Speech by Mr K Shanmugam, Minister for Home Affairs and Minister for Law

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

I. INTRODUCTION ...... 2 II. FUNDAMENTAL PROPOSITION ...... 5 III. HATE SPEECH: ITS IMPACT ON RACIAL AND RELIGIOUS HARMONY ...... 5 A. What is hate speech ...... 5 B. The impact of hate speech ...... 6 C. Hate speech: can disengage morality ...... 7 D. Hate speech and dehumanisation ...... 8 E. When hate speech becomes normalised ...... 8 F. Some examples from around the world ...... 9 G. Logic/Reason ineffective against hate speech ...... 11 H. Impact of Reducing Access to Hate Speech ...... 11 I. Hate songs ...... 12 J. Summary ...... 15 IV. DEALING WITH HATE SPEECH – THE EXPERIENCE OF OTHERS ...... 15 V. DEALING WITH HATE SPEECH – OUR EXPERIENCE ...... 20 VI. OFFENSIVE SPEECH ...... 24 VII. DEALING WITH OFFENSIVE SPEECH ...... 28 A. The Words Themselves ...... 31 B. The Likely Impact of the Speech: The Platform of Delivery, Occasion, Reach31 C. Examples of How We Have Applied Our Approach ...... 34 VIII. CHRISTCHURCH SHOOTING ...... 50 IX. WATAIN ...... 52 X. ARGUMENTS AGAINST OUR APPROACH ...... 59 XI. ROLE OF SOCIAL MEDIA ...... 70 XII. CONCLUSION ...... 73

1 I. INTRODUCTION

Mr Speaker, Sir

1. On 7 March 2019, the Government cancelled the permit for a concert due to be performed by Watain.

2. Eight days later, on 15 March 2019, a white man shot and killed 50

people, all Muslim, in two mosques in Christchurch, New Zealand.1

3. Three days after that, on 18 March 2019, a man of Turkish origin shot and killed three people in Utrecht, Netherlands. [Has been classified as murder with terrorist intent]2

4. Five days after that, on 23 March 2019, ISIS’ last stronghold fell.3

5. Four events, four countries, 16 days. All four tell us how different societies deal with race and religion.

6. Is there a larger picture showing the interconnections among the four events? I will suggest to this House that there is such a larger picture, with possible lessons.

1 “This timeline of the Christchurch mosque terror attacks shows how New Zealand’s deadliest shooting unfolded”, Business Insider, https://www.businessinsider.sg/christchurch-shooting- timeline-49-killed-new-zealand-mosques-2019-3/ 2 “Dutch police arrest suspect in Utrecht shooting; threat level reduced”, The Straits Times, https://www.straitstimes.com/world/europe/several-injured-in-shooting-in-dutch-city-of-utrecht 3 “The ISIS caliphate has ended, but its breeding ground thrives”, CNN, https://edition.cnn.com/2019/03/23/middleeast/isis-caliphate-end-intl/index.html

2 7. Sir, hate speech and racial and religious harmony - this is an issue of considerable consequence to our society.

8. I therefore propose to make a Ministerial Statement. It is also important that we hear MPs. I will move a Motion later for my Statement to be considered by Parliament. That will allow MPs to speak on the Statement.

9. I hope that we can reach some level of clarity and agreement on how we should frame and apply our rules on speech so as to maintain racial and religious harmony.

Preliminary point, as a matter of record

10. One point to note, as a matter of record. The regulation of content of entertainment, in general, is one of MCI’s important functions.

11. Ensuring, among other things, that we deal with hate speech – to prevent conflict, violence between people of different races so as to maintain internal security – is one of my Ministry’s core functions.

12. My Ministry as a whole, and ISD, in particular, spend a lot of time on this.

13. My speech will focus on this latter aspect – hate speech, racial and religious harmony.

14. I will cover the following areas.

3 15. First - I will deal with what hate speech is, with examples of hate speech such as a political leader calling members of a racial or religious group “vermin” that need to be exterminated.

16. I will share – using research in neuroscience – how hate speech interacts with the brain, and how logic and reasoning are ineffective.

17. Second – I will touch on the experience of other countries, and how they have attempted to deal with hate speech.

18. Third – I will discuss offensive speech, as opposed to hate speech, and our approach towards it.

19. Fourth – I will discuss the Christchurch shooting, and the lessons that we can learn from it.

20. Fifth – I will discuss specifically the cancellation of Watain’s concert.

21. Sixth – I will deal with the arguments that have been made against our approach in dealing with offensive speech.

22. And finally – I will discuss the role of social media in propagating hate speech.

4 II. FUNDAMENTAL PROPOSITION

23. Sir, as a first proposition, I assume, and certainly hope, there will be unanimous agreement in this House that we must preserve racial and religious harmony in Singapore.

24. Assuming we do, we then have to consider:

(a) First, the degree to which hate speech can impact racial and religious harmony;

(b) Second, the steps that should be taken to deal with hate speech;

(c) Third, the continuum between hate speech and speech which is offensive on race and religion. There is an overlap between the two. So what do we do about offensive speech?

III. HATE SPEECH: ITS IMPACT ON RACIAL AND RELIGIOUS HARMONY

A. What is hate speech

25. Hate speech has been defined as all forms of expression which spread, incite, promote, or justify racial hatred, xenophobia, or other forms of hatred based on intolerance.4

[From Council of Europe Committee of Ministers - 1997]

4 Hate Speech, Council of Europe, 1997.

26. It can fall into different categories and be on different platforms.

(a) For example, religious hate speech can be very powerful.

(b) Political hate speech can be very powerful, especially if the politician is charismatic.

(d) It can be as part of entertainment, like in music and theatre.

27. This list is illustrative; it is not intended to be exhaustive.

B. The impact of hate speech

28. What impact can hate speech have? Hate speech leads to social divides. Repeated hate speech increases people’s prejudices, feelings of being threatened, and propensity to violence.5

29. How does it do so? Hate speech desensitises individuals. It normalises behaviour which we would otherwise consider unacceptable.6 It stokes anger and fear, and provides a surge of stress hormones. It engages the amygdala, the brain centre for

5 W. Soral, M. Bilewicz, M. Winiewski, “Exposure to hate speech increases prejudice through sensitization”, Aggressive Behaviour, Vol 44, Issue 2. 6 Ibid.

6 perception of threat.7 Once that is done, it is harder for people to control their emotions and think before they act.8

30. People do not have to be extremists to be moved to violence by incendiary rhetoric. Studies show that just about any person could be susceptible under the right conditions. A psychologist from Princeton has shown that distrust of an out-group is linked to anger impulses towards violence against that group.9

C. Hate speech: can disengage morality

31. Most people, most of us, are moral creatures.10 Just picture morality as being in gear. At times, it can get disengaged and get to neutral. Our morality can get disengaged when we redefine our actions as honourable; when we believe what we are doing is a matter of honour; we believe that the victims are deserving of their punishment, because they are an “out-group”, and not quite human.11

7 N. Isenberg, D. Silbersweig, A. Engelien, S. Emmerich, K. Malavade, B. Beattie, A.C. Leon, E. Stern, “Linguistic threat activates the human amygdala”, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, Vol 96, 10456-10459, August 1999. 8 Ibid. 9 M. Cikara, M. M. Botvinick, S.T. Fiske, “Us versus Them: Social Identity Shapes Neural Responses to Intergroup Competition and Harm”, Psychological Science, Vol 22, Issue 3, 306-313. 10 P. Zimbardo, “The Lucifer Effect: Understanding How Good People Turn Evil", Random House, Rider, p1. 11 L.T. Harris, S.T. Fiske, “Dehumanized Perception: A Psychological Means to Facilitate Atrocities, Torture, and Genocide?”, Journal of Psychology 2011, Vol 219, Issue 3, 175-181.

7 D. Hate speech and dehumanisation

32. Dehumanisation then takes place. Distrust and contempt against the out-group can then be built up.12

33. Neuroimaging studies have shown that you do not think of these people as social beings.13

E. When hate speech becomes normalised

34. The lesson is that when hate speech is systematically developed, it becomes socially acceptable to discriminate and to oppress.14

35. The important lesson is that civilisation must intervene early to prevent hate speech from becoming normalised. Once it is normalised, the dehumanisation of the out-group is very difficult to reverse.

36. Let me set out some real world consequences of hate speech.

12 H.C. Kelman, “Violence without moral restraint”. 13 Harris and Fiske, “Dehumanized Perception: A Psychological Means to Facilitate Atrocities, Torture, and Genocide?”; G. B. Murrow and R. Murrow,” A hypothetical neurological association between dehumanization and human rights abuses”, Journal of Law and the Biosciences, Vol. 2 (2), Jun 2015, 336 – 364; N. Haslam, “Dehumanization: An Integrative Review”, Personality and Social Psychology Review, Vol 10 (3), 252 – 264; L.T. Harris and S.T. Fiske, “Perceiving Humanity or Not: A Social Neuroscience Approach to Dehumanized Perception”, in Social Neuroscience: Toward Understanding the Underpinnings of the Social Mind, ed. A. Todorov, S. Fiske and D. Prentice (Oxford: Oxford Scholarship Online, 2011); L.T. Harris and S.T. Fiske, “Dehumanizing the lowest of the low: Neuro-imaging responses to extreme outgroups”, Psychological Science, Vol 17, 847 – 853. 14 A. Tsesis, “Dignity and Speech: The Regulation of Hate Speech in a Democracy”, Wake Forest Law Review, Vol 44, 2009.

8 F. Some examples from around the world

37. A classic and extreme example is the Holocaust. How hate speech was used to mobilise an entire population to commit terrible crimes. The Jews were considered “vermin” by Nazi Germany, requiring fumigation by the Aryan State.15

38. Rwanda is another example. In 1994, 800,000 were killed. A Hutu mother beat to death a child who lived next door. Because the government had told her that the Tutsi were her enemies, even as the child was looking at her with innocent eyes and they grew up next door to each other. She justified the slaughter as “doing a favour” to the child, because the child had already been orphaned as the parents had been killed.16

39. In Pakistan, with the concept of honour, shame involved, if you are “true Muslim”, a “hero”, then you will be a person who has the courage to defend Islam and the Prophet by killing a “kafir” (a person who is said to have insulted the religion).17 That happened to the former Governor of Punjab, Salman Taseer, who was assassinated by his own security officer because he took positions which were considered against Islam.18

15 P.A. Goff, J.L. Eberhardt, M.J. Williams, M.C. Jackson, “Not Yet Human: Implicit Knowledge, Historical Dehumanization, and Contemporary Consequences”; T. Barta, “Discourses of genocide in Germany and Australia: a linked history”, Aboriginal History, Issue 25, Feb 2001, 16 Zimbardo, “The Lucifer Effect”, 4-5. 17 S. Ashrad, “Honour, purity and transgression: understanding blasphemy accusations and consequent violent action in Punjab, Pakistan”, Contemporary South Asia, Vol 25, Issue 1, 2018. 18 “Salman Taseer murder: Pakistan hangs Mumtaz Qadri”, BBC, 29 Feb 2016, https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-35684452

9 40. In Sri Lanka, Buddhist priests painted a picture of Buddhism as being under threat and promoted hate and violence.19 The group’s leader, Gnanasara Thero, suggested that Halal certification was an “evil conspiracy”, which “was spreading across the island in various guises and casting its dark shadow”.20

41. What do these countries have to do with Singapore? Sri Lanka was ahead of Singapore in most indices in the late 1950s. We went there to study their systems. Why is it that religious leaders in Singapore do not say these things? This is not pre-ordained. In fact, in Singapore, even the population opposes religious leaders saying these things. I will show you a survey which shows that. But why is that so? It is because of our laws and that over the last 54 years, we have done many things to try and build a society based on mutual respect and harmony.

42. We know what happened at Myanmar. Hate speech was directed at the Muslim Rohingyas. Ashin Wirathu, leader of the 969 Movement called mosques “enemy bases”, and urged Buddhists to boycott Muslim businesses and not have interfaith marriages.21

19 Farzana Haniffa, “Merit Economies in Neoliberal times: Halal troubles in contemporary Sri Lanka”, in “Religion and the Morality of the Market”, Cambridge University Press, 2017. 20 Ibid. 21 A.R.C. Marshall, “Special Report: Myanmar gives official blessing to anti-Muslim monks”, Reuters, 27 Jun 2013, https://www.reuters.com/article-us-myanmar-969-specialreport/special-report- myanmar-gives-official-blessing-to-a-anti-muslim-monk-idUSBRE95Q04720130627

10 G. Logic/Reason ineffective against hate speech

43. When you have this situation, logic and reason will not work. Because an entire architecture of hate has been built up, and hateful emotions have been engaged. The concept of “a marketplace of ideas” does not work in these circumstances.22

H. Impact of Reducing Access to Hate Speech

44. In 2018, two PhD students did a study in Warwick University23. They showed that hate speech triggered hundreds of violent crimes against refugees in Germany.24

45. They also saw a pattern. You take a place where you can expect to see crimes against refugees - in fact, where there have been crimes against refugees. But when access to hate speech becomes limited for a period of time, the violence decreased sharply.25

46. Germany’s Federal Ministry of the Interior’s 2015 Annual Report highlighted that:26

“…uninhibited hate speech on the internet can lead to individual or collective radicalisation. Hate speech creates the pressure to take immediate action. Right-wing extremists

22 A. Tsesis, “Destructive Messages – How Hate Speech Paves the Way for Harmful Social Movements”, New York University Press, 2002. 23 K. Müller, C. Schwarz, “Fanning the Flames of Hate: Social Media and Hate Crime”, 30 Nov 2018. 24 Ibid. 25 “Does online hate drive anti-migrant violence?”, J. Jacobs, Financial Times, 25 Sep 2018, https://www.ft.com/content/a3d4b800-9bf3-11e8-49c908b1f264 26 2015 Annual Report on the Protection of the Constitution: Facts and Trends, Federal Ministry of the Interior.

11 aggravate the situation by spreading their ideology and warning of alienation and the threat of ‘race extinction’. This provides fertile soil for militancy and violence. This becomes particularly obvious when it comes to the numbers of criminal and violent offences committed against accommodation centres for asylum applicants and motivated by right wing extremism. While 170 criminal offences were committed in 2014, more than five times as many were registered in 2015.”

I. Hate songs

47. Let us look at songs which spread hate. Studies have shown that music can create powerful emotions in the listener. Listening to violent music stimuli, even without lyrics or videos, can cause greater aggression than listening to no music at all.27

48. Songs have been a very powerful medium for spreading hate speech.

49. “Hate music” has been used to label, devalue, persecute, and scapegoat particular groups of people, often minorities.28

50. White racialists use White Power music too. They use it to deny the humanity of African-Americans.29 In fact, the way African

27 C.A. Anderson, N.L. Carnagey, “Exposure to Violent Media: The Effects of Songs with Violent Lyrics on Aggressive Thoughts and Feelings”, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, Vol 84, 2003, 960 – 971. 28 B.A. Messner, A.J. Jipson, P.J. Becker, B. Byers, “The Hardest Hate: A Sociological Analysis of Country Hate Music”, Popular Music and Society, Vol 30, Issue 4, 2007. 29 R. Futrell, P. Simi, S. Gottaschalk, “Understanding Music in Movements: The White Power Music Scene”, The Sociological Quarterly, Vol 47(2), 2006.

12 Americans are dehumanised is to depict them in drawings with stereotypical physical features which robs them of their humanity, and through music as well.

51. Some examples of hate music lyrics include:

(a) Skrewdriver, White Power from the UK: “I stand watch my country, going down the drain/we are all at fault now, we are all to blame/ we’re letting them takeover, we just let ‘em come/once we had an empire, and now we’ve got a slum/ White Power! For England!

(b) Rahowa, Declaration of War from Canada: “Bloody riots on the streets, the niggers run amok/ Tremble in fear, white man, the reaper’s in the shadowland/ Save your children, lock your door/ You can’t come out here no more/ Now you’re faced with a nigger foe”

52. There are many others, not mentionable, and much less so in Parliament.

53. In the 1990s, there was a study of skinheads in the US, to determine factors that were able to distinguish terrorist skinheads from non-terrorist ones.30 White Power music was found to be important in the construction of the identity of the terrorist skinhead. Approximately 91 per cent of terrorist skinheads limited their music

30 M. Waltman, A. Mattheis, “Understanding Hate Speech”, Oxford Research Encyclopaedia of Communication, Sep 2017.

13 consumption to White Power bands.31 The German government has described skinhead music as the number one gateway to violence.32

54. Members may have heard about Malay Power music festivals in Malaysia. The Malay Power movement believes that Malaysia should be an exclusively Malay nation, that immigration should end, and non-Malays should be expelled.33 A Malay Power band member has said:

“…the lesson that we can learn from Nazism is that we can take extreme racist action if the position of the Malays is affected by these factors.”34

55. Just across the causeway, a music fest featuring Malay-power nationalists – Rebellion Fest – was cancelled just last month in Malaysia.35 It is all around us. There is nothing special about us, that these things cannot happen here.

31 Ibid. 32 Ibid. 33 “’Malay power’ neo-Nazi band festival cancelled in Malaysia’s Ipoh City”, South China Morning Post, https://www.scmp.com/lifestyle/arts-culture/article/3002515/malaysian-neo-nazi-bands-lined- kuala-lumpur-concert-similar 34 Ibid. 35 “Malay neo-Nazis ‘just out to have fun’, says musician”, Mohd Farhan Darwis and Alfian Z.M. Tahir, The Malaysian Insight, 25 Mar 2019, https://www.themalaysianinsight.com/s/142836

14 J. Summary

56. In summary, hate speech denigrates the out-group, suggesting that the out-group is the source of the problems. It dehumanises the out-group, making violence against them justified.

57. The Christchurch killings were motivated by white supremacist ideology. White supremacist graffiti covered the attacker’s rifles.36

58. The New Zealand Prime Minister has called for a global fight against right wing extremists.37 Meanwhile, Islamic militant groups are using the Christchurch attacks to push their own message of hate, that the West is at war with Islam.38

59. What should we do about all this?

IV. DEALING WITH HATE SPEECH – THE EXPERIENCE OF OTHERS

60. Before we look at Singapore, it is useful to look very briefly at how some other countries have dealt with hate speech.

61. If you look at the US, there is a very high threshold for free speech. Before you can prohibit speech it must be directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action, and is likely to incite or produce

36 “White-supremacist influence casts shadow over mosque attack”, The Arab Weekly, 15 March 2019, https://thearabweekly.com/white-supremacist-influence-casts-shadow-over-mosque-attack 37 “Christchurch shootings: Jacinda Ardern calls for global anti-racism fight”, BBC News, 20 March 2019, https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-47634132 38 “Militant groups use Christchurch mosque shootings to spread hate”, The Straits Times, 21 March 2019, https://www.straitstimes.com/asia/australianz/militant-groups-use-christchurch-mosque- shootings-to-spread-hate

15 such action.39 So it must be of a nature to produce imminent lawless action, and is likely to incite the production of such an action. So, a very very high threshold. So even speech advocating violence by the Ku Klux Klan is protected under the free speech rules.

62. So you see speeches which are anti-Semitic, and speeches which denigrate the African-Americans and Hispanics.

63. Politicians who denigrate religions and ethnic groups. One example is Steve King, a US Congressman. He has praised Geert Wilders, from the Netherlands, who has in turn called the Prophet a “paedophile, mass murderer, terrorist and madman”. He has also said the Quran is worse than Mein Kampf, and has called for the closing of mosques. So Steve King praises him.

64. In Europe, some countries have broader prohibitions than the Americans.

65. In 2018, the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) gave an important decision. The Austrian courts had convicted a lady who had called the Prophet Muhammad a paedophile. She appealed and the ECHR ruled that the conviction did not violate her freedom of expression - it did not extend that far. It said the right to freedom of expression has got to be balanced against the right of others to have their religious feelings protected.40

39 Brandenburg v. Ohio 385 U.S. 444, 1969. 40 “Calling Prophet Muhammad a pedophile does not fall within freedom of speech: European court”, Deutsche Welle, 26 Oct 2018, https://www.dw.com/en/calling-prophet-muhammad-a-pedophile- does-not-fall-within-freedom-of-speech-european-court/a-46050749

66. The German Criminal Code criminalises the incitement of hatred against, or insult of, a racial or religious group. The same section also criminalises the glorification of Nazi rule. Just to note, the German Criminal Code also covers insults which may not quite be hate speech but could be offensive speech.41 I will come back to this later.

67. In the UK, it is a crime to incite hatred on the grounds of religion. But you can, in the UK, ridicule, insult, abuse any religion, beliefs, practices, or the followers of such religions.42

68. In the UK in 2018, more than one quarter of Britons, that is more than 12 million people, witnessed hate speech. The majority were on social media and involved anti-immigrant or anti-refugee language, racist abuse or anti-Muslim comments.43

69. The UK now finds itself fighting on two fronts: against right-wing extremists as well as Islamic extremists.

70. The security services are investigating a potential contact between the Christchurch gunman and right-wing extremists in the UK.

41 German Criminal Code, Section 130. 42 Racial and Religious Hatred Act 2006, Section 29J, Parliament of the United Kingdom, 43 “One-quarter of Britons witnessed hate speech in past year, poll finds”, The Guardian, 27 Jan 2018, https://www.theguardian.com/society/2018/jan/27/uk-hate-speech-poll-holocaust-memorial- day-2018

17 71. The UK’s Lead Anti-Extremism Commissioner has said that “a frightening amount of legal extremist content is available online, and fuelling far-right activism”.44

72. At one point, a preacher Abu Hamza, was Britain’s most high- profile hate preacher. He was finally convicted in 2006 for soliciting murder and inciting racial hatred in his inflammatory "sermons". He had been preaching since 1997.

73. In his sermons, he described Jews as the enemy of Islam, he told followers to bleed the ‘enemies of Islam’, and that they should not rest until they had created a Muslim State.45

74. Britain, of course, has an admirable, long tradition of free speech; you argue different positions and then you can get clarity.

75. But hate speech like this, targeting ethnic and religious communities, does not appeal to logic and is not capable of being rebutted by logic. The intention is that recipients of hate speech should be filled with hatred. They are turned into hate machines in the false belief that God requires that. How does logic and open debate counter this?

44 “Rise in UK use of far-right online forums as anti-Muslim hate increases”, The Guardian, 16 Mar 2019, https://www.theguardian.com/world/2019/mar/16/rise-far-right-online-forums-anti-muslim- hate-wave 45 “Why did it take so long to bring Abu Hamza to justice?”, The Guardian, 20 May 2014, https://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/may/20/abu-hamza-arrest-take-so-long-us-terrorism- charges; “Finsbury park mosque: how religious centre went from ‘al-Qaeda guesthouse’ to model of moderation”, The Independent, 19 Jun 2017, https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home- news/finsbury-park-mosque-terror-attack-latest-abu-hamza-changed-since-won-awards-for- community-relations-a7798171.html

18 76. Britain’s lax approach attracted a lot of people like Abu Hamza who went about spreading the message of hate. London became a centre for many of these hate mongers. Finsbury Park mosque where Abu Hamza preached has been described as a global magnet for militants. From the late 90s up to 2003, the attendees included Richard Reid, the shoe bomber, for whom you can thank for having to take off your shoes each time you go to an airport; and Zacarias Moussaoui, one of the 9/11 attackers.46

77. In New Zealand, shortly after the Christchurch incident, New Zealand’s chief censor banned the shooter’s manifesto, “The Great Replacement”. The basis for the banning is that the manifesto tries to inspire murder and terrorism.47

78. That led to debate that free speech was being curtailed. The usual arguments surfaced: Better to trust people to form their own conclusions than suppress hate speech altogether.48

79. The shooter himself confessed he developed his views from the internet. He said: “You will not find the truth anywhere else.” The conclusion he formed was to kill as many Muslims as possible.49

46 “Finsbury Park Mosque links to radical Islamic terrorism”, News.com.au, 19 Jun 2017, https://www.news.com.au/world/europe/finsbury-park-mosque-links-to-radical-islamic- terrorism/news-story/a568aac3ccd955868bca1f1a8c792812 47 “Why it’s a crime to download or print the mosque shooter’s manifesto in New Zealand”, Quartz, 25 Mar 2019, https://qz.com/1579660/new-zealands-manifesto-ban-explained-by-its-chief-censor/ 48 “New Zealand Mosque Terror Attacks Sparks Free Speech Debate”, Time.com, 24 Mar 2019, https://time.com/5557743/new-zealand-shootings-free-speech/ 49 “In Christchurch, Signs Point to a Gunman Steeped in Internet Trolling”, The New York Times, 15 Mar 2019, https://www.nytimes.com/2019/03/15/world/asia/new-zealand-gunman-christchurch.html

19 80. At the United Nations in February 2019, the United Nations Secretary-General, Antonio Guterres, called hate speech a “menace to democratic values, social stability, peace.” He pointed out the dangers of allowing hate speech to move into the mainstream. He said that: “With each broken norm, the pillars of humanity are weakened,”. He has assigned a UN Team to scale up response to hate speech, and present a global plan of action, on a fast-track basis.50

81. We are told regularly that we should be more like the US or the UK, which set the gold standard for free speech. But their experiences suggest that serious consequences can follow when you are lax about hate speech.

V. DEALING WITH HATE SPEECH – OUR EXPERIENCE

82. What is our experience? Our experience recognises that race and religion are fault lines and involve gut issues, which can be very emotive.

83. The 2016 CNA-IPS survey showed that race and religion play a large role in the personal decisions of Singaporeans.51 If they feel their race or religion is under attack, the potential for violence increases.

84. Mr Lee Kuan Yew has said:

50 “End Mainstreaming of Hate, Secretary-General Tells Human Rights Council, Stressing Also That ‘World Cannot Wait Two Centuries’ to Close Economic Gender Gap”, António Guterres, UN Press Statement, 25 Feb 2019. 51 M. Mathews, Channel NewsAsia-Institute of Policy Studies Survey on Race Relations, Aug 2016.

“No amount of troops would be able to stop the trouble if there was real hatred between the different communities. The decisive factor would be dependent upon the goodwill between neighbours.”52

85. We prohibit hate speech. We also take quick action when there is hate speech. The speaker will be advised to stop. ISD will take action depending on the severity of what was has been said and the possible consequences. Of course, the person who crystallised our approach on this was the late Mr Lee Kuan Yew. In 1999, reflecting back, he said this:

“We did the easier part, getting raw, basic clashes to be muted, distributing the population into mixed housing estates, sending them to the same schools, preventing them from segregating.

It will take much more to get them to finally accept each other and begin to trust each other. And it takes just one mishap and you will find segregation begins all over again…

The past is valuable in telling us how we got here, and having us understand what are our perils, what are our fault lines, and do not mistake them. They are not going to disappear in 20, 30, 40 years. But if we are aware of it, it is like living with

52 J. Drysdale, “Singapore, Struggle for Success”, Marshall Cavendish International (Asia) Pte Ltd, 2010.

21 an earthquake fault. We can build buildings which may be able to stand the shocks…

And I say, let us find common ground, because those are the cards that we were dealt with... So, having gone through that stress, we came to the conclusion that we have to be the opposite, tolerant of each other, accommodative, multi-racial, multi-lingual, multi-religious, multi-cultural. In other words, I am not foisting myself on you.”53

86. PM Lee Hsien Loong, in 1987, also set out our approach. He said then that:

(a) The most straightforward way to destabilise Singapore is to foment racial and religious discord.

(b) In a fragile, vulnerable multi-racial society, we can never assume that free and open discourse will magically lead to truth and enlightenment.

(d) The 1950 Maria Hertogh riots led to 18 killed, 173 wounded.

(e) In 1964, a Malay language newspaper alleged that the Chinese majority were suppressing the rights of the Muslim Malay minority. This ended in riots sparked off by a

53 “Singapore 21: Together, We Make the Difference”, Singapore 21 Committee, 6 May 1999

22 procession to mark Prophet Mohammed's birthday. 36 people were killed.

(f) The Malaysian riots of May 13th 1969 – 50 years ago next month – spread to Singapore.

(g) The Singapore Government has been unwavering in pursuing multi-racial policies. We have always been firm in taking action against chauvinist agitators; as a result, since 1969, all the races have lived together in peace and harmony.

87. He said, this is an important line, in race we come up against deep, atavistic human instincts which will take generations to overcome. They can be whipped up and once blood has been shed, the years of nation building we have done will come to naught.54

88. The experiences of other countries show that when you have clear, firm laws prohibiting hate speech, and deal fairly with all communities, then you can start building a multi-racial, multi- religious and harmonious society.

89. I think and I hope that there will be agreement in this House that hate speech, whatever form it takes – whether religious, political, entertainment – in all its different forms, is unacceptable.

54 “When the Press Misinforms”, Address by Brig-Gen Lee Hsien Loong, Minister for Trade and Industry and 2nd Minister for Defence (Services), Singapore at the 40th World Congress of Newspaper Publishers on 26 May 1987, Helsinki.

23 90. And we should continue to prohibit hate speech, and deal with it firmly in the way we have done so far.

VI. OFFENSIVE SPEECH

91. That brings me to my next point - how should we deal with offensive speech? Speech does not fall into neat categories.

92. Hate, non-hate, offensive. It is a continuum; a spectrum.55 There can be acceptable commentary on race and religion. Offensive speech can segue into hate speech. And they overlap obviously.

93. If you refer back to the definition of hate speech which I gave earlier – “all forms of expression which spread, incite, promote, or justify racial hatred, xenophobia, or other forms of hatred based on intolerance” - it covers offensive speech.

94. Remember the German Criminal Code which covers insults.

95. At the same time, there may be factual observations which are necessary. For example, in a multi-racial, multi-religious society, we have to speak frankly about the issues facing one community or other, in order to focus on the issues and try to find solutions.

96. There may be a need to point out the differences between the races for a variety of public policy reasons. That sort of speech is necessary and unavoidable.

55 S. Benesch, “Countering Dangerous Speech: New Ideas for Genocide Prevention”, United States Holocaust Memorial Museum, 2014.

97. I am not referring to that here.

98. The point is, should we allow offensive speech in general mainstream discourse, even if it is not hate speech?

99. Say for example, you can regularly, in public discourse (including theatre, songs, politics and religion), joke, insult, laugh at, or even denigrate people of another race or religion. What do you think will happen?

100. Take offensive theatre. US ventriloquist Jeff Dunham’s puppets include Jose the Mexican immigrant and Achmed the dead terrorist. He peddles in offensive views of various races and women. He performs to sell-out crowds in America, and is one of the highest paid comedians in the world. His audience are mainly white Americans.56

101. Members may remember a lady – Amy Cheong – who made nasty comments about Malays here who have their weddings in void decks.

“How many fcuking days do Malay weddings at void decks go on for??? Fcuk!!! Pay for a real wedding u asshole, maybe then the divorce rate wont be so high! How can society allow ppl to get married for 50 bucks? kns!”

56 “How Jeff Dunham’s offensive puppets became the voice of Trump’s America”, The Guardian, 8 May 2018, https://www.theguardian.com/stage/2018/may/08/jeff-dunham-offensive-puppets-voice- trumps-america-achmed-dead-terrorist-jose-mexican-immigrant

102. If this sort of expression becomes common, in public discourse, what happens?

103. If we normalise offensive speech, after a while, the tone and texture of public discourse will change.

104. Giving offence to others will become normalised. Offensive speech, in the long run, can also lead to dehumanisation.

105. There is emerging work in the field of neuroscience – that if an individual observes another member of his own species experiencing pain, he would experience non-conscious neuro- simulation, which leads to empathy.57 But such empathy is only triggered when the person is part of your in-group.58

106. Offensive speech, which implies that their target lacks morals, lacks intelligence, lacks dignity, in fact is even more insidious. Listeners may get a false sense that they are not internalising these sorts of descriptions because they are funny. But you are being drip-fed the notion that the out-group is stupid, ignorant, immoral, sinful. This ultimately leads to dehumanisation.

107. When you think of them as sub-human, you may no longer be bound by moral constraints. Subconsciously, the brain won’t feel empathy for them.59

57 Murrow and Murrow, “A hypothetical neurological association between dehumanization and human right abuses”. 58 Ibid. 59 Goff et al., “Not Yet Human”, 292 – 306.

108. It is a slower process compared with hate speech. Hate speech moves on turbo charge. Offensive speech is on the same trajectory, but slower. It can take time, but the end result is the same.60

109. So if you look at our pledge and ideals:

“We, the citizens of Singapore, pledge ourselves as one united people, regardless of race, language or religion”

110. 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, and attacked?

111. Over time, the effect will be felt in every aspect of life –schools, jobs, neighbourhoods, politics. The environment will be conducive for discrimination, and eventually violence.

112. That is why we have to have restrictions on offensive speech, even when it is strictly speaking, not hate speech.

113. And this is an important point and I hope this is another point on which Members of this House can agree. Some people ask me what is the purpose of this motion, because they think that at the end of it, we must have some legislation. No. This is a debate simpliciter, we set out our approach, we set out what has guided our approach, we want to hear the MPs because it is important for

60 Ibid.

27 the next generation of Singaporeans to understand a bit of the history to see what the ideals are, and how we should go forward. And if you want the approach to be changed, then we should hear it in the House and that will educate the young people one way or the other.

114. So it is important that we have a proper discussion, and that is the only purpose of this debate and motion. The question is if you agree that there must be restrictions on offensive speech, then the question is what should be the extent of the restrictions?

VII. DEALING WITH OFFENSIVE SPEECH

115. On this, do we think Singaporeans are sui generis, that unlike others, we will not engage in offensive speech and hate speech because that is our inherent nature? If we had not tried so hard for so long to keep it under check, through laws, and worked very hard on racial and religious harmony, will we have the situation we have today?

116. Let me give you a few examples.

117. In 2009, a couple was charged for distributing highly offensive material on the Prophet, on Islam, and they sent it to Muslims.

118. Nicholas Lim, a young man, made a post with reference to Malays – “can cabs carry uncaged pets”.

28 119. Benjamin Koh posted - “Muslims are pigs”, “mosques are brothels” and displayed a pig’s head picture on a Halal look-alike logo.

120. Gan Huai Shi – referred to Malays as “rodents” and ridiculed pilgrimage to Mecca.

121. And of course, Amy Cheong again. She was a Malaysian residing in Singapore.

122. I can give you other examples, but I can also say thankfully it is much less in Singapore compared with other countries. Most people would think this sort of speech is unacceptable. And again, why have we not had the levels of such speech that you find in other countries?

123. Our position so far has been practical, very nuanced. We take the view that offensive speech should generally not be allowed in public discourse.

124. And the current legal framework: the Penal Code - Sections 298, 298A; the Maintenance of Religious Harmony Act (MRHA) - Section 8; the Sedition Act - Sections 3, 4; set out the legal frame. But as I have said repeatedly, the legal framework is just the legal framework. You have got to walk with people to also internalise it n day-to-day living. The lived reality of Singaporeans.

29 125. This legal framework, however, requires us to assess, inter alia, the impact of the offensive words on the feelings of the targeted groups.

126. And how do we approach it? First, we look at the words and the material – how offensive are they? Second, we look at what is the likely impact of the speech. How, for example, would the community which is the target of the offensive speech react?

127. In this context, let me make one point clear again. I am speaking about offensive speech in relation to race, religion, and in the context of preserving racial and religious harmony, preventing unrest and violence.

128. In a broader context, material may be offensive for other reasons. These reasons include social mores and values, child abuse and so on.

129. The regulation of content in the broader context is handled by IMDA. MHA deals, more narrowly, with the prevention of violence, and the security aspects arising from offensive speech and directed at racial and religious divides.

130. So let me now deal with these two points.

30 A. The Words Themselves

131. First, we look at the words themselves – are the words in themselves derogatory, offensive, insulting to a particular race or religion?

132. For an illustration of offensive words – Amos Yee for example, targeting the Muslim community:

(i) “Muslim community is dumb. They follow a sky wizard, and a paedophile.”

(ii) “Christians are cunts, Buddhists are delusional. Taoists are just plain stupid, Islam is absolutely fucking horrible.”

133. Of course the U.S has given him asylum - we are quite happy about that.

134. For an illustration of offensive lyrics – we have Hozier, “Take me to church/ I’ll worship like a dog at the shrine of your lies/I’ll tell you my sins and you can sharpen your knife” and so on. Plenty of material all around.

B. The Likely Impact of the Speech: The Platform of Delivery, Occasion, Reach

135. So what is the second factor that we consider? What is the likely impact of the speech? Who says it? It has more salience, for example, if it was said from the pulpit, at an election rally.

136. Consider the possible range of actions:

(a) Religious leaders criticising another religion, telling his people that people of particular religion should be ostracised.

(b) A political leader saying that people of a certain religion or race should not have rights in Singapore, that these people are not good for Singapore.

(c) Throwing a pig’s head into a mosque. It happened in Philadelphia in 2015.61 And then the mosque had received a voicemail: “God is a pig. God is pork.” It has happened in regional countries more recently as well.

(d) Entertainment which is denigrating and disrespectful of a race or religion.

137. The impact, therefore, will be different, depending on the who says it and the context.

138. We also consider the occasion, the nature of the event, and the reach - there is a difference between saying it to 50 people in a private setting compared to publicising it generally.

61 “Pig’s head thrown at Philadelphia mosque, mayor decries bigotry”, Reuters, 8 Dec 2015, https://www.reuters.com/article/us-philadelphia-mosque-idUSKBN0TR0QU20151208

32 139. So the assessment of impact is partly subjective, and based on the nature of the words used, other factors, and the likely impact on the targeted community.

140. We also have to accept that different religions have entirely different histories, traditions, theologies. And that shapes their outlook, even today. And each group reacts differently to different things.

141. So, when considering impact, it is not just the immediate reaction. The key issues are the security implications of the reaction. That could be immediate, it could also be longer-term, by deepening fault lines and creating more tensions. That is the context of the earlier part of my speech. So I do not want to repeat all of that, but as long as we understand this part fits in with what I said earlier.

142. So we have to assess. The Government is neutral.

143. We proactively accommodate different groups, we recognise their different histories and traditions, and we make practical adjustments. And on that basis, we take a practical approach to assess the impact on, and the reaction of, the different communities. It often involves an assessment of the potential reaction of the targeted community when we have to decide to allow or ban something.

144. I will also caution - we have to assess the impact and reaction of the majority in the specific community, and the security implications

33 of that opinion, which I have referred to earlier. We have to assess where the weight of mainstream opinion lies. And we cannot be directed by the viewpoint of a person, or persons who are extremely sensitive.

145. Really, the approach has to be guided by common sense. And again, I would like to hear from Members whether we should change this approach.

146. There are two possibilities, which will allow an absolute objective approach. Either ban everything that is deemed insulting or offensive by anyone, or allow everything that is insulting or offensive. And I explained why that will eventually lead to trouble.

147. Members will see that either absolute approach is really not doable.

148. So I think that members will agree with me that the absolute approach is undesirable. So that brings us back to the pragmatic approach that the Government takes as the only tenable one for our society. It can be a bit messy, but it has worked so far, with relative success, and with a bit of give and take.

C. Examples of How We Have Applied Our Approach

(i) Books, Films

149. So how has this approach been applied in practice? Let’s look at books. We banned Satanic Verses in 1989. It is considered a

34 literary work by many. However, every Muslim country banned it, and our mainstream Muslim community took offence.

150. But we have allowed other books, films even when other religious communities were unhappy, based also on our security assessments. For example, western traditions accept wider levels of contestation, and Singaporeans I think will agree that it is unthinkable to ban a lot of western literature and philosophy because some may find it objectionable. For instance, would we ban Bertrand Russell’s “Why I Am Not A Christian” – because it is critical of the faith? Of course not. Would we proscribe Edward Gibbons’ “Decline + Fall of Roman Empire” because it had a famous section detailing what he thought were the deleterious effects of Christianity on civilisation? Again, we do not ban that. We have to take into account the context.

151. Here the context of what is acceptable in Western traditions is relevant. We are not as liberal as many Western societies and our approach differs. But we have allowed some books, movies, performances and concerts – even though a variety of different religious groups have found them objectionable.

152. In doing that, we assess the reaction of the community, whether there are immediate security issues or longer-term security issues by building in deeper fault lines, or we think that even though they are unhappy, this is not going to contribute to the deepening of fault lines. So the reaction of the community itself is part of the mix in assessing security issues, as I have explained earlier.

(ii) Foreign Preachers

153. If you look at our approach to foreign preachers, in 2017, MOM, in consultation with MHA, rejected the applications of two foreign Christian preachers to speak in Singapore. 62

(i) One of them had described Allah as "a false god", asked for prayers for those “held captive in the darkness of Islam”, and referred to Buddhists as “Tohuw people” - which is a Hebrew word for “lost, lifeless, confused and spiritually barren” individuals who can be saved only by converting to Christianity.

(ii) The other preacher spoke about the "the evils of Islam”, and "the malevolent nature of Islam and Mohammed" and more things. He also called Islam "not a religion of peace", "an incredibly confused religion", interested in "world domination". He also called Islam "not a religion of peace", "an incredibly confused religion", interested in "world domination".

154. We also banned two Muslim preachers. One is Mufti Menk, a Zimbabwean Islamic preacher. (video)

62 “2 foreign Christian preachers barred from speaking in Singapore for anti-Islam, anti-Buddhist comments”, Channel NewsAsia, 8 Sep 2017, https://www.channelnewsasia.com/news/singapore/2- foreign-christian-preachers-barred-from-speaking-in-singapore-9199180

36 (i) His view: a big sin and crime for a Muslim is to wish a non- Muslim ‘Merry Christmas’ or ‘Happy Deepavali’.

155. Very charismatic and powerful, but that is why we banned him - segregational and divisive, he said we shouldn’t greet someone else. So we have HDB flats, we live next to each other. The Muslim doesn’t greet the Christian and the Christian doesn’t greet the Muslim or Hindu. What happens?

156. Second video to be shown - Dr Zakir Naik. (video)

(i) Quote: “There are many Jews who are good to Muslims, but as a whole … The Koran tells us, as a whole, they will be our staunchest enemy”.

(ii) Quote: “If there is a choice between a Muslim and a non-Muslim, a Muslim should “100%” vote for a Muslim during political elections”.

157. That was set in Indonesia, just before the elections for the governor. We have banned him. He also said Muslims should not take Jews and Christians as “protectors” or “friends”. Otherwise, they will become Jews or Christians. Make what you will.

158. One is in Zimbabwe and the other is now, I think, in Malaysia. Very eloquent.

37 159. Thankfully, Singaporeans take a different view.

160. A 2019 IPS study shows that 82% of our people believe that a religious leader should not be influencing people’s votes in elections. 82% of Muslims in Singapore also believe that.

161. So for foreign preachers, we disallow them even if they may not say something offensive in Singapore. If they have been offensive elsewhere, or if their offensive teachings are available online, if we allow them into Singapore, we would then allow them to build up a following in Singapore. So we do not allow them. Because eventually, that can become seriously divisive, like not shaking hands, not greeting each other, not voting for candidates of another

race or religion.

162. Sometimes we won’t know everything the preacher has said elsewhere. And sometimes we have to make a judgement on the degree to which what he has said elsewhere is offensive.

(iii) Preachers in Singapore

163. Now, let me now turn to how we have dealt with preachers in Singapore.

164. In 2017, a preacher in a local mosque – Imam Nalla – recited a supplication that called for God to grant victory (some people say it’s help) over Jews and Christians during Friday prayers. This passage is not in the Quran. A video of his supplication went online.

38 Imam Nalla was charged. He was fined $4,000. He was on a Work Pass and he was asked to leave.63

165. Why did we take this step? I explained it in Parliament. Charging a cleric is a serious step. On the other hand, I was concerned again about the normalising effect of such a sermon.

166. If we allow an Imam to exhort victory against Christians, can we prevent Christian preachers from saying similar things about Muslims, or followers of other religions? Or taking some passages in the Old Testament out of context? What then will be the consequence if this becomes a regular occurrence in religious sermons of different faiths?

167. These things have a momentum, action and reaction. Let’s say we have this on a regular basis, what do you think the atmosphere will be like in our common meeting places?

168. So the Imam was charged. A line was drawn. He apologised to the Christian leaders and the Rabbi of Singapore.

169. To show that this was a matter of principle, and that we accepted that the Imam meant no actual ill will or malice, I met him openly in a mosque, after his conviction, and had breakfast with him, before he was asked to leave Singapore. But the principle was established.

63 “Imam fined $4k over offensive remarks, will be repatriated”, The Straits Times, 4 Apr 2017, https://www.straitstimes.com/singapore/imam-fined-4k-over-offensive-remarks-will-be-repatriated

39 170. In 2010, we had a Christian pastor, insulting, trivialising, and ridiculing the beliefs of Buddhists and Taoists. A gentleman by the name of Rony Tan. It was recorded on video and uploaded. ISD spoke with him. He apologised. 64

171. In 2010, we had another Christian pastor, Mark Ng, denigrating Taoist beliefs – comparing praying to Taoist deities to “seeking protection from secret society gangsters”. ISD spoke with him. He and his church apologised. 65

172. Mr Speaker, I repeat: This Government makes no apologies for its zero tolerance of bigotry.

(iv) Should Government be hands off – because it is secular?

173. So should the Government take a hands-off approach? Some people have argued that Singapore is secular. So we should not be banning material that is offensive to Christians or offensive to other religious groups because we are a secular Government. They ask why are we intervening, and say leave it to the people.

174. Let me respond by referring to the French example.

64 “Pastor apologises personally”, J. Fang Asiaone, 10 Feb 2010, https://www.asiaone.com/News/AsiaOne%2BNews/Singapore/Story/A1Story20100210- 197786.html 65 “Pastor apologies for insensitive comments”, AsiaOne, 15 Jun 2010, https://www.asiaone.com/News/AsiaOne%2BNews/Singapore/Story/A1Story20100615- 222103.html

40 175. France has this ideology that the State will not intervene in religious matters because it is secular.66 They term it laicite.

176. French secularity means that people can publish material that is offensive to any religion.

177. Take for example cartoons published by Charlie Hebdo [shown on screen]:

(i) Cartoon on the Trinity – Father, Son, Holy Spirit – having anal sex.

(ii) Cartoon of Pope holding a condom like a sacrament, saying “This is my body”.

(iii) Cartoon of Pope saying: “That dung/manure! I had my doubts” under the headline: “God doesn’t exist”.

(iv) Cartoon on Islam: a van running over two people, both dead and lying in blood. Caption: “Islam, religion of peace… eternal.”

(v) Cartoon of Muslim scholar accused of rape with an erection. Caption: “I am the sixth pillar of Islam”.

178. When you talk about free speech in broad terms, people don’t really understand sometimes what they are talking about. These cartoons drill right down to the brass tacks, for what we are talking about, and whether you think free speech should extend to this sort of speech.

66 T. Asad, “Trying to Understand French Secularism”, in Political Islam – A Critical Reader, ed. Frederic Volpi, Routledge, 2010, 494 – 526.

179. The Catholics were deeply unhappy. They brought law suits.

180. ISIS didn’t sue. They used it as an excuse to attack Charlie Hebdo in the name of Islam.67 There is no excuse for what ISIS did.

181. After the Charlie Hebdo attack, Bilahari Kausikan, our then

Ambassador-at-Large, gave a speech.68 He said that the French state had hobbled itself by its own absolutist belief systems. He said the state should be able to stop such publications.

182. The EU and French Ambassadors responded. They wrote to the Straits Times Forum pages. They said Europe did impose some constraints against the abuse of freedom of speech, especially against anti-Semitic speech.69

183. Bilahari responded and pointed out the double standards. They protected one group (the Jews) while standing by the vilification of another religion (Islam) in the name of freedom of speech.70 In fact one can add, the vilification of the Catholic church as well.

184. Essentially the French position is that the right of anyone to vilify a religion is absolute. I think you can legitimately ask – why should that right to publish override the right of a religious group not to

67 “Terrorists Strike Charlie Hebdo Newspaper in Paris, Leaving 12 Dead”, D. Bilefsky, M.D.L. Baume, The New York Times, 7 Jan 2015, https://www.nytimes.com/2015/01/08/world/europe/charlie-hebdo-paris-shooting.html 68 “A practical not ideological approach to human rights”, B. Kausikan, The Straits Times, 4 May 2015, https://www.straitstimes.com/opinion/a-practical-not-ideological-approach-to-human-rights 69 “Freedom of speech: Europe has measures to curb abuse”, M. Pulch, B. Dubertret, The Straits Times, 9 May 2015. 70 “Take care not to head down false path”, B. Kausikan, The Straits Times, 12 May 2015.

42 have its texts, beliefs, practices ridiculed? And what about obligations of citizens to preserve harmony, unity? Don’t citizens have such obligations? And if free speech is really absolute, then why prevent anti-Semitic speech?

185. Should we adopt the same ‘secular’ approach that France takes? Take a hands off approach, and allow these cartoons, offensive material, ridicule, hate speech, to be directed at any race or religion?

186. This secular Government is completely neutral. It does not privilege any religious group. Nor does it allow any religious group to be insulted and attacked.

187. This secular Government guarantees freedom of religion. It protects all, including minorities, from threats and violence. It works closely with IROs, IRCCs, and religious leaders to ensure a common understanding of what binds us as Singaporeans, that we all work towards religious harmony.

188. That is the fundamental assurance one gets in Singapore. It doesn’t matter who you are or what religion you believe in. You are free to believe in any religion, including not to believe. You and members of your faith will be protected from hate speech and unacceptable offensive speech. The State will strive, in every way possible, to achieve racial and religious harmony.

189. That is the secularity we adopt. That is different from saying that the Government should take a hands-off approach in the name of

43 secularity, and allow people to spread hate speech and promote violence.

190. The French approach is illustrative of another interesting point. It is guided by a dark history that the rest of Europe shares. Specifically, the anti-Semitism which led to the Holocaust, and the complicity of (almost all) European countries in the persecution of Jews during WWII.71 Thus in some European countries, it is an offence to even deny the Holocaust. This includes Austria, Belgium, the Czech Republic, France, Germany, Luxembourg, Poland, Romania and Slovakia.72

191. Does one have to wait until a Holocaust-type of nightmare against a particular group before acting against hate speech?

192. It is not for us to say the French or European approaches are right or wrong. Europe has a long tradition and a proud heritage. But our experience of nationhood and the value system of our respective cultural traditions convinces us the European approach will not work for us.

193. Now, Europe is grappling with other issues – immigration, multiculturalism. Anti-Semitism is again on the rise in Europe.73

71 Asad, “Trying to Understand French Secularism”. 72 W.I. Brustein, R.D. King, “Anti-Semitism in Europe Before the Holocaust”, International Political Science Review, Vol. 25(1), 2004, 35 – 53. 73 “Antisemitism rising sharply across Europe, latest figures show”, J. Henley, The Guardian, 15 Feb 2019, https://www.theguardian.com/news/2019/feb/15/antisemitism-rising-sharply-across-europe- latest-figures-show

44 194. Extreme right-wing populist movements (in some cases, neo- fascist) are rising across Europe.74 Obviously, the liberal values of racial and religious tolerance are not shared by a fairly significant number of Europeans at this point in time. Tolerance of hate speech does not breed tolerance of differences.

195. We have to decide what works for us. Singapore is only 54 years old this year. Racial and religious tolerance is slowly being rejected in older societies than ours, which claim to be liberal. Prudent for us not to take Singapore’s values, unique and new in history, for granted.

196. You look at our history and our fault lines.

197. The 2016 IPS Survey on Race Relations was generally positive. But some findings are worth highlighting.

74 W.A. Galston, “The rise of European populism and the collapse of the center-left”, Brookings, 8 Mar 2018, https://www.brookings.edu/blog/order-from-chaos/2018/03/08/the-rise-of-european- populism-and-the-collapse-of-the-center-left/

45 Table 1: Majority Chinese Privilege

Majority (Chinese) Privilege Non-Chinese are more likely to believe that there is majority privilege/advantage.

Strongly Agree / Agree

% of Total % by Race C - 49% Being of the Majority Race is M - 63% an advantage in Singapore 53% I - 62% Society O - 72%

Table 2: 40 % of minorities felt majority race was demanding for more rights

Race Based Rights

 About 30% of respondents felt that the races were pushing for their cultural rights.

 About 40% of minority respondents felt that the majority race was demanding for more rights.

 Nearly 30% of the majority race, felt minority races were demanding for more with nearly 40% of Malays agreeing to this too.

Strongly Strongly Disagree / Agree / Disagree Agree 30% The majority race has been getting too C - 26% demanding in their push for their 70% M - 45% racial/cultural rights. I - 35% 29% Minorities have been getting too C - 29% demanding in their push for their 71% M - 39% racial/cultural rights. I - 25%

46 Table 3: Relevance of Policies

Relevance of Policies

 More than 70% of Respondents viewed various policies meant to safeguard racial/religious harmony as helpful in building trust between races.

 Racial Harmony Day Celebrations were viewed positively by most respondents. Helps build trust Fosters greater Safeguards between the interaction between Minority Rights races races Maintenance of Religious 72% 67% 72% Harmony Act CMIO Racial 69% 65% 71% Categorisation Racial Harmony Day 85% 87% 75% Celebrations

Table 4: Racism as a Persisting Concern

Racism as a Persisting Concern  Nearly half the respondents acknowledge the persistence of racism as a problem.

 This recognition was consistent across age groups.

 Chinese respondents were just as likely to acknowledge this as Malays. Racism may have been a problem in the past, but it is not an important problem today.

47 Strongly Disagree 11%

Disagree 36%

Agree 43%

Strongly Agree 10%

Table 5: Perceived Racism of Self & Close Circle

Very Racist / Hardly Racist / Close Friends Moderately Mildly Racist Not Racist Racist

All Participants 8% 30% 61%

Chinese 9% 33% 58%

Malay 9% 25% 66%

Indian 3% 19% 77%

Table 6: Openness to Race Discussion

Openness to Race Discussion  About two thirds of respondents noted that discussions of race were disconcerting in that it could be offensive and lead to tension.

 About half of respondents (including minorities) cited that minorities are being over-sensitive about racial issues. Strongly Strongly Disagree / Agree / Disagree Agree Talking about racial issues causes 34% 66% unnecessary tension.

48 It is very hard to discuss issues related to race without someone getting 36% 64% offended. Minorities get too sensitive when people 50% 50% talk about racial issues.

198. 63% of Malays, and 62% of Indians, and 72% of others thought that there was a majority Chinese privilege. Even nearly 50% of Chinese thought there was such privilege. About 40% of minorities felt that the majority race was demanding for more rights.

199. If you look at relevance of policies, thankfully, most of our citizens felt that our existing legislation, Racial Harmony Day, Maintenance of Religious Harmony Act, were very good things to have.

200. In terms of racism as a persisting concern, nearly half of the respondents acknowledged the persistence of racism as a problem. Even Chinese, when asked about themselves (their close circles), think 42% are either mildly racist, or racist.

201. Two-thirds of all respondents felt that discussions on race were disconcerting because they could be offensive, and lead to tension.

202. So you can see we have done well. But the fault lines remain, and they run deep. And they can be exploited.

49 203. What do you think about offensive speech? Studies have shown, we react differently to people from different races. “The human brain fires differently, when dealing with people outside of one’s

own race”.75 There has been a study on that. We are more likely to

trust those from the same race as us.76 I quote, “Shutting our eyes to the complexities of race does not make them disappear, but does make it harder to see that colour blindness often creates more

problems than it solves”.77

204. Look at the former Yugoslavia. Muslims and Christians had lived side by side for nearly 500 years (and not just 54 years). They have a substantially similar genetic makeup, and a shared history. 78 But when Yugoslavia broke up, there was genocide and atrocities.

VIII. CHRISTCHURCH SHOOTING

205. I turn now to New Zealand, which just suffered its worst ever mass shooting.

206. A right-wing terrorist acted out his hate-filled ideology in a bid to sow fear among the Muslim community in New Zealand.

75 “Human brain recognises and reacts to race”, University of Toronto Scarborough, Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, reproduced in the Science Daily, Apr 2010. 76 S.S. Smith, “Race and Trust”, Annual Review of Sociology, 20 Apr 2010. 77 A.H. Windfield, “Color-Blindness is Counterproductive”, The Atlantic, 13 Sep 2015. 78 “Bosnia: - Why are they killing each other? - How did the crisis start? - How will it all end?: A plain person's guide to the new tragedy of the Balkans”, The Independent, 16 Aug 1992, https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/bosnia-why-are-t…-crisis-start-how-will-it-all-end-a- plain-persons-1540720.html

50 207. The response by the New Zealand PM Jacinda Ardern, and the people of New Zealand have been quite amazing. There is much for us to learn from them.

208. PM Ardern embraced the Muslim community. She showed she sincerely shared in their pain and loss.

209. The people of New Zealand have displayed great strength and resilience. They have shown the world how to respond to a terrorist attack. Not with hate, but with rejection of the message of the terrorist.

210. In Singapore, we have been building up the resilience of our citizens through the SGSecure movement.

211. We don’t have the history that New Zealand does, and our population is much more diverse. Nevertheless, I hope that as a nation, we can respond in the same way in the face of terror.

212. New Zealand has a small Muslim population, compared to us. Nonetheless, the New Zealand Police have in recent years taken steps to understand and engage their Muslim community. 79 They employed a number of our officers for this purpose, including two Muslim officers from our Security Command who have relocated there.

79 “First ever Ramadan Iftar dinner ceremony held by NZ Police to celebrate diversity”, NZ Herald, 1 Jun 2018, https://www.nzherard.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=12062687

51 IX. WATAIN

213. Now, let me turn to the Watain concert.

214. The lyrics and beliefs of the band denigrate Christianity. This is seriously offensive.

215. Their own fans acknowledge this. It is natural therefore that Christians would take offence.

216. IMDA received the application from the organiser at the end of December 2018. MHA was informed of the application. After considering it, MHA told IMDA that MHA objected to the concert.

217. IMDA then requested a reconsideration of MHA’s position. IMDA also proposed its detailed licensing conditions and requirements for the concert. The restrictions for the concert were:

(i) The concert would be classified R18;

(ii) Potentially sensitive songs have to be removed;

(iii) No use of religious symbols during the concert;

(iv) No references to religion in the band’s on-stage dialogue;

(v) Its content should not denigrate any faith or promote cult practices, nor advocate or promote violence in any way; and

(vi) There would be no ritualistic or satanic acts.

223. MHA then informed IMDA that, while it was still concerned, it would leave it to IMDA to decide on issuing such a restricted licence. IMDA issued the restricted licence on 5 March. On 7 March 2019, MHA asked IMDA to consider cancelling the concert. IMDA cancelled the licence in view of MHA’s serious concerns.

224. The initial assessment was that, if the band did not perform offensively in Singapore, it should be acceptable. However, two days before the concert, MHA received reports of mainstream Christians being very concerned and offended. My officers met with Christian leaders and leaders of other religions. Our MPs, both Christian and non-Christian, also gave feedback. Many others also provided feedback.

225. Given that many Christians felt this was deeply offensive and denigrating, MHA advised IMDA to cancel the concert. It was my decision that MHA should so advise IMDA.

226. My officers and I took into account both the reaction of the Christian community and the broader security implications of that reaction in the medium and longer term.

53 227. We made a judgment call. The band comes from a largely Christian Country – 67% of Swedes belong to the Church of Sweden.80 With the restrictions imposed, it was assessed that the concert should be alright.

228. Our assessment was however, different from what actually transpired. When you make assessments, sometimes the reality will turn out to be different.

229. Why were the Christians offended such that they did not want Watain to perform in Singapore under any condition? Because of what Watain stood for; because of its philosophy.

230. We need to understand a bit about Watain.

231. The frontman of Watain, Erik Danielsson, has said this about his creation: He accepts that the:

“Movement by default has potential to attract fanatical people” with relatively extreme and controversial ideas, that much has been clear since the beginning. Anyone who believes that is wrong or strange has a very naïve conception of Black Metal.”

80 “Medlemmar i Svenska kyrkan i förhållande till folkmängd den 31.12.2018 per församling, kommun och län samt riket”, Svenska kyrkan.

54 232. He adds:

“I would have hated to see Black Metal become a political movement where the lawlessness, violence, crime, madness would have been motivated by anything else than the love for the Devil and the primal urge to express it.”

233. So he knows that his music attracts fanatics with extreme ideas. He is aware of the lawlessness, violence, crime, madness, that can follow. He says:

“We are talking about lawless darkness, we are not talking about ethics and morals, we are talking about the very reverse side of this world, where no laws exist, where no morals exist...”

234. His views on Christians:

“I wish we could have a little more daring opponents and enemies. All of our enemies are Christian sheep who don’t dare to confront their enemy. We go about doing our thing, pissing in their living rooms while they sit still and watch their TV shows.”

235. Music does have the potential to make people do bad things. He was asked whether he feared or was concerned that a fan may misunderstand the material, go to a mall and start shooting people. This was his response:

55 “That wouldn’t be a misunderstanding, that would be taking things in the very right way, and I totally encourage any kind of terrorist acts committed in the name of Watain, absolutely, that’s the way rock and roll works.”

236. The interviewer then repeated the question, saying:

“I have to stop you right here. Are you sure you want that published?”

237. He doubled down:

“Yes, sure, absolutely. We’ve always been encouraging music to take a physical form, and that’s what happened in Norway in the early 90’s when churches were burned, and it happened many other times as well. To me it’s the very natural consequences of rock n’ roll, in the end, being the Devil’s music. It consists of energies that, at some point, need to manifest and they will, no matter if people want it or not, they will manifest.”

238. In another part of the interview, asked about church burnings, he replied:

“It’s not the act of tearing down a building, that doesn’t matter, what matters is the effect that it has, and the effect that those church burnings had on the people was terrible! People were f------afraid, they were sh-tting in their pants, because, according to the media, there were a bunch of Satanists

56 burning down churches and murdering people. That’s the outcome, not the wooden building with a cross on it that goes into flames, it’s the message, the iron grip that takes hold around people’s throats. That’s what was important about the church burnings, and that’s what will be important any time a church is set on fire.”

239. He was also asked about the band committing crime:

“What would it take for Watain to go beyond onstage rituals and into the realm of criminal activity?”

240. He responded:

“There's never been any line that we've been afraid to cross... To put it simply, our stance on crime is as simple as this: We have never been interested in following anyone else's rules or ethics or moral codes. We have never been particularly interested in following anyone but our own true will. And, of course, when you feel that way, you have to cross certain lines that are considered illegal in society or at least very offensive. But if you have something that you truly love and that you truly believe in, then the fact that you'll step on someone else's toes when you do what you, that has to be a secondary thing that you consider. The most important thing to consider is that you're doing what you're here to do.”81

81 “Watain Interview”, J Salmeron, 15 Aug 2012; “Watain: Storm of the Anti-Christ”, Kory Grow, Revolver, 1 Jul 2013; “Deforming the Cord of Life: An Interview with Watain”, J Salmeron, 22 Jul 2013; “Watain's Erik Danielsson: "There's Never Been Any Line We've Been Afraid To Cross", Jon Wiederhorn, Revolver, 5 Jan 2018; “Interview: Watain”, This is Black Metal, 4 Sep 2018.

241. I have asked for these quotes to be circulated to Members. To those who say context is important, I agree. That is why I have set out the context, as provided by the band itself. The band’s lyrics are denigrating in and of themselves. But Members can now read them with the background of the philosophy motivating the lyrics. I have reproduced the lyrics in the handout for Members.

242. Members may ask, given all this, why give them permission to perform in the first place? The answer, as I said earlier, is that we had thought if we told them not to perform songs with lyrics offensive to Christians, and imposed the other conditions, and given there were 200 people there, we would strike an appropriate balance.

243. The church leaders whom we spoke with understood our rationale, but nevertheless felt that we should not allow this particular performance. When we concluded this was the mainstream Christian view, and assessed the consequent security issues, we decided the concert had to be cancelled.

244. Our assessment of public sentiment turned out to be correct. Based on a subsequent REACH survey, 60% of the population was aware of the cancellation. 86% of Christians - a majority, agreed with the cancellation. That, I think, is natural. Overall, 64% of all who had heard about the cancellation (Christian and non-Christian) agreed with the cancellation, while 28% thought the concert should not have been cancelled. Amongst Buddhists and Muslims, nearly 70% agreed. And Free Thinkers, less so – 44% agreed.

58 X. ARGUMENTS AGAINST OUR APPROACH

245. I recognise some Singaporeans disagree with the Government.

246. For example, Ms Chew Wei Shan, a former teacher, has set out her views articulately in a post. There were also others. They say the Government is “self-righteously” trying to govern other people’s lives and decisions. They say the audience can listen to metal music without being influenced by a band’s beliefs. NCCS and churches can advise their members not to go to the concert, so no need for a ban./82

247. Seen in isolation, these are valid points. The argument in essence is: Why should I not listen to what I want to? Why should you, the Government, or the Church, tell me what I can or can’t listen to?

248. However, the reality, as we have seen, is not so simple.

249. 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. The issue here is about whether the Government should give Watain a licence to perform publicly in Singapore. And the Government has a responsibility not just to the individuals who like the music, but also

82 Chew Wei Shan’s Facebook Page. 2019. Facebook, 7 Mar 2019; The Online Citizen article “Watain Ban: Rock Music or Religious Cult against our Public Order?” by Joe Sekular, 9 Mar 2019; Facebook post by Andrew Loh, 13 Mar 2019; Facebook Comment by Marc Wang in response to CNA report titled “’I can’t see how we could have agreed to it’: Shanmugam on Watain performing in Singapore”; Facebook post by Khan Osman Sulaiman, 11 Mar 2019; Facebook post by Martyn See, 11 Mar 2019; Facebook post by Ravi MRavi, 11 Mar 2019; Facebook Post by Joshua Ip, 12 Mar 2019; “Watain: Do unto others?”, Bertha Henson, Hertha Harian, 13 March 2019; Facebook Post by Mint Kang on 8 Mar 2019, subsequently shared by All Singapore Stuff, 11 Mar 2019.

59 the majority of Singaporeans who would be offended. And it is not just one Watain concert. If we allowed this concert, we would have to allow other such concerts.

250. And what about other performance arts – drama, and other visual performances? We must allow similar hate or offensive speech, and I think if you see those lyrics and what they say, it goes well into the territory of hate speech. We must allow them, on the principle of fairness.

251. And what about political and religious discourse? Logically, we would have to allow this too, based on the same reasoning.

252. But assume for the time being that we say no to such speech in political, religious discourse, and we only allow it in music and entertainment.

253. You will then still have a lot of hate speech in the mainstream, through entertainment. The question then would be: Do you agree with the evidence that hate speech and hate music can cause deep divisions within society, and that it can normalise hateful sentiments and allow discrimination?

254. Would those who are unhappy with the ban of Watain concert be willing to accept the following consequences of their position?

(a) Will they accept that, over time, the fault lines of race and religion will be greater?

60 (b) That hate speech could become normalised and will they accept the consequences of that?

(c) Then they are being honest, if they accept all of this, but still think we should have the freedom to have hate speech, through entertainment, in Singapore, regardless of the consequences.

255. Would they be willing to say: I accept that, on the same logic, similar concerts and entertainment attacking Islam, Buddhism, and other religions should also be allowed? They have to say that. They can’t say I only accept it in respect to one religion.

256. And if we allowed Watain, do we also allow Malay Power music? Members will recall what I said earlier. These bands call for an end of immigration to Malaysia, and for non-Malays to be expelled from the country, and they say they draw inspiration from Nazi Germany.

257. If we allowed Watain, what grounds would we have to ban other groups with similar messages? Should we then allow Chinese Power music too? Where do you draw the line? It doesn’t exist now. But if Malay Power is allowed to thrive, you are sure we won’t have Chinese Power music as well?

258. And why not go further: If we can allow Watain and its lyrics and philosophy, should we allow the kinds of cartoons that Charlie Hebdo published? When we first wanted to distribute it, the Parliamentary secretariat said this was too offensive to distribute in Parliament. And I said this is the very purpose why we want to

61 distribute it, to bring across to people the reality of what we are talking about. Should we agree to the mass media reprinting the Danish cartoons?

259. Consider the Danish experience. In 2005, a Danish publication ran 12 editorial cartoons under the title “The Face of Muhammad”. One depicted the Prophet with a bomb in his turban. Another showed the Prophet in heaven, telling suicide bombers that heaven had run out of virgins. Ambassadors from Muslim countries petitioned the Danish government to condemn the cartoons and punish the responsible parties. The government said it had no right to interfere with the freedom of the press. A year later, the Danish and Norwegian embassies in Syria were set on fire. A mob burned down the Danish embassy in Lebanon.83

260. What do you think will be the consequences if we allowed the same within Singapore? What do you think our Muslim population will think? Will it unite us, or divide us? And what do you think will be the consequences for us within the region? Towards Singapore and Singaporeans?

261. I hope Members, when they speak, will not flinch from these questions and run into generalities on free speech. You got to ask in brass tacks what do you mean, what should be the restrictions?

83 B.N. Bonde, “How 12 cartoons of the prophet Mohammed were brought to trigger an international conflict”, Nordicom Review 28 (2007) 1, 33-48; “U.S. Says it also finds cartoons of Muhammad offensive”, The New York Times, 4 Feb 2006, https://www,nytimes.com/2006/02/04/politics/us-says- it-also-finds-cartoons-of-muhammad-offensive.html; “Danish Prophet cartoonist says has no regrets”, Reuters, 27 Mar 2008, https://www.reuters.com/article/us-denmark-cartoonist- interview/danish-prophet-cartoonist-says-no-regrest- idUSL2618773120080326?pageNumber=1&virtualBrandChannel=0

62 Should we restrict these things, should we not? If we don’t, are we prepared for the consequences? If you honestly say yes, we accept all these possible consequences, that would be an honest statement. But if you put it in these terms, and that you accept these consequences, you will be in the small minority. I don’t think many Singaporeans will support such a position.

262. Let me explain by reference to some surveys again.

2013 IPS Survey

263. A 2013 IPS survey showed that 95% of Malays felt race was important to identity, while 85% of Chinese and Indians felt the same.

264. For 97% of Muslims, religion was important to their identity. 91.4% of Christians and 89.5% of Catholics felt the same.

265. 85% of respondents felt that a report should be made when someone pokes fun at racial, religious groups. 87% of respondents felt a report should be made when someone insults another racial or religious group in a public setting. 86% of respondents also felt a report should be made when there is material criticising other religions or racial beliefs.

63 2019 IPS Study

266. The latest study released by IPS on 28 Mar 2019 – “Religion in Singapore: The Private and Public Spheres” – is worth looking at. Let me share some key findings from the study.

Table 7: Self-Identification of Religiosity

267. About 65 % identified themselves as at least somewhat religious.

Extremely Very Somewhat Neither Somewhat Very Extremely Religious Religious Religious religious non- non- non- nor non- religious religious religious religious Religiosity 2.6 17.6 45.5 18.0 6.8 5.8 3.6

Table 8: Frequency Of Praying And Taking Part In Activities Organised By Places Of Worship

268. 42% said they prayed at least once a day. This is a very high level of religiosity. This ranges from 31% to 77%, for the different religions.

Neve < Abou Sever Abou 2-3 Nearl Ever Sever Onc Sever r onc t al t times y y al e a al e a Once times once a every week times day times year or a year a mont week a week a day Twic mont h e a h year

How often 17.4 3.4 5.4 9.7 3.3 4.4 2.7 4.8 6.4 20.2 22.2 responden ts pray

How often 36.6 10.6 14.6 15.8 4.7 5.3 2.7 6.9 2.7 - - responder s take part in activities

64 organised by places of worship

Table 9: Likelihood of Reading or Listening to Religious Scripture Outside of Places Of Worship

269. About 87% of Muslims and Christians read religious script outside of a worship service. Yes No Religion (%) Buddhism 32.2 67.8 Taoism 24.0 76.0 Islam 86.7 13.3 Hinduism 44.1 55.9 Catholicism 72.8 27.2 Christianity 87.1 12.9 No Religion 14.4 85.6

Table 10: Level of Confidence in Major Public Institutions

270. About 88% had at least some confidence in Parliament – I think that shows that the public generally believes in Parliament and the legislative process has generally been fair, certainly with respect to religion and race.

Complete A great Some Very little No Confidence deal of confidence confidence confidence confidence at all Confidence 18.3 35.4 34.4 8.4 3.5 in Parliament

65 Table 11: Views towards Religious Extremists

271. 77% said religious extremists should not be allowed to hold public meetings to express their views. 73% said religious extremists should not be allowed to publish their views online. I should add that younger respondents (45% of those between 18-25) were more open to such views being published online. That is one reason. Another reason why we should have this discussion here, and a broader discussion outside, is that I think the younger generation also needs to understand what is it that they are saying yes to and what the consequences are.

Definitely Probably Probably Not Definitely Not Should Overall: 4.1 Overall: 18.4 Overall: 32.0 Overall: 45.6 religious extremists be Youth: 9.4 Youth: 28.6 Youth: 38.9 Youth: 23.2 allowed to hold public meetings to express their views? Should Overall: 4.5 Overall: 22.3 Overall: 30.0 Overall: 43.3 religious extremists be Youth: 9.7 Youth: 35.9 Youth: 34.0 Youth: 20.4 allowed to publish their views on internet or social media?

Table 12: The role of religious leadership in influencing interreligious harmony

272. 97% said that religious leaders should not make insensitive comments about another’s religion. 95% said a religious leader

66 should not encourage followers not to mix with members of another religion. 88% thought a religious leader should not even point out flaws in another religion, to the congregants, even behind closed doors.

Very Unacceptable Acceptable Very Acceptable Unacceptable Religious 57.2 40.2 2.0 0.6 leaders inciting violence or hatred against other religions Religious 51.8 45.3 2.3 0.6 leaders making insensitive comments on another’s religion Religious 11.5 40.4 44.4 3.8 leaders encouraging followers to share their religion with strangers in public. Religious 40.7 54.1 4.7 0.6 leaders encouraging their members to refrain from mixing with members of other religious groups. A religious 32.6 55.4 10.8 1.2 leader pointing out flaws in other religions to his congregants, even if done behind closed doors.

67 273. This is our society. It is religious, but Singaporeans believe in giving everyone their own religious space. They frown upon conflicts, and do not approve of offensive religious speech and insults. They believe the Police should act when there are insults or criticisms directed at another religion, let alone hate or offensive speech.

274. These views have been moulded by our own experiences and Singaporeans’ own understanding of why we have racial and religious harmony in Singapore. It shows us the support of Singaporeans for the approach we have taken so far.

Conspiracy Theories

275. Now, some commentators online have also made dark suggestions of a Christian conspiracy. “They have a hold on the Government, the Government bows to their power, and there is an over- representation of Christians in institutions of power”.84 They tried to turn it into a “Christians versus Others” debate. These people are nasty, opportunistic, and dangerous.

276. I made the decision, in my capacity as Minister for Home Affairs, enshrined with the responsibility of guarding national security and religious harmony. No one – Christian or otherwise – influenced me.

84 Facebook post by Andrew Loh, 13 Mar 2019; Facebook Comment by Marc Wang in response to CNA report titled “’I can’t see how we could have agreed to it’: Shanmugam on Watain performing in Singapore”; Facebook post by Khan Osman Sulaiman, 11 Mar 2019; Facebook post by Martyn See, 11 Mar 2019; Facebook post by Ravi MRavi, 11 Mar 2019; Facebook Post by Joshua Ip, 12 Mar 2019; “Watain: Do unto others?”, Bertha Henson, Bertha Harian, 13 Mar 2019.

68 277. I am not a Christian. I also decided to ban two Christian preachers in 2017. So what does one make of that?

278. Mr Speaker, so long as the Government believes in the principles that I have set out in this House, and such a government is in charge, no matter who the Minister of Home Affairs is — Christian, Muslim, Hindu or agnostic — the Government would make such decisions on the basis of national interest.

279. Having initially made the decision to allow the concert, we had new information on how the community was reacting. What do you do? If we were only interested in tactical considerations, we would have let the concert proceed. But that is not the right thing to do. The right thing, which is more difficult to do, was to cancel the concert, and explain to the public why it was done.

280. I should caution at the same time that it is not possible for the Government to accept any community’s viewpoint on all issues – on every performer, for every concert, in every art form. We will give due consideration to the views of all communities, but ultimately the Government will have to decide based on the principles I have set out.

281. I have no doubt, we will have to make many more such pragmatic decisions on concerts, books and materials which some will consider irreverent or even derogatory of religion. We can’t and won’t ban everything, however slight the offence. The Government will be fair, even-handed, and it has to be practical.

69 282. But I reiterate: Where hate speech is concerned; and where offensive speech is concerned, that vast numbers of any community find deeply wounding; we will not hesitate to take action.

283. I cited a REACH survey earlier that showed that a majority agreed with the Government’s cancellation of the Watain concert. But let’s ask ourselves, what if the majority did not feel something that was deeply offensive to a minority community should be banned? Should we therefore allow such an event?

284. The majority of Germans in the 1930s may not have objected to the vile anti-Semitism of the Nazis. But that doesn’t mean that the majority view was correct.

285. 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.

XI. ROLE OF SOCIAL MEDIA

286. Let me now turn finally to the role of social media. Social media has fundamentally changed the complexion of public discourse.85

85 “Is there a smarter way to tackle online hate?”, FT Magazine, 24 Mar 2019, https://www.ft.com/content/7bbf9e98-4a58-11e9-bbc9-6917dce3dc62; “How social media’s business model helped the New Zealand massacre go viral”, C. Timberg, D. Harwell, E. Dwoskin, T. Romm, The Washington Post, 18 Mar 2019, https://www.washingtonpost.com/technology/2019/03/18/how-social-media-business-model- helped-new-zealand-massacre-go-viral/; C.E. Ring, "Hate Speech in Social Media: An Exploration of the Problem and Its Proposed Solutions", 2013, Journalism & Mass Communication Graduate Theses & Dissertations, 15.

70 287. Hate and offensive speech travels much faster and gain wider audiences than before.

288. I had earlier quoted a study in Germany. What was telling about that study is that when there are internet outages or service disruptions to Facebook, incidences of anti-immigrant violence

dipped in the very places where they were high.

289. Social media platforms have shown that they are unable and unwilling to deal with hate and offensive speech. They have not taken responsibility for the content circulating on their platforms. They earn money by advertising – the more eyeballs, the better. Using algorithms, they can deliver news reports that are likely to elicit outrage, and responses.86

290. See these pictures. A white woman being violated by immigrants; Muslims toting guns; someone killing her child. Twitter refused to take them down, as it was not in breach of Twitter’s hateful conduct policy.

291. In the case of the Christchurch shootings, Facebook failed to quickly shut down and remove the livestream video from its platform. The video was viewed 4,000 times before it was taken down.87

86 “Necessary but tough to get tech companies to thwart hate speech and fake news”, Mohammed Sinan Siyech, Today, 13 Dec 2018, https://www.todayonline.com/commentary/why-its-necessary- tough-get-tech-companies-thwart-hate-speech-and-fake-news; “Delay, Deny, and Defect: How Facebook’s Leaders Fought Through Crisis”, The New York Times, 14 Nov 2018, https://www.nytimes.com/2018/11/14/technology/facebook-data-russia-election-racism.html 87 “Facebook to reexamine how livestream videos are flagged after Christchurch shooting”, S. Hamza The Washington Post, 21 Mar 2018,

292. And the views on Facebook were a small number compared with the circulation on WhatsApp. Facebook will tell you that you cannot do anything about that due to encryption.

293. I think the New Zealand Prime Minister, Ms Ardern, did well when she called for social media companies to take responsibility for the contents they published. She said that it “cannot be a case of all profit, no responsibility”.88 And Australian PM Scott Morrison has talked about imposing criminal charges on social media companies that are not responsible.89

294. Mr Speaker, I drafted the speech before Mr Zuckerburg’s latest statement that obviously has to be studied carefully. Prior to the shootings in Christchurch, it was said that white racialist hate speech cannot and should not be taken down. In a few days, their position seemed to have changed.

295. We will have to deal with this. The Bill that has been tabled on Deliberate Online Falsehoods is one step. We will have to consider what else.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/technology/2019/03/21/facebook-reexamine-how-recently-live- videos-are-flagged-after-christchurch-shooting/ 88 “New Zealand PM Jacinda Ardern urges global action on social media perils after mosque massacre”, The Straits Times, 20 Mar 2019, https://www.straitstimes.com/asia/australianz/new- zealand-pm-jacinda-ardern-urges-global-action-on-social-media-perils-after 89 “Mosque attack streaming spurs planned law change in Australia”, Bloomberg, 26 Mar 2019, https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2019-03-26/mosque-attack-streaming-spurs-planned- law-change-in-australia

72 XII. CONCLUSION

296. Let me now conclude, Mr Speaker Sir, by saying the following: Our approach to race and religion has largely been successful. The lived reality of Singaporeans is the test.

297. In a Gallup World Poll in 2016, Singapore ranked top out of 140

countries for tolerance of ethnic minorities.90 In the 2016 CNA-IPS survey on race relations, which I referred to earlier, the respondents strongly endorsed issues relating to multiculturalism. 96% agreed or strongly agreed with the statement “I have respect for people

from all races”.91

298. President Obama said this in 2015 about Singapore: one of the reasons why Singapore had been so successful was because we “have been able to bring together people who may look different, but they all think of themselves as part of Singapore”. He said: “That has to be a strength, not a weakness, but that requires

leadership and government being true to those principles”.92

299. I started this speech by referring to four events in four countries, and asked if there might be a larger picture. What is the larger picture? My speech has attempted to sketch that picture.

300. We are in the positive part of the spectrum of racial and religious relations because of the way we have structured our legal and

90 Gallup World Poll, 2016. 91 Mathews, CNA-IPS Survey on Race Relations. 92 “S’pore’s racial integration has contributed to its success: Obama”, R. Tham, Today, 2 Jun 2015, https://www.todayonline.com/singapore/spores-racial-integration-key-its-success-obama

73 social frameworks and all the things we have done to maintain racial and religious harmony.

301. What has been happening in Iraq and Syria is an illustration of what can happen when things go badly not just in terms of race and religion, but also other things. It represents a deeply negative part of the spectrum.

302. The New Zealand attack represents a warning and alert to us that even a country which can be fairly described as “Heaven on Earth” can suffer a serious attack. It shows how hate speech can fuel crazy people. What happened in New Zealand can happen elsewhere. New Zealand is on the positive end of the spectrum, but uninhibited hate speech can have terrible consequences.

303. The case of Netherlands’ Utrecht highlights the problems that extremism poses, even in advanced, prosperous societies. Integration issues in Europe are a flashing amber light. German Chancellor Angela Merkel has said that “the multicultural concept

is a failure, an absolute failure”.93 She was talking about Europe. We don’t want that in Singapore. Former British Prime Minister David Cameron said: “We have failed to provide a vision of society to which [different cultures] feel that they want to belong. We have even tolerated these segregated communities behaving in a way

that runs counter to our values”.94

93 German Chancellor Angela Merkel, Speech at the annual gathering of the Christian Democratic Union’s youth organization, Oct 2010. 94 Then British PM David Cameron, Speech at the Munich Security Conference, Feb 2011.

74 304. For us, cancelling the Watain concert was one discrete step. Why we did it can only be understood by understanding the larger picture of why we are in the positive part of the spectrum. And that is why we are different from so many others.

305. Our current racial and religious harmony didn’t fall ready-made from the sky. It is not part of the “natural order” of things. There is nothing “natural” about it. We engineered this over many decades. People accuse us of “social engineering”. So what? I asked.

306. We imposed ethnic quotas in housing to prevent racial enclaves in our housing estates, possible ghettoes or banlieues, as they are called in France. We have GRCs to ensure minority representation in Parliament. Look around this House. Could we have guaranteed this number of Malay, Indian and Other members if not for GRCs? We have the Presidential Council for Minority Rights, which checks that Bills passed by Parliament do not discriminate against any racial or religious community. We have protection of minorities written into the Constitution. We have the Maintenance of Religious Harmony Act.

307. Everyone knows in Singapore, we will have no hesitation arresting any bigot of whatever persuasion. Anyone who burns the Bible or Quran or any Holy Book in the name of freedom of speech, ISD will deal with him. We stopped Christian preachers from evangelising insensitively among Muslims. We had a recent case in Clementi, of an attempt to evangelise Muslim boys. The Police are investigating.

75 308. We have the current harmony because we did all this. Not despite, but because. We took no chances. We brooked no agitation on race and religion. We refused to let the State bow to any religious or racial group - minority or majority.

309. In Singapore, we organise ourselves horizontally. All races and religions are treated equally and on the same level. Most, if not all other countries in Asia, either explicitly or implicitly, organise themselves vertically, on the basis of ethnic or religious hierarchy, including a liberal democracy like Japan. 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.

310. On the very first day of our existence as a sovereign, independent State, the founding Prime Minister said: “This will not be a Chinese

nation, not a Malay nation, not an Indian nation”.95

311. From the beginning, the Government determined that it would base its legitimacy by appealing to all Singaporeans, not just the majority Chinese. That determination to be multi-racial, multi-religious; that determination that nobody will be squatted upon on account of his race or religion, the colour of his skin or the language he speaks - that’s why we became independent. And we mean to keep it that way.

95 “Transcript of a press conference given by the Prime Minister of Singapore, Mr Lee Kuan Yew, at Broadcasting House, Singapore, at 1200 hours”, National Archives of Singapore, 9 Aug 1965.

76 312. If anything, we are prepared to err on the side of caution and risk over-reacting, to preserve harmony, rather than take chances and risk explosions. Mr Lee Kuan Yew, reflecting back in a New York

Times interview, said in 2010:96

“I’ve got to tell the next generation, please do not take for granted what’s been built. 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.”

313. Let us heed his warning. What we have in Singapore is precious, hard fought. But we are only 54 years old, a multi-racial meritocracy that is unique, but the values are not yet so deeply embedded to be unassailable.

314. Mr Speaker, I invite Members to consider the questions I have raised, and pursuant to Standing Order No. 44, I beg to move,

“That the Ministerial Statement on Restricting Hate Speech to Maintain Racial and Religious Harmony in Singapore be considered by Parliament”.

96 Transcript of Minister Mentor Lee Kuan Yew’s interview with Seth Mydans of New York Times, 1 Sep 2010.