1 Mr Ang Wei Neng asked the Minister for Communications and Information what is the progress of rolling out a 5G network in Singapore.
\tThe Minister for Communications and Information (Mr S Iswaran): Mr Speaker, 5G technology and networks will be a critical part of Singapore’s Digital Economy. I announced at the Committee of Supply debates earlier this year that we plan to commence the roll out of 5G mobile networks by 2020. We are on track to achieve this target. Today, the Info-communications Media Development Authority, or IMDA, launched a public consultation on the appropriate regulatory framework, spectrum allocation and other policies associated with 5G.
To further differentiate Singapore’s 5G strategy, we also aim to advance innovation in secure 5G applications and services in tandem with our 5G network deployment process. One important aspect of this is developing key 5G use-cases, especially for enterprise applications, that we can potentially export to the rest of the world. IMDA has been leading this effort, engaging industry players and Government agencies in early trials and test-bedding.
The feedback gained through IMDA’s public consultation will inform our policies to facilitate the 5G network roll-out and help identify innovative and impactful 5G applications. I encourage all industry players and other stakeholders to actively participate in this consultation.
\tMr Ang Wei Neng (Jurong): I thank the Minister for the comprehensive reply. I have three supplementary questions. First, is IMDA thinking of providing the basic infrastructure for the 5G network or are you leaving it to telcos to install their own 5G network? Secondly, whether the Government has mandated any 5G vendor to be involved or not to be involved in the building of 5G network in Singapore? The question is being asked in the light of the US pressurising allies not to use certain 5G vendors in their respective countries. Thirdly, is the Government prepared to bring more telcos into Singapore in tandem with the 5G network, or do you feel that it is already optimal in terms of the number of telcos in Singapore?
\tMr S Iswaran: Speaker, I thank the Member for his supplementary questions. First, in terms of the 5G network infrastructure, the approach is simple. IMDA, on behalf of the Government, will eventually call for proposals. The infrastructure itself, as with 3G and 4G, will be owned and deployed by private sector companies, in other words, the telcos, who are licensees of IMDA. That would be the approach we will take. It is not different to the approach that has been taken in other parts of the world.
I will take the third question next – are we open to more telcos? The Member would be aware that we concluded an exercise a few years back which brought in a fourth mobile telco operator. Right now, our focus is on the deployment of 5G, working with the existing suite of telco players that we have in Singapore.
Finally, on vendor restrictions, which I think is the question the Member is asking, our focus is on ensuring that our network is resilient, is diverse and therefore, is able to accommodate different types of scenarios and is robust. And we want to ensure its reliability through these elements. So, that is our focus and we are engaging with the industry in consultation to assess how best to achieve that objective for, not just individual networks, but for our system as a whole.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Dealing with Increased Incidence of Tuberculosis Cases","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"OA","content":"2 Ms Joan Pereira asked the Minister for Health regarding the increasing number of active tuberculosis (TB) cases (a) what is being done to address the issue of the elderly increasingly making up a significant proportion of new active tuberculosis cases; and (b) what is being done to combat the multi-drug resistant tuberculosis which is emerging.
3 Mr Melvin Yong Yik Chye asked the Minister for Health in view of the continued increase in the number of active TB cases from 2017 to 2018 (a) what measures are in place for early TB detection; and (b) whether the current measures to contain local TB cases are effective.
\tThe Senior Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Health (Mr Amrin Amin) (for the Minister for Health): Mr Speaker, may I take Question Nos 2 and 3 together?
Mr Speaker: Yes, please.
\tMr Amrin Amin: The incidence rates of active tuberculosis (TB) cases in 2017 and 2018 were similar, at 39 cases per 100,000 resident population. In fact, the rate had remained within a stable range of about 37 to 41 cases per 100,000 over the last five years.
In 2018, almost half of new active TB cases were aged 60 years old and older, although their incident rates had also remained stable. Many older Singaporeans were exposed to TB when they were younger, when incidence rates in Singapore were much higher. As such, up to 30% have latent TB. Latent TB patients do not exhibit symptoms and are not infectious, but one in 10 may progress to active TB during their lifetime.
The World Health Organization (WHO) and local experts do not recommend population-level preventive medication to treat latent TB. Those with active TB and recent latent TB infection will be treated with medication. The treatment approach for older Singaporeans is the same as for the general population.
To contain TB transmission, the Tuberculosis Control Unit (TBCU) conducts contact investigations to identify persons who have had close and prolonged contact with infectious TB cases. Contacts are tested for TB for early detection and treatment of the disease to prevent its spread.
MOH launched the TB Clinical Practice Guidelines in 2016 to strengthen TB management.
For Multi-Drug Resistant TB (MDR-TB), patients are isolated for treatment until they become non-infectious, which takes about two months, and they will undergo directly observed therapy (DOT) for about two years. We have also adopted new technologies such as rapid DNA tests for drug resistance, reducing time taken for identification of MDR-TB from two months to a few hours to facilitate early intervention.
\tMs Joan Pereira (Tanjong Pagar): I thank the Senior Parliamentary Secretary. I have two supplementary questions. First, will the Ministry consider setting a public target to be achieved for TB control? Second, what are other plans that MOH has in improving public education and awareness of TB, especially among our elderly?
\tMr Amrin Amin: Due to the previous exposure when TB rates were quite high in the 1950s and 1960s, there is now a fairly significant number of older Singaporeans with latent TB infection. Waning immunity in older adults also contributes to reactivation of latent TB later on in life. Hence, it is quite difficult to set a firm target to achieve firm TB control. But in the longer term, our goal is to benchmark ourselves against high-income countries that have TB rates of about less than 20 cases per 100,000 population.
As for the strategy, we adopt a three-pronged strategy towards reducing TB incidence rates.
The first strategy is to improve public knowledge of TB. Besides information on MOH's webpages and press releases, HPB also runs campaigns, specifically, a social hygiene campaign called \"Fight Each Year\" and this is aimed at promoting good hygiene practices and help prevent the spread of infectious diseases. Exhibitions are conducted at Tan Tock Seng Hospital on annual World TB Day to educate the public.
The second strategy is to educate healthcare practitioners about current practices in their diagnosis and management of TB. Towards this end, the Clinical Practice Guidelines were launched in 2016 and these contain information on TB diagnostic tools, treatment regimes and public health measures for TB control.
And finally, MOH is also reviewing its policies and measures to increase early detection of active TB.
\tMr Melvin Yong Yik Chye (Tanjong Pagar): I thank the Senior Parliamentary Secretary for the answer. I have a couple of follow-up questions. First, based on the case data, does MOH know, especially for the new cases, at what stage do they seek medical consultation? Is it early on or is it later? Because that follows up with my next question. Are MOH's current public awareness, current measures to contain local cases effective?
Of the 1,565 new cases reported last year, that is, 2018, more than two-third, or about 1,130, were at least 50 years old. More than half of these were males. So, I am not sure whether some of the efforts can more targeted to focus on these vulnerable and higher risk groups.
My last question is, with an ageing population and based on what the Senior Parliamentary Secretary just said, would MOH expect the incidence rate to continue to increase? Due to our ageing population?
\tMr Amrin Amin: I do not have the information on the stage in which the TB cases are detected. On the second question on what will be done, we are constantly looking at ways to improve and as for extensive, it depends on the effectiveness of the strategy that we have implemented. As I mentioned just now, we have the three-pronged strategy. If we stick to that strategy and everyone cooperates, I think we stand a better chance at controlling transmission.
\tDr Lily Neo (Jalan Besar): Mr Speaker, may I ask the Senior Parliamentary Secretary how big is the problem of drug-resistant TB in Singapore? Have we done any studies on that? And whether MOH is using any new drug cocktail to overcome this problem.
\tMr Amrin Amin: I do not have the information on that. Perhaps the Member can file a separate Parliamentary Question (PQ) on that.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Update on Project Wolbachia and Reason for Spike of Dengue Cases in First Quarter 2019","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"OA","content":"4 Mr Alex Yam asked the Minister for the Environment and Water Resources (a) whether he can provide an update on Phases 1 and 2 of Project Wolbachia in the control of the Aedes aegypti mosquito vector; (b) how long will the Phase 3 field study last; and (c) whether Project Wolbachia can be accelerated in light of the increased incidents of dengue infections in the first quarter of 2019.
5 Mr Melvin Yong Yik Chye asked the Minister for the Environment and Water Resources (a) what are the causes of the sudden spike of dengue cases in the first quarter of 2019; (b) what are the measures in place to detect dengue cases early; and (c) what is the Ministry's plan to reduce dengue cases especially during the dengue peak seasons.
\tThe Senior Minister of State for the Environment and Water Resources (Dr Amy Khor Lean Suan) (for the Minister for the Environment and Water Resources): Mr Speaker, may I have your permission to take Question Nos 4 and 5 together?
Mr Speaker: Yes, please.
\tDr Amy Khor Lean Suan: NEA has reported 2,200 cases of dengue in the first quarter of 2019. This was more than three times compared to the same period in 2018, but below the number of cases reported during the epidemic years of 2013 and 2014. Neighbouring countries have also reported increases in dengue cases in recent months. Contributing to this situation is a persistently high Aedes aegypti mosquito population in the community, as detected by the NEA Gravitrap surveillance system.
As a regional transport hub, Singapore is vulnerable to the transmission of infectious diseases. NEA and MOH have put in place a robust surveillance system to detect dengue and other vector-borne diseases. This system comprises vector surveillance, virus surveillance and dengue case surveillance. NEA has an island-wide network of 50,000 Gravitraps to monitor the mosquito population and will add another 14,000 Gravitraps in the second half of 2019. Data from this network guides NEA’s vector control efforts, allowing officers to quickly zero in on the areas with high mosquito population.
NEA’s laboratory-based virus surveillance system monitors dengue virus serotypes and provides early alerts when there is a serotype switch. Historically, such switches have preceded large dengue outbreaks. Further, NEA, together with the National University of Singapore, has developed a model which helps us to forecast dengue incidence. This allows NEA to coordinate an effective pre-emptive response to impending dengue outbreaks.
NEA anticipates an increasing trend of dengue cases in the warmer months ahead and has taken concerted efforts to stem dengue transmission. First, NEA, together with various agencies represented in the Inter-Agency Dengue Task Force, have stepped up checks and conducted more than 224,000 inspections in the months leading up to the peak dengue season. About 2,900 instances of mosquito breeding were removed.
Second, NEA brought forward the launch of the 2019 National Dengue Prevention Campaign to 7 April this year. Together with Grassroots Advisers and leaders and Dengue Prevention Volunteers, NEA has been raising awareness that clean and stagnant water in homes are potential breeding habitats for mosquitoes and galvanising the community to step up dengue prevention efforts. More than 8,500 volunteers have been trained to conduct patrols and house visits to share dengue prevention tips with residents.
Technology and innovation is another key pillar in dengue prevention efforts. NEA is conducting trial releases of male Wolbachia-carrying Aedes aegypti mosquitoes to further suppress the urban Aedes aegypti mosquito population in the community. NEA has successfully completed the Phases 1 and 2 field studies for Project Wolbachia in Singapore. The Phase 1 field study was conducted from October 2016 to December 2017 and a 50% suppression of the urban Aedes aegypti mosquito population was achieved. More importantly, this initial phase provided NEA with valuable data on the behaviour of the Wolbachia-Aedes mosquito. This has helped NEA to design more effective release strategies for Singapore’s high-density and high-rise city environment.
As a result, the Phase 2 field study, conducted from April 2018 to January 2019, saw a significantly higher level of dengue vector population suppression of 70% to 80%. In this phase, NEA expanded the size of the study sites and released male Wolbachia-Aedes mosquitoes at higher floors, in addition to releases at the ground floor. The results showed that a larger release site yielded improved population suppression results.
The Phase 3 field study has started in February 2019. NEA has further expanded the study sites at Nee Soon East and Tampines West by 1.6 to 2.2 times. NEA aims to determine if suppression of the Aedes aegypti mosquito population can be sustained in larger areas and if a smaller number of male Wolbachia-Aedes mosquitoes can be released at each residential block to maintain the suppression. NEA is also developing automation for male Wolbachia-Aedes mosquito production and release, to ensure scalability of the technology.
NEA will evaluate the Wolbachia-Aedes technology carefully and rigorously before deploying it on a large scale. NEA will continue to provide regular updates on the progress of Project Wolbachia.
I would like to take this opportunity to thank all our stakeholders, local Advisers, grassroots leaders and volunteers, for your efforts in our dengue prevention initiatives. We continue to see many cases of mosquito breeding in homes. All it takes is a small amount of water, the size of a 20-cent coin, for mosquitoes to breed. With a short breeding cycle of seven days, keeping the mosquito population in check requires the joint effort of every individual and stakeholder in the community to eradicate mosquito breeding habitats by practising good housekeeping and doing the five-step Mozzie Wipeout. The Government alone cannot prevent dengue transmission in Singapore. We must remain vigilant and work together to keep dengue at bay.
\tMr Alex Yam (Marsiling-Yew Tee): Mr Speaker, I thank the Senior Minister of State for her update on Project Wolbachia in Singapore. I have three supplementary questions. The first is, why has the study taken so long as the start of Phase 1 was in October 2016 and it has been almost three years now. Compared to many other countries, we seem to be slower in our pace of introduction of Wolbachia as a dengue and Zika suppression method.
Secondly, the Senior Minister of State talked about scalability as well as sustainability of releasing male mosquitoes. My second question is, will the NEA consider adopting the World Mosquito Programme's Wolbachia method, which is to release both male and female Wolbachia mosquitoes so that it is self-sustaining. This has found success in several hotspots internationally, including Australia.
My third question has to do with availability of information on Project Wolbachia as well as educating the public. It seems that the public is aware of various methods but may not be so clear about the benefits of Wolbachia. In Australia, for example, they involved school students as part of the release of male Wolbachia mosquitoes so that they bring the message home to their families as well. So, whether NEA will consider expanding on the education and information available on this project.
\tDr Amy Khor Lean Suan: I thank the Member for his three supplementary questions. Firstly, regarding why it has taken some time to implement Phase 1 to Phase 3 of Project Wolbachia technology. Let me say that we are actually adopting a systematic phased approach for the field trials because we need to study the various aspects of using this technology. In fact, as I have said in my answer earlier, when we did Phase 1, it gave us valuable information on the deployment of the technology particularly because, we are the first in the world to implement this technology in a tropical, highly urbanised and high density landscape. From the information that we got about the behaviour of the male Wolbachia-Aedes aegypti, we were able to then implement Phase 2 in terms of where to launch and deploy these mosquitoes to both higher floors and lower floors, as well as having larger areas and buffer sites to improve the suppression of the Aedes aegypti mosquito population.
For the Phase 3 field study, as I have said, what we aim to do is to determine how the suppression can be sustained through the seasonal fluctuations of the Aedes aegypti mosquito population and also over a larger study area and in order to determine the number of male Wolbachia-Aedes mosquitoes that is required to sustain the suppression that has been achieved in Phase 2. That is why for Phase 3, we have actually expanded the study site, the same study sites but to a larger area, 1.6 to 2.2 times. And as I have said, we want to carefully and rigorously evaluate the results to see if the suppression can be sustained, before we consider deploying this on a larger scale.
In fact, let me say that, to our knowledge, for countries that have adopted the Wolbachia technology, even though the technology has developed quite quickly, none of them has actually gone beyond field trials into full scale implementation. Australia, I understand has completed the field trials but they have not expanded the project. Even in Guangzhou, what they have done is similar to Singapore, they have actually just expanded the field trials.
Another point that I would like to highlight is that, the Wolbachia technology is meant to complement and enhance our existing vector control strategies and not to replace them. So, source reduction and so on, are still important and is in fact critical to the success of this Project Wolbachia technology and we will have to continue to persist with such efforts in order to restrict and reduce the number of dengue cases.
Regarding education, let me say that we are working on educating both the residents within the field trial study sites as well as the general public through various means such as the mass media, for instance, by having articles on the Wolbachia technology, community outreach events as well as seminars. Since 2012, we have organised more than a hundred seminars and outreach events to reach out to the academia, the medical and healthcare professionals, teachers, students, NGOs, grassroots leaders, members of the public and residents. We also have the Project Wolbachia Learning Journey which we offer to members of the public, students, residents from the study area, to visit our mosquito production facility, so that they will have a better understanding of the processes involved and the production of our Wolbachia-Aedes aegypti mosquitoes. We will continue to do that.
With regards to scaling and sustainability, I think I have more or less touched on the question.
\tMr Melvin Yong Yik Chye (Tanjong Pagar): I thank the Senior Minister of State. Many of the private condominiums in my constituency – and I have many – are stepping up anti-mosquito fogging. It has come to a point where there is some kind of fogging almost every day. The residents tell me, \"If I do not fog, then the mosquitoes next door will come over to my side\". So, I have two questions. One, can the Ministry explain if this fogging is useful and is effective because I have some understanding that the mosquitoes will eventually become resistant to some of the chemicals being used. That is one. Two, because there is so much fogging taking place and it is becoming like a competition, can NEA consider coordinating such fogging activities in private estate clusters where there are quite a number of condominiums and they are all fogging at some point in the week. And if it is effective, then I think we should do something about it. In fact, if somebody coordinates, then if we can aggregate demand, it may also bring the costs down for the area or for the estate.
\tDr Amy Khor Lean Suan: I said earlier in my reply that we have a Gravitrap surveillance system. It is deployed island wide and the idea is to identify where there is a high concentration of Aedes aegypti mosquito population. So, fogging is normally used when there is a dengue cluster, because fogging and misting is to kill the adult mosquitoes and also where there could be a high concentration of mosquito population.
\t
The most effective and primary method really is source-reduction, that is, preventing mosquito breeding rather than fogging and misting. But there is a use for fogging and misting; as I have said, during a dengue cluster or when there is a high mosquito population. When there is a dengue cluster, you also have indoor space spraying to kill the adult mosquitoes which may be infected.
With regard to fogging becoming a competition amongst condominiums, I think the fogging schedule is determined by the MCs of the condominium. So, they need to decide if there is a real need to do fogging so frequently.
\tMr Ang Wei Neng (Jurong): First, I want to thank NEA for allowing Jurong students and parents to visit the Wolbachia production facility in Jurong. It was very well-received and we were very encouraged by the project. I have two questions to ask the Senior Minister of State.
First, since the production facility is in Jurong, is there any plan to extend the Wolbachia project in Jurong as well because there are also dengue clusters? Two, is there a plan to expand the Wolbachia production facility?
\tDr Amy Khor Lean Suan: As I have said, the Wolbachia technology is still under development and, at the moment, we are undertaking trials and field studies. So, we will have to evaluate the results of Phase 3 of the field study carefully and rigorously before we decide if we should deploy the technology on a larger scale. But at the same time, in terms of production of the Wolbachia-Aedes mosquitoes, we are actually looking, as I have alluded to also in my reply, at production and release through automation, improving the productivity and production efficiency as well as the quality of the Wolbachia-Aedes mosquitoes produced at the production facility. For instance, we work with various companies like Orinno Technology and Verily Life Sciences to develop innovative devices, such as a larvae counter, pupae counter and sorter, adult mosquito sex sorter, mosquito launcher and so on to make it more effective and efficient in producing these Wolbachia-Aedes mosquitoes.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Proposal for Enclosed HDB Deck Space to be Designated Pedestrian-only Paths to Prevent Accidents with PMDs","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"OA","content":"6 Mr Murali Pillai asked the Minister for Transport whether enclosed void deck space in HDB housing estates covering the ground floor lift lobbies and letter box areas may be designated as pedestrian-only paths under the Active Mobility Act to reduce the risk of collision between PMD users and block residents in these areas.
\tThe Senior Minister of State for Transport (Dr Lam Pin Min) (for the Minister for Transport): Mr Speaker, void deck spaces in HDB housing estates are not declared as public paths under the Active Mobility Act. Thus, Town Councils can set and enforce their own rules on the usage of personal mobility devices in such areas, including banning their use.
\tMr Murali Pillai (Bukit Batok): Mr Speaker, Sir, I thank the Senior Minister of State for his answer. I have a few supplementary questions. First is, would he not accept that the Town Councils Act and the regulations thereunder, may not be fit for purpose in relation to deterring PMD users from plying through void deck space near lift lobbies and letter box areas. If he agrees with that view, then, perhaps MOT can take the lead to work with the Town Councils, and then, prescribe these areas as pedestrian-only areas.
I say this because there is a real-life example in Bukit Batok where an elderly lady, after taking out letters from her letter box, collided with a PMD user, and she had to be warded. I think there are similar circumstances in other places as well. So, this is an area of need.
\tDr Lam Pin Min: I would like to thank Mr Murali for clarification. In deciding for a public area to be considered as public path, either shared or pedestrian-only paths, or for exemption under the Active Mobility Act, we do consider three key principles. One, which is safety; second, connectivity; and third, clarity of rules. So, in the area of safety, as long as the surface paths are accessible to the public, they will by default be allowed for cycling and PMD use, unless there are safety concerns that cannot be effectively mitigated. The second consideration of connectivity is whether the path is critical for connectivity; for example, if the path links a large cycling path network or connects to key transport nodes and public amenities; and if they are, whether there are alternative paths available to be considered. Thirdly, in implementing these rules, we want to make sure that these areas can be clearly demarcated so that they can be exempted without causing any public confusion.
Bearing in mind these three key considerations, void decks have been exempted from the Active Mobility Act because they have, first of all, multiple blind spots due to the presence of pillars and they are not critical for connectivity since cyclists and PMD users can dismount and push for the last leg of their journey at the void decks. Void decks can be easily demarcated to avoid any confusion. This approach provides the Town Councils with the flexibility to set and enforce their own rules on the usage of active mobility devices, according to their own needs.
So, if the Town Council feels that void decks are areas where potential accidents can happen, then the Town Council can ban the use of PMDs in the void decks.
\tMr Murali Pillai: Mr Speaker, Sir, I thank the Senior Minister of State for his clarification. May I respectfully clarify that the focus of my PQ is not on void decks generally, but it is in relation to ground floor lift lobbies and letter box areas. The point is, people in these areas would not be exercising the same caution as crossing roads. So, in those circumstances, would the Ministry consider imposing regulations? Because I think the interest for residents in this area would be paramount and also, there would be no real difference in opinions of all the Town Councils. They all want the ground floor lift lobbies and the letter box areas to be safe for residents.
\tDr Lam Pin Min: Yes, I agree with Mr Pillai that we do take safety as the top priority. In the definition of void decks, letter box areas and ground floor lift lobbies, as well as corridors fronting residential flats, are considered as void decks. And as such, Town Councils can exercise the flexibility of imposing a ban of PMD use in those areas.
\tEr Dr Lee Bee Wah (Nee Soon): I would like to ask the Senior Minister of State will MOT consider letting Town Councils take action at the town centres where it can be very crowded. I have brought up this matter many times. Before the Act came in place, Town Councils and the Police had been taking enforcement actions. But since the Active Mobility Act came into place, we could not take action and residents have been complaining about near-miss accidents. I do not want to see anyone injured at my Khatib Centre.
\tDr Lam Pin Min: I would like to thank Er Dr Lee Bee Wah for the supplementary question. Just two points of clarification. If the Town Council were to decide the void deck to be banned from PMD use, then, the Town Council can exercise the enforcement action on PMD users. But in areas outside the void deck which are exempted from the Active Mobility Act, yes, Er Dr Lee Bee Wah is correct to say that Town Council employees are not able to carry out enforcement today. The current Active Mobility Act actually does not allow Town Council employees to be appointed as public path wardens to enforce the Active Mobility Act in the areas that Er Dr Lee Bee Wah had mentioned.
We have taken that into consideration and we are currently discussing with LTA and AGC to see if the law can be amended to allow for Town Council officers to enforce active mobility offences in such areas.
\tMr Pritam Singh (Aljunied): Mr Speaker, following on the question by Mr Pillai, would it not be more compelling for the Active Mobility Act to cover non-use of PMDs at void decks, rather than each individual Town Council having to implement rules for that purpose? Because the force of law then is understood by Singaporeans across the country. To that extent, it is clear that PMDs can be dangerous at void decks, and also when they exit from lift lobbies. We have an elderly population. It is going to grow in the next 10 years. I believe that if the Ministry takes the lead, then, you will have lesser chance of untoward incidents happening.
\tDr Lam Pin Min: I would like to thank the Member for the clarification. Like I have mentioned before, I think the configuration of void decks differ from one place to another. Depending on the needs of the Town Council, we allow Town Councils to exercise the flexibility whether to ban or not to ban. But I think at the end of the day, we are cognisant of the fact that safety is paramount. If the Town Council feels that the banning of PMD use at void decks is necessary, it can be done under the Town Council by-laws.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Third-party Liability Insurance for PMD and E-scooter Riders Working for Food Delivery Companies","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"OA","content":"7 Mr Murali Pillai asked the Minister for Transport whether he can provide an update on the Ministry's efforts to encourage food delivery companies that engage deliverymen using PMDs or e-bikes to make food deliveries to take up third-party liability insurance covering their operations and promote safe riding habits amongst their deliverymen.
\tThe Senior Minister of State for Transport (Dr Lam Pin Min) (for the Minister for Transport): Mr Speaker, in August\t2018, the Active Mobility Advisory Panel (AMAP) recommended that the Government work with key stakeholders to encourage the uptake of third-party liability insurance. Since then, LTA has been engaging with major food delivery companies and two of them, Deliveroo and GrabFood, have purchased third-party liability insurance for their e-scooter riders. Meanwhile, AMAP is considering stronger measures to ensure that food delivery riders will be covered by third-party liability insurance when riding for work.
LTA has also engaged the food delivery companies to educate their riders on safe riding practices and to promote rider awareness on regulations. The companies will disseminate safety messages and reminders via their phone applications and during their on-boarding sessions for new riders. Their riders will also be encouraged to attend the Safe Riding Programme.
In October 2018, LTA, MOM and the Traffic Police jointly issued a circular, calling for the food delivery companies to ensure the safety and health of their delivery riders by providing sufficient instruction, training and supervision. The circular also calls for companies to provide avenues for the reporting of unsafe riding by members of public.
\tMr Murali Pillai (Bukit Batok): I would like to thank the hon Senior Minister of State for the comprehensive answer to my question. I congratulate MOT as well as LTA for securing the cooperation of these companies. I have a suggestion. Would these companies make available their contact details such that there are any claims to be made, these claims can be made easily? At this point in time, we find it difficult to make claims against these companies.
\tDr Lam Pin Min: I thank Mr Pillai for the clarification. I understand that the companies already have avenues for reporting unsafe riding behaviour of their riders that members of public can use. At the same time, I believe there is an avenue for the members of public to file claims, through the same avenue. If that is not available, we will be willing to discuss with the food delivery companies to allow that to happen.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Dealing with Complaints of Reckless Behaviour of PMD Users","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"OA","content":"8 Ms Joan Pereira asked the Minister for Transport whether the Ministry receives complaints and feedback on reckless behaviour of PMD users for near-misses or accidents and, if so, what process is undertaken by the Ministry when it receives such complaints and feedback.
\tThe Senior Minister of State for Transport (Dr Lam Pin Min) (for the Minister for Transport): Mr Speaker, members of public have been providing feedback on near misses or reckless behaviour of active mobility device users to LTA through phone hotlines, online feedback forms, social media and mobile apps like MyTransport.SG or OneService. LTA also receives feedback from Members of Parliament as well as community and industry stakeholders. Persons involved in such accidents should immediately file a report with the Police.
LTA carefully assesses all feedback to determine the follow-up actions required. LTA also uses such information to enhance its enforcement, public education and engagement efforts. For example, such feedback helps LTA to identify the hotspots to determine the appropriate enforcement efforts. LTA also shares the information with the relevant Active Mobility Patrol teams so that they can patrol the area more frequently to engage the community and distribute educational materials.
\tMs Joan Pereira (Tanjong Pagar): I have one supplementary question. May I know under what conditions, that is, how severe the situation has to be in terms of number and severity of accidents before the Ministry will consider banning PMDs on pavements or footpaths, which France had just done. Many of my elderly residents, when they walk on the park connectors, they do not feel safe anymore. Not just the elderly, in fact, a lot of residents when they meet me in the park connectors, they just feel it is so dangerous, so I hope the Senior Minister of State can consider tougher actions against errant riders.
\t
\tDr Lam Pin Min: Mr Speaker, I understand the Member's concern about safety of pedestrians, especially of her residents. I do share the same concern as well.
If you take a step back and look at the entire landscape, footpaths form a significant part of our connectivity network, connecting from point A to point B; from homes to places of work; places of schooling as well as recreation. And if we do disallow active mobility devices on footpaths, basically, what it means is that active mobility users would have to operate on roads. That actually poses more risks to both the Active Mobility users and other vehicles including motorbikes, cars, lorries, trucks, or even buses. We all understand that the severity of injuries should an accident happen on the roads can be even more serious and fatalities more likely. This is the reason why AMAP, after extensive public and stakeholders' consultation, had recommended to allow active mobility devices to be used on footpaths.
Banning the use of active mobility devices on footpaths is actually not the solution. We do agree that active mobility plays an important role in our vision to making Singapore a car-lite society. We should instead cultivate a culture of graciousness, responsibility and respect in sharing the use of our common space.
\tEr Dr Lee Bee Wah (Nee Soon): The Senior Minister of State earlier mentioned that there are many ways that a report can be made about accidents or near miss accidents. I would like to ask Senior Minister of State that during the last six months, how many reports of feedback has LTA received and compare with the previous six months. Is there an increasing trend? What is the trend?
\tDr Lam Pin Min: I would like to thank Er Dr Lee Bee Wah for the clarification. I do not have the exact figures but based on what I have shared in previous parliamentary sessions, there is indeed an increase in the number of feedback received as well as the number of accidents over the past six months. Therefore, we are stepping up our effort in public education, stepping up enforcement action as well as implementing the registration regime for e-scooters. The mandatory e-scooter registration regime will be in force from 1 July 2019.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Decision in Paris to Ban E-scooters on Footpaths","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"OA","content":"9 Er Dr Lee Bee Wah asked the Minister for Transport (a) whether the Ministry is studying the policies and rules governing the use of e-scooters in Berlin and Paris; and (b) whether Paris's move to ban e-scooters from footpaths can be emulated.
\tThe Senior Minister of State for Transport (Dr Lam Pin Min) (for the Minister for Transport): This is my last question on PMD. Mr Speaker, we will continue to study other countries and cities' e-scooters regulations. There is a wide range of practices across jurisdictions. For example, Paris will ban the use of e-scooters on footpaths, while Berlin will allow them but limits them to a device speed limit of 12 km/h. Queensland in Australia allows e-scooters on footpaths but sets a higher device speed limit of 25 km/h.
We have to tailor our approach to our local context and the needs of Singaporeans. In Singapore, such active mobility devices are useful for short journeys within towns and as first- and last-mile options. In 2015, after an extensive public consultation, the Active Mobility Advisory Panel recommended that e-scooters be allowed on footpaths, but with a clear set of rules and code of conduct to ensure their safe use.
We are mindful of the safety concerns expressed by Members as well as the general public. However, the solution is not to ban them, but to cultivate the right culture where users ride safely and responsibly and only at the allowed places. We will continue our public education efforts. We have also put in place a comprehensive set of regulations, with regular enforcement by LTA enforcement officers at hotspots.
To date, more than 1,630 individuals have been caught for e-scooter related offences. We have also introduced a mandatory e-scooter registration regime to facilitate identification of errant riders. We encourage members of public as well as the vast majority of responsible personal mobility device users to help spot and report errant riders to LTA. Collectively, we can encourage safe riding and considerate behaviour on our shared paths.
\t
\tEr Dr Lee Bee Wah (Nee Soon): It looks like LTA or MOT is very fixated on the thinking. I think by allowing PMD and e-scooters on the footpaths, you are shifting more risks to the pedestrians. Yes, you can report, you can take enforcement action but how many officers do you have to take enforcement action? My question is, what is LTA's advice to all pedestrians, especially the elderly, the pregnant women and the children for sharing footpaths with the e-scooters? What advice can you give them? We have already one case of man who suffered brain injury after being hit at Marina Bay. And yesterday, I just received an email from my resident after being hit by an e-scooter on the footpath a year ago. Till now, the Police are still on investigation. I have another resident who was molested along the footpath by an e-scooter rider. The Police could not do anything because it was at night. So, I would like to ask what advice would you give to the pedestrians in order for them to be safe.
\tDr Lam Pin Min: I would like to thank Er Dr Lee Bee Wah for those comments and I also understand where she is coming from. On the part of LTA, in order for us to make the footpaths safer for both pedestrians as well as PMD users, she may be aware that we have already reduced the speed limit of the devices on footpaths from 15 km/h to 10 km/h. The reason we reduced the speed limit is so that we can enhance the safety by increasing the amount of time that PMD users as well as pedestrians to react to unforeseen circumstances. With this lowered speed limit, we also hope that the severity of injuries, should they occur; would be much lower. Of course, we do not hope for accidents to occur, but we hope that with the lower speed limit, we have enough reaction time to react to any unforeseen circumstances.
As to the kind of advice that we give to pedestrians, whether it is elderly or the young, as well as to the PMD users, I think we just have to exercise graciousness, caution, as well as to act responsibly when we share the use of common spaces such as footpaths and in shared paths. We also have to exercise alertness whenever there are any PMD users approaching us. For the PMD users, they are advised to ride carefully within the speed limit allowed, as well as to slow down when faced with a crowd in front of them. These are some common sense practices that PMD users should exercise.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Measures to Prevent Measles Outbreak in Singapore","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"OA","content":"10 Dr Chia Shi-Lu asked the Minister for Health in view of the global increase in measles cases reported by the World Health Organization, what measures are in place to prevent measles outbreaks in Singapore and whether these measures need to be strengthened further.
\tThe Minister for Health (Mr Gan Kim Yong): Sir, measles is a highly contagious and serious viral disease and vaccination is the most effective protection against this infection. High vaccination coverage at the population level not only protects the individuals but also makes it harder for the disease to spread thereby reducing the risk of large outbreaks. This way, it provides herd immunity which will also protect those who are unable to receive vaccination such as infants under the age of 12 months and those who are immune-compromised. It is therefore important for countries to maintain a high level of vaccination.
In recent years, there has been a global increase in measles outbreaks because of declining vaccination coverage in many countries. This has resulted in a significant increase of non-immune individuals in the community, making it easier for the disease to spread. Being a travel hub, Singapore is also exposed to imported cases. In the first four months of 2019, Singapore saw 43 measles cases, nearly three times more than the same period in 2018 as a result of increased global outbreaks. These were all sporadic cases or cases with limited spread and there was no community outbreak. We are monitoring the global and local situation closely. We have alerted our doctors to look out for measles cases and notify MOH promptly so that actions can be taken to prevent disease spread.
We should also strive to achieve a high level of vaccination in Singapore. Our national immunisation schedule recommends that children should have their first dose of measles vaccine at 12 months of age and the second dose at 15 to 18 months of age. With the exception of those who are unable to be vaccinated because of medical reasons, the measles vaccine is compulsory for local children. Earlier this year, we have also made it compulsory for foreign children applying for long-term passes to be fully vaccinated against measles.
We have also put in place measures to facilitate and encourage vaccination. Vaccination is available free to all Singaporean children at polyclinics. The Health Promotion Board (HPB) sends reminders to parents whose children have yet to complete vaccination by two years old. HPB also provides catch-up vaccination in primary and secondary schools for students who still have not completed their vaccination. The measles vaccination coverage among resident children reached 95% for the first dose at two years of age and 93% for the second dose at seven years of age.
Nonetheless, we cannot be complacent. MOH is looking into ways to raise the vaccination coverage further. Some of the measures being considered include sending reminders to parents ahead of vaccination due dates. This way, we ensure that children are protected as early as possible. We will also look into how we can raise the vaccination rate of children before they enter pre-school and primary school. To protect the more vulnerable populations like infants and the immuno-compromised, we will study ways to ensure that workers caring for them achieve a high level of vaccination coverage.
Even with these measures, we can continue to have sporadic cases of measles due to imported cases. We can expect to see more cases when there is an increase in global outbreaks. I would like to urge parents to bring their children for vaccination when it is due. By working together to improve and maintain a high level of vaccination coverage, we can better protect our population and reduce the risk of large local outbreaks.
\tDr Chia Shi-Lu (Tanjong Pagar): I would like to thank the Minister for the very comprehensive response. I have a few supplementary questions. The first is with regard to the measles cases that were reported recently; the increase to 43 cases. Could I just maybe have an understanding of the type of cases? Were they adults, children? Were they imported cases? Just to get a feel of how these cases arose.
The second is with regard to vaccination rates. I note the answer on the vaccination rates with regard to children. I was wondering whether we have data on the overall vaccination rate for the resident population in Singapore. Because if we look at the outbreaks overseas, a lot of cases arose in adults and so on, not just in the paediatric community.
The third supplementary question: I was wondering whether we have some ideas or some knowledge about what are the reasons that certain children or adults refuse to be vaccinated? I think this maybe comes with the next PQ. Does the Ministry think that the anti-vaccination movement and the online misinformation have an important impact on the reason why parents, or maybe adults even, are refusing the vaccination?
The last supplementary question is regarding whether MOH foresees that in the event of an outbreak or even pre-emptively, actions might be taken against unvaccinated individuals? We have seen in other countries there are restrictions on children who are unvaccinated from attending pre-school or even going to school. The German Minister for Health has just proposed that there might be financial penalties for people who are unvaccinated.
\tMr Gan Kim Yong: I thank Dr Chia for the four supplementary questions. First, for the cases which have been reported during the first four months this year, let me share that among the 43, 33 were not vaccinated. Ten were vaccinated but as all of us know, vaccination may not be 100% effective. Even among those who were vaccinated, up to 3% may not be effective. Therefore, we need to raise the overall population coverage to protect the small number of people who are unprotected despite vaccination.
Among those who were not vaccinated, nine of them were infants before they were due for vaccination. The rest were aged between one and 54. So, there is a wide variation of ages.
For the adults, we do not have specific data on how many of them were vaccinated. But there was a recent study in 2018 on seroprevalence. The study indicated that the vast majority of adults in Singapore had a very high level of immunity against measles. One of the possible reasons could be that in the early 1970s, measles were very widespread, a very common occurrence, and many of us who are adults could remember having measles during that time. Therefore, the naturally acquired immunity arising from actually contracting measles is prevalent among adults. Based on our studies, our immunity level is in the high 90% levels among the older adults.
Dr Chia also asked about the reasons why some of them did not go for vaccination. The factors are quite varied. A large majority of them were just passive, waiting for the next convenient occasion to bring their children for vaccination. Unfortunately, sometimes that occasion never came. They hope that the next time when they see a doctor, they can bring their children, but their children stayed healthy, so never had a chance to see the doctor. When they do see the doctor, the children may be unwell and, therefore, not suitable for vaccination. Therefore, we would like to encourage parents, if possible, to bring your children for vaccination as soon as possible. HPB does conduct vaccination programmes in the schools to provide convenience for parents to have their children vaccinated.
Dr Chia also asked about potential actions against parents whose children are not vaccinated. We are looking into various possibilities, even at the pre-school level, on how we can encourage and ensure that our children who go to pre-schools are vaccinated. Because this is important, not only to protect the individual children but also to protect children who could not be vaccinated. Especially in the infant care, many of them are below 12 months of age and they could not be vaccinated. Therefore the older children ought to be vaccinated to protect them. At the same time, we are also looking at workers in the pre-school sector to ensure that they are covered by vaccination or they have immunity, so as to protect the children under their charge.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Misinformation Regarding Medical and Social Effects of HPV Vaccination","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"OA","content":"11 Mr Alex Yam asked the Minister for Health with regard to the recently announced opt-in HPV vaccination (a) what has been the overall feedback received so far; (b) whether more can be done to address the misinformation regarding the medical and social effects of the vaccine; and (c) whether the Ministry is concerned by the mistrust engendered by the anti-vaccination movement.
\tThe Senior Minister of State for Health (Dr Amy Khor Lean Suan) (for the Minister for Health): HPB rolled-out the national school-based HPV vaccination programme for Secondary 1 female students on 1 April this year. As of 26 April 2019, 25 schools have been covered by the programme. Ninety-three percent of the students in these schools have opted for the vaccine.
HPV vaccination has been shown to be safe and effective, and is recommended by the World Health Organization and leading health agencies for the prevention of cervical cancer, a serious disease and one of the top-10 cancers among women in Singapore.
MOH and HPB will continue to highlight the benefits, importance and safety of HPV vaccination to parents and students through public and targeted education programmes. Parents will also be provided with an information package prior to the school visit for vaccination. This includes a factsheet on HPV vaccination, a brochure on the risk and prevention of HPV, and a letter providing information on the HPV school-based programme.
Mr Alex Yam (Marsiling-Yew Tee): Mr Speaker, I thank the Senior Minister of State. First off, I would like to ask the Senior Minister of State if she could provide information on part three of my question on the mistrust engendered by the anti-vaccination movement; also a question that my hon colleague Dr Chia had raised earlier.
The second follow-up question is on the numbers that the Senior Minister of State provided. She mentioned that 93% of students in the 25 schools have already opted for the vaccination; whether the Ministry had tracked the reasons why the 7% had decided not to.
My third and final supplementary question has to do with the social effects that some parents have talked about, that the HPV vaccination would lead to promiscuous behaviour by their children, because they think that with the vaccination, they can avoid cancer. Now, whether or not the Ministry would be looking at how to educate parents as well as students on this?
\tDr Amy Khor Lean Suan: Regarding the second question on why a small percentage did not opt in for the HPV vaccination, first, let me say that when parents do not give their consent for the vaccination, we actually contact them to provide them with information of the benefits and importance of HPV vaccination, so that they can make an informed decision.
As regards the reasons, most of them either say that their daughters had already taken the HPV vaccination or that they prefer to bring them to the primary care clinics themselves for the vaccination. We have a small percentage – less than 1% of parents – who actually are concerned with the safety and side effects of the vaccine. But as I have said, we do contact them to provide them with the information on HPV vaccination.
Regarding misinformation on vaccination in terms of the safety, the efficacy, adverse events or social effects, is common on the Internet. Parents are encouraged to check and refer to reliable and verifiable sources of information, such as on our HealthHub, which is a one-stop health portal, to get information on health contents, as well as through websites of the World Health Organization, the US CDC, the European Medicine Agency's website and so on.
What is also important is that parents ought to actually seek the advice or speak to the doctors who will be best placed to give them advice and provide accurate information.
For the school-based HPV vaccination programme, as I have said, parents are provided with the information package which will include information on the safety and efficacy of the HPV vaccine. If they have queries, they can contact us through HPB's healthline.
With regard to the third question on social effects of HPV vaccination, our scan of studies as well as evidence elsewhere, shows that there is no evidence that those females who have got HPV vaccine or are vaccinated will have sex earlier or will have more partners than unvaccinated females.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Mental Well-being of Youths","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"OA","content":"12 Ms Anthea Ong asked the Minister for Culture, Community and Youth (a) of the 8,000 youths who took part in the youth conversations in 2018, what is the number and percentage of youths who indicated mental wellbeing as a top concern; (b) what plans does the Ministry have to address the issue of youth mental health; and (c) how will these plans align with the Ministry's Community Mental Health Masterplan and programmes being undertaken by other agencies.
\tThe Minister for Culture, Community and Youth (Ms Grace Fu Hai Yien): Mr Speaker, 3,600 youths responded to the online poll of Youth Conversations. The topic of mental health received over 2,100 votes, making it 9th among top topics of interest, ranging from social inequality to marriage and parenthood. A face-to-face Youth Conversation was subsequently organised in partnership with the Health Promotion Board (HPB), bringing students, volunteers, and mental health professionals together to discuss what more we can do as a society.
Following the session, youths’ insights and ideas were shared with various government agencies, including HPB, Agency for Integrated Care (AIC) and the National Council for Social Services (NCSS). Youths themselves also stepped up to take action. For example, some of the participants formed a panel of resource persons for HPB to provide feedback on their programmes and share insights about mental health issues among youths. In addition, two participants came together to start a project, called The SOAR Initiative (School of Ability and Recovery), to foster mental wellness and reduce stigma through education.
Youth Corps Singapore (YCS) recently started a mental health cluster which will facilitate youth leaders in galvanising like-minded volunteers to do more in this area. Through the National Youth Fund and Young ChangeMakers Grant, we funded projects led by youths and Youth Sector Organisations, such as the Singapore Mental Health Film Festival by Breathe Movement, held in February this year, which aimed to increase awareness about the complexity of mental illnesses through a series of films and panel discussions.
Through these efforts, we complement MOH’s wider initiatives to improve mental well-being, as part of the recommendations under the NurtureSG Action Plan and Community Mental Health Masterplan. These initiatives include strengthening peer support efforts within schools and Institutes of Higher Learning, equip them with peer-helping skills, strategies, and resources to look out for peers in distress.
\tMs Anthea Ong (Nominated Member): I thank the Minister for the clarification. I have some additional questions. Can I please ask what happens when the youths cross over to young working adults? Is the Ministry also engaging with workplaces to continue to support them? The other question is what metrics will be used for measuring the impact of the efforts that the Minister just shared with the House?
Ms Grace Fu Hai Yien: The initiatives under NYC and Youth Corps are not limited to students, so actually they reach out to a broad spectrum of youths including young working adults. The impact of each of these initiatives will be measured against the KPI of the project, depending on the objectives set out in the project proposal.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Inclusion of Persons with Mental Health Conditions in Special Employment Credit and Open Door Programmes","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"OA","content":"13 Ms Anthea Ong asked the Minister for Manpower (a) whether persons with mental health conditions will be included in the Special Employment Credit and Open Door programmes and, if so, when; and (b) given that the Workplace Safety and Health Institute's Research Agenda for Singapore 2018-2020 listed \"work stress\" as one of its priorities under long-term challenges alongside \"ageing workforce and technology\", whether the Ministry is considering legislative interventions for risk assessments and counter-measures in the area of physical and mental health.
\tThe Minister of State for Manpower (Mr Zaqy Mohamad) (for the Minister for Manpower): Mr Speaker, the Special Employment Credit (SEC) and Open Door Programme (ODP) cover persons with special needs who face significant disadvantages in employment. Under the Enabling Masterplan, this refers to those with physical, sensory, intellectual and developmental impairments. These are unlike mental health conditions which can improve or be managed with appropriate interventions.
We recognise that some jobseekers with mental health conditions such as depression and anxiety disorders may also require employment assistance. They can approach the Job Club under the Institute of Mental Health for job preparation and matching services, while managing their conditions. They can also tap on the range of programmes and services under the Adapt and Grow Initiative.
To manage mental health issues at work, our efforts have been to educate companies to be more aware of how work stress may lead to mental health issues, and of course, to implement progressive practices that they can adopt to help employees manage stress, whether from work or non-work factors.
For instance, the Health Promotion Board (HPB) provides on-site Management Training workshops to equip managers and HR professionals with skills to recognise employees with common mental health issues, including stress, and to support employees in managing them. HPB has also made available workplace mental health programmes that give practical tips to workers on effective stress management.
The Workplace Safety and Health Institute's research on work stress aims to help MOM and companies understand employees' perceptions of stress, what it could be linked to and how it impacts their well-being. The research will help in educating and socialising companies to be more aware of the effects of stress.
While legislation is necessary to ensure employment protection, the tripartite partners prefer a promotional approach to bring about more progressive workplaces. This recognises the diverse workforce and employers, where rigid prescriptions are unlikely to be effective or may deter employers from hiring. To help workers and employers deal with the challenges of mental health at the workplace, we will continue to raise awareness, step up education and share best practices.
\t
\tMs Anthea Ong (Nominated Member): I thank the Minister of State for the response. Can I just ask what is actually stopping us from using the SEC and ODP to include persons with mental health conditions?
\tMr Zaqy Mohamad: Firstly, I think there is a big difference between how we classify disability and health conditions. So, the SEC and ODP cover all persons that have been medically certified to have, for example, autism spectrum disorder (ASD), compared to, say, stress-related disorder which is considered a developmental impairment under the Enabling Masterplan. And that is how we define persons with disabilities or persons with special needs. We do make a distinction, similar to how we distinguish physical disability versus, for example, diabetes or someone with chronic illness. So, therefore, I think there is a difference there. But again, as I said, there are schemes to help those with mental health concerns or issues to find them employment, for example, through the Job Club at IMH. There are other schemes that are available. But rest assured that we will help them and get employers more aware of this issue.
\t
\tMs Anthea Ong: Thank you. Actually, my concern is not so much the help that the person is getting but the support that we give to employers, which is really what the SEC and ODP are about. This comes from my personal experience. I am involved in the social enterprise Hush where we employ persons in recovery and with mental conditions. The effort has not been a walk in the park. A lot of effort needs to put in. So, I am wondering if there is any support, very similar to SEC and ODP for employers who want to take the journey in employing more persons with mental health conditions. We understand that amongst the differently-abled groups in Singapore, persons with mental health conditions actually face the highest unemployment rate.
\tMr Zaqy Mohamad: You have to separate the schemes. Perhaps, the Member is not aware of the objective of the schemes. The SEC and ODP are both meant for persons with special needs, classified as disabled and is an impairment for them. For persons with mental health conditions, as I mentioned, we do have programmes to help them with employability. Certainly, I am mindful that their conditions do need a bit of help. And therefore, we have the Job Club, for example, that IMH runs, together in partnership with the Government. It provides not just employment facilitation but it also has some social workers there. You have occupational therapists there as well to provide relevant support for them to be engaged in the workforce. So, this is something that, if the Member has, I suppose, persons with mental conditions that need to be employed, talk to us. We will try to see how we can work things out with Adapt and Grow.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Short-term Work Permits for Foreign Domestic Workers to Provide Respite Support for Singaporean Families","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"OA","content":"The following question stood in the name of Mr Desmond Choo –
14 To ask the Minister for Manpower whether the Ministry will consider introducing short-term work permits for foreign domestic workers (FDWs) to provide respite support for families and to allow employment agencies to cater to families requiring short-term domestic help.
\tMr Melvin Yong Yik Chye (Tanjong Pagar): Question No 14, please.
\tThe Senior Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Manpower (Ms Low Yen Ling) (for the Minister for Manpower): Mr Speaker, hiring an FDW who works and lives in the household is a major commitment on the part of the employer. It could be detrimental to an FDW to be brought into Singapore for short-term respite support, where she may encounter uncertainty about the duration of work or when the employers' needs change suddenly. The FDW might also not earn enough to repay the agency fees or loans she had taken in order to come to Singapore to work.
To help families with short-term options, MOM introduced the Household Services Scheme (HSS) in 2017, which allows foreign workers to provide domestic services, such as cleaning, to households. While they may be deployed to specific households for short periods of time, the foreign workers under HSS are employed full-time by the service providers and on longer duration contracts.
Families caring for the elderly and who require short-term care options can also tap on respite care services available at senior care centres or nursing homes. For younger children, families may engage child care centres or student care centres on a suitable care arrangement that meets their needs, which may also include short-term care.
\t
\tMr Melvin Yong Yik Chye (Tanjong Pagar): I thank the Senior Parliamentary Secretary for her answer. I have two questions. One, why is the work permit for foreign domestic workers fixed at two years? Will MOM consider reviewing this permit term duration? My second question is, I find HSS rather interesting, rather novel, but it is currently confined only to cleaning services. Can MOM actually consider extending this pilot scheme to, perhaps, care-giving as well, that is, households who required care-giving services?
\tMs Low Yen Ling: Mr Speaker, I want to thank the Member Mr Melvin Yong for his two supplementary questions. On the first question on the time duration of the work permit, the FDW's work permit is set at two years to provide certainty and stability to both the FDW and also the employer. This takes into consideration the resources and also the efforts that both the FDW and the employer invest in the employment relationship. For example, the FDW needs time for her to earn enough to repay the fee that needs to be paid to the employment agency. Also, the employer also needs time to train the FDW. So, that is why it is set at a two-year period.
On the second question about HSS, it was piloted in September 2017 to provide domestic cleaning services for employers who require such support services. And we are always reviewing to see how we can improve it. So, I want to assure Mr Melvin Yong and also Mr Desmond Choo who filed the PQ that MOM is prepared to consider including companies which provide care-giving services and short-term respite care, with MOH's support and if there is industry demand.
\t
\tMr Louis Ng Kok Kwang (Nee Soon): Can I just ask the Senior Parliamentary Secretary whether we can consider providing some subsidies for HSS. I understand the cost is quite high. In a similar way that we provide subsidies for the foreign worker levy, can we consider such subsidies also for HSS?
\tMs Low Yen Ling: I want to thank the Member Mr Louis Ng for the question. Currently, the FDW concession is meant to support families with young kids and also families with elderly. And as we review how we can improve HSS, we need to bear in mind how we are designing it to provide the support for sandwiched families where they have younger kids and elderly.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Quality of Raw Water for Singapore’s Water Treatment Plants in Johor","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"OA","content":"15 Dr Lily Neo asked the Minister for the Environment and Water Resources (a) how often has the raw water quality been unacceptable for our water treatment plants in Johor since they have been in operation; (b) how did that affect the supply of water to Singapore and Johor; and (c) what is the mitigation plan going forward.
\tThe Minister for the Environment and Water Resources (Mr Masagos Zulkifli B M M): Mr Speaker, I would like to reiterate the written reply I had issued yesterday in response to Mr Seah Kian Peng's PQ.
PUB will shut down its Johor River Waterworks when the Johor River is affected by pollution upstream of our waterworks. Johor also has water treatment plants along the Johor River, upstream of the Johor River Waterworks, and will shut down their plants when pollution occurs upstream of them.
Since 2017, there have been seven pollution incidents along the Johor River which caused PUB's Johor River Waterworks to be temporarily shut down. These incidents have been traced to illegal discharges from premises such as palm oil mills and chicken farms within the catchment area. These pollution incidents typically cause disruptions ranging from several hours to several days. So far this year, there have been two pollution incidents, with the most recent one on 4 April 2019, where there were high ammonia levels in the Johor River.
Given the importance of the Johor River to the water supply of both Singapore and Johor, we have expressed our concern over the frequent recurrence of pollution incidents to Malaysia, both at the federal and state levels. Most recently at the Singapore-Malaysia Leaders' Retreat in April, Prime Minister Lee raised concerns over pollution in the Johor River and the severe impact of pollution incidents on both countries.
Under the 1962 Water Agreement, Singapore is entitled to draw 250 million gallons per day (mgd) of water from the Johor River, while Johor is entitled to buy treated water up to 2% of the total quantity of water we import to Singapore on any given day, or about five million gallons per day when Singapore draws its full entitlement. In practice, we have been selling Johor 16 mgd of treated water, which is in excess of their entitlement, at Johor's request. We do so on a goodwill basis without prejudice to our rights under the 1962 Water Agreement. When we are unable to import any water from Johor due to pollution, Singapore has no obligation to supply treated water to Malaysia.
During these pollution incidents, PUB works closely with the Johor authorities to flush the polluted water column from the Johor River. Such collaboration between PUB and its Johor counterparts has helped us to manage the pollution incidents. PUB conducts stringent water quality tests to ensure that the raw water from the Johor River is suitable for treatment before resuming abstractions and operations. During such temporary disruptions, PUB steps up production at desalination plants and local waterworks to meet Singapore's demand.
Nevertheless, pollution incidents along the Johor River impact the water supply of both countries and remain a serious concern. We will continue to engage our Malaysian counterparts on the need for them to take measures to prevent future pollution incidents along the Johor River.
\t
\tDr Lily Neo (Jalan Besar): May I ask the Minister whether there is any concern on the hazardous contaminants to health in the water supply from Johor? How vigorously do we check on the quality of the water from Johor? And lastly, does Singapore have any say on the factories' waste discharge in Johor that end up in the reservoirs supplying water to Singapore?
\tMr Masagos Zulkifli B M M: Both Singapore and Johor authorities check the water very vigorously. In fact, we are usually alerted by of our counterparts in Johor that the water is polluted, either with ammonia or other contaminants, before the water comes to us because the Johor plants are upstream. And indeed, they have to close down their plants before we do. And maybe a few hours or few days later, in coordination with our counterparts, we turn up operations at our plants.
We are not in control of how their land is allocated or where factories are but we certainly are in collaboration with both their Department of Environment as well as their waterworks to make sure that should incidents like this occur, alerts can be given early enough for both parties to act.
Mr Speaker: Order. The Clerk will now proceed to read the orders of the day.
[Pursuant to Standing Order No 22(3), Written Answers to Question Nos 21 and 24 on the Order Paper are reproduced in the Appendix. Question Nos 16-20, 22-23 and 25-30 have been postponed to the sitting of Parliament on 8 May 2019.]
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Protection from Harassment (Amendment) Bill","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"BP","content":"[(proc text) Order for Second Reading read. (proc text)]
The Senior Minister of State for Law (Mr Edwin Tong Chun Fai) (for the Minister for Law): Mr Speaker, on behalf of the Minister for Law, I beg to move, \"That the Bill be now read a Second time.\"
Sir, Tim Berners-Lee introduced us to the World Wide Web in 1989. Thirty years later, more than half of global population – 4.4 billion – are active Internet users, 3.5 billion of which are on social media. The ubiquity of technology, the way it is embedded in every aspect of our everyday lives, is a given. It has gone beyond just being a useful tool to help us perform tasks to becoming the primary means by which we search for information, we communicate, and we socialise. It is commonplace to see families, groups of friends, all sitting around a table, all looking down at their phones. Some figures to demonstrate the widespread use of the Internet and social media are as follows: Google handles more than 5.5 billion searches each day; there are 2.27 billion monthly active users of Facebook; there are 500 million tweets which are sent each day on Twitter; and almost five billion videos are watched on YouTube every day.
Singaporeans are at the vanguard of growth in internet use. In 2017, Singapore, alongside Sweden, topped the Global Inclusive Internet Index. This index measures the adoption and ease of access to the
Internet. There is no question about the benefits of the Internet and social media, and the convenience that they bring to our lives. But these benefits also come at a price.
In exchange for this convenience, we have in turn bestowed significant power on the social media companies. We voluntarily surrender personal data to them, exposing the most intimate details of our lives on social media websites. We are often unaware that websites and companies are collecting and amassing our data, without our knowledge, until perhaps a scandal breaks.
Last December, Facebook admitted that it had struck deals with companies like Netflix, Spotify, that allowed them to read, write and delete private messages of users. Google Plus, for instance, on two separate occasions last year, admitted that it had exposed personal data of over 50 million users in total to third party developers. After the first discovery, that mistake was hidden from the public for over half a year. Amazon’s Alexa, as another example, an \"always on\" device in our homes – Bloomberg recently revealed that the team charged with auditing commands given to Alexa had access to customers’ home addresses and other personal information. Alexa also recorded private conversation and sent it to a user’s acquaintance.
In short, there is no adequate way to moderate and control how this information is used, or shared by others. And it is not a simple matter of a leak of data, or loss of privacy. Many of us think that we still have some measure of control over our privacy. Some brush off loss of privacy, saying it is a worthwhile exchange for the convenience and benefits that technology brings to us. But we fail to recognise that the digital traces that we leave online can be connected and thereafter shared with others. There are wide-reaching, and sometimes devastating repercussions that could occur.
There are some key areas of concern for us and I will enumerate them.
First, on cyberbullying. Cyberbullying is, really, traditional playground bullying transmuted into an online new digital form. In many ways, it is more insidious than traditional bullying. There is anonymity, and there is a lack of a physical confrontation and it allows people to engage in conduct that they may not ordinarily engage in, in normal daily life. The effects are more wide-ranging, more long-lasting. The abusive comments that are put up can be permanently displayed on the Internet. They are broadcast to a large online community. And in truth, the victim has nowhere to hide.
In our 2014 Second Reading speech on this Bill – POHA – the Government highlighted alarming trends about cyberbullying. Since then, matters have grown worse and I will cite a few numbers to this House. In 2017, a survey commissioned by Talking Point found that three out of four children and teenagers had reported being victims of cyberbullying. In a 2019 Google survey, teachers in Singapore view the need to prevent cyberbullying as the most pressing concern when it comes to teaching children about online safety.
The consequences of cyberbullying can be dire. The Journal of Medical Internet Research published a study last year and showed that cyberbullying raised the risk of self-harm or suicidal behaviour amongst young persons by 2.3 times. The latest research suggests that bullying may cause physical changes in the brain, increasing the risk of mental illness. Studies have also shown that bullying in childhood has effects that last into adulthood as well. Mental problems including anxiety, depression, suicidal tendencies, poor general health, lower educational, financial and social functioning. Many suffer in silence and we may not know until it is too late.
In Singapore, for instance, it was reported a few years ago, that a 13-year-old girl was bullied by her friends on Facebook and in a WhatsApp group. She started cutting herself with metal rulers and razor blades as a result, causing injury to herself. In the US, a 12-year-old girl in Florida hung herself after being subjected to cyberbullying by two 12-year-olds: rumours about having sexually transmitted diseases, vulgar name-calling and the like. In the UK, a 17-year-old boy in Manchester stepped in front of a train after he was called a \"black rat\" and \"ugly\" online, both by people he knew and also by people who were complete strangers to him.
The second area of concern is in doxxing. Doxxing is the disclosure of personal information to cause violence or harassment to others. The term was originally used in 1990s to describe a tactic used by hackers. They would release dossiers of personal information about other hackers, to breach their anonymity and expose them to harassment. We are familiar with some local examples: the Caltex incident, Members would know; about the couple who pushed the old man at Toa Payoh hawker centre; and of course, the Anton Casey case, where he had to leave Singapore as a result.
Some may say, these people get what they deserve. But doxxing has a darker side. It has been used as a political tool by extremists. In the US, an ISIS-linked group published names, addresses and phone numbers of 1,400 mostly US military and government personnel, urging supporters to attack them. Can you imagine if you were one of these 1,400? In New Zealand, in the wake of the Christchurch terror attacks, an anti-gun control Facebook group posted contact details of the Queenstown detective online. One post featured an image of a rifle and words, \"Come and take it\". You can imagine how dangerous this information is, and can be, in the hands of wrong people.
Some other examples. In New York, an 18-year-old boy, a gifted violinist, killed himself after his roommate live-streamed him behaving intimately with another man, to 150 people. Also in New York, a journalist, Asher Wolf made anti-war posts online. Her address was shared on the dark web, and people posted dog faeces through to her, in her mailbox. In South Africa, a journalist, Karima Brown. Her contact details were published on Twitter by the leader of the Economic Freedom Fighters. She received an onslaught of graphic messages threatening rape and murder. Some threatened to expose her flesh by peeling her skin off. Finally, in Boston, there was a mis-identification of the Boston bomber. After the Boston Marathon bombings, online citizens on Reddit wrongly identified Sunil Tripathi as the Boston bomber. The family received hundreds of threatening and anti-Islamic messages, even though they are not Muslim.
Third, the area of falsehoods. Falsehoods are disseminated even more easily today for a number of reasons. First, the psychology of Internet users. Internet users are prone to confirmation bias. They have shorter attention spans, people skim, rather than critically evaluate content. They tend to share information because it triggers an emotional response more so than because of its credibility. Users generally share links without even having read them. When content gets shared enough times, it seems and appears more credible.
There is also a market for online disinformation tools and services. Fake social media accounts commonly used to spread falsehoods. \"Click farms\" consisting of large number of low-paid workers can be used to sell video views, \"likes\" and even votes. For instance, Members will probably know, that one million Instagram \"likes\" can be bought for US$18 and 500 re-tweets for US$2. Bots can sometimes take the place of these low-cost workers as well enhancing the spread of this online disinformation. Other online influencers can also be paid to spread false content, and clickbaits can be used to profit from Internet traffic.
Falsehoods affect people, real people in real life, as well as entities. Some examples. It affects those close to home. One of our local actresses: messages were circulated suggesting that she had an STD. She started receiving messages such as: \"Are you a prostitute?\" and \"Heard you have STD. Get well soon.\" Lewd comments continued to surface even after the facts were put out and it affected her reputation even when she tried to venture overseas.
Recently, the Select Committee on Online Falsehoods heard from a new citizen, Mr Hetamsaria, falsely identified in an article as a new citizen who was disappointed with Singapore and considering giving up his citizenship. The article was shared over 44,000 times on Facebook. The family was deeply affected by numerous xenophobic comments made about them.
Just last week, there was fake news on Facebook that a veteran of our local acting scene, Lim Kay Tong, received a 16-year sentence. In truth, this was a clickbait. When users clicked on the link, it led to a recipe for tikka. Another linked to a recipe for pumpkin spice cheesecake. But the impact of the clickbait was self-evident. There was also fake news circulating on WhatsApp claiming that Fandi Ahmad was taken into custody for hurting someone. Again, a clickbait.
Falsehoods about companies can cause them irreversible damage, set off a public relations nightmare and cause economic damage. Even giants like Coca-Cola are not immune. There have been stories claiming that clear, parasite worms were found in bottles of Dasani across the country. Several hundred people had been sent to hospital as a result. That FDA had shut down a manufacturing plant. Coca-Cola, of course, denied this, as did the FDA.
NTUC FairPrice, closer to home, was affected by multiple rumours. In 2007, a photo suggesting NTUC sold halal pork circulated on the Internet. Similar rumours later affected Ya Kun Kaya Toast and a Yong Tau Foo business at Westgate shopping mall. In 2017, Members would recall that there was a post going round social media suggesting that FairPrice’s house brand rice was made of plastic. All untrue.
Studies paint a bleak picture of a world where the spread of falsehoods over social media is quick, wide and pervasive, whilst truth, even if it corrects the original falsehood, lags far behind. An MIT study analysed 126,000 rumours that spread on Twitter over 12 years. The study showed that rumours travelled farther, faster, deeper and more broadly than truth in all categories of information. The study showed that tweets which perpetrated a falsehood about the Ebola virus being transmitted by air, outnumbered tweeted corrections by 2.7 to one.
Another study by the Journal of Experimental Psychology indicated that repeated exposure to a false statement on social media made it more believable.
And, finally, in a University of Buffalo study, 20,000 tweets during Hurricane Sandy and the Boston Marathon bombing showed that 86% to 91% of active twitter users spread falsehoods. Nearly as many did nothing to correct that.
It is self-evident, partly from what I have seen and partly I am sure from Members' own experience, that the Internet is almost impossible to control, akin to a lawless jungle. As in any jungle, the weakest and most vulnerable are disproportionately affected. Recent surveys showed multi-racial females have the highest risk of being harassed online. Adolescent girls are more likely to experience cyberbullying than boys. Seventy-five percent of children with autism are bullied online. Seventy percent of children with physical defects are bullied online. LGBT teens are at five times more at risk of being abused on Facebook than non-LGBT teens.
This online harassment translates into real world violence. One in three women in the US experiences domestic violence. Nearly 90% of domestic abuse shelters and programmes report that abusers have intimidated and made threats against them using electronic means. An Australian survey found that 98% of domestic violence practitioners reported clients who experienced technology-facilitated abuse.
We cannot trust the Internet companies to regulate this jungle. Why? Because their primary motivation is the pursuit of profit. In an internal company memo, Facebook Vice President Andrew Bosworth in June 2016 claimed that any growth, any growth on Facebook was good. Let me quote the memo, he said, \"Maybe it costs a life by exposing someone to bullies. Maybe someone dies in a terrorist attack coordinated on our tools. And still, we connect people. The ugly truth is that we believe in connecting people so deeply that anything that allows us to connect more people more often is de facto good.\" This memo leaked two weeks after the Cambridge Analytica scandal broke.
There is not enough transparency in how administrative standards are derived and enforced. There is no democratic process and no court process. Facebook only made public its community standards in 2018 after the Cambridge Analytica scandal erupted – 14 years after Facebook was first founded. People have no faith in social media giants to contain harassment. Users have complained that social media companies have taken days to address their complaints about harassment, if at all.
A poll in the UK this year showed that more than half the reports that women lodge about harassment on Facebook are met with either no response or response that the behaviour did not breach their own community guidelines. A Singaporean girl saw a Minister to complain that she had her picture put up on Facebook by a male acquaintance, along with derogatory remarks containing sexual innuendo. She wrote to Facebook, whose response was, that it did not violate their community standards.
Last year, a US Democratic strategist received threatening tweets. He complained to Twitter, which said it did not violate rules against abusive behaviour. The man later sent pipe bombs to politicians, and then, at that stage, Twitter said its earlier assessment was wrong. The actress who accused James Franco of sexual misconduct was also repeatedly harassed on Instagram. She made a report to FBI and said that Instagram ignored almost all her complaints.
Tech companies have admitted that they are unable to deal with some of these problems. So, we need a solution.
The amendments to POHA today, give power to the people so that the man on the street can take back the truth and find a way to reclaim his dignity. We seek to simplify the process to make it easier for the man on the street to get recourse, to get redress; make clear what remedies he can get; enable him to tackle falsehoods and harassment once they are published; enable him to put the truth out there, to counter falsehoods that may affect his livelihood, or in the case of a company, its business.
So, first, let me take Members back to our first attempt in 2014 to deal with online harassment holistically, when this piece of legislation was first enacted. This, as Members will recall, was the first piece of legislation dedicated to protecting victims of harassment, both offline and online. It laid down clear norms as to what constitutes unacceptable social behaviour. The presence of this framework encouraged victims to come forward to seek help, to seek redress. To date, more than 3,000 Magistrate’s Complaints have been filed under the Act. Over 1,700 prosecutions have been brought. About 900 convictions have been obtained. There were 500 applications for protection orders under this Act of which over 200 such orders were granted. These numbers demonstrate how important POHA has been as an avenue of relief to victims of harassment.
In introducing the revisions today, we have taken keen interest in feedback on POHA from at least three groups. First, the Courts. Second, the civil society groups. And finally, from the victims of harassment themselves. Let me sketch out the feedback that we have obtained, given to us by these three groups, which have been instrumental in shaping the amendments behind this Bill.
First, the process of obtaining relief under this Act. It is clear to us that processes under POHA can be simplified further, made cheaper and also faster. The current process of applying for an expedited protection order (EPO) and protection order (PO) can be streamlined. The forms can be made simpler. Some victims have said, they feel that they need the assistance of a lawyer to navigate the current process. Currently, applying for a PO costs about $300 to $500. In contrast, there is a simpler and more inexpensive method to apply for a personal protection order (PPO) under the Women’s Charter.
Those victims who choose instead to file a Magistrate’s Complaint face some difficulties. First, the outcome of the complaint often turns on the conclusion of police investigations. Victims do not know when these investigations might conclude. A victim who has filed a complaint with the Magistrate, does not have the benefit of the protections afforded by a PO. If a PO is necessary, the victim has to separately apply for one in the civil courts. We can simplify the procedure, so that a victim does not have to provide evidence of his or her harassment more than once. We can also ensure that we prevent the duplication because reliving the experience only causes further mental anguish for the victim.
Second, feedback received is that the courts should also be given more powers when making orders. In particular, the scope of the POs should be widened. It should cover related persons of the victim, as harassers often target persons close to the victim in order to get to the victim. The courts should be able to order offenders to be sent for psychiatric assessment and treatments where appropriate as there are cases where mental illnesses may well be the root of the offender’s behaviour.
Third, it was suggested that POs should also be given more bite. At present, a breach of a PO is not arrestable. This perceived lack of severity might be another factor which deters victims from coming forward and applying for POs.
Further, our attention was also drawn to a specific group of victims – victims of intimate partner violence. These are often victims in a romantic relationship. They may be dating or married. If unmarried, they do not qualify for protection under the Women’s Charter, which only protects victims of family violence. Some might assume that it might be easier for an unmarried victim to break off the abusive relationship. However, the psyche of an abused partner is sometimes the same, whether married or unmarried. The intimacy of the relationship allows the abuser to create a psychological hold over the victim and makes it difficult for the victim to break free. Research shows that romantic love can sometimes be like an addiction.
A PAVE study in 2012 in Singapore, showed one in three unmarried persons between the ages of 15 and 34 were found to be in an abusive relationship. Of these, two-thirds had their first abusive relationship in their teens. On average, for 20% of those who were abused by their spouses or were themselves abusers, the abuse started when they were first dating.
Let me highlight the case of Mdm A. She dated a man for five years, they had five children. Dating violence started in the first year of their relationship. The man began by shouting vulgarities at her. It escalated to physical violence – he hit, kicked, slammed her face on the floor, threatened her with a knife. And all of this, in front of the children. He threatened to kill himself or the children and abused the children. He would follow Mdm A everywhere and track her whereabouts via calls, texts, GPS. When Mdm A decided to seek help, she could not apply for a PPO under the Women’s Charter as she was unmarried. Her first child who did not carry the man’s name on her birth certificate was in same position. She could only apply for PPOs for the other four children. Mdm A and her children had to go to a crisis shelter, where they are living now. The man is in a new relationship.
There are other such cases and I am sure Members themselves will be familiar with their own experiences. We need to find a way for people in intimate relationships, who are the subject of serious abuse, to get POs more easily. PAVE, in particular, highlighted this strongly to us and has advised the Government on how best to deal with the situation. As a result, we amended the Penal Code yesterday and are proposing amendments to POHA today to further strengthen the recourse.
We have carefully considered the feedback, some of which I have sketched out, from stakeholders alongside the need for greater regulation. We will improve the process of obtaining relief from the Courts. Let me start with that in the Bill. The Bill has a new part 3A, which will establish the Protection from Harassment Court (PHC). The PHC will be dedicated to dealing with harassment matters, whether online or offline, and will have oversight of all criminal and civil cases under the Act. It will be sited in the State Courts and will have the jurisdiction of a District Court. The judges will be specially trained to deal with harassment matters. Volunteers will be on hand to help victims navigate the court process.
In egregious cases, it may not suffice to grant the victim a civil remedy in the form of a PO. The law may need to deal with the offender even if the victim has not already gone to the police. In the Bill, there is a clause 18 which imposes a duty on a judge granting the EPO to consider whether a criminal investigation is warranted. So, the Court has a proactive duty to look at facts, circumstances in the course of granting the EPO. If it is, the judge must refer the matter to the police. The intention is for serious cases of hurt or harassment which come to the court to be referred to the police. This will ensure that the State can intervene, and intervene at an early stage to reduce the risk of further or greater hurt to the victim.
In addition, we are taking measures to help victims to meet the burden of proof. Clauses 16(1) and 17(1) provide that if the respondent has been convicted of a hurt offence under the Penal Code, or a POHA offence, the requirement to show that the respondent has contravened POHA will be deemed satisfied. In other words, the victim will not have to prove his or her case more than once.
In terms of streamlining procedures and expediting timelines, we have worked with the State Courts to do so, so that the process for applying for a PO under POHA will, as far as possible, be aligned to that under the Women’s Charter. The victim will be able to file an application for a PO using a simplified form, at the PHC or online. Relief will also be quicker and more permanent. Clause 17 will ensure that EPOs will be in place until conclusion of proceedings unless they are successfully challenged. The victim will no longer have to renew the EPOs every 28 days. The hearings will also be conducted more quickly. The PHC will aim to conduct hearings for EPOs within 48 to 72 hours of application. Where there is an element of violence involved, the PHC will try to conduct hearings for EPOs within 24 hours of the application.
The PHC will aim to conduct hearings for final POs within four weeks of the application. The timelines, of course, will be subject to practical constraints. For example, if an application is filed over the weekend, the Courts may only be able to hear it on the next working day. Applicants should of course, always seek police intervention if they are in immediate physical danger. Finally, should the Court decide to stay proceedings for a PO under the new section 13A pending a criminal investigation, it may take longer for a PO to be granted. However, in that situation, an EPO will be in place until the PO is granted. We hope that these measures will relieve some of the anxieties that an applicant faces when invoking the court process and encourage those in need to come forward.
Next, in terms of enhancing the protection for harassment victims and related persons. We will enhance the protection for these categories of person, expand the scope of POs and the powers available to the Court when granting a PO. Let me explain. First, clause 16(1) widens the ambit of POs to deal specifically with the situation where an offender may publish a harassing communication which is then shared by others. A PO can now be made to prevent the publication of communications which are, not just identical, but also substantially similar to the offending communication. In addition, clause 16(2) clarifies that Internet intermediaries can be ordered to disable access to an offending communication published on their platforms. This is to try to clamp down on harassing communications going viral, or spreading even further.
Second, clause 16(2) extends the scope of POs to protect related persons of the victim. This will ensure that individuals such as Mdm A, in my example, will be able to obtain POs for herself and her children, rather than have to live with the abuse and to worry about potential harassment or abuse to her children.
Third, we have acted on feedback that the Courts should be empowered to proactively intervene in cases where the harasser’s conduct may not cross the threshold of criminal or dangerous conduct, but where the facts demonstrate that the harasser is mentally ill.
Clause 19 empowers the court to order the respondent to undergo a psychiatric assessment after it grants a PO and undergo psychiatric treatment if certain criteria are fulfilled. And the criteria are: that the respondent must have a psychiatric conditions susceptible to treatment, capable of being treated. The respondent must be suitable for treatment. The psychiatric condition must have contributed to the contravention that formed the basis for making PO, having a nexus with the conduct complained of.
The criteria and nature of the treatment will largely mirror the treatment regime under the Criminal Procedure Code, with appropriate safeguards. Failure to comply with the orders will be punishable as contempt of Court.
Two further amendments in clause 16(1)(a) clarify the law. POs can be obtained against entities who commit contraventions under the Act. The common law principles of attribution will apply. This will address cases that have already been brought before our courts, for example, where wayward companies might have crossed the threshold of lawful debt collection into criminal behavior such as intentional harassment or violence in the context of conducting their lawful activity. So, harassing, intentional harassing sometimes violence in the context of carrying out their debt collection.
Companies may have sent different runners to harass a victim. Victims can now obtain a single PO against the company and they do not have to bring each runner who conducts each of these harassing acts to Court each time.
Domestic exclusion orders are available under the Act. These orders, which are also available under the Women’s Charter, will allow victims to exclude a harasser from their shared residence. This is so even if the harasser has a proprietary interest in the residence.
We are also taking measures to strengthen the recourse available to victims and increase the deterrence factor of the remedies available under the Act. First, clauses 4 to 10 and 13 clarify that entities can be liable for contraventions under the Act. They can be prosecuted or sued for damages and the common law principles of attribution will apply. This will discourage entities from allowing their employees to harass customers.
Second, this House heard yesterday about amendments to the Penal Code to double penalties for offences committed against vulnerable persons. Under the proposed POHA amendments, clause 10 provides that penalties for POHA offences against vulnerable persons, be they adults or children, will likewise be doubled.
Third, we spoke earlier about the pressing need to protect victims of intimate partner violence. The Government has amended the Penal Code to provide for enhanced penalties for specific offences committed against intimate partners. In a similar vein, clause 11 of the Bill doubles the penalty if a POHA offence is committed against an intimate partner.
We are also taking steps to ensure that a harasser who reoffends is also dealt with severely. At present, as I mentioned earlier, breach of a PO under POHA is not an arrestable offence. This is in contrast with the position under the Women’s Charter. In response to concerns that POs issued under the Act are perceived as ineffective, we propose to amend the law. Clause 22 provides that if a harasser breaches a PO, this will be arrestable in prescribed circumstances, such as where hurt is caused or where the harassing conduct persists despite the issuance of a PO. In addition, clause 9(b) provides that if a harasser breaches a PO more than once, he will be liable on subsequent conviction to twice the maximum punishment prescribed. This also brings the Act in line with the Women’s Charter.
I turn now to online harassment. I spoke earlier about the scourge of technology when not handled properly. I would like to turn to amendments that have been targeted towards online behaviour and harassment.
First, on doxxing. To understand the basis of the doxxing amendments, let me first highlight a case that might fall through the cracks today. A Singaporean girl, whom I shall not name, was in the middle of her \"O\" levels. She discovered edited photographs of herself on a Tumblr blog with pornographic content. She started receiving unsolicited messages on her social media platforms. One day, she noticed a man following her home. Her former best friend, it turned out, had emailed her full name, photos, address and names of the school and tuition centres that she attended to over 60 porn blogs. With this knowledge, she retreated from her social interactions, afraid to even leave her home. This young girl was a victim of harassment. However, the email sent by her friend to the porn blogs, despite its malicious intent, may not have been caught by existing POHA provisions which require communications to be \"threatening, abusive or insulting\" in themselves.
The doxxing amendments are an extension of the existing provisions on harassment and seek to deal with this lacuna in the law today. Clauses 4(a) and 6(d) introduce the offence of doxxing. For this offence, the intention or knowledge of the publisher is key. Doxxing will be made out if the person published identity information of another person: intending to cause harassment, alarm or distress; intending to cause the victim to fear that unlawful violence will be used against him or another person, or to facilitate unlawful violence against the victim; or knowing or having reasonable cause to believe that the publication is likely to cause the victim to fear that unlawful violence will be used against him or another person, or to facilitate unlawful violence against the victim.
Identity information is defined as information that on its own or with other information identifies, or purports to identify, the victim. This includes photographs, contact details, address and place of employment.
The new offence will not affect most people, who continue to engage constructively on the Internet. It does not stop them from: identifying the perpetrators of crimes, including traffic offences or POHA offences or, indeed from posting videos of public disputes to give a factual account of an incident. On the other hand, publishing someone’s contact details to netizens intending to harass or alarm that person, or intending that other netizens use the information to harass or hurt the person, is unacceptable. Publishing photographs and contact details of a girl, intending that others use those details to harass her, is likewise unacceptable.
There have been concerns raised that the new doxxing provisions could be too broad. These similar concerns were raised about the existing harassment provisions back in 2014. Harassment is heavily fact specific and doxxing is a subset of that. It is no different. The law today in fact, with these amendments, adds clarity. Doxxing is currently prosecuted through a mix of provisions arising in different pieces of legislation. Courts will now be able to develop a body of jurisprudence on when the offence made out and, furthermore, existing case law on when intent is made out in the circumstances can be relied upon.
Other concerns have also been raised about whether the new provisions can deal with anonymous posters. Let me deal with that. Anonymity not a new issue under the Act. Minister Shanmugam, when he spoke on this Bill in 2014, addressed this. Even if the respondent or publisher is anonymous, he may be identified by an Internet location address, website, or other unique identifier as the court may order. In addition, POs are binding, even if the person behind the account may not be identified. The POs can be served on multiple accounts as well.
As with the other victims of harassment such as cyberbullying and intimate partner violence, a victim of doxxing will be able to avail himself of the streamlined processes and expedited timelines as well. The court may order that the offending communication be taken down by the offender and persons who have shared the original post or substantially similar posts. Where appropriate, the court may also order that an Internet intermediary disable access to the offending post. And finally, where an EPO involving online doxxing is involved, the Court will aim to hear the application within 24 hours.
Let me now turn to online falsehoods. First, in terms of setting the context. Aside from doxxing, the Bill also enhances existing measures available to address the spread of falsehoods by repealing and re-enacting the falsehoods regime. The falsehoods regime under POHA aims to help individuals to give recourse and redress against the effects of falsehoods whilst, at the same time, striking the balance with the right of people to hold their own opinions and debate matters of interest.
Broadly, POHA categorises the remedies available by types of orders which are available, split into five categories. Section 15 deals with the final orders which can be given in cases of falsehoods and section 16 deals, amongst others, with interim orders for the same. This is similar to the approach taken in section 12, which makes a PO available against both persons, entities and Internet intermediaries. In contrast, the Protection from Online Falsehoods and Manipulation Bill has distinct parts dealing with individuals versus corporate entities – and these are found in Part III and Part IV of that Bill.
For the avoidance of doubt, the falsehoods regime under sections 15 and 16 POHA, and clause 20 of the Bill, deals with false statements of fact. This includes misleading statements but does not cover criticisms, opinions, satire or parody.
Let me make this clear. First, a statement that omits material facts is misleading if the statement would have been considered by a reasonable person to be misleading by reason of such omission. If for example, A says that B is dishonest, that is a statement of opinion and not a false statement of fact. However, if A goes on to say that B was convicted by a court of cheating, then this is a false statement of fact if B was never convicted of such an offence. This is also false if B was subsequently acquitted on appeal.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Time Limit for Senior Minister of State's Speech","subTitle":"Suspension of Standing Orders","sectionType":"OS","content":"Mr Speaker: Order. Minister Vivian.
The Minister for Foreign Affairs (Dr Vivian Balakrishnan): Mr Speaker, may I seek your consent and the general assent of Members present to move, \"That the proceedings on the item under discussion be exempted from the provisions of Standing Order No 48(8) to remove the time limit in respect of the Senior Minister of State Edwin Tong's speech\".
Mr Speaker: I give my consent. Does the Minister have the general assent of hon Members present to so move?
[(proc text) Hon Members indicated assent. (proc text)]
[(proc text) With the consent of Mr Speaker and the general assent of Members present, question put, and agreed to. (proc text)]
[(proc text) Resolved, \"That the proceedings on the item under discussion be exempted from the provisions of Standing Order 48(8) to remove the time limit in respect of Senior Minister of State Edwin Tong's speech.\" – [Dr Vivian Balakrishnan]. (proc text)]
Mr Speaker: Senior Minister of State Edwin Tong, please proceed.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Protection from Harassment (Amendment) Bill","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"BP","content":"[(proc text) Debate resumed (proc text)]
Mr Edwin Tong Chun Fai: Thank you, Mr Speaker. Going back to my example. The statement is also false if B was subsequently acquitted on appeal, because the statement conveys a false meaning by reason of its omission of B’s subsequent acquittal. Once a false statement about a subject is established, clause 20 sets out five orders that may be available to address it. Interim relief will be available for all orders save the General Correction Order. This was necessary given the speed at which online falsehoods can now spread. Interim relief can be obtained ex parte in the case of interim stop publication and interim notification orders, both of which are targeted at individuals or entities which publish falsehoods. In the case of interim disabling orders and targeted interim notification orders, which are directed at Internet intermediaries, notice of the application first has to be served on the Internet intermediary. This is because the Internet intermediary is not directly responsible for the falsehood, and should be given a chance to explain its position in court, should it wish to contest the application.
Let me explain each order in turn and start by saying that all of the orders, save the General Correction Order, are already available under the Act today. As is the case under the current Act, the Court will not make any of these orders unless satisfied, amongst other things, that one, the statement being complained of is false; and two, it is just and equitable in the circumstances to make the order being sought. The test of when it is just and equitable to grant a section 15 order has been set out by our courts in case law. It is a flexible one, taking into account various factors including but not limited to the nature of the false statement; the seriousness of the allegation made; the degree to which the statement has been publicised; whether the subject of the false statement has the means to publicise his or her own version of the truth.
A stop publication order requires a person or entity not to publish a false statement or any substantially similar statement. It is already available today as I have mentioned. The orders have been amended to include substantially similar statements. This ensures that publishers cannot game the system by simply amending the statement slightly, but such that it is still false.
As with the present regime, stop publication orders can be taken out against multiple individuals or entities and the applicant need not take out separate applications against multiple persons. Anyone who publishes the false statement or a substantially similar statement is bound upon service unless the court has dispensed with service. This deals with the situation where an anonymous user may use different online accounts to publish the same false statement. This will be covered by the order, regardless of which account is used.
Next, on correction orders. These are available today, but fleshed out in the amendment Bill. I spoke earlier about how falsehoods travel faster, deeper and more broadly than truth; and that repeated exposure to false statements on social media make them more believable.
Correction orders seek to address this problem. There may be cases where it is not enough to order a respondent to stop publishing a falsehood, and it may be necessary to go beyond that to require the respondent person or entity to put the truth out there.
The respondent in such a case will be required to publish a notice online or in a printed publication, stating that the statement in question has been found to be false, and correcting the false statement. The respondent will also be required to make the notice available to persons, or specified description of persons, as determined by the Court.
Next, on disabling orders which are available today. They can be made to require an Internet intermediary to disable access to a material containing a false statement on the Internet intermediary’s platform, so that it is no longer available to viewers.
Next, targeted correction orders which are also available today. They are in like vein to correction orders but can be made against an Internet intermediary. It requires an Internet intermediary to distribute a correction of the false statement to viewers of a false statement on the Internet intermediary’s platform. So, it carries the corrections on the platforms.
Again, the purpose of this is to ensure that where the false statement has been published by way of the Internet intermediary service, the truth is made accessible to viewers of the false statement.
Finally, the general correction orders which are new. Let me describe them.
They can be made where the Court is satisfied that serious harm to the reputation of the subject, whether professional or otherwise, has been caused or is likely to be caused. Unlike the other orders, they operate against a prescribed third party who has not been responsible for the publication of the false statement. This third party, as an example, could be a news outlet, broadcaster, or Internet intermediary.
The prescribed third party can be required to publish a notice stating that the statement in question has been found to be false, as well as a correction of that false statement.
The rationale of this? Well, the ubiquity of technology nowadays means that falsehoods may spread across several different platforms. It may start on one; it may carry through to one or several others. It might be difficult to identify who has been exposed to a falsehood.
As mainstream purveyors of information, prescribed third parties have a sufficiently wide reach to help to correct viral falsehoods which are particularly serious or persistent.
What are some of the safeguards? As this order imposes obligations on third parties, interim relief will not be available. The third party should be allowed to fully contest the claim if it wishes to, before an order is granted. However, a victim can still rely on other forms of interim relief to stop or stem the spread of the falsehoods, such as the disabling order or interim stop publication order.
In terms of the relevant procedure for these orders, the same streamlined process I mentioned and also, expedited timelines will apply.
The PHC will aim to conduct hearings for the interim orders within 48 to 72 hours of application, and given the speed at which online publications can go viral, the PHC will aim to hear the application for an interim order within 24 hours of application if the false statement has been published online, subject to any requirements to give notice.
The interim order will remain in place until it expires or has been cancelled.
As with POs, the PHC will aim to hear applications for final section 15 orders within four weeks of application.
Finally, non-compliance with orders will be punishable with contempt, which is similar to the current regime, and contempt only if non-compliance is intentional.
For those who want to appeal against an order under section 15, they will still need to seek leave under section 21 of the Supreme Court of Judicature Act.
In light of the decision by the Court of Appeal in AG v Ting Choon Meng, which ruled that only individual persons have recourse under section 15, clause 20 of the Bill states that both individuals and entities can apply for remedies under section 15.
As with the other remedies under POHA, the Government will not have recourse under section 15 – Government will have to rely on the Protection From Online Falsehoods and Manipulation Act which is currently, still a Bill.
Likewise, section 15 orders can be made against both individual persons and corporate entities, but not the Government.
Allowing entities to seek relief will ensure that the companies and their staff do not suffer, lose their livelihoods, as a result of falsehoods.
Mr Speaker, Sir, after five years, we have introduced a significant number of amendments to keep pace with changes in technology, and to be responsive to feedback as to the ease with which applications can be brought, and relief granted.
The Bill builds upon an existing eco-system to deal with harassment, and to offer victims recourse and redress.
It is equally integral to this eco-system that there are the many volunteers, psychiatric institutions, the police, the news agencies, schools and many others. They are all part of the eco-system and we are grateful for their efforts in highlighting harassment issues and broadcasting the remedies available, and also assisting with the victims.
Finally, I must underline the fact that the levers that we have devised under the Act are designed to be responsive in nature. They offer protection, recourse and redress.
At the end of the day, harassment is a social problem which requires a concerted social response. We all bear a responsibility for ensuring that harassment is not perpetrated, or escalated. This is the surest way to provide victims with protection. We should not tolerate any harassment or violence, least of all those which occur in an intimate partner or family setting. Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move.
[(proc text) Question proposed. (proc text)]
Mr Christopher de Souza (Holland-Bukit Timah): Sir, this Bill makes our regime against harassment and spreading falsehoods more effective. The legal protection from harassment is as relevant today as when the Protection from Harassment Act was first enacted in 2014.
Cyberbullying is one of the social ills that the Protection from Harassment Act has sought to address. In 2014, a survey by Singapore Children’s Society and the Institute of Mental Health of more than 3,000 students aged 12 to 17 found that one in nine had been victims of cyberbullying. In 2018, Channel News Asia’s Talking Point surveyed 353 youths aged 13 to 19, finding that three in four had been cyberbullied and almost all had not informed their parents.
Besides amendments to the criminal law addressing voyeurism, revenge porn and cyber flashing, a protection order under the Protection from Harassment Act is capable of ordering published images that cause harassment, alarm or distress to be taken down.
There are several commendable features of this Bill.
First, clause 22 makes contravening a protection order an arrestable offence in certain circumstances. This should be welcomed as it would allow for a prompter response especially when someone is at risk of getting hurt.
Second, this Bill criminalises doxxing. Social media can proliferate information that can be used to harass. Whether it be through pictures in school uniform, consistent patterns of posts, family pictures, pictures taken near a person’s home, the point is there is a lot of information online that can be pieced together at strategic times to harass a person, and his or her family. Furthermore, online words can spark offline consequences and things can spiral out of control. Therefore, the amendments we are debating today in POHA are crucial and timely. For example, in China, because a person’s ca-plate number was a partial match to a car belonging to a driver who had spat on a homeless elderly, the \"human flesh search engine\" caused a person who had consistently protested his innocence to receive blackmail calls, threatening to burn his house down.
People who speak up about something controversial also get doxxed. Threats to safety, threats to family members, harassment at work – these are all possible consequences of doxxing.
Third, the other ways the provisions have been strengthened include extending the protection under protection orders to the person’s related to the victim, making it clear that entities can avail themselves of the protection under the Protection from Harassment Act, enhancing the penalties if a contravention of a protection order was between a person and his or her intimate partner or if it was towards a vulnerable person. This is to be welcomed.
Fourth, the Bill broadens the kinds of orders that can be made, particularly with respect to false information. For instance, instead of requiring a person to stop publishing it unless he or she also publishes a notification drawing attention to the falsehood and what is true, a correction order, stop publication order, disabling order, targeted correction order, and general correction order may be ordered under clause 20. What would be especially useful are interim orders as the falsehoods may be spreading quickly. In some of these orders, there are additional criteria which need to be fulfilled beyond the just and equitable basis. For instance, in the new section 15E, a general correction order requires that the publication of the false statement of fact must have caused or is likely to cause serious harm to the reputation of the subject. For an interim disabling order in the new section 16AA, the additional requirement is that it has caused or is likely to cause the subject harm.
Here, I seek a clarification of the Senior Minister of State: Is the harm in this section limited to physical harm, or would it extend to other forms of harm? Here, I would point out that there is a specialised definition of harm only for the new section 8A in clause 10(e) which is \"any physical harm; harassment, alarm or distress; or being caused to believe that unlawful violence will be used against the victim.\"
On the topic of general correction orders which I have raised above, the Bill will allow general correction orders to be made against third parties, such as internet intermediaries. Therefore, it could be envisioned that expenses can be incurred by such third parties in complying with and adhering to such orders.
Thus, my question is: does the Bill ensure that such third parties are not put out of the pocket for trying to comply with these orders.
The fifth point, Sir, is more of a clarification than a position. It is to be noted that the current section 15 already has the phrase statement of fact. This section will be repealed in clause 20. Is the meaning of \"statement of fact\" in clause 3 meant to be different from how statement of fact is to be understood in the current section 15?
Sixthly, this Bill makes the overall process quicker and more accessible, primarily by setting up the Protection from Harassment Court, governed by its own rules of procedure and evidence per clause 24(h). There are several features of the Bill which make it easier for litigants in person. For example, the proposed section 13B mandates that the court explain to the respondent in ordinary language the purpose and effect of a mandatory treatment order, consequences if the respondent fails to comply. Beyond these useful initiatives, are there any other measures in place to ensure that victims of harassment and abuse are given sufficient assistance when they approach the courts for help?
Seventh, the press release says that the Protection from Harassment Court (PHC) aims to hear applications for expedited protection orders within 48 to 72 hours of application, with applications involving risk of violence or actual violence within 24 hours. How long does the process currently take and would the Minister share what resources will be deployed to the PHC so that the suggested tight deadlines are met?
In conclusion, Sir, the Protection from Harassment (Amendment) Bill is to be welcomed as it strengthens the anti-harassment regime in Singapore. As a result, Singaporeans stand to benefit. Therefore, I support the Bill.
Mr Pritam Singh (Aljunied): Mr Speaker, the changes proposed to the Protection from Harassment Act or POHA by this amendment Bill are very significant, in my view, falling into three broad categories – outlawing doxxing, establishing the Protection from Harassment Courts with faster processes, and enhancing judicial powers to deal with false statements of fact made against individuals and companies. The Workers’ Party supports the Bill.
I will speak on five general matters where I seek clarifications about the application of certain clauses in practice. I will also highlight one important area where I feel the Bill falls short in my view.
First, the problem of doxxing. Sir, victims in cases of doxxing normally start as perpetrators – they behave in an outlandish, loutish or uncivilised manner. They are shamed, often through social media with videos of their actions shared and distributed widely. This in and of itself is not the issue and the public must be clear that posting and sharing such of examples of behaviour is not circumscribed by the Bill, even if other company specific regulations or codes of conduct apply.
So, for example, if an individual says that he had to wash the stench of SMRT or SBS commuters off his body because he had to take public transport for two weeks that his Mercedes Benz or Bentley was in the workshop – and he is then pilloried online for such crass remarks – that in itself would not be caught by the Bill. What happens however in such cases is that the public approbation that ensues has the potential of inviting vigilante justice against the perpetrator and a real risk of personal harm when the private information of the perpetrator is revealed.
This has become a growing problem. In some cases, netizens would release identity information such as the perpetrator's place of work and contact numbers and other personal information, ostensibly in the pursuit of a sense of justice. Others, however, may release the information with malicious intent.
To this end, clause 6 of the Bill is helpful because it illustrates and clarifies what particular factual circumstances can operate to give rise to the offence of doxxing.
Nonetheless, there may be a challenge in other cases, particularly borderline cases where the intent of the individual releasing identity information does not neatly cohere with the offence and illustrations in the Bill. For example, there may be a case where an individual's identity information is already online and another online commentator posts a hyperlink to it with an innocuous comment like, \"This person is a lawyer and yet he behaves in such a way\" – the actively revealed information being uncontroversial – in this case, the occupation of the individual. However, the hyperlink reveals other personal information like place of work and contact numbers, for example. In such a case, it would be arguable whether the comment and hyperlink together meet the threshold of intent as required under clause 4 of the Bill. What would be Minister's view on such a scenario? Would the individual who made the comment, and including the hyperlink, be guilty of an offence in such a case?
A second issue could be doxxing carried out by anonymous users on popular third party Facebook pages, something which requires active moderation to combat, a resource most social media sites and Facebook page moderators may not have any real bandwidth to undertake. Would such sites be found liable for the offence of doxxing where there is no intent on the part of the moderators of the page to harass, but because of the ecology and anonymity provided by the Internet, doxxing ensues nonetheless?
Secondly, enhancing protection for victims of intimate partner violence (IPV).
My second clarification involves enhancing the penalties for offences against a victim in an intimate relationship with the offender under clause 11 of the Bill. A corollary purpose of the amendments under the Bill are to bring the Protection Orders and Expedited Protection Orders regime in line with the Personal Protection Order regime under the Women's Charter. I believe these are important amendments, providing better protection for individuals, particularly women, who may not be married but are in an intimate partner relationship and suffer from intimate partner violence or IPV at the hands of their spouses.
I read Minister of Law's speech at PAVE's Dating Violence Awareness Week Event at *SCAPE in February and the stories shared on intimate partner violence (IPV) and separately, how PAVE's activism and engagement directly resulted in the amendments in this Bill to address current gaps in the law. Indeed, according to the World Health Organization (WHO), the overwhelming global burden of global IPV is borne by women. However, according to the WHO, IPVs also occur in same-sex marriages as well. Can I clarify if the remedies proposed under this Bill can be sought by individuals who are not married but are in same-sex relationships?
Thirdly, the boundaries of the definition of misleading under the Bill.
Sir, clause 3 of the Bill explains that \"a statement is false if it is false or misleading whether wholly or in part, and whether on its own or in the context in which it appears\". The Bill targets both a false statement and a misleading one. While there exists an objective legal test for determining whether a statement of fact is false, can the Minister confirm how the Government expects the Courts to interpret the boundaries of a statement that is misleading in the context of the new remedies provided for under the Bill. I understand from the Minister's Second Reading speech that a reference to the omission of material facts would make out what misleading is. But this may not be without controversy and I will try and use a hypothetical example to explain this point.
An individual has made a statement against a black metal band two weeks before it is due to perform, encouraging others not to attend the performance, leading to a loss of revenue and poor ticket sales that can be attributed to the onset of a viral online campaign by an individual. The statement released by the individual that is headlined in bold goes like this: \"People who listen to black metal music may commit violence in the real world\", alongside pictures of individuals with heavily tattooed faces. From the standpoint of the black metal band, whose music may undoubtedly not be everyone's cup of tea, the statement is misleading because all sorts of people may commit violence in the real world.
Therefore, a statement can potentially be misleading if it does not cover all the relevant facts or represent the matter fairly, and the choice of which facts are chosen usually turns on where you stand on any given matter, philosophically, politically or morally, for example. In this scenario, what remedies will be available to the band under the new clause 20(1) of the Bill? I understand there is a corpus of literature on misleading statements when it comes to Securities law. It would be helpful if Minister could share with the House and lay members of the public what the appropriate test would be in the case above, where real damage, for example, is done to the band.
Fourthly, the Protection from Harassment Courts and the speed at which they are expected to deal with falsehoods.
Sir, clause 20(8) of the Bill creates a specialist court, the Protection from Harassment Courts, that have oversight over all criminal and civil matters under the Bill. A key feature of the Bill is the adoption of simplified procedures involving a straightforward claims form for victims of harassment and the doing away with having to initiate an application through an originating summons, something which more often than not, requires the hiring of a lawyer. This is to be welcomed, especially for those who seek urgent relief.
A second important feature of the Bill is the speed at which the Harassment Courts will hear applications. For example, in the case of Expedited Protection Orders, where there is a risk of violence or actual violence, MinLaw has indicated the Courts will aim to hear the application within 24 hours. I have one clarification in this regard, and this not is with respect to EPOs, but to victims of falsehoods online where virality is a real concern and applicants can rely on a variety of remedies under the Bill.
MinLaw has stated and I quote, \"Courts will be empowered to make relevant interim orders to provide victims with urgent relief\". This was in the statement released on 1 April after the First Reading of the Bill. It was not made clear how long that timeline would be. But I understand Minister has now clarified that it would follow the regime under the Expedited Protection Orders (EPOs). Even so, let me use an example to suggest why in certain cases, this may not be satisfactory.
In Minister Shanmugam's comments on the Protection from Online Falsehoods and Manipulation Bill, a Bill which I will refer to as POFMA, Minister made comments to Channel News Asia on 13 April, and he used an actual example of the financial markets, where, I quote, \"the founder of a bitcoin company had died; the news was put out deliberately by somebody, I think, seeking profit. Within a period of four or five hours, billions of dollars were wiped out from the value. Lots of innocent investors lost money.\" Clause 3 of the Bill clarifies that an entity can seek relief under the Bill and an entity is defined to mean any company or association or body of persons whether corporate or incorporate.
It follows therefore, that a company in Minister's example, the bitcoin company, provided that it was domiciled in Singapore, could apply urgently to the Harassment Courts for perhaps a general correction order to arrest further damage which gives the Court powers to make the appropriate order or the applicant could rely on the other remedies available. The term here is the expedited relief that is sought. In such a scenario, how quickly will the Courts hear such an application given that significant damage, using the Minister's example, can occur within four to five hours? Or does the Bill envisage a faster hearing for the applicant, given that the death of a founder who has actually not died would easily meet the prima facie threshold of an interim order?
To that end, it would appear that in some cases, the Courts may have to move faster on online falsehoods affecting individuals and companies, and hear applications perhaps in even less than 24 hours. Is such a shorter application hearing timeline within the contemplation of the Bill for individuals or entities who seek very urgent relief, failing which significant damage or losses would inevitably increase with every passing hour? If so, how quickly can the public expect the Harassment Courts to hear an interim application in the case of an online falsehood against an individual or entity? And more generally and equally important, would the remedies provided for false statements in such a scenario necessitate filing a summons and affidavit as is currently the case, or does the Ministry seek to introduce a quicker and simpler filing procedure akin to a simple form as envisaged for expedited protection orders (EPOs)?
Finally, orders relating to false statements of fact.
Sir, clause 20 repeals the existing sections 15 and 16 and broadly replaces them with a stop publication order, a correction order, a disabling order, a targeted correction order, a general correction order and various other orders in cases where a prima facie case is made out. These are far reaching remedies, largely identical to those the Government has sought under POFMA and they can be imposed upon any individual or entity and applied for by the same. While much of the attention of the public has been focused on POFMA since the first readings of both Bills, but for the man on the street, POHA will be the law they can avail themselves to, with a view to take action against other individuals or entities who peddle falsehoods against them, in addition to applications against Internet intermediaries like technology companies. I have two clarifications here.
First, in view of the costs incurred by the applicant and claimable under the new section 16CA, I note these apply specifically to general correction orders. However, the explanatory statement to the Bill at page 71 appears to suggest that costs can be ordered regardless what type of remedy is ordered by the Courts. Is there any particular reason why the clause as drafted does not order costs against authors or publishers of false statements of fact in cases where the Courts issue orders other than correction orders, such as stop publication orders? In addition, can Minister share in what circumstances and scenarios would the Court mandate costs against the subject who applied for the order as provided in clause 16CA(c)?
Secondly, under clause 3, the Bill has defined the word \"entity\" to exclude any public agency and public agency is in turn defined in the Bill by section 128A(6) of the Evidence Act. What this effectively means is that an individual or company cannot apply to the Harassment Courts in case the Government makes misleading or false statements against them. As a matter of principle why ought this to be the case?
The Select Committee on Deliberate Online Falsehoods noted the observations of some representors that Governments can also communicate falsehoods or misleading information. There are enough examples of governments around the world through the course of history that have done so. Why should the public not receive protection provided by this Bill, against a prospective Government or Minister that uses his or her powers not just unwisely but maliciously, with a view to seek a remedy from a neutral body like the courts, the same remedies which the Government can direct against individuals and companies under POFMA?
On this point, Mr Speaker, the decision to create an exemption for the Government such that it cannot be sued for perpetuating a falsehood is, in my view, a glaring omission and a lost opportunity at winning the trust of the public. More fundamentally, it does not conform to the principle that the rule of law applies equally to all.
To illustrate the point, in late 2014 and 2015, the New Mandala, a publication of the Australian National University ran a series of exchanges between the former Singapore Ambassador to Australia Mr Burhan Gafoor and former ISA detainee Dr Poh Soo Kai. One aspect of the exchange involved the alleged assistance given by Dr Poh to an injured Communist Party of Malaysia (CPM) bomber who escaped the premature detonation of an explosive device in a car along Still Road in 1974. Last week, Function 8, a local civil society organisation put up a video titled \"Fake News: Who is the culprit?\" on its Facebook page. In it, Dr Poh accused the Government of wrongfully alleging that he rendered assistance to the injured bomber in Masai, Malaysia.
Dr Poh's position was that he never went across to Malaysia to render assistance to the injured party, something the Government has accused him of doing. Dr Poh further asserts that this can be proven in his favour through immigration records. By alleging that he did go to Malaysia, Dr Poh then goes on to accuse the Government of peddling a false statement of fact as defined by the Bill.
The limitation period of this example notwithstanding, under the Bill, such an individual would have no remedy against a false statement made by the Government, or an allegedly false statement by the Government, I should add.
Would the public interest not be better served in allowing a person to apply for the appropriate order from the Harassment Courts and in doing so, make their case? I would argue that the prospects of such recourse and the availability of a neutral forum like the Courts, combined with a simple process, would in itself act as a deterrent against individuals who seek to retrospectively burnish their reputations or embarrass the Government. To this end, in the event an individual can apply for a stop publication or correction order under the new section 15 but he or she does not, and instead continues to accuse the Government, then an obvious adverse inference can be drawn about what the truth really is.
In conclusion, Mr Speaker, in highlighting this example, I am not taking a view about the veracity of facts as presented by Dr Poh or the Government. Because all the relevant information is not publicly accessible, there is no way members of the public can objectively take a view on either side of the story.
The Workers' Party has made its position known on matters involving the opening of the archives and a Freedom of Information regime in Parliament before. But these are not matters within the boundaries of this Bill. However, it goes without saying that there exists an asymmetry in information and power between the Government and its citizens.
It is my view that allowing the Government to open itself up to scrutiny on matters where it is accused of peddling falsehoods can paradoxically operate to strengthen trust in the Government, particularly in these times where political leaders all around the world find their mandate to rule increasingly questioned by a skeptical public and where political polarisation increasingly appears to be the order of the day. I look forward to having my clarifications addressed.
Assoc Prof Walter Theseira (Nominated Member): Thank you, Mr Speaker. I had the best education one could receive on harassment on 9 May last year, when I inadvertently became the most hated man in Singapore for a day or two. I made a comment about CPF policy that was taken out of context. People thought I wanted the Government to stop them from using their existing CPF money for housing. A Facebook post to that effect went viral. I am sure Members can now infer why people hated me.
I am aware that many Members have had similar experiences receiving abuse online, as have others in the public eye. I hope Members were prepared for the immense stream of criticism – some reasonable, some not; some gentle, some violent – that flows your way online. I was not prepared. It was an unpleasant experience that I do not wish to recall.
But I share it today because I think it illustrates an important principle. While the law exists to provide justice, justice also requires that we play our part in understanding the limits of the law. The Protection from Harassment Act, with these amendments in place, will enhance the rights of private individuals to seek redress for online communication that harasses them. But individuals must also ask themselves if reference to the law is the most appropriate and effective means of solving the dispute at hand.
I am not discouraging individuals or victims who receive credible threats of physical harm, or who are exposed to sustained campaigns of abuse, from using the full measure of the law against the perpetrators. A victim is the only one who can decide whether the law is the best recourse. But there are many reasons why people feel the need to spew invective online. The law is not always necessary to effect a good outcome for all.
Let me now explain my side of the story. Last year, a reporter from the Straits Times contacted me to ask for my views on the President’s Address to Parliament which was delivered on 7 May 2018. That address called for bold changes and strong steps to address the challenges facing Singapore. As I have some expertise on social security, I spoke on the role that CPF plays in providing both retirement and housing security. I was concerned that some Singaporeans might be over-investing in housing. Housing asset values are highly dependent on demographic conditions decades down the road, as well as on the remaining lease length. Hence, I suggested to the reporter that a bold reform might be to end the use of CPF for housing by focusing CPF purely on retirement and medical security, which also means cutting CPF contribution rates significantly. I never said that CPF funds should be locked up immediately, so as to prevent the use of existing CPF money for housing.
In the event, what made it through to The Straits Times was my comment on ending the use of CPF for housing, and not the full reasoning behind it. I do not blame the reporter in the least because article space is scarce and many other experts were interviewed for a short article. If my comment had remained in the pages of The Straits Times, that would have been the end of it. However, someone from a website called Sure Boh Singapore found my CPF policy suggestion interesting. Mr Speaker, may I have your permission to display a slide on the screen?
Mr Speaker: Yes, please. [A slide was shown to hon Members.]
Assoc Prof Walter Theseira: Thank you. Mr Speaker, Sure Boh Singapore created a post that caricatured what I said, based on the Straits Times report. The post went viral. The post asks if Singaporeans who are made homeless by my CPF policy suggestion should sleep in my house. The posting shows 3,800 shares. I am sure there were more shares of different versions. At some point, people even got confused and thought that the President or the Government were responsible for these suggestions on ending the use of CPF for housing.
Of course, CPF is an emotive issue. I understand why people were so affronted. I provided some examples of the comments people left on the Sure Boh Singapore post. You will notice people do not think much of my haircut. Plenty of insults on my appearance, on my qualifications, a few outright threats of violence. Of course, there were also more considered arguments, which I did not show here, and some who tried to appreciate the broader context of my views on CPF and housing.
Were there any real risks to my personal safety? I do not know. As a University academic, where I work is public knowledge, and we have a fairly open campus. A gentleman actually turned up at the front desk of my University looking for me. The staff could not find me so they sent him away. But he left his phone number. I called him. It turned out he had come to complain about my dangerous views on CPF, to me in person, or perhaps to the University management. So, I explained the context to him. It turned out he was not unreasonable, just misinformed. But it did cross my mind that perhaps not all unexpected visitors might be reasonable people.
So, why am I recounting this? I realised that resorting to the law would not have helped anybody, least of all myself. There was a basic misconception about what I had said on CPF that I had to set straight. But more importantly, there was an opportunity to engage people in a discussion on what CPF policy should be and what are the trade-offs involved in the home financing decision.
So, I contacted the various parties to set the story straight. The Straits Times stood by their reporting but they accepted that what was originally printed could be taken out of context. They adjusted the story. Sure Boh Singapore likewise proved amenable to reason and corrected their story and publicised the correction. I want to put on record my thanks to all parties for helping me. I was not a Nominated Member of Parliament back then, so it is not a question of influence, it is just people doing the right thing. All of this was achieved without using any rights I might have under the law.
I then posted a public statement on Facebook, on 10 May, setting out the reasons for my thinking on CPF and housing, and I invited a dialogue. Yes, I received some unreasonable insults and jokes. But I also had a large number of people willing to engage with me. I will not say I convinced all of them. What is more important is that we had an honest dialogue.
If there had been specific threats against my family or friends, I think it would have been quite right to refer the matter to the Police. Fortunately, I do not think anybody made such threats. And the random threats of simple assault, frankly, I did not take too seriously and they were really not as hurtful as the ones who took the time and creativity to insult me further.
Nothing but my ego was bruised. I could live with that. It was an important lesson in not taking myself too seriously. We must treat each other with dignity online and offline, no matter our political disagreements. And if we fall short, I hope that we will be treated with grace by the parties that we are offending. The law gives us rights, but justice is not always served by insisting on those rights. Mr Speaker, I support the Bill.
Ms Rahayu Mahzam (Jurong): Mr Speaker, when the Protection from Harassment Act (POHA) was first introduced, it was welcomed as there was a need to provide a range of remedies against harassment, including sexual harassment, cyber bullying and even online stalking. I note that since POHA came into force in November 2014, there have been more than 1,700 prosecutions and over 3,000 Magistrate’s Complaints. These numbers reflect that the Act had been well utilised over the few years. I am therefore happy to hear that there will be enhancements to the Act.
In particular, I am happy to hear that there will be an establishment of a specialist court, the Protection from Harassment Courts (PHC), to oversee matters under POHA. Going through the Court process can be very daunting for lay persons. It is therefore imperative that processes are kept simple and timelines are expedited. It would help if the PHC becomes a one-stop \"shop\" where victims of harassment can get support with the Court proceedings and even help with counselling or enforcement procedures, to ensure a meaningful remedy under POHA. I hope this is what is envisioned under this Bill.
The harsh reality is that any order made under POHA will be a paper order. Whether it truly affords protection will depend on whether there is support by the whole ecosystem, the Police, the Court staff and social workers. It is therefore important to provide holistic support to the victims. In this regard, I would like to ask if are there any measures in place to ensure that victims of harassment and abuse are given sufficient assistance when they approach the courts.
I would also like to make reference to the judge-led approach at the Family Justice Courts. Basically, one judge oversees all matters relating to the same parties and it allows for the judge to have a holistic understanding of the parties’ case. The judge-led approach also allows the courts greater control over proceedings. I would therefore like to know if there are plans for the PHC to employ the judge-led approach.
At this juncture, Mr Speaker, I would like to continue my speech in Malay.
(In Malay): [Please refer to Vernacular Speech.] The advent of technology has transformed the way we live. Social media has become an important channel for us to communicate and interact with one another. So much interaction take place in social media to the point that it has led to the creation of an ecosystem and a different world online, which has become the place where we study, chat, trade, find love and to do many other things, and now, certain norms have also come into existence in the cyber world. It is important for us to ensure that we continue to uphold societal values by having certain rules online. Any negative actions that are unacceptable to us in the real world should similarly be unacceptable in the internet. In my view, certain rules and ethics can exist by educating all online users. However, we know that sometimes legislation and monitoring are required to ensure that everyone display positive behaviour on the internet.
One issue being raised in today's Bill is doxxing. This term refers to the action of searching and publishing someone's personal information, usually with malicious intent. This is a growing trend on the internet. This usually happens when an individual did something that the general public finds unacceptable and the person's actions become viral online, usually in the form of a video. Some people who receive such information may feel triggered by what happened and begin to look for information on the supposedly errant individual. Information about the person's name, home address, place of study or work is then displayed to the public on the internet with the intent to shame the person and invite others to collectively condemn that individual’s actions and take revenge. With the amendment to the law, this will be an offence and those found guilty can be fined or imprisoned.
There may be those who ask, what is wrong with doxxing? Perhaps they feel that there’s nothing wrong with upholding the truth and getting back at the person who did something wrong. I think we need to be clear about the negative impact of doxxing. What is our intention if we make someone's personal information public? What do we hope will happen and what is the impact on the individual and his or her family? Is this the kind of healthy behaviour we want to see on the Internet and in real life? Just imagine, if we use a real world example, the act of doxxing is akin to printing the individual's photos and personal information, and then placing it all in everyone's mail box. It is the same as using paint to display information about an individual on the walls of public areas and telling everyone about what he or she did. I believe that doxxing is not a good thing and goes against the norms of living as a society. Therefore, I fully support the recommendations in this Bill with respect to doxxing.
(In English): For the reasons set out in my Malay speech, I am supportive of the proposed amendments in relation to making doxxing an offence. I feel that if a certain conduct is unacceptable offline, it should not be permissible online.
I would, however, like to seek clarification on the application of the new laws. I believe many Internet users especially, may want to know if they are committing an offence, given the prevalence of such acts online now. To be made an offence, there must be intention to cause harassment, alarm or distress to the target person. Would an individual who has published the details about the target person, but without making any further statement urging action to be taken against him or her, be able to argue in defence that there was no intention to cause harm, but just to share information? What if the individual was not the one who created the publication in the first place and was just forwarding the information? I am also curious as to how enforcement will take place. What if numerous people have shared and forwarded the information with malicious intent? Will the police and prosecutor be pursuing every individual involved? Further, could there be possible challenges of preservation of evidence, for example, if comments or information were shared on Instagram through Insta-stories? I would be grateful for the clarification on the matters above.
Mr Speaker, new norms have developed with the pervasive use of the Internet and interactions in the online space. There is, therefore, a need to regulate behaviour online. Harassment, online or offline, is not acceptable behaviour. It impinges on the personal rights of an individual and can have severe repercussions to the victims’ physical as well as mental well-being. I appreciate that this needs to be balanced with the need to ensure that the process is not abused and no unduly harsh penalties are imposed. I believe that enactment of laws needs to be coupled with public education and I hope we will continue with this effort to build a better community online and offline. Mr Speaker, notwithstanding my comments above, I support this Bill.
Prof Lim Sun Sun (Nominated Member): Mr Speaker, whereas your job is as old as the institution of Parliament itself, there are today many new jobs that 20 years ago were unheard of. Online reputation management, online reputation repair, online image rehabilitation – these are jobs that indicate the importance that companies and individuals attach to their online reputations today. The restoration of damaged online reputations has become a growing industry.
In a digitalised world where a vast proportion of our daily interactions and transactions are undertaken online, in both professional and social realms, our online reputations are crucial to getting employed, making new friends and even finding a life partner.
I, therefore, rise in support of the proposed amendments to the Protection from Harassment Act, particularly the introduction of doxxing as a crime. To date, doxxing has adversely affected many individuals worldwide and in Singapore. Individuals who have been seen behaving in socially unacceptable or unlawful ways have been taken to task by online vigilantes. These vigilantes mount campaigns to uncover personal information of individuals, such as phone numbers, addresses, workplaces and publish them online, thereby inviting possible harassment by the online masses. Victims of doxxing have been known to receive verbal abuse and even death threats to themselves and their families.
Under the amendments, doxxing will attract stiff penalties, including fines of up to $5,000 and jail terms of up to 12 months that I believe will have a significant deterrent effect. Indeed, there are many reasons why the criminalisation of doxxing is both crucial and timely.
In the first instance, doxxing, even when undertaken by seemingly well-intentioned online vigilantes, is often fraught with error. Online vigilantes have been praised for their heroism and for helping to bring criminals to justice. But their actions can also lead to the misidentification of individuals with harmful consequences, especially when these vigilantes rush to \"mete out justice\". Using only partial information shared via social media, including grainy videos and blurry photographs, the chances of erroneous identification are high. In April 2017, when a video of a couple being rude to an elderly man in a Toa Payoh hawker centre went viral, netizens were quick to act but first identified the wrong man and woman. The wrongly identified woman recounted her ordeal in her Facebook post, calling it \"an emotional period and scary moment\". Such mistaken identification can lead to incalculable emotional and financial costs for the unfortunate victims.
Even when the right individuals are correctly identified, it is unfair to have them harassed in this manner when they have yet to offer their side of the story. But they are sentenced prematurely by the court of public opinion in a manner that can be disproportionately harsh. Indeed, the equivalent Chinese term for doxxing is \"renrou sousuo\" 人肉搜索 or \"human flesh search engine\". This term graphically captures the rabid zeal with which online vigilantes hunt down and tear apart their targets.
Mobile phone shop owner Jover Chew may have been despicable in making his customer kneel and plead for a refund. However, when netizens published all the personal details of him and his wife, forcing them to go into hiding, their boorish behaviour was just as questionable.
In a society that is so connected, we cannot create a climate where online vigilantism is allowed to run riot and let the ferocity of the online mob inflict damage on individuals. We should not permit mob mentality to take root and be the first recourse for justice. Instead, we must allow for due process. Members of the public must also be educated that if they have evidence on any crimes or misdeeds, that they should turn it over to the police rather than take matters into their own hands through doxxing.
Second, we are transitioning towards a world which is increasingly powered by algorithms. Processes, such as college admissions, job applications and even insurance premium pricing, will progressively include more aspects of automated decision making. Automated searches of individuals’ online profiles will play a bigger role in helping companies and organisations assess people. Research has found that many existing algorithmically-driven decision making systems offer little room for recourse in situations of error. Individuals seeking redress must invest considerable resources, with little guarantee of success. Given such emerging circumstances, if someone’s online reputation is irretrievably damaged by doxxing, it will significantly hamper his or her existence in far-reaching ways and with life-long consequences.
In as much as I support the inclusion of doxxing as a crime in the amendment to POHA, I would also like to raise my concerns about the new remedies for victims of falsehoods. Obviously, in light of the earlier points I made about the importance of our online reputations, I welcome the introduction of new remedies for victims of falsehoods. However, I would like to seek clarifications from the Minister about targeted and general correction orders. From the past records of MINLAW, what is the estimated volume of online falsehood cases that could be brought before the Courts by individuals and entities under POHA? How significant an administrative cost might this impose on Internet intermediaries? And what impact will this new regulation have on Singapore’s pro-innovation image? I look forward to hearing the Minister’s clarifications.
Mr Yee Chia Hsing (Chua Chu Kang): Thank you, Speaker. I rise in support of the Bill. This Bill, if passed, would strengthen and streamline the protection from harassment as well as fake news.
I would like to thank Senior Minister of State Mr Edwin Tong for clarifying that not only does the Bill make it clear that both individuals and entities may be liable for offences under the Act; where the Act refers to victims of harassment, the term \"victim\" also includes business entities.
Fake news is not only a political problem; it can also hurt businesses in Singapore, especially smaller ones which have no resources to take swift remedial action to stop the damage. Whether these are attacks from their competitors, angry customers or pranksters, fake news can cause adverse impact on businesses. Small businesses are more affected as they do not have to resources to react to fake news about their businesses.
For instance, two years ago, a man made a claim online that a grass-jelly or chin chow product manufactured locally by Tan Soon Mui Food Industries is made of plastic. That video was widely shared on social media but proven false two weeks later by AVA after it conducted laboratory tests.
Also in 2017, shoe company Bata in Malaysia lost more than half a million ringgit within a month after fake news about it selling shoes with the Arabic word \"Allah\" forming on the soles went viral. In that episode, Bata was forced to withdraw 70,000 pairs of its B-First school shoes from its stores in Malaysia. Not only was money lost, the image of the company suffered as well. As Senior Minister of State Mr Edwin Tong mentioned, even local supermarket chain NTUC Fairprice became a victim of fake news about its house brand Jasmine fragrant rice being made of plastic.
So, Mr Speaker, Sir, I would glad that businesses can now rely on the Act to protect themselves from fake news.
Another point, regarding the establishment of the Protection from Harassment Court which has the powers to hear both criminal and civil matters, I would like to ask: in practice, does it mean that a victim of fake news would only need to make a Police report and the victim would be then able to \"piggy-back\" on the criminal investigations? Or is it a case where the victim would still have to hire his own lawyer to apply for a stop publication order or correction order? In terms of damages suffered by the victim, would the Protection from Harassment Court be able to award damages to the victim without the victim bringing a civil suit if it has already been established by the Court that the perpetrator has, indeed, committed an offence and caused damage to the victim?
Mr Speaker, Sir, many SMEs do not have the resources to hire a lawyer for the issue of the stop publication order or correction order; or to seek damages from the perpetrator. I hope the Minister can clarify how having the Protection from Harassment Court to hear both criminal and civil matters can make it easier and less costly for the victim of fake news to control the damage caused as well as seek damages and redress. Mr Speaker, Sir, notwithstanding my comments above, I support the Bill.
Ms Anthea Ong (Nominated Member): Mr Speaker, I would like to express my support for this amendment Bill. It reflects a deeper commitment to the protection and support for the vulnerable amongst us. We are also debating this Bill at a time when a case of sexual voyeurism on University grounds has raised important and pressing questions about legal protection and institutional support for survivors.
We must use the current focus on harassment to have a meaningful national conversation on how we can create a society that does not tolerate any form of harassment – one where bystanders feel equipped to intervene and survivors feel empowered to seek justice. Otherwise, these amendments will not fulfil their mission.
One major change introduced is streamlining the process for applying and obtaining POHA orders in section 17 of the Bill. Currently, applicants need a lawyer to assist in the preparation and submission of documents and subsequent proceedings and this can be financially prohibitive. It typically costs between $5,000 and $8,000 leading up to mediation and significantly higher if mediation fails and the matter goes to Court.
I commend this amendment to make the process expeditious as well as more economical and accessible which help to make the ordeal less alienating and intimidating for the applicant. Lina is a survivor who did not submit her case to Court because the process is currently complicated and costly. In her words, I quote, \"I’m still struggling to rebuild my life…. [there was] so much paperwork, and I [would] need to take leave to go down to the Court so many times… It was too much for me.\" These changes will help individuals like Lina seek justice against their perpetrators.
Though not provided for in the primary legislation, the Minister has assured us in his statements to the media that the subsidiary legislation will stipulate that an Expedited Protection Order application under POHA could be granted within 48 to 72 hours. If there is actual violence or risk of violence, an Expedited Protection Order could be granted within 24 hours. I think a $200 fee has also been cited. I seek the Minister’s clarification on this.
Mr Speaker, at this juncture, I would like to highlight another obstacle that remains which may impede a survivor's access to help: young adults under the age of 21 cannot seek protection orders under POHA unless a guardian makes applications on their behalf. This can be a deterrent from seeking legal redress for intimate partner violence and sexual harassment, even if social service agencies or law firms are involved.
Tina, not her real name, was 20 when she approached AWARE about a blackmail case. The perpetrator was threatening to leak explicit photos and videos of her if she did not continue to send him more. Despite the mental and emotional distress she was going through, she insisted on not involving her parents because she believed they would react \"badly\". In fact, she preferred waiting a whole year to turn 21 so that she could go to the Court alone. Tina’s concerns are echoed by many, and they reflect a gap in the current system. Tina’s story is not the only one I know.
The 18-year-old student I was mentoring a few years back was sexually harassed by her best friend’s brother and did not seek protection either because she did not want to let her parents know, they still do not till today. I hope that barriers for 16-21-year-olds can be removed. If need be, we could appoint social workers or court counsellors to support applications in the place of the survivor’s parents or guardian. We need to be cognisant of the social pressures that survivors might face, and understand that some may not be ready to involve their family.
The other significant change introduced in section 8 of the Bill is close to my heart – namely enhanced penalties for perpetrators for crimes against vulnerable persons. The Bill defines these vulnerable persons as those with mental, physical disabilities and victims in an intimate relationship with the perpetrator. These changes recognise that these persons are especially vulnerable to being targeted for harassment, potentially face greater psychological and physical damage from such harassment, and are less able to defend themselves or prevent such harassment. I have heard many bullying and harassment stories from just amongst my deaf friends and persons with mental health conditions whom I work with.
This extra consideration and attention is definitely a progressive yet necessary step forward. But I cannot emphasise enough that the protection of the differently-abled must not only come from the law. The continued harassment of these individuals originates from a deeper prejudice within our society. We must continue our whole-of-society efforts to tackle the root of this stigma and establish a widespread agreement to care and support the differently-abled.
Mr Speaker, I must at the same time urge caution when pursuing the strategy of enhanced punishments. There are valid concerns to be raised on the effectiveness of enhanced punishments in administering two key areas of justice, namely deterrence and retribution.
Extensive studies reflect that enhanced punishments do not necessarily create a greater deterrent effect, and may in fact be counter-productive. Research done by Centre for Criminal Justice Studies in Canada has shown that longer sentences and harsher punishments do not reduce the rates of sexual crimes. Instead, the reverse may be observed, where longer sentences increased recidivism due to a lack of repentance for the initial crime, as reported by the National Research Council in the United States.
Moreover, enhanced punishments may even counter-productively discourage the victim from reporting instances of harassment. In eight out of 10 cases that AWARE’s Sexual Assault Care Centre sees, survivors know or are close to their perpetrators. In some cases, especially when the perpetrator is a family member, enhanced punishments may heighten the fears of destroying the perpetrator’s life, deterring survivors from reporting. Jenny, for example, shared that even if the perpetrator, her father, was jailed for the maximum period of time, he would never feel the fear, shame, terror and disgust that she has had to deal with throughout her childhood and into adulthood. She also shared that her mother would not be able bear the guilt and it would devastate her, I quote, \"so punishing him even for the longest time would only bring more pain\", unquote.
Harsh punishments are not necessarily an effective deterrent nor do they serve survivors better. Instead, increasing victim support and making reporting and prosecution processes trauma-informed and more victim-friendly would go a long way in ensuring that survivors will come forward and sustain their involvement all the way to conviction. Improving the chances of securing convictions will do more to promote deterrence than imposing harsh penalties.
In 2017, the UN Convention on the Elimination of all Forms of Discrimination Against Women Committee or CEDAW made a similar recommendation. CEDAW suggested that Singapore prioritises gender sensitisation training in the criminal justice system, not increasing punishments, as a way to strengthen protection for women against gender-based violence. I also urge the Government to consider and look into the deterrent effects of other measures like community service and restorative justice measures as restitutionary agreements.
Mr Speaker, I applaud the Government for extending the recourse available under POHA to entities that are victims of harassment in section 11. However, I would like to clarify if the protection that is now available to entities also creates an equal responsibility for them to exercise reasonable care to prevent and correct promptly any harassing behaviour, failing which they would be held liable for their employees’ actions.
The sexual voyeurism case I mentioned at the start of my speech raises questions about organisational investigation processes, support offered to complainants, and helpful prevention programmes. Although not legally enforceable, the Tripartite Advisory on Managing Workplace Harassment provides important guidelines on these issues but it is unclear if the Advisory covers institutes of higher learning. If they are not covered, I strongly urge the Government to consider establishing a mandatory code on sexual and other forms of harassment that can hold Institutes of Higher Learning accountable when they do not handle student complaints promptly and fairly.
The changes made in this Bill are driven by key principles that should be celebrated, especially in the clear commitment towards protecting and supporting the most vulnerable amongst us.
Yet, Mr Speaker, we must remember that legislative changes cannot be the end of the process of change. I hope that the Ministry spares no effort in education and awareness efforts with schools, Institutes of Higher Learning, workplaces and communities so that every member of our society knows not just what their rights are but also how to activate these rights in the face of bullying and harassment. Social support must be enhanced to ensure victims have an accessible and holistic process of recovery from these traumas. And more importantly, we must continue to spare no effort at every level to build a society with values of respect and inclusivity that will discourage these crimes against the vulnerable in the first place.
Because a society that has more justice and compassion needs less charity. And our great hope in such a society is in individual character. Notwithstanding the above clarifications, Mr Speaker, I support this Bill.
Er Dr Lee Bee Wah (Nee Soon): Mr Speaker, Sir, Chinese please.
(In Mandarin): [Please refer to Vernacular Speech.] Every now and then, there will be online news about people who have done something seemingly wrong, followed by doxxing on these people. Their personal information will be put online, including their home address, work address or their telephone numbers. Then the harassment starts.
Quite often, the one being searched out turns out to be the wrong person. Even if it is indeed that person, we should not harass him. If we can hurt someone just because we do not like his behaviour, then we are no different from a primitive society. What is more, the people living with them including the elderly and their children are equally harassed. Is this fair?
Singapore is one of the first countries in the world to illegalise doxxing and I am very proud of this. I also want to remind everyone not to go online and publicise your personal information.
(In English): This Bill criminalises publishing online identifying information of others, such as full name, address, phone number and so on. This is also known as doxxing, and often leads to harassment and harm of individuals in real life. Doxxing is certainly not a foreign concept to Singapore’s cybersphere. There are communities and forums dedicated to \"CSI\", a term they use which refers to investigating the victim and publishing his or her personal information online. I am proud that Singapore is the first country to make the act of doxxing a criminal offence.
We have had our own social vigilantism gone wrong incidents. When netizens tried to identify the perpetrators in a viral video of a young couple bullying an elderly man at Toa Payoh Hawker Centre, they wrongly identified them to be employees of a local bank. This information, along with the couple’s pictures, were circulated, and people even threatened to boycott the bank. Eventually, it was found to be a mistake.
Even if the people are correctly identified, harassing and harming them is never justified. If someone has done something objectionable, we can deal with it through our laws. But we cannot allow people to harass them in real life. That is like taking justice in our own hands, no different from secret societies or pre-historic villagers.
Regardless whether the target of doxxing was innocent or guilty of the allegation against him, the consequences of doxxing can be disproportionate, and may plague the victims for life. There is the saying, \"The Internet never forgets.\"
When information goes viral on the Internet, even if you remove the source material, the other people who have seen it would have remembered it and even made copies to share it around. Even when clarifications are made, these may never reach the people who have seen the original mistaken source.
Jon Ronson’s book \"So You’ve Been Publicly Shamed\" documents the stories of doxxing victims who continue to live in fear of harassment and prejudice even years after the doxxing happened. Some of them had their employment prospects hurt. Others continue to face harassment. Most of them had not actually hurt anyone or committed crimes to deserve all these. And those innocent people who live with them, including elderly and children, are put through hell too.
Not everyone who gets doxxed is even suspected of doing something wrong. There are whole accounts dedicated to taking pictures of women without consent and talking about them in a sexual way. For some women, people have found their social media accounts and from there their personal information, and harassed them in real life. So, I hope more can be done to educate individuals to be careful with their personal information and photos.
This includes having the correct privacy settings for information like home addresses and phone numbers on social media accounts, erasing location information on photos when sharing them on social media, and not sharing compromising photographs and information publicly or with people they do not know well.
Social vigilantism has been referred to as a perilous form of justice. In fact, I wonder if it can even be considered a form of justice when it simply creates chaos and fear in many cases. I urge all those who truly value justice to consider joining the Police force, where you can put your \"CSI\" skills to good use. There is no need to take matters into your own hands and risk causing irreversible damage to innocent lives in the process.
What I had spoken is online harassment. Now, I would like to highlight another type of harassment, that is, harassment by ex-employer using WhatsApp and emails. I would like to share with you a real case that my resident is going through. I received an email from my resident asking for help. Subsequently, I met up with her in MPS. She looked like in her late 20s and she told me that she get her new job through her friend and this company is dealing with block chain technology and cryptocurrency. So, her job is to sell cryptocurrency to as many customers as possible. She has to do a lot of networking, has to see many customers. On the first day of her work, her boss added her into many WhatsApp groups. She felt rather uncomfortable, she wanted to quit but she was persuaded to stay on. Then, two weeks into the job, she decided to quit because she found out that her boss \"hire and fire\", and there is a lot of people being fired before she was hired. So, she sent an email to her boss to inform her boss that she wanted to quit with immediate effect. Her boss replied, \"Okay\". So, she stopped working the following day.
Soon after that she started receiving WhatsApp messages and emails from her ex-boss. Her ex-boss said, \"I agree to your resignation but I disagree to you resigning without giving notice. So, you have to pay the company 1 month salary.\" She has been working there for two weeks and she was not paid. According to her, in her employment contract, during probation period she need to give only one week's notice. So, she has been bombarded with WhatsApp, email messages and even her personal details, her employment contract was circulated to her ex-colleagues. Just a few days ago, on 2 May, she received one more email. Her boss told her that he is taking legal action on her and in order to do that, he had to deliver a notice to her personally and kept asking her when he could visit her at home. Mind you, she has left the company for six months.
So, I would like to ask the Senior Minister of State is this harassment. Can this Bill help a victim like my resident? It is very painful to see young ladies being harassed, being tortured like this; and she is not the only one. I have seen several similar cases. It so happens that they are young, beautiful ladies. Sir, I support the Bill and I hope it will put a stop to all this harassment.
Mr Gan Thiam Poh (Ang Mo Kio): Mr Speaker, Sir, I support the introduction of the new offence of \"doxxing\" as the number of such incidents is getting out of hand. Publicly sharing personally identifiable information, such as photographs, videos, addresses, phone and contact details, while inciting people to \"punish\" or humiliate targeted parties have become increasingly common. Some of these cases are just plain bullying, others involve manipulation with criminal intent, and yet others are carried out in the name of justice or \"vigilantism\".
While we understand that people generally want justice to be done, they must understand that it would be best to leave it to the relevant authorities to perform thorough investigations and follow-ups. After all, many internet users may be too quick to present information without having the full facts. The Government should educate members of the public about appropriate actions they can take and how to share information with the relevant agencies. In order to build trust and increase the public’s confidence, the informed agencies should also share investigation results and outcomes where circumstances allow, with concerned members of the public, so that they would not feel that all their cooperative efforts have gone down a deep black hole. As time goes on, the public will trust in the Government to take the right and calibrated actions, and be less inclined to administer their own brands of justice.
We should not encourage violence in our society; and one taking law into one's own hands, especially doxxing, can cause unnecessary harm to the parties concerned, including their families, which are innocent parties. Such acts are amounting to the \"warrant to kill\" order practised by the triads and secret society in the old days, which should not be allowed to have a place in our society.
In addition, we should consider the harm caused to innocent parties, especially those who have been framed and set up. This reminds me of a friend who was humiliated and threatened with breaches of privacy by her ex-husband after their marriage turned sour. The damage and harm is far reaching and hurt the children who are the innocent parties.
Therefore, anyone who advocates and resorts to all means to hunt down another party with threats of violence should not be dealt with lightly as such threats are provocations to violent behavior, which are against the efforts to make Singapore a gracious society.
We should also educate the public and raise awareness that they could be used for mass manipulation by persons with their own agendas. There are already cases of companies and individuals misleading the public online with information discrediting their business rivals in order to gain a competitive advantage in their businesses and improve their own profits. In Mandarin, please.
(In Mandarin): [Please refer to Vernacular Speech.] Mr Speaker, this Bill is very timely. I am sure that many of our Members here have similar experiences where residents come to them for help about cyber bullying. We cannot allow cyber bulling to threaten public and individual safety. Although they claim that they do this for justice, they must respect our law and to pass the matter over to the authorities. There is no need to get the innocent involved.
(In English): With that, I would like to conclude with my support for the Bill.
Mr Patrick Tay Teck Guan (West Coast): Mr Speaker, I rise in support of this Bill. The establishment of the Protection from Harassment Court (PHC) which adopts simplified procedures and expedited timelines coupled with the strengthening of protection for victims of harassment sends a strong signal that victims of harassment must be taken seriously, and harassment cases must be dealt with effectively.
It is critical that the avenues to seek relief and redress are not fraught with complexity or lead to a sense of futility or worse, where the victim of harassment perceives himself or herself to be further victimised.
I will be addressing these points in relation to: one, anonymous harassers; two, intimate harassers; three, workplace harassers; and four, the management of harassment cases.
First, anonymous harassers. One of the challenges to the ability of the victim to take any action against a perpetrator is the lack of knowledge of the perpetrator’s identity. Take for example, a female victim who was harassed online by persons unknown to her. These persons had posted hateful messages directed at her, revealed her contact number online while threatening that they were closing in on her residence and posted her contact details on online sex forums offering sexual services. Worried for her safety and her family’s safety, the victim reported the matter to the Police but was told that there was nothing further that the police could do as they needed real names and contact numbers before they could proceed.
This same example may happen to a male victim as well.
While the Bill now provides for the application of stop publication orders to prohibit the publication of false statement of facts, these unknown perpetrators can easily put up other false information of the victim on other platforms to continue harassing the victim. Some of these persons also deliberately mask their identities and IP addresses to avoid detection. The anonymity of the harassers adds to the sense of loss of control and fear already experienced by victims. The anonymous harassers may pose threats of violence or incite violence by others on the victims and their loved ones. The victims have no means of assessing if the harasser or persons will carry out the threats of violence, or who they should be guarding against. This creates a significant amount of stress on the victims, which can be debilitating. In this regard, the law enforcement agencies must strengthen their capabilities in identifying these unknown perpetrators to send a strong message to these harassers that they cannot get away with such behaviour.
Second, intimate harassers. Intimate harassers can inflict even more pain and anguish on their victims and even persons related to the victims, due to the increased vulnerability and proximity of the victim in the intimate relationship. The intimate harasser has access to private and intimate information of the victim which can enable the intimate harasser to hold the victim ransom and force the victim to acquiesce to the harasser’s demands.
The Bill rightly provides for strengthened protection for victims of intimate harassers who require greater protection and means to extricate themselves from the reach of the intimate harasser. However, the Bill also provides that the enhanced penalties do not apply to the intimate harasser, referred to as \"A\", if \"A\" can prove that despite \"A\" having been or being in an intimate relationship with the victim, referred to as \"B\", the relationship between \"A\" and \"B\" did not adversely affect \"B's\" ability to protect \"B\" from \"A\" in respect of the harm caused by the offence. Could the Minister share examples of what these possible exceptions might be?
Third, workplace harassers. Workplace harassment involving cases of rage and aggression by members of the public against persons in public-facing frontline jobs is on the rise. Last month, a man was caught on camera punching a 60-year-old private security supervisor at Roxy Square allegedly over seeking of directions out of the building. The security supervisor fell and suffered a swollen eye and a sprained neck. Following this incident, I reiterate my call once again for MinLaw and MHA to review the scope of \"public service\" workers under the Act.
While these private security officers work in private spaces, their work, in effect, straddles the line delineating private and public spaces as provided in the Act. Given the recent introduction of criminal penalties regulating the conduct of private security officers to boost the industry’s professionalism and bolster Singapore’s defences, it is timely to review the according of special protection to this group of workers under POHA beyond what is currently provided for under the Act.
I raised this on several occasions in this House on behalf of these workers who undertake public-facing jobs and who may be exposed to harassment. They include private security officers, cleaners, transport workers as well as healthcare workers. Harassment cannot be condoned nor accepted as part and parcel of these public-facing jobs.
Through the Legal Clinics and Legal Primers organised by the National Trades Union Congress (NTUC), union members are provided with access to support, resources and the expertise of legal professionals, social workers and counsellors to prevent and manage workplace harassment. At these sessions, workers have shared personal encounters of harassment at the workplace, ranging from physical to verbal harassment, some of a sexual nature. A dipstick poll at one such Legal Primer indicated that 20% of respondents had encountered workplace harassment of a sexual nature before. Name calling and hurling vulgarities were also commonplace. In some cases, harassers used physical force to intimidate victims by blocking their way or even by pushing and shoving. Instances of workplace bullying were also shared. A member shared that her colleague who bore a grudge against her took photographs of her without her consent and spread malicious untruths about her, suggesting that she was in an intimate relationship with another colleague. She was advised to seek recourse under POHA.
Victims of workplace harassment often find it difficult to speak up because they may be fearful of losing their jobs, receiving a bad appraisal, perceived as not going along with the office culture or blaming themselves. One member shared that after she had made a Police report against her superior for sexual harassment at the workplace, her superior subsequently made false allegations against her, took away her work duties and dismissed her.
Workplace harassment can impact the victim psychologically and physically and his or her ability to work. I am glad that the Ministry of Law has, at the Committee of Supply Debate 2019, taken note of my suggestion to track the types of POHA cases filed and that the Ministry will be working with the State Courts to explore this further. Information gleaned from workplace harassment POHA cases can help in the refinement of the Tripartite Advisory on Managing Workplace Harassment to better prevent and manage harassment at the workplace.
On a related note, the Bill allows business entities to seek relief against falsehoods through the application of stop publication and correction orders. Falsehoods can damage the business reputation and have knock-on effects on the workers' livelihoods. Last year, videos were circulated alleging that fake chilli was sold in the vicinity of Tekka Market and fake keropok was sold at the Hari Raya Bazaar. The relevant authorities had investigated the claims and found the allegations to be untrue. Not only do these falsehoods cause unnecessary alarm and confusion among the public, the reputation of the business and their workers' livelihoods would also be impacted, in the event where the public chooses to boycott the business due to the falsehoods.
Fourth, management of harassment cases. In cases of prolonged and sustained harassment, victims can feel compelled to make drastic changes to their way of life, including moving houses, changing jobs and cutting themselves off from social media and social engagements. Victims undergo significant stress, experience a sense of loss and powerlessness and a pervasive sense of insecurity, even in their own homes.
It takes courage for victims to take action against their harassers. This is at the risk of further incurring the wrath of the harasser and being subject to even greater harassment. Care must be taken to minimise inadvertent victim-blaming in the course of investigative and legal inquiry. The victim should also be kept informed of developments in investigations at appropriate junctures.
To help victims to get back on their feet and prepare for any backlash from harassers, the Police and the newly set-up of the Protection from Harassment Court should direct victims to specialised counsellors or social workers to assist victims in drawing up safety plans.
In putting together a personalised safety plan, victims can identify concrete steps they can take to better protect themselves along with resources they can tap on to seek help. These safety plans can help victims to gain a sense of control over the situation and better cope with the investigative and legal processes to follow. With these submissions and suggestions, I support the Bill.
Mr Murali Pillai (Bukit Batok): Mr Speaker, Sir, I first would like to declare my interest as a practising lawyer. I support the aims of the amendment Bill which was carefully outlined by the hon Senior Minister of State, Mr Edwin Tong in his speech. I commend MinLaw for taking active steps to protect victims of harassment. I believe, once passed, this Bill will have the effect of considerably strengthening the protection regime for victims.
I have four comments to make on Bill. First is on the issue of doxxing. Many hon Members spoke about this before me. I think there is clearly support for the criminalisation of such behaviour. The query, though, is on the ambit of the proposed crime, and in that, I join the observations made by the hon Member Pritam Singh. He mentioned an example where an author posts information online to highlight a person's offending conduct. The author's focus is not necessarily to harass the person but to highlight the person's bad conduct. It, however, may be foreseeable that the person may still be harassed.
Alternatively, there could be situations where a victim of an offence shares his or her experience online and names the perpetrator at the same time. In such situations, would the offence of doxxing be committed? I think it is important to understand what kind of behaviour would be caught under this new provision so that people will know how they should regulate their conduct online.
I now turn to the proposed section 11 which is being broadened to allow for a victim of harassment to bring civil action against any individual or entity; and this entity may include corporate bodies or unincorporated bodies. I would like to seek clarification as to whether the provision is broad enough for corporate entities or other third parties who may not be directly victims of the harassment but nonetheless are affected by the acts of the harasser so as to be able to bring civil actions against the harasser.
Let me provide an example by reference to the 2013 High Court decision of AXA vs Chandran Natesan, where I acted as the lawyer. This case pre-dates the enactment of POHA. In that case, the defendant was a psychotic. He targeted the plaintiff company's employees, particularly the women, and repeatedly sent emails and made calls to them using vulgar and threatening language. The company obtained an interim injunction preventing the defendant from harassing its employees. However, it failed to get a permanent injunction as the High Court doubted the existence of the common law tort of harassment. The common law tort of harassment has since been abrogated by POHA.
Under section 11 of POHA, clearly, the harassed employees will have a remedy in commencing civil action against the harasser. However, it is not clear to me whether the company, the employer of the employees would be able to commence an action to protect its employees. It would be good for employers to be provided with such remedies for two main reasons. First, as an employer, the company has a duty to its employees to provide a safe working environment. The hon Member, Mr Patrick Tay, was talking about Workplace Harassment just a few minutes ago. Hence, it has a direct interest in ensuring that its employees are not harassed at work. Second, when we are dealing with a company with many employees, the harasser can escape the effect of an injunction by shifting target to employees whom he has not harassed before. If the provision is widened to allow the company to commence civil action against the harasser and obtain an injunction to prevent harassment, it can protect all its employees in one go.
In UK, there is precedent that allows an employer to sue a harasser on behalf of all its employees. In the 2005 English High Court decision of First Global Locums, the High Court granted an injunction under the UK Protection from Harassment Act in favour of a recruitment company against a disgruntled ex-employee. In deciding to issue an injunction protecting the company, the Court held that if it only covered the employees who had been harassed without including the company, there is a likelihood for the ex-employee to harass other employees of the company who, at that point in time, have not been harassed yet and thereby retaliate against the company. I would welcome the hon Senior Minister of State's clarification on this matter.
My next point deals with the ambit of the protection order under the proposed section 12 of the Act. As currently worded, the scope of protection under the order would involve prohibiting the harasser from doing anything in relation to the victim and this right may extend to directing that the harasser be excluded from occupying the shared residence with the victim. It also may include requiring the harasser to stop publishing an offending communication, or referring the harasser to attend counselling and mediation.
The hon Senior Minister of State also mentioned some other aspects of broadening the Protection Order.
I would like to seek clarification that the wording does not prohibit the Court to make whatever ancillary orders that it deems fit, for example, \"delivery up\" orders, to ensure that the victim is sufficiently protected depending on the circumstances of the case.
Let me provide an example to explain the point. From time to time, we read of cases of female victims being harassed by ex-boyfriends who possess videos of them being intimate. On such occasions, victims may, and indeed have, taken action under POHA to obtain a protection order against the respondents. What is not clear, though, is whether under the proposed provision, the victims are able to demand that the respondents give back the videos featuring them. This is important because so long as the videos are in the hands of the harasser, there is every chance that offending behaviour may re-occur. I would have imagined that the Court should have such powers to ensure that the objective of the protection order is met. I would welcome the hon Senior Minister of State's clarification on this point.
Finally, I have a query on the jurisdiction and application of POHA over persons outside Singapore, or persons whose actions covered by POHA were committed when they were outside Singapore. From my reading of the proposed section 17 of the POHA, it seems that there may not be jurisdiction to deal with a situation where the victim of harassment is outside Singapore at the material time and the act of harassment by the harasser is committed outside Singapore too.
I do appreciate why there should not be criminal jurisdiction over such acts. However, when it comes to civil jurisdiction, I would respectfully suggest different considerations should apply. Under common law, there is a \"double actionability\" rule which Senior Minister of State would know. It would ordinarily applied to torts. For example, a person who has been defamed overseas, he may, in certain circumstances commence an action in Singapore if he can show that the offending act that occurred overseas would constitute a civil wrong both at the location where it had occurred as well as Singapore. In an interconnected world, these kind of expanded bases of jurisdictions would be welcome. Otherwise, the victims would be left with no remedy and has to wait until he'she is harassed in Singapore before commencing action. Notwithstanding my comments, I wholeheartedly support the amendment Bill.
Dr Chia Shi-Lu (Tanjong Pagar): Mr Speaker, Sir, I rise in support of this Bill which will further strengthen the current legislation to provide protection against harassment.
One of the key amendments of this Bill is the establishment of the specialist court – the Protection from Harassment Courts (PHC), which will provide a one-stop centre for all matters relating to protection from harassment. This arrangement will certainly facilitate the provision of holistic and effective interventions for victims.
Two of the main concerns of harassment victims are the time required and also difficulties faced in getting Protection Orders (PO). I am heartened to note that the PHC will adopt simplified procedures and expedite the hearings for certain applications, for example, within 48 to 72 hours for Expedited Protection Orders (EPOs), and where there is risk of violence or violence had already occurred, within 24 hours.
The decision to permit the PHC not to be bounded by the rules of evidence in the conduct of civil proceedings will also be very helpful for victims. I would like, however, to seek some clarifications on the enforcement of Protection Orders once issued. The Bill indicates that remedies and recourse for breaches of POs and EPOs will be strengthened. The measures include the issuance of community orders and in the cases of causing hurt or continued harassment, making such breaches arrestable offences.
My concern is that these are implemented after the breaches, by which time the victims would have suffered another round of psychological or physical trauma. In cases where the accused may be unable to think rationally nor behave with restraint, there seems little to prevent them from causing more trouble. I have encountered some of these cases in my dealings as a Member of Parliament, for example, we had a daughter and her mother who felt they were threatened by one of their sons. Although I do not have the full information about the case, it was clear that they felt that this son was not behaving rationally and they were in constant fear of being attacked or harassed by this son, despite the existence of Protection Orders. And there was very little in terms of immediate recourse that they could turn to.
So, is it possible to introduce stronger deterrent measures to enforce the POs and can more be done to prevent subsequent harassments or attacks? Would the Ministry also share recent data on the effectiveness of POs, including the number of cases of repeated breaches or subsequent injuries or perhaps even deaths?
Next, like many Members before me, I do welcome the amendments to counter the unfortunate new social trend of doxxing, where people’s personal information, such as names, photographs, contact details, home and work addresses, are shared online in order to facilitate harassment, issue threats or cause physical harm. I think many examples have been shared in this House over the past hour. I myself have also encountered such examples, maybe not of such degree or this nature.
For example, several months ago, I came across a cleaner in one of the hawker centres who had a little bit of disagreement with one of his customers. It so transpired that the details about the cleaner were then posted on social media which led to a lot of consternation to this cleaner. And, of course, notwithstanding the merits or the lack thereof of the case, I think these are very unfortunate developments in the social media arena.
Some of these acts of online \"vigilantism\", such as to expose the couple who harassed an old man at a hawker centre, inconsiderate and dangerous drivers, voyeurs and Peeping Toms, may seem warranted but in fact, undermines the very foundation of our justice system. Administering justice is not an activity which can be done part-time, remotely nor casually. Thorough investigations of the facts of the events are necessary, in fairness to all parties involved. In fact, there have been many cases where false or misleading information had been shared, causing hurt and damage to innocent parties.
I urge the Ministry to step up awareness of what constitutes the illegal act of doxxing through public education programmes as well as the appropriate measures the man in the street can take to address bad social behaviours.
A number of netizens resort to doxxing because they lack confidence in Government institutions to rectify certain situations and social behaviours, leading them to take matters into their own hands. It is important that public institutions concerned show their awareness of these incidents, and prove that the Government takes a serious view of their feedback through comprehensive measures and consistent enforcement.
Public education to increase their awareness of the appropriate forums to share such information is essential. For example, they should be encouraged to post and share videos of, for example, dangerous driving with the Traffic Police, forward information on disputes to the relevant authorities and share information with emergency services. In order to reduce the incidents of doxxing, public institutions must be prepared to step up to address public concerns expeditiously and provide updates on actions taken. As it has often been said, not only should justice be done, it must be seen to be done. I support the Bill.
Mr Louis Ng Kok Kwang (Nee Soon): Sir, the Protection from Harassment Act (POHA) has protected and provided redress for harassment victims. This Bill will amplify these positive effects by making it easier for victims to seek redress and recourse for harassment-related behaviours, and by targeting new social trends such as doxxing and increasing incidences of fake news.
That being said, I would like to make some recommendations to better support victims by improving responses of enforcement personnel, and by increasing use of counselling and mediation. I would also like to seek clarifications on the scope of the new offence of doxxing.
Sir, sensitivity and tact are needed when assisting victims of harassment to avoid secondary victimisation by law enforcement.
In the online talk show series \"Under the Carpet\", Debra Tang highlighted the need to train first responders on the handling of harassment, assault and violence cases. From her interviews on the show, she noted that, \"Too often, victims are made to feel ashamed, foolish, or disbelieved. Many go away wishing they had never made a complaint or reached out for help. And, if it should happen again, they will never speak up.\"
It also emerged through the show that there have been instances where victims felt that they were not taken seriously because they may not have exhibited behaviours that law enforcement deem \"typical\" of assault victims.
The legislative amendments to strengthen protections under POHA will not amount to much without an environment where victims feel safe to speak up.
Training our law enforcement officers to better manage these cases with tact and empathy is crucial in creating such an environment.
Sir, carving out a separate regime in the form of the new Protection from Harassment Courts (PHC) for those who seek help under POHA implicitly recognises that victims of harassment face unique vulnerabilities.
I am aware that changes have been made by the Singapore Police Force to investigative processes and court procedures, in order to create a safer space for victims of sexual crimes. Can the Minister confirm if such changes apply also to victims of harassment? Do Victim Care Officers who are specially trained in victim care management also handle victims of harassment?
Next, I am heartened that the amendments in this Bill seek to provide quicker relief for victims of harassment by making certain breaches of Protection Orders (POs) and Expedited Protection Orders (EPOs) arrestable offences.
Physically restraining the harasser addresses the immediate threat posed by their harassing behaviour. However, because the harasser will not be detained indefinitely, the victim remains at risk of their harassing behaviour after the harasser is released.
One of my residents had a Personal Protection Order (PPO) against her husband. They were going through a divorce and their relationship was tensed. The PPO was issued in July 2016. In August, she was repeatedly stabbed by her husband in front of her youngest daughter. She later died of her wounds. Her husband was sentenced to 10 years’ imprisonment but any punishment meted out can never heal the loss of a mother for their two daughters or undo the trauma suffered by the youngest.
The PPO was insufficient to prevent her husband’s attack. While the PPO operates in a separate regime under the Women’s Charter, harassment victims who obtain a PO or EPO under POHA might find themselves in similar threatening situations with the harasser.
Therefore, will the Minister look into immediately attaching a social worker to such cases once a PO or EPO has been issued? A social worker could consistently monitor and assess the case, and identify any worrying irregularities in a harasser’s behaviour in advance to prevent ill-fated cases like that of my resident.
Currently, when ordering POs or EPOs, the Court can include the condition that the respondent and victim attend counselling or mediation. Will the Minister consider making it a mandatory requirement that the Court consider referring counselling and mediation options for parties, and making such an order where appropriate?
Lastly, the Bill introduces a new offence of doxxing which signals the Government’s firm commitment towards addressing new and upcoming forms of harassment. This is especially welcomed in a time where online vigilantism is becoming more rampant in our society.
However, as mentioned by many in this House, there is some ambiguity as to what constitutes doxxing as defined under the Bill. A 2016 incident illustrates this. Many have shared examples and I will share, of course, one about an animal.
In 2016, a story emerged on Facebook of a driver who ran over a dog from a dog shelter and drove off in a hit-and-run. Her vehicle plate number was posted on Facebook with a request for anyone who knew the identity of the driver to text or message a private number. Netizens used the posted plate number to obtain and publish online the woman’s personal particulars.
The car owner and her employer were harassed online by angry netizens. It subsequently emerged that the owner had in fact not been driving the vehicle at the time and did not run over the dog.
This story highlights the dangers of Internet vigilantism and the ambiguities in the definition of doxxing as an offence.
Would the initial action of publishing the woman’s vehicle plate number on their Facebook page be considered doxxing? First, would a vehicle plate number fall under the definition of \"identity information\"?
The amendments include Illustration (d), which references a situation in which an individual X records a video of Y driving recklessly in a car and posts the video on an online forum. While Illustration (d) goes on to state that no offence to committed because X posted the video with the intent to warn people to drive defensively, it is not clear from the example whether a vehicle plate number alone would constitute \"identity information\".
Second, was there intent to cause harm, alarm, or distress in the situation where initially they were simply trying to find out who was driving the car and hit the dog? Could the defence that the conduct was reasonable be raised here? While there was a request for help to identify the driver, it was also expressly stated that the information should be sent to a private number.
This story highlights my broader concern about the difficulty in determining whether there was intention to cause harm, alarm, or distress by the publication of identity information, or whether the conduct was reasonable.
Parliament expressed a preference to leave interpretation of POHA to the Courts as POHA offences are highly dependent on the factual matrix.
The Courts have stated that intention being a thought process can only usually be proved by drawing inferences from the surrounding circumstances and the actions of the accused.
Can the Minister shed more light on what the Courts should consider in drawing these inferences? Further, can more examples of permissible and impermissible publication of identity information be provided either in the Minister’s response or through guidelines or informational material from the Ministry?
This will be helpful for guiding the conduct of the public who should not have to be hauled to Court before finding out whether their actions constitute an offence or not.
Third, regardless of intent, should there be a bright-line prohibition on revealing certain categories of identity information such as NRIC numbers, passport numbers, addresses and phone numbers?
These categories of information are very sensitive and anyone who publishes this information must reasonably know of the risk that the information may be abused by the public in ways that might cause the individual harassment, alarm, or distress. Notwithstanding that the publisher did not expressly or specifically intend to do so, he or she should be taken to have acted in wilful disregard of the risk.
The nature of these categories of information mean that they can be misused for nefarious purposes with particularly devastating consequences for the individual. As such, it might be prudent to prohibit publication of these categories of information regardless of intention.
Sir, notwithstanding the above clarifications, I support this Bill which will better protect and offer redress to victims of harassment.
Mr Speaker: Senior Minister of State Mr Edwin Tong.
Mr Edwin Tong Chun Fai: Thank you, Mr Speaker, and I thank all the Members who have spoken in support of the Bill. I am grateful for the strong support that has been expressed in this house.
Members have shared many examples of how Singaporeans, and animals, some known personally to them, have experienced harassment, both in the physical and the online space. I will do my best to respond but I cannot reply to all the examples that have been cited, some more graphically.
But the stories that you have told, that you have shared in this House, illustrate just how easy it is to spread falsehoods about individuals, about businesses, and how there are serious consequences, immediate and downstream, and why we need this Bill to give redress and recourse for individuals against physical and online harassment.
Assoc Prof Walter Theseira shared a very vivid and, might I say graphic, example of his personal experience of being harassed and spoke passionately about the need for each of us to treat one another with dignity offline as well as online. I cannot agree more with Assoc Prof Theseira.
Members have vividly described, falsehoods which have serious and devastating consequences, and which can also have a deep and long lasting impact. They underscore why we need these laws.
The questions that Members have raised can be categorised into various baskets and I intend to address them as comprehensively as I can.
First, let me address the Court process which various Members have touched on.
Ms Anthea Ong has suggested to allow persons between 16 and 21 years of age, to make applications for Protection Orders without their parents or legal guardians. We recognise that in some cases there are groups of victims who require assistance in seeking legal redress, and for their own reasons, may not want parents to be involved or to be aware of it. That is why clause 24 of the Bill permits prescribed third parties, such as voluntary welfare organisations, to bring civil proceedings on behalf of a victim. The Court will consider each of these applications judiciously.
These third parties, on top of being able to bring their application, can also give practical support to the victim by providing information on court procedures and processes and also help, especially at an important time like this, on lending emotional and moral support to the victim during the process.
Mr Christopher de Souza and Ms Rahayu Mahzam asked whether there are measures in place to ensure victims of harassment and abuse are given sufficient assistance when they approach the Courts. Ms Rahayu, in particular, expressed hope that the PHC will be a \"one-stop shop\" to provide practical support and help with counselling.
The current laws, augmented by the proposed revisions in this Bill, strive to make the process as easy as possible and as simple as possible for victims.
Currently, there are already court officers at the Harassment Cases Registry to explain the processes under POHA. There is also an assessor stationed there to look at the application, understand the nature of the application, and guide the applicant on the application. On top of that, options are also put to the applicant in the appropriate cases, to consider counselling or mediation. On top of this, on a pro bono basis, law students are available to assist on-site to provide general advice to help with the form filling and also, in the case of more complicated factually involved cases, to assist in the drafting of affidavits in the application. Currently, the Court already has the power to refer parties to counselling and mediation and will continue to do so in the appropriate cases.
The streamlining of procedures and expedited timelines that I mentioned in my earlier speech build on this to enhance the process even more.
In relation to Police's investigations, Mr Louis Ng asked if Victim Care Officers who are specially trained in victim care management also handle the cases involving victims of harassment. The answer is yes, they do. The Victim Care Cadre Programme is available to all victims of crime, who require emotional support throughout the course of investigations. This includes victims of harassment who can avail themselves of victim care services by providing their consent to such services to investigation officers.
Mr Louis Ng asked if it is possible to make it mandatory for the Court to consider referring parties to mediation and counselling. I think I have addressed that. But just to underscore the point, under section 12(2B), in appropriate cases, the Courts already do so. They have the power, and they do frequently arrange for parties to attend counselling or mediation, when it is appropriate in those cases.
Mr Louis Ng also asked if it is possible for social workers to be attached to applicants of POs in certain cases, so that the social worker can consistently monitor and be aware of the development of the case, and also be able to identify worrying trends or changes in the harasser's behaviour.
The case which Mr Ng cited is a tragic one. And I would say that there are already existing avenues of assistance for applicants for POs, to on-site counsellors and also psychiatrists who will be able to assist.
Separately, the amendments will also ensure that the respondent can be ordered to undergo a mental health assessment and the appropriate treatments where necessary. But nonetheless, Mr Louis Ng's suggestion is an interesting one and we will work with the relevant agencies to see how we can further consider this suggestion and also enhance the support to victims.
Ms Rahayu asked if there are plans for the Protection from Harassment Court (PHC) to employ a judge-led approach. The short answer is yes. And clause 24 of the Bill empowers the PHC precisely to adopt a judge-led approach in any civil proceedings before the Court. This will ensure that the judges can exercise greater control over proceedings, taking charge of the proceedings and managing it from the judge's perspective. The overarching objective of this is to ensure that the proceedings are dealt with as efficiently as possible, fairly, but also to ensure that acrimony is kept at as low a level as possible.
Mr Christopher de Souza has asked about the timelines and asked how long the process to apply for a Protection Order (PO) and Expedited Protection Order (EPO) currently takes. He also asked what resources will be deployed to the PHC to ensure that the proposed expedited timelines that we have in mind can be met.
Currently, an application for a PO is fixed for a pre-trial conference about three to four weeks after the applicant's Originating Summons and Affidavit are filed and processed. The hearing for the final PO is generally fixed within four weeks from the last pre-trial conference. So, it will be several weeks or if not, months, downstream from the original application. Applications for EPOs are fixed for a hearing before a judge within three working days from the date these documents are filed.
We will work with the State Courts to ensure that necessary resources are deployed to expedite the hearings of these applications. That is the intention of the PHC in the first place. Having a dedicated court to hear these applications with streamlined procedures, applying them in a way that best suits the case, will make for expedition and also efficiency in managing the cases.
Mr Singh asked about a case where, on occasions, you might need to hear a case in five to six hours because of very pressing demands. No doubt courts will try but I would say that it will be very difficult to do so mainly because to hear a case properly and fully, one will have to ensure that the proper evidence and the right materials are before the courts for the courts to make the proper assessment of the case and decide.
Mr Murali asked about jurisdiction and I would just like to deal with that; the civil jurisdiction. Mr Pillai suggested that our courts should have the jurisdiction to hear civil applications where the victim of harassment is outside Singapore at the material time; and where the act of harassment by the harasser is committed outside Singapore.
The basis of the Court's jurisdiction is as set out in section 17 of the existing POHA. That does not change and we acknowledge that this limits the scope of jurisdiction in respect of acts which may take place overseas.
I would like to turn to the enhanced protection for victims of harassment and related persons. There were questions relating to the measures that are available to enhance protection for victims of harassment, in particular, victims who are intimately related to the harasser. All victims, whether married or not married, of whatever gender, will be protected under POHA. So, to Mr Singh's point, the remedies are gender-neutral.
Dr Chia Shi-Lu asked if it is possible to introduce stronger deterrent measures to enforce Protection Orders (POs). He has also asked if more can be done to prevent subsequent harassments or attacks. The Bill has several measures designed to deal with this. Two of them are deterrent in nature; and a third seeks to try to address the underlying cause or reason for the harassment conduct in the first place. Let me just briefly explain these three.
The first deterrent measure is to make breaches of POs arrestable in prescribed circumstances. I mentioned that in my earlier speech, especially in a case where hurt is involved or where the harassing conduct persists even after the PO has been issued. In these two cases, the breach of the PO is made arrestable. Previously, they were not and that might have accounted for why some victims felt reluctant to step forward.
The second deterrent measure is to have enhanced penalties for offences which involved a second or subsequent breach of the POs and EPOs. Clause 11, in this regard of the Bill, doubles the maximum penalty prescribed if a POHA offence is committed against an intimate partner, or against a vulnerable person.
The third measure seeks to address the underlying root cause of harassment.
As Dr Chia pointed out, there may be cases where the accused could not be acting rationally or thinking straight, or behaving with restraint. We fully agree with this, as it also mirrors the feedback given to us by the various stakeholders.
Currently, separate criminal proceedings have to be brought so that a Mandatory Treatment Order can be granted upon a criminal conviction.
We are now empowering the court to consider, upfront, where appropriate, whether the respondent should undergo psychiatric assessment and treatment after it grants a PO in civil proceedings. So, at the juncture that the Court considers that it is appropriate to grant the Order, it also has to look at whether or not psychiatric assessments and treatments might be necessary for this accused person. In my view, this benefits the accused person, as early psychiatric intervention may help to prevent further harassment where the harassment is due to this underlying psychiatric condition.
Ms Anthea Ong observed that harsher punishments are not necessarily always an effective deterrent and may not serve victims better. We agree that increased punishments alone cannot be the only solution, and indeed, they are not the only solution.
POHA is not only about punishing offenders. And, as I mentioned earlier, apart from the Mandatory Treatment Orders and psychiatric assessments, it provides already for options for mediation and counselling. And these are designed to ensure that as far as possible, the process, where possible, keeps acrimony, keeps the aggravation to a minimum.
Mr Patrick Tay asked for examples of situations where the enhanced penalties might not apply to a harasser in an intimate relationship.
Let me first explain the framework within which the enhanced penalties for offences against victims in intimate relationships are meant to apply.
Clause 11 sets out a non-exhaustive list of factors that the Court may have regard to, when determining whether an accused person and the victim were in an intimate relationship. The list mirrors that introduced by the Criminal Law Reform Bill yesterday in respect of certain Penal Code offences committed in the context of intimate relationships.
This Bill seeks to enhance protection for victims who are psychologically manipulated or intimidated by their intimate partners. For some of these victims, stepping forward to seek help in the context of that relationship is very challenging. And for other victims, sometimes, seeking help is not even an option at all.
On the one hand, there is a need to protect such victims. But equally, and on the other hand, we should ensure that not every offender is subject to enhanced penalties merely by reason of being in an intimate relationship.
So, the Bill strikes a balance. If the accused person can prove that the victim's ability to protect himself or herself from the accused was not adversely affected by reason of their relationship, then the enhanced penalties will not apply. That provision is set out in the Bill.
So, on Mr Tay's example, if there is no evidence before the Court that there was an imbalance of power in the context of the relationship with one party being coercive, the other party being submissive, and no evidence that the victim was unable, by reason of the relationship, to prevent the harm that was caused or will be caused, then if an accused person commits an offence under POHA in this kind of scenario, the enhanced penalties will not apply.
Dr Chia asked for some recent data on the effectiveness of POs, the number of cases of repeated breaches and subsequent injuries or deaths.
Since POHA came into force on 15 November 2014, 406 POs and EPOs have been made. In the same period, 51 Magistrate's Complaints have been filed for alleged breaches of POs and EPOs. In six out of these 51 cases, there was a breach of a PO or an EPO on more than one occasion. These statistics give a snapshot, but in themselves cannot be considered to be an accurate barometer of the effectiveness of the POs.
Mr Murali Pillai has raised a query which also pertains to the effectiveness of POs and let me just try to address that with reference to the example that he has cited. He has shared an example of a female victim who obtains a PO against her ex-boyfriend who has harassed her using intimate recordings that he possesses. He has sought clarification about whether section 12 prohibits the court from making ancillary orders that it deems fit.
The short answer is, section 12(3) provides that a PO may include any requirement necessary for or incidental to the proper carrying into effect of the order. So, it gives the court some flexibility to consider all the facts and determines what is the appropriate remedy in the context of that case, given no two harassment cases will have similar facts.
Mr Tay suggested that the scope of \"public service worker\" under the Act be reviewed. In particular, I think Mr Tay suggested that private security guards be accorded special protection under POHA. We had considered this point before and I think Mr Tay is aware that this issue has come up in this House previously.
To explain the current position, individuals are considered \"public service workers\" for the purpose of enhanced protection under POHA if their jobs serve the general public, and not just the patrons of a private business or establishment.
We note the points that Mr Tay has made. The Minister for Law had, in 2014, said that the precise classes of workers covered should evolve as the operating landscape of public service evolves over time.
I would like to assure the Member that with these amendments, there are sufficient measures and remedies under POHA for the protection of everyone. Offenders can also be prosecuted under the Penal Code for egregious cases involving hurt, criminal intimidation or criminal force.
Also on the issue of harassment at the workplace, Ms Ong asked whether entities now have a responsibility to exercise reasonable care to prevent and correct the harassing behaviour of their employees.
In general, employers already have a duty to ensure the safety and health of their employees at the workplace. The amendments that we are proposing in the Bill today do not change that. Indeed, the Tripartite Advisory on Managing Workplace Harassment which was issued in 2015 stands as a practical guide and does so till today for employers and employees to better prevent and manage harassment at the workplace.
I would add to this that the Bill provides that entities can be criminally liable for all the offences under POHA. So, it applies to entities as well as to individuals. And for entities, because they are non-natural persons, the principles of attribution will apply.
For example, if the officers managing a company instruct their employees to carry out acts of harassment, such as harassment in connection with money lending activities, the company itself can be criminally liable for those acts.
The amendments will, therefore, discourage entities from using or allowing their employees or several employees to harass their customers.
Mr Murali Pillai also raised an example of a disgruntled person who harassed the employees of a company by sending them repeated emails and also using threatening language. I think that is the case that went before the Courts some years ago. He has suggested that the company be allowed to commence an action to protect its employees from the harassing conduct of such a person.
The remedy lies in section 12. The starting point is section 3 of POHA which makes it an offence to target a person, which can include a company, and cause any other person, which can also include the company’s employees, to suffer harassment, alarm or distress.
So, as illustrated by Mr Murali’s example, the company and its employees are both victims for the purposes of section 3 of POHA. The company can apply for a protection order under section 12. As the company is an entity, such a protection order would also extend to its employees.
Mr Christopher de Souza asked about the definition of the term, \"statement of fact\" and if it is meant to be different from how the term is currently understood under section 15. The answer is no. Clause 3, which contains a definition of \"statement of fact\", is merely intended to make the definition of the term clearer.
I think on this Mr Singh also asked a question about the black metal band. I forgot the precise language that he had used about the phraseology but from what I caught of the statement, it was an expression of an opinion as to the effects of attending black metal concerts. Whether you agree with that or not is a different issue but, as I have mentioned at the start, a statement of fact does not include a statement of opinion or a commentary or even a critique. Stating an opinion, without more, that black metal bands incite people to do violence – I think that was the thrust of the statement you mentioned – would not be a false statement of fact.
Mr Yee Chia Hsing has three queries relating to entities that are the subject of falsehoods. Let me just address them quickly in turn.
First, Mr Yee has asked whether the Protection from Harassment Court may award damages to a victim of a false statement without the victim bringing a civil suit. The answer is no. That is because the remedies available under POHA seek to protect individuals and entities against false statements of fact by preventing or limiting the spread of those false statements. Remedies such as correction orders and targeted correction orders are also available to ensure that the false statements are corrected and made known to those who had viewed the false statement. These remedies are intended to supplement and not replace the existing civil actions for defamation and malicious falsehoods. However, clause 20 of the Bill allows the victim of a falsehood to commence related civil proceedings in the PHC. This will allow the subject of the falsehood to seek the remedies provided under POHA as well as for damages under civil proceedings in one court. So it makes the proceedings a lot more simplified and a lot more convenient.
Second, Mr Yee has asked if a victim of a falsehood only needs to make a Police report and, I think in his words, \"piggy-back\" on criminal investigations in order to obtain an order in relation to the falsehood. Again, the answer is no and that is because the deeming provisions which allow a respondent to rely on a prior criminal conviction, apply only in relation to applications for POs or EPOs. They do not apply where a section 15 falsehood is concerned.
Finally, the simplified process and quicker timelines, which I spoke about earlier, they are meant to make it less costly, and easier, for a victim to seek redress. And in answer to Mr Yee's third question, that is the purpose of the amendments – to simplify, to expedite, to make it easier and I think to Mr Singh’s point, these simplified procedures also apply to falsehoods.
Mr de Souza asked further whether the word, \"harm\", in section 16AA is limited to physical harm and the answer is no. For context, a court must first be satisfied in such an application that there is prima facie evidence, amongst other things, that the publication of the specified material has caused or is likely to cause the subject of the false statement harm. An interim order under section 16 can be made only if it is just and equitable to do so in the circumstances. The harm need not be physical; it may be harm to the subject’s reputation or business. It may also encompass emotional harm. And as we know, the nature of online falsehoods is that their effect often extends beyond the realm of physical harm – moving down to reputational or emotional harm. And, indeed, the examples that we have heard in the House today by Members illustrate that where entities in particular are involved, the harm is often to their reputation or business.
Mr de Souza also asked about third party expenses in complying with and adhering to General Correction Orders. Clause 20, which introduces the new section 16CA, allows for costs reasonably incurred by third parties in complying with a General Correction Order to be made against any of the following: the author of the false statement provided that the author authorised or caused the statement to be published; any person or entity that intentionally published the false statement; and the applicant of the order.
I think Mr Singh also asked if this was intended to apply beyond the General Correction Order. The answer is no. The reason for clause 20 is that the General Correction Order brings in third parties – third party platforms which have got nothing to do with the publication, the authoring of the statement and are not the author itself; and it is in that situation that a cost remedy and regime is provided for in this Bill. That is not to say that this, otherwise, takes away the victim's ability under civil law to seek redress and that can include the costs of any suffering incurred by the victim against the publisher or by the author of the falsehood.
I think Mr Singh also asked about liability of third parties and let me just deal with that. I think it is in the context of moderators of social media groups and platforms for posts made by users. The position is that if the user made a post which falls foul of the law on doxxing, the moderator will not ipso facto be liable for doxxing since he himself has not published the information and Mr Singh's own example, as I understood your example having heard it, was that there was also no intention to harass in that case.
I turn now to deal with Prof Lim Sun Sun's queries and there were two queries that I think came through. The first is: what the estimated volume of online falsehood cases that could be brought before the Courts after the Bill is passed? And how significant an administrative cost this will be in the context of Internet intermediaries?
On the first point, the Courts are equipped to deal with any increase in the number of cases brought. In fact, I would say the point goes beyond just numbers. If by these amendments we allow more victims to more quickly and more easily obtain redress, resulting in more cases being brought, then, in some measure, the purpose of these amendments would have been fulfilled.
In terms of the administrative cost on Internet intermediaries, we should first bear in mind the fact that Internet intermediaries already fall within the scope of POHA today. So, it is not a new amendment to bring these intermediaries within POHA. And the starting point is that protection orders as well as orders under section 15 can today already be made against these intermediaries. Given this, we do not expect that the revised regime will impose significant additional administrative cost on these platforms. In any event, we should remember that this Bill deals with harassment, physical and online, and the use of falsehoods to affect and damage people’s lives and livelihoods.
Apparent from the many examples I gave in my speech earlier, and certainly those cited by Members themselves, this kind of conduct has very serious consequences. People’s lives and reputations can be easily and quickly destroyed. Businesses can be ruined, causing economic damage. All of this happens in an online environment, and on platforms where falsehoods travel quickly, and the truth is often left behind. Without redress, and the remedies which this Bill proposes, it would be next to impossible for individuals to protect themselves against this. Internet intermediaries have long been unable, or perhaps unwilling, to take proactive steps to remove such content.
So, the issue here is not so much about cost. It is about a falsehood where it is not only the right thing to do under this Bill to get redress for the individual, but I would say it would also be socially responsible for the Internet intermediaries to remove these falsehoods and ensure that there is proper redress.
This Bill provides legislative solutions to deal with such conduct, and to provide individuals with recourse and redress in an environment where the Internet intermediaries wield such power and control over the medium.
Prof Lim Sun Sun has asked whether the new regulations will harm Singapore’s pro-innovation environment. They will not. Ultimately, the strengthened falsehoods regime under POHA will complement the companies’ interest in running a responsible and positive platform which serves to improve the quality of private discourse amongst their users; and improve the quality of their experiences on the platform. We will no doubt continue to work with the Internet intermediaries to develop operationally feasible solutions that can be taken into account under the new section 16BB(3) in the Bill, which clause 20 introduces.
I turn now to some questions on online harassment and the anonymity of harassers. Mr Tay, in particular, raised the issue of anonymity in cyberspace, the identification of online perpetrators not being so easily done. This issue of identifying such perpetrators was also raised during the Second Reading of POHA back in 2014.
The problem of online anonymity is not unique to offences under POHA. Indeed, it is a serious and growing problem, not just in POHA. Law enforcement agencies, worldwide, have had to face challenges in tackling cybercrimes and cyber-enabled crimes, where criminals have sought to hide behind the relative anonymity of the Internet to cause harm to society. However, a person who uses a fake moniker, or other means to conceal his identity, can still be identified by the investigation efforts of law enforcement agencies.
The amendments to POHA are intended to provide tools to deal with the unique nature of online falsehoods. POHA currently provides that where the respondent or publisher is anonymous, they may be identified by an Internet location address, a website, a username, an account or an email address, or any other unique identifier as the Court may order.
With the amendments, even if the source of the falsehood is, for example, hiding behind a VPN address and cannot be tracked down, is anonymous or refuses to take down the falsehood, the victim has other options, aimed at stopping the falsehood, the spread of the falsehood and also making the appropriate corrections. The victim may apply for a stop publication order to require other parties to stop publishing the false statement or substantially similar statements.
In addition, or in the alternative, he may apply for a disabling order or a targeted correction order depending on what is right correction to deal with and address the false statements. These latter orders can require Internet intermediaries to disable access to the falsehood or to ensure that corrections are distributed to those who access the falsehood.
Ms Rahayu asked questions about challenges involved in preserving evidence, especially online ones where the content could be posted on Instagram stories, where the material is sometimes transient. Features such as what Ms Rahayu has mentioned are ephemeral and cannot be viewed once a certain period of time has elapsed. Again, that is a challenge to preserving the evidence but that is also not unique to POHA.
While evidence can be obtained through the investigation efforts of law enforcement agencies, victims and applicants can obviously also take practical steps to preserve the evidence. For example, if a victim or a victim's acquaintances come across offensive content on such platforms which disappear after a certain period of time, he or she can take a screenshot and try and preserve the nature of the content so that that can be used subsequently as evidence.
I turn now to the \"doxxing\" provisions and, as I have heard the speeches, there has been unanimous support for these new provisions. Members such as Er Dr Lee Bee Wah, Dr Chia Shi-Lu, Mr Gan Thiam Poh, Ms Rahayu Mahzam, Mr Christopher de Souza, Mr Pritam Singh, Mr Louis Ng, Assoc Prof Walter Theseira and Prof Lim Sun Sun have all spoken about or raised the issue of online vigilantism.
Let me first deal with the question of what constitutes \"identity information\" which I believe some Members have raised. Briefly, it is information which on its own or with other information, identifies or could be used to identify an individual.
Mr Louis Ng asked, in particular, as an example, if a vehicle plate number could fall under the definition of \"identity information\". The answer is yes, it could, since it is information that can, on its own or possibly with other information, identify an individual. But, as with all cases before our Courts, the judges will have to look at the specific facts and overall context of each case, to look at the circumstances in which it took place, to look at the holistic context of the facts and circumstances and then make an overall assessment.
Ms Rahayu, Mr Murali Pillai, and Mr Louis Ng as well as Mr Singh have also raised queries pertaining to the ambit of the offences. So, let me address that. I will outline the type of conduct that these offences target as well as conduct that will not breach the law.
The offence of doxxing requires the ingredient of the publisher’s intention or knowledge based on the objective circumstances. It is fact-specific. As is the case with many other intention or knowledge-based offences today, for example even under those which you can find in sections 3 and 7 of the existing Act, the Court must look at all the facts and circumstances before it determines if there was such intention or knowledge. So, it is not looking at an overt act like stalking. So, some examples are set out in the act on stalking, but it is looking at circumstances from which one infers or derives an understanding of the intention behind the act itself.
The law provides in the Bill for a defence of reasonableness. This means that if a person can prove that his conduct was reasonable, he will not be guilty of the offences.
Mr Louis Ng and Ms Rahayu Mahzam asked about the factors which a Court might consider when deciding whether there was intention or knowledge present in a case. As I mentioned earlier and I think you have heard me say, it is fact specific. So, you cannot quite constrain the Court to always be considering a set of facts and circumstances. But to the extent helpful and illustrative, let me set out some of these facts which could be considered in a case to determine intent or knowledge.
For example, words or actions that accompany the publication of someone’s personal information. Overt acts and declarations are essential facts from which the court may infer an intention. For example, if A publishes B’s personal information and encourages others, along with the publication, to harass B or to find a way to incite or to use violence against B, then the Court could infer that there was the necessary intent in this case.
Second, the Court will also look at the context in which the personal information was made available.
So, in another example, if A supplies B’s personal information in an online forum and I think this is close to some of the examples that Members have cited, that is dedicated to hunting down and committing violence against \"wrongdoers\", the objective circumstances would point to the inference that A knew or had reasonable cause to believe that his post would facilitate the use of unlawful violence against the victim. So, the act itself may be neutral but the act of putting it in a forum which is for the self-declared purposes of trying to seek online vigilantism or to incite violence, that would then be taken together. So, the relevant context behind the act will also be considered.
The provisions do not distinguish between the original publisher and someone who then re-posts the publication. Rather, the law looks at the intention of the person who publishes the personal information or the knowledge that he had when he published that information. To illustrate, the original publisher of the personal information might not have ill-intent but someone who re-posts the same information may then have the malicious objective. The key factor is the intention behind the publication, whether original or the republication, and each case will have to be considered on its own facts.
I think Mr Singh also asked about a hyperlinking occasion. Again, I did not quite get the specific facts. So, please correct me if I am wrong. But I understand Mr Singh's example was if you hyperlink identity information, and in the context of the example, it was a lawyer, and the question that was posed is, \"Why is a lawyer behaving in this way?\" Then, on those facts, it is not a question of doxxing. It is really a question of trying to show that you might have some queries over the conduct, but there is not otherwise, from your example, an intention to cause harassment to this individual.
I would add that posts which merely state opinions or which are meant to encourage social debate, for example, do not fall within the ambit of offences.
I will conclude my responses to the queries raised regarding the ambit of the provisions by emphasising that the nature has to be very fact-specific. We cannot be overly prescriptive in the Bill. But we want the Court to be able to look at each fact, look at each case, understand the context and circumstances in which it is done. And bear in mind that for a person to be prosecuted under this offence, it has to be established beyond any reasonable doubt that the intention of the posting or the publication was to cause the harassment.
Mr Louis Ng, I think, asked if we could categorise and put together examples of permissible and impermissible publication of identity information, through guidelines or other informational material. As I mentioned, because it is very heavily fact-specific, it may not be meaningful to set them out into a set of compendium of guidelines to try to guide each case. Whether something is or is not an offence will have to depend on the facts, and as I said, the Court has to look at each case on its own. But as I also mentioned at the outset, putting all of these together into one body and to allow a framework within which a prosecution can take place, will in itself over time develop a body of jurisprudence and the application of the provisions will be guided by the Court which looks at each case, and develops the jurisprudence in common law as the cases move along.
Let me deal with a couple of other points. I think Mr Singh asked why does POHA not apply to the Government. The general position in law is that the Government is not bound by legislation unless it expressly provides for that to be so. In the case of POHA, that is the case and the Government has taken a view that it will not avail itself of remedies under POHA. Likewise, it will not be subject to provisions under POHA. As to how officers of the Government can be held accountable, that can always be done in the usual forum like in Parliament as in the usual case. I think Mr Singh is aware of that.
Let me see if there are other queries I had missed out.
Mr Speaker, I believe I have dealt with the queries raised by various Members. I would just like to reiterate that as important as it is to have this piece of legislation to deal with remedies for harassment online and offline, equally important is the social consciousness and, of course, public education to shape behaviour. I have taken note of Members' suggestions which may be outside of the scope of legislation but which are nonetheless helpful as we work towards a society that not just through legislation but as a whole, frowns on harassment and frowns on what is effectively bullying whether online or offline.
We have worked and will continue to work with the media and other stakeholders to raise general public awareness of their rights and remedies under this Bill. Mr Speaker, I beg to move.
Mr Speaker: Mr Pritam Singh.
Mr Pritam Singh: Thank you, Mr Speaker. I just have one clarification. But before that, I would like to thank the Senior Minister of State for going through the examples that were raised and providing his clarifications for them.
My query is on the definition of a false statement. The example I have used which the Senior Minister of State referred to as an opinion went like this. People who listen to black metal music may commit violence in the real world. Now, I can understand in the context of a false statement, there is the usual objective test is in law and that statement may not qualify as a false statement. But in clause 3, the definition of a false statement includes a misleading statement and that complicates the situation a little bit, vis-a-vis whether that is an opinion or whether that is a misleading statement. Now, if it is a misleading statement, then an individual who made that statement potentially could have action taken against him under the Bill, of course, through the civil route. Can the Senior Minister of State please clarify?
Mr Edwin Tong Chun Fai: I thank Mr Singh. A misleading statement is still a statement of fact and is not a comment or an opinion. The example you cited, \"May commit violence if you attend a black metal band concert\" is a view that has been formed, is a culmination of various factors which have led a person to come to that conclusion. That is not a statement of fact nor can it be categorised as a misleading statement which is also a statement of fact. So, that statement that you have cited is outside of the realm of this Bill.
What this Bill seeks to do is to look at statements of fact which are directly and positively false. And I think the Courts have clear jurisprudence on this. But also indirectly through omission, otherwise, false or misleading in itself. In my earlier speech, I cited an example as to how if you omit certain key facts which are material to understanding, then the image or the view that is communicated is otherwise false because of the omission, and not so much because of a positive statement. So, the Bill covers both scenarios.
Mr Speaker: Mr Yee Chia Hsing.
Mr Yee Chia Hsing: Thank you, Mr Speaker. In terms of doxxing, I would like to ask the Senior Minister of State if someone is wrongly identified as a person in the viral video, and then he goes on to identify the correct person, is he also guilty of doxxing?
Mr Edwin Tong Chun Fai: Well, it depends on the circumstances in which he went on to identify the actual culprit. But I would imagine in such a scenario, you remember I spoke that there is a defence of reasonableness. So, if you portray someone as being the perpetrator when actually it is not, then I think I would doubt that the Court would say it is unreasonable for the person to then point in the direction of the actual perpetrator. But as I said it is fact-specific. Let the court look at the facts of each case and understand the context and reasons behind the posting even by the second person.
Mr Patrick Tay Teck Guan: Just a point of clarification for the Senior Minister of State. He mentioned about Government being precluded from using the POHA to take action. Just for clarity, individuals, in particular public sector workers or civil servants, they can actually make use of the POHA, vis-a-vis versus perpetrators or they themselves are perpetrators. Am I right?
Mr Edwin Tong Chun Fai: For these individuals, yes. And I think I explained that in my earlier speeches on your example on workers.
Mr Pritam Singh: Just to follow up on that earlier example vis-a-vis the misleading statement, I understand what the Senior Minister of State has said about it. The issue is, in the context that I provided, that statement has caused damage to a certain entity. And that entity seeks to prove in Court that the statement actually in and of itself is misleading, and because of those circumstances loss has accrued to the band. Would they be able to rely on POHA?
Mr Edwin Tong Chun Fai: No, if it is not a statement of fact then POHA does not apply. But that is not to say that should you have a statement that has affected a business entity economically or that might otherwise be defamatory of an individual, those civil remedies still apply. And party can still be avail themselves of that even if the statement does not fall under POHA. I hope that clarifies.
[(proc text) Question put, and agreed to. (proc text)]
[(proc text) Bill accordingly read a Second time and committed to a Committee of the whole House. (proc text)]
[(proc text) The House immediately resolved itself into a Committee on the Bill. – [Mr Edwin Tong Chun Fai]. (proc text)]
[(proc text) Bill considered in Committee; reported without amendment; read a Third time and passed. (proc text)]
Mr Speaker: Order. I propose to take a break now. I suspend the Sitting and will take the Chair at 3.45 pm.
Sitting accordingly suspended
at 3.29 pm until 3.45 pm.
Sitting resumed at 3.45 pm.
[Mr Speaker in the Chair]
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Time Limit for Minister's Speech","subTitle":"Suspension of Standing Orders","sectionType":"OS","content":"Mr Speaker: Leader.
The Leader of the House (Ms Grace Fu Hai Yien): Mr Speaker, may I seek your consent and the general assent of Members present to move, \"That the proceedings on the item under discussion be exempted from the provisions of Standing Order 48(8) to remove the time limit in respect of Minister Shanmugam's speeches.\"
Mr Speaker: I give my consent. Does the Leader of the House have the general assent of hon Members present to so move?
[(proc text) Hon Members indicated assent. (proc text)]
[(proc text) With the consent of Mr Speaker and the general assent of Members present, (proc text)]
[(proc text) Question put, and agreed to. (proc text)]
[(proc text) Resolved, \"That the proceedings on the item under discussion be exempted from the provisions of Standing Order 48(8) to remove the time limit in respect of Minister Shanmugam's speeches.\" – [Ms Grace Fu Hai Yien]. (proc text)]
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Protection from Online Falsehoods and Manipulation Bill","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"BP","content":"[(proc text) Order for Second Reading read. (proc text)]
The Minister for Law (Mr K Shanmugam): Thank you, Mr Speaker. Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move, \"That the Bill be now read a Second Time.\" With your permission, Mr Speaker, may I ask the Clerks to distribute the handouts?
Mr Speaker: Please do. [Handouts were distributed to hon Members.]
Mr K Shanmugam: Sir, this Bill comes after a long process of public consultation beginning on 5 January last year. Green Paper by MinLaw as well as MCI highlighted the serious nature of the issues, the significant impact in other countries.
On 5 January, we asked Parliament and Parliament did so appoint a Select Committee (SC) to examine four broad issues. The SC then held public hearings; received 169 written representations from a broad cross-section of society.
The SC then prepared a detailed 279-page report – many of the issues which have been raised since the Bill was first tabled in Parliament, repeat the points that were canvassed quite extensively during the SC hearings; points like falsehoods and how to define them and differentiate them from opinions; the possible different decision-making models like executive powers, independent body, courts; and other such points.
Some of the discussion since the Bill has been tabled, I think, have not considered what the SC has said, or the evidence that had been presented, and the balancing between the different interests that the SC had to do.
I hope the discussions in this House will be better informed by reference to the SC's report.
Sir, in this speech, I will first explain the existing powers in law for dealing with objectionable material and contrast that with the powers under the Bill; second, why the Bill is being brought before this House now; third, the need and rationale for the Bill; fourth, new media and the weaponisation of falsehoods; fifth, deal with some of the concerns that have been expressed; and finally conclude.
My colleagues Minister Iswaran and Senior Minister of State Edwin Tong will deal with the key provisions of the Bill and how they implement the SC's recommendations. Minister Ong Ye Kung will speak on the Universities. My colleagues Zaqy and Sun Xueling will also speak in addition to other Members.
First, the powers that the Government has under existing legislation. They are wider than what is proposed under this Bill.
As we consider the Bill, the first question is: what are the Government's powers under existing legislation? What can the Government do about objectionable material now? In essential respects, existing powers are wider than those proposed under the Bill.
Let me turn to the current legislation. We can refer to the Broadcasting Act, Telecoms Act, various other pieces of legislation. Collectively, they give the following powers.
They allow orders to be made for the take down of any material that is objectionable on grounds of public interest. The statements do not have to be factual or false. They can be true, they can be opinions, they can nevertheless be ordered to be taken down under the current laws.
Two, current laws also criminalise the transmission of false or fabricated messages including on the Internet. Licensed newspapers, broadcasters including on the Internet can be required to carry clarifications, other content. The Ministers can order to restrict financing, technical support, to offending websites and restrict their reach; can block offending websites and access to objectionable material.
Section 16 of the Broadcasting Act allows IMDA to direct a broadcasting licensee to \"take such action\" with regard to content as it considers necessary to comply with the Act.
Some of these powers have existed since the 1960s. Others were added on subsequently with development of technology.
Laws had been updated; many of these powers also apply to online material.
The Internet revolution took off in the 1990s. 1996 – the Class Licensing Scheme under the Broadcasting Act for Internet Content Providers was put in. The Internet Content Providers (ICPs) are automatically licensed. All have to comply with guidelines under the Class Licence Conditions and the Internet Code of Practice. IMDA has power to take down content that goes against \"public interest, public order, national harmony\", amongst other grounds.
In 2013, then-MDA put in place a new individual licensing scheme for news websites which report regularly on Singapore; and also required online news sites to remove within 24 hours content which was in breach of standards and post a performance bond of $50,000.
The new regime harmonised the legal framework for online news sites with the framework for traditional news providers.
At that point in 2013, Members will recall some persons created the \"Hands Off My Internet\" movement; \"Free My Internet\" Rally in Hong Lim; some painted doomsday scenarios, how there was going to be a \"Chilling effect on Free Speech\", death of free speech and so on. Online statements were circulated to take a strong stand against the licensing regime; online petition as well. All of that had little to do with the truth.
Prior to the 2013 regulations, online news sites already had to comply with the same content standards, so there was no change in content standards. Post 2013, discussions online carried on as before. So, from 1996 to 2019, after 23 years that you have had the Class Licensing Scheme, take-downs were used mostly for sites and services with pornographic content, solicitation of sex, sex chats, religiously-offensive content, extremist content.
Most people in the street do not even know of the\tBroadcasting Act (BA) or other legislation and no impact on what they have been saying. The powers under the BA have been used judiciously and discussions had carried on as before.
The arguments made in 2013 against the changes are similar to the arguments that are being made now, and I will explain that later. They also have no connection to reality.
I will now make the point that the Bill provides for a narrower set of powers compared with powers that the Government already has. This is an important point when we make philosophical arguments in this House.
Earlier, I sketched out the existing powers and I have said the Bill is narrower in essential respects because it only applies to false statements of fact. In addition, it must be shown that the falsehoods are against public interest, which is set out in some detail in the Bill.
The four aspects of the Bill that have been commented upon by those who are opposed:
(a) Take down of material;
(b) Take Down can be ordered by Ministers;
(c) Definition of Public Interest;
(d) Definition of falsehoods.
I will deal quickly with all four.
The current position, if you compare the first point, the BA is broader on the types of material that can be taken down. The Bill is narrower. IMDA can direct licensees to remove content. It has the power to impose further obligations on licensees through their licensing conditions to correct falsehoods or shut down fake accounts. IMDA can also require a licensee to carry any correction as directed.
The second point: powers under the BA are exercised by the Minister today, and there is no direct appeal to the Court; it is only by judicial review.
The third point: public interest. The definition under the current law is wider, and the grounds for taking action are also broader. Any statement, whether true or false, factual or opinion, if it is objectionable against public interest, national harmony, can be ordered to be taken down, subject to judicial review. The Bill is much narrower.
The fourth point: falsehoods. How do you define? Dealing with falsehoods is not new. Section 45 of the Telecoms Act criminalises falsehoods transmitted over the Internet and other modes. And the Courts have long had to deal with the question of falsehoods in the law of torts, contracts, criminal law. Section 45 of the Telecoms Act was repealed yesterday, subsumed under the MOA and the Penal Code. The relevant provision of transmitting falsehoods is now under section 14D of the MOA without any change; it has just been transported over.
Some of the discussions by those opposed to this Bill fail to consider what the SC report has said, and seem to be without an understanding of the existing position.
Let me now deal with the second point. It is not just narrower in scope but it also gives greater judicial oversight compared with the current law. Existing powers on take down of objectionable material; the Government responses to be carried; other orders to be made; what oversight does the Court have today? It is by judicial review.
According to POFMA, the Bill, on the determination of falsehoods, the Court oversight is by way of direct appeal. That was a considered decision by the Government. The process will be made fast and inexpensive for individuals.
Other exercise of Government powers under the Bill, judicial review will be available, as is the law now.
So, whatever concerns there are about the Bill, they cannot logically be increased by this Bill. Lawyers will know, when you have a narrower Bill and the facts come within the narrower Bill as opposed to the broader law, in general, the narrower Act will apply. So, in fact that represents the narrowing of the current position.
Sir, as Members speak, I hope the debate will be based on an understanding of the current position, and I will do that by putting a series of questions.
Does the current law already criminalise transmission of falsehoods? The answer is yes.
Does the Bill take a narrower position? The answer is yes.
So, these arguments about definition of fact, these concerns cannot be new. We had similar provisions all this while with less judicial oversight. So, how does the Bill increase the concerns?
Second, take-down, corrections, are they possible now? The answer is yes.
Third, can a Minister order take-down now? The answer is yes.
Fourth, can a Minister order take-downs on broader grounds than under the Bill? The answer is yes.
Fifth, does the Bill give greater judicial oversight? The answer is yes.
Having said that, Members can then ask, if the powers are narrower in essential respects, why is the Government introducing this legislation? Why not just rely on existing legislation?
The existing legislation, with broad powers, have been in place for some time. After the SC process, we decided, let us have new legislation with a narrower set of powers than under existing legislation, focused on online falsehoods, with remedies that are more calibrated and provide for greater judicial oversight over executive action, designed specifically for the Internet rather than rely on existing legislation, and to deal specifically with online falsehoods, rather than the broader areas that are covered under the Broadcasting Act.
An alternate approach was entirely possible which would be to rely on existing legislation with slight tweaks and add subsidiary legislation. If we relied on existing legislation, what we want to achieve under this Bill can be achieved as follows.
First, rely on the Broadcasting Act as it is now for correction directions, take-down directions, general correction directions and demonetisation, to some extent.
Section 16 of the Broadcasting Act allows IMDA to direct a licensee to \"take such action\" with regard to content as it considers necessary to comply with the Act. So that would be the Broadcasting Act.
And then, you have subsidiary legislation under the Broadcasting Act which can be passed, with account restriction directions, declaration of online location, advertising levers. Then you move on to the existing class licensing scheme which can also be amended through subsidiary legislation to cover provision of content by individual publishers, and clarify that Internet intermediaries like Facebook and Google are also covered. So, all of this could have been done under subsidiary legislation.
The only thing, and the only thing that would have required a statutory amendment would have been one point under the Broadcasting Act; to the territoriality provision to include Internet intermediaries based outside of Singapore. But that really is not in dispute. I do not think anybody in this House would say we should not cover Internet intermediaries based outside Singapore.
If we had taken this alternate approach, the powers would have been broad and there would be less judicial oversight.
Issues that have been raised – facts versus falsehoods, public interest, Ministerial action, there would be no amendments needed for the legislation; can rely on existing legislation.
Members can therefore see, if we had relied on existing legislation with the appropriate amendments, and if you map that against issues that have been raised in public – facts versus falsehoods, public interest and Ministerial action to take down – there would have been no need to amend.
If we had taken that approach, the result would have been a blunt instrument with none of the calibration that the Bill proposes or the extent of judicial oversight, which is also going to be made speedier under the current proposals.
So, the Broadcasting Act was essential at its time to achieve the objective of that Act. It provides a balanced framework applicable to all forms of broadcast content.
The Bill, on the other hand, was fashioned to deal specifically with falsehoods that can be spread online with incredible speed, in a targeted manner, and to address such falsehoods with speed, with proportionality, and with the Courts given greater powers. That is why the Bill is preferable.
That explains the background.
What is the need and the rationale for the Bill? What are the substantive reasons for the Bill?
To understand that, we need to look at this larger context. Trends around the world affecting the very foundations of democracy, seriously impacting on societies, affecting the free flow of ideas, honest discussions and strangling the marketplace of ideas.
This Bill is an attempt to deal with some of these very real, serious risks which all societies face. But at the same time, in a carefully considered manner, with the Government deciding that we should come before the House and put forward something that in a way cuts down on the existing powers. And put forward a new Bill that actually restricts the Government's powers compared with today, but focused on online falsehoods. And voluntarily, compared with existing legislation, say, if the House agrees, let us give greater oversight to the judges, and let us make it much faster. So, that is the true nature of the exercise.
But the Bill is not a silver bullet. It cannot address all the issues.
And I will ask Members to bear with me as I set this out because it important for both Members and the public to understand the big picture before we can understand why this Bill is necessary.
The SC dealt with a part of the issue, but if you take one step back, what is the fundamental problem in many countries today? It is really a serious loss of trust in governments, in institutions both public and private, including the political system, the media, professions, businesses, financial institutions and so on.
What is the reason for the loss of trust?
Several factors; I will mention four.
First, inequality and inequity. Second, political systems not delivering. These developments have been aided by at least two other factors: the way traditional media has been behaving; and second, the effect of new media.
This loss of trust in turn has led to destructive populism in many countries with serious consequences for democracies.
I will ask Members to bear with me as I explain each because what we are facing is a very serious situation across the world; and we will face it. And this is not something to be taken lightly. I think the very seriousness of what we are facing, what many countries in the world are facing, has to be understood. Not just this legislation, but everything that we are going to do as a Parliament, as a Government, as a society, hereafter, has to be seen in the context of what is happening.
First, trust. Trust in institutions is important for society’s well-being and prosperity. Institutions deliver public goods for society: the Executive, the Parliament, the Courts, the Army, the Police, and other institutions like the media, the healthcare system, the banks, the professions, and the Universities.
Institutions are the building blocks of democratic societies. People depend on institutions to deliver economic and social benefits. Institutions play a crucial stabilising role. They serve to manage diversity, hold communities together and keep extremist politics at bay.
Institutions, in turn, depend on trust and legitimacy to work, to persuade the public to make sacrifices for the common good and to encourage societies to cooperate and come together to solve problems, to implement policies successfully, to take action for society’s benefit, and to steer countries through crises.
When people lose trust in institutions, it creates a vicious cycle. Studies show, for example, low trust in the medical system has an impact on public health – management of disease outbreaks.
Take law enforcement: perceived legitimacy of police is crucial to effective law enforcement.
We can give examples in all sectors, but the basic point is, when trust in institutions is lost, society suffers, everyone suffers.
What is the situation in many countries in the West, in many countries? In Western democracies, trust in governments is falling significantly. In Europe, the\tpercentage of Europeans who trust their national governments has fallen from 36% to 29% over the last 10 years. There is a decline in nearly all countries in Europe.
In the US, a research centre's study shows public trust at \"near historic lows\". In 2019, only 17% trust the government. The percentage of Americans with a great deal of confidence in the courts, 16%; 45% do not have much confidence. In the presidency, 19%; 54% do not have much confidence. Americans have the least confidence in Congress – their parliament. 8% have a great deal of confidence; 71%, not much confidence.
Trust in other public institutions is also falling – in the media, the medical profession, the legal profession, many others. It is all borne out by data.
Singapore in comparison so far is okay. We were first included in the Edelman Trust Barometer in 2011. Trust in Government has been good. We are in the top \"Trust\" category and the Government is one of the most trusted institutions in Singapore. Trust in Government in 2019 is at 67 points compared to the global average of 26 countries at 47. Trust in mainstream media, we are seventh out of 26 countries.
But we cannot ignore the global risks, and we are likely to be impacted by the same forces.
Loss of trust in America has been described by the Wall Street Journal as \"not merely a problem, but a crisis\". It speaks to a loss of trust in the political system as a whole and in democracy itself.
What has led to this loss of trust? I highlighted four factors amongst several. Let me touch on them briefly.
First, rising inequality and inequity in many parts of the world. If you take the US, the top 0.1% of US households hold the same amount of wealth as the bottom 90%. In the US, the average salary of a CEO is 354 times the average salary of a worker.
In the UK, on the eve of Brexit, the UK reached its wealthiest position in modern history. Yet in the previous two years, the overall wealth of the poorest 20% of UK households declined by 9%.
It is a global problem. Seventy percent of people live in a country that has seen a rise in inequality in the last 30 years. It is estimated that by 2030, the richest 1% could own two-thirds of the global wealth.
So, that is one part – inequality. It is a very serious issue, and it is an issue in Singapore as well.
Second, the political system is not delivering. In absolute terms, living standards in most countries have risen compared with previous generations. But absolute figures are just one part of the picture. You have to look at the reality of people's lives. People's lives are not improving. Three indicators amongst many: social mobility; the quality of public education; jobs. Social mobility in the world's richest countries has stalled since the 1990s.
Just a couple of examples. As of 2018, in the UK, it took five generations or 150 years for a child from the bottom 10% in terms of income to reach the average national income. In France and in Germany, it took six generations, 180 years. In the US, the public education system, the serious deficiencies have been documented. And low investments in public education is one reason for lower social mobility.
So, people lose faith in democracy as a whole. People give up. They give up on governments. They do not think governments can deliver. So, US, Australia, UK, Netherlands, New Zealand, Sweden and other countries, the percentage of people who say that it is \"essential\" to live in a democracy has fallen significantly, especially amongst the young. Less than one-third of Americans below the age of 35, say it is absolutely important to live in a democracy.
From 1995 to 2017, the share of French, Germans and Italians who favoured military rule, went up more three times.
From 1995 to 2014, the share of Americans who favoured military rule, rose 2.5 times, from one in 16 to one in six. Imagine that – one in six, in America.
So, the desire for an upending the status quo, has serious consequences – destabilisation, with global effects. Democracy itself is under serious threat. It will be very unwise for us to just watch and do nothing because it can sweep us over very quickly.
I believe we are at one of those crucial turning points in history. It may not quite be Gotterdammerung, but a turn for the worse.
This weakening of democracy and institutions, has been powered by a series of contributing factors, and I will mention two: media and new media.
First, the media. Media has, in other countries, played a highly corrosive role, in eroding trust in many ways.
In Australia, media played a major role in the ousting of former Australian Prime Ministers Kevin Rudd and Malcolm Turnbull. Media attacked Turnbull savagely and regularly because the media owner did not agree with Turnbull's government policies, in particular, on climate change. And media became an active participant in politics and decided outcomes.
As he was being ousted, Turnbull said, and I quote, \"The reality is that a minority in the party room, supported by others outside the Parliament, have sought to bully, intimidate others into making this change of leadership that they are seeking\".
Kevin Rudd, another former Prime Minister, was also ousted by media. He wrote a scathing article and he said Murdoch ran a campaign to destroy his government in the 2013 elections. Murdoch's papers began to attack Rudd because Rudd planned to build a National Broadband Network that would be good for Australia, but Murdoch's cable monopoly would face greater competition. So, Rudd was ousted. Rudd described Murdoch as \"the greatest cancer of the Australian democracy\". And I quote, \"A political bully and a thug who for many years has hired bullies as his editors. The message to Australian politicians is clear: either toe the line on what Murdoch wants or he kills you politically.\"
He described, and I quote, \"a cowering, fearful political culture across the country\" – fear of personal repercussions, if you have challenged Murdoch's interests, and said that Murdoch's print media had \"a disproportionate impact on setting the day's overall agenda\", using a \"masterful conflation of 'opinion' with 'news'.\" Such media environment, of course, erodes trust in Government.
If you look at Britain, the baleful influence of media in British politics is well-documented. Look at the Guardian report in 2011. It said: \"Blair 'paid court' to Murdoch, securing Murdoch's patronage\", Murdoch gave Blair the power to shut out detractors, used his newspapers to help Blair beat down his rival, Brown. Brown, on the other hand, used Daily Mail as a platform.
And Murdoch was opposed to the EU. When asked why, Murdoch reportedly said, \"When I go into Downing Street they do what I say; when I go to Brussels they take no notice.\" Murdoch has since denied saying it but the City Editor of The Times, Hilton, has stood by his account of what Murdoch said to him.
Kevin Rudd made the point that \"Murdoch made Brexit possible because of the position taken by his papers.\" Not just Murdoch's papers; others as well. And, with your permission, Mr Speaker, may I display slides on the LED screen?
Mr Speaker: Yes, please. [Slides were shown to hon Members.]
Mr K Shanmugam: Steven Barnett is a prominent parliamentary advisor and Professor of Communications in the UK. He said, \"In the lead up to the June 23 European Union referendum, British mainstream media failed spectacularly. Led, inevitably, by the viscerally anti-EU Daily Mail, Sun, Daily Express, Telegraph, most of Britain's national press indulged in little more than a catalog of distortions, half-truths and outright lies. It was a ferocious propaganda campaign in which facts, sober analysis sacrificed to the ideologically driven objectives of editors and other proprietors.\"
The Pro-Leave Camp in UK – The Daily Mail, The Daily Express, The Sun, The Daily Telegraph – combined readership of 28 million, used sensational headlines; outright lies. Sunday Express said \"12 million Turks would move to the UK\" if Turkey joined the EU; a complete falsehood. Later, it admitted it was inaccurate
Government on the one side; people on the other; media is intermediary. If the media regularly trade in lies to attack the Government without basis, this happens – trust in Government goes down. Institutions will be severely damaged.
And the media can destroy institutions. An example of a great institution that is being savaged is the UK Courts, among the best in the world. I have spoken about this in the House previously. I do not wish to go into it but I have, in the attachment, set out how the British media have severely damaged the British judiciary. [Please refer to Annex 1.]
Traditional media holds power over society's information. It has the ability to influence minds and viewpoints. When media acts responsibly, it serves democracy. When they do not, it damages democracy.
So, in many countries, traditional media has played a big role, in the loss of trust.
I spoke about inequality, inequity, political systems not delivering results, media abusing its power, new media being abused. I have sketched out the first three. New media is the subject of this Bill. I will come back to it and deal with it in greater detail.
But let me first complete the larger point on the consequences of the four aspects coming together. Members can then see what happens when you do not deal with the very real dangers of these developments.
In an active democracy, the foundations include: trust, free speech and the infrastructure of fact. The four elements I referred to, have combined, like a battering ram, to damage, destroy these foundations.
When people lose trust, when they lose faith, when there is no proper public discourse, when infrastructure of fact is damaged, then democracy, societies are at serious risk.
Populism will then rise. Violence will rise, particularly towards the minorities, the weak. The ability of countries to face challenges will be weakened. The crisis of trust in many countries has opened wide the doors to dangerous, destructive politics, populism. Populism both exploits and deepens the loss of faith in the system, making it harder for institutions to correct, and to find solutions.
Gallup has said, and I quote, when people hold \"low trust in government and low or static expectations for their future lives\", support for populist, anti-establishment politics increases. A politics that can – and has, in some countries – destroy democracy and replace it with corruption.
The 2017 Edelman Trust Barometer drew a direct link between the lack of trust in public institutions and these populist movements. Forty-four percent of those who voted to leave the EU believed the system was failing, and held fears about at least one major societal issue, compared with 20% of those who wanted to remain in the EU.
Populists used these fears as ammunition to feed the crisis of trust in institutions. And 2016 saw populist movements make major gains. The Eurasia Group said populism is a force in US politics. And in Europe, populist political parties are getting close to or are in government positions in several countries. Populism also reigns in some Latin American countries and has gained footholds in Asia.
And the assessment by the Eurasia Group is populism is \"likely to intensify and spread over the coming decade, weakening governments and de-legitimising political leaders as a consequence.\"
The result will be a set of unyielding, centrifugal forces, creating a global environment described by the Eurasia Group as \"the most dangerous it it has been in decades\"
This is the serious situation that faces many countries, and we will face it as well. That is why I referred to Gotterdammerung earlier.
Many issues: inequality, inequity, political system, failing to deliver, traditional media, new media, the impact leading to loss of trust and to populism. We have to avoid this trajectory, which means we have to deal with each of these issues.
This Bill is an attempt to deal with one part of the problem: The serious problems arising from falsehoods spread through new media. And to try and help support the infrastructure of fact and promote honest speech in public discourse. It is an important part, even as we work on the other aspects.
Now, I turn to falsehoods and new media. Many societies, including ours, are pluralistic and diverse, with competing interests and identities, with religious diversity as well. Various interest groups – NGOs and other associations are there. Each pursues its interests, causes and passions. Such diversity is never easy to navigate. It can give rise to instability and conflict.
James Madison, one of America's founding fathers, argues that the \"factions\" in a diverse society cannot be controlled. Only the effects of such factions can be countered. Decision-making with diversity is not always easy. And a key foundation of a democracy is public discourse.
Ideally, public discourse will help citizens understand complex policy issues. It will guide policy-makers to make optimal decisions. It will shape differing viewpoints and expand common ground.
But public discourse can only take place when there is free and responsible speech.
The pre-requisites for national conversations are a common vocabulary, an underpinning of facts and that provides a platform for accommodation and compromise amongst diverse voices in society.
A critical piece of infrastructure in these conversations is fact, and the infrastructure of fact.
Like public infrastructure, society depends on it. It provides society with a shared reality. This is necessary so that we can have diversity without conflict, and public participation, while still getting decisions made. Without it, our political system will malfunction.
William Davies, the English sociologist and political economist has said, and I quote, \"The fact that millions of people are able to believe the same things about reality is a remarkable achievement, but one that is more fragile than is often recognised.\"
A critical reason for this remarkable achievement, and I quote Davies again, is: \"something so ubiquitous, so ordinary, that we scarcely ever stop to notice it: trust.”
This is the trust that when public institutions – the Government, the media and other institutions – share a piece of information with the public, they do so honestly.
Trust in public institutions is a cornerstone of the infrastructure of fact. The belief in the authenticity of the source, whether it be the media, the Government, experts or other authoritative sources, makes society accept facts. Authenticity, of course, has to be earned, maintained. And if an usually trusted source is not telling the truth, there must be avenues to expose and there must be consequences.
So that rigour helps in maintaining authenticity. People will then believe, if it said, it is likely to be true. And if not true, it will be exposed.
These are amongst the foundations on which modern societies are based. They are bigger than the Government of the day. They are bigger than any political party. This is about the basic structure of society
New media has been heavily exploited to batter this infrastructure of fact which in turn, weakens trust in public discourse, in institutions, in democracy itself.
I will now set out how falsehoods have been weaponised to attack the infrastructure of fact, to destroy trust, and to attack societies.
New media is an information super highway. It has got many by ways, links to different groups in society, and to everyone. It has now been used to send out on an industrial scale, falsehoods, to mislead people. Broad sections targeted, but also specific groups targeted, and individuals are targeted.
The attack using falsehoods on social media comes from several sources: (a) foreign countries using information warfare; (b) profit-driven actors; (c) deliberate actors, for political ends; and (d) people with prejudices, seeking to harm other groups. The Select Committee noted this. So, let us look at some sources of falsehoods.
First, foreign countries. There is a military doctrine that has been developed for the Internet age. General Gerasimov, Russia’s military Chief of Staff, there is a doctrine named after him called the Gerasimov Doctrine. Basically, he says, the \"rules of war\" have changed. Non-military measures, including information operations, they can be harnessed to, in turn harness what he calls the \"protest potential of the population\". What does it mean? Information operations can target and create internal opposition as a \"permanently operating front\" throughout the target country. These non-kinetic military measures, in many cases, can exceed, as his doctrine says, the power of force and weapons. Even though military or overt violent measures are not being used, the target states’ national sovereignty and security are threatened and violated. In this way, the lines between war and peace have now blurred and wars no longer have to be declared.
Security experts gave evidence to the Select Committee. Dr Shashi Jayakumar said that in modern information warfare, \"seeding internal opposition within the target country is extremely important.\" And he said that \"technological tsunami\" has given aggressor states the ability to \"subvert individual slices\" of the target country in a manner unthinkable just two to three decades ago. A national security expert from Latvia, Dr Janis Berzins, said that the notion of a broken social contract is the main vulnerability exploited by foreign adversaries. In his words: \"It is easier for the adversary to achieve its objectives if the society of the state being attacked believes that their country is a failed state that does not care for the interests and needs of the population, and the loss of current statehood will bring better living conditions.\"
Singapore is a specific and vulnerable target for some very precise reasons. It has military superiority in this region – experts said this. That superiority in conventional military forces means it will be futile to start a war with Singapore. And, therefore, militarily weaker countries will then focus on other means to weaken Singapore, sap our will from inside, create deep internal divisions and keep us in a permanent state of internal dissension.
The evidence is that this is already happening. The Select Committee heard it. We know it is happening even though we do not come out in public and say it very openly. It is happening to sap people’s support for the SAF, for defence, to try and shift Singapore’s foreign policy as well. These are not issues that we should dismiss lightly.
Just assuming we go on the basis of the evidence that was presented at the Select Committee, it has happened elsewhere and I will give you some evidence of how it has happened. Take Ukraine. A foreign country, which the Select Committee did not really name, used falsehoods to build a narrative that the Ukrainian government was fascist and corrupt. It spread online falsehoods about atrocities being carried out against a particular community in Ukraine. For example, that Ukrainian soldiers had crucified a child, which was later debunked. Volunteers who fought against Ukraine said they were motivated because of these supposed atrocities. Consequences? Loss of sovereignty, part of territory, loss of lives.
If you take the Czech Republic, disinformation operation by a foreign country was used to turn domestic sentiments in favour of a foreign state’s geopolitical goals. One objective was to make people believe that the US was responsible for the influx of Syrian refugees into Europe and the conflict in Ukraine. The disinformation appears to have had some impact. In 2016, 50.2% of Czechs believed that the US was responsible for Syrian refugees coming to Europe, 38% believed that the Ukrainian crisis was caused by the US and NATO. So, it was done to weaken Czech support for NATO and Ukraine.
Take Germany. If it can happen in the UK and if it can happen in Germany, I believe it can easily happen here. A girl fabricated a claim that she had been assaulted by three Middle Eastern migrants. Foreign media outlets reported on that widely, suggesting it was true, specifically from one country. Reports were then spread on social media. The Berlin authorities investigated, confirmed the girl’s claim had been fabricated. But falsehoods were circulated online that the police had failed to follow up on the case. Thousands demonstrated on the streets to \"expose\" the government’s attempts to cover up the crimes perpetrated by the refugees. That same year, a far-right populist party made unprecedented gains in the regional elections and most of its support came from the same minority constituency as the girl who made the rape claims.
Sweden. A Swedish defence agency said false information about subjects, such as NATO, immigration and terrorism, are spread \"on a daily basis in Sweden.\"
In many of these countries, trust is being eroded in institutions, populism is on the rise. Since Russia’s name had come up in the media, the Select Committee invited Russia to help us and the Russian Embassy very helpfully sent us a letter that Russia is also very concerned about fake news and has been a victim of fake news. So, we have no doubt that Russia takes this matter very seriously.
Next, apart from foreign state actors, commercial profit is another dimension. Digital advertising models have turned websites into virtual real estate. So, value depends on the attention attracted, with every click, every view, digital ad revenue is earned. This business model has created an attention economy, content that stokes fear and anger and good for attracting attention. Falsehoods can help people earn large sums of money and have political impact.
In the US, an American named Paul Horner set up at least 20 fake news websites. Some used deceptive URLs. It tricked readers into thinking that they were mainstream sources like ABC News or CNN. He was prolific. He used his websites to publish fake stories, stoke partisan engagement, claimed that they were satirical, said he assumed people would fact-check. But many did not, and they were fooled. Some examples of his falsehoods: during a Government shutdown, President Obama used his own money to keep open a government-funded Muslim culture museum. Fox News reported the story as a fact, before retracting it. False article: protestors were paid to protest against Mr Trump; re-tweeted by the Trump campaign; 20 million Amish people had committed to vote for Mr Trump, turned up in Google News, had 750,000 page views in two days. He made $10,000 a month from Google AdSense. He was opposed to President Trump but targeted conservatives with his fake stories because he found it more profitable. A BuzzFeed news investigation found a network of at least 43 websites which together published more than 750 fake news articles – a small study. All of them used Google AdSense to earn digital advertising revenue.
Towards the end of the 2016 US presidential elections, a small town in Macedonia became well-known as the registered home of at least 100 pro-Trump websites filled with sensational falsehoods. Macedonians experimented with different target audiences. Fake stories could gain the most traction amongst Trump supporters, they found. Sometimes they wrote their own articles, but often would just reuse falsehoods from alt-right websites in the US. In the four months leading up to the elections, one young Macedonian earned nearly US$16,000 from the two websites he ran. For five or six hours of work he could earn about $1,000 a month. So, as Samanth Subramanian, a reporter with Wired, said, \"This is the… disturbing heart of the affair: that the Internet made it so simple for these young men to finance their material whims and that their actions helped deliver such momentous consequences.\"
Third category, deliberate individual actors. You had foreign state actors; you had people doing it for money; now, people who do it deliberately, and groups. The Select Committee found that in several countries, both local and foreign civilians had spread falsehoods for political causes, affecting both their own countries and other countries as well. Example again – far-right, nationalist groups, promoting more extreme politics. Domestic alt-right in the US used falsehoods, drove major false narratives during the 2016 US presidential elections. More recently, in 2018, in the Brazilian presidential elections, local far-right groups coordinated a network of fake social media accounts, spread misinformation in support of right-wing candidates.
Populists use lies to attack institutions, invoke divisive rhetoric. They use conspiracy theories to explain complex issues in simple terms and trying to make people believe them.
Truth then becomes completely irrelevant. Even the most extreme lies which we might think people will normally dismiss, become believed and it impacts very badly on public life.
British historian and journalist Anne Applebaum said this about populist movements: \"They don’t require belief in a full-blown ideology...most of them don’t deploy propaganda that conflicts with everyday reality. And yet…all of them encourage their followers to engage, at least part of the time, with an alternative reality.\"
In the UK, falsehoods were spread extensively during the EU Referendum. Immigration was a key issue. I spoke earlier about false claims in traditional media about Turks, Turkey and Brexit. Digital advertisements were also run by the Leave EU Campaign that Turkey was joining the EU, 12 million Turks would in that event move to the UK, if it remained in the EU.
Foreign interference was also at play. Fake foreign-linked accounts posted more than 45,000 messages about Brexit in the 48 hours during the referendum. A large part of the foreign-linked content related to refugees and immigration. False stories. Stories of illegal migrants attacking women, concocted. But these falsehoods were used to create an alternative reality. If you believed them, you would believe there was a conspiracy by the ruling elite to turn the UK and Europe into a Muslim caliphate. Muslims were campaigning for Sharia law to govern the UK, the Mayor of London, a Muslim, was sponsoring them and, in the UK, there are areas where Sharia law dominates and non-Muslims cannot enter. Sounds outlandish. Who will believe? The British are very sensible people. But even the British fell for it.
In 2018, YouGov did a survey of over 10,000 people, so it was a substantial survey. Thirty-two percent believed the falsehood about \"no-go\" areas under Sharia rule in the UK. Forty-nine percent of those who voted to leave the EU stated that this was true. It also created a permissive environment for hate. In the month after the referendum, there was a 41% spike in hate crimes and the majority of crimes were motivated by race, including crimes against migrants.
Brexit altered the course of British history. It was one of the most important events in their recent history. A massive falsehood campaign may well have affected the outcome. An investigative report in The Guardian by a British journalist, Caroline Cadwalladr explained. She went to a town in Wales that probably received more EU funds than any other town and which still voted to leave the EU. Sixty-two percent of them voted to leave. In this town, the EU was funding a 350 million pound regeneration project, a 33 million pound college for further education, which had 29,000 apprenticeships for young people to learn a trade, a 77 million pound road improvement scheme and a 30 million pound railway line. The town had one of the lowest immigration rates in the country. It was in Wales, which was a net EU beneficiary.
But when Caroline interviewed the people in the town, she discovered the existence of an alternative reality. People believed the town was sending more money to the EU than it was receiving. The EU had not only done nothing for the town, it had also brought a huge immigration problem, including from Turkey. The Welsh town had been a left-wing Labour stronghold. Yet, the people were repeating information usually found in right-wing newspapers. She discovered that they were getting their information or misinformation from targeted digital ads on Facebook.
One of the most controversial claims in the UK during the referendum was that the UK sends 350 million pounds a week to the EU. Not only plastered on buses but also run as digital ads aimed at specific groups of voters. The UK Statistics Authority said the figure was likely closer to 136 million pounds per week. Despite the corrections, a 2018 King’s College London study found 42% of the people who had heard this claim believed it to be true and 22% were unsure. Only 30% correctly believed that it was false. For a referendum that may have irreversibly altered the course of British history, these are serious consequences.
In the US as well, falsehoods and lies have been spread on a massive scale. A study from Stanford University shows that, on average, each American adult read about three false stories in the months leading up to the 2016 US elections. And the researchers that compiled the fake stories that had been debunked by fact-checking websites found that these falsehoods were shared about 38 million times, leading to around 760 million engagements with the content. And the false narratives were driven by the people who identified with the home-grown alternate-right movement.
Largely sought to denigrate the establishment, attack Mrs Clinton’s campaign. Also at play: sophisticated foreign information campaign that sought to influence the outcome; undermine democratic institutions and the democratic ideals. There was the conspiracy theory that Mrs Clinton and other top Democrats were part of a child paedophilia ring operating out of a Pizza restaurant in Washington, DC. Sounds completely crazy. Utterly unbelievable if you think about it. The rumours began on Twitter, spread to other websites and online forums. Claims got louder, hacked emails from Mrs Clinton’s campaign were distorted to support the conspiracy theory. An American man showed up at the Pizza restaurant to “self-investigate” and he brought a gun along with him. People demonstrated in front of the White House declaring that the theory was real.
The falsehoods helped to create an alternate reality, one where a \"deep state\" existed within US institutions, which was conspiring against the American people and, if you are a part of this echo chamber, you would be told that then-President Obama was colluding with the UK spy agency to spy on Mr Trump. Mrs Clinton was linked to a mysterious explosion that killed one of her employees. And the 2018 Florida school shooting was really a secret government operation. Foreign agents infiltrated, exploited this alt-right movement using fake social media accounts. They pretended to be real Americans, amplified the falsehoods that originated from these websites, targeted echo chambers with claims that Mrs Clinton wanted to apply Sharia law in the US, that Mrs Clinton was actively arming the terrorist group ISIS. The foreign agents also infiltrated other social media movements to spread falsehoods on both sides of issues – they were agnostic about that – and to create more divisions. They amplified the falsehoods, they widened the divides. So, the political ground became fragile, fraught and conducive for foreign agents to operate.
So, the experiences of these two countries show how, through a combination of falsehoods and digital technology, the foundations of democratic society are severely attacked. Falsehoods are used to undermine public trust which is the cornerstone of our infrastructure of fact. They are used to divide and polarise, tearing the social fabric. And democratic discourse, accommodation and compromise become very difficult. In these conditions, the political centre becomes hollowed out and people are driven to extremes.
If you take France, the Yellow Vest movement, at the centre of the movement are these \"Anger Groups\" on Facebook. They are online hubs for falsehoods. They appeared almost a year before the street protests began in Paris. In the lead-up to the protests, falsehoods were used to increase the sense that the system was failing and turning against the people. Various falsehoods – that the French Constitution had been nullified in 2016 by the then-Prime Minister; that President Macron was going to sign France’s sovereignty away at the UN conference; a million Germans had protested increased fuel prices, that President Macron wrote to Paris police to use force against the protestors and so on. And during the protests, misinformation in Yellow Vest Facebook groups and pages reached over 105 million views and four million shares in five months. Images were falsely captioned as bleeding Yellow Vest protestors and then they were used to make the claim that media and government were hiding police brutality and violence against these protestors.
During the 2016 US Presidential Election, disinformation came from foreign operatives. But in the mid-term elections, such campaigns were more domestic. Americans were targeting other Americans, using the same strategies that are said to have been introduced by the Russians. Sometimes, activists worked with foreign states. The Select Committee Report has pointed out that state actors have formally coordinated with, co-opted other private-sector actors, including private industry, civil society organisations, fringe movements, volunteers who ideologically support their cause. The Select Committee Report also mentioned an Asian country, it did not name it. It is said to have an online cyber army and volunteers who promote the government’s policies and attack those who criticise those policies.
Social media has also enabled hate to thrive. Falsehoods are often centrepieces of hate propaganda and, over the past few years, people have used online falsehoods to promote anti-immigrant, anti-Muslim prejudice. After the terrorist attack in Paris in 2015, a video was posted, described as showing \"Moderate Muslims\" celebrating the attack. It was actually a video of people celebrating a cricket match victory in Pakistan. But nearly 500,000 views within a few hours. Video was spread again after the terrorist attack in Paris in 2017 with the same false caption.
The terror attack at Westminster in London in 2017: it became viral. It is a photograph of a Muslim woman walking past victims. She was on her phone, face hidden from view, was falsely accused of ignoring the victims and treating the attack casually. Later, it was later discovered that the tweet originated from a fake foreign account.
When moderate Muslims demonstrated against terrorism in London, a false story was spread that the demonstration was staged. And in April this year, falsehoods were used to turn the Notre Dame fire into an anti-Muslim narrative. A fabricated quote, ascribed to a Muslim US senator saying \"they reap what they sow\". A video of Notre Dame burning with shouts of \"Allahu Akbar\" edited over.
In Indonesia, a \"Muslim Cyber Army\" used falsehoods and hate speech to inflame sentiments against gays, Chinese. We have also seen this in Germany, Italy and Brazil and all have rising populism, no coincidence. The psychological evidence is that mere exposure to conspiracy theories, even if they are dismissed, makes people less likely to accept official information or engage in politics.
Conspiracy theories harm trust in institutions overall, not just the specific institutions that they relate to. And, so, people mistrust the very existence of an infrastructure of fact and disengage from public discourse altogether. So, as William Davies said, \"…when trust sinks beneath a certain point, many people may come to view the entire spectacle of politics and public life as a sham…\"
So in the digital age, almost anyone can make a falsehood go viral, or run a disinformation campaign. It has happened in Sri Lanka. In India, child abduction rumours spread on WhatsApp – 69 mob attacks, 33 deaths. In Mexico, same child abduction rumours, horrific lynching of two men. This year, in France, child abduction rumours targeting the Roma people led to several violent attacks on the Roma.
Harm to public health when falsehoods are spread about health care. Financial markets can be affected very quickly. A false tweet that the White House had been bombed led to a massive fall in the stock market. So, examples are innumerable. In every country, this is happening. No one can disagree that this is a serious threat and that it has to be dealt with head on.
I will say this to Members of this House on both sides and the Nominated Members of Parliament that even when this happens in Singapore, there will be a deep damage to the institutions which are beyond and above politics. We are seeing this happen before our very eyes in other countries which normally you could have assumed to be stable, much more stable than Singapore, much bigger than Singapore. And if that happens, that will damage society beyond repair. So, there is no benefit to anyone, regardless of any political persuasion. There is no benefit to see this happen because there is no benefit, whether political or otherwise, in seeing this happen. For anyone.
What are the tools that such actors use and what is the cost of such tools? Digital technology has given falsehoods a new power. The Select Committee found \"…considerable evidence was given showing how modern digital technology has made the creation and dissemination of falsehoods easier, cheaper, more profitable, transforming it.\"
I will mention three tools: fake accounts; digital advertising; and algorithms used by platforms to rank content.
Fake accounts have been described as \"foot soldiers\" of disinformation. They may be run either by humans known as \"trolls\", or may be automated, in which case, they are called \"bots\". Fake social media accounts manufactured to manipulate. Some of them cultivate persuasive online personas, gain followers, both real and fake, and used as fictitious leaders of public opinion, using falsehoods to sway minds, create impressions of public sentiment. Bots are used to artificially amplify falsehoods – megaphone for falsehoods. They draw attention to falsehoods, affirm them and make them appear to be more believable.
Digital advertising tools are used to target falsehoods at susceptible segments of the population. Search engine results manipulated so that false articles are prioritised. Online echo chambers are created and exploited. Social media groups and online chats are used to polarise and mobilise people to orchestrate conflict. Falsehoods today travel easily and widely across multiple platforms. In 2017, a news article that a Russian aircraft had managed to electronically disable a US warship was posted on a Russian state-controlled news site. The article used a parody that had been published a few years before and presented it as truth. You can see how it is not just the labels that matter. People can be made to believe that parody is, in fact, true. So, you need to look at the material objectively.
So, this slide, designed to glorify Russia, undermine confidence in the US Navy. In two days, it was picked up by mainstream outlets in the US and Europe. You can see how it spread. [Please refer to Annex 2.] In less than seven days, cross-posted on dozens of news sites and their social media pages, catered to different countries and demographics. Fox News’ version was shared over 27,000 times. The Sun’s version was shared over 10,000 times. Some of the more prominent examples over the last three years.
In 2016 Brexit: research suggests that bots were generating up to 20% of Brexit-related tweets in the months leading to the Referendum, including anti-Muslim falsehoods.
In the 2016 US Presidential Election, a foreign troll factory conducted a disinformation campaign using 50,000 bot accounts, over 3,800 Twitter accounts and at least 470 fake Facebook accounts. Facebook’s best estimate from 2015 to 2017, approximately 126 million people may have received content from accounts associated with this troll factory.
In the 2017 French Presidential Elections, emails from then-candidate Emmanuel Macron’s campaign were hacked and leaked. So, #Macronleaks hashtag was used to guide Twitter users to false claims that the leaked emails showed evidence of illegal activity by Macron. Hashtag was then amplified through a network of trolls and bots and reached 47,000 tweets in less than four hours after the initial tweet.
\"Coordinated inauthentic behaviour\" by fake accounts was also seen in the US' 2018 mid-term elections; 2018 Brazilian Presidential Elections; the US anti-vaccine debate; and in Indonesia.
Fake accounts have been used in very sophisticated ways. A Twitter account belonging to one \"Jenna Abrams\" was created in 2014. This appeared to belong to a young American woman. Once she had built a following, she pushed a divisive set of views on immigration and Mr Trump, especially closer to the 2016 Elections. At one point, she had over 70,000 followers, quoted by dozens of high-profile media outlets, including The Washington Post, BBC and the New York Times. But it turned out to be a fake account created by a foreign troll agency.
The Twitter account impersonating the Tennessee Republican Party, also created by the same agency, spread falsehoods: President Obama had admitted he was Muslim; an employee of Clinton’s was killed in a mysterious explosion in Washington and Clinton was involved. At one point, it had over 152,000 followers. The real Tennessee Republican Party account had less than 14,000 followers.
So, trolls, bots, can and have been used in Singapore. We have noticed these spikes in activity from inauthentic accounts when we have discussions on various issues of public concern. One example, whenever there is a bilateral issue with Malaysia, these go up. We recently estimated that it went up by 30%. Such activity creates alternate realities. It manipulates perception, creates the impression that there are many voices, shouts down other viewpoints through fake accounts, shifts public opinion, erodes trust and undermines institutions.
If you turn to digital advertising, it is done to sway public opinion used on both sides of the Atlantic. Foreign operatives were using it in a disinformation operation to influence the US Elections. It was also used by the Vote Leave campaign in the UK. These tools allow messages to be micro-targeted with a high degree of precision at specific groups based on a variety of indicators, including people’s fears and prejudices. They are able to do so because the personal data of each user is harvested by platforms like Facebook. In the US, foreign operatives used US$100,000 to spread Facebook advertisements to 126 million Americans. It is inexpensive compared with traditional advertising. Almost 2,000 ads used interest-based targeting and, of those, 800 were geographically targeted, including at swing states. Remember, in some swing states, the margin of victory was in the tens of thousands.
In the UK, the Vote Leave campaign spent more than 2.7 million pounds on targeted advertisements. Targeted digital advertising was used in these campaigns because it was effective. Study by network theorists showed when falsehoods are initially aimed at those predisposed to believe them, they spread further. Another troubling aspect of targeted advertising is that it is hidden from public view. Others cannot see the falsehoods being spread, they are unable to step in to correct them. And again, as British journalist, Carole Cadwallader, said in a Ted Talk: \"…this entire referendum took place in darkness, because it took place on Facebook. And what happens on Facebook stays on Facebook, because only you see your news feed, and then it vanishes, so it's impossible to research anything. So we have no idea who saw what ads, what impact they had, what data was used to target these people. Or even who placed the ads, how much money was spent, even what nationality they were.\"
Third, the algorithms. They can play a big role in promoting falsehoods. Roger McNamee, who was an early investor and advisor to Facebook, said this about the 2016 US Elections: \"Facebook’s algorithms have played a huge role in this election cycle by limiting each member’s news feed to 'things they like', which effectively prevents people from seeing posts that contradict their preconceptions. Trolls on both sides have exploited this bug to spread untruths and inflame emotions.\"
Platforms’ algorithms have boosted conspiracy theories, false claims to the top of search results, recommendation lists and news feed rankings. By giving them prominence, the falsehoods are made to seem more credible. Ranking does matter. One study found that manipulating search engine results to favour one candidate over another can alter voter preferences by 20%.
This spread of falsehoods is also aided by service providers in a growing commercial disinformation industry. Cybersecurity firm TrendMicro gave evidence before the Select Committee of the going rates for tools and services. I have put it in your documents. [Please refer to Annex 3.] It spread falsehoods. One million Instagram \"likes\" – just pay US$18, you can get one million \"likes\". One hundred Twitter followers, likes, or re-tweets, 34 cents. One hundred YouTube subscribers, 66 cents. Make a falsehood appear on a YouTube main page for two minutes, US$621. Make false content appear on legitimate news sites as if it is real, costs a bit more, US$20,000. To use online propaganda to instigate a street protest in the US, US$200,000, but you can actually get a street protest. There are also \"hired guns\" who spread disinformation for their clients in return for a reward, a market opportunity.
In Latin America, you have Andres Sepulveda convicted of rigging elections throughout Latin America in return for payment from clients. He used the cyberspace to spread falsehoods on key domestic issues and policies. Indonesian authorities uncovered one such syndicate, Saracen Cyber Team. Just one. There are so many of them.
Next, who is misled by these falsehoods? In a 2018 survey by Ipsos, a global independent market research agency, on Singaporeans, 91% of Singaporean respondents could not correctly identify one or more of five false headlines presented to them. Falsehoods work. They work in a complex manner. They take advantage of the attention spans, mental shortcuts, cognitive biases of reasonable, rational people. So, every day, all of us decide which issues to give our time and attention. A lot of the information we come across, we make quick judgements, based on who it comes from, how aligned it is with what we know and believe. These are the human loopholes that falsehoods seek to exploit.
People’s socio-political identities can play a key role in why people believe and share falsehoods. It is consistent with psychological studies on confirmation bias. So, Members can see from all this that in the Digital Age, the conditions supporting a Shared Reality have fundamentally changed. From a main artery sustained by mainstream newspapers, public discourse is fragmenting into millions of social media groups and conversations. Mainstream media was likened by law professor Dr Thio Li-Ann to a public street. On this street, she said, \"you might encounter not only friends, but a … variety of people engaged in a wide array of activities.\"
In this system, people are made to see and show civility towards viewpoints they may not otherwise like and choose to see. But social media does the opposite. It is designed to connect people with whom they want to be connected with, usually people they know or like, or who are like-minded. They allow people to cut themselves off from the views and information they do not like.
The Select Committee heard testimony from Dr Simon Hegelich and Mr Morteza Shahrezaye, the political data scientists. Dr Hegelich had advised German Chancellor Angela Merkel. They described the use of social media for public discourse as \"an enormous misfit in design\". On social media, communication is guided by private affinity and emotions. It is designed to be convenient. A world of likes, emoticons, memes and captions. But, as Dr Hegelich put it: \"…political discourse should not be convenient. In democracies, politics should be the result of debates, which are often arduous, because a compromise between legitimate interests has to be found.\"
In the aftermath of the 2016 US Election, a group of academics from America’s leading universities gathered to reflect on the problem of fake news. One of their key conclusions was this, and I quote: \"Current social media systems provide a fertile ground for the spread of misinformation that is particularly dangerous for political debate in a democratic society.\" For those who favour politics of polarisation, politics of misinformation over one of cohesion and reason, these conditions are ideal.
So, let us move on. Can we expect self-regulation by tech companies? Tech companies play a key role in all of this. They provide the platforms from which falsehoods and other content are spread. They have held themselves out as making the world a better place. Can they be relied upon to self-regulate? The evidence over the years shows clearly, no.
In Sri Lanka, Facebook’s years of inaction to hate speech is well-documented. Last year, rumours led to ethnic violence, mosques were burnt, people were attacked, a State of Emergency was declared. Facebook users lodged thousands of complaints over hate speech and Facebook did nothing. One post, and I quote, only one of many such posts: \"Kill all Muslims, don’t even let an infant of the dogs escape.\" In the midst of on-going violence, what was Facebook’s response to this? \"We have looked over the post. It doesn’t go against one of our specific community standards.\"
The Sri Lankan Communications Minister highlighted a tweet from this user as well. Last year, in London, Senior Minister of State Edwin Tong questioned the Facebook’s representative on this post. I would like to show the video of that questioning. With your leave, Sir. [A video was shown to hon Members.]
Can we rely on self-regulation? Two weeks ago, in Colombo, Sri Lanka, terrorist bombings, more than 200 people killed. The terrorist leader had made videos to gain thousands of followers, called for attacks against other religious groups, led to several previous attacks. But YouTube and Facebook removed the videos only after the Easter bombings. You see the slides of the photos of the victims. So, what do we say to them? \"Sorry, we made a mistake\"? As Mr Allan said to Edwin Tong, \"Sorry, we made a mistake\"?
Big Tech have continuously refused take down hate speech, ban groups promoting hate speech. As one American journalist put it: \"Facebook’s world, Facebook’s rules.\" The fact is that the more users, more content on their platforms, the more user attention they can sell to advertisers, and the more they can profit. They are profit-making entities. Ferocious. Will they voluntarily change their business models? They have also created a permissive online environment for hate. You saw what happened in New Zealand. Something happened similar just a week ago. Copycat shooting in California in a synagogue where the whole thing was live streamed. Attacks in New Zealand were live streamed.
The Chair of the UK Digital, Culture, Media and Sport Committee, Damian Collins said, it was a \"terror attack designed for social media\", demonstrated why there had to be statutory regulation for social networks. Only now, Facebook has banned white nationalism from its platforms.
In the 2016 US Elections, 470 Facebook accounts used by foreign actors reached an estimated 126 million Americans. Facebook was questioned by the US Senate on whether they had plans to ban the purchase of ads using payments made in foreign currency. Facebook could not give a straight answer. Last year, I asked the same question during the Select Committee hearings. And, again, no straight answer.
Twitter, two years after the US Election, most of the accounts linked to the foreign disinformation campaign were found to be still active. The recent Indonesian General Election platforms helped disinformation spread, take root faster.
In November 2016, Mr Zuckerberg said, \"It is a pretty crazy idea\" to think that fake news on Facebook had influenced the 2016 US Election. Ten months later when there was clear evidence of serious foreign interference, he apologised for having being dismissive.
In November 2017, Facebook was questioned by the US Senate. They promised to do better but said they would prefer to self-regulate. The recent release of internal EU Commission documents showed that over the last four years, Facebook has pushed back against regulation; consistently said regulation will stifle innovation.
To our Select Committee in March last year, they took the same line. \"Prescriptive legislation\" would make it harder for Facebook to find the right solutions. So, what right solutions have they found?
In March this year, one day before we tabled this Bill in Parliament, Mr Zuckerberg said regulation against harmful content is needed, the problem too big for them to handle. That is what we are now doing. Facebook made this concession because it had no choice.
In February 2018, a UK parliamentary committee questioned Facebook on whether it had provided user data to Cambridge Analytica, which had used data mining to help political candidates and groups target potential voters. Mr Simon Milner, Facebook’s representative, said to the UK parliament Facebook had not provided such user data to Cambridge Analytica, did not disclose that the user data had been taken by Cambridge Analytica, and he knew of it at the time. I questioned Mr Milner about this during the Select Committee hearing. He then conceded he should have given a more frank answer to the UK committee. Agreed that a reasonable person could take the view that he had not been full and frank in his answers, and had misled the UK committee.
New Zealand’s Prime Minister Ms Jacinda Ardern, has said: \"We cannot simply sit back, accept that these platforms just exist and what is said on them is not the responsibility of the place where they are published. It cannot be a case of all profit and no responsibility.\"
I also read Nominated Member Prof Lim Sun Sun's opinion editorial (op ed) on this point. Her view is that government, big tech and consumers should come together and work in a tripartite fashion rather than relying on legislation alone. Fair point. I have said on this subject as well as other subjects. Legislation provides a framework. By itself, legislation cannot achieve all the needed objectives. A lot of cooperation is needed. Tech companies are not our enemies. They are our partners. We want them to succeed. We want them to do well in Singapore and as well. And we must work with them to solve problems.
But at the same time we need to be quite clear about the dynamics. They are focused on profit. And there is little incentive for them to do things which will affect their profits. In Singapore, they must know, we must make sure they know there is public interest. They can make profit but not at the expense of Singaporeans. And POHA and POFMA seek to provide that framework. And they know Singapore Government cannot be bought. We do not take money from their lobbyists and we mean what we say. They can do business with us honourably. Singapore provides a proper rule of law framework for everyone but they must also be responsible.
Last year's Select Committee proceedings and their dealings with us would have left them in no doubt that they can push back when necessary. Throughout, in good faith, we have had constructive discussions with them. But let me give Members a recent example.
On 4 May, last Saturday, the Managing Director of AIC Jeff Paine published an op ed. AIC is a lobby group for tech companies. And his op ed was full of basic errors. One of the points he made. He referred to clause 61, the exemption clause, and said that this was troubling. This clause gives the power to exempt and really will help tech companies. Because where they cannot comply, they can show reasonable reasons why they cannot comply, exemptions can be given. Since they said this and we have been discussing in general how we can help tech companies when they cannot comply, I asked my Ministry to tell the tech companies, that was on Monday because the op ed came out on Saturday, I told my Ministry officials to tell the tech companies, \"You do not think this clause is necessary, right? Okay, I am quite happy to remove. I am speaking in Parliament on Tuesday and if I do not get any response before I speak, I will assume that tech companies do not want this clause\". Because how do I tell the Members of this Parliament that this is primarily to help tech companies when they themselves say they do not want it.
What was the response? It was quite swift. Last night, AIC issued a statement. They said they appreciated Senior Minister Edwin Tong's clarification on the exemption clause and they appreciated the Government's efforts to make POFMA technically feasible for tech companies. That is what they need to see from us.
These are not children's games. This is serious business. Tech companies will say many things to try and advocate their position. We have to show them we are fair but also firm; and then they will deal with us in a business-like way. There cannot be and I do not think there is any serious dispute that legislation is necessary. The question is what sort of legislation.
This Bill is based on the Select Committee report which explains what outcomes should be achieved. The Bill seeks to achieve those outcomes. We think the setting out in the Bill will best achieve the outcomes the Select Committee had identified. Senior Minister of State Edwin Tong will go through the specific provisions. I will now deal with some of the criticisms of this Bill.
Ms Han Yong May had a good commentary in Lianhe Zaobao some weeks back. She said: (a) there is nothing wrong with questioning whether the powers under POFMA will be abused; (b) but people should first read the Bill in detail. This is part of responsible speech and if they did, they would understand that certain things people have been saying about it are untrue; and (c) at the same time, she had a piece of advice for the Government. Please understand that some people may be genuinely concerned and do not see shadows and treat them as being purely antagonistic. I think fair points.
The following are some of the points that have been made about the Bill: (a)\tit gives too much power to the Government; (b) it will have a \"chilling effect\" on free speech — that phrase again; (c)\tdefinition of fact and opinion is not clear; (d)\tdefinition of public interest is too wide; (e) difficult to challenge the Minister’s decision.
Let me deal with each.
I explained to Members earlier. The Bill is narrower than the current law in terms of the power this Bill gives to a Minister. If a Minister declares that an article contains falsehoods and asks for a Correction Order to be carried, or in some cases, take down, it is open to challenge in Court. If Minister is wrong, he gets overruled.
And this inaccurate claim is then sought to be backed up by a series of other inaccurate claims.
First, it creates a new crime; spreading of falsehoods is a new crime. That is quite inaccurate. It already exists under section 45 of the Telecoms Act (TA), now under the MOA, and applies to the Internet. TA criminalises falsehoods; the Bill covers the same ground, falsehoods. But in terms of intent, it requires the person to have known or had reason to know not only that it was false, but also that spreading it was likely to prejudice public interest. So, in fact, there are two requirements for knowledge. And both requirements have to be satisfied, even though it is based on having reason to know. Whereas under the TA, it is just sending out of falsehoods.
Second, it is often said that recourse to judicial review is not available under the Bill. Short answer: wrong.
Third, a judge cannot examine the proportionality of a direction. Wrong.
Fourth, power in clause 61 of the Bill to exempt certain persons from the Act can be used for some unstated sinister purpose. This exemption power is a common provision in many pieces of legislation. It is found in the Executive Condominium Housing Scheme Act, Postal Services Act, Active Mobility Act, Dangerous Fireworks Act and a wide variety of laws. I explained, for example, when it is not possible to comply with the Act, due to reasons such as technical impossibility, then we could rely on this.
Next, some academics have said that: (a)\ttruth is relative; (b) impossible to state what is a \"fact\" as opposed to what is \"false and misleading\"; and (c) this will affect academic work. Minister Ong Ye Kung will respond on matters specific to academia. I will just say this.
Their concerns appear to be expressed without an understanding of the existing legal position. How this Bill fits in. And I am not sure how many of them are aware of the BA, the TA, the MOA and other legislation.
Just to give you a couple of examples. A law lecturer signed the letter. Did they know know the current legal position? Another signatory, in a recent interview with Civicus, an international NGO, made several completely erroneous statements. He said the Bill defines a \"falsehood\" tautologically, such that any Government Minister can define a statement as false based on \"public interest\". These are two different and conjunctive requirements: you have to show it is a false statement of fact, and you have to show it affects public interest. He, unfortunately, seems to conflates the two and says that if it is contradicts to public interest then we can declare it as false. Of course, if you believe that then you will get very worried. I read the interview more than once to try and see that is what he really meant. But that is what the words say. It is very odd. A fairly fundamental error. If that is what the Bill states, it will be quite illogical – \"it is false because public interest is involved\".
If a Singaporean academic can be mistaken on such a basic point or a set of points, then it is understandable that foreign academics would have signed without an understanding of appreciation of the true position. As I have said, laws that target false statements or facts have been around for a long time.
Meanwhile, in the last 15 years, for the Times Higher Education World University Rankings, NUS went from 18 to eight and NTU went from 50 to 12. There is no legal or logical basis for the concerns that this Bill will stifle academic research specifically. As I said, Minister Ong Ye Kung will respond later on some points.
Then, it has been said: why not define \"fact\" and state that \"opinion\" is not covered. We have considered this carefully and decided better not. There is a body of case law on what is \"fact\" and what is not fact. It is better to rely on existing case law. When there is a dispute, the matter can be dealt with by the Court. So, how else do you decide?
Next, chilling effect. I think this must be one of the most overused phrases. Free speech should not be affected by this Bill. We are talking here about falsehoods, we are talking about bots, we are talking about trolls, we are talking about fake accounts and so on.
Prof Thio Li Ann gave evidence during the Select Committee hearings on the ambit of free speech and whether falsehoods were free speech. She made the following points: not all forms of speech are worthy of equal protection. For example, if you falsely cry \"fire\" in a crowded theatre, that is not protected as valuable speech; UK House of Lords' judgement: \"There is no human right to disseminate information that is not true. No public interest is served by communicating misinformation. The working of a democratic society depends on the members of that society being informed and not misinformed. Misleading people, purveying as facts statements which are not true is destructive of the democratic society\". Where speech does not serve the justifications for free speech, by harming the search for truth or by preventing citizens from becoming informed of issues – that does not warrant protection.
Next, the definition of \"public interest\" is too wide. It is important to remember that the Bill does not cover statements just because they are against the public interest. Those statements must be false statements of fact in the first place. Some have said that the definition of what is in the public interest is too wide, and that it should not include clause 4(f), which relates to the diminution of public confidence in the functions of Government institutions. I have explained earlier in some detail, maybe too considerable a detail, on how slow-drip, online falsehoods seek to break down trust by attacking institutions.
It is important to protect institutions from such falsehoods. And if you look at the point I made many times, you look at the current definition and you look at the existing definition, you decide for yourself which is wider. And then it is said it is difficult to challenge a Minister's decision. I have previously said, the process that will be in place, it will be fast, it will be simplified to allow individuals to appear and present arguments on whether it is true or false. The detailed procedure will be in a subsidiary legislation and that is usual. But I will set out an overview of the process.
First, an aggrieved person must apply to the Minister to cancel a Direction. This is consistent with the usual position of exhausting administrative remedies before resorting to the Courts. We will provide a standard form online for aggrieved persons to use. The form must be sent to an email address which will be set out in the Direction and the relevant Minister must make a decision no later than two days after the form is received, excluding non-working days.
The appeal to court will be similarly quick. The appeal will have to be filed no later than 14 days later. This is up to the applicant. He can file the very next day if he wants, after the Minister decides on the application to cancel a Direction. Simple standard forms will be provided for the appeal documents that an appellant can fill out and file in the Courts. The Courts will be asked to fix the hearing within six days of an application being filed. The appellant must attend before the Duty Registrar to request for an expedited hearing, again in the manner prescribed by the rules of the Court.
The documents will need to be served on the Minister no later than the next day. Again, an email address will be provided for the appellant to serve the documents on the Minister, to make it easy for him. The Minister must then file his or her reply in Court no later than three days after the documents are served as prescribed. As stated earlier, meanwhile, the Court would have already fixed the hearing no later than six days after the date on which the Court first received the application.
To summarise, a person aggrieved by a Direction will have the opportunity to have his or her case heard in the High Court as early as nine days after he initiates a challenge by writing to the Minister.
So, this includes the time the Minister responds, the time for filing, the time for him to file and the time for the Minister to respond and the hearing, that is, beginning to end. If he moves very fast, it can be nine days. They will have to be working days. The Court will continue, of course, to have a general discretion to extend timelines where there is good reason to do so. How long the hearing takes and how long the Court takes to decide are matters for the Courts. Parliament and the Executive cannot intervene in that. We can say when it should be heard; we cannot say when it should be decided. Court fees will be kept very low for individuals. No hearing fees will be charged for the first three days. Further days of hearing will be charged at the usual rate. But even then, the Court will have power to waive fees. But this should not be taken as a licence to abuse the process. Courts will still have the power to deal with parties in the usual manner, including how they conduct themselves.
Assoc Prof Eugene Tan of SMU suggested we use illustrations during the Second Reading to explain the difference between fact and opinion. Good suggestion. So, I asked for some illustrations from groups which we met – CAPE and students from NUS and academics. The list is enclosed and circulated to all Members and will form part of the record. [Please refer to Annex 4.] I will refer to some additional examples.
A Professor of Law states that the death penalty in Singapore does not deter crime, as shown by several studies. These studies present real data. That is a conclusion drawn from the studies. It is a statement of opinion not covered by the Bill. But if that professor refers to a non-existent study, or non-existent data, then it is a false statement of fact.
This example is drawn from a recent incident and was one of the illustrations submitted. A person, say, \"A\" states that the Government is showing \"double standards\" by having two different permit regimes to govern public activist events on political issues on the one hand, and a public meet-up by an influencer on the other. It is true that two different permit regimes apply to the two different kinds of events. Therefore, \"A's\" statement is an opinion and is not covered by the Bill.
However, if \"A\" says or implies that the same permit rules govern both kinds of events and double standards were applied for the granting of permits, essentially suggesting bias – based on the point that the same legislation and rules apply for both. That is a false statement of fact. It can be covered by the Bill. The remedy would usually be a clarification. Forms of clarification will be set out in subsidiary legislation; basically a link to where the clarification can be found with the statement that the article contains inaccuracies or is false, and reference given to the link to the true facts. And people can read both documents and decide for themselves. It actually encourages a more honest and more open discussion.
Another illustration: an economist states that the home-ownership rate in Singapore is only 9%, and explains that the definition of home ownership used excludes any lease, regardless of whether the lease is nine years or 99 years. That is a conclusion based on a certain methodology. He says that and he sets it out. It is not covered by the Bill. The Government can, of course, disagree with that view. If, however, the economist says that the number of persons who own freehold property in Singapore is X, when it is actually Y, then that is a false statement of fact.
Another illustration: \"B\" publishes an online article stating that the social welfare system in Singapore has gaps. That conclusion is drawn from interviews with Government officials and social workers. The Government can disagree with the conclusion, but it does not come within the Bill. If, however, B's article says that welfare assistance had been denied to a needy elderly person when assistance had in fact been given, then it is a false statement of fact. So, Members can see that it will be clear when you look at examples. If public interest is affected, then it can come under the Bill. In all of these, it is not enough to show it is false. It must also be affecting public interest. This is a situation where, again, the original article can carry a clarification.
I will use another recent incident to illustrate. In the case relating to Mr Nicholas Lim, there were questions as to why he was not charged. The Police investigated the case, gave a conditional warning. Some made allegations that Mr Lim was not prosecuted because his parents were influential. That was false. His father was a driver in the public transport sector, mother a housewife.
So, the illustrations, once you look at them, I think they are quite clear. The Courts have long dealt with this. It really ought not to be an issue. And we have had this legislation in the books forever.
Next, let me turn to the Notice of Amendment put by the Nominated Members of Parliament. I think it is useful for me to set out our views on the NOA. As I said elsewhere, there is substantial agreement between the Nominated Members and us on the major points of the Bill. The differences we have on the Directions' regime are mainly on matters of process. They have made four proposals.
First, the three Nominated Members have proposed that the Directions provide more specific reasons on falsity and public interest. I agree with the principle underpinning the first part of this proposal. The Government, when it says something is false, must obviously set out the reasons why it is false. And we intend to set this out in subsidiary legislation. When the Directions are given, there must be a statement as to why it is false. And this was intended all along. The legislation is specifically designed for this purpose. Clause 13 allows for subsidiary legislation to be made to set out the requirements for Directions.
It is a question of operationalisation. When a Minister issues a Direction, what kind of information should be contained in that Direction? Why something is false, as I have explained, should be explained in the Direction. What should be the level of detail? I think it is difficult to set out upfront. It must be left in each case what extent of detail should be specified. It is really more appropriate to use subsidiary legislation to set out the requirements. And subsidiary legislation is law and it is public, transparent and open to scrutiny. Separately, on public interest, again, I am not comfortable requiring a setting out of detailed reasons on how a particular course of action serves public interest. The level of detail depends on each case.
It is difficult for Parliament today to envisage what are the types of cases. How are you even going to start setting out what level of detail ought to be set out? You do not even know what the case is about. But you must set out enough detail and, if not, you take the risk of a Court challenge and then you go and explain to the judge. If there is a challenge, the Government will have to show public interest and we will have to explain in Court why the information provided is adequate and depends on whether the Court accepts the explanation. That is the best way of dealing with these things. You cannot go upfront and try to legislate every detail.
Second proposal is to set out in the primary legislation, that appeals to the Minister must be adjudicated without delay. I agree with the policy. It is just a difference on how it should be implemented. Timelines are usually set out in the subsidiary legislation and I have set out what the timelines are that we are going to put in place. This will be in law, by way of subsidiary legislation. And we are going further than what the three Nominated Members have proposed. Their amendment proposes the \"Minister shall do everything reasonable to ensure that appeals to the Minister are adjudicated without delay.\".... \"High Court hearings shall commence as soon as practicable, and that costs to the appellant are minimised”.
Assuming you put these broad principles in legislation without any specifics, what is \"as soon as practicable\" and what is \"without delay\"? Court hearings today can take anything within 12 to 18 months, sometimes longer. So, if we had it in six months, is that \"as soon as practicable\"? Obviously so. So, one should avoid this sort of imprecise language in legislation because Minister shall respond \"as soon as practicable\" – is that 12 days, 14 days or 30 days? How are you going to challenge? How are you going to say, \"Well it takes six months for the hearing to take place.\" The short answer to that will be, \"Well, you know, it is \"as soon as practicable\" compared to the fact that it takes 18 months now.\" You really do not want to go into that territory. What you want are precise timelines, the kind of timelines I have given. From the time you send the Notice to the Minister to the time you are in Court, very precise. If you get your act together, nine days. Much clearer.
So, I am arguing against the Government being given more time. I do not think it is good enough simply to say do everything reasonable to decide quickly. You must mandate that the Minister decides within a certain time period and it is not enough for the High Court hearings to commence as soon as practicable. We should set out when the hearings should start.
The third proposal made by the Nominated Members is the proposal to insert key principles into the Act. The three Nominated Members want to insert certain principles. I appreciate the intent underpinning the proposal. But, frankly, without any disrespect, some of the proposals are unworkable and some others are unsuitable for primary legislation. I can understand that they are not lawyers so let me just take them through.
If you look at para (a), it covers the importance of critical thinking to a democracy. The principle is important. It is acknowledged by the Select Committee in recommendations 1 and 2. And it is one of the tools that supports the development of a well-informed public. But you need legislation at the same time and you have got to have legislation work with non-legislative measures. But in the kind of situations we are talking about, there is no question whatsoever that legislation is essential and this Bill is about legislation.
Separately, the Government has committed to a whole series of non-legislative matters; and Parliament can question the different Ministries ranging from education to public education to media literacy, there is a a variety of things. But when there is public interest involved and there is falsehood, and the Nominated Members accept the Bill is necessary, then there can be no argument and the Bill has to be used and the powers under the Act have got to be used. It is necessary then to push out the facts to the public by way of correction to inoculate them against the falsehood.
The evidence is set out in the Select Committee Report – if you look at paras 390 to 396 and 425. You do not get much by adding this to the legislation. You have got to be very clear. The legislation is for this purpose.
Then, there is a group of, I think, proposals which target, a sort of negative list about when statements are not false and when statements are not statements of fact. I understand the intent which is to clarify matters. But if you look at your proposals (b) and (c), they essentially relate to the process of establishing truth and falsehood. As I have said, \"Have a care\". There is an entire body of law in this area. The law of evidence is there to deal with the question of how facts should be established. The question of how truth or falsity should be established and it should draw from the body of principles that form part of case law. It would not serve the rigour of this process to point out some but not the others. Then, you go and start putting this thing in, you run the risk of trying to take out or deal with some parts of an existing body of law. The Courts will deal with it where necessary.
Similarly, on principle (g), I have already explained why it is preferable to rely on the existing case law.
The third group of statements proposed in (d), (e) and (f) and they essentially relate to proportionality. Proportionality is already incorporated into the requirements of under the Bill and it is stronger than your proposal because when it is incorporated in the Bill, it is part of the legal requirement. Yours are only statements of principles. This is already in the law. So, the legal test already requires that the power can only be exercised when it is necessary or expedient in the public interest to do so. Government has gone one step further, perhaps more than one step further, than what you have proposed.
Finally, principle (d). The Bill only deals with situations where there is a falsehood which affects public interest. So, it would not make sense to suggest that we insist upon non-legislative measures when public interest is at stake because there is a need to respond quickly to counteract the damage. So, does that mean by putting this in that you do not ask for corrections?
And I caution you, it can lead to endless litigation. Let us say the Minister seeks to act under the Bill and there is a principle here; then it can be argued, \"Well, you know, in this case you shouldn't act because it's not necessary. You can take non-legislative measures.\" Someone argues that. It may fail but that can take months. It can create a fair bit of confusion as well. So, we should just be very clear what the Bill provides, what is the framework for the Bill and try not to over-egg the pudding. We run more risks that way. We should have a robust debate here, explain what the Bill is all about, have it as a matter of record in the Hansard and that is used by the Courts as a matter of interpretation.
So, the Nominated Members' concern about enshrining principles in a manner which would bind future governments, I think really is best served by the debate and by the Courts serving as an oversight mechanism and interpreting the provisions in future. But, you know, a future government can always amend. So, that is a separate point.
Finally, there is a proposal for an Independent Council – the fourth amendment. I understand the intent again. It is a good attempt to ensure that the conversation on this important issue continues both on the nature of the problem and how the legislation is implemented. The Government agrees that these conversations should continue.
The question is, is establishing another council the best way? Would it lead to unnecessary bureaucratic bloat? All of the functions of this council can be achieved under the current structure of the Executive and Parliament. On accountability, Ministers, the Executive, are responsible to Members of this House, to Parliament. Every time there is an exercise of power which seems to you to be not clear, you ask questions. You just look at the questions that have been filed since you became Nominated Members, every major issue, anything that happens, from NUS to other areas, you do not need to wait for one year. It is raised immediately and answers are given.
Remember what I said about authenticity. The Singapore public must know this institution works and if there is a question, it will be answered. There has got to be the trust as well and where the trust is not merited, that has got to be exposed as well. Parliament is the representative body. It is meant to work in a democracy in this way where Members of Parliament hold the Ministers accountable and check and ask questions. You do not keep creating bodies and then who checks on them. So, it is really more effective to rely on the strength of our current institutions – direct accountability. And together with accountability with the Courts. So, you have Parliament, you have the Courts. What more do you want? Any time there is a question, it can be challenged in Courts, it can be challenged in Parliament. If you keep getting it wrong, the electorate will have something to say about it.
So, I think I have covered most of the major arguments. I have set out the nature of the philosophical reasons for the Bill at some length –perhaps too considerable a length, for which I apologise. With that, Sir, I beg to move.
[(proc text) Question proposed. (proc text)]
Mr Speaker: Senior Minister of State Edwin Tong.
The Senior Minister of State for Law (Mr Edwin Tong Chun Fai): Thank you, Mr Speaker. Mr Speaker, Minister has sketched out some of the forces that explain why online falsehoods are real and serious problems, not just to Singapore but for democracies around the world. I will take Members through the key provisions in the Bill. Members who have read the Select Committee report will notice that the Bill tracks closely the Select Committee's findings and recommendations.
The measures in the Bill are designed to address firstly, the impact of falsehoods; and secondly, the reasons underlying why falsehoods have had a severe impact. On the impact of falsehoods, the Select Committee made the following findings.
Falsehoods can have a one off dramatic impact. But low-level falsehoods that have no immediate visible impact can be just as dangerous. This is found in paragraphs 105 to 107 of the Select Committee report.
Minister has explained in detail how falsehoods harm democratic institutions and free speech. The Select Committee goes into this in some detail at paragraphs 121 to 138 of its report.
Falsehoods can also cause serious and sometimes fatal consequences for individuals and for businesses. This is covered in paragraphs 139 to 151 of the Select Committee report.
To understand why falsehoods have had such a serious impact, the Select Committee heard extensive expert evidence on the psychology and mechanisms of how falsehoods work and operate. This can be found at paragraphs 152 to 177 of the Select Committee report.
But let me summarise. The core trick of falsehoods lie in their use to arouse anger, fear and negative emotions. This more effectively exploits cognitive biases. There is also a stark power imbalance between facts and falsehoods. It is very difficult for facts to overcome falsehoods organically. Falsehoods move and take effect quickly, long before corrections can be put in motion. Hence, the importance of putting out corrections swiftly and circulating them vigorously.
The social transformations caused by the digital revolution have given falsehoods renewed power. This was something that the Select Committee also addressed at paragraphs 178 to 185. It is useful to see what this means in the Singapore context. And on that score, the Select Committee looked at it, evaluated, made its findings at paragraphs 208 to 237.
A few of its key findings include: first, that there are increasing signs of the phenomenon in Singapore and evidence of foreign disinformation; two, there is a real risk of slow drip falsehoods exploiting Singapore diversity to damage society in the long term; thirdly, Singapore is also vulnerable due to its regional circumstances. The Select Committee ultimately concluded that such deliberate online falsehoods are a problem that Singapore has to take action against.
How should we respond to this? The Select Committee gave five broad areas for action: first, nurture an informed public; second, reinforce social cohesion and trust; third, promote fact checking; fourth, disrupt online falsehoods; and fifth, deal with threats to national security and sovereignty.
The Select Committee also underscored the importance of having to preserve public trust, something that Minister spoke about at some length. It noted at paragraph 311 of the report that loss of faith in public institutions increased the success of disinformation operations significantly.
There was very detailed discussion as well on legislation. Three broad positions emerged from the representations received. First, that legislation should play a role. A considerable number of experts recommended this. Two, voluntary regulation by technology companies. Three, we take a hands off approach altogether and leave matters to be dealt with organically by the marketplace of ideas.
The Committee considered these positions in some detail. Its findings explained why the theory of the unregulated marketplace idea was based on assumptions that are flawed in the digital age. Why the conduct of tech companies – their are repeated failures and inadequate responses – pointed to a fundamental conflict of interest between their business goals and acting in the public interest. Minister has also covered this point in some detail in his speech.
Essentially, the Committee accepted robust and credible legal analysis showing that existing laws in Singapore were inadequate. It concluded that new laws are needed and, importantly, the Select Committee found that the concerns over free speech could be addressed using a calibrated approach in legislation. This Bill reflects the fundamental principle of calibration.
The Government examined the Select Committee's various findings, some of which I have referred to earlier, and found this approach would be in the long run more supportive of encouraging good quality public discourse and increasing public trust. We thus decided that a new approach is needed. This will be a shift away from the blunt tools that we already have and which many other jurisdictions are considering.
In considering how powers should be exercised, four decision-making models were discussed and considered by the Select Committee. This is set out at paragraphs 364 of the report. The four models are: first, have Courts including an expedited process; or two, an Executive followed by recourse to the Courts; third, an independent body; and fourth, online platforms.
The Select Committee made the following findings: one, that the Broadcasting Act already relies on Executive action; two, judicial process is not fast enough; three, in situations involving public order, national security, public institutions – only the Executive would hold the facts, and facts should be backed up by the Executive’s authority; judicial oversight could assuage concerns over the abuse of Executive power.
The unanimous recommendation of the Select Committee was that the Government should have powers to swiftly disrupt online falsehoods.
Let me now take Members through the key provisions of this Bill.
Consistent with the Select Committee's recommendations, this Bill provides a tool-box of Government powers to address the impact of specific individual falsehoods and source of falsehoods. This implements recommendations 15 and 16 of the Select Committee’s report. It provides regulatory oversight of Internet intermediaries, to ensure that they take effective measures to prevent and combat the problems. This implements recommendations 17 to 20 of the Select Committee’s report.
Let me go into some details and take Members through the various levers in this Bill that deal with the impact of falsehoods. I must emphasise that these levers remedy the impact of falsehoods primarily and not punish wrong-doers. In other words, just because one might receive a Direction does not mean that that person has done something illegal.
I mentioned earlier how the digital revolution has given falsehoods a new power. In particular, the proliferation of social media services, content aggregators, blogs, search engines and other intermediary services, has profoundly changed the way we consume information.
Large majority of the toolkit is therefore designed for platforms, not individual publishers. The Bill also allows for the issuing of Codes of Practice binding the platforms. Minister Iswaran will speak later on this.
The tools fall into the following categories, which closely reflect the Select Committee’s recommendations: one, providing access to and increasing the visibility of corrections, which implements recommendation 12 of the Select Committee report; two, disrupting fake accounts that amplify falsehoods, which also implements recommendation 12. Likewise, discrediting online sources of falsehoods; and finally, the levers which cut off financial incentives of online sources of falsehoods which implements recommendation 15.
Let me elaborate on the powers that target falsehoods.
The Minister will be empowered to issue Directions against falsehoods, where it is in the public interest to do so. The Courts will have the final say over what is false.
The provisions are divided into two fairly self-contained Parts: Part 3 for individual publishers and Part 4 for the platforms, which are the \"persons\" covered under this section of the Bill which are the Internet intermediaries, and mass media service providers such as newspapers, broadcasters, and telecommunications service providers.
Let me outline the corrections regime.
In line with this new approach I mentioned earlier, the primary tool that we intend to use, is the power to give people direct access to corrections. In other words, the falsehood stays up. People will then have access to both the falsehood and the corrections, and they can decide for themselves. In such a case, the Directions add to and not remove the discourse.
In general terms, the corrections powers will require a person to \"tag\" a falsehood with a correction, or amplify a correction generally. These powers are needed because of the difficulty of getting corrections to overcome the reach of falsehoods. The Select Committee’s report cover the findings on this issue in great detail, at paragraphs 171 to 177.
Let me just highlight a few.
First, by way of example, the Select Committee cited a 2018 study by the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) that false news was 70% more likely to be re-tweeted than true news. The Select Committee also cited a very interesting study by a tech start-up examining a rumour in 2017 about then-French Presidential candidate Emmanuel Macron. It found that, on Twitter, there was almost no overlap between the audience of the rumour, which was false, and the audience of the correction of that same rumour. So, no overlap between the two groups.
Research shows that corrections tend to be effective when they provide an explanation of the facts and give prior warning about the falsehood to come. This is also mentioned in paragraph 361 of the Select Committee’s report. As such, the Corrections Directions are designed with this in mind. Corrections will take the form of a notice warning people about the falsehood and the notice can set out the facts, or provide a link to the facts.
The powers relating to Corrections are set out in clauses 11, 21 and 23 of the Bill.
There are two main types of Corrections possible, both of which are designed in accordance with the recommendations in paragraph 361 of the Select Committee’s report. The first is set out in clauses 11 and 21. For convenience, I will call this the Targeted Correction. A Targeted Correction must be made accessible to viewers of the falsehood. It acts as a warning tag on the falsehood.
The second type of correction is set out in clause 23 and this correction must be generally amplified on certain platforms, such as news outlets and Internet intermediaries, even if these platforms are not carrying the falsehood. For convenience, I will call this the General Correction.
A General Correction is important to inoculate the public before a falsehood reaches them. Psychological research has shown that corrections used in the same manner as vaccines can be very effective. This is especially appropriate when a campaign to put out falsehoods is on-going, or a broad false narrative based on various lies could be developing and gaining traction. A General Correction can also help when a falsehood is serious and persistent, or is moving underground, into less visible spaces on closed platforms.
Let me now describe the take downs. Besides corrections powers, the Bill also provides for disabling of access to falsehoods, where it is in the public interest to do so. These powers are set out at clauses 12 and 22. There can be a Direction to cease communication of the falsehood to viewers in Singapore. There can be a further order to require that a correction be communicated to those who had previously viewed the falsehood. The Bill requires these Directions to be published in the Government Gazette.
Who may receive these Directions? There are several groups.
Falsehoods, when spread online, may pass through hands and cascade through and move across different platforms. To curb dissemination, it will be most effective to issue Directions to key nodes of dissemination. These will mainly be the internet intermediaries, which almost always play a crucial role in the spread of online falsehoods. Directions could also in some situations be issued to those with large followings. It would often not make sense to issue Directions to every single person who shares a falsehood. Corrections must be published to users in a clear and conspicuous manner.
Two conditions must be satisfied before the Directions can be issued. Minister Shanmugam touched on this. First, a false statement of fact must be communicated in Singapore. Second, it is in the public interest to issue a Direction.
The phrase \"false statement of fact\" is, as already explained, a legal term drawn from existing law. It covers statements that a reasonable person would consider to be a representation of fact. Opinions, comments, criticisms, are not covered by the Bill.
A statement is false, if it is false or misleading, whether wholly or in part, and whether on its own or in the context in which it appears. This definition addresses the various ways in which reality might be distorted.
Real words and real actions can also be edited and presented in a way that completely transforms their meaning.
In a live interview, Hillary Clinton’s adviser referred to a news article that had blamed Clinton for the death of US diplomats in Afghanistan. A clip of the interview was shown out of context to say that Clinton’s own adviser had blamed Clinton for the deaths. That is wrong.
In Sweden, a real police report listed \"vulnerable areas\" where police needed to regularly respond to volatile situations. A Swedish newspaper columnist exaggerated the report, and claimed that there were 50 \"no go\" zones in Sweden – areas filled with illegal immigrants that were too dangerous for even the police to enter. This reportedly remains one of the most persistent myths in Sweden, despite repeated attempts to debunk it.
Similarly, news reports that omit material facts can be a falsehood. This, as experts told the Select Committee, is a common disinformation tactic. For example, in Germany, online news websites spread a girl’s claims that she had been raped by refugees, and that the police were covering it up. They showed real interviews, but omitted the police’s debunk of the claim. This led to thousands of people protesting on the streets, against the alleged cover-up.
Directions can also be issued against false \"statements\" communicated over the Internet, regardless of the platform. This means that Directions can be used against both open and closed platforms, and also remain flexible enough to deal with falsehoods spread on platforms that are developed in the future.
Platform neutrality was in fact an important design principle, based on the Select Committee’s own findings at paragraph 362. In particular, evidence was given to the Select Committee, of the serious concerns with falsehoods in closed spaces. As falsehoods can be hidden from view, they are ideal platforms for the deliberate spread of falsehoods.
Researchers believe that in closed spaces, people are more susceptible to emotive falsehoods, because these are the spaces inhabited by the familiar and trusted, those they know. The Bill therefore recognises that platforms that are closed are not necessarily private. They can be used not only for personal and private communications, but also to communicate with hundreds or thousands of strangers at a time. Closed platforms – chat groups, social media groups – can serve as a public megaphone as much as open platforms.
As regards closed platforms, even those with end-to-end encryption, the legislation also covers them. We will also find additional ways of dealing with the harm that can materialise from falsehoods spreading on encrypted closed platforms. For example, in such a case, a General Correction order may be used instead.
It is not enough, as Minister mentioned earlier, for there to be a false statement of fact. It must also be in the public interest for the Direction to be issued. The government powers recommended by the Select Committee were intended to prevent the public interest from being harmed. Clause 4 therefore sets out a non-exhaustive list of examples of public interest. This list reflects the dangers of deliberate online falsehoods identified by the Select Committee, based on real events around the world. The Minister had already explained the thinking behind the definition.
Finally, I will now deal with the safeguards.
The Select Committee stated, at recommendation 12, \"There should be adequate safeguards in place to ensure due process and the proper exercise of power, and give assurance to the public of the integrity of the decision-making process… Measures… should include judicial oversight where appropriate.\" At the same time, the Committee also stated that \"The measures will need to achieve the objective of breaking virality by being effective in a matter of hours.\" That is a quote from the Select Committee's report.
The Bill thus incorporates both speed and due process. The Minister will first issue the Direction. An appeal can then be brought to the High Court to set aside the Direction. The Minister has outlined the procedure in the House earlier.
This, in our view, is the best way to be effective, while ensuring that there is always adequate judicial oversight. The Executive weighs the competing interests and acts decisively to protect society, and the Courts will then have the final say over whether the content in question is false.
During the Select Committee process, some representors preferred a Court order to an Executive Direction. But even an expedited court process may not be fast enough to deal with virality; some of the examples which you have seen outlined in the Minister's speech.
Falsehoods can reach many with great speed, and lead to serious consequences just as quickly.
We saw earlier the false video of Muslims celebrating a terrorist attack. That video generated 500,000 views within hours of being posted on one Facebook page.
In Indonesia, a falsehood was spread that a pro-communist rally was being held. There was a real event that actually took place but it was not a pro-communist rally. It took less than 24 hours for the falsehood to mobilise thousands to turn up at the event to disrupt it and to protest.
In France, false posts were put out claiming that leaked campaign documents showed that Macron was engaging in illegal activity. The claims were posted just hours before an election reporting \"black-out\" – similar to our own \"cooling-off\" period. The posts were then amplified by bots, trolls and fake accounts. Within four hours, there were 47,000 tweets and the topic had hit Twitter’s \"trending\" list of most popular topics – within hours.
One final example. In 2017, a falsehood was put out, that the founder of a cryptocurrency called \"Ethereum\" had died in a car crash. The hoax wiped out $4 billion in market value within five hours.
So, the essence of the remedies is that they have to be able to address and counter the quick, wide and deep spread of falsehoods.
The Bill has benefited from the analysis of the relevant issues by the Select Committee who had many representors come forward, many of whom had experience and some of whom are experts in this field. The provision in this Bill is based closely on the recommendations in the Select Committee Report and the Bill seeks to achieve these outcomes.
Mr Pritam Singh (Aljunied): Sir, as the Select Committee Report on Deliberate Online Falsehoods observes, the phenomenon of fake news is nothing new. Since time immemorial, a battle for hearts and minds has taken place between people who host different views and seek to persuade others of their beliefs and causes; between politicians at the hustings; between companies through elaborate public relations exercises and spin; and between countries – most vividly played out during the Cold War between the US and former Soviet Union, each forwarding the superiority of the capitalist and communist systems respectively.
What we refer to as fake news today, with misinformation and disinformation at its core, has been the domain of propaganda in the days before the Internet. As framed by Claire Wardle in her submission to the Select Committee, at one end of the spectrum, misinformation has been a method of choice of individuals, politicians, companies and countries. Here, misleading content, false context and imposter content dominate. At the other end is aggressive disinformation with falsified or manipulated content which seeks to deceive an audience or a reader. This is usually the domain of sophisticated state and well-endowed non-state actors.
The advent of the Internet and, more recently, social media – where communication has been democratised with both positive and negative repercussions – has brought the ease of propagating fake news centre-stage. The political economy of social media companies and their algorithms which are skewed at extracting profits, in some cases regardless of the consequences, accentuate the problem. Bots and the existence of enterprises that charge for services to manipulate the public discourse, subvert democracy and elections and weaponise information, have become a feature of the online world with many examples highlighted to the Select Committee.
Over the last few years, Western powers have identified Russia’s employment of hybrid warfare, combining both a hostile information campaign employing both misinformation to disinformation before and during the onset of hostilities as the norm for future conflicts. However, it would be a mistake to suggest only Russian involvement. The arc of history has proved that many countries, even those friendly to Singapore, are no less seasoned at subversion and subverting even democratic forces in other countries. And it would be naïve to assume that the employment of misinformation and disinformation is not a permanent aspect of the world we live in today, much of which is lived online.
Clearly, there is a problem at hand. The question is how should Singapore deal with the problem? The Government has proposed the Protection from Falsehoods Online and Manipulation Bill before the House today, what I will henceforth refer to as POFMA. After spending a long time deliberating the nature of the problem, including forming a Select Committee of Parliament, the Government decided not to consult the public on how it preferred to tackle the problem.
To this end, a lot of the public apprehension over the Bill can be located in its choice of the decision-making authority on matters concerning online falsehoods – the Executive. The remedies available under the Bill are virtually identical to those individuals and companies can rely on under the Protection from Harassment Act (POHA). In deciding that the Executive will determine what is an actionable falsehood and what is not, there has been significant disquiet even amongst moderate and politically disengaged members of the public about the potentially wide remit of powers extended to Ministers through this Bill.
Sir, the public routinely get involved in political discussions both online and offline on the effectiveness or ineffectiveness of policies, the appropriateness of Executive action, the lack of information on matters of public interest, such as the size of our reserves, amongst many others. By their very nature, such discussions are also limited and even exaggerated sometimes because of a lack of disclosure by the Government or the absence of any freedom of information regime to equalise the asymmetry between the information and facts available to the Executive as compared to the general public.
Given our unique laws that govern how the press operates in Singapore, the infamously local phrase, \"out-of-bound\" or OB markers, and our unique political culture steeped in a history of hauling up members of the public and politicians who utter defamatory statements to Court to be slapped with punitive damages – there is a genuine sense amongst the public that this Bill can be easily abused in the wrong hands.
It does not help that the public do not appear to be clear on what can be said and what cannot be said – for example, how does a false statement of fact interplay with an opinion or a comment? I believe the Minister also recognises this point. In comments to the Straits Times last Saturday about whether the Bill could have the unintended effect of self-censorship, the Minister said, \"We need to educate the public that the Bill applies only to people putting out falsehoods and that various Ministries like the Education Ministry is working on public education in this area.\"
Mr Speaker, the Workers’ Party opposes this Bill. All the Workers’ Party Members will speak against it and our objections centre primarily around a fundamental matter.
First, we do not agree that the Executive should be the initial decision maker on matters surrounding false statements of fact. Secondly, we do not support the uncertainty over the circumstances under which the Executive can move on matters that rest purely on a Minister’s subjective opinion that a false or misleading statement is nonetheless not in the public interest, for which a correction or take-down order, amongst other directions, is necessary. While the Government must legitimately be able to apply to shut down malicious actors, a Court order should legitimise this action that needs to be undertaken.
In fact, the Select Committee Report noted representors raising the prospects of the Executive itself spreading falsehoods. This should give all Singaporeans reason to pause and consider whether the Bill that will be passed with the Executive as the decision maker is truly in the best interests of Singapore. In fact, it is my case that POFMA can easily become a proverbial Damocles sword that would hang over members of the public who do not support the Government’s narrative or toe the Government line.
Sir, it would be useful for the House to revisit Recommendation 12 of the Select Committee Report and the analysis that precedes it. Here, the Committee’s Report deliberated on which entity should become the decision-maker in determining what is a falsehood. In fact, the Select Committee outlined three other alternatives. First was the Courts; the second was the establishment of an independent body or ombudsman that would issue directions; and third, the Report considered the prospects of social media companies themselves acting upon notification of falsehoods by users with a recourse to the Courts.
At paragraph 364 of the Select Committee Report, the Committee acknowledged the views of some representors, including those who were skeptical of the Executive as the decision maker. Ironically, much of the concern that has been expressed in the public realm since the First Reading of the Bill was actually foreseen by the Select Committee Report.
At para 364(b)(iii) it read and I quote, \"Representors raised concerns about whether Executive action would be credible. There was concern that Executive action could feed fears over the abuse of power. It was also pointed out that Executive directions would not be able to deal with falsehoods spread by the Executive.\" In contrast, the proposal to have the Courts as the decision maker did not illicit any significant apprehensions.
To reinforce this point, it is apparent that the Bill gives remarkable leeway to the Executive to define what a falsehood is, especially since the Government has said that it will not act on all falsehoods. In fact, clause 2(2) legislates that a statement can be deemed by the Government to be false if it is misleading – whether wholly or in part, and whether on its own or in the context in which it appears. In the public understanding, this clause gives broad latitude to the Executive to clamp down on what it deems to be even misleading statements, which may not be false per se.
In fact, it is fathomable that some statements the Executive may interpret as offending are likely to exist along the misinformation and disinformation spectrum eloquently laid out by Claire Wardle in her submission to the Select Committee. Some statements would exist in the middle of the spectrum where reasonable people would disagree about whether such an offending statement is, indeed, prima facie false or misleading and against the public interest.
In addition to clause 2, clause 10 legislates that any Minister can issue a whole range of directions if that Minister is of the opinion that it would be in the public interest to issue it. Clause 4 lists six broad considerations of what would be in the public interest. Reference is also made to a diminution of public confidence in the Government, again a term that I would argue can turn on how thin-skinned or thick-skinned the Government of the day is – be it today or in the future.
For example, some weeks ago, some critics of what many reasonable people would consider, correctly or incorrectly, to be a pro-Government influencer Nas Daily, were accused of seeking to undermine confidence in public institutions. These critics alleged double standards on the part of the Executive in allowing the applicant, a foreigner, to mark his presence in Singapore because of a different interpretation of what the Executive would deem to be a cause-based event. This led the Singapore Police Force to release a statement which framed the allegations of the critics as, I quote \"a malicious attempt to undermine confidence in public institutions.\"
Sir, if this example, rooted in a different perspective of how the Public Order Act is applied, outlines the contours of what the threshold of undermining public confidence as defined in the Bill is, then the irresistible conclusion must be that the public interest limb detailed in clause 10 can potentially be very easily invoked by the Executive. Such a conclusion would explain why even moderate Singaporeans have raised concerns about the prospect of POFMA having a chilling effect on the public discourse at the hands of a very easily triggered Executive.
Now, if an exceedingly low threshold to trigger Part 3 was not enough, the explanatory statement of the Bill at page 69 clarifies that the six scenarios of what would qualify as the public interest are actually only the tip of the iceberg. I quote the explanatory statement: \"Clause 4 gives a non-exhaustive\" and let me stress this again \"a non-exhaustive definition of the expression ‘in the public interest’, which is part of the condition for making the various directions under this Bill.\"
So, in fact, what this Bill is really saying is that clause 4 is merely a precursor to another potentially unknown list of definitions of what could be in the public interest.
Mr Speaker, we have had episodes in our history where decisions made by the Executive by virtue of powers legally exercised were questioned with skepticism by members of the public, including even members of the Executive, years after the event. Operation Spectrum or the Marxist conspiracy of 1988 is a good example. It is public knowledge that a senior Cabinet member left the Executive after expressing doubts about the Executive’s exercise of powers under the Internal Security Act. Senior Minister Tharman Shanmugaratnam was also quoted by the media as being doubtful about whether the individuals arrested in 1988 were communists.
These are not the opinions of lay members of the public who have access to all the relevant information and individuals involved to make a decision or clarify their understanding of events. It would appear that reasonable people even within the Executive would opine very differently on some matters, but yet, each Minister can invoke the powers under this Bill, even if a fellow Minister may not be in agreement. To avoid such inconsistency, would the Courts not represent a more neutral, transparent, accountable and uncontroversial platform to rule on such matters?
The Government has argued that under the proposed Bill, the Courts are the final arbiter of truth and that an uncomplicated appeals process to the Courts would address the concerns of aggrieved parties. Even so, Sir, the judicial culture in Singapore is highly non-interventionist. The Courts cannot overrule Executive directions lawfully undertaken, pursuant to legislative powers passed by this House.
False statements, which can include misleading ones, nonetheless, require the independence and neutrality of the reasonable man who, in this case, will not be a Judge in the first instance, but a PAP Minister. It is open to question whether a traditionally non-interventionist judiciary will challenge what the Executive deems to be reasonable under the Bill, particularly in the face of broad definitions like \"misleading statements\" and the \"public interest\".
Furthermore, an appeal to the High Court for a Part 3 direction under clause 17 does not give leeway to the Court to order what is just and equitable in the circumstances, powers which a genuinely neutral appellant authority must ordinarily host. Instead, POFMA limits the grounds for appeal to the Courts to three circumstances as listed in clause 17. While Judicial Review nonetheless applies, it is a high bar as Judicial Review does not cover the merits of the Minister’s decision, but only its legality.
More fundamentally, the Executive will have to carefully assess and determine what constitutes a statement of fact, something which is not necessarily a straightforward exercise. What is not stated in unequivocal terms by the Government is that the line between satire, opinion or comment, and what the Executive may deem to be a false or misleading statement of fact in the public interpretation, can be highly subjective.
This point was raised in the Court of Appeal judgement in Review Publishing vs Lee Hsien Loong quoting Evans on Defamation, albeit in the context of the defence of fair comment, where it was said and I quote:
\"It will often be very difficult to decide whether a given statement expresses a comment or [an] opinion, or by contrast constitutes an allegation of fact. The same words published in one context may be statement[s] of fact, yet in another may be comment[s]. Therefore, whether this element of the defence is established is one of fact, is dependent upon the nature of the imputation conveyed, and the context and circumstances in which it is published. The test in deciding whether the words are fact or comment is an objective one – namely, whether an ordinary, reasonable reader on reading the whole article would understand the words as comment[s] or [as] statements of fact.\"
However, in acknowledging that deciding between an opinion or a comment and a fact can be a difficult exercise, to say nothing of misleading statements. It would follow that the application of a nonetheless objective test in some cases may likewise not be a straightforward exercise, especially in cases of misleading statements where politically-charged decisions need to be made.
Mr Speaker, it would appear that a key factor in the Government’s selection of the Executive as opposed to the Courts as the decision maker on matters concerning falsehoods and manipulation turned on how quickly a false statement of fact can be corrected, removed and, generally, dealt with speedily. If so, it would be important to put this factor into perspective and consider alternatives that seek to balance the urgency of moving against an online falsehood and having a decision maker that is more acceptable than an unchecked Executive.
Firstly, under civil law, quick remedies are available where service and the presence of a respondent in Court can be dispensed with. And to this end, the ex-parte process is not an unusual judicial remedy to deal with certain time-sensitive applications. But one need not reinvent the wheel here. The prospect of interim orders made in favour of the Government in the face of a prima facie falsehood, just like how an individual or company would apply under POHA – can possibly also operate to deal with online falsehoods and manipulation quickly and effectively.
To this end, Parts 3 and 4 of the Bill have close similarities with the remedies for online falsehoods this House passed earlier, under Part 3 of POHA. The new sections 15 and 16 of POHA envisage identical remedies, such as stop publication and correction orders that can be invoked by companies and individuals in Singapore, in addition to orders sought against tech companies upon application to the Harassment Courts.
Mr Speaker, if ordinary Singaporeans and corporates registered here are expected to apply to the Courts to deal with online falsehoods and misleading statements made against them, it would be sensible for the Executive to surrender itself to such a process as well, particularly since the meaning of a falsehood is identical under both POHA and the Bill. The Harassment Courts, dealing with all online falsehood applications, from individuals and companies and the Government, would also result in a consistent application of the law in matters involving online falsehoods and misleading information, resulting in not only greater clarity for all parties but would help in public education on permissible and impermissible forms of expression. In cases of sensitive matters involving national security, in-camera applications can be made by the Executive to the Harassment Courts.
To this end, I believe there is scope to introduce processes involving duty judges to deal with an urgent application from the Government speedily or at very short notice. Likewise, there can be times where there is a heightened risk of false or misleading postings online. This can happen during elections, for example. In such a scenario, urgent interim orders can be ordered by duty judges available at short notices to quickly deal with false content that threatens to subvert the election process. The difference in the time taken between an Executive direction and an Expedited Order through the judicial process in such cases may not be significant.
Here, I think it is helpful for me to come back to the clarification from Senior Minister of State, Edwin Tong, that in the case of an online falsehood that threatens to go viral in four to five hours, if I heard the Senior Minister of State correctly, the answer was, the Courts can try to deal with that situation. Now, that suggests that there is some room for the Courts to deal with issues speedily. On the other hand, an aggrieved party is also free to apply to the Courts to challenge, vary, suspend or cancel a Court’s decision.
In conclusion, Mr Speaker, the Workers’ Party is of the view that, as a matter of principle, the Courts should be the decision-makers at the very first instance on matters that pertain to deliberate online falsehoods and manipulation. The fact that the Bill would have to regulate what some reasonable people may well interpret as an expression of free speech under Article 14 of our Constitution, must give us reason to pause and question whether the Courts are better placed to exercise judgement on this point.
The fake news domain is already a very controversial one. Some players are sophisticated. Others will fake innocence when rightly called out. Some misleading statements will be completely political in nature, aimed at lowering the esteem and political prospects of election candidates. And there would conceivably be a whole litany of other scenarios and circumstances to consider. On its part, the Executive will act in some cases of falsehoods and in other cases, it will not. In both scenarios, questions will be asked why the Executive acted as such. Suspicious will be raised and perceptions could be formed. Politicisation would be inevitable. But it is precisely because of these very reasons that the decision-maker must be perceived to be free of conflict in deciding on matters concerning online falsehoods and manipulation as defined by the Bill.
Mr Speaker: Yes, Senior Minister of State, Edwin Tong.
Mr Edwin Tong Chun Fai: Yes, Mr Speaker, I have a clarification for Mr Singh. He quoted me earlier in my speech in the POHA debate. Would Mr Singh accept that, while I said that the Courts can try, I went on to say that it would be very difficult and I went on to explain also that in the context of this kind of cases, it would be extremely difficult for a Court to have a proper marshaling of the details and the facts and to decide on the case. I went on to explain all of that.
Mr Pritam Singh: Mr Speaker, I can confirm that there was an additional explanation to that initial comment.
Mr Edwin Tong Chun Fai: In the terms that I have just set out?
Mr Pritam Singh: Yes. The point I think that needs to be made here with regard to the use of the Courts is that, with an expedited procedure – which the Senior Minister of State also confirmed under POHA, simple claims form – there is room, in my belief, that the Courts can still represent a decision-making authority which can act speedily.
Mr Edwin Tong Chun Fai: The point that Mr Singh is trying to put across is that the Courts can do so in a matter of – and, I think, to say, in your words – five to six hours. And I have explained earlier that whilst the Courts can try, it will be very difficult to do so, especially having regard to the fact that they will have to access the merits of the matter. And it is not possible to bring the case within that period of time.
Mr Pritam Singh: Mr Speaker, I can accept the Senior Minister of State's position on that. But philosophically, I have a different view as to who the appropriate decision maker is. And it is my belief that we should try and see how the Courts can deal with these falsehoods as quickly as possible.
Mr Edwin Tong Chun Fai: That may be Mr Singh's philosophical position. But he was trying to quote my speech to make that point. I do not think that is accurate.
Mr Speaker: Okay, we know the positions taken. Ms Irene Quay.
Ms Irene Quay Siew Ching (Nominated Member): Mr Speaker, Sir, I will state from the outset that I am fully supportive of the legislative intent of this Bill. Fake news is extremely detrimental to society and the severity of its effects cannot be understated. Its negative impacts range from the weakening of national security and public institutions to influencing election outcomes. It also influences the actions of people and affects trust, which, in turn, may lead to violence and loss of lives, warping social and public discourse.
[Deputy Speaker (Mr Charles Chong) in the Chair]
The speed with which online falsehoods spread and threaten public interest cannot be addressed effectively using the usual judicial process and require timely executive action. We also cannot rely solely on non-legislative measures, such as self-regulation of online platforms or only focusing on promoting media literacy. Countries that rely on such approaches have not found much success in tackling fake news.
Battling fake news is similar to combating terrorism or fighting a war on drugs. There is no hard and fast answer. However, neither should a blanket policy be applied. Formulating a solution will require vigorous debate and consideration before executing a final calibrated response, much like a surgeon using a scalpel to remove necrotised tissue and not harming healthy cells.
Minister Shanmugan shared that the current existing laws give the Government more powers and are broader. In view of the recent public concerns, should we not then seriously review this, rather than using existing laws as gold standards, because those are big hammers and I believe they are intended for a different purpose?
Currently, I am aware of the following countries that have enacted laws against falsehood. For example, Germany’s Network Enforcement Act or the French anti-fake news law against the manipulation of information. In both instances, a \"notice and take down\" order is issued against purveyors of fake news.
The Minister has suggested that the Bill put forth offers a more calibrated approach wherein correction orders are possible. This allows for contents with correction notice to be still available for debates and, therefore, more informed decision making and this is, indeed, progressive.
However, one feature to note in our current Bill is that it applies to any person or organisation deemed to be spreading fake news. The aforementioned German and French legislation limits the scope of the law to only tele-media service providers operating Internet platforms. Large tele-media companies have the ability to counterbalance and respond to challenges from the Ministry. It is quite different for individuals or smaller organisations and, hence, the concerns about the impact on general freedom of speech.
I would also like to highlight some concerns regarding the definitions listed in the Bill. The definition of what constitutes \"statement of fact, public interest and diminution of public confidence\" is very broad. Sir, I suggest that these definitions and terminologies be clarified and explicitly defined for the layman in the principles of the Act in the Bill, as what has been practised for POHA. This will help agencies effectively implement the Act and give the general public a general grasp of what it means. The law cannot be set up just to be understood by the Court and citizens do not understand at all.
The consequences of these overly broad definitions can lead to chilling effects on freedom of speech and expression for our country. Our citizens will need to think twice if a view is a fact or an opinion before expressing it and be able to correctly interpret a view even if information is not readily available.
This issue is compounded by the fact that Singapore does not have a Freedom of Information Act, where citizens can request for data from the Government instead of having to do their own fact-checking and analysis. Can we remedy this by providing information that the public seeks? Would the Minister consider implementing both Bills together as a counterbalancing approach?
Citizens would also need to consider if the content they share or upload is targeting a person or the Government and take precautions to avoid legal consequences with laws, such as the Defamation Act or the Internal Security Act, amongst others. How would these Acts cooperate or conflict with each other, given their overlapping functions and how will they be handled?
Depending on how this law is implemented, there will be heightened concerns with legal ramifications. Apprehension and over-cautiousness will arise from expressing views and uploading content for fear of swift legal reprisal. Citizens will feel inhibited to raise or discuss sensitive topics related to the issues close to their hearts.
There is also concern of the legislation being used against citizens who criticise the Government or have views contrary to the ruling party. Law Minister Shanmugan has clarified in the Straits Times that opinions, criticisms, parody and satire will not be covered. However, these reassurances are not explicitly addressed in the Bill. Proactively including this language will go far to allay these concerns.
Sir, this brings me to the next point to confer Ministers with executive powers to issue correction orders and take-down notices. How do we ensure consistency in approach across Ministries to determine between fact and opinion? How do we see to it that there is no \"cherry picking\" when it comes to acting against specific information not in favour of the Government? If fake news originates from the Ministry itself, who then decides to have that Ministry take it down? This is the characteristic dilemma of \"Who watches the watchers?\" In a democratic society, the rule of law should apply to everyone.
I acknowledge Minister Shanmugan's assurance that members of the public have the recourse of appealing the Government's decision via the Court and he has also advised that the process will be relatively \"fast and inexpensive\".
That said, there is no mention in clause 17 of the Bill for an expeditious recourse. The Bill does not specify the prompt access to recourse in the event of a wrongly executed take-down of supposed fake news. I would, therefore, like to propose a stipulation in the primary legislation for the Government to respond in a timely fashion for information clarification and facilitation of the appeal process.
Although I understand a timeline for appeal will be stated in the subsidiary legislation, I strongly urge the need for an expeditious appeal process to be included in the primary legislation, for example, not more than how many days. This signals a stronger reassurance that prompt access to remedy is readily available and any future Government will have to go back to Parliament to have this amended.
The next point of contention is the lack of an independent oversight council for checks and balances. Though the final arbiter will be the High Court, what about cases that do not appear before the High Court? This is pertinent if actions will be taken against individuals or small groups of people compared to large tele-media companies, whose access to resources provides greater efficiency for recourse in Court.
This oversight council is in line with the Select Committee's Recommendation 10c: \"Existing efforts should be reviewed, to consider whether they are adequate to achieve transparency, participation and communication and accountability\". Having an independent oversight council to evaluate the effects of fake news will allow directives to be issued in an effective manner and ensure credibility in our governance.
The proposed council is not meant to be at odds with Ministries or the Courts in any way, but to allow for transparency, accountability and synergy. It will clearly add much-needed integrity to our entire political system.
Additionally, the case studies compiled from the council's annual report can be used for public media literacy education, and to establish consistency across ministries in refining future Bills. The Minister has said that the Parliament should be the final check and balance, and in this place, should we then not dissolve all the existing councils. I believe they are set up for a reason. The same rationale for our proposal.
As the first country in the world to enact a Bill with such broad strokes to curb the volatility of fake news, a steep learning curve is to be expected. I believe that we will get it right, striking a balance between curbing fake news and ensuring freedom of speech.
Central to the discussion is the element of trust in pursuit of truth. The majority of Singaporeans support the vision and bravery of this Bill and trust the sitting Government to be honest and just in its implementation. As implicit in the asking of trust from the people, trust should also be paid forward to the people, that we are able to discern fake news as a highly educated populace. The Government will imperil itself if the people perceive that this Bill takes too much liberty with their freedom of speech. I appeal to the House to seriously consider lifting the Party Whip and allow Members to vote according to their conscience for tomorrow's voting. This Bill will have a huge impact on the average Singaporean's freedom of expression and possibly our nation's progress.
Many civil groups harbour genuine concerns over this Bill, as evident by the 170 written representations from individuals and organisations submitted to the SC, and this includes numerous open letters and joint statements published in protest of this Bill from both local and international fronts.
Hence, I think it is our moral obligation to give constructive criticism and proposals to fine-tune this Bill in the best interests of Singapore. If left unrevised, this Bill may have long-term repercussions on freedom of expression and speech, impede the development of an engaged and intellectual public, and erode the trust in our Government. At the end of the day, it is our solemn duty to uphold the mandate by the people and justify their trust through uncompromising policy-making and rigorous debate. Undoubtedly, I certainly have strong reservations for the Bill in its current form.
While I do see positive elements within the Bill, Mr Speaker, this Bill in its current state will need further clarifications before it is ready to be passed. I would like to receive the response to my questions and an honest discussion following.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Exempted Business","subTitle":"Business Motion","sectionType":"OS","content":"[(proc text) Resolved, \"That the proceedings on the business set down on the Order Paper for today be exempted at this day’s sitting from the provisions of Standing Order No 2.\" – [Ms Grace Foo Hai Yien] (proc text)]
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Protection from Online Falsehoods and Manipulation Bill","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"BP","content":"[(proc text) Debate resumed. (proc text)]
Mr Christopher de Souza (Holland-Bukit Timah): Singapore must be bold in making legal moves in light of global trends which have disadvantaged the citizenry, public institutions and Governments via a deluge of falsehoods.
It is easy to wave a banner, whip up emotion and say freedom of speech at all cost. But, much harder to sit down, study the subject and put in place measures to ensure that freedom of speech does flourish without the destructive nature of falsehoods. In essence, the proliferation of online falsehoods undermines freedom of speech. It does not promote it.
Why? Because no discerning Member here could disagree with the following contention – that falsehoods, cyberbullying, trolling and hate speech corrode, rather than promote, public debate.
They damage society's shared public space and reality. If non-reality is allowed to become reality, this harms society as decision-making is prejudiced by falsity.
Falsehoods can unfairly inflame passions, to prevent rational debate.
Falsehoods, especially when amplified by bots and trolls, can intimidate other voices, thereby preventing people from being exposed to a diversity of views. It devalues and de-legitimises the voices of experts and authoritative institutions, thus undermining society's ability to engage in rational discourse based on shared facts.
These can have major ramifications.
The Brexit referendum is a classic example of how falsehoods can penetrate and prejudice even mature democracies. We must learn from that and prevent falsehoods from penetrating the precious crucible of public debate in Singapore.
Indeed, some of the things that had been said in Brexit could have led to Michael Gove's exasperated comment during the height of the Brexit referendum campaigning in which he said, \"People in this country have had enough of experts.\"
Falsehoods can undermine the concept of an objective truth. This may have the negative effect of causing citizens to disengage from public discourse altogether.
In the Czech Republic, a survey showed that 53% of Czechs believed that there was both pro-Russian and anti-Russian propaganda in the Czech public space, and they could not trust anything.
My next point is that legislation cannot be viewed as the antithesis to freedom of speech. To the contrary, legislation is needed to protect freedom of speech.
Why? Because leaving corrections to somehow organically or innately work themselves out is simply ineffective. As a result, truth suffers.
Some examples would help. In October 2014, NationalReport.net, a fake news website, published a story that street artist Banksy had been arrested in London and that the City of London Police had identified Banksy as Paul William Horner, a 36-year-old male born in Liverpool, England. This article received a total of 60,402 shares on Twitter and Facebook. By contrast, it took nine debunking articles by major news outlets, such as The Independent, The Huffington Post, and so on, to reach the same total of 60,000 shares.
The point I am making is that to rely on existing legal remedies would be far too insufficient to deal with the threat at hand. As Dean of SMU Law, Prof Goh Yihan stated, existing laws are limited in terms of speed, scope and adaptability. Simply put, while criminal penalties may apply to punish perpetrators, there are no legislative levers to ensure the timely correction or removal of fake news.
Many people have expressed concern that the Bill will create a chilling effect on public discussions. That is far too broad a criticism.
The corrections regime encourages free speech, by ensuring that people are exposed to more viewpoints and more facts – not less. This is in line with the \"marketplace of ideas\" theory.
In line with this, we need good public debate. Therefore, I would like to ask: what are the Government's plans to assure well-meaning members of society that they should continue to contribute to meaningful civic discussions?
Mr Pritam Singh questions why the Executive needs to be part of the solution. He says that the Courts should be part of the solution in the first instance. Now, do we need an appropriate decision-making body? Yes. But the type of decision-making model is key.
And for the record, I disagree with Mr Pritam Singh, and I do not think that the Courts are the best placed to hear this in the first instance and decide whether a take-down notice needs to be made or a Correction Direction needs to be made.
Why do I say that the type of decision-making model is key? Because we should be completely aware of the nature of the threat which lies before us. It is dynamic. It evolves swiftly. Falsehoods can spread like fire in hay. They need to be curbed and responded to robustly before they can cause harm. Falsehoods can threaten public safety and create riots.
So, against the nature of the beast, what factors ought to shape the model of the decision-making in the first instance?
The need for speed, a nimble response. That is clear. In these situations, there is no luxury of time to make decisions, going through the Court process, and so on.
In the words of the Select Committee report, recommendation 12, \"The measures will need to achieve the objective of breaking virality by being effective in a matter of hours.\" Hours! And that could be after Court hours. A riot can break after the Courts close.
The decision-maker also needs to be equipped with the information to make the decisions speedily. The decision-maker must also be the right person to weigh in on issues of public interest.
Now, it is a dynamic situation. Let us say that there is a riot. And during the course of the riot, there is a statement that the Police killed the person because of the person's race. Now that needs an immediate intervention by the Executive in the form of a Minister to say, \"That is incorrect.\" He has to decide whether or not it should be taken down, or put up a Correction Direction in the form of what is the truth.
You want to refer to the Courts for that?
Half an hour later into the riot, it says that the Police are opening fire on innocent people. That is false. The Minister again, having to deal with the consequences, must look and say, \"What correction must go out?\", \"Does it need to be taken down?\", \"Does another piece of information need to go up to put that in perspective, to balance it?\"
Refer to the Courts again? Surely not.
Half an hour later, oh, another allegation, out of the blue, \"The Police are trying to disarm the CCTVs to get rid of the evidence.\" That is false. Again the Minister, at the time well after court hours, maybe, will have to make a decision, \"What do I do? Take that down? Issue a Correction Direction?\" Surely, the Minister, being the Executive, has the play of all the facts. He is in the mix. He has got the officers reporting to him. He has to make decisions very quickly, life and death.
So, this may not only just be about falsehoods per se, but the consequence of what those falsehoods would lead to. Refer to the Courts?
Mr Pritam Singh says philosophically, he has a disagreement; philosophically, it should not be the Courts. But I ask Mr Pritam Singh to look through and decide practically what Singaporeans need in times of crises.
And after all, after all, in the first instance when the Executive makes the decision, that is reviewable. It is reviewable through two mechanisms and not one. The first is a statutory appeal mechanism, and the second is judicial review. So, the Minister's decision is reviewable.
I do not think we should be debating on philosophy and getting tongue-tied over illusions of philosophy.
What happens if there is an endemic that is breaking out in the hospital when every minute matters? Refer to the Courts?
I have great respect for the Courts, and I think as a tier above the Minister, a tier of review – I should rephrase it – a tier of review, they are best placed to decide whether that order was correct or not to begin with, but not to put the Courts in a mix where it is such a dynamic situation.
Ms Irene Quay has also discussed this issue of another body, I think, I read the Order Paper Supplementary, and I think it is called an independent council that looks into the issue of falsehoods. I do not agree that there is a need for that council.
If one looks at the Order Paper Supplementary, one of the functions of the council seems to want to replace the Ministerial decision-making and also determine what is fact. So, it seems to want to do two things: both the Executive role as well as the Judicial role; when actually, there is, every time we sit, an ability to hold the Minister to account in this decision-making process.
So, I think we have to be very clear about the nature of the beast that we are dealing with. I do not think that we should be blind to the fact that there are major issues around the world and that falsehoods can tear a multi-racial and multi-religious society like Singapore, can tear it quite quickly and quite swiftly, and we must guard against that.
Therefore, for principle reasons and for practical reasons, I am in support of the model of allowing the Executive to make the first instance decision, and then have it reviewed by the Courts. And we have heard the Minister state that in subsidiary legislation this is going to be an accelerated process – actually within nine days you could get a hearing if, indeed, the complainant uses his right quickly within the 14 days that he has.
So, for these reasons, I do not think we should be waving a banner of freedom of speech without understanding the consequences of what that entails in dynamic situations where falsehoods can catch like fire in hay. And for those reasons, I support the Bill.
Mr Deputy Speaker: Mr Pritam Singh.
Mr Pritam Singh: Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. I would like to clarify a point made by the hon Member Mr Christopher de Souza. I am quoting from the Executive Summary of the report of the Select Committee on Deliberate Online Falsehoods and I want to deal with the point he made about riots and having to wait for a Court order.
I want to suggest to him that sometimes Executive action in itself can be problematic and I am going to quote from this example. Para 24, page 5, \"Falsehoods that undermine trust and public institutions can impede constructive policy-making and the ability to respond to crisis and threats effectively. For example, when German police debunked a false claim that immigrants have raped a girl, they were falsely accused of covering up crimes committed by immigrants. This contributed to street protests.\"
I can understand the Member's view that urgent action is important but Executive action in itself may not always be the solution that will solve the problem. I think it is important to understand that there could be other solutions that may inevitably work, that members of the public could be persuaded by other forms of action like a Court order.
Mr Deputy Speaker: Mr Christopher de Souza.
Mr Christopher de Souza: Mr Deputy Speaker, I would invite Mr Singh to actually look at the report. Principally, I will quote four sections of the report where it states specifically that swift action is key. Swift action is key. The importance of stemming the spread of online falsehoods – para 357(a). \"Specific objectives; – Provide swift access to the facts\" – para 361 of the report. And in page 103 of the report, Part c: \"neutralise false amplifiers,...swiftly.\"
I think this brings to bear why in recommendation No 12 at page 133, we want to be able to discredit falsehoods swiftly.
In all of these instances, I would humbly suggest to the House that our Executive, our ministers, the office-bearers who are fed with information on what is happening on the ground can make the best decisions within the limited time that they have. And if there is any delay, goodness knows what the consequences could be and that would harm Singaporeans.
Mr Deputy Speaker: Ms Irene Quay, you want to make your clarification?
Ms Irene Quay Siew Ching: Yes, I would like to make a correction that when I meant \"independent council\", I am not referring to a council that will make Executive decision. So, what we are proposing is a post review council for learning purposes.
Mr Christopher de Souza: I thank Ms Quay for that. I studied the Order Paper Supplement and, actually, under the functions of the council under (h) at page 7, it says \"to perform such functions as the Minister may, by order published...assign, provided such functions do not compromise the independence of the Panel.\"
It would seem to me that this council suggested through this suggested amendment envisions practising some of the Ministerial functions. And in addition to that, at (f) at page 7, under functions of the Council, it says \"to liaise with scientific, specialist, and technical experts to advise the Government on examining contested facts of a specialist nature.\" And it seems that the Council that this amendment envisions is taking on the adjudication role of what is fact and what is not.
So, I do think that we should take it seriously, the amendment, look at it for what it is and, in my considered view, the Executive plus an oversight of the Judiciary is the best way forward.
Mr Deputy Speaker: Ms Irene Quay.
Ms Irene Quay Siew Ching: We are not suggesting that the oversight committee take over this Executive decision so we still maintain for Ministers to make the Executive decision. So, our stand of independent oversight Council is for review of the past cases to fine-tune future Bills. That is all.
Mr Christopher de Souza: Indeed, I thank Ms Quay for that clarification. Hitherto, I do not think the wording in the Order Paper Supplement suggested that explanation but if it is a clarification then it does put some perspective.
Mr Deputy Speaker: Mr Low Thia Khiang.
Mr Low Thia Khiang: (In Mandarin): [Please refer to Vernacular Speech.] Mr Deputy Speaker, the Minister for Law just now said that the powers of the Government under this Bill is narrower than the existing legislation. The fact is, however, after this Bill is passed, the Government will continue to have the same powers as before; powers given to the Government under other legislation will not be rescinded by this Bill. The important thing is that in the other legislation, the powers of the Government is directed at websites or companies, but this Bill is targeted at remarks made by individuals on the social media.
The Minister also said that the Bill is to deal with online falsehoods with calibrated legislation. Mr Deputy Speaker, the crux of the issue is that this piece of calibrated legislation is directed at remarks made by individuals on the social media. This is most worrying.
The WP opposes the Protection from Online Falsehoods and Manipulation Bill. We agree that it is necessary to legislate to deal with those who use online falsehoods to destabilize our current political system and multi-racial society, to prevent foreigners from influencing election results through the internet, and to order tech companies to take down remarks which could cause social divide. However, the Bill presented to the Parliament is very disappointing and surprising.
In our view, the purpose of the Government in introducing this bill is not simply to deal with the challenges mentioned above. The underlying motive is in fact to deter critics on the social media.
As soon as the Bill was presented to the Parliament, the main stream media has started reporting and one of their key points is the harsh penalties prescribed in the Bill. In the future, the Government can selectively punish a few offenders to achieve a chilling effect, this is so called \"to scare the monkey by slaughtering the chicken.\" People will try to protect themselves by self-censorship. The true aim of the Government, is to protect the ruling party and achieve political monopoly through this Bill.
Today, there are various types of online falsehoods, and they indeed have brought challenges to the political system and social management. No doubt we need strategies to deal with them. But do not forget, the internet and social media have also empowered common citizens to discuss politics and hold the Government accountable. This is a positive development brought about by technology. Nowadays, people do not just discuss politics at coffee shops or only start to open up after a few drinks. When people have doubts about the Government or certain political figures, the talk is not limited to quiet whispering only. This shows that Singaporeans have stepped out the shadow of the white terror of the ISA which allows the Minister to detain people for a long period of time without a trial. This is a great step towards openness and democracy for Singapore.
In fact, modern technology and the prevalence of internet has provided opportunities for modern democracy to improve and develop. Online opinions have provided the Government with a feedback and response platform which is effective, timely, and can change flexibly as scenarios change. The Government can communicate with the people directly, know their needs and issues they face, hence make better policies to improve people’s lives. Public opinions are no longer reflected only during elections. A Government that can make good use of this platform will be able to accurately introduce policies that are pro-people, therefore making sure it stays in power. At the same time, people can also express views on Government policies through the internet, or become an organized force through the internet to exert pressure on the Government.
Mr Deputy Speaker, this is a headache faced by a modern Government. If a common citizen can express his opinions online and criticize Government policies or a certain politician, the whole world can see. Even if the mainstream media controlled by the Government is ambiguous or try to trivialize the matter, it is becoming more difficult to do so.
The Government believes that any rational person will agree that we need to legislate to deal with online falsehoods, and takes this opportunity to empower the Minister to judge public comments, and have absolute power to take actions. This is a Bill with a hidden agenda.
The Workers' Party opposes this Bill. First, this Bill allows the Minister to have absolute power to decide what are falsehoods and what punishment to mete out. It is like during a match, the Minister is both player and referee.
Prime Minister Lee pointed out recently that the prevalence of technology and social media has made it very easy for hate speech and falsehoods to spread. People with malicious intent can easily manipulate opinions, and even influence elections. This is seemingly convincing, but how can we be sure that the Ministers from the ruling party will not manipulate opinions and spread falsehoods in order to win elections? Although the Bill stipulates that during an election, the Minister must appoint a Government official to perform the duties on behalf of the Minister to avoid conflicts of interests, who can ensure that this Government official will not do things that could harm public interests to benefit himself and the Minister?
Although this Bill allows people to appeal to the court against the Minister’s actions, for a common citizen, after being dealt with by the Minister then having to go to the court to complain, it is both time consuming and energy sapping. No common person can have the kind of resources like the Government which has the whole AGC behind it. To engage in a legal tussle with the Government, it is easier said than done.
In a word, the WP cannot accept that the Bill empowers the Minister to judge and decide how to mete out punishment, when it is a basic right concerning people’s freedom to comment on politics. The WP believes that the Minister should complain to the court first and prove to the judges that the news published online is false and there is ill intent behind the news. It should be up to the judges to decide. This is the acceptable procedure.
Secondly, the definition of falsehoods covers too wide an area, and is ambiguous. For example, Clause 2 stipulates that the Government has power to deal with misleading remarks, but what is the dividing line between misleading and false statement? In fact, the Government has no interest in studying this further; it just wants the people to hand the power to it and decisions are up to the Government to make.
After the Bill was tabled in Parliament, the Government has faced many opposing voices. To win support, the Government has to clarify on what constitutes falsehoods. The Government has been trying to convince people that they are only targeting fake news, not personal opinions. However, in this regard, I have no faith in the Government. After the implementation of the Bill, will the Government show its true colours? For example, if I say the Pioneer and Merdeka Generation Packages are to buy votes, is this considered information or opinion?
I think, because of the wide definition of falsehoods in the Bill, the Minister can make a decision on whether it is information or opinion according to need. Similarly, the same words coming from different people may be interpreted differently by the Minister.
For example, \"the older generation can’t accept a non-Chinese PM\", if these words come from the minister himself or his supporter, the minister may say that this is a personal opinion. However, if these words come from the minister’s political opponent on the social media, the minister may say that spreading such falsehoods will create racial conflicts even riots, endangering national security. He can demand this person to publish what is acceptable to the Government, otherwise he will be punished. This is a modern version of \"literary inquisition\".
The Government had previously misinterpreted laws to deal with those it disliked. For example, when Protection from Harassment Bill was passed in Parliament, the purpose was to protect individuals. But a few years ago, the Government tried to use this Act to include Government agencies as objects to be protected. Although the High Court ruled that the Government had no right to cite this Act, because the Government is not an individual. The case dragged on for a few years which would be a huge burden for any individual who has limited resources.
I think that the correct way for a society to develop immunity to falsehoods, is to enhance civic education and to instil in citizens a habit of finding facts from online news, so that they will not believe in online news easily, nor react to 'big news' or internet instigations.
The internet is an open platform, netizens can rebut irrational, extreme and unfair online remarks. Relevant Government agencies and ministers can also come out to clarify and state the stance. By doing so, the true nature of online rumours, fake news and misleading remarks will be known, netizens can also be educated and enhance their ability to judge.
In conclusion, even though the WP realizes that we need to have new strategies to deal with the challenges brought about by the issue of authenticity in the process of information dissemination, the Government, on the other hand, is trying to use this opportunity to make the minister the sole judge on the issue, without a court trial, to deal with the space for speech and commentary created by the modern technology. We therefore oppose this Bill.
Although the Government says that the court will be the final judge, this may be so theoretically. In the situation where possession of resources is totally unequal, to be engaged in a legal tussle with the Government is like hitting stone with an egg. To introduce such a Bill is not what a Government which claims to defend democracy and public interests should do. It is more like the actions of a dictatorial Government that will resort to any means to hold onto absolute power.
Mr Seah Kian Peng (Marine Parade): Mr Deputy Speaker, the Minister has large ambitions for this Bill, and I wonder if the Bill as it stands can live up to them. My suspicion is, perhaps not. Given our society today, I wonder if we ask too much of the law and too little of ourselves?
First, let me say that I agree with the premise of the Bill – that the impediments to full, transparent discourse is less a matter of lack of information than one of too much, too complex and partly false information. The word \"partly\" is important because online falsehoods are seldom completely false. Most misleading messages hold a grain of truth, but their sum total is a lie. The Minister has given a few examples, and I will give one more later on.
Second, I also agree with the instrumental value of the Bill – namely to reduce the instances of such falsehoods and to empower the government to correct and as last resort, remove such falsehoods that are deemed to cause public harm. The threshold for the application of this law is necessarily very high – as it should be.
We should not allow this law to stymie public discourse, robust debate and the growth and flourishing of contested views.
The hon Member Mr Pritam Singh expressed deep concerns about how the Bill supposedly confers the Executive excessively broad and unprecedented power. But I think Mr Singh does not address Minister Shanmugam's explanation that the Bill in fact narrows power under existing laws which themselves have been around for more than 30 years. Mr Singh also raised the example of Nas Daily. But Minister Shanmugam had also addressed the example in his speech and explained when and why statements in respect of that would be covered.
Last year, I had spoken in Parliament about this arguing that any proposed legislation on Deliberate Online Falsehoods stands against two common misconceptions about freedom in discourses – that truth will emerge naturally from a contestation of ideas. Political scientists know that ideas are a function of power as well as merit. This is the very concern of academics and advocates. I say it straight – that the hegemony of the People’s Action Party will lead to their ideas travelling further and hitting harder than others.
The Minister for Education had last week said that this Bill does none of that. It is less a matter of giving power to some ideas, than correcting falsehoods. In the majority of cases, merely putting out the right facts against the wrong ones, rather than taking down the latter altogether. The assumptions are less to do with political power than the behavioural bias embedded in all of us.
I had previously spoken about two false assumptions that unfettered freedoms rely on: first, that people have infinite time and capacity to make decisions; and second, that people change their minds when presented with new facts.
Given that these two assumptions are largely false, the state has a public duty to reduce falsehoods. As a member of the Select committee, we examined and noted the extent and serious consequences that Deliberate Online Falsehoods can cause. This duty to reduce Deliberate Online Falsehoods is one whose specific form is being debated in democratic countries across the world. Singapore needs to move fast.
Last year, when I had spoken on the motion on Deliberate Online Falsehoods, I had said that current provisions were manifestly inadequate and requires further action on two fronts: the private sector and society itself. Social media platforms must recognise the primacy of public interest over private profit. In fact, Minister had stressed this in his speech earlier. I had also argued for the moral duty of members of the public to think before sharing falsehoods. At the time, I had in mind political information and content of the sort that related to political events in Britain, and the elections of other countries that Minister had also spoken about.
In light of events in recent weeks, I would say this moral duty of the public requires a lot more attention. Given this limited application of the law, the ambition to protect trust in our institutions and democratic discourse, is mere conceit if we conceive of it as being the preserve of the law alone. There are too many falsehoods, promoted and fanned by too many parties, with harm caused by a million paper cuts.
The law does not touch these, and I repeat, rightly so. I do not ask for the law to be widened – far from it – what I would ask of all of us in this House is to record our resolve to respond to the rise of such falsehoods through extra-legal means. Chief among these must be the development of online norms against guerrilla justice and vigilantes.
The recent case of Ms Monica Baey in NUS is instructive. The truth is that Nicholas Lim committed a terrible act and Monica Baey suffered greatly. Monica Baey deserves to feel safe in her own hall of residence. Nicholas Lim deserves to be punished for what he did. But he certainly does not deserve the online hate, flames and persecution. This is something Ms Baey herself has disavowed. But the punishment of Nicholas Lim cannot depend on the grace and magnanimity of Monica Baey.
Justice is not a lynch mob to be swayed and directed like a throw flame of moral panic. It answers neither to Facebook nor Instagram posts, no matter who writes them, nor to the distress or trauma of victims alone.
But in today’s context, lynch mobs are easily and cheaply formed. Minister shared how much the market rates are for some of them. Digital technology such as social media platforms and digital advertising tools can be a force for good. Yet, increasingly, we have seen how they have been abused by bad actors to weaken society, to affect democratic processes and to inflict harm. They provide convenient, accessible and cheap platforms for bad actors to exploit.
On Facebook, we saw a live stream of Christchurch shootings, which reached a wide audience through re-sharing. This is the glamorising of terrorism, which many may participate in inadvertently.
Twitter has allowed hate speech to proliferate on its platform. For example, in the name of freedom of expression, it has refused to ban Alex Jones’ Infowar account even after there was clear evidence of him spreading hate speech and disinformation.
Closer to home, In Indonesia, after four Chinese nationals were arrested for allegedly planting imported chili seeds contaminated with \"bacteria\". These were false claims were spread on Twitter, with the contagion spreading to Indonesian newspapers which accused China of using a \"biological weapon\" against Indonesia. This made its way back to social media, with many posts carrying anti-Chinese sentiments.
On Google, in October 2017, during the Las Vegas shooting, divisive hoaxes continue to appear in top search results – anti-Semitic material topped search results. In the meantime, there were Youtube sites which were monetising these harmful content. Today, we continue to see the use of bots and avatar accounts to spread falsehoods and amplify viewpoints.
So, what is our response? This piece of legislation must take its bearing from the Select Committee’s recommendation. As a member of the Committee, I must say that we decided to give a large role to ignorance and agnosticism. Sometimes, we do not know; sometimes, we cannot decide what is false or true.
This piece of legislation is a scalpel, not a sledgehammer as it provides a calibrated tool-kit to address the problem of disinformation. In terms of the tools to address falsehoods: most of the time, we will use Corrections Directions will be used sparingly. Take-downs will only be for serious cases.
These \"Correction Directions\" are a unique remedy, whose purpose is not to censor content, but to provide a broader range of facts for the public to consider. In line with our earlier laws on information, we do not stop the flow of information, but we do want to stop bad actors from profiting from falsehoods. The last resort, criminal sanctions; these will only apply to individuals who deliberately spread falsehoods which harm the public interest. Upstream measures include Code of Practices. The current form of legislation sticks closely to many of the Select Committee’s recommendations.
The Select Committee comprised Members of Parliament from both sides of the House. The Select Committee’s recommendations were detailed, and signed off collectively. As expected, some opponents now criticise the legislation, but they have little to offer in response, except mere generalities.
They did not contest the Select Committee’s findings that online falsehoods are a serious problem, that they cause serious consequences in a very, very short time, that \"drip feed\" falsehoods have enduring harm. But when we offer a practical and calibrated solution, when this is proposed, they cry foul.
If we all agree that this is a serious problem, what are the solutions? Since the Select Committee’s recommendations, the Government has moved on many of the recommendations: first on the non-legislative front, and now on the legislation.
I would like to ask the Minister to also provide a detailed update on the implementation of the Select Committee’s recommendations. What more can the public expect in the near-term, for example, can there be an establishment of a fact-checking entity, something which have been done in some countries?
Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I had started my speech by asking if we ask too much of the law, and too little of ourselves. Even if POFMA had been in operation today, given the way the law has been drafted, there would have been very few take-down orders. Instead, there will be additional facts for people to consider – perhaps to accept if they are convinced, perhaps to reject if they are not.
Online contestation is a vaccine. We cannot grow strong unless we are first made weak. We cannot develop unless we have freedoms, including the freedom to make mistakes and identify falsehoods for ourselves.
In the process, we must develop an online culture of what it means to be a Singaporean, to be fair-minded, seeking recompense and justice; to be compassionate; dispensing mercy and second chances. As a young nation, we must grow into the best version of ourselves as Singaporeans, not just in our real and daily lives, but in our online norms and dialogues. We should not ask this of the law only. We should ask this of ourselves. Sir, I support the Bill.
Mr Deputy Speaker: Senior Parliamentary Secretary Sun Xueling.
The Senior Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Home Affairs and National Development (Ms Sun Xueling): Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, in Mandarin, please.
(In Mandarin): [Please refer to Vernacular Speech.] Deputy Speaker, the Minister and a few members of this house has talked about the problem of online falsehoods.
The extent of destruction that online falsehoods can cause is evident. It is like a new form of 'virus' that can spread widely within a very short period of time. Societies afflicted by online falsehoods are like people who have been infected by viruses. If we cannot find a new treatment for these new viruses, we will continue to be plagued by them.
If we are sick, we should see a doctor. We cannot delay treatment just because we are afraid of seeing a doctor. This new Bill, is therefore a new treatment to deal with this new 'virus'.
Singapore is not the only country that is battling against this virus. Last year, together with Senior Minister of State Edwin Tong and Mr Pritam Singh, leader of the Workers' Party, I attended the Committee of Hearing on International Fake News and Falsehoods organised by the British Parliament. We discussed the issue of falsehood with representatives from eight countries. Many other countries such as France and Germany are also drafting new laws to counter fake news online and setting up regulatory regimes specifically for digital platforms.
Therefore, our measures are not unusual. Countering online falsehoods is also a common practice in other countries. Singapore and other countries are working together to fight against this new virus in order to safeguard the well-being of our nation.
Well then, is this proposed new treatment a good treatment? I think we need to look into two aspects when we are considering the merits of this treatment. First of all, is this treatment better than the existing treatment? Secondly, is this new treatment targeting the root of the problem? Will there be any side effects?
Let us now look into these two aspects.
First of all, is the new bill better than our existing legislation?
Earlier, Mr Low Thia Khiang said he does not believe that the new bill has given less authority to the Minister. But the Minister had explained earlier that existing legislation in Singapore, such as the Broadcasting Act, was implemented 23 years ago. Back then, there was no social media or large-scale internet platforms. Therefore, we did not have legislation that target online falsehoods specifically, which is a new kind of \"virus\", and this new Bill does the job of plugging the gap. Under existing legislation, blocking out content is the primary measure taken. However, the Minister has explained that under the new Bill, correction orders would be the main tool used to clarify false information. Internet platforms that have been issued correction orders will only need to put up corrections alongside the falsehood to avoid punishment.
Now, this is an innovative approach. In many other countries, the primary measure taken is to request the internet company to take down the falsehood entirely. Comparatively, the new Bill proposed by Singapore is more tolerant and more in line with the needs of the new environment.
Secondly, Mr Low Thia Khiang also believe that this new Bill has greater legal powers than existing legislation, as it is not only targeted at companies, but also individuals. Here, I think there is a need to clarify that this new Bill is not targeted at ordinary folks but purveyors of deliberate online falsehoods that is detrimental to public interest.
Furthermore, the new Bill is targeted at false statement of facts, while personal opinion is not considered falsehood. Therefore, we will not face criminal punishment if we express our opinions in our daily lives, or if we accidentally share online fake news.
Here, I would like to share my personal experience. I have quite a few elderly relatives who are very health conscious and often share information with each other, especially with regards to food safety. Some time ago, they received information from friends, claiming that consumption of broccoli together with prawns will trigger a chemical reaction in our bodies that will cause originally harmless substances to turn arsenic. By consuming prawns with broccoli, one may start to bleed and eventually die.
After listening to this horrific piece of information, I assured them that fried broccoli with prawns is a common dish and there is no need to worry. Then they started to worry if they would face criminal punishment under the new Bill, if they had unwittingly shared the information with family and friends. I told them firmly that the new Bill is not targeted at kind-hearted common folk who are unaware that certain information is false. Instead, it is meant to deal with purveyors of falsehoods, people who deliberately spread falsehoods with malicious intent.
Then, will this new Bill affect freedom of speech? This is also what Mr Low Thia Khiang is concerned about. I believe that by requesting for the correct information to be put up alongside the false information, we are turning on a spotlight for everyone, so that they can refer to more information and judge for themselves.
Therefore, the new Bill will not affect freedom of speech. Instead, there will be more information channels and greater freedom to obtain information.
A further question is, will this new Bill lead to the abuse of ministerial powers?
I have a personal view, which I believe can help allay some of the concerns raised by Mr Low Thia Khiang. I think that the Chinese character \"众\" (zhong) used in \"公众利益\" (gong zhong li yi), the Chinese phrase that refers to public interest, is made up of three \"人\" (ren), the Chinese character that refers to people.
Just like the three \"人\" or \"people\" that make up the character \"众\" (zhong) or \"public\", the Minister will be monitored on three fronts under this new Bill. Firstly, he will be monitored by the public. Individuals or organizations that have been issued the correction order can lodge an appeal at the courts and challenge the Minister’s decision. Secondly, he is monitored by the court because the court is the final adjudicator. Thirdly, he is monitored by the Parliament as members can also question the Minister's decision. If the Minister requests that certain information be taken down, this directive will also be published. Therefore, the new bill monitors the Minister on three fronts to ensure that he does not abuse his power and the process is indeed in public interest.
Senior Minister of State Edwin Tong also explained that although the courts can try to expedite the trial for cases concerning falsehoods, this is plagued with challenges as a lot of details are involved, and if we do not stop the spread of falsehood quickly, it can do a lot of harm.
Earlier, the Minister also mentioned that this Bill merely provides a framework. Within this framework, we must all do our part to combat falsehoods. Therefore, I would like to come back to the Chinese character \"众\" (zhong) or \"public\", which is made up of three Chinese characters \"人\" (ren), or \"people\". It is symbolic of the need for society to work together to tackle this problem. Only then, can we succeed.
Dealing with falsehoods is not only the Minister's responsibility, but also the court's responsibility, the parliament's responsibility, and every Singaporean's responsibility. The new Bill encourages everyone to co-operate in countering the problem of fake news. At the same time, mechanisms are put in place to ensure that there are checks and balances, so as to avoid side effects.
Mr Low Thia Khiang also mentioned earlier that he does not feel confident about delegating a senior government official to take over the decision-making role of the Minister during elections. I felt upset to hear this and I am sure any civil servant who hears this would be upset too. As I explained earlier, dealing with falsehoods requires everyone to work together, not just the Minister. This new Bill merely provides a framework.
Mr Low Thia Khiang also mentioned a few examples earlier. He was worried that there is a hidden agenda behind this framework by using very broad definitions, it will allow the Government and ministers to decide for themselves what is public interest and falsehoods to satisfy their personal motives.
I would like to clarify this. The Bill does not specify what constitute public interest as we cannot possibly imagine every instance that will harm public interest. The Minister has also explained earlier that these circumstances have not surfaced yet. However, he did give a few examples to illustrate the difference between falsehoods and personal opinion.
By giving examples, the broad principles and basis are laid out to provide some kind of guideline that is applicable for different situations.
I think, to say in parliament that the Pioneer Package or the Merdeka Package is a vote-buying tactic by the Minister, is being suspicious of others’ good intentions without having proper justifications. So, I do not think that we should engage in such extreme behaviour in a solemn setting like this. We should discuss this very meaningful Bill positively.
In conclusion, this new Bill can solve what existing legislations cannot resolve. It is also more tolerant, more refined and more targeted. Singapore is not the only country that is combating online falsehoods. Other countries are also drafting new laws to suppress online falsehoods. Various checks and balances have been put in place within this new Bill to ensure that the Government’s executive powers remain in check.
Today, our focus is on online falsehood, which should not be confused with conversations by common folk in coffee shops. Online falsehood is a new form of 'virus' that requires new, more targeted and more advanced innovative treatment. Let’s all work together to counter the harm inflicted on our society by online falsehoods. Thank you.
Mr Low Thia Khiang: Deputy Speaker, Sir, in Mandarin, please.
(In Mandarin): [Please refer to Vernacular Speech.] Senior Parliamentary Secretary Sun talked about a very interesting Chinese character \"众\" (zhong). Of course, there is nothing wrong in saying that there are three \"人\" (ren) or \"people\" in the character \"众\" (zhong), but ultimately, there is a \"人\" (ren) on top in this character.
Under this Bill, even though in theory, you can go to the Court and question the Minister’s interpretation of the text, and say that it is wrong to issue the correction or take down order, but before that, the Minister would have arrived at his own conclusion and made a decision.
Besides, public interest is up to the individual’s interpretation as it is not clearly stipulated in the Bill. Therefore, it is all up to the Minister to decide what is in public interest, what is falsehood, and what he will do about it. This means he wields all the powers, and I do not wish to see Singapore's Ministers having so much power. The problem with this, is that they may make the wrong decision. Even though you can go to court and there is a procedure, things are not so simple.
So, we believe that the correct way, is for the Minister to lodge a complaint in court, and let the judge decide. This is the convincing way. However, under this Bill, for the three characters that represent \"people\" in the character \"众\" (zhong), the one on top, which is the Minister, makes the decision, while the other two \"people\" just sits below him. You can decide whether this is in public interest or not based on the above interpretation of the character \"众\" (zhong).
Ms Sun Xueling: (In Mandarin): [Please refer to Vernacular Speech.] I thank the Member for his clarification. I do not agree with what the Member has said. When I spoke about the Chinese character \"众\" (zhong) or \"public\", I meant to talk about everyone working together, but he insisted on interpreting the character \"众\" (zhong) as being made up of a big character \"人\" (ren) or \"person\" on top. I have stated clearly that the court is the ultimate adjudicator for what is considered falsehood. Furthermore, when the Minister executes his power under this law, he must satisfy two conditions. First, there must be falsehood. Second, he must prove that public interest is affected. If one really insists on interpreting the character \"众\" (zhong) as being made up of a \"person\" on top, with two \"people\" below, then I think the one on top should represent the court.
I was the one who used the Chinese character \"众\" (zhong) for illustration. Since I used this as an example and have clearly stated that the court is the ultimate adjudicator, I can say that in the character \"众\" (zhong), the \"人\" (ren) on top represents the court.
Mr Low also say that \"public interest\" was not adequately explained in the new Bill, and he is uncomfortable with that. However, I would like to clarify that \"public interest\" is already covered in existing legislation, and many examples have also been included in the new Bill, so the principles and possible scenarios have been laid out. I mentioned in my speech, that when you explain these principles clearly using examples, it serves as a more meaningful guidance. Thank you.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Adjournment of Debate","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"OS","content":"The Leader of the House (Ms Grace Fu Hai Yien): Mr Deputy Speaker, may I seek your consent to move that the debate be now adjourned.
Mr Deputy Speaker: I give my consent.
[(proc text) Resolved, \"That the debate be now adjourned.\" – [Ms Grace Fu Hai Yien] (proc text)]
Mr Deputy Speaker: Resumption of debate, what day?
Ms Grace Fu Hai Yien: Tomorrow, Sir.
Mr Deputy Speaker: So be it.
ADJOURNMENT
[(proc text) Resolved, \"That Parliament do now adjourn to 10.30 am tomorrow.\" – [Ms Grace Fu Hai Yien]. (proc text)]
Adjourned accordingly at 7.50 pm.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Fires Involving Conserved Heritage Buildings","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"21 Mr Desmond Choo asked the Minister for Home Affairs (a) over the past three years, how many fires have there been involving our conserved or heritage buildings; (b) how does the Ministry ensure that there is adequate protection for such older structures; and (c) what are the measures in place to ensure that renovation or alterations made to such structures are carried out safely and properly supervised.
Mr K Shanmugam: The Singapore Civil Defence Force (SCDF) responded to 104 fires involving conserved buildings from 2016 to 2018.
When existing buildings, including conserved buildings undergo upgrading works they must comply with the requirements in the prevailing Fire Code which stipulates fire safety requirements for buildings. SCDF regularly reviews the Fire Code to ensure that it keeps up with changes in the built environment and developments in fire safety. The Fire Code was last updated in 2018.
The Fire Code has specific provisions to ensure better fire protection for conserved buildings. For example, conserved shophouses with timber flooring are required to install fire-rated floor boards to prevent the spread of fire between floors as well as fire alarms within the premises.
SCDF recognises that older buildings, including conserved buildings which have not undergone upgrading works over time may face higher safety risks as they are then not obliged to comply with the latest Fire Code. The Ministry will be amending the Fire Safety Act later this year to require owners of such buildings to carry out critical fire safety upgrades if assessed to be necessary.
The Member also asked what is done to ensure that upgrading works for conserved buildings are properly carried out. In all upgrading works, the appointed registered architects or professional engineers, also known as Qualified Persons are responsible for ensuring compliance with the Fire Code. An independent Registered Inspector will inspect the building when the works are completed to ensure that the fire safety requirements have been met. In addition, SCDF conducts random audits and inspections.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Potential Job Creation in Electric Cars Industry","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WANA","content":"24 Mr Desmond Choo asked the Minister for Trade and Industry in view of the growing inflow of investments to build electric cars and auxiliary technology in Singapore (a) how many jobs can this new industry provide; and (b) how can Singaporeans better prepare to take on these jobs.
Mr Chan Chun Sing: Attracting investments to build electric cars is part of our larger strategy to develop a smart mobility ecosystem in Singapore. This ecosystem includes hardware such as highly automated vehicle assembly and automotive component manufacturing as well as software such as smart mobility platforms. This in turn will create many more new jobs. For instance, Dyson’s new automotive manufacturing facility in Singapore will require more engineers. Grab’s new R&D centre at one-north can house 3,000 employees.
A vibrant smart mobility ecosystem will not only create new jobs but also benefit adjacent industries which we have already established here. Our semiconductor companies, such as STMicroelectronics will see increased demand for high-value automotive electronics including sensors, processors, communication and power electronics. Our ICT companies, such as Singtel will benefit from the demand in secured and reliable communications systems. Our financial institutions can also develop new financial or insurance products for the mobility businesses.
Smart mobility is a rapidly evolving industry. While we cannot provide exact numbers now, MTI is confident that the whole ecosystem including the supporting industries will create many diverse and exciting jobs.
Government agencies will continue to work with companies, training providers and the unions to prepare Singaporeans to take on these jobs. For instance, for manufacturing-related jobs, we have been supporting workers to learn and adopt Industry 4.0 technologies. To grow a pipeline of software engineers who can develop mobility solutions, we have also been supporting various AI and data analytics training programmes. I encourage Singaporeans to take advantage of these training opportunities to upgrade their skills and prepare themselves for these new opportunities.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Ageing in Place","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"1 Ms Anthea Ong asked the Minister for Health (a) what is the percentage of persons over 65 years of age who want to age in place; and (b) what is the percentage of care-givers of persons over the age of 65 years who want to see their care recipients age in place.
Mr Gan Kim Yong: Most seniors prefer to age in place for as long as they can, within communities which they are familiar with, and supported by their loved ones. A study by the Duke-NUS Centre for Ageing Research and Education (CARE) conducted from 2011 to 2012 found that 97.9% of persons aged 65 and above prefer to continue staying at home if they cannot live independently, supported by family, foreign domestic workers, or home care services. Only 2.1% of persons aged 65 and above preferred to move to a nursing home if they cannot live independently. We are not aware of corresponding data on the preferences of care-givers.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Breakdown on Full-time Family Care-givers and Their Care Recipients","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"2 Assoc Prof Walter Theseira asked the Minister for Health (a) what is the current number of full-time family care-givers for persons aged above 65; (b) what is the number of persons aged above 65 who are supported by at least one full-time family care-giver; and (c) what is the breakdown of full-time family care-givers where the care recipients are their parent, aunt/uncle, sibling, or spouse.
Mr Gan Kim Yong: Based on extrapolated data from the Retirement and Health Study1 conducted in 2014, we estimate that there are currently about 110,000 to 120,000 family members or friends caring for persons aged 65 and above2. The number of care recipients aged 65 years and above who are cared for by a family member or a friend is estimated to be about 85,000 to 90,000.
Of these care recipients, it is estimated that around 60% are cared for by their children, 35% by their spouses, 10% by their grandchildren, 5% by their siblings and 10% by other relatives3. RHS does not record whether the care-givers are providing full-time or part-time care.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":["1 : The breakdown of care-givers in the RHS is not complete as the RHS only covers respondents aged 45 and above.","2 : Care recipients are defined as those who have difficulties doing some activities (require assistance in Activities of Daily Living or Instrumental Activities of Daily Living) and require assistance over the last 12 months.","3 : Care recipients split by relationship will not add up to 100% as each recipient may have multiple care-givers."],"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Proportion of Ministry of Health’s Budget Allocated for Public Acute Hospitals","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"3 Assoc Prof Walter Theseira asked the Minister for Health (a) in the latest financial year available, what proportion of the Ministry's budget has been allocated to the public acute hospitals; (b) what is the breakdown of such expenditure by the public acute hospitals between capital spending and recurrent operating costs; and (c) what have the trends been over the last five years preceding the latest financial year available.
Mr Gan Kim Yong: Over the last five years, MOH's total expenditure has increased from $4.7 billion in FY12 to $10.2 billion in FY17. As a proportion of overall MOH's budget, funding to the public acute hospitals decreased from 77% to 66% over the same period, as we have spent significantly more in preventive health, primary care and intermediate and long-term care. The allocation to capital spending and operating cost is about 15% and 85% respectively.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Results of Public Consultation on Ban on Elephant Ivory Sale and Display","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"4 Mr Louis Ng Kok Kwang asked the Minister for National Development whether he can provide an update on the results of the public consultation on the ban of elephant ivory sale and display in Singapore.
Mr Lawrence Wong: The public consultation on the proposed domestic ivory ban was completed in December 2018. 99% of respondents supported the ban. NParks is evaluating the feedback and will announce the details of the ban soon.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Review of Endangered Species (Import and Export) Act","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"5 Mr Louis Ng Kok Kwang asked the Minister for National Development (a) whether the Ministry will be reviewing and strengthening the Endangered Species (Import and Export) Act following the recent acquittal by the Court of Appeal of a businessman who brought Malagasy rosewood into Singapore; and (b) how does the Ministry ensure that the rosewood will not enter the black market after it is returned to the owner.
Mr Lawrence Wong: NParks is studying the Court of Appeal’s judgement on the acquittal of Kong Hoo Pte Ltd and its director Mr Wong Wee Keong, and will review its policies under the Endangered Species (Import and Export) Act (ESA) as appropriate.
\t The Court of Appeal had directed that the rosewood be released to the owners as soon as practicable. NParks will do so in accordance with Singapore’s obligation under the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna or Flora (CITES). As the rosewood is in transit, local sales of the rosewood will not be allowed and it must be kept under the control of authorised officers under the ESA for the duration of its transit. The international community, particularly countries that are signatories to CITES, will also play a key role in ensuring that the rosewood does not enter their markets illegally.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Update on Deployment of Smart Gravitraps","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"6 Miss Cheng Li Hui asked the Minister for the Environment and Water Resources (a) what are the numbers and locations of Smart Gravitraps that are deployed as part of a trial since late 2018; (b) what are the data collected by the traps and whether they are useful in improving dengue control in Singapore; and (c) whether such traps will be introduced nationwide on a permanent basis.
Mr Masagos Zulkifli B M M: The National Environment Agency (NEA), together with local start-up Orinno Technology Pte Ltd, has developed a \"Smart Gravitrap\" prototype. The Smart Gravitrap is similar to a standard Gravitrap, and is able to attract and trap female Aedes mosquitos looking for sites to lay their eggs. In addition, the Smart Gravitrap captures the mosquito’s flight signature to identify its species and gender, and transmits this information to NEA. This allows NEA officers to conduct data collection and analysis remotely, reducing the reliance on manpower to manually collect data from Gravitraps.
NEA is currently preparing for a six-month pilot trial of the Smart Gravitrap prototypes at two construction sites in the second half of 2019. The data collected from this trial will help to further guide the design of the Smart Gravitrap, as it moves into the product development phase. NEA will review the results of the trial before deciding on the operational plans for Smart Gravitraps.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Operation and Maintenance of Tuaspring Pte Ltd by PUB","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"7 Miss Cheng Li Hui asked the Minister for the Environment and Water Resources (a) whether PUB has the required manpower to operate and maintain Tuaspring Pte Ltd; (b) what will be the operating model envisaged for Tuaspring over the long term; and (c) whether there will be cost implications to PUB.
Mr Masagos Zulkifli B M M: To safeguard Singapore's water security, the PUB, Singapore’s National Water Agency, issued a 30-day notice to Tuaspring Pte Ltd (TPL) on 17 April 2019 to terminate the Water Purchase Agreement (WPA) between PUB and TPL.
After the termination of the WPA, PUB will take over, own, and operate the Tuaspring Desalination Plant (TSDP), similar to the Tuas Desalination Plant which PUB currently operates. PUB has the operational capabilities, experience, and manpower to operate the TSDP. PUB’s immediate focus is to put in place the necessary measures and upgrading works to restore TSDP’s ability to produce desalinated water reliably. PUB is working through the implementation details with TPL to facilitate a smooth handover.
PUB will have a better estimate on the costs of operations after taking over the TSDP. PUB will always act to ensure Singapore’s water security and will not allow it to be compromised.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Complaints of Alleged Abuse by Anchor Operator and Partner Operator Childcare Centre Staff","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"8 Ms Anthea Ong asked the Minister for Social and Family Development in the last three years (a) how many complaints has the Ministry received with regard to alleged abuse by staff in Anchor Operator and Partner Operator childcare centres; (b) how many of these complaints have been investigated; and (c) what are the outcomes of these investigations.
Mr Desmond Lee: The Early Childhood Development Agency (ECDA) takes a serious view of child mismanagement in preschools. ECDA will investigate every reported case by conducting unannounced centre visits, interviews and verification of records.
For serious cases, such as where there appears to be clear intent to harm the child, the case will be referred to the police for criminal investigation. Depending on the nature of the offence, the perpetrator may be prosecuted under the Children and Young Persons Act (CYPA) or other laws.
Over the past three years, there was an average of 15 reported cases of alleged child mismanagement in Anchor Operator and Partner Operator centres annually. Of these, over 60% were unsubstantiated. For the other cases, ECDA had issued warning letters to teachers for acts such as spanking or neglecting of children. These were found to be isolated incidents. ECDA had also issued warning letters to selected centres and shortened their licence tenure for not having adequate measures in place to support teachers' classroom management. In this period, no teachers were convicted of an offence under the CYPA or any other law for child mismanagement.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Working Adults Providing Care to and Residing with Young Child and Elderly Family Member","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"9 Assoc Prof Walter Theseira asked the Minister for Social and Family Development (a) in each of the last five years, how many working adults aged 21 to 65 were residing with both a young child aged 12 and below, as well as an elderly family member aged 65 and above; (b) how many in this group of households employ a foreign domestic worker; and (c) whether there are Government studies or findings about the challenges faced by this group in providing care to both the young and the elderly at the same time.
Mr Desmond Lee: The number of working residents aged 21 to 64 living in a household with at least one member aged 65 and above and at least one member aged below 13 years, and whether they employ a foreign domestic worker in the household, is in Table 1 below.
In 2018, MOH led a cross-agency review on care-giver support and conducted focus group discussions with more than 200 care-givers and stakeholders, including those caring for both the young and the elderly. Similar to other care-givers, they would appreciate more support in the form of more respite care options, greater workplace flexibility to help them cope with having to care for multiple family members, and more assistance to help them navigate and access various care services. For families that employed foreign domestic workers to alleviate the care-giving burden, some were concerned with whether the foreign domestic workers would be able to cope when care needs of their family members increase.
To better support care-givers of seniors, MOH announced the Caregiver Support Action Plan in February 2019, which includes measures related to improving care navigation, financial support and the provision of respite services. Our childcare subsidies also take into account household size, such that larger families with more than two dependants in the household may receive more subsidies. MSF is further reviewing preschool subsidies. MOM will also be expanding the Work-Life Grant from $30 million to $100 million, to encourage more companies to introduce and sustain the use of flexible work arrangements. The Government will continue to seek feedback and review measures to better support the needs of care-givers, including those who are caring for both the young and the elderly.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null}],"writtenAnswersVOList":[],"writtenAnsNAVOList":[],"annexureList":[{"annexureID":832,"sittingDate":null,"annexureTitle":"Annex 1","filePath":"d:/apps/reports/solr_files/20190507/annex-Annex 1 - K Shanmugan - Handout_Media attack on the courts.pdf","fileName":"Annex 1 - K Shanmugan - Handout_Media attack on the courts.pdf","sectionType":"BP","file":null},{"annexureID":833,"sittingDate":null,"annexureTitle":"Annex 2","filePath":"d:/apps/reports/solr_files/20190507/annex-Annex 2 - K Shanmugan - Handout (False claim that Russian technology can wipe out the US Navy).pdf","fileName":"Annex 2 - K Shanmugan - Handout (False claim that Russian technology can wipe out the US Navy).pdf","sectionType":"BP","file":null},{"annexureID":834,"sittingDate":null,"annexureTitle":"Annex 3","filePath":"d:/apps/reports/solr_files/20190507/annex-Annex 3 - K Shanmugan - Handout (TrendMicro Market for Disinformation).pdf","fileName":"Annex 3 - K Shanmugan - Handout (TrendMicro Market for Disinformation).pdf","sectionType":"BP","file":null},{"annexureID":835,"sittingDate":null,"annexureTitle":"Annex 4","filePath":"d:/apps/reports/solr_files/20190507/annex-Annex 4 - K Shanmugan - Handout (Illustrations).pdf","fileName":"Annex 4 - K Shanmugan - Handout (Illustrations).pdf","sectionType":"BP","file":null}],"vernacularList":[{"vernacularID":2885,"sittingDate":null,"vernacularTitle":"Vernacular by Mr Low Thia Khiang","filePath":"d:/apps/reports/solr_files/20190507/vernacular-Low Thia Khiang POFMA 7 May 2019-Chinese.pdf","fileName":"Low Thia Khiang POFMA 7 May 2019-Chinese.pdf"},{"vernacularID":2886,"sittingDate":null,"vernacularTitle":"Vernacular by Ms Sun Xueling","filePath":"d:/apps/reports/solr_files/20190507/vernacular-Sun Xueling POFMA 7 May 2019 -Chinese.pdf","fileName":"Sun Xueling POFMA 7 May 2019 -Chinese.pdf"},{"vernacularID":2887,"sittingDate":null,"vernacularTitle":"Vernacular by Mr Low Thia Khiang","filePath":"d:/apps/reports/solr_files/20190507/vernacular-Low Thia Khiang response to Sun XL 7 May 2019-Chinese.pdf","fileName":"Low Thia Khiang response to Sun XL 7 May 2019-Chinese.pdf"},{"vernacularID":2888,"sittingDate":null,"vernacularTitle":"Vernacular by Ms Sun Xueling","filePath":"d:/apps/reports/solr_files/20190507/vernacular-Sun Xueling response to LTK 7 May 2019 -Chinese.pdf","fileName":"Sun Xueling response to LTK 7 May 2019 -Chinese.pdf"},{"vernacularID":2961,"sittingDate":null,"vernacularTitle":"Vernacular by Ms Rahayu Mahzam","filePath":"d:/apps/reports/solr_files/20190507/vernacular-7 May 2019 - Ms Rahayu Mahzam - POHA.pdf","fileName":"7 May 2019 - Ms Rahayu Mahzam - POHA.pdf"},{"vernacularID":2962,"sittingDate":null,"vernacularTitle":"Vernacular by Er Dr Lee Bee Wah","filePath":"d:/apps/reports/solr_files/20190507/vernacular-Lee Bee Wah POHA 7May 2019-Chinese.pdf","fileName":"Lee Bee Wah POHA 7May 2019-Chinese.pdf"},{"vernacularID":2963,"sittingDate":null,"vernacularTitle":"Vernacular by Mr Gan Thiam Poh","filePath":"d:/apps/reports/solr_files/20190507/vernacular-Gan Thiam Poh POHA 7May2019-Chinese.pdf","fileName":"Gan Thiam Poh POHA 7May2019-Chinese.pdf"}],"onlinePDFFileName":""}