The Singapore government manages inter-racial and religious tensions carefully through a variety of legal avenues and community efforts. Laws against hate speech and actions that threaten racial or religious harmony are applied judiciously on a case-by-case basis. While the internet has made tensions harder to control, the government recognizes it cannot police all online exchanges and aims to shape public sentiment through impartial enforcement of laws as well as empowering community groups to resolve issues. Fostering understanding through personal relationships is seen as most effective in countering extremist views.

1. í How are inter-racial and
religious tensions managed by the
Government in the Internet age?
THE short answer is: Very careful-
ly.
For such a small country, Sin-
gapore is incredibly diverse. Main-
taining peace among its various ra-
cial and religious communities
will always be a work in progress,
even in the best of times.
A raft of laws have evolved to
ensure public order but, with the
rise of social media, keeping ten-
sions under control is becoming a
lot tougher. No longer are off-col-
our remarks a case of “said and
forgotten”. In the age of Face-
book and Twitter, a private joke
can turn public very quickly.
Of course, the same set of laws
still apply. But deciding whether
to throw the book at people who
spout racial or religious abuse at
others needs to be handled judi-
ciously.
The strategy, put simply, is to
treat each incident of conflict on
a case-by-case basis. In the Inter-
net age, the Government knows it
cannot police every online ex-
change for insensitive comments
and racist rants.
Using the law has proven to
have only a limited effect. Over-
reaction by the state may also
pose questions regarding socie-
ty’s right to freedom of expres-
sion. In other words, the Govern-
ment’s role has evolved. It aims
not only to enforce the laws of the
land impartially, but also to active-
ly shape and influence public sen-
timent.
Take, for comparison, what
happened in 2005, when three
young men were charged and con-
victed for posting racist remarks
on the Internet. Two were jailed;
the third was put on probation.
They were charged under the
Sedition Act – the first time the
Act was invoked since 1966.
The landmark rulings were
meant to serve as a deterrent – a
warning to others that such hate
speech was viewed seriously by
both the judicial and executive
arms of the Government.
In sentencing, presiding judge
Richard Magnus said the court
would not hesitate to impose
“stiffer sentences in future cas-
es”.
Asked about the judgment,
Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong
said: “If you publish such stuff,
anywhere you go, we will act.”
Since that incident, the Act has
been used again only once – in
2009, after a Christian couple
was exposed for mailing anti-Is-
lamic tracts to households.
That so few have been prose-
cuted since 2005 for threatening
the peace is not because of
changed attitudes – similar inci-
dents have, in fact, been on the
rise.
Recall the 2010 incident when
a pastor was hauled up by the In-
ternal Security Department for in-
sulting the Buddhist and Taoist
faiths. Or more recently, last No-
vember, when a People’s Action
Party youth activist described a
school bus of Malay pupils as “ter-
rorists in training”.
People with little regard for
others’ religious beliefs will al-
ways exist. In the Internet age,
the answer cannot be to put all of
them in jail, as the Government re-
alises. Calling the police should al-
so not be an immediate reaction
to hate speech online.
For one thing, over-reliance on
the Government breeds distrust
among citizens, who must learn
to negotiate and settle conflict am-
icably among themselves.
Another reason the Govern-
ment may not be the best party to
act is that state intervention rare-
ly changes perceptions. It may
curb racial and religiously motivat-
ed hate speech, but the Govern-
ment may not be as effective in ex-
plaining why such abuse is not ac-
ceptable in the first place. Such a
role is better taken by community
groups. Over the years, groups
such as Inter-Racial and Religious
Confidence Circles have brought
together community and religious
leaders to act as advisers and arbi-
trators when conflict arises
among residents of different races
and religions.
More recently, some have sug-
gested a legal Internet code of con-
duct, the argument being that this
would spell out the rules of en-
gagement in online speech about
race and religion.
On this matter, Dr Yaacob Ibra-
him, the Minister for Informa-
tion, Communications and the
Arts, said last week at a racial har-
mony forum that having a code
was not about enforcement, but
about recommending a set of
rules that users should abide by.
When such a rule book will be
put up is anyone’s guess.
The bottom line is that al-
though the Internet has made it
more difficult for the Government
to police undesirable speech, soci-
ety’s responsibility to defend it-
self against fanatical views re-
mains the same. Hate speech is an
internal problem, not an external
one. The Internet is just one other
platform – albeit a convenient
one – that people use to communi-
cate their views.
Getting netizens to self-regu-
late is helpful, but as New York
Times writer David Brooks said in
a recent column about the Colora-
do shooting, looking at the forms
of violence – in this case, Internet
speech – is starting from the
wrong perspective.
As a society, we can call for
codes of conduct, tougher laws,
even stiffer sentences – but the
best way to nurture tolerance is
with something a little more
old-fashioned: relationships.
People who hold extremist
views are rarely unknown figures
– at least, not to their family
members and close friends.
If you notice someone in your
circle (or Facebook feed) who falls
into this group of people, do not
wait to speak up. Do so – via a
Facebook comment, a private mes-
sage or a phone call.
People reform people. That’s
something that won’t change –
even with a 4G network. And it’s
a thought you can re-post, and
re-tweet, as often as you like.
zengyan@sph.com.sg
IN SINGAPORE, there are
three main legal avenues by
which the Government can
punish those whose words or
actions threaten religious
harmony.
They are applied in slightly
different ways, but the
underlying objective is the
same: to maintain public order.
The first piece of legislation
is the Sedition Act, enacted in
1948.
It prohibits, with regard to
race and religion in particular,
expressions that “promote
feelings of ill-will and hostility
between different races”.
Repeat offenders can be jailed
up to five years.
The second is the
Maintenance of Religious
Harmony Act, enacted in 1992.
It gives the Minister of Home
Affairs the power to issue
restraining orders to any
religious leader or individual
believed to be causing feelings
of “enmity, hatred, ill-will or
hostility between different
religious groups”.
Those issued the order are
not allowed to address any
members of any religious group.
Breaching this order is a
criminal offence that carries a
maximum sentence of three
years in jail and a $20,000 fine
for repeat offenders.
Finally, the Government can
look to a section in the Penal
Code that came into force in
2008.
It increases by 1.5 times the
punishment a person would
otherwise be given if he
commits “racially or religiously
aggravated” offences.
For example, the maximum
penalty for causing hurt is two
years in jail and a $5,000 fine;
for racially or religiously
motivated crimes, the offender
can be jailed for up to three
years and fined up to $7,500.
There is actually a fourth
piece of legislation – the
Internal Security Act – that
allows the Government to
arrest and detain people on
suspicion of threatening
national security.
Although it does apply to
issues of race and religion, it is
more often used in areas
concerning international
terrorism, for example.
Legal experts note that it
might seem unusual to have a
slew of laws that all seem to do
the same thing – guard and
maintain religious harmony.
Others argue that religion is a
highly sensitive issue, so
diverse legal options are needed
to enable the Government to
handle such matters deftly.
It is worth noting, however,
that these laws are rarely
invoked.
The Sedition Act, though it
was enacted before
independence, was used for the
first time only in 2005, to
convict some bloggers who had
made racist remarks on the
Internet. The Maintenance of
Religious Harmony Act has yet
to be invoked.
YEN FENG
FOR news reports on the
progress of the quiz, school
talks and students’ responses,
go to www.straitstimes.com/
thebigquiz.
View clips from the quiz
rounds and school talks at
www.razortv.com.sg.
Student teams will compete
for the top cash prize of $5,000
and a trophy. The next best
teams will receive $3,000,
$1,000 and $500 respectively.
The competition is open to
students in the first year of
junior college or the equivalent,
such as Year 5 of a six-year
integrated programme.
After a preliminary round
involving 23 school teams, and
a quarter-final involving 18
teams, six teams have made it
to the semi-final round on
Aug 22.
They are: Hwa Chong
Institution, Pioneer Junior
College, Anglo-Chinese Junior
College, Raffles Institution,
River Valley High School, and
NUS High School of
Mathematics and Science.
Quiz questions are based on
reports in The Straits Times.
Next week, the primer series
takes a break and returns on
Aug 17.
Have a question on a primer
topic? E-mail them to
stprojects@sph.com.sg
By YEN FENG
Recent headlines
What the law says...
On The Big Quiz NEWS about people getting
into trouble with the law for
potentially inciting racial and
religious hostility has been on
the rise.
Here are five examples in
the past year.
í LAST MONTH
The police arrested two
17-year-old males for allegedly
making racist remarks online.
Police said that the remarks
“could promote ill will and
hostility between the races”.
Two police reports were
filed after screengrabs of the
postings were shared on
Twitter and Facebook.
Investigations are ongoing.
í IN APRIL
An Easter weekend party that
was advertised using
photographs of women in nun
costumes was cancelled after it
sparked outrage among
Catholics here.
The photos, which were
circulated on Facebook,
attracted widespread criticism
for being insensitive to the
Catholic community.
The Church’s Archbishop
Nicholas Chia denounced the
event’s publicity strategy and
the organisers apologised.
í IN MARCH
A Nanyang Polytechnic
student Shimun Lai, 21,
apologised after a remark she
posted online offended many
netizens.
On her Facebook and
Twitter profiles, the student
said in an expletive-laden post
that Indians need their own
form of transport or to be in
separate cabins from other
people.
Police reports were made
and she apologised for her
comment.
í IN MARCH
The March issue of the popular
FHM magazine was pulled
from shelves after a Christian
complained of two articles
published in the magazine.
In one report headlined
“Which of these celebs might
secretly be Jesus?”, a number
of well-known personalities
including Oprah Winfrey and
Justin Bieber were assessed for
“evidence” that they may be
Jesus.
The second report, Jesus
2.0, showed a photograph of a
man dressed as Jesus, holding
a gun and strapped with
ammunition.
í IN NOVEMBER LAST YEAR
A People’s Action Party youth
wing member was asked to
resign after one of his
Facebook posts sparked
accusations of racism as it
circulated online.
Mr Jason Neo, 30, had
posted a photograph of
Malay children on their
schoolbus with the caption:
“Bus filled with young terrorist
trainees?”
At least three police reports
were made against Mr Neo,
who later apologised.
This primer is the
11th instalment of a
12-part series in the
Opinion pages, in the
lead-up to The Straits
Times-Ministry of
Education National
Current Affairs Quiz
PRIMER
Managing racial and religious tensions
A30 OOPPIINNIIOONN F R I D A Y , A U G U S T 3 , 2 0 1 2 q