Maintenance of Racial Harmony Bill: A blueprint for harmony or a tool for suppression?

Date:

Box 1


The Maintenance of Racial Harmony Bill, set for its second reading in Parliament, is being presented as a cornerstone in Singapore’s efforts to safeguard its multicultural society.

Box 2

However, beneath the rhetoric of harmony lies a Bill that grants sweeping and unprecedented powers to the Minister for Home Affairs, Mr K Shanmugam.

The provisions, combined with harsh penalties for non-compliance, could have significant implications for public discourse and civil liberties.

The Bill grants the Minister for Home Affairs, Mr K Shanmugam—who also serves as the Minister for Law—extensive authority to issue racial content restraining orders against individuals or groups deemed to incite racial discord. These orders may compel individuals to remove offensive content, prohibit public communication on certain topics, or bar involvement in specific media activities.

Box 3

The Minister’s powers also extend to foreign influence restraining orders under Section 27, which impose restrictions on donations, affiliations, and leadership composition for entities suspected of being subject to foreign influence that might undermine racial harmony.

Chilling parallels with POFMA

One of the most debatable aspects of the Bill is its resemblance to the Protection from Online Falsehoods and Manipulation Act (POFMA), another legislation that empowers ministers to issue corrective orders. Mr Shanmugam, as Minister for Home Affairs and Law, has issued the largest number of POFMA orders since its enactment. Under the Maintenance of Racial Harmony Bill, one might expect similar vigorous enforcement.

The new Bill, however, casts a much wider net, targeting content deemed racially provocative rather than solely falsehoods.

Box 4

The subjectivity of terms such as “enmity,” “hatred,” or “ill will” adds to the concerns. Legitimate discussions on racial or geopolitical issues could inadvertently fall within the Bill’s purview. The risk of silencing necessary conversations in the name of harmony cannot be overlooked.

Broad Powers to Compel Information: Parallels with FICA and Concerns of Overreach

The Bill also grants authorities sweeping powers to compel information, mirroring provisions under the Foreign Interference (Countermeasures) Act 2021 (FICA), which also falls under the purview of the Minister for Home Affairs.

Section 25 of the Bill allows the competent authority to issue written notices requiring individuals or organisations to answer questions, provide documents, or disclose passwords and access codes to digital data. These measures aim to verify compliance, assess grounds for action, and determine whether information provided is accurate and complete.

The provisions grant significant latitude to authorities. For instance, individuals are not excused from providing incriminating evidence, although such evidence is inadmissible in other proceedings unless related to falsification offences. This creates a scenario where individuals and organisations may feel compelled to cooperate without recourse to withhold sensitive information, potentially raising privacy concerns.

Similar to FICA, the Bill allows authorities to retain documents or copies indefinitely without charge. Oral statements must be transcribed, read back, and signed, but there is little transparency around how authorities will justify their requests or ensure proportionality. The ability to demand explanations for any document or digital content further underscores the extensive control this provision provides.

Harsh penalties for non-compliance

The penalties for non-compliance with restraining orders are severe. Section 10 outlines fines of up to S$10,000, imprisonment for up to two years, or both for first-time offences. Repeat offences carry steeper fines of up to S$20,000 and imprisonment of up to three years.

These measures are extended to corporate entities, with Section 43 holding leaders and governing body members personally liable for any breaches. While this approach aims to enforce accountability, the possibility of such severe repercussions could deter organisations from addressing sensitive topics or engaging in meaningful discussions.

Section 10’s penalties for non-compliance, combined with Section 36’s provision for indefinite extensions of restraining orders, could create a climate of self-censorship. The fear of severe repercussions may discourage not only controversial expressions but also necessary and constructive discussions on sensitive issues.

Lack of Binding Oversight by the Presidential Council

Under Part 5, Sections 33-37, the Bill establishes the oversight role of the Presidential Council for Racial and Religious Harmony (PCRRH). After the Minister issues a restraining order, it must be referred to the Council, which can review the grounds and make a recommendation to either cancel, confirm, or vary the order. However, these recommendations are advisory and non-binding on the Minister.

The subsequent process involves the President, who must confirm or cancel the order based on advice from the Cabinet. If the Cabinet’s advice contradicts the Council’s recommendation, the President has discretion under Article 22I of the Constitution to make a final decision. Despite this provision, the Minister’s influence remains significant, as the initial issuance of the order requires no prior consultation and the Council’s role is limited to post-facto review​​.

This structure weakens the PCRRH’s ability to act as an effective check on the Minister’s authority. Without binding recommendations or the power to overturn orders independently, the Council risks being perceived as a symbolic entity rather than a robust safeguard against potential overreach.

Lack of Judicial Review: A Closed Loop of Power

Section 42 explicitly excludes judicial review of decisions or recommendations made under the Bill. This provision makes the decisions of the Minister and the Council final and beyond the scrutiny of courts. Judicial review is a cornerstone of ensuring that executive decisions are fair, proportional, and lawful. Its absence in this Bill creates a “closed loop of power”, where affected parties cannot challenge restraining orders through independent legal channels​.

This arrangement places significant unchecked authority in the hands of the Minister. It also undermines public confidence in the fairness of the process, particularly when the same authority initiates, enforces, and reviews decisions without external accountability.

The Bill provides the Minister with broad discretion to determine what constitutes “prejudicial” content under Section 8, with no requirement to notify or consult individuals before issuing restraining orders (Section 9(6)). This lack of due process increases the risk of arbitrary or disproportionate decisions.

For example, statements that are factually accurate but deemed provocative or sensitive could be targeted without clear justification. The absence of procedural safeguards, combined with the inability to challenge orders, leaves individuals and organisations vulnerable to decisions that could suppress legitimate discourse​.

Sensitive issues at risk

The Bill’s potential impact on discussions around contentious topics, such as the Comprehensive Economic Cooperation Agreement (CECA), is a focal point of concern. Debates over CECA’s implications for local employment often veer into racially charged rhetoric online.

During a 2021 parliamentary debate on the Free Trade Agreement with NCMP Leong Mun Wai, Mr Shanmugam described aspects of this discourse as having racial undertones.

He remarked: “Mr Leong’s views have been so completely distorted by his lack of understanding of CECA and his eagerness to attack Indians and CECA. And I would say what his party and Mr Leong are doing is one of the worst types of political opportunism—using race as a bait.”

Under the Bill’s provisions, similar criticisms, or even well-meaning questions like those raised by Mr Leong, could potentially be classified as incitements to racial discord, allowing the government to issue restraining orders against individuals or entities discussing such issues publicly.

Similarly, global issues like the Israel-Palestine conflict, which have sparked strong opinions in Singapore, could fall under the Bill’s purview. In recent years, activists advocating for pro-Palestinian causes or criticising foreign policies have faced investigations. Under the new legislation, they could be subjected to restraining orders or penalties for inciting racial discord, further narrowing the space for advocacy on such topics.

Elections and the fear of suppression

The Bill’s timing, just months before a general election, amplifies fears that it could be wielded to manage dissent. It is not far-fetched to suggest that its wide-ranging powers and steep penalties may create a chilling effect, discouraging citizens from discussing politically sensitive issues.

For instance, discussions on free trade agreements, employment policies, or foreign relations—already contentious topics—could now be curtailed under the guise of maintaining racial harmony. The prospect of heavy penalties may lead individuals, organisations, and even media outlets to self-censor, further constraining Singapore’s already limited space for public discourse.

In fact, mainstream media is already demonstrating caution. For example, CNA omitted reference to CECA in its coverage of the Leader of the Opposition’s speech despite him having highlighted it in his speech.

Should the Ministry of Home Affairs Be Granted Even More Powers?

As the Bill progresses through Parliament for debate, it is imperative to scrutinise the expansion of powers granted to the Minister for Home Affairs.

Currently, the Minister holds significant authority under existing laws to constrain discourse and associations, including POFMA, FICA, and the Online Criminal Harms Act 2023 (OCHA).

The new Bill proposes additional powers, including the issuance of restraining orders against individuals or entities for content deemed prejudicial to racial harmony.

A critical concern is the potential for these powers to be applied to statements that are factually accurate but considered racially provocative by the Minister. The subjective nature of determining what constitutes “prejudicial” content raises the risk of suppressing legitimate discourse, which could inadvertently stifle free expression and open dialogue on important societal issues.

Given the already extensive powers under POFMA, OCHA, and FICA, it is essential to question the necessity and proportionality of further expanding the Minister’s authority.

Robust checks and balances—such as clearer definitions of key terms, transparent processes, and independent oversight mechanisms—are crucial. These measures would help ensure that the pursuit of racial harmony does not come at the expense of democratic principles and civil liberties.

Fullscreen Mode



Source link

Box 5

Share post:

spot_img

Popular

More like this
Related

Monday Briefing: E.U. Leaders Set to Meet on Ukraine

Cut out of Ukraine talks, E.U. leaders regroupEuropeans...

German Election Spotlight Turns to Trump

On Thursday morning, an Afghan refugee deliberately plowed...

As Trump Targets Research, Scientists Share Grief and Resolve to Fight

At the annual gathering in Boston this week...

In Jerusalem, Rubio and Netanyahu Praise Trump’s Idea to Expel Palestinians From Gaza

Secretary of State Marco Rubio met with Prime...