2024年5月8日，新加坡内政部长尚穆根在国会上回复蔡厝港集选区议员周凯年关于以色列驻新加坡大使馆社交贴文事件的补充问题。
以下内容为新加坡眼根据国会英文资料翻译整理：
以色列驻新加坡大使馆删除社交媒体帖子事件的最新情况(2)
议长先生：有请周凯年先生补充发言。
周凯年先生 (蔡厝港集选区议员)：谢谢议长先生。 我感谢部长阁下的回应。同意部长的说法，即这种冒犯性的帖子将所有社区都置于危险之中，包括我们这里的犹太社区。
我有两个补充问题：
首先，在这种网上发帖行为中，鉴于此类潜在发帖的敏感性，内政部如何确保此类发帖在被认为具有冒犯性时能够迅速、紧急地删除？
第二个补充问题是，假设未来案件中的外交豁免被放弃，我们如何确保公开法庭的正当程序得到妥善处置，因为它可能在民意法庭发生，并加剧当地的某些紧张局势或情绪？
尚穆根先生：议长先生，我能否向这位议员澄清一下，或许我听得不太清楚。关于第一个问题，他指的是任何公众发布的帖子还是大使馆发布的帖子？
周凯年先生：具体地说，只是大使馆的。所以是仅就专门针对大使馆的帖子。
尚穆根先生：我将结合具体情况来回答。如果是公众发布的帖子，当然，根据不同的立法，我们有多种权力。新加坡有《网络犯罪危害法令》（Online Criminal Harms Act）、《维持宗教和谐法令》（Maintenance of Religious Harmony Act）和《广播法令》（Broadcasting Act）。如果你查看一下不同的法令，根据不同的侵权行为，我们有权阻止访问。根据《维持宗教和谐法令》，甚至有权签发限制令。虽然自该法生效以来我们从未签发过限制令（我想已有将近 30 年了），但这一事实本身就说明了该法是多么有用，也说明了新加坡社会的性质。
但如果是大使馆，那么出发点就是主权豁免。因此，举例来说，你不能直接命令大使馆删除其网络上的帖子。你可以考虑采取更一般的措施，比如阻止整个平台的访问，但这将是一个非常重要的步骤，我认为我们需要谨慎行事。在这种情况下，当大使馆发布帖子时，我认为处理方式就是我们的处理方式—与大使馆沟通。
如果他们拒绝，我不想过多地进行假设，但举例来说，如果他们拒绝删除，那么一个国家可以对另一个国家采取通常的外交步骤。但你必须评估侵权行为的性质，以及如何校准。在极端的情况下，你可以根据允许多少人进入使馆，或者允许多少人在新加坡，或者要求一些人离开来校准；你已经看到过这类事情的发生。即使他们在从事间谍活动，你也不能对他们提出指控，更不用说他们发布贴子了。
因此，这是国际法的一部分。我们必须按照国际法行事，但在这个框架内，我们必须看看可以做些什么。
议长先生，关于这位议员提出的第二个问题，我认为任何大使馆放弃外交豁免而允许另一个国家对他们提出指控都是非常假设的。这种情况虽然不常发生，但假设性极高。各国通常会说：”听着，我们会把他送回去，然后用我们自己的方式处理他”。各位成员可能还记得罗马尼亚的伊奥内斯库先生的案例。他回罗马尼亚后，罗马尼亚人对他进行了指控。
因此，议长先生，如果存在放弃豁免权的案例，那么对这个问题的简短回复是，如果检方如认为此举可能激起愤怒及造成恐慌，并可能导致暴力后果，便可就案件的性质作出评估。他们总是可以申请不公开审理，但我认为他们必须表明公众的利益。除了在大使馆放弃豁免权的情况下采取行动之外，还可以根据不同的法律采取其他措施。
以下是英文质询内容：
UPDATE ON INCIDENT WHERE SOCIAL MEDIA POST WAS TAKEN DOWN BY ISRAELI EMBASSY IN SINGAPORE(2)
Mr Speaker: Mr Zhulkarnain Abdul Rahim.
Mr Zhulkarnain Abdul Rahim (Chua Chu Kang): Thank you, Sir. I thank the hon Minister for the response. I agree with the Minister’s statement that such offensive posts put all communities at risk, including our Jewish community here.
I have two supplementary questions. Firstly, in such conduct of online posts, how can MHA ensure that such postings, if deemed offensive, can be taken down swiftly and urgently, given the sensitive nature of such potential postings? The second supplementary question is how do we ensure, assuming diplomatic immunity in future cases are waived, that due process in open court can be dealt with sensitively, given that it may play out in the court of public opinion and escalates certain tensions or emotions on the ground?
Mr K Shanmugam: Sir, can I just clarify with the Member, maybe I did not hear fully. On the first question, is he referring to posts by any member of public or is he referring to posts by embassies?
Mr Zhulkarnain Abdul Rahim: Specifically, just on embassies. So, specific to embassies’ posts.
Mr K Shanmugam: I will provide an answer with context. If it is by members of the public, of course, we have a variety of powers, under different pieces of legislation. There is the Online Criminal Harms Act, the Maintenance of Religious Harmony Act, the Broadcasting Act. If you look at the different pieces of legislation, depending on what infringements there are, there are powers to block access. There are powers under the Maintenance of Religious Harmony Act to even issue a restraining order. Though the very fact that we have never issued a restraining order since the legislation came into force – I think it is nearly 30 years – shows how useful the legislation has been and also shows the nature of the community we have in Singapore.
But if it is specifically an embassy, the starting point is there would be sovereign immunity. So, you would not be able to, for example, issue directly an order to the embassy to remove a posting on its website. You could look at more general steps, like blocking entire access to the platform, but that would be a very high signature step and I think we need to be careful. In these cases, when an embassy puts up a post, I think the way to handle it is the way we handled it – talk to the embassy.
If they refuse, and I do not want to be going too much into hypotheticals, but for example, if they refuse to take it down, then there are the usual diplomatic steps that one country can take vis-à-vis another country. But you got to assess the nature of the infringement, as it were, and how you calibrate it. It can be calibrated to how you give access or how many people you allow in the embassy to be in Singapore or you ask some to leave, in an extreme case; you have seen those sorts of things happen. Even when they are spying you cannot charge them, let alone when they put up a post.
So, that is part of international law. We will have to act in accordance with international law but within that framework, we will have to see what is possible to do.
On the Member’s second question, Sir, it is, I think, very hypothetical that any embassy would waive diplomatic immunity and allow another country to charge them. It has happened infrequently, but it is extremely hypothetical. What countries will normally say is, “Look, we will deal with the person by sending him back and then deal with him in our own way”. Members may recall the case of Mr Ionescu from Romania. The Romanians charged him after he went back to Romania.
So, if there is a case where immunity is waived, then the short answer to the question, Sir, is that the prosecution can make an assessment as to the nature of the case if it feels that this may stir up anger and create a spectacle with potentially violent consequences. They can always apply for it to be heard in camera, but they have got to show public interest, I think. Short of taking action if the embassy waives immunity, there are other steps that can be taken under various pieces of legislation as well.
CF丨编辑
HQ丨编审
新加坡国会丨来源
新加坡国会丨图源
1
