I shall speak briefly on both Bills.
Maintenance of Racial Harmony Bill (MRHB)
First, on the Maintenance of Racial Harmony Bill or MRHB.
The MRHB has several aims. Besides porting over and modernising existing offences, it also gives new powers to the Minister for Home Affairs to issue restraining orders to prevent the communication of content considered to be prejudicial to racial harmony in Singapore. The Bill further seeks to curtail foreign influence in race-based organisations such as clans, through requirements such as reporting foreign donations and foreign participation in these organisations.
Before I proceed, I declare that I am an Honorary Advisor of two organisations: Sai Ho Piat Su and Teochew Poit Ip Huay Kuan. That said, the views expressed in my speech today are my own.
We can all agree that the management of race relations and indeed, the management of Singapore society as a whole should be decided by Singaporeans, and Singaporeans alone. There is a risk that foreign entities may attempt, or may already have attempted, to channel their race-based agenda through Singapore-based entities. The Ministry has informed this House that in the run-up to this Bill, it has consulted race-based organisations that it intends to designate for the new transparency requirements, and that they understood the need for these new obligations.
Consideration of Foreign Connections
On this matter, I would like to share a general observation about foreign connections. As mentioned by others before me, not all foreign connections are malign. On the ground, it is quite common to see race-based organisations having reciprocal relationships with like-minded organisations in other countries. For Chinese-based organisations, these like-minded organisations may reside in Malaysia, Brunei, and China. Such relationships enrich the breadth of engagement on shared interests and increase access to resources for charitable activities. Such connections also enhance people-to-people ties across national borders, which is to be encouraged from a foreign affairs perspective. In the implementation of this Bill, such benign foreign relationships should be allowed to continue and flourish.
Please let me articulate this in Chinese.
针对此事，我想分享关于对外联系的一些看法。我认为对外联系并非都带有恶意。在本地，一些种族组织与国外的种族组织建立良好的互惠关系的情况很常见。以华族组织的例子来看，它们遍布马来西亚、文莱和中国。这种跨国关系不仅能够丰富组织之间共同兴趣的广度，也能够增加慈善活动获得资源的机会。从对外关系的角度来看，这种关系也能够促进跨越国界的人际交流。我们应该允许这种良性的对外关系得到延续，并且发扬光大。
Role of the President in the Bills
I now move to the roles to be played by the President. These provisions are covered in both the MRH Bill and the Constitution Amendment Bill.
The Constitution Amendment Bill gives the Elected President (EP) a new power. If passed, the EP will have discretion to decide whether to confirm, cancel, or vary any restraining order made by the Minister. Such discretion will be available if the Presidential Council for Racial and Religious Harmony disagrees with the Minister’s decision to issue a restraining order.
This discretionary power sought to be given to the EP goes to the fundamentals of governance. I am sure that the government will agree with me that the responsibility of maintaining racial harmony, and law and order, lies with the government. While all of us have a part to play, the government is responsible for this outcome; it is publicly accountable for this key performance indicator to Singaporeans, through Parliament. It is not the EP’s responsibility to maintain public peace and public order; he is not answerable to Parliament in any way.
Risks of Presidential Intervention
In my view, the proposed mechanism for the President to review the Minister’s orders carries several significant risks. Imagine a scenario where the Minister issues a restraining order which the Presidential Council disagrees with, following which the EP then decides to also disagree with the Minister and cancels the restraining order. I pause here to point out that although some may think that such a scenario of both the Presidential Council and the President breaking ranks with the Cabinet is unlikely, this is exactly what the Bills today permit to happen.
Returning to the scenario of the President cancelling the restraining order. Let’s say it subsequently turns out that the organisation concerned had truly become a proxy for a hostile foreign actor, or race relations deteriorate sharply, proving that the Minister was justified in issuing the restraining order in the first place. When Singaporeans question the decision-making process, the government can justifiably say that it correctly issued the restraining order but since the EP decided to cancel it, the government is not to be blamed for the bad outcomes. Is this acceptable?
Potential Impact on the Presidency’s Role
On a separate note, I am also concerned about the grave implications of bringing the President into such decisions involving ethnicity. As our founding Prime Minister has said, the President is a symbol of unity and the personification of the State; indeed, that is the President’s central and defining role. To require him to make hard decisions on matters involving ethnicity will detract from his role as a unifying figure above politics. This Bill envisages the President possibly confronting the Cabinet on decisions that affect influential race-based organisations. For the President to enter the fray and to take a position on racial affairs could quite possibly lead to the Presidency being polarised along racial lines. This should be avoided at all costs.
Further complicating the matter is that the Presidency already has a defined racial dimension due to the reserved presidency. Imagine a scenario if the President were to cancel a Minister’s restraining order relating to an organisation of the President’s own ethnic roots. Even if the President were to do so for objective reasons, would it be perceived as objective? Such a scenario could be divisive and highly damaging—not just for the Presidency as an institution, but for race relations in general. Looking ahead, will the Presidency then become an arena in which racial issues are fought over?
The Workers’ Party’s Position
Since 1988, when the proposal for the EP was first mooted, the Workers’ Party has been consistent in opposing the institution. This is mainly due to the potential gridlock it may cause to a newly elected government, if it should require to use past reserves or when it needs to make key appointments to the public service. For the purposes of today’s debate, we are further concerned about the implications of bringing the President into decisions involving race-based matters, for the reasons I have given.
As such, the WP cannot support the Constitution Amendment Bill and will vote to oppose it. As for the MRH Bill, my party colleagues Gerald Giam and Dennis Tan have raised questions and concerns. On my part, I would emphasise that we are not supportive of the provisions dealing with the EP’s discretion. Nevertheless, as stated by my colleagues earlier, we support the wider objectives of managing race relations, and will vote in support of the Maintenance of Racial Harmony Bill.
