Mr Speaker,
The Maintenance of Racial Harmony Bill (the "Bill") seeks to address the complexities of race relations in Singapore. It introduces measures to regulate racial discourse, counter foreign interference and strengthen community cohesion. However, it is important this Bill fosters racial harmony without unintentionally stifling essential public discourse and silencing marginalised voices.
Open Dialogue Necessary for Racial Harmony
Racial harmony is a cornerstone of our society, and I think we all agree that it cannot be achieved through legislation alone. Enduring racial harmony requires genuine understanding and open dialogue among all communities.
However, the broad ministerial powers under this Bill risk deterring legitimate public discourse that is essential for fostering inter-communal dialogue to strengthen social cohesion. For instance, public critiques of systemic discrimination or policies affecting certain racial groups could be misconstrued as vilifying or denigrating others, even when the intent is to raise awareness or advocate for positive change. Forums discussing global events like the Israeli-Palestinian conflict or domestic policies such as CECA—the Comprehensive Economic Cooperation Agreement—could risk being labelled as racially inflammatory, despite their role in constructive discourse.
It is important to distinguish between speech that incites hatred and violence—which should be prevented—and speech that fosters understanding and calls out racial inequalities—which we should encourage. Constructive conversations, including in public forums, are necessary for addressing racial issues and strengthening inter-communal trust.
While the Bill includes defences for private communication and calling out racism in good faith, individuals may still be uncertain about their practical application. The need to prove good faith intent or the private nature of a conversation could create hesitation to engage in discussions on race. This uncertainty may discourage open dialogue and cause such conversations to go underground, or in echo chambers within the internet.
Since the legislative intent as expressed during this debate may be referenced by the Courts, could the Minister clarify, with specific examples, the types of speech—including the ones I raised—that will or will not fall within the scope of this legislation?
I note that unlike the Maintenance of Religious Harmony Act, which explicitly prohibits the mixing of religion and politics, this Bill does not contain a similar prohibition on the mixing of race and politics. Can the Minister confirm then that members of the public can engage in public discussions on racial issues without an outright legal restriction?
Countering Foreign Influence
Foreign influence operations can exploit racial and communal fault lines, destabilising our society and undermining social cohesion. Countering foreign interference is a necessary component of maintaining racial harmony. The ability to monitor and regulate race-based entities, and to take action against harmful external influences, is an important step in protecting Singapore’s racial harmony and national security, and I acknowledge the government’s efforts in addressing this issue.
The Bill introduces measures such as designating entities and issuing restraining orders. The Workers’ Party supports the inclusion of these provisions. It is important, however, that these powers are exercised judiciously, with transparency and accountability, to maintain public trust. Ensuring that decisions are seen as fair and impartial will be crucial to the effectiveness and legitimacy of these measures.
Community Remedial Initiative
I support the introduction of the Community Remedial Programme (CRP), which offers an alternative to prosecution by encouraging participants to reflect on their actions and fostering rehabilitation. To be effective, the programme should engage participants in meaningful dialogue with members of other racial groups, allowing for deeper understanding and reflection on the impact of their actions.
Could the Minister share more details on the structure and content of the CRP? How will its effectiveness be measured to ensure it leads to genuine rehabilitation and behavioural change?
Consultation Process
Unlike the Maintenance of Religious Harmony Act in 1990, this Bill did not undergo the same level of parliamentary scrutiny through a Select Committee. Instead, the government feedback unit, REACH, conducted a public consultation last year, but the feedback collected remains largely opaque, with only summarised data shared publicly. A Select Committee provides a more transparent and rigorous process, allowing for in-depth scrutiny, public engagement and expert input, particularly from minority communities most affected by such legislation.
The government’s Forward Singapore report underscores the need to strengthen our social compact through deeper citizen engagement. Yet, for an issue as fundamental as race relations, bypassing the Select Committee process weakens participatory democracy. A strong democratic system requires more than just electoral participation—it must also ensure meaningful avenues for policymaking input, robust public consultations and rigorous legislative scrutiny.
The government should uphold these principles by ensuring that future legislation of similar significance is subject to the full scrutiny of a Select Committee.
Conclusion
Mr Speaker, the Workers' Party supports the Maintenance of Racial Harmony Bill, particularly measures to counter foreign interference, but we urge the government to ensure that safeguards are in place to protect civil liberties and encourage open conversations about race. Thank you.
