Question:
Mr Zhulkarnain Abdul Rahim: To ask the Minister for Home Affairs with regard to the social media posting that was taken down by the Israeli embassy in Singapore on 24 March 2024 (a) whether there are further steps to be taken; and (b) whether a person responsible for such posting on a social media account that is owned or managed by a foreign embassy in Singapore will enjoy diplomatic immunity from jurisdiction and prosecution under our laws.
Answer:
Mr K Shanmugam, Minister for Home Affairs and Minister for Law:
1. Sir, External developments, especially those as emotionally charged as the conflict in the Middle East, often spill across borders. They can cause tensions between people who feel differently about, and who identify with different sides of the issue.
2. And we in Singapore have been affected by these forces as well. We see in particular a divide in the reactions between the Malay/Muslim community on the one side, and the Jewish and Christian communities on the other side. Many in the Malay/Muslim community see the injustice in what is happening in Gaza. The Jewish community meanwhile feels deeply the pain inflicted by Hamas’ act of terror on 7 October 2023. There are sections of the Christian community who feel that any attack on Israel is an attack on Christianity – while not all Christians feel that way, there are some who feel that way and have expressed those views. Other communities may also empathise with one side of the conflict more than the other.
3. Deeply held feelings can also result in words or actions that offend other communities. Between 7 October 2023 and 31 March 2024, the Police received 43 reports regarding alleged offensive remarks or actions targeted at members of the Jewish or Muslim communities in Singapore.
4. The Government will intervene against acts which can affect our social harmony. Members know that we have laws such as the Maintenance of Religious Harmony Act; the Penal Code of course, has provisions; and the Protection from Harassment Act; they all set out the boundaries on what is acceptable conduct.
Protests and the Public Order Act
5. In this context, let me also say something about protests. We have seen how tensions have boiled over in many countries. In Berlin, pro-Palestinian protestors have clashed with the Police, with hundreds of people arrested. At US universities, exchanges between different groups - pro-Israel and pro-Palestine student protestors - have become increasingly acrimonious. Students on both sides have faced harassment and assault.
6. Ironically, some of the leading US universities are beginning to say that freedom of expression does not mean that one can say or do anything one wants.
7. What we see happening in many places overseas – is that the protests have often become violent. People occupy buildings, prevent others from going about their daily businesses, cause significant dis-amenities and disruption to the public. And often that leads to damage and harm. They may start off well-intentioned, led by honest, idealistic people. People often say, “What’s wrong with protests, expression of views”, and I can understand that often, people genuinely feel the need and they are not violent people, they don’t want to create trouble. But what happens is that when there are these protests, they often get infiltrated, as we can see from elsewhere, by others with their own agendas. These others, who infiltrate these protests, often try and engineer violence.
8. The New York Times and other media outlets have run stories on what is happening in the US right now. The Mayor of New York has reportedly criticised outside agitators for being on campus grounds training and co-opting the protests. He was concerned with, and I quote, “young people…being influenced by those who are professionals at radicalising children” unquote. The New York Times ran an article, quoting a student saying that a big part of the protests were people coming in from the general Los Angeles area and putting on a demonstration that caused widespread disruption. These are on the UCLA campuses.
9. There are also reports, on the other hand, which deny that outsiders have been significantly involved.
10. I think it is difficult to know the true facts. But looking at protests, and we have been studying them – Hong Kong, other places, Sri Lanka; it is fair to say that often, there is a group that has legitimate aims and wants to be peaceful, but there are often others who use these events where people gather, to then engineer violence and put the Police on the defensive, and try and egg the Police on to try and engage in forcibly preventing acts of violence; and then it escalates.
11. So likewise, our own view is that if we allow protests on this issue, initially it maybe peaceful, but over time, as the protests take a life of their own, there could be some violence, breach of the peace and law, occupying of buildings. In Singapore, we are no different from other places.
Protecting and Strengthening our Social Compact
12. Individuals who engage in offensive or violent conduct, however, I think we should accept, are a very small minority in our society; and I suspect in other places too. And we in Singapore have not had many serious incidents pitting one racial or religious group against another. And most Singaporeans understand the importance of safeguarding our social cohesion, and the value of our mutual respect and tolerance. Even where views on the conflict have differed, people in Singapore have been relatively measured and rational in the way we have approached the issues.
13. Beyond the law, we work actively, and we do work actively on strengthening our social compact by building mutual trust and understanding across our ethnic and religious communities. And at the leadership level, MHA and MCCY facilitate platforms where senior religious and community leaders engage with one another frequently. The platforms include the National Steering Committee on Racial and Religious Harmony, as well as the Racial and Religious Harmony Circles in every constituency.
14. At the people-to-people level, MCCY provides support for inter-faith and inter-ethnic initiatives that bring different communities together, including dialogues that encourage mutual understanding and respectful interactions across different communities.
Israeli Embassy Social Media Post
15. Let me now turn to the social media post by the Israeli Embassy that was raised by Mr Zhulkarnain. Foreign embassies and diplomatic staff in Singapore enjoy diplomatic immunity under the law, unless they waive it. Amongst other things, this means that they enjoy immunity from our criminal jurisdiction.
16. Nevertheless, the Ministry of Home Affairs has shared our concerns with the Ministry of Foreign Affairs when the post was put up. Immediately, we shared our concerns, and MFA agreed that the post was offside and should be taken down. MFA then engaged the Israeli embassy on the post and asked that it be taken down. And the Embassy, as Members will know, took down the post immediately.
17. Members will remember what I said in public – that the post was completely unacceptable.
18. The Israeli Ambassador asked to see me. I met him last week. He apologised for the post having been put up. He said it was wrong for the post to have been put up. The post was not authorised by him, and the officer responsible for the post will be sent back, away from Singapore. And he said that this would never happen again.
19. I pointed out to him that Embassies are entitled to have their point of view. But where what has been said affects Singapore - in this case the harmony and safety in Singapore – especially the security of our minority communities, we have to step in. Posts like what the Embassy put up have the potential to create tension between our Jewish and Muslim communities, and may also, put our Jewish community in particular, at risk.
20. The Police received a report on the post. The Police, in consultation with the Attorney-General’s Chambers, have assessed that no further action was to be taken. Members would understand that the Israeli Embassy’s actions are covered by the principle of Sovereign Immunity.
