A/HRC/17/40/Add.2 population in fostering understanding and maintaining social cohesion, which undoubtedly constitute essential elements of nation-building in a young country like Singapore. 25. The wide-ranging measures taken by the authorities to foster racial harmony, discourage intolerance and preserve political stability and prosperity are widely appreciated by all sectors of the society. They indeed demonstrate that the Government is committed to confronting these challenges in an open manner. Yet, various interlocutors pointed out that the legitimate goal of searching for racial harmony may have created some blind spots in the policies and measures pursued by the Government. The Special Rapporteur would like to highlight some of these concerns in the following sections. A. Restrictions on freedoms of expression and assembly 26. During his mission, the Special Rapporteur was informed that there exist several legislative provisions which deal with the promotion of feelings of “enmity”, “ill-will” or “hostility” between members of the different ethnic groups in Singapore. These legislative provisions include sections 298 and 298A of Singapore’s Penal Code, sections 3 and 4 of the Sedition Act, section 4 of the Undesirable Publications Act and section 7 of the Public Order Act. 27. For instance, according to section 298A of the Penal Code, “whoever (a) by words, either spoken or written, or by signs or by visible representations or otherwise, knowingly promotes or attempts to promote, on grounds of religion or race, disharmony or feelings of enmity, hatred or ill-will between different religious or racial groups; or (b) commits any act which he knows is prejudicial to the maintenance of harmony between different religious or racial groups and which disturbs or is likely to disturb the public tranquillity, shall be punished with imprisonment for a term which may extend to 3 years, or with fine, or with both”. Section 4 of the Undesirable Publications Act states that “for the purposes of this Act, a publication is objectionable if, in the opinion of any controller, it … describes, depicts, expresses or otherwise deals with … (b) matters of race or religion in such a manner that the availability of the publication is likely to cause feelings of enmity, hatred, ill-will or hostility between different racial or religious groups”. Section 7 of the Public Order Act provides that the police may refuse to grant a permit for a public assembly or public procession if it has reasonable ground for apprehending that the proposed assembly or procession may “cause feelings of enmity, hatred, ill-will or hostility between different groups in Singapore.” 28. It appears that the above-mentioned restrictions are aimed at framing and limiting any public debate or discourse on issues that are regarded as highly sensitive. Given Singapore’s historical legacy, the concerns of the authorities with regard to communal tensions are understandable. Yet, the Special Rapporteur takes the view that it is absolutely necessary in a free society that restrictions on public debate or discourse and the protection of racial harmony are not implemented at the detriment of human rights, such as freedom of expression and freedom of assembly. During his mission, many interlocutors assured the Special Rapporteur that the Singaporean society had evolved substantially from the days of the violent confrontations 45 years ago, and that it was now able to hold open public debate on a sensitive issue like ethnicity in a dispassionate and fruitful manner. The Special Rapporteur therefore believes that the time is ripe for the authorities to review any undue legislative restrictions that may exist in the statute books in order to allow all individuals living in Singapore to share their views on matters related to ethnicity, to identify potential issues of discomfort and above all, work together to find solutions. 9