Bertha Henson, a former Straits Times editor and veteran journalist, has voiced concerns about Singapore’s newly passed Maintenance of Racial Harmony Act (MRHA), warning that it could create a “chilling effect” on public discourse about race-related policies.
In a recent Facebook post, Henson drew comparisons between the MRHA and the controversial Protection from Online Falsehoods and Manipulation Act (POFMA), suggesting that the new law could similarly discourage free expression despite its intended purpose of safeguarding racial harmony.
Henson highlighted how POFMA was initially described as a “softer, more calibrated tool” to address falsehoods without the need for criminal prosecution.
However, its implementation has led to perceptions of government overreach. She noted that the fear associated with government-issued correction directions often deters individuals from engaging in potentially contentious discussions, even when they have no criminal intent.
“The Singapore DNA is such that any pronouncement made by the government (without needing a court case) is seen as ominous and scary,” Henson said.
She argued that the MRHA, which consolidates existing legal powers to address threats to racial harmony, may be viewed in the same light. “In a small country, just coming under a bad spotlight is chilling,” she added, particularly for those who may not fully understand the law’s complexities.
A significant aspect of Henson’s concern is how the MRHA could impact discussions on public policies that have racial dimensions, such as the Ethnic Integration Policy (EIP), Group Representation Constituencies (GRCs), and the Comprehensive Economic Cooperation Agreement (CECA).
She posed questions about whether a person’s race or ethnicity would influence how their comments on such issues are perceived.
For example, Henson wondered if a Singapore Indian criticising CECA would be treated differently from a Singapore Chinese doing the same.
“Would it be more okay for a Singapore Indian to talk about CECA than a Singapore Chinese?” she asked.
She also raised concerns about intent, noting that it is difficult to determine whether someone’s criticism of a policy stems from genuine disagreement or racial bias.
Likewise, Henson questioned whether it would be acceptable for a Malay person to speak out about the drug issues within the Malay community, or for someone like herself—who is classified as “Others” under Singapore’s Chinese-Malay-Indian-Others (CMIO) model—to criticise the categorisation.
“Is it okay for ME to rail against the CMIO policy because I dislike being categorised as ‘others’?” she asked.
Henson emphasised that discussions on policies affecting racial groups should not be automatically viewed as threats to racial harmony.
For instance, she argued that opposing the GRC system or the EIP should not be equated with being against racial harmony, even if it involves criticising government policies.
“To be against GRCs, EIP, or CMIO is not being racist or against racial harmony—it can be described as opposing the government’s policies,” she said.
Her post also reflected a broader concern about how the government might handle perceived “racially charged” statements.
She referred to the swift response from Home Affairs and Law Minister K. Shanmugam to remarks made by opposition MP Leong Mun Wai just a day after the MRHA was passed.
“I was taken aback at how prepared Min Shan was to attack Leong Mun Wai by digging up past remarks,” she said, hinting at the potential for selective enforcement.
Henson concluded by saying she hoped the government would apply a “light touch” when using the law’s powers but remained cautious about its long-term impact on public discussions.
“So now I wait to see how those ‘restraining orders’ will be used and under what circumstances,” she wrote.
Her comments reflect concerns shared by several opposition MPs during the parliamentary debate on 4 February 2025.
While the government has assured that the MRHA does not expand the scope of existing laws, critics, including Hazel Poa and Gerald Giam, have sought clarity on how ministerial discretion will be applied.
As discussions continue about the law’s impact, Henson’s warning serves as a reminder of the delicate balance between preserving harmony and protecting free speech. Her question, as she put it, remains:
“What will matter is whether we can discuss policy without being accused of having a racist agenda.”
