A/HRC/48/16 with the community to safeguard and promote racial and religious harmony. Singapore viewed its diversity as a strength. 50. Singapore had amended the Constitution to provide for reserved presidential elections in order to ensure equitable racial representation in its highest political office. It had also updated the Maintenance of Religious Harmony Act to respond more effectively to incidents of religious disharmony and to strengthen safeguards against foreign influences that might threaten religious harmony. 51. The Government had been proactive in implementing measures aimed at building trust between various communities at the national and local levels. The National Steering Committee on Racial and Religious Harmony, comprising leaders from major faith and ethnic groups, had been established. At the community level, interfaith platforms had been set up in every constituency, in order to deepen understanding between religious, ethnic and community groups through activities such as heritage trails, dialogues and various ethnic and religious celebrations. 52. Singapore supported community-led initiatives by providing grants for such projects and encouraging grass-roots community programmes that provided safe spaces and opportunities to foster greater understanding and appreciation of the country’s diversity. 53. The delegation of Singapore expressed its appreciation for the acknowledgement by States that had taken the floor of its efforts to build a more inclusive, cohesive and resilient society. 54. Singapore reiterated that capital punishment was only imposed for the most serious crimes and that rigorous judicial processes and legal safeguards were in place to protect the rights of the accused. They included the provision of free legal counsel at trial and on appeal. Capital punishment was imposed only after due process and in strict accordance with the law by an independent and impartial judiciary. The prosecution bore the burden of proof beyond reasonable doubt. Every capital case was tried in the High Court and could be appealed before the Court of Appeal. Even in the absence of an appeal, before capital punishment could be meted out, the Court of Appeal must review the conviction for which capital punishment had been imposed, and be satisfied as to the correctness, legality and propriety of the conviction and sentence. 55. Freedom of expression was particularly important in a compact, multiracial and multireligious city State such as Singapore. Its laws governing the freedom of expression, including the Protection from Online Falsehoods and Manipulation Act, had been written with that in mind. The Act only tackled falsehoods. It did not cover criticisms, opinions, satire or parody. 56. The approach of Singapore to defamation was not unique. Individuals had the right to protect their reputation against unfounded or scurrilous allegations by challenging defamatory allegations in court before an independent judiciary. 57. Singapore reiterated that members of the lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender communities were valuable members of its society. The Government did not tolerate violence, abuse, discrimination or harassment against members of the lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender communities. Although section 377A of the Penal Code remained in place, it was not enforced. Attitudes towards homosexuality were still evolving, and various communities held different views. Any move by the Government must therefore take into consideration the sentiments of all communities in Singapore. 58. Singapore would thoroughly examine the recommendations received through the universal periodic review process, in consultation with all relevant stakeholders, and consider how they could be implemented and best contribute to the promotion and protection of human rights in the country. It would also bear in mind its national context and the need to preserve the political trust of its people in the democracy and institutions of Singapore. 7