Restricting Hate Speech to Maintain Racial and Religious Harmony in Singapore

I support our Home Affairs Minister's Statement on "Restricting hate speech to maintain racial and religious harmony in Singapore" for two reasons.

One, anyone who cares for Singapore will appreciate and testify that racial and religious harmony is critical to our well-being and that it must be rigorously defended.

The second is this: my belief that unrestricted hate speech, especially if it turns viral, can quickly turn one racial or religious group against another and destroy the very social fabric that allows each race and religion to co-exist in harmony.

I wish to make a few points on the untenability of unrestricted freedom of speech, the adequacy of the current legal frameworks and also to seek clarifications over a few concerns I have.

On freedom of speech. Sir, there are some people who strongly believe that restricting any form of speech, no matter how hateful or destructive, is a curb on one's freedom of speech, one's rights. Proponents argue, "It is my right to say what I want to say. No one else should stop me and no one is even able to stop me for practical reasons." Sir, there are at least three objections against this argument.

Firstly, although freedom of speech is an important value, especially in a free democracy, free speech, however, is not the only important value in society. There are other values that we honour, such as the freedom of other persons to live without intimidation and harassment; such as racial and religious harmony; such as mutual respect; anti-bullying and treating other people with dignity. Freedom of speech is important but needs to be balanced against other values and interests of the rest of society.

Secondly, each of us is a member of a larger society. Rights carry responsibilities and freedom of speech ought to be exercised with due regard to those who occupy the same living space as us. Unrestricted free speech, especially hate speech, puts a risk to the order of society. I remember what my friend, management guru Dr Stephen Covey, who is the author of the bestseller "7 Habits of Highly Effective People" once said to me. He was talking about Singapore and the issues of freedom, order and discipline during one of his trips here many years ago and this is what Dr Covey said to me. He shared, "When I was younger, I yearned for freedom. As I grew older, I yearned for order." And then he said "Now that I am much older, I realised that order is freedom." Indeed, the order in Singapore gives us the freedom to practise our culture and faiths. Unrestricted hate speech threatens the very order that gives us the freedom to practise our ethnic culture and religious faiths.

Thirdly, even if restricting hate speech is not fully enforceable nor is proven to eradicate or reduce prejudices and discriminations, it is still important for society and Government to make a clear stand in principle against actions that can incite violence, hatred and bigotry.

For the above reasons, Sir, I support the proposition that hate speech should not be protected and ought to be restricted; and that unrestricted freedom of expression should not be supported.

Next, on adequacy of the current legal framework. When the Ministerial Statement was first proposed, some of my fellow Members and I had thought that there would be new pieces of legislation introduced to further restrict hate speech for the purpose of racial and religious harmony. I am glad to know that this is not so. I think the current legal framework standing on sections 298 and 298A of the Penal Code, the Maintenance of Religious Harmony Act, and sections 3 and 4 of the Sedition Act are sufficient to deter offensive and hate speeches.

I believe it is important for the Minister to reiterate and to confirm that this Statement is merely to establish clarity of the current provisions and approach and that no one, no Singaporean, needs to be alarmed that there are additional measures or safeguards against hate and offensive speech that threatens our harmony here.

On Watain. Sir, I want to next touch on the Watain episode because I think it is relevant to future similar cases. When the objection to the initially approved Watain concert was first surfaced by members of the Christian community, there were at least, I think, four factors of consideration to just let the concert go ahead. One is the right of choice for people to choose; second is the freedom of expression; the third is, I guess, the reluctance of the State to be perceived as overly paternalistic and also the reality, the tactical reality, that the concert was already given the go-ahead by IMDA and cancellation would cause inconvenience to and displeasure of the organisers and the attendees. However, as more information was uncovered on the group, it became clear that revoking the concert licence to perform was a valid move and there are good reasons for this.

The track record of Watain and its nonchalance towards acts of terrorism and going beyond its onstage satanic rituals into the realm of lawlessness and criminal activity are, to say the least, very disturbing. The Watain leader's confirmation that he totally encourages, I quote, "any kind of terrorist acts committed in the name of Watain" runs counter to what SG Secure is trying to promote. 

Also, the unapologetic and blatant anti-Christian views expressed on many occasions by the Watain's frontman calling all his enemies "Christian sheep who don't dare to confront their enemy" and his encouragement of church burning. They are, to me, highly alarming and offensive.

Even members of the Malay-Muslim community, including mosque leaders, have also expressed objections to the lyrics of the group and its derogatory views towards Christians and Jews. They, too, voiced their support for the cancellation, as confirmed in a recent Berita Harian report.

It is unfortunate that, in this instance, the Government's decision was reversed so close to the event date, just a couple of days, even when it affects a small group. For that, I think an apology is due to the Watain group and the affected concert goers. But for the Government to go ahead with the concert just because it was initially approved, after knowing what it now knows or uncovered, would have been a wrong decision. Sir, two wrongs do not make a right. I, therefore, support the Minister's decision to revoke permission for the Watain concert to carry on and I hope we have learnt valuable lessons from it in the areas of better due diligence and also earlier consultations with key stakeholder groups so that future episodes can be managed more effectively.

Lastly, on clarifications. I have some clarifications that I hope the Minister can address. First, on how the public will know or is educated on what constitutes acceptable, offensive and hate speech and, second, on how the Government is going to enforce the current framework to reach a healthy and not an unhealthy state of restraint.

Offensive speech in the grey zone. As the Minister has rightly pointed out, speech comes on a spectrum and does not fall into neat categories. Whilst it is easier to identify hate speech, offensive speech is not so. I agree with the Minister that an absolutist approach of the two extremes of either totally banning or totally allowing all forms of hate and offensive speech is not wise. But this leaves a grey zone which sits varying degrees of offensive speech. Whether action is taken against the speaker depends on, as Minister has shared, the degree of offensiveness of the words and the likely impact in terms of the platform of delivery, the occasion and the reach.

In this framework of "it depends" guided by "common sense", how can an understanding be achieved with the typical Singaporean, with the man in the street, so as not to cast any unnecessary fear or any unhealthy self-censorship in society?

Where does one, for example, draw the line in debating or discussing issues, such as abortion, infidelity, LGBT issues which, to some, are rooted in religious principles and, to other people, are just secular discords based on how liberal or how conservative one is?

Where is the line between public discourse and platforms, such as private WhatsApp group chats? Should Singaporeans be advised to err on the side of caution to avoid any potentially offensive speech that can stir racial and religious harmony that may just go viral? So, these are clarifications that need to be addressed.

Sir, there ought to be a more effective way of educating the public, from younger ones to older ones, on what is acceptable, what is hate and what is offensive speech so that we attain a healthy and not an unhealthy state of restraint in society.

Clarification on enforcement. If policy makers are serious about restricting hate and offensive speech to defend our racial and religious harmony that we so value, how does the Government plan to enforce this approach?

There ought to be a clearer and publicised process by which violations are reported, for instance, and decisions by the Government to be consulted with the relevant stakeholder groups, such as key religious and non-key religious groups or leaders.

In conclusion, Sir, I am all for restricting hate speech for the sake of racial and religious harmony in our beloved country. And just because an approach may be hard to implement does not mean that we cannot learn to implement it or apply it better. So, notwithstanding my request for clarifications, Sir, I totally and strongly support the Ministerial Statement.

Read more:

Community, Parliament, MPDenise Phua