SINGAPORE – The Workers’ Party’s proposed amendments to a Bill that aims to protect users against online harms drew an intense debate in Parliament on Nov 5, with 19 MPs from the PAP speaking on two of the proposals.
The
Online Safety (Relief and Accountability) Bill
was passed
at around 9pm, after more than eight hours of back and forth on clarifications and amendments, which included those suggested by WP MP He Ting Ru and Non-Constituency MP Andre Low.
Ms He proposed that online material should not be considered as harassment if it constitutes “fair comment on a matter of public interest”.
Harassment is one of 13 types of online harms that
the new Online Safety Commission
, empowered by the Bill, will be able to tackle starting in 2026.
The independent agency can issue directions to take down harmful content, restrict the perpetrator’s online account, or allow the victim to post a reply.
Fair comment is a legal defence under defamation law, allowing the expression of opinions on matters of public interest that are based on fact.
The term “fair comment” is used by the WP in a fuzzy and highly subjective manner, said Ms Tin Pei Ling (Marine Parade-Braddell Heights GRC).
“Does ‘fair comment’ also mean that if a public figure happens to fall victim to baseless allegations, fake news, or being sexualised online, (it) will prevent or delay protection and justice just because the subject happens to be a public figure?” asked Ms Tin.
Mr Alex Yeo (Potong Pasir) added that the exception for “fair comment” is unnecessary, as content that is considered fair will not be caught by the law.
To this, WP’s Mr Low said he does not see why the law cannot have a broad definition of online harassment, followed by an express and explicit carve-out for “fair comment”. This will make it clearer, he added.
The opposition party also proposed that the commissioner be required to have “reasonable grounds to believe” that an online harm has occurred before issuing directives, instead of “reason to suspect”, according to the Bill’s current wording.
“We believe that the threshold is too low for the powers being granted (to the commission),” said Mr Low, adding that the Bill’s current wording permits action based on intuition or preliminary information without requiring objective evidence.
Ms Tin said that using “reasonable grounds to believe” will extend the time it takes for harms to be dealt with, and might possibly lead to the victim being exposed to further harm.
In response, WP’s Ms He said the amendment was proposed such that serious harms that need immediate redress will pass the test of “reasonable grounds to believe”.
“However, when there’s ambiguous harm that is worthy of further investigation, our thought process was that where this might not satisfy reasonable grounds to believe, we will actually use investigative powers… for the commissioner to satisfy himself that it is appropriate to take action.”
An extended period of time needed for the commissioner to make a decision under the raised bar would also extend the period of time that a victim continues to suffer in silence, said Mr Foo Cexiang (Tanjong Pagar GRC).
On the proposed amendments, Minister for Digital Development and Information Josephine Teo said that making public interest an overriding exemption could inadvertently provide a shield for bad actors to continue undermining victims under the pretext of public interest.
“While the Government has no disagreement with the intent behind these amendments… we must strike a careful balance between being specific to make the law clear and operable, and being too specific as to inadvertently make the law less effective.”
Several MPs from both sides of the House also sought clarification on whether a streamlined process of reporting online harms is necessary, given that there are multiple laws that govern such content, including the Protection from Harassment Act.
Citing the case of a former resident’s fiancee who was a target of revenge porn, Ms Tin questioned how victims can find the mental space to navigate laws and take the right actions while in a stressed state. “Must the victim make reports to multiple agencies, or will agencies coordinate among themselves?”
Minister of State for Digital Development and Information Rahayu Mahzam replied that the Government will adopt a “no wrong door” policy for victims.
The commission will work closely with other agencies, such as the police, to ensure back-end coordination and minimise the need for multiple reports, said Ms Rahayu, adding that the Government will bear this in mind as it refines the commission’s operations.
Other proposed amendments to the Bill included Ms He’s suggestion that online harms should also include sexual grooming, or the exploitation of children and vulnerable adults, and the publication of online material encouraging or promoting suicide or self-harm.
She added that while Singapore already has laws regarding the former, these harms do not benefit from the “full suite of mechanisms” in the new Bill.
On content that promotes self-harm, Ms He said that features put in place by platforms to prevent young people from accessing such material are not foolproof. In September, it was reported that teenagers were still able to see content relating to suicide and self-harm on Instagram.
Such harms are not included as they are already addressed in the broader online safety framework, namely the Penal Code and Broadcasting Act, said Ms Rahayu. She added that the Bill is designed to stop online harm from occurring through the removal of single and discrete posts.
“In contrast, sexual grooming often occurs over the course of communication or exposure to various pieces of content, where each individual piece may not be harmful in and of itself.”
The Bill is also designed in a way that relies on user reports, and recourse is provided in cases where victims are aware that they are victims. However, victims of sexual grooming, or those who consume self-harm and suicide content, are often not aware of their own status, said Ms Rahayu.
“However, in such cases where these victims do come to the commissioner for assistance, the commissioner will work with the relevant agencies, including the police, to provide the necessary assistance.”
The Bill eventually passed without any amendments being made to it. Minister for Law Edwin Tong, Mrs Teo and Ms Rahayu thanked WP for its suggestions, noting that both parties shared a common goal to help victims of online harms.
The low barrier for victims to seek relief quickly is a “key design feature”, said Mr Tong, urging time and space for the Bill to “grow up, build up and take off”.
In addressing concerns from MPs that the new Bill will have the effect of encouraging self-censorship, Mr Tong said the Bill sets up a framework that allows for individual relief and help from a third-party regulator.
He added that he expects people to be “a little more conscious”, but not self-censor, with the additional framework.
