Considerable value in having president, new council safeguard race-based restraining orders: Shanmugam

There is considerable value in having the president serve as a check on the Government’s powers to issue restraining orders to maintain racial harmony, said Home Affairs and Law Minister K. Shanmugam.

And it is appropriate because the president is directly elected by Singaporeans, he added, pointing out that the Internal Security Act and the Maintenance of Religious Harmony Act adopt a similar model.

The minister was responding to concerns raised by Workers’ Party (WP) chair Sylvia Lim over new presidential powers proposed in amendments to the Constitution. Parliament passed these changes, along with a Bill to maintain racial harmony, on Feb 4 after a five-hour debate.

The constitutional amendments – which the WP voted against – were made to introduce safeguards on the restraining order regime under the Maintenance of Racial Harmony Bill, which allows the Government to act quickly and pre-emptively against content that threatens racial harmony. 

They grant a new council – the Presidential Council for Racial and Religious Harmony – the ability to review restraining orders and advise if they are appropriate, with the president deciding whether to act on the council’s advice.

Ms Lim said her party supports the racial harmony Bill but not the accompanying Bill to amend the Constitution, as it is not the president’s responsibility to maintain public peace and order as he is not answerable to Parliament.

Noting that the proposed mechanism for the president to review the restraining orders carries “significant risks”, she said it could lead to a scenario where the Government cannot be blamed for adverse social outcomes arising from a cancelled restraining order.

“Let’s say it subsequently turns out that the organisation concerned had truly become a proxy for a hostile foreign actor, or race relations deteriorate sharply, proving that the minister was justified in issuing the restraining order in the first place,” she told Parliament.

“When Singaporeans question the decision-making process, the Government can justifiably say that it correctly issued the restraining order but since the (elected president) decided to cancel it, the Government is not to be blamed for the bad outcomes.”

She also said there are grave implications to bringing the president into decisions involving ethnicity, given that the role is meant to be a symbol of unity and the personification of the State. 

“To require him to make hard decisions on matters involving ethnicity will detract from his role as a unifying figure above politics,” she said. She also noted that it would be divisive and highly damaging to society if the president uses the provision to cancel a restraining order owing to his ethnic roots.

All seven WP MPs present at the Feb 4 sitting objected to the amendments to the law. But the Bill was passed as 78 MPs, making up at least two-thirds of representatives in the House, voted in favour of the changes. No one abstained from voting.

Mr Shanmugam responded to Ms Lim by saying that the decision to implement these additional safeguards is “a question of judgment”.

He said: “Ultimately, whether the system works really depends on the integrity of the people involved, all the way – the minister, the council, the president, Parliament, everywhere.

“The Presidential Council, by bringing in senior leaders in the religious and lay community, can provide additional rigour to the process.”

Mr Shanmugam also said the changes were not proposed with the belief that the Presidential Council and the president would never disagree with the minister.

This would be an “untenable supposition”, he said. 

“We are building frameworks and institutions that we hope will see Singapore through over a long period, and this is all part of the institution building that has been going on over the last 60 years or so,” he added.

Ms Lim replied that while the Government does not take the president’s agreement for granted, it cannot be discounted that the president could disagree and cancel a justified restraining order.

“Is (the minister) not concerned that this scheme here will risk the (elected president) being polarised along racial lines?” she said.

In response, Mr Shanmugam pointed out a “curious reversal of roles”, observing that he was arguing for an extra layer of checks on the Government, while Ms Lim was questioning the need for extra checks because it brings the president into the fray.

The mechanism rather lets the members of the Presidential Council – who are outstanding members of the community – pool their collective wisdom to advise the president if a restraining order lacks substance, he said.

“The president himself is elected by the people, and in that sense, he has a mandate; he is accountable to the people himself, while the minister continues to be accountable in Parliament, and of course, to the judgment of the public,” he added.

At the end of the day, it is a question of striking a balance, he reiterated.

“If you have too many checks and balances, nothing gets done. If you have no checks and balances, sometimes it can go very wrong. So we are trying to find a balance, and that’s the best answer I can give,” he said.

Source: The Straits Times © SPH Media Limited. Permission required for reproduction.

Woman sues gynae over childbirth injury that impacted marital, social, professional life New law to protect racial harmony passed