Skip to main content

Advertisement

Advertisement

Govt must intervene early before hate speech disrupts racial, religious harmony in S’pore: Shanmugam

SINGAPORE — Rather than questioning whether the Government should dictate what music Singaporeans can listen to, Singaporeans must accept the broader picture that by allowing hate or offensive speech to go mainstream, the fault lines of race and religion here will grow.

“We engineered this (racial and religious harmony) over many decades… We refused to let the State bow to any religious or racial group, minority or majority,” said Mr K Shanmugam in Parliament.

“We engineered this (racial and religious harmony) over many decades… We refused to let the State bow to any religious or racial group, minority or majority,” said Mr K Shanmugam in Parliament.

Follow TODAY on WhatsApp

SINGAPORE — Rather than questioning whether the Government should dictate what music Singaporeans can listen to, Singaporeans must accept the broader picture that by allowing hate or offensive speech to go mainstream, the fault lines of race and religion here will grow.

This was a point made by Home Affairs Minister K Shanmugam in an hour-long ministerial statement on hate speech in Parliament on Monday (April 1), where he explained the Government’s decision to cancel Swedish black metal band Watain’s concert here.

He emphasised to the House that the current state of racial and religious harmony in the Republic is not “the natural order of things”.

Mr Shanmugam said that the reasons behind the Government’s decision not to allow Watain to perform here can only be understood “by understanding the larger picture of what we are trying to do, and why we are in the positive part of the spectrum”.

“Our current racial and religious harmony didn’t fall ready-made from the sky… We engineered this over many decades. People accuse us of ‘social engineering’. So what? I ask,” he said.

“We brooked no agitation on race and religion. We refused to let the State bow to any religious or racial group, minority or majority.”

To prevent hate speech from being “normalised”, one must intervene early before it “becomes socially acceptable to discriminate and oppress”, he added.

Fundamentally, Mr Shanmugam said that if everyone agrees on the need for racial and religious harmony in Singapore, then these questions have to be considered: The degree to which hate speech can impact it; the steps needed to be taken to deal with hate speech; and the continuum between hate speech and offensive speech.

Mr Shanmugam then outlined the current framework on deciding what constitutes offensive speech as well. The authorities first look at how offensive the words and material are; secondly, they assess what the likely impact of the speech would be.

“How would, for example, the community which is the target of the offensive speech react?” he added.

HATE SPEECH DEHUMANISES GROUPS

He cited some worldwide developments involving hate speech and how they “dehumanised” their targets.

These include last month’s mass shootings in Christchurch, New Zealand, which were “motivated by white supremacist ideology”. Islamic militant groups have been using the attacks to “push a message of hate that the West is at war with Islam” as well.

The Holocaust during World War II was a “classic and extreme example” of how hate speech mobilised an entire population to commit terrible atrocities, Mr Shanmugam pointed out.

In Sri Lanka, a multi-ethnic and multi-religious country, “hard-line Buddhist extremists frequently promoted hate and violence against minorities”.

Meanwhile, in Myanmar, Muslim Rohingyas have also been the subject of hate speech. The leader of the 969 Movement called mosques “enemy bases”, and urged Buddhists to boycott Muslim businesses and shun interfaith marriage.

Closer to home, the Malay Power movement has been growing in neighbouring Malaysia. Members of the movement believe that Malaysia should be an exclusively Malay nation, that immigration should end and that non-Malays should be expelled. A music festival featuring Malay-power nationalists was cancelled in March, following public outcry.

“Hate speech denigrates the out-group and says that the out-group is the source of problems for the in-group. It dehumanises the out-group, making violence against them justified,” Mr Shanmugam elaborated.

SECULARISM IN S’PORE DOES NOT ALLOW INSULTS, ATTACKS ON GROUPS

He also tackled arguments that because Singapore is secular, the Republic should not be banning material that is offensive to Christians or any other religious group.

He pointed out that Singapore’s definition of secularism is different from other countries’. In France, for instance, secularity means that the state will not intervene in religious matters, and people can publish material that is offensive to any religion.

Charlie Hebdo, a French satirical weekly magazine, regularly publishes satirical material mocking Islam, Catholicism, Judaism and other groups. Two gunmen, identifying themselves as Al-Qaeda members, attacked the magazine’s offices in 2015.

“Should we adopt the same ‘secular’ approach? Take a hands-off approach and allow cartoons, offensive material, ridicule hate speech directed at any race or religion?” Mr Shanmugam asked.

In fact, he countered that the State will “strive in every way possible to achieve racial and religious harmony”. People of every race and faith will be protected from hate speech and unacceptable speech — different from the hands-off approach that France has, he said.

“This secular Government is completely neutral. It does not privilege any religious group, nor does it allow any religious group to be insulted and attacked. This secular Government also guarantees freedom of religion and protects all, including minorities, from threats and violence,” he added.

In addition, the Government works closely with inter-religious organisations, the Inter-Racial and Religious Confidence Circles, and religious leaders to ensure all Singaporeans work towards religious harmony.

“That is the fundamental assurance one gets in Singapore. It doesn’t matter who you are, what religion you believe in — you are free to believe in any religion, including not to believe,” Mr Shanmugam added.

LOOK AT LARGER PICTURE

Along those lines, Mr Shanmugam acknowledged arguments against the Government’s approach to hate speech, and racial and religious harmony.

Referencing the Watain concert cancellation, he noted that some have said that the Government is “self-righteously trying to govern other people’s lives and decisions”. But “the larger picture is not about whether the Government should tell you what music you can or cannot listen to”, he said.

“The issue here is about whether the Government should give Watain a licence to perform publicly in Singapore. And the Government has a responsibility not just to the individuals who like Watain music, but also the majority of Singaporeans who would be offended,” he added.

If the Government let Watain perform here, it must allow similar hate or offensive speech in other concerts or performance arts, he pointed out.

This includes Malay-power music and other similar kinds of music. The Government will also have to think about allowing the Charlie Hebdo cartoons to be published here.

“Would those people who are unhappy with the ban of Watain be willing to accept the following consequences of their position: Will they accept that over time, the fault lines of race and religion will be greater? Do they accept that hate speech could become normalised, and do they also accept accept all the consequences of that? And if they accept that, do they still think we should have the freedom to have hate speech, through entertainment in Singapore, regardless of the consequences?” Mr Shanmugam questioned.

“If they are willing to say that, then will they say: I accept that similar concerts, entertainment attacking Islam, Buddhism and other religions should also be allowed? They have to say that.

“If you honestly say: “Yes, we accept all these possible consequences”, that will be an honest statement. But if you put it in those terms and that you accept the consequences, you will be in a small minority. I don’t think many Singaporeans will support such a position,” he said.

Read more of the latest in

Advertisement

Advertisement

Stay in the know. Anytime. Anywhere.

Subscribe to get daily news updates, insights and must reads delivered straight to your inbox.

By clicking subscribe, I agree for my personal data to be used to send me TODAY newsletters, promotional offers and for research and analysis.