosques last month.
Ms Phua added: "Where is the line between public discourse and platforms like private WhatsApp group chats?"
Yesterday, the House observed a minute of silence to remember the victims of the attacks on two New Zealand mosques last month.
Parliament: Singapore has come up with its own approach to deal with offensive speech, says Shanmugam
It is generally not allowed in public discourse to preserve racial, religious harmony and to prevent unrest, violence
By Melody Zaccheus, Heritage and Community Correspondent, The Straits Times, 2 Apr 2019
Singapore has carved out its own approach as a secular state in dealing with speech that is offensive to race and religion, said Home Affairs and Law Minister K. Shanmugam yesterday.
The country takes the view that offensive speech should generally not be allowed in public discourse in the context of preserving racial, religious harmony and preventing unrest and violence.
When deciding whether to allow or ban something, the authorities assess the reactions of the majority in the targeted community; where the weight of mainstream opinion lies; and whether such content could deepen fault lines or have security implications.
This approach, which has been relatively successful, is guided by common sense and is pragmatic in nature, he said in a ministerial statement on restricting hate speech for racial and religious harmony.
It also tends to function on a case-by-case basis - Singapore does not ban everything that is deemed insulting or offensive by anyone. Neither does it allow everything that is insulting or offensive. For instance, Salman Rushdie's novel Satanic Verses was banned in 1989 - as a result of Singapore's mainstream Muslim community taking offence - but the Government has allowed other books and films even when religious communities were unhappy.
But Singapore has a zero-tolerance policy for bigotry, said Mr Shanmugam, citing cases of foreign and local preachers who were banned and admonished for making racially and religiously offensive remarks.
In 2017, two foreign Christian preachers had their applications to speak in Singapore banned by the Ministry of Manpower, in consultation with the Ministry of Home Affairs. One of them had said Islam is "not a religion of peace".
Similarly, Singapore banned Zimbabwean Mufti Menk, who views it a sin for Muslims to wish non-Muslims Merry Christmas, and Indian-born preacher Zakir Naik, who urged Muslims to vote for a Muslim candidate instead of a non-Muslim during political elections.
Mr Shanmugam said letting in such foreign preachers, whose teachings are available online, allows them to build a following in Singapore. "Eventually, that can become seriously divisive - like not shaking hands, not greeting each other and not voting for candidates of another race or religion."
He cautioned against allowing divisive rhetoric in religious sermons of the different faiths."These things have a momentum… What do you think the atmosphere will be like in our common meeting places?"
Mr Shanmugam said French absolutist secularity - a hands-off approach in which people can publish material that is offensive to any religion - is unsuitable for Singapore.
He noted that French magazine Charlie Hebdo has run cartoons on the Christian trinity of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit having anal sex and a van running over two people captioned "Islam, religion of peace… eternal", among others.
He said the Singapore authorities are convinced the European way will not work here. Instead, the secularity Singapore adopts strives in every way possible to achieve racial, religious harmony.
At the heart of it, he said the State's fundamental assurance to the people of Singapore is that they are free to believe in any religion - including not to believe - and that members of faith groups will be protected from hate speech and unacceptable offensive speech.
"We have to decide what works for us. Singapore is only 54 years old this year. Racial, religious tolerance is slowly being rejected in older societies than ours which claim to be liberal. It is prudent for us not to take Singapore's values, unique and new in history, for granted."
Mr Shanmugam also commended New Zealand's rejection of the shooter's message of hate after the Christchurch mosque attacks on March 15 that killed 50 people.
It is generally not allowed in public discourse to preserve racial, religious harmony and to prevent unrest, violence
By Melody Zaccheus, Heritage and Community Correspondent, The Straits Times, 2 Apr 2019
The country takes the view that offensive speech should generally not be allowed in public discourse in the context of preserving racial, religious harmony and preventing unrest and violence.
When deciding whether to allow or ban something, the authorities assess the reactions of the majority in the targeted community; where the weight of mainstream opinion lies; and whether such content could deepen fault lines or have security implications.
This approach, which has been relatively successful, is guided by common sense and is pragmatic in nature, he said in a ministerial statement on restricting hate speech for racial and religious harmony.
It also tends to function on a case-by-case basis - Singapore does not ban everything that is deemed insulting or offensive by anyone. Neither does it allow everything that is insulting or offensive. For instance, Salman Rushdie's novel Satanic Verses was banned in 1989 - as a result of Singapore's mainstream Muslim community taking offence - but the Government has allowed other books and films even when religious communities were unhappy.
But Singapore has a zero-tolerance policy for bigotry, said Mr Shanmugam, citing cases of foreign and local preachers who were banned and admonished for making racially and religiously offensive remarks.
In 2017, two foreign Christian preachers had their applications to speak in Singapore banned by the Ministry of Manpower, in consultation with the Ministry of Home Affairs. One of them had said Islam is "not a religion of peace".
Similarly, Singapore banned Zimbabwean Mufti Menk, who views it a sin for Muslims to wish non-Muslims Merry Christmas, and Indian-born preacher Zakir Naik, who urged Muslims to vote for a Muslim candidate instead of a non-Muslim during political elections.
Mr Shanmugam said letting in such foreign preachers, whose teachings are available online, allows them to build a following in Singapore. "Eventually, that can become seriously divisive - like not shaking hands, not greeting each other and not voting for candidates of another race or religion."
He cautioned against allowing divisive rhetoric in religious sermons of the different faiths."These things have a momentum… What do you think the atmosphere will be like in our common meeting places?"
Mr Shanmugam said French absolutist secularity - a hands-off approach in which people can publish material that is offensive to any religion - is unsuitable for Singapore.
He noted that French magazine Charlie Hebdo has run cartoons on the Christian trinity of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit having anal sex and a van running over two people captioned "Islam, religion of peace… eternal", among others.
He said the Singapore authorities are convinced the European way will not work here. Instead, the secularity Singapore adopts strives in every way possible to achieve racial, religious harmony.
At the heart of it, he said the State's fundamental assurance to the people of Singapore is that they are free to believe in any religion - including not to believe - and that members of faith groups will be protected from hate speech and unacceptable offensive speech.
"We have to decide what works for us. Singapore is only 54 years old this year. Racial, religious tolerance is slowly being rejected in older societies than ours which claim to be liberal. It is prudent for us not to take Singapore's values, unique and new in history, for granted."
Mr Shanmugam also commended New Zealand's rejection of the shooter's message of hate after the Christchurch mosque attacks on March 15 that killed 50 people.
Offensive speech can become hate speech if normalised and not dealt with, says Shanmugam
Why offensive speech needs to be curbed
By Tan Tam Mei, The Straits Times, 2 Apr 2019
Offensive speech overlaps with hate speech and, if normalised, can change the nature of public discourse, said Home Affairs Minister K. Shanmugam yesterday.
Explaining why offensive speech, while not hate speech, needed to be restricted, he said normalising the former could in the long run result in the same outcomes as hate speech, creating an environment conducive for discrimination and violence.
"How can we be one united people when every day it is accepted that one race or another, one religion or another, can be publicly insulted, ridiculed, attacked?"
Singapore's position to offensive speech has been practical and nuanced, Mr Shanmugam said in a ministerial statement on hate speech.
"We take the view that offensive speech should generally not be allowed in public discourse," he said, adding that various sections of the Penal Code, Maintenance of Religious Harmony Act and Sedition Act tackle offensive speech. Singapore bases its assessment on factors like how offensive the words are and their likely impact on the feelings of the targeted groups.
In regulating offensive speech, assessments are made on whether the words are derogatory, offensive or insulting to a particular race or religion, said the minister. He cited the derogatory remarks made by teenage blogger Amos Yee against various religious communities here. In 2015 and 2016, Mr Yee was convicted of hate speech against Christians and Muslims.
Another factor to consider was the likely impact of the offensive speech. This could include the prominence of the speaker or his platform. For example, if it happened at the pulpit or at an election rally, or if it was said by religious or political leaders. "The impact will be different, depending on who says it and the context," said Mr Shanmugam, adding that the nature of the event and its reach are also considered.
Another consideration to note was that followers of different religions react differently, he added.
In measuring impact, the Government also considers the immediate or longer-term security implications of reactions from the ground that could deepen fault lines and create more tension, said Mr Shanmugam.
"The Government is neutral. We proactively accommodate the different groups, recognising their different histories and traditions and we make practical adjustments," he said. "On that basis, we take a practical approach to assess the impact on reaction of the different communities."
Mr Shanmugam also noted that the Government has to assess the impact and reaction of the majority in the specific communities, to gauge where mainstream opinion lies. "We cannot be directed by the viewpoint of a person or persons who is (or) are extremely sensitive. Our approach is guided by common sense."
He added that the "absolute" and "objective" approach to either ban or to allow everything would be undesirable.
"That brings us back to the pragmatic approach the Government takes as the only tenable one for our society," he said. "It can be a bit messy, but it has worked so far with relative success and with a bit of give and take."
Why offensive speech needs to be curbed
By Tan Tam Mei, The Straits Times, 2 Apr 2019
Offensive speech overlaps with hate speech and, if normalised, can change the nature of public discourse, said Home Affairs Minister K. Shanmugam yesterday.
Explaining why offensive speech, while not hate speech, needed to be restricted, he said normalising the former could in the long run result in the same outcomes as hate speech, creating an environment conducive for discrimination and violence.
"How can we be one united people when every day it is accepted that one race or another, one religion or another, can be publicly insulted, ridiculed, attacked?"
Singapore's position to offensive speech has been practical and nuanced, Mr Shanmugam said in a ministerial statement on hate speech.
"We take the view that offensive speech should generally not be allowed in public discourse," he said, adding that various sections of the Penal Code, Maintenance of Religious Harmony Act and Sedition Act tackle offensive speech. Singapore bases its assessment on factors like how offensive the words are and their likely impact on the feelings of the targeted groups.
In regulating offensive speech, assessments are made on whether the words are derogatory, offensive or insulting to a particular race or religion, said the minister. He cited the derogatory remarks made by teenage blogger Amos Yee against various religious communities here. In 2015 and 2016, Mr Yee was convicted of hate speech against Christians and Muslims.
Another factor to consider was the likely impact of the offensive speech. This could include the prominence of the speaker or his platform. For example, if it happened at the pulpit or at an election rally, or if it was said by religious or political leaders. "The impact will be different, depending on who says it and the context," said Mr Shanmugam, adding that the nature of the event and its reach are also considered.
Another consideration to note was that followers of different religions react differently, he added.
In measuring impact, the Government also considers the immediate or longer-term security implications of reactions from the ground that could deepen fault lines and create more tension, said Mr Shanmugam.
"The Government is neutral. We proactively accommodate the different groups, recognising their different histories and traditions and we make practical adjustments," he said. "On that basis, we take a practical approach to assess the impact on reaction of the different communities."
Mr Shanmugam also noted that the Government has to assess the impact and reaction of the majority in the specific communities, to gauge where mainstream opinion lies. "We cannot be directed by the viewpoint of a person or persons who is (or) are extremely sensitive. Our approach is guided by common sense."
He added that the "absolute" and "objective" approach to either ban or to allow everything would be undesirable.
"That brings us back to the pragmatic approach the Government takes as the only tenable one for our society," he said. "It can be a bit messy, but it has worked so far with relative success and with a bit of give and take."
Hate speech must be dealt with firmly, says Shanmugam
By Tan Tam Mei, The Straits Times, 2 Apr 2019
Singapore adopts a strict approach and takes quick action against hate speech, said Law and Home Affairs Minister K. Shanmugam in Parliament yesterday.
The approach has been criticised and Singapore has been told to learn from the United States and the United Kingdom as the "gold standard for free speech", he noted.
"But their experiences suggest that serious consequences can follow when you are lax about hate speech," he said during his ministerial statement on hate speech.
Singapore recognises race and religion are fault lines and involve "gut issues" which can be emotive, he said, adding that the potential for violence increases when people feel their race or religion is under attack.
It is only when a country is clear and has firm laws prohibiting hate speech and deals fairly with all the communities, that it can start building a multiracial, multi-religious, and harmonious society, he added.
Mr Shanmugam cited the ways other countries have dealt with hate speech and its consequences.
The US, where hate speech is prohibited only if it is likely to lead to imminent lawless action, has a "high threshold", he said.
This has allowed inflammatory speeches that are anti-Semitic and denigrate certain groups and religions to be protected. He gave the example of Congressman Steve King, who had praised the Dutch anti-Islam politician Geert Wilders, who called the Prophet Muhammad a terrorist, among other things.
By Tan Tam Mei, The Straits Times, 2 Apr 2019
Singapore adopts a strict approach and takes quick action against hate speech, said Law and Home Affairs Minister K. Shanmugam in Parliament yesterday.
The approach has been criticised and Singapore has been told to learn from the United States and the United Kingdom as the "gold standard for free speech", he noted.
"But their experiences suggest that serious consequences can follow when you are lax about hate speech," he said during his ministerial statement on hate speech.
Singapore recognises race and religion are fault lines and involve "gut issues" which can be emotive, he said, adding that the potential for violence increases when people feel their race or religion is under attack.
It is only when a country is clear and has firm laws prohibiting hate speech and deals fairly with all the communities, that it can start building a multiracial, multi-religious, and harmonious society, he added.
Mr Shanmugam cited the ways other countries have dealt with hate speech and its consequences.
The US, where hate speech is prohibited only if it is likely to lead to imminent lawless action, has a "high threshold", he said.
This has allowed inflammatory speeches that are anti-Semitic and denigrate certain groups and religions to be protected. He gave the example of Congressman Steve King, who had praised the Dutch anti-Islam politician Geert Wilders, who called the Prophet Muhammad a terrorist, among other things.
Over in Europe, some countries have broader prohibitions, but the restrictions vary. Last year, the European Court of Human Rights ruled that the conviction of an Austrian woman for calling the Prophet Muhammad a paedophile did not violate her freedom of expression.
In Germany, laws prohibit the incitement of hatred against or insult of a racial or religious group. The glorification of Nazi rule is also criminalised. In Britain, it is a crime to incite hatred on the grounds of religion. However, it is permissible to ridicule, insult or abuse any religion, belief or practice and its followers.
Last year, it was reported that more than 25 per cent of Britons - over 12 million people - had witnessed hate speech. Most cases happened on social media and involved anti-immigrant or anti-refugee language, racist abuse or anti-Muslim comments. "The UK now finds itself fighting on two fronts: against right-wing extremists and Islamic extremists," said Mr Shanmugam.
In Singapore, the Internal Security Department will act, depending on the severity and possible consequences.
Mr Shanmugam said the country's approach against hate speech was crystallised by founding prime minister Lee Kuan Yew, who said "no amount of troops would be able to stop the trouble if there was real hatred between the different communities".
Mr Shanmugam said he hoped the House would agree that hate speech in any form is unacceptable. "And that we should continue to prohibit hate speech and deal with it firmly, in the way we have done so far."
Mr Shanmugam said he hoped the House would agree that hate speech in any form is unacceptable. "And that we should continue to prohibit hate speech and deal with it firmly, in the way we have done so far."
Lessons for social harmony from Christchurch and a cancelled concert
By Zakir Hussain, News Editor, The Straits Times, 2 Apr 2019
The terror attack on two mosques in Christchurch last month may seem distant, but several members yesterday spoke of how it resonated closer to home during the debate on restricting hate speech to maintain racial and religious harmony in Singapore.
Mr Saktiandi Supaat (Bishan-Toa Payoh GRC) recounted visiting Merdeka Generation resident Zawiah Mohd Tahir, 69, who lost her eldest grandson Tariq Rashid in the attack, and had just returned from New Zealand.
What was heartening for Mr Saktiandi was that some members of the business community, who were not Muslim, and volunteers in the constituency banded together to help her cover the cost of her emergency flight so she could be with her family in a time of grief.
"I am reassured that our community is aware of the deadly effects of hate speech on one of our own and has offered help," he said. But he also hoped his resident's story raises awareness about how hate speech can have adverse consequences for anyone when they least expect it.
Such speech, he said, should never be normalised in Singapore.
For Mr Christopher de Souza (Holland-Bukit Timah GRC), a surprise WhatsApp message from a mosque chairman in his constituency the day after the attack highlighted what this Republic has to preserve.
Haji Azman Kassim shared how New Zealander Kim Forrester turned up at the mosque that day, in tears, as she felt the need to say sorry for the senseless massacre of innocent people in her country.
He acknowledged her sincerity, but said she did not need to apologise, and invited her to visit again and join the community for a break fast meal during Ramadan.
Why did she walk into a mosque here the day after the act? For Mr de Souza, it was clear: "We have something special in Singapore. She felt safe."
But as he and others noted, would Singapore have this environment of trust were organisations like the Home Team not constantly on the ground to prevent fractious disharmony in society?
Could decades of effort to not just build social trust, but restrict hate speech and keep a close watch on offensive speech, so that racial and religious harmony are not dented, come undone in a matter of months if not weeks? The answer is clear for Home Affairs and Law Minister K. Shanmugam and many who spoke yesterday.
In a wide-ranging ministerial statement outlining the Government's approach to hate speech and offensive speech, Mr Shanmugam noted how Christchurch showed what hate speech could lead to. He also sought to explain in detail why the state had to act to cancel what was, to some, a hate-music concert that the authorities initially permitted under strict conditions.
In the case of the New Zealand attack, the Australian gunman was motivated by white supremacist ideology, which has proliferated online, often unchallenged.
Drawing on research to underline the danger of such vitriol, he said: "Hate speech desensitises individuals. It normalises behaviour we would otherwise consider unacceptable. It stokes anger and fear... It engages the amygdala, the brain centre for perception of threat. Once that is done, it is harder for people to control their emotions and think before they act."
Worse, individuals believe others are "not quite human". Distrust and contempt are built up. It becomes socially acceptable to discriminate and oppress the other group.
By Zakir Hussain, News Editor, The Straits Times, 2 Apr 2019
Mr Saktiandi Supaat (Bishan-Toa Payoh GRC) recounted visiting Merdeka Generation resident Zawiah Mohd Tahir, 69, who lost her eldest grandson Tariq Rashid in the attack, and had just returned from New Zealand.
What was heartening for Mr Saktiandi was that some members of the business community, who were not Muslim, and volunteers in the constituency banded together to help her cover the cost of her emergency flight so she could be with her family in a time of grief.
"I am reassured that our community is aware of the deadly effects of hate speech on one of our own and has offered help," he said. But he also hoped his resident's story raises awareness about how hate speech can have adverse consequences for anyone when they least expect it.
Such speech, he said, should never be normalised in Singapore.
For Mr Christopher de Souza (Holland-Bukit Timah GRC), a surprise WhatsApp message from a mosque chairman in his constituency the day after the attack highlighted what this Republic has to preserve.
Haji Azman Kassim shared how New Zealander Kim Forrester turned up at the mosque that day, in tears, as she felt the need to say sorry for the senseless massacre of innocent people in her country.
He acknowledged her sincerity, but said she did not need to apologise, and invited her to visit again and join the community for a break fast meal during Ramadan.
Why did she walk into a mosque here the day after the act? For Mr de Souza, it was clear: "We have something special in Singapore. She felt safe."
But as he and others noted, would Singapore have this environment of trust were organisations like the Home Team not constantly on the ground to prevent fractious disharmony in society?
Could decades of effort to not just build social trust, but restrict hate speech and keep a close watch on offensive speech, so that racial and religious harmony are not dented, come undone in a matter of months if not weeks? The answer is clear for Home Affairs and Law Minister K. Shanmugam and many who spoke yesterday.
In a wide-ranging ministerial statement outlining the Government's approach to hate speech and offensive speech, Mr Shanmugam noted how Christchurch showed what hate speech could lead to. He also sought to explain in detail why the state had to act to cancel what was, to some, a hate-music concert that the authorities initially permitted under strict conditions.
In the case of the New Zealand attack, the Australian gunman was motivated by white supremacist ideology, which has proliferated online, often unchallenged.
Drawing on research to underline the danger of such vitriol, he said: "Hate speech desensitises individuals. It normalises behaviour we would otherwise consider unacceptable. It stokes anger and fear... It engages the amygdala, the brain centre for perception of threat. Once that is done, it is harder for people to control their emotions and think before they act."
Worse, individuals believe others are "not quite human". Distrust and contempt are built up. It becomes socially acceptable to discriminate and oppress the other group.
"Once it is normalised, the dehumanisation of the out-group is very difficult to reverse," he added.
There is no shortage of real-world examples that highlight the consequences of hate speech that has been left unchecked: the Holocaust, the Rwandan and Rohingya genocides, attacks on migrants in Europe.
Ms Lee Bee Wah (Nee Soon GRC) teared up as she recounted curfews growing up in Malaysia in the 1960s as a result of racial conflicts fuelled by hate speech.
Mr Seah Kian Peng (Marine Parade GRC) noted how tribal instincts have created mistrust, hostility and, in Christchurch, death and dissolution.
Ms Lee Bee Wah (Nee Soon GRC) teared up as she recounted curfews growing up in Malaysia in the 1960s as a result of racial conflicts fuelled by hate speech.
Mr Seah Kian Peng (Marine Parade GRC) noted how tribal instincts have created mistrust, hostility and, in Christchurch, death and dissolution.
Given its emotive nature, music, in some cases, has been a powerful tool to spread hatred.
Across the Causeway, a music festival of right-wing Malay power bands - some of whom adopt Nazi slogans and gestures - slated to be held this month has been cancelled.
Across the Causeway, a music festival of right-wing Malay power bands - some of whom adopt Nazi slogans and gestures - slated to be held this month has been cancelled.
One question Mr Shanmugam posed to members cut to the chase: Does one have to wait until a Holocaust-type of nightmare against a particular group occurs before acting against hate speech?
While Singapore has made strides in racial and religious harmony, faultlines remain and run deep, he said. Recent surveys show that two-thirds feel discussions on race are disconcerting as they can be offensive and lead to tension.
It is with this backdrop in mind that the Government decided to ultimately cancel Swedish black metal group Watain's concert, after considering the deep concern and offence many mainstream Christian leaders and others felt.
The move sparked controversy over what some saw as a crimp on free expression. But as Mr Shanmugam noted: Singapore's current harmony is not natural, but engineered over many decades.
"We brooked no agitation on race and religion," he said.
This is not a settled state.
Mr Shanmugam closed the debate by citing from the moving eulogy of the imam of one of the targeted Christchurch mosques.
"We need to step forward on hate speech, we need to deal decisively with offensive speech so that someone will not have to make this eulogy in Singapore," he said. "But if it happens, I hope we will be able to respond in the same way that the New Zealanders have done."
Much work lies ahead to maintain Singapore's social harmony.
But MPs also noted that just as music has been weaponised to spread hate, it can be used to counter hate speech, and to strengthen the wider community - by reminding people of their duty on this front, and of time-tested principles to uphold harmony.
Senior Parliamentary Secretary for Home Affairs Sun Xueling cited American folk singer-songwriter Bob Dylan: "A hero is someone who understands the responsibility that comes with his freedom."
And Senior Parliamentary Secretary for Education Faishal Ibrahim quoted local rock icon Ramli Sarip: "Don't you listen to a false poem/because it ruins your soul/Listen to poems of old/that have been brought down today."
The move sparked controversy over what some saw as a crimp on free expression. But as Mr Shanmugam noted: Singapore's current harmony is not natural, but engineered over many decades.
"We brooked no agitation on race and religion," he said.
This is not a settled state.
Mr Shanmugam closed the debate by citing from the moving eulogy of the imam of one of the targeted Christchurch mosques.
"We need to step forward on hate speech, we need to deal decisively with offensive speech so that someone will not have to make this eulogy in Singapore," he said. "But if it happens, I hope we will be able to respond in the same way that the New Zealanders have done."
Much work lies ahead to maintain Singapore's social harmony.
But MPs also noted that just as music has been weaponised to spread hate, it can be used to counter hate speech, and to strengthen the wider community - by reminding people of their duty on this front, and of time-tested principles to uphold harmony.
Senior Parliamentary Secretary for Home Affairs Sun Xueling cited American folk singer-songwriter Bob Dylan: "A hero is someone who understands the responsibility that comes with his freedom."
And Senior Parliamentary Secretary for Education Faishal Ibrahim quoted local rock icon Ramli Sarip: "Don't you listen to a false poem/because it ruins your soul/Listen to poems of old/that have been brought down today."
Two out of three Singaporeans back Government's move to cancel Watain concert
That was the finding from govt poll of 680 Singaporeans; 86% of Christians supported ban
By Eddino Abdul Hadi, Music Correspondent, The Straits Times, 2 Apr 2019
The Government decided to cancel the permit for Watain's concert last month when it received reports that mainstream Christians were very concerned and offended by the band, Home Affairs Minister K. Shanmugam said yesterday.
And a survey of Singaporeans by government feedback unit Reach found that two in three supported the move, he noted. Among Christians, 86 per cent were supportive of the move to disallow the concert, the Reach poll found.
"The initial assessment was that if they do not perform offensively in Singapore, it should be okay," he noted. Ministry of Home Affairs (MHA) officers found otherwise.
"My officers and I take in account both the reaction of the Christian community and the consequent security issues in the medium and longer term," he said. "When we concluded that was the mainstream, widespread Christian view, and assessed the consequent security issues, we decided that the concert had to be cancelled," he added.
Reach polled 680 Singapore citizens aged 15 and above from March 11 to 15, a few days after the concert was cancelled hours before it was to take place on March 7.
Speaking in Parliament on restricting hate speech to maintain racial and religious harmony, Mr Shanmugam said the Info-comm Media Development Authority (IMDA) received an application for the concert at the end of December.
MHA was informed of the application and objected to the concert.
IMDA then requested a reconsideration of MHA's position and proposed detailed requirements for the concert. These included an R18 rating, no religious symbols used during the concert, no references to religion in the band's on-stage dialogue, no content that denigrated any faith or promoted any cult practices, and no ritualistic or satanic acts.
MHA told IMDA that while it was still concerned, it would leave it to IMDA to decide on issuing a restricted licence. IMDA did so on March 5. On March 7, two days before the concert, MHA asked IMDA to consider cancelling the concert. IMDA did so.
Mr Shanmugam said MHA had received reports that mainstream Christians were very concerned and offended by the band. MHA officers met Christian leaders and leaders of other religions, and MPs - both Christian and non-Christian - gave feedback. Mr Shanmugam made the judgment call to cancel.
That was the finding from govt poll of 680 Singaporeans; 86% of Christians supported ban
By Eddino Abdul Hadi, Music Correspondent, The Straits Times, 2 Apr 2019
The Government decided to cancel the permit for Watain's concert last month when it received reports that mainstream Christians were very concerned and offended by the band, Home Affairs Minister K. Shanmugam said yesterday.
And a survey of Singaporeans by government feedback unit Reach found that two in three supported the move, he noted. Among Christians, 86 per cent were supportive of the move to disallow the concert, the Reach poll found.
"The initial assessment was that if they do not perform offensively in Singapore, it should be okay," he noted. Ministry of Home Affairs (MHA) officers found otherwise.
"My officers and I take in account both the reaction of the Christian community and the consequent security issues in the medium and longer term," he said. "When we concluded that was the mainstream, widespread Christian view, and assessed the consequent security issues, we decided that the concert had to be cancelled," he added.
Reach polled 680 Singapore citizens aged 15 and above from March 11 to 15, a few days after the concert was cancelled hours before it was to take place on March 7.
Speaking in Parliament on restricting hate speech to maintain racial and religious harmony, Mr Shanmugam said the Info-comm Media Development Authority (IMDA) received an application for the concert at the end of December.
MHA was informed of the application and objected to the concert.
IMDA then requested a reconsideration of MHA's position and proposed detailed requirements for the concert. These included an R18 rating, no religious symbols used during the concert, no references to religion in the band's on-stage dialogue, no content that denigrated any faith or promoted any cult practices, and no ritualistic or satanic acts.
MHA told IMDA that while it was still concerned, it would leave it to IMDA to decide on issuing a restricted licence. IMDA did so on March 5. On March 7, two days before the concert, MHA asked IMDA to consider cancelling the concert. IMDA did so.
Mr Shanmugam said MHA had received reports that mainstream Christians were very concerned and offended by the band. MHA officers met Christian leaders and leaders of other religions, and MPs - both Christian and non-Christian - gave feedback. Mr Shanmugam made the judgment call to cancel.
He pointed to Watain's song lyrics that denigrate Christianity and controversial statements by Watain singer Erik Danielsson. The singer once told an interviewer that he "totally encourages any kind of terrorist acts committed in the name of Watain, absolutely, that's the way rock 'n' roll works".
Mr Shanmugam said: "He knows that his music attracts fanatics with extreme ideas. He is aware of the lawlessness, violence, crime, madness that can follow."
He also noted that Mr Danielsson had said he had "always been encouraging music to take a physical form". The singer had also cited church burnings in Norway in the early 1990s and said: "To me, it's the very natural consequences of rock 'n' roll, in the end, being the Devil's music."
He also noted that Mr Danielsson had said he had "always been encouraging music to take a physical form". The singer had also cited church burnings in Norway in the early 1990s and said: "To me, it's the very natural consequences of rock 'n' roll, in the end, being the Devil's music."
MPs back cancellation of Watain concert, but question last-minute reversal
By Eddino Abdul Hadi, Music Correspondent, The Straits Times, 2 Apr 2019
Several MPs backed the move to ban Watain's performance, but hoped there will not be a repeat of the last-minute cancellation.
Ms Denise Phua (Jalan Besar GRC) said revoking the concert licence was a valid move. "The track record of Watain and its nonchalance towards acts of terrorism, and going beyond its onstage satanic rituals into the realm of lawlessness and criminal activity are, to say the least, very disturbing."
But while singer Erik Danielsson's blatant anti-Christian views and his encouragement of church burning are highly alarming and offensive, it was unfortunate the decision came just before the event.
"For that, an apology is due... But for the Government to go ahead with the concert just because it was initially approved, after knowing what it now knows, would have been a wrong decision," she said.
Workers' Party chief Pritam Singh (Aljunied GRC) said it was ironic the cancellation brought far more attention to the band. He noted local black metal bands had been around for years and foreign black metal bands had been allowed to perform. "How will the IMDA assess applications for black metal groups in future?" he asked.
By Eddino Abdul Hadi, Music Correspondent, The Straits Times, 2 Apr 2019
Several MPs backed the move to ban Watain's performance, but hoped there will not be a repeat of the last-minute cancellation.
Ms Denise Phua (Jalan Besar GRC) said revoking the concert licence was a valid move. "The track record of Watain and its nonchalance towards acts of terrorism, and going beyond its onstage satanic rituals into the realm of lawlessness and criminal activity are, to say the least, very disturbing."
But while singer Erik Danielsson's blatant anti-Christian views and his encouragement of church burning are highly alarming and offensive, it was unfortunate the decision came just before the event.
"For that, an apology is due... But for the Government to go ahead with the concert just because it was initially approved, after knowing what it now knows, would have been a wrong decision," she said.
Workers' Party chief Pritam Singh (Aljunied GRC) said it was ironic the cancellation brought far more attention to the band. He noted local black metal bands had been around for years and foreign black metal bands had been allowed to perform. "How will the IMDA assess applications for black metal groups in future?" he asked.
"Instead of a hard policy such as bans, a graduated approach (with) a range of conditions like that done by IMDA in its original assessment of the Watain concert would better reflect the compromises required to create and sustain as accommodating and robust a common public space as possible," he said.
Home Affairs Minister K. Shanmugam replied that the population is dynamic. "Reactions change over periods of time. And we have to assess it with the facts we have." He added there was no change in how agencies approached these issues.
Nominated MP Terence Ho suggested the agencies responsible for licensing coordinate better to prevent last-minute decision changes.
Senior Parliamentary Secretary for Home Affairs Sun Xueling said the Ministry of Home Affairs (MHA) is concerned with the maintenance of racial and religious harmony as it can impact public order.
"In the ban on Watain, there is no value judgment on black metal music," she said. "MHA was principally concerned about the words and the message... put out by the band, and the feelings, in this case, from the mainstream Christian community. It was not a value judgment on the genre of music."
Watain Singapore concert ban: Look at broader consequences, says Shanmugam
By Eddino Abdul Hadi, Music Correspondent, The Straits Times, 2 Apr 2019
Home Affairs Minister K. Shanmugam recognises that some Singaporeans disagree with the move to ban Watain's concert, but asks that they consider whether they would be willing to accept the broader consequences of their position.
"The larger picture is not about whether the Government should tell you what music you can or cannot listen to. You can listen to Watain through Spotify, for example, at least for now," he said.
By Eddino Abdul Hadi, Music Correspondent, The Straits Times, 2 Apr 2019
Home Affairs Minister K. Shanmugam recognises that some Singaporeans disagree with the move to ban Watain's concert, but asks that they consider whether they would be willing to accept the broader consequences of their position.
"The larger picture is not about whether the Government should tell you what music you can or cannot listen to. You can listen to Watain through Spotify, for example, at least for now," he said.
"The issue here is about whether the Government should give Watain a licence to perform publicly in Singapore. The Government has a responsibility not just to the individuals who like the music, but also the majority of Singaporeans who would be offended."
If Watain was allowed to perform, there would not be grounds to ban others with similar messages. "You will then still have a lot of hate speech in the mainstream, through entertainment," he added.
He asked if those unhappy with the ban would be willing to agree that hate speech and hate music can cause deep divisions, and that over time, the fault lines of race and religion could become greater.
"Would they be willing to say: I accept that... similar concerts and entertainment attacking Islam, Buddhism and other religions should also be allowed?"
Mr Shanmugam also asked if they would allow "Malay power" music, which calls for an end of immigration to Malaysia and for non-Malays to be expelled, and draws inspiration from Nazi Germany.
If Watain was allowed to perform, there would not be grounds to ban others with similar messages. "You will then still have a lot of hate speech in the mainstream, through entertainment," he added.
He asked if those unhappy with the ban would be willing to agree that hate speech and hate music can cause deep divisions, and that over time, the fault lines of race and religion could become greater.
"Would they be willing to say: I accept that... similar concerts and entertainment attacking Islam, Buddhism and other religions should also be allowed?"
Mr Shanmugam also asked if they would allow "Malay power" music, which calls for an end of immigration to Malaysia and for non-Malays to be expelled, and draws inspiration from Nazi Germany.
Should "Chinese power" music, which does not exist now, be allowed? Why not go further, he said, citing the Danish cartoons that denigrated Prophet Muhammad and saw violent global protests.
Those who are willing to accept the consequences will be in the small minority, Mr Shanmugam said. "I don't think many Singaporeans will support that position."
Those who are willing to accept the consequences will be in the small minority, Mr Shanmugam said. "I don't think many Singaporeans will support that position."
He also noted that the Government "can't and won't ban everything" but will be "fair, even-handed, and it has to be practical".
But he reiterated that where hate speech and offensive speech that vast numbers in any community find deeply wounding are concerned, the Government will not hesitate to take action. "I hope we would always have a Government that insists on doing the right thing to protect any community in Singapore, no matter how small, no matter what the majority might feel."
But he reiterated that where hate speech and offensive speech that vast numbers in any community find deeply wounding are concerned, the Government will not hesitate to take action. "I hope we would always have a Government that insists on doing the right thing to protect any community in Singapore, no matter how small, no matter what the majority might feel."
By Melody Zaccheus, Heritage and Community Correspondent, The Straits Times, 2 Apr 2019
Every Singaporean has to be accommodating and practise "give and take", Minister for Culture, Community and Youth Grace Fu has said.
"This means giving up a bit of one's own space and comfort for others, but in return, we can expect others to do the same for us," Ms Fu told Parliament during the debate on restricting hate speech to maintain racial and religious harmony.
She said Singapore cannot just depend on law enforcement to forge a united people. "A strong cohesive society starts from tolerance, and over time, moves to accommodation. From accommodation, we progress to an appreciation of commonalities and differences," she said yesterday.
"Finally, friendships built on goodwill, trust and confidence in one another will form, and must form. It... requires continued effort."
The strong community relations Singapore enjoys today are neither by accident nor by the laws of nature, Ms Fu pointed out.
Singapore chose to build a nation based on everyone having an equal place in society. She noted the ethnic enclaves established naturally by Singapore's immigrant forefathers when they first arrived in the 1820s, and the years leading up to independence in 1965 where riots and other events threatened to tear society apart.
"We strove to enable every community to have its own space to practise its culture and customs. At the same time, we sought to maximise our common space so that Singaporeans can live, work and play side by side in mutual respect, sharing common experiences and growing a sense of shared identity," she said.
She highlighted activities supported by or under her ministry that can contribute to a cohesive society. Among them is the Ask Me Anything community-led series of conversations where religious leaders take turns to clarify common misconceptions about their beliefs and practices, and discuss sensitive issues.
The arts, as well as museums and heritage institutions, also serve as platforms to grow appreciation of universal commonalities while recognising differences, she added.
And sports activities like those at Outward Bound Singapore help build strong bonds across all walks of life.
Referencing Singapore's ongoing Unesco bid to list hawker culture as an intangible cultural heritage, she noted that life could be worse off if Singapore's hawker centres all sold food from one single race, or if Singaporeans could not sit together with friends of other races to eat.
"Fortunately, we can have food from all races, all at one hawker centre, catering to different dietary requirements and together with our friends and neighbours of different races and religions," she said.
No ban on things just because some people find them offensive: Shanmugam
By Linette Lai, Political Correspondent, The Straits Times, 3 Apr 2019
People may find many things offensive, but that does not mean the Government will ban all of them, Law and Home Affairs Minister K. Shanmugam said yesterday.
He was responding to a Facebook post by Workers' Party MP Chen Show Mao which had given some people the impression that certain songs with offensive lyrics would be banned.
"People who did not listen to the speech may misunderstand that the list contains songs which have been banned or are going to be banned. All of that is untrue," said Mr Shanmugam, who on Monday gave a ministerial statement in Parliament on restricting hate speech to maintain racial and religious harmony in Singapore.
Mr Chen had posted a picture of a list of four songs with offensive lyrics handed out in Parliament on Monday, with the caption: "Lesson of the day. Ministerial handouts."
The songs included pop hits like Ariana Grande's God Is A Woman and Lady Gaga's Judas. Heresy by rock band Nine Inch Nails and Take Me To Church by Irish musician Hozier were on the list too.
Mr Shanmugam said the list was to illustrate what people might find offensive. "Doesn't mean that it can all get banned just because some people find it offensive," he said.
Yesterday evening, Mr Chen, an MP for Aljunied GRC, responded to say the illustration of the offensive lyrics raises several questions.
"Should we allow unrestricted offensive speech in general mainstream discourse, in religion, politics, media and entertainment, even if it is not hate speech?" he wrote. "If we agree that there have to be restrictions on offensive speech even when it is not strictly speaking hate speech, what should be the extent of the restrictions?"
Institute of Policy Studies senior research fellow Mathew Mathews noted that there are different degrees of offensiveness.
"A fair number of Christians have come to accept that some artistic expressions may ridicule some aspects of their faith," he said. "They probably are not happy with that but have come to expect and accept that. But there will certainly be art forms which are deeply offensive."
Singapore Management University law don Eugene Tan said that what the Government "is signalling is that there should instead be a focus on responsible speech, given our social make-up".
In his parliamentary speech, Mr Shanmugam said that when assessing potentially offensive speech, the authorities also consider who is speaking, where it is being delivered and the reach. He added: "We have to assess where the weight of mainstream opinion lies."
By Linette Lai, Political Correspondent, The Straits Times, 3 Apr 2019
People may find many things offensive, but that does not mean the Government will ban all of them, Law and Home Affairs Minister K. Shanmugam said yesterday.
He was responding to a Facebook post by Workers' Party MP Chen Show Mao which had given some people the impression that certain songs with offensive lyrics would be banned.
"People who did not listen to the speech may misunderstand that the list contains songs which have been banned or are going to be banned. All of that is untrue," said Mr Shanmugam, who on Monday gave a ministerial statement in Parliament on restricting hate speech to maintain racial and religious harmony in Singapore.
Mr Chen had posted a picture of a list of four songs with offensive lyrics handed out in Parliament on Monday, with the caption: "Lesson of the day. Ministerial handouts."
The songs included pop hits like Ariana Grande's God Is A Woman and Lady Gaga's Judas. Heresy by rock band Nine Inch Nails and Take Me To Church by Irish musician Hozier were on the list too.
Mr Shanmugam said the list was to illustrate what people might find offensive. "Doesn't mean that it can all get banned just because some people find it offensive," he said.
Yesterday evening, Mr Chen, an MP for Aljunied GRC, responded to say the illustration of the offensive lyrics raises several questions.
"Should we allow unrestricted offensive speech in general mainstream discourse, in religion, politics, media and entertainment, even if it is not hate speech?" he wrote. "If we agree that there have to be restrictions on offensive speech even when it is not strictly speaking hate speech, what should be the extent of the restrictions?"
Institute of Policy Studies senior research fellow Mathew Mathews noted that there are different degrees of offensiveness.
"A fair number of Christians have come to accept that some artistic expressions may ridicule some aspects of their faith," he said. "They probably are not happy with that but have come to expect and accept that. But there will certainly be art forms which are deeply offensive."
Singapore Management University law don Eugene Tan said that what the Government "is signalling is that there should instead be a focus on responsible speech, given our social make-up".
In his parliamentary speech, Mr Shanmugam said that when assessing potentially offensive speech, the authorities also consider who is speaking, where it is being delivered and the reach. He added: "We have to assess where the weight of mainstream opinion lies."
Related
Ministerial Statement on Restricting Hate Speech to Maintain Racial and Religious Harmony in Singapore, Speech by Mr K Shanmugam, Minister for Home Affairs and Minister for Law -1 Apr 2019
Wrap-up Speech by Mr K Shanmugam, Minister for Home Affairs and Minister for Law, on the Ministerial Statement on Restricting Hate Speech to Maintain Racial and Religious Harmony -1 Apr 2019
Restricting Hate Speech to Maintain Racial and Religous Harmony, Speech by Ms Sun Xueling, Senior Parliamentary Secretary, Ministry of Home Affairs and Ministry of National Development -1 Apr 2019
New Bill to Protect Society from Online Falsehoods and Malicious Actors -1 Apr 2019
Singapore to introduce new law to prevent spread of fake news; the Protection from Online Falsehoods and Manipulation Bill introduced in Parliament on 1 Apr 2019
Ministerial Statement on Restricting Hate Speech to Maintain Racial and Religious Harmony in Singapore, Speech by Mr K Shanmugam, Minister for Home Affairs and Minister for Law -1 Apr 2019
Wrap-up Speech by Mr K Shanmugam, Minister for Home Affairs and Minister for Law, on the Ministerial Statement on Restricting Hate Speech to Maintain Racial and Religious Harmony -1 Apr 2019
Restricting Hate Speech to Maintain Racial and Religous Harmony, Speech by Ms Sun Xueling, Senior Parliamentary Secretary, Ministry of Home Affairs and Ministry of National Development -1 Apr 2019
New Bill to Protect Society from Online Falsehoods and Malicious Actors -1 Apr 2019
Singapore to introduce new law to prevent spread of fake news; the Protection from Online Falsehoods and Manipulation Bill introduced in Parliament on 1 Apr 2019
No comments:
Post a Comment