11 JUNE 2024
BY LEPAK CONVERSATIONS
Introduction
As an advocacy group that has facilitated dialogue about Malay/Muslim issues for the past 4 years, Lepak Conversations (“LC”) believes that dialogue bridges gaps and fosters understanding on topics centering the racial minority experience. While we acknowledge that it is important to address hate speech and its negative impacts in a racially-diverse country like Singapore, an over-extension and over-exercise of the proposed Maintenance of Racial Harmony Bill (“the Bill”) will potentially curtail efforts by advocacy and community groups to create spaces that allows for such crucial dialogue about racial issues to be conducted.
Key Concerns about the Bill
Proposal 2: To introduce Restraining Orders against content prejudicial to racial harmony
Proposal 2 seeks to “introduce Restraining Orders against content prejudicial to racial harmony” whereby “the Bill will enable the Minister for Home Affairs to make restraining orders (“ROs”) against the production or distribution of content that prejudices the maintenance of racial harmony in Singapore.”
Issue #1: The Bill regarding issuing ROs lacks information on the threshold used by the Ministry of Home Affairs (“MHA”) to determine how the content threatens racial harmony.
According to the Bill, the ROs will allow MHA to “act quickly and pre-emptively against content that threatens racial harmony, without having to establish that the person is engaging in criminal conduct.” From LC’s experience conducting community discussions on race-related topics, the act of voicing out personal experiences about race brings about discomfort, both on the personal and community level. This discomfort needs to be acknowledged and addressed before consensus and reconciliation can be done, especially when the experience affects racial minorities.
There needs to be a balance between acting quickly against clear hate speech versus pre-emptively shutting down any attempts on creating conducive conversations around race-related topics within the community. It is important that MHA publicises the criteria on determining content that threatens racial harmony and how they will be implemented.
Importantly, it also needs to be acknowledged that racial issues are usually context-dependent and there may be different opinions on how the aforementioned criteria will be applied to different situations. There also needs to be avenues for appeals on the ROs to ensure that legitimate discussions on race are not pre-emptively penalised without pathways to redress. Having such avenues will take into consideration the context-dependent nature of racial issues and provide opportunities for Singapore’s public discourse space to be expanded and strengthened, rather than just curtailed and limited.
On a similar tangent, artists are required to submit scripts to the Infocomm Media Development Authority (IMDA) for rating purposes before productions can be staged. The Arts Entertainment Classification Code’s definition of what is “acceptable” or “not acceptable” for art productions is very vague, unclear, and incentivizes the artist to engage in self-censorship. The proposed bill can have the same effect for advocacy and community groups if it remains as vague as the current draft.
An example is playwright Chong Tze Chien's Charged (2010), an army drama that confronted race relations in Singapore and received an R18 rating for "mature content and coarse language". The IMDA justified: "Due to the realistic portrayal of racial tensions and use of strong language within the army camp, the issues discussed could be... unsuitable for a young audience.” The rating turned away a valuable opportunity for young Singaporeans preparing for full-time national service to reflect upon how the racial issue might emerge in real life.
Issue #2: The Bill regarding the creation of a Presidential Council (“the Council”) is too vague and does not clarify on the specificity of the selection process, including the criteria for selection.
ROs will be issued by MHA and reviewed by the Council, which consists of “individuals who represent the different racial groups in Singapore or have distinguished themselves in public or community service.” While it is noted that ROs will be subjected to safeguards i.e. ROs will be “sent to the President for confirmation together with the Council’s recommendation and Cabinet’s advice,” the Council consists of members unelected by the public, unlike the President and the Cabinet, despite the outcome of their reviews potentially influencing the way race-related topics are discussed by the public.
In the interest of transparency, the selection process for members of the Council and their decision-making process, as well as their relevant outcomes need to be made clear to the public. Transparency and openness on such information will include the public in the Council’s selection process and ensures the Council’s representativeness and review decisions are made in the interest of the public.
Proposal 3: To introduce safeguards against foreign influence through race-based organisations
Proposal 3 aims to “introduce safeguards against foreign influence through race-based organisations.”
Issue #1: The Bill is unclear on the criteria for selecting the race-based organisations that would be subjected to these safeguards.
Apart from “designated entities that promote the interests of a racial group or sub-group,” there is a lack of further elaboration on the criteria for selection and how this selection process will take place. The current definition given in the Bill covers a wide variety of organisations, thus it is important for MHA to include a specific criteria list on the types of organisations that will fall into this category. It is also crucial for MHA to clarify on their selection process of the organisations on this list.
The Bill also proposed that “the Minister for Home Affairs will also be able to impose additional safeguards to counter foreign influence.” There is again a lack of clarity on the kinds of additional safeguards that may be implemented in the future whereby it needs special consideration for this in the Bill. Also, this inclusion is not necessary considering that there is already an established process for the Minister to propose additional safeguards via parliamentary procedures.
Even though it is crucial to ensure that public discourse on race is spearheaded by Singaporeans for Singaporeans, race as a concept is fluid in nature due to it being a social construct. Research on race and its impact on public discourse is constantly influenced by many sources, including academic research, community knowledge and personal experience. Due to the way racial discourse has been historically managed in Singapore via Out-of-Bounds markers (“OB markers”), discussions of race in Singapore are still in the developing stage. As advocacy and community groups try to shed light on racial issues and advance racial discourse, they may utilise information and research from sources not authored by Singaporeans or from Singapore. Hence, it is important for MHA to be clear that the foreign influence safeguards that are introduced now and in the future will not impede the development of racial discourse in Singapore. A fully-informed citizenry on racial issues, via robust discussions on race, is the way forward to strengthen Singapore’s racial harmony.
Conclusion
In its current iteration, LC does not support the passing of this Bill due to reasons above. Greater clarity and detail in the Bill, as well as further consultation with the public, is required before the Bill is to be placed in parliament for consideration.
As stated in the Bill itself, “the Government is also mindful of striking a balance between keeping public discourse free from hateful or offensive speech, and allowing space for legitimate discourse, private communications, and remarks made in good faith.” We hope that MHA will take LC’s feedback into consideration as we work towards a Bill that fully materialises this intention.
Comments