Despite some critics’ opinions that Singapore’s stringent laws to curb hate speech would stifle people’s rights and freedom of speech, the Republic will not be backing down on its approach in preventing the normalisation of hateful commentary.

This was part of the 20-minute speech given by Law and Home Affairs Minister K Shanmugam to an audience of religious leaders during the annual retreat of the Religious Rehabilitation Group (RRG). The voluntary group was formed in 2003 by local Islamic educators to reform radicalised individuals and extremist groups.

Mr Shanmugam also commented on the recent remarks made by Australian senator Fraser Anning as an example of hate speech.

“It makes it acceptable that you say this (hate speech), and somebody else criticise it but you continue saying it. Then more people say it, it becomes fair game. Everybody attacks somebody else’s religion,” Mr Shanmugam expounded.

He also stressed that Singapore’s strict laws on hate speech are necessary in order to “prevent young Muslim men from thinking that going out and killing others is a way to do things”. Laws such as the Sedition Act promptly dole out the punishment to first-time offenders found guilty of instigating ill-will and hostility within the society, a fine of S$5,000 or prison term up to three years, or both.

According to Shanmugam, this “no-nonsense” stance is the “only way to make sure everybody can go about their business, do what you want, achieve your full potential, profess whichever faith you want, pray to whichever God you want. That’s your right, we protect that right.”

As hate speech and anti-Islam sentiments continue to thrive worldwide, Mr Shanmugam plans to table a parliamentary motion on the issue of race and religious relations in Singapore around early April. He elaborated that although former leaders have attempted to deal with hate speech with various approaches, such positions are “not cast in stone” and “the impact is different depending on the type of hate speech.”

Mr Shanmugam proposed that the current generation is in need of a proper debate so that views can be expressed in a more comprehensive and contextualised position. “Let people understand and that will, I think, allow us as a society to see where the lines ought to be drawn and whether they need to be redrawn”, he added.

Subscribe
Notify of
0 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
You May Also Like

Desmond Lee forgets about substantial private contributions that help achieve top outcomes

The Straits Times published an article today (‘Singapore refutes Oxfam report on…

如政府传假消息怎么办? 唐振辉称一样被新法对付

如果政府或领导传播假消息,该怎么办? 对此律政部兼卫生部高级政务部长唐振辉打包票指出,政府并不会凌驾于法律体系之外,完全不受到监督。他们也受到同样的监管,适用同样的标准。 他认为,政府若作出错误判断或决定,法院便得裁决,若这类事件一再发生,人民对政府的信任也会被削弱。 唐振辉在昨日出席由新加坡管理大学主办的对话会,针对与会者提问,法案是否有制衡机制,确保政府本身不制造假消息。 约150名师生,出席这场讨论假消息草案的对话会。会上唐振辉也解释,法案没有设定人数标准,消息传到多少人手中才构成违法。这意味着,不会因为接到假消息的受众少,就不会被法律对付。 他声称,新法必须具备这种伸缩性,因为一些假消息即便没有广泛散播,但它可能涉及危害国家利益。例如,若意图在短信或私人群组散播假消息以制造恐慌,也得面对法律责任。 民间忧遭诉讼缠身,产生寒蝉效应 另一方面,反假消息法也被指透过法律刑责,来制造寒蝉效应,造成民众因担忧招惹官司而被高昂诉讼费缠身,而不敢再批评政府政策。 对此,唐振辉指出,法庭是比较合适和独立于政府的监督机构,来裁定部长的判断。 对于官司费的担忧,唐振辉认为,目前国内已有充足的经济和法律援助供有需要者申请,对部长的更正指示作出上诉。 “作为消息发布者,在法院也只需要直截了当,提出证明自己所说所写皆属实,这应该不难,如果我写了什么,理应有所根据。” 尚穆根:政府不是假消息真伪最后仲裁者…

Is MM Lee playing the same old record?

Minister Mentor Lee Kuan Yew has made some controversial remarks the last two years or so. Should we dismiss them or pay closer attention to his words? Share your views here.