Mr Speaker, I support the amendments filed by Sengkang GRC MP He Ting Ru and further elaborated upon by NCMPs Andre Low and Eileen Chong, and agree that these amendments strengthen the Bill for victims, and better calibrate the significant powers Parliament is vesting in the Online Safety Commission. I have some queries that cover ten clauses in the Bill as tabled by the Government for second reading.
First, clause 5(6) of the Bill allows the Minister to give the Commissioner directions of a general or special character not inconsistent with the provision of the Act. The explanatory statement does not shed light on what the ambit or scope of these two types of directions is. What general or special character directions does this clause envisage, which are not already fully captured or foreshadowed by the Bill? Can the Minister clarify what are some of the directions that the Minister envisages to give under this clause, or is this clause to be understood as a general clause that confers broad and inchoate powers to the Minister?
Clause 8 empowers the Commissioner to issue advisory guidelines. As much as public attention on this Bill has focused on online harmful activities and the statutory torts that arise from them, I believe one important barometer of the success of this Bill will lie in its capacity for preventive education. The Australian Government’s eSafety Online Commissioner’s website is a useful guide to take note of, as a one stop site to assist victims navigate the difficult terrain of online harms and educate young and old Singaporeans about the impact of their words and actions online with a view to establish acceptable norms of online behaviour. To this end, can the Minister share the scope, and outreach plans the Government has under this clause to address online harms, with particular focus on juveniles and young adults? Does it intend to copy the Australian approach with adjustments for the local context, or does it for example, intend to work closely with the Ministry of Education to consider novel approaches? Are there specific autochthonous approaches on preventive education that pertain to online conduct and behaviors the Ministry plans on introducing suited for local circumstances?
Clause 11 on the non-consensual disclosure of private information is not clear as to what private information entails. While the clause leaves open clarity to future regulations, as drafted, it reads too widely to be of practical application and is thus unsatisfactory. On a plain reading, it begs more questions than it answers. The clause states that private information is information about a person that is not widely available to the public at large. The explanatory statement to the Bill does not aid at all to clarify the ambit or context of “not widely available”, and what it means. I hope the Minister can shed light on this clause and briefly outline how regulations will address the ambit of private information in this clause. If the private information is for example found behind a paywall of an exclusive and expensive online publication with a limited circulation, would that information be construed as not being widely available?
Clause 20 covers a specific online harm, namely “incitement of enemity” which means the communication of online material that a reasonable person would conclude incites, or is likely to incite feelings of enmity, hatred or hostility against any group in Singapore. To this end, in finding the same, clause 20(a) of the Bill considers relevant factors such as whether the material dehumanizes any person or persons or otherwise portrays them as less than human. For example, in the event a foreign embassy puts up a post that tends to incite, who would the Commissioner issue an order against - the embassy, an online service provider or Singaporeans who share the post, or all three?
In connection to this, I seek clarity on the ambit of Clause 22 which states that a victim of online harmful activity can be anyone who is a citizen or PR of Singapore. Clause 22(1)(c) also includes an individual who has a prescribed connection to Singapore to make a report to the Commission. The interpretation section of the Bill does not define this prescribed connection unlike how it defines prescribed online service provider. Can the Minister clarify if the Bill can be expected to extend to all work pass holders in Singapore, including foreigners or even diplomatic staff who make reports to the Commission seeking relief outside the excluded online harmful activities covering incitement of enmity and incitement of violence? And if not, what are the exceptions?
I move to Part 6 of the Bill covering information and end-user identity matters. The Commissioner is empowered to require any person to provide in any form or manner any information or document, whether kept in Singapore or not. This includes requiring the person to provide an explanation of the information or document including providing access by way of username, password or any other authentication information. Clause 49(4) states that the Commissioner is entitled without payment to keep any information or document. Can the Minister confirm if anything in this part of the Bill allows the Commissioner to for example, seize or retain a mobile device or laptop on grounds of an investigation into an alleged online harm under this Bill?
Clause 52 gives the Commissioner powers to obtain specified information about an end-user and it does not matter if that end-user is outside Singapore. I would like to enquire how the online service providers the Ministry has sought feedback from for the purposes of the Bill have reacted to it and whether they would be able to comply, particularly service providers such as Telegram, an entity the Government has reported to have difficulty with, in the past. In this connection, can the Minister provide an update to the House on whether Meta has complied with the competent authority’s implementation directive to strengthen Facebook’s measures against scams by 31 October this year as part of the Online Criminal Harms Act. While I accept the relevant law is different, it would be useful for the House to understand how our laws interface with how promptly and the extent to whether social media platforms can comply with them, and if not, why not.
Part 7 of the Bill covers reconsiderations and appeals. Clause 59(1)(d) requires the Commissioner to inform an applicant of the result of a reconsidered decision within a reasonable time. This clause does not require the Commissioner to provide reasons for his decision. In contrast, on the matter of the Appeal Committee in Clause 64(5)(a), the Committee is required to state the reasons for the Appeal’s Committee’s decision in respect of the appeal. Can the Minister share the rationale behind the treatment of the differentiated treatment, which are from a layman’s perspective essentially appeals – with reasons for a decision provided in one case but not the other? One approach to consider is to provide reasons in both cases. Doing so would be helpful in reducing the number of appeals if the Commissioner’s decisions are clearly explained at the outset, subject to the usual privacy concerns. Can the Minister explain the approach taken in the Bill so as not to give the impression that the first appeal to the Commissioner to reconsider the decision is not perfunctory?
Clause 94 creates the tort of failing to respond reasonably to an online harm notice. In this particular case, while it is foreseeable that the form of an online harm notice will be forthcoming, can the Minister shed light on what constitutes a reasonable response time from the online service provider? The illustration to this clause makes reference to the word “promptly” when a social media service responds to an online harm notice. This suggests that the interpretation of reasonable ought to be construed as forthwith or almost at once. Would this be a correct reading and expectation of howof the how quickly an online service provider is expected to react?
Sir, these are the clarifications I seek, and I look forward to the Minister’s replies. Notwithstanding the amendments in the name of He Ting Ru and subject to the clarifications from the three Ministers, the Workers’ Party will support the Bill.
