SPAM CONTROL BILL

SPAM CONTROL BILL: Order for Second Reading read.

The Minister for Information, Communications and the Arts (Dr Lee Boon Yang): Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time".

Sir, digital communication is now an integral part of our lives, both at work and at home. We use email and SMS regularly. For an increasing number of Singaporeans, email and SMS are, in fact,

Column: 569

default modes of communication. They are personal, convenient, fast and offer global outreach. These advantages also bring along a problem in the form of unsolicited emails and even SMSes. This problem arises when large amount of emails are sent indiscriminately, a practice known as "spamming", causing network congestion, inundating users' inboxes and impeding the effectiveness of email and mobile messages as instantaneous communication channels. Most of us would have received some form of unsolicited commercial electronic messages or "spam" either through email or mobile phones.

Sir, the Infocomm Development Authority of Singapore (IDA) carried out a study in November 2003 and found that email spam caused Singapore users about $23 million in productivity loss. Users are burdened with the time-consuming task of separating the wheat from the chaff. The study further revealed that each of the three major local Internet Service Providers (or ISPs) received close to 5,000 spam-related complaints a month. The users interviewed perceived email spam as the second most important concern after computer viruses. This concern has not changed over time.

However, in this digital age, email and mobile messages are also important means of business communication for reaching external stakeholders, such as customers and suppliers. In particular, electronic messages offer direct marketers an important and cost-effective means of reaching out to potential customers on a large scale. It is an important avenue for companies wanting to market their products or services directly and cheaply to potential customers.

Approach adopted

Sir, spam is clearly an emerging global problem, and we have to recognise that in

Column: 570

the process of formulating our response to address the spam issue here in Singapore, my Ministry has carefully studied the approaches adopted in various other benchmark jurisdictions, including the US, the EU, the UK, Australia, Japan and South Korea. We note that even among the more advanced countries, there is currently no standard solution, ie, there is no one-size-fits-all for this particular problem.

In addressing the spam issue, many countries have realised that several measures have to be adopted. We are no different from countries that have taken steps to deal with spam ahead of us. We also need a multi-pronged approach, including public education, industry self-regulation, international collaboration and, last but not least, legislation.

Sir, users can play a part in dealing with the spam problem by installing anti-spam software (filters and firewalls) on their personal computer to filter out undesirable spam and to prevent spammers from turning vulnerable computers into spamming machines.

On the industry action front, IDA has worked with the Singapore Infocomm Technology Federation (SiTF) on public education efforts to raise public and industry awareness on spam and how to mitigate its impact. Industry-wise, IDA is also working with the ISPs to set up self-regulation frameworks and the Direct Marketing Association of Singapore (DMAS) to formulate anti-spam and email marketing guidelines.

In the area of international collaboration, in 2004, Singapore joined 26 countries in an exercise to reduce the flow of spam internationally. Currently, there are ongoing informal international collaborations between ISPs to address spamming incidents.

To strengthen the multi-pronged approach to combat spam, IDA conducted

Column: 571

extensive public consultations in 2004 and 2005 with both the industry and the general public on the proposal to enact legislation to deal with spam. A total of 90 responses were received during the two public consultations. These public responses provided the support and contributed input for MICA to formulate the Spam Control Bill before this House today.

Spam-specific legislation

Sir, besides the importance of public education and industry efforts to curb spam, an anti-spam legislation is needed to discourage the proliferation of email and mobile spam. Members of the House may ask whether we need such legislation when we already have the Computer Misuse Act and Telecommunications Act. These existing laws govern serious and malicious offences, such as denial-of-service attacks and severe disruptions to telecommunications infrastructure. The typical volume of email and mobile messages generated by spammers usually do not result in such severe breakdown of services. Hence, existing laws are not appropriate instruments to use against spam. A more focused approach is needed to signal that spamming is socially unacceptable and to preserve Singapore's status as a trusted infocomm hub for both businesses and consumers.

Sir, I must however emphasise that this Bill is not a magic bullet to eradicate all spamming activities overnight. The IDA's 2003 study showed that four out of nearly five spam received locally originates overseas. So about 80% of the spam that are received in Singapore comes from overseas. Our laws would thus only have a limited effect in addressing this problem. However, this does not mean that we should just stand idle and do nothing. By putting in place this spam control legislation, my Ministry is not only acting to deter international

Column: 572

spammers from exploiting Singapore's world-class telecommunications infrastructure as a base for spamming, but we are also stating clearly and unambiguously that Singapore is ready to address the global problem of spam in concert with other advanced infocomm nations of the world.

Defined scope

Sir, please allow me now to go through the details of the Bill. The Spam Control Bill seeks to prevent local spammers from abusing direct marketing mechanisms. The Bill sets out basic requirements for legitimate direct electronic mass marketing, and provides civil recourse for any affected persons against illegal spam with a Singapore link. A Singapore link exists, as stated in clause 7 of the Bill, when, for instance, the message originates in Singapore, or if the recipient of the message is physically present here in Singapore.

Apart from email messages, the scope of the Bill also covers SMS (Short Message Service) messages and MMS (Multimedia Messaging Service) messages which are sent to a mobile telephone number. Given that the mobile telephone in today's context is a personalised device, mobile spam can be even more intrusive than email spam. This was made quite clear during the public consultation on spam. Fortunately, mobile spam is currently not a major problem in Singapore. However, consumer complaints have arisen from time to time to suggest that this channel could potentially be abused. Today, we have a very high mobile phone penetration rate in Singapore and the likelihood is that the economics of sending SMS and MMS in bulk for marketing purposes may become increasingly cost-effective in the future. This suggests that we should address the problem of mobile spam proactively. The inclusion of mobile spam within the scope

Column: 573

of this Bill aims to promote the responsible use of mobile messaging services and stave off the undesirable proliferation of mobile spam in the future.

Definition of spam

Part I of the Bill defines "spam". A message is "spam" when it is an unsolicited commercial electronic message sent more than 100 times, with the same or similar subject-matter, during a 24-hour period, or more than 1,000 times during a 30-day period, or more than 10,000 times during a one-year period.

In setting the threshold figures cited above, there is a need to balance the concerns of the individual consumers versus legitimate marketing needs of businesses. Although on the individual basis, users are unlikely to receive this volume of spam within the period stipulated, collectively, at the ISP or organisational server level, the threshold figures do represent practical levels for intervention if warranted. This is also in recognition that while an individual user can simply ignore and delete the spam messages in his inbox, the ISPs and organisations may actually incur costs to handle a huge volume of spam on a regular basis.

Proposed spam control measures

Sir, an opt-out approach is adopted under the Bill, as it balances the need of companies and marketers to send unsolicited messages for business reasons. An opt-in approach was also considered by my Ministry, but this was not adopted because of industry feedback received during public consultation which indicated that it would impose an additional burden on legitimate businesses, especially the small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs), while not significantly improving the situation for spam control. This is

Column: 574

because most of the email spams we receive originate from overseas, as I mentioned earlier. Total prohibition of unsolicited electronic messages disadvantages our local marketers and businesses without eradicating the spam problem or effectively stopping foreign spammers.

In order to balance between consumer interests and industry needs, the Bill will require that each message contains a valid unsubscribe facility, an "ADV" label to mark it out as an advertisement, accurate header information or subject titles and functional contact details of the sender. These requirements are stated in the Second Schedule of the Bill.

Sir, the unsubscribe process has been structured to be consumer-friendly, so that even individuals who receive small volumes of spam have a means of recourse, without resorting to legal action. The Bill makes it mandatory for senders to allow recipients to unsubscribe via the same medium through which the spam was received. This ensures that unsubscribing from the spam can be done easily and conveniently by replying to an email or SMS.

The sender is also prohibited from making the unsubscribe request a paid service. Likewise, the information contained in the unsubscribe request cannot be disclosed without the prior consent of the individual. Upon receipt of the unsubscribe request, the sender has 10 business days to cease sending further unsolicited messages to the individual concerned.

Dictionary attacks and address harvesting

Sir, clause 9 of the Bill strictly prohibits the use of Dictionary Attacks and Address Harvesting Software to send spam. Spammers use such methods to generate or obtain large numbers of email addresses and mobile telephone numbers. In doing so, they can cause disruption to

Column: 575

the recipient organisations, such as the ISPs, operators of email servers and mobile telephone service providers. These recipient organisations may incur substantial costs to receive and process the huge volume of spam messages. Hence, such methods are strictly disallowed.

Legal action under the Bill

Part IV of the Bill describes the legal action that can be taken by affected parties against spam sent in contravention of any requirement in the Bill. Aggrieved individuals or companies may be awarded an injunction, damages or statutory damages. Statutory damages of up to $25 per message sent and not exceeding $1 million in total could be imposed. If the plaintiff is able to prove that he suffered greater loss, he could opt to sue for actual damages instead. In addition, the court may order the defendant to pay the plaintiff's legal costs and expenses resulting from the proceedings.

Members may ask why is it that my Ministry has not chosen to make spamming a criminal offence, instead of taking this route of civil action. Notwithstanding the inconveniences that spam brings, I would like to point out that spammers generally do not act with malicious intent. Furthermore, in the international best practices which my Ministry had studied, no other jurisdictions have criminalised the act of spamming per se . While some overseas spam legislation may contain criminal provisions, these are primarily linked to criminal offences committed online. For instance, the US treats spam with fraudulent intent as criminal acts. In Singapore, spams that are sent with a fraudulent or malicious component that results in a denial of service is also criminalised under the Computer Misuse Act. The Spam Control Bill should not be viewed in isolation, but, rather, as an addition to our total legislative framework against technology abuses.

Column: 576

Other provisions

Sir, Part V of the Bill empowers the Minister to amend any Schedule by an order published in the Government Gazette . This would allow for an expeditious modification of the guidelines relating to the unsubscribe facility and labelling requirements when required. The Bill also provides for the industry groupings to self-regulate by issuing codes of practice with the approval of IDA.

The First Schedule of the Bill exempts from the regime authorised messages sent by the Government or a statutory body during a public emergency, in the public interest or in the interest of public security or national defence. This provision ensures that essential public messages during a time of crisis may be transmitted effectively and expeditiously without being impeded by spam control legislation. This will be in the interest of public safety and well-being. This mirrors similar provisions found in the Telecommunications Act and the Broadcasting Act.

In conclusion, Sir, the Spam Control Bill is aimed at reducing the spam problem in Singapore and preventing spammers from abusing our world-class telecommunications infrastructure to turn Singapore into a spammers' haven. Spam is an issue that transcends national borders requiring international collaboration to effectively curb this abuse. This Bill represents Singapore's efforts in doing our part as a member of the global community to address the spam issue.

This Bill, taken together with ongoing public education and concerted industry efforts to address the spam problem as well as our other laws on technology abuses, will contribute to a holistic approach to address this growing problem.

Column: 577

Sir, I beg to move.

Question proposed.

1.55 pm

Miss Penny Low (Pasir Ris-Punggol): Mr Speaker, Sir, I rise to applaud MICA and IDA for taking a proactive approach in keeping up with the development in this ICT era. In tandem with changes in communication technology, a revised Spam Control Bill is absolutely necessary. Why? Because spams, or unsolicited e- and mobile-mails, have become a regular but unwelcome guest at every log in. Offers of Viagra, weight-loss programmes, loans, pornography and get-rich-quick schemes bombard us every day.

This represents a tremendous waste of resources. Imagine, we pay to download it, pay to delete it, and if we are unlucky enough to be sent a virus within, it may cost us a whole system. At the very minimum, the time cost per spam is estimated to be between 4-5 seconds. Translated into man hours lost, this represents a formidable economic loss. The Minister has stated that the loss was around $23 million in productivity loss.

At a Microsoft event in Singapore, Mr Steve Ballmer said, "Bill Gates literally receives some four million pieces of email every day - most of them spam.". Now, four million spams times 4-5 seconds per spam and multiply that by Bill Gates' economic life value would be, I think, quite unthinkable. Hence, there is literally a whole department to take care of it. These are all costs to the individual, the company and, of course, in the larger context , the Government. Hence, there is no question that efforts - both legislative and technology - must join hands to fight spam.

Column: 578

The million dollar question is: what are the desirable outcomes of this Bill? The obvious answer is that there will be no more spam. However, a spam-free cyberworld appears remote. Even with a whole department attending to spam, some 10 spam mails still get through to Bill Gates. Will this revised legislation help?

If we take a recap over the past two years, perhaps the question that I would ask the Minister is whether MICA and IDA have looked into the effectiveness of the first Bill for individuals to bring civil action against the spammers, whether they are local or foreign? How many cases were filed over the last two years? If the revised Bill has indeed considered this aspect, then how will this Bill add more teeth to the individual? If not, what is the essence of reintroducing a revised Bill and what KPIs will be put in place to measure the effectiveness of this Bill?

Perhaps, MICA should also conduct a regular spam-related survey - I have just heard that they conducted two in recent years - like the one that they did for the Short Message Service (SMS) provided by Public Cellular Mobile Telephone Service operators, to ascertain the end-to-end response time of SMS across local mobile networks; in this case, put in the context of email instead, to provide some useful insights for benchmarking purposes.

Further, the problem, as the Minister has rightly pointed out, is that legislation stops at each geographical and political border, but spams are transnational. In fact, I understand that up to 90% of the spams in Singapore originate from out of the country. So this revised Bill obviously is still something that we could do only within the country itself and, in a way, disadvantages our own commercial operators, while messages that are not linked to Singapore get through unfettered. Hence, while we may penalise and punish locals, we may also encourage local online marketing companies and

Column: 579

corporate entities to blossom overseas, while Singaporeans still get the spams.

Sir, it is clear that spams cannot be a single-nation fight, and I am heartened to hear that we have joined hands with some 26 countries in this fight. But there needs to be a closer cooperation and common platform. For example, in 2004, 13 European countries in EC have signed an anti-spam voluntary agreement with the following objectives:

(1) Establish a common procedure for handling cross-border complaints on spam, drawn up by the contact network of spam enforcement authorities;

(2) Share information and pursue complaints across European countries; and

(3) Cooperate in investigating complaints about cross-border spam from anywhere else within the EU.

Hence, I would like to ask the Minister if there is any plan for Singapore to leverage on a regional platform, whether it is ASEAN or APEC, to form a pan-ASEAN or Asian co-operation framework to combat spam. Perhaps, take the lead as well to foster a global cooperation framework, because even if a few countries do not participate, then spammers can always originate their spam from those countries. From a macro perspective, this could be an opportunity to enhance our opportunity as a forerunner in the ICT world, not just in infrastructure but also the legislative aspect. Does the Minister agree that this could be a good desirable outcome?

Micro: Some thorns

Next, let me move on to the details and some thorns. From a micro perspective, the proposed Bill itself is not without its thorns. First, it is an opt-out scheme, where one can reject spams in

Column: 580

the form of unsubscribing with a reply. Yet, savvy net users would know that a reply can only constitute an 'active' email account and attract even more spams. So, should we or should we not reply? The Ministry can issue some guidelines and advisory as do some other countries.

Second, what is the definition of "unsolicited"? The vast majority of recipients of commercial messages do not request nor can they give their consent prior to receiving the messages. So, if a private company sends out its "commercial messages" to a 'members' pool, would this constitute spamming or online marketing? If, say, a non-commercial entity, like the NVPC, NCSS, MOE, any NGO, or even a Government agency, sends out non-commercial content spams to thousands of its volunteers, would they also constitute unsolicited spams? Would they be liable under the proposed Bill?

Third, the meaning of "bulk" is also problematic for many online marketing firms. As a commercial entity, they cannot restrict themselves to 100 messages per 24 hours when their job is a numbers game. To beat it, they may register more originating accounts, or use individuals/employees to spam. How would they be treated under this proposed Bill? In addition, brick-and-mortar companies may also outsource their virtual marketing campaign to online marketing companies. If their activity is considered spam, who would be liable? Is the real or the virtual company? It is often not easy to tell who is the mastermind when trouble is in store. Could the Minister clarify?

Fourth, the injunction against "address harvesting software" is an anachronistic clause. It implies that if we do it manually, then it is permissible. But, surely, in this day and age, using a software to do the work of brute manpower should be encouraged and not discouraged. Thus,

Column: 581

the focus should not be on how the list was obtained but on how it is used.

Fifth, the use of civil action as the venue to seek damages puts the burden entirely on the individual complainant. As we all know, the vast majority of individuals simply would not have the inclination or the resources to pursue court action. Would it be useful to think of some additional mechanism through consumer protection principles? For example, in Japan, the government could issue an "Administrative Order" to spammers. When a complaint is received from the public, the Research and Consulting Center for Spam, which is a government authority in Japan, would conduct an on-the-spot inspection by transmitting an alert mail to illegal sender, asking for a report. This is a much more efficient, effective and cheaper way of curtailing spamming rather than enforcing through legislative act only. Another suggestion is whether there could be some trigger mechanism whereby the complaint against an individual or entity reaches a certain volume, IDA could be obliged to take action.

In conclusion, Sir, despite the limitation of legislation as a venue to seek recourse, it is too unforgiving to pin down the proposed revisions as an ineffective tool, given that the ICT sphere is still evolving. At the very minimum, the proposed changes recognise privacy rights and empower individuals to decide and take responsibility through legal means to protect their rights. This Bill, in essence, should not be one that just provides the right signal, but also one with teeth as an effective measure. Setting a higher penalty sum is to hit spammers where it hurts, which is in the pockets! In taking a more holistic perspective, it is important that a multi-pronged approach be adopted. The current Internet technology helps spammers hide their identity, such that

Column: 582

spam can only be fought through a combination of technology, public education and law. Therefore, efforts to work with the ISP and software industry to contain spams at the source, broader public education initiatives to ensure better information and anti-spam advisory, stronger anti-spam legislative signals, and work towards a global compact on spams are all part of the anti-spam jigsaw puzzle that must be carried out simultaneously.

With that, Sir, I support the Bill.

2.05 pm

Mdm Ho Geok Choo (West Coast): Sir, I rise in support of the Spam Control Bill. I applaud the Government for introducing this legislation as it will no doubt enhance Singapore's reputation as an infocomm hub.

This Bill will also prevent Singapore from becoming a regional relaying point for overseas spammers to send their spam to our neighbours. I believe there are very few Members who have not been on the receiving end of spam, and would welcome this Bill if only to see an end to this scourge among all email users. Unfortunately, Sir, I think many Members will be disappointed. This Bill may not stop spam entirely.

Allow me to voice a few observations of this problem and some concerns over this Bill.

Most spam is foreign

My first observation, Sir, is that the bulk of the spam we have been receiving is coming from overseas. The sale of Viagra, the solicitation for obscure stocks, and of course the invitation to profit from ill-gotten gains from Nigeria and their many variations - all these have come from overseas. The spam mail appears to be indiscriminate. Forgive me for my biological description. My good friend's husband has received solicitations to have

Column: 583

his breasts enlarged, and my good friend too has received solicitations to have her 'male member' elongated.

The few spam mails that I do receive from Singapore have more to do with invitations to attend training courses and seminars, and sale of legitimate products and services. Most are from our local SMEs, although I do receive an occasional mail from individual entrepreneurs selling home-made trinkets and other products. In contrast to the foreign spam, I would say our local spammers are quite legitimate businesses, clearly identifiable and quite responsible.

I would venture to guess that local spam makes up less than 1% - although the Minister had earlier on said, maybe 20% - of the total spam that I receive. Yes, these emails, while unsolicited, are not entirely unwelcome. Sir, this leads me to ask: why are we introducing a law that does not solve 99% of the problem, but instead goes after the 1% of local spammers whose crime appears to promote local and legitimate products and services?

If the intent of this Bill is to prevent Singapore from becoming a transmission point for spam to be sent overseas, then I believe our local ISPs would be better equipped to nip the problem in the bud. Indeed, it would be in the interest of our ISPs to ensure that their servers do not becoming spam relays, as that would impose a heavy and an unnecessary burden on their servers and bandwidth.

Opt-out scheme

Sir, I am heartened by section 2 of the Second Schedule (Unsubscribe facility). Inherent in this section is the adoption of an opt-out, instead of an opt-in, philosophy. I welcome this as a progressive move, as it is not onerous upon legitimate businesses wanting to promote their goods and services through e-

Column: 584

marketing. Unfortunately, Sir, and this is no fault of those who drafted this Bill, many users cannot always differentiate between local and foreign spam. The very act of unsubscribing confirms to the spammer that he has a 'live' email address, in contrast to one generated randomly by his software. Such 'live' addresses are especially valuable to the spammer and, far from getting the user off a mailing list, it may actually cause the user to receive even more spam!

Zombie computers

Sir, many international spammers do not achieve their dubious reputation of being able to send millions of emails by deploying their own computers. They achieve it by 'hijacking' the PCs of innocent users, and using these 'zombie' computers as relays to send out their bulk mail. Many innocent users have become unwitting partners, unaware that their PCs and servers are being used so. This raises the question, Sir, of whether this Bill will implicate such unwitting users who do not even know their PCs and servers have been hijacked and used as relays. I therefore wish to ask: what protection does this Bill provide for such users whose computers are hijacked as 'zombies'?

Punishing the innocent and rewarding the guilty

Sir, section 3 of the Second Schedule ("Labelling and Other Requirements") requires every unsolicited electronic message to have the "" tag in the header or message of the email. Ostensibly, this is to identify the message as an advertisement. In the early days of the Internet, the tag was regarded as part of netiquette, to alert the recipients that the email was an advertisement. The user could then choose whether to open the message. Today, the tag is a kiss of death! Allow me to explain.

Column: 585

Messages tagged with can easily be identified by today's anti-spam software and filtered out of the system, ie, relegated to the Junk Mail folder or even deleted automatically. In other words, the user may not even get the chance to view the title of the message. Compare this with the foreign spam which is not tagged, and which can and do bypass most anti-spam software.

Sir, I fear the net effect of this tag is to punish the innocent (those who abide by this Act) by having their messages filtered out automatically, and reward the guilty (those who do not tag their messages).

Given that the bulk of spam is from overseas, we can reasonably expect that the winners will be the foreign spammers with their Viagra and organ enlargers. The losers will be our local law-abiding SMEs who are trying to leverage the Internet as a low-cost marketing medium to promote their honest business. I would like to ask the Minister to seriously reconsider the tag, if only to give a level playing field to our local SMEs.

Sir, the intent of the Spam Control Bill is good, but I hope the House will give due attention to some of the concerns that I have raised.

2.13 pm

Mr Siew Kum Hong (Nominated Member): Mr Speaker, Sir, I rise in support of the Bill. I contribute commentaries to the Today newspaper. In December 2003, I wrote a piece about spam. That was in the wake of the US passing its CAN-SPAM Act. Three-and-a-half years later, I am speaking in Parliament on Singapore's own Spam Control Bill. I have in a way come full circle.

This Bill is timely. In fact, it is perhaps a little late in the game. For instance, both

Column: 586

the US and Australia passed spam legislation in 2003. The IDA had first conducted a public consultation on spam legislation in May 2004. We have taken almost three years to actually reach the Second Reading of this Bill. Be that as it may, it is better late than never.

Sir, the Bill implements an opt-out model for unsolicited commercial electronic messages. The Minister has explained what that means and I would only add that I was previously in favour of an opt-in model, but I now favour an opt-out model.

It is a judgment call as to which model is superior. But all things considered, I would agree that the opt-out model represents a more practical approach to the issue of spam, one that avoids unnecessarily onerous compliance obligations. And to those marketeers who would argue against even the compliance obligations for an opt-out model, I would say that they really should exit the business if their revenue cannot cover this added compliance costs.

Sir, the Minister has rightly pointed out the limitations of the Bill, and what it will and will not accomplish. The Bill seeks to regulate spam. It does not seek to, and it will certainly not, solve the problem of spam or reduce the volume of spam. It legalises unsolicited messages

that comply with the prescribed requirements and may well increase the volume of unsolicited messages received.

That seems to have been the experience in the US. Our opt-out model is very similar to the model used in the US CAN-SPAM Act. According to a New York Times' article in February 2005, the one year period since the CAN-SPAM Act went into effect actually saw spam email going up, from 50% to 60% of all emails sent over the Internet before the law went into effect to 80% after. A more recent New York Times' article, in December

Column: 587

2006, reported that the volume of spam email, as a proportion of all emails sent, had risen to more than 90%.

Furthermore, the proposed legislation will apply to all unsolicited messages with a Singapore connection. That includes messages sent from outside Singapore to a recipient in Singapore. But enforcement against a spammer operating outside Singapore would be difficult.

Sir, the IDA's survey in 2003 found that 77% of the total spam email received came from overseas based companies. This percentage is unlikely to be significantly affected by the Spam Control Bill. Having said that, I still believe that the Bill will be helpful. There is a substantial amount of local unsolicited messages, especially sent to mobile phones, and the Bill will help to regulate that.

In fact, my own personal experience is that although local spam email is low in volume, it actually takes up a disproportionate amount of time, compared to overseas spam, which is typically much easier to identify a spam. And mobile phone messages will always take up the time of the recipient, to open, scan and delete the message.

More importantly, passing anti-spam legislation will give Singapore the right to a seat at the table, in any eventual international effort to fight spam. And given the cross border nature of this problem, international efforts are the only sort of effort that can effectively reduce spam volume and is probably inevitable in the long term.

But, Sir, the Bill is not perfect. I had co-authored a submission in response to the consultation paper in 2005 on an earlier draft version of the Bill. I had also, in my previous capacity as a private practitioner, advised clients on the first

Column: 588

consultation exercise conducted by the IDA and AGC in 2004.

I will now address several issues in connection with the Bill that have remained despite those two consultation efforts that I hope that the Minister can clarify. Firstly, the status of communications sent pursuant to a pre-existing relationship remains unclear. Miss Penny Low has mentioned this, and I would like to add a few comments. The Bill simply does not address this issue, despite it having been repeatedly raised by industry players in the public consultation exercises, including in the first consultation in 2004. This is actually a great concern to most commercial enterprises, who would have to, or want to, send communications to their existing customers from time to time. But if this communication is not initiated by the customer or not asked for by the customer, would it be considered an unsolicited message? It is unclear and clarity on this would be helpful.

In fact, from my years of experience specialising in the area of Internet law, I would say that this is possibly the single-most important issue to the industry in connection with this Bill. Indeed, given how this issue had been repeatedly raised by respondents to the public consultation exercises, it seems to me a little unsatisfactory of the IDA and AGC not to have specifically addressed this earlier, either in connection with the second consultation exercise in 2005 or in the Bill itself.

Secondly, the Bill relies exclusively on civil actions by persons who have suffered loss or damage, directly or indirectly, resulting from a contravention of its provisions. The Minister has explained why it does not provide for criminal sanctions and has pointed out that the criminal offences in the US CAN-SPAM Act are aimed at fraudulent spams.

Column: 589

But there is a middle ground. I believe that the US CAN-SPAM Act also empowers the US regulator, the Federal Trade Commission (FTC), to commence civil enforcement actions against spammers.

Sir, spam is like a hydra, cut off one head and another two will grow elsewhere, shut down one's spammer and two more will spring up elsewhere. Spam is also a problem that affects everyone. Its effects are diffuse but it affects many. When added up, the negative effects become substantial. That is why the resources of private enterprise alone will not be sufficient to combat spam effectively.

The Bill would have a lot more teeth, if we have included criminal sanctions for the more serious offences, such as where dictionary attacks or address harvesting software are used. Alternatively, the IDA could be empowered to commence civil enforcement actions against offenders or even to impose civil penalties.

This would lighten the burden of private industry. It would also have helped to ensure that in cases where the ISPs are unable or unwilling to take action for any reason, there remain other entities able to commence proceedings. The US' example, where the FTC has commenced a substantial number of civil actions against spammers, shows that there is a significant role that regulatory and law enforcement agencies can play.

Sir, the third issue I would like to touch on is the exclusion of telemarketers and junk faxes from regulation. I think most people would agree with my view that telemarketing calls are far more intrusive and far more annoying than spam emails and unsolicited mobile phone messages. And annoyance becomes actual cost when such calls are received on the mobile phone when one is

Column: 590

overseas and roaming. As for junk faxes, they consume physical resources in the form of paper and, depending on the type of fax machine used, toner.

Australia has both a Spam Act and a Do Not Call Register Act which was enacted last year and recently took effect. The Do Not Call Register Act creates a "do not call" register that the public can register with, and it is unlawful for telemarketers to call the numbers on the register, although there are certain exemptions.

Both the US and UK also regulate telemarketing, junk faxes and spam.

So why are we proposing to regulate spam emails and mobile phone messages, but not telemarketers and junk faxes? I do not understand.

I accept that it is possible to make a reasonable distinction for spam email on the basis that it costs very little to send massive amounts of spam emails. Telemarketing and junk faxes cost money, which creates an inherent control on the amount of telemarketing and junk faxing done.

What about mobile phone messages? That also costs money to send. So why regulate that, but not telemarketing and junk faxes? I do not think that any convincing justification for this distinction has been articulated, and I hope that the Minister can clarify.

Fourthly, and finally, the Bill proposes a code of practice for Internet access service providers and telecommunications service providers. The Bill provides that they may, with the IDA's approval, issue a code of practice on minimum standards of technical measures to effectively control unsolicited commercial electronic messages. And if they do issue such a code, they must comply. However, the Bill does not prescribe any consequences

Column: 591

for non-compliance. There is no requirement for all ISPs and telecommunications service providers to be involved in issuing the code, although all must comply. Having said that, I acknowledge that the IDA could require all of them to be involved before giving its approval.

Most importantly, the process around the code involves only IASPs, telecommunications service providers and the IDA. But what about other important stakeholders, such as consumers, commercial enterprises, who do send out electronic communications, and direct marketing organisations? They should be involved or, at least, be given an opportunity to be heard in the process as well.

Sir, I have said that this Bill is a positive step. And I fully agree with the Minister that the problem of email spam and unsolicited mobile phone messages requires a holistic, multi-pronged solution. And even with the passage of the Bill, spam email, especially from overseas, will remain a real problem.

In my view, of all these various prongs, education remains paramount. Indeed, education will probably become even more important so as to prevent a false sense of safety amongst the public simply because there is legislation in place.

We need to continue efforts to educate the public on what to do when spam is encountered. There are some very commonsensical thing that can be done. The advertisements for drugs, pornography, pirated software and the like, are easy to identify and easy to deal with. Phishing emails and fraudulent spams remain real risks although public awareness on these has improved in recent years. Most importantly, email users need to be taught how to differentiate between local unsolicited emails that comply and non-compliance

Column: 592

spam. It would be safe to send an unsubscribed request to the former, but certainly not the latter, as Mdm Ho has explained. Users can save themselves a lot of grief, if only they were more informed, and it takes some very commonsensical steps.

Sir, this Bill is an important component in our efforts to fight spam. It may not be perfect. But it is a positive step forward, and brings Singapore's regulatory environment in this area in line with other leading jurisdictions like the US, Australia and Europe. But this is not the finishing line, and all stakeholders must continue to play their parts in this fight.

With that, I support the Bill.

2.25 pm

Mr Zainudin Nordin (Bishan-Toa Payoh): Mr Speaker, Sir, thank you for the opportunity to speak on the Spam Control Bill.

Spamming is understood as the sending of unsolicited email, messages in bulk, to people who have not requested for it. And because they are unwanted and "in your face", they can be a real nuisance, not to mention an invasion of privacy and even theft.

How so? Spamming is actually a loss of money. Junk mails, flyers and even advertising on public space have been spared with the label "spam" on the grounds that the distribution costs are borne by the advertisers.

Spam, however, is paid for by the recipients, in terms of bandwidth, CPU processing time and storage space. Spammers frequently use free dial-up accounts, so their costs may be quite minimal indeed. It is this offloading of costs onto the recipient that many consider spamming to be theft and even criminal conversion.

Column: 593

Additionally, junk mail is traceable whereas spammers may not be easily tracked down. Businesses can be held responsible for what they sent. Spammers frequently use the so-called "anarchy" of the Internet as a cover.

Different forms of spam have emerged. In addition to the email inbox, there are instant messaging, voice over Internet Protocol, the SMS spam. All the above further reduces bandwidth capacity which subsequently reduces productivity and that can only mean a loss of money which is not what we want.

The Spam Control Bill was first mooted, as earlier mentioned by many of the Members in this House, in 2004 as part of a multi-pronged effort to tackle spam, which was said at that time to cost Singapore some $23 million in productivity loss each year. Ideally, the fight against spam should be industry-driven. Education is the best option in the long term.

Some have said that the legislation alone will not solve the problem at hand. This is because most of the messages received come from overseas. In fact, according to IDA, 77% of spam originates from outside Singapore. With no cross-border agreements in this area, there is really very little that can be done to address this at the very moment. Perhaps, so, but legislation is a pivotal part of the process.

No laws have ever totally removed criminal behaviour. We know this. Nevertheless, having said that, laws are a much needed deterrent. The same can be said in this particular case for the Spam Control Bill.

Danny Levinson, a representative for anti-spam organisation, the Spamhaus Project in China, was quoted as saying

Column: 594

that spam is "like influenza - we can build tools to avoid this scourge but influenza always remain".

So the Spam Control Bill is meant to safeguard consumers. Marketers are compelled to label their messages clearly as advertisements. A recipient will be given the right to exercise his choice to receive or refuse such messages. If the request of the recipient is ignored, he can take the perpetrator to court. It sounds very straightforward, at least, in theory.

Let me bring the attention of this House to the CAN-SPAM Act of 2003 in the United States that has been described as a toothless law. Obviously, it has proven to be ineffective. If so, I hope we will not end up in a similar situation in Singapore. Also, I must add - it is possible that we swing to the other extreme of the spectrum in our enthusiasm to implement this new law - we must be careful not to hamper business operations. Legitimate Internet email traffic, such as online marketing, should not be interrupted. I believe this is what industry experts fear.

There is this danger. That is why good laws alone cannot work. We need knowledgeable implementers, people who fully understand

how the tubes on the Internet work, and how email is sent and received. Policemen who have grasped this concept will do a good job. We also need a judiciary who has developed capabilities and concrete technological foundation knowledge to handle the many Internet problems and issues.

In addition to anti-spam laws, industry self-regulation and public education on, say, anti-spam technology are vital in helping us to fight against spam. As mentioned earlier, most of the spam is generated overseas. However, I believe that IDA will find ways to work with other international bodies such as APEC and the

Column: 595

International Telecommunication Union to crack down on spam.

Domestically, Sir, IDA has indicated that it will work together with Singapore business associations and Internet service providers to educate people on spam. This is a very good move.

Sir, spam control is a global issue. It is going to be a very slow process, but, nevertheless, an important one. I am glad Singapore has joined the bandwagon of other countries, such as Japan, South Korea, Australia and the United States, to enact anti-spam laws, albeit a little late, it is better late than never.

Indeed, our Spam Control Bill helps to build our image as an IT hub. The multi-pronged approach mentioned by the Minister earlier, together with the legislation, is what we need at this juncture.

Sir, I support the Bill.

Mr Sam Tan Chin Siong (Tanjong Pagar): "Dear Mr Abdullah, My name is Sam Tan and I work in a highly-placed organisation in Singapore. The country is the financial hub of South East Asia, and as a result, I am in possession of many interesting money-making stories and opportunities. I have recently come across an investment opportunity that may be of interest to you.

One of my contacts has come across the estate of a man who died more than 20 years ago and he did not make a will, nor did he have a family. So the money of this man's estate is now lying unclaimed. It is a sum of US$1 million and there's a way to get the money released with your assistance. And of course there will be financial rewards for your participation in claiming this money."

Mr Speaker, Sir, I will stop here since by this time, you would have seen

Column: 596

through my ruse. Yes, this is a spam mail. As this is a trick, of course I do not have anything that could benefit you - only a scam that would benefit me, should you swallow it.

Although the above is a spam mail, it can still get money out of people. There are thousands of such spam mails flying around in the cyberspace waiting to strike at innocent people. From the stories that we have heard from people or read in the newspapers, indeed there have been people cheated out of their money or even life savings by unsolicited spam mails.

Sir, there have been many arguments in support of the Bill which we have heard from a few Members speaking before me. The main one being protection of consumers. Spam mails, such as the one that I had tried to replicate above, often put out false claims and it is to the consumer's benefit that we restrict the propagation of false information.

Privacy is another argument being put forward. Spammers invade our privacy, for example, by making us read about Viagra and Mega Man when we are at home writing parliamentary speeches at 12 o'clock midnight.

Sir, I would like to highlight another argument, ie, there is an economic cost to spam mails. What I did just now in my opening paragraphs took about 50 seconds. If the House was full, it would have meant about 50 seconds from each of the 84 Members and, in total, a full 70 minutes in lost time. And of course we know that the spam multiplies easily and effortlessly, so the economic consequences are also multiplied.

I did a little survey in my workplace and the purpose was to find out the number of spam mails received by my colleagues over a one-week period. Forty of my colleagues were respondents or victims to my survey. The total estimated

Column: 597

number of spam received by them in a week is 2,800, or an average of 10 spam mails per person per day. Only two such mails were found remotely useful - one was for pizza promotion, another on travel. But neither was acted upon in the end. And, yet, each spam mail has taken a few seconds to a minute or two for the recipients to open and read it or to click and delete it.

Sir, these numbers mean that there is a certain wastage of time and loss of productivity to the email recipients. There is also an increased risk of virus attack on the computer systems. Taking all this as a whole, the direct and indirect costs to our society are substantial and the wastage of time and the loss of opportunity costs are also enormous. The Minister just now put a price tag of $23 million for the loss of productivity a year. I suspect the number will increase.

Sir, talking about numbers, allow me to just churn out a few more statistics to illustrate the power of spam mails and the impact on individuals and countries. In 1978, a spam mail was sent to 600 addressees. This was probably the mother of all spam mails and in 1994, a first large-scale spam mail was sent to about 6,000 newsgroups, affecting millions of people. In June 2005, the number of spam mails rocketed to 30 billion a day, and one year later in June 2006, it reached 55 billion a day. Another six months down the road, in December 2006, it went up to 85 billion a day and in February this year, 90 billion a day. In fact, as I am speaking now, the number of spam mails is multiplied by the millions worldwide and as the Hon. Member, Ms Penny Low, said just now, even Microsoft Chairman, Mr Bill Gates, received up to 4 million emails a day and most of them are spam. And I recall hearing a report about this on the BBC in November 2004. Two-and-a-half years down the road, I am sure

Column: 598

Mr Bill Gates' email would have been multiplied by now and he has to set up a department whose main function is to filter out all the unwanted mails. Such is the impact of spam mails, and the high cost to filter them.

Sir, spam mails are growing in astronomical number, with no sign of abating. Actions must be taken to curtail the growth of spam mails. In the USA, President George W Bush signed the first Anti-Spam Law in 2003 and, likewise, Australia, UK, Japan, South Korea have done so. It is therefore timely for our Government to also put in place a control mechanism to try to prevent the avalanche of spam mails from blanketing and suffocating the email users in Singapore.

Some argue that the proposed Spam Control Bill may be a toothless tiger since most of the spam mails come from overseas. While it is true that many of the spam mails may come from overseas, tightening up the control is nevertheless a useful step forward as a start. Even if it may reduce the total amount of spam by only 10%-20%, it is still 10%-20% increase of the time saved and increase in productivity. As more countries are putting in place anti-spam law, gradually there will be a worldwide effort to check the expansion of spam mails.

Sir, the proposed Spam Control Bill has covered email quite adequately, in my opinion, and it has also covered SMS and MMS too. For me, this seems to be a reasonably first step at this stage of development. However, I hope the Ministry could keep the options open on the need to finetune the Bill in future to take into account new technologies that could create new types of spam.

Sir, on this note, I support the Bill.

Mr Lim Biow Chuan (Marine Parade): Mr Speaker, Sir, as a consumer advocate and a member of CASE, I rise in support of

Column: 599

the Bill. I will be speaking from the point of view as a consumer who has been plagued with spam, although I have not been plagued by interviewers, like Mr Sam Tan, before.

Sir, spam is unsolicited email which is sent to an Internet user or email user in bulk. Spam is a nuisance to Internet users, a threat to network security on valuable computer resources. It also causes the consumer substantial amount of time. In fact, there have been studies which suggest that a person will receive an average of 2,200 emails a year or six spam emails a day, and I am sure many Members of this House would attest to the fact that they have received more than six spam emails a day. If the heading of the spam mail is unclear or vague as to its usefulness, it would take you about 10 seconds to open the email, read the advertisement and then delete the email from your system. Just to give you an example. I went through some of my email and the heading reads "Waiting for your mail", "Possimon or Synchronism" - whatever that means, "U VIP Casino". So when you receive email like this, you really do not know what it is all about, and if you are a bit more inquisitive, you would take that amount of time to open it, read it and then delete it. So, in total, you will waste six to seven hours of your time each year just clearing spam emails. If your computer system is slower, it may take you a longer period of time.

Sir, I recently installed an Internet anti-virus and anti-spam software on my computer but somehow now the regular email even from the Law Society is classified as spam and so too are some of the other emails which I receive from my clients. Even emails from friends, like Sam, about lunch get classified as spam email.

Sir, there are real limitations to efforts to try to filter or block spam as legitimate email messages may also get blocked out.

Column: 600

Hence, I strongly support the Spam Control Bill as it will facilitate the management of spam and provides recourse for individuals and organisations to act against spammers. It also requires spammers to mark their mails as advertisement and this will enable individuals and organisations to differentiate solicited and unsolicited mail. So, as a consumer, you can just click "Delete" if you do not wish to open a spam email which is advertisement. I am also glad, Sir, that the Bill empowers individuals and organisations to commence civil action against spammers. They would be able to either claim for damages or seek statutory damages from a spammer acting in contravention of the Act. Sir, an individual's point right to commence civil action has its limitation as many individuals will not have the financial resources to want to commence expensive civil suits just because they have been spammed. It will be useful for the Bill to allow individuals to commence class action against spammers so as to decrease legal costs for the individuals.

Sir, under the Bill, Internet access service providers and telecommunications service providers may also issue a code of practice that sets minimum standards of technical control for spam. The commitment of these service providers to prevent spam and their compliance to a code of practice will be a boost to fighting spam. I know of a company that sent spam advertisements previously and after a number of complaints were registered, the Internet access service provider closed that account and imposed a hefty fine on the company. Sir, I wish that our Internet service providers and telecommunication service providers would also do likewise.

Having said all that, Sir, I would also wish to express some concerns on certain aspects of the Bill which require closer scrutiny. Firstly, I am concerned, with this legislation, whether we are unwittingly

Column: 601

legitimising spam. As long as the spammers comply with the requirements in the Second Schedule of the Bill, does this mean that they can go ahead to spam consumers as, in this case, consent from consumers is not required under this Bill? Secondly, like many other speakers before me, I am concerned about the opt-out provision for recipients of spam email in the Bill. This places the onus on individuals to unsubscribe from unsolicited emails. Considering the large volume of spam emails that an individual or consumer may receive, this places an unfair burden on consumers to unsubscribe from this spam email.

Some years ago, Sir, I created a hotmail account. A few days after creating the account, I received some spam pornographic emails which I did not want. I then clicked "Unsubscribe" for the email. I never really know whether it worked but what happened was that I received lots and lots more of such emails promoting various other types of pornographic services. If any of the Members would like to find out more, just go and create a hotmail account, and they are promoting Viagra, gambling, mortgage services and the like. I was told by members in the industry that spam companies buy data based on your profile when you click "Create an account" and when you click unsubscribe, you are effectively telling the spammers that this Internet account is active.

In any event, by the time you click "unsubscribe", your email address may have been sold to traders of email addresses. So now, I never click "unsubscribe" anymore. I just click "delete".

For that reason, Sir, I would prefer to have an opt-in provision as this will minimise cost to the individual consumer and shift the onus to businesses to ascertain that mails are only sent to recipients who have consented to

Column: 602

receiving their advertisements. To increase the effectiveness of the Bill, I would strongly urge for the inclusion of an opt-in provision. And I understand that this is the case in the European Union and in Australia.

Finally, Sir, in spite of my support, I do wish to highlight that there are severe limitations to this Bill as it is not effective against spam mail that originates from overseas. Mr Eddie Ho, an analyst, wrote in the Straits Times on 24th February 2007 that he estimates that 90% of spam that Singaporeans receive come from abroad. This means that the various pornographic marketing materials, the false stories of recipients striking lottery or the get-rich scams like what Mr Sam Tan had just tried to convince us about, the marketing of health products like Viagra from suspicious origins, etc, will continue to plague us.

I do recognise, Sir, that this Bill is a small step towards control of a growing problem. And as spam mail becomes a greater concern worldwide, the Government should explore cross border collaboration on the control of spam mail. This will complement our effort to control spam. Otherwise, all the efforts in this Bill will come to naught.

Finally, like Mr Siew, I also wish to ask the Minister whether there are any steps to control spam mail from faxes. I used to receive lots of spam faxes everyday promoting maid agencies, tuition agencies, tours, stationery, computers, etc, and this costs me toner cost and paper cost plus loss of productivity, checking whether they are relevant. I have since installed a software to filter all these out, but, nevertheless, unless you invest in a software, you will continue to receive spam faxes everyday.

With this, Sir, I support the Bill.

Dr Lee Boon Yang: Mr Speaker, Sir, I thank Miss Penny Low and the other

Column: 603

Members who have spoken on the Bill. I thank them for their support for the Bill. Even as they gave their support, they also shared their concerns and reservations on certain aspects of the Bill. I appreciate their comments and agree that in some aspects, this Bill is not a "cure all" for the spam problem. And I have made quite clear in my Second Reading speech earlier that this is not a magic bullet that will eradicate spam once and for all.

Sir, let me address some of the concerns that have been raised. Mdm Ho Geok Choo had queried the need for this Bill since most of the spam originates from overseas. Mr Sam Tan and Mr Lim Biow Chuan have also rightly pointed out that most of these spams received in Singapore originate from overseas and such senders will not be subjected to our laws as they will be outside the jurisdiction.

The question that we then ask ourselves is: if this is the case, do we then give local spammers a completely free hand or should we at least move to have some orderliness and some norms of behaviour, when bona fide agencies send out spam or unsolicited electronic messages? Other countries have to grapple with this problem - the UK, Australia, US, South Korea, Japan. They have studied this problem. They have decided to enact spam control laws. And as Mr Siew pointed out earlier on, in the case of the US CAN-SPAM Act, it did not turn out to be as effective and it did not result in a drastic reduction in the volume of spam. But that does not mean that these laws are completely unnecessary.

We have to expect that as more countries enact legislation to deal with spam, the spammers will be on the look-out for new base and new havens for them to operate from. They are, in fact, very likely to target countries that have advanced infocomm connectivities and are

Column: 604

without anti-spam legislation. So Singapore could well become a target for spammers to operate from. Of course, we have excellent international infocomm connectivity worldwide and we have a very well-established infocomm industry here in Singapore. So we should not allow ourselves to become a spammer's haven.

Hence, a spam control law will signal our readiness to address the global problem of spam. It will certainly help to maintain Singapore's standing as a trusted infocomm hub. I have already pointed out that today, the Internet service providers can only seek legal protection under the Computer Misuse Act if they face severe disruption to network infrastructure or if they suffer a denial of service as a result of spam. Fortunately, or unfortunately, spammers generally do not cause such severe breakdown of services. Therefore, there is a need for this Bill which will address spam specific issues and provide an additional recourse for businesses and consumers adversely affected by spam.

I agree with Mdm Ho's view that local Internet access service providers are better equipped to address the problem of spam than the typical man-in-the-street - the user of email, for instance. But this is not an either/or situation. The Bill aims to provide aggrieved party, be it an ISP or an individual computer email user, with a means for civil recourse against someone who is persistently spamming him. As so vividly described by Mr Sam Tan, spammers indiscriminately send out large volumes of promotional emails with the hope of achieving some financial gains. The remedies proposed under this Bill will provide deterrence in the form of court ordered financial compensation for indiscriminate spamming.

ISPs and operators will now be provided with the means for civil recourse should they be negatively impacted by a surge in Internet traffic as a result of non-

Column: 605

compliance spamming activities. In this respect, Mdm Ho is correct that the Internet service providers are most impacted cost-wise by their need to handle the large volume of spam that can occur occasionally. ISPs also have access to the system view which makes them well-positioned to leverage on this legislation to take spammers to task. My Ministry is supportive of initiatives, legal and/or operational, undertaken by the ISPs and service providers to deter indiscriminate spamming as any measures to address spam at the network level will certainly also benefit individual users.

Miss Penny Low, Mdm Ho Geok Choo and Mr Lim Biow Chuan have expressed concern over the opt-out regime, requiring users to unsubscribe from the unsolicited electronic messages. I note that Mr Siew, who started out also supporting the opt-in approach, had declared that he has come around to see the benefit of a balanced opt-out approach. I thank him for the support of this opt-out approach that we have chosen.

I understand the concern expressed by the Members about unsubscribing and that the act of unsubscribing will confirm their email address and could result in more spams being sent to the recipient. This is a real and valid concern. My Ministry and IDA are fully aware of how spammers operate. However, we must know that spam is a fact of life in this age of digital communication. Whatever we do, let us be realistic. Spam is going to be around. It is not going to be eradicated completely.

So, every user of electronic communication - every email user, every mobile messaging user - will have to learn how to deal with spam. As Mr Zainudin puts it, education is the best way to fight spam and I think Mr Siew also strongly emphasised the importance

Column: 606

of education. I thank them for their comments in this area.

Apart from having this Spam Control Bill, we must continue with our public education. In particular, we must educate users to exercise their discretion and judgement before unsubscribing. There are several options. Most users will delete all spams as a default action. They will set their mail filter to delete all spams. More sophisticated users, on the other hand, will judge the reliability of the source of the spam before deciding whether to respond, delete, unsubscribe or to filter the message in some other ways. This Bill sets out the basic requirements for legitimate direct electronic mass marketing and configure the unsubscribe process as consumer-friendly as possible. Any user who chooses to unsubscribe with a responsible direct marketer will now have an easy means to do so. I think that is the thrust of the Bill to provide consumers with a convenient way to unsubscribe. Whether you actually unsubscribe or not is a matter of judgement. For that, the consumer himself must take the responsibility and must exercise the judgement of that option carefully.

At this point, I would like to address Mr Lim's concern on whether we are legitimising spam through this Bill. Sir, this Bill should be seen as separating the responsible marketers from the irresponsible spammers so that Internet service providers and users can take those who are irresponsible to task under the provisions of this Bill. Miss Penny Low mentioned that since the Bill targets messages with the Singapore link, our commercial operators, businessmen and companies will be disadvantaged as spams that originate overseas do not have to submit to our requirements.

Sir, we have to take a practical approach. Like all issues that are of a

Column: 607

cross border nature, it is inevitable that the effectiveness of our spam control law and regulations could be constrained by the limits of our national jurisdiction. To overcome this constraint, continuing effort in international collaboration by Singapore with other like-minded countries is an essential part of that action to combat spam. I have explained this in my Second Reading speech. Singapore will certainly continue to collaborate with our partners to work on international measures to control the spread of spam.

Mdm Ho asked that the tag be removed so as to create a level playing field for our local SMEs. Sir, I like to point out that the labelling requirement balances the needs of the senders and the concerns of the recipients of such messages. Firstly, it empowers the individual to control what actually comes into his inbox. It is true that some users might indeed set their spam filter to delete all messages with the label. This is the user's conscious choice. He or she is entitled to reject advertisements in any form, with or without the label. On the other hand, individuals who see the value of legitimate marketing email could set their filter to move these messages into a holding folder for later viewing.

Secondly, the responsible use of the label by legitimate marketers enhances the value of email advertisements as a cost-effective marketing tool. This is because the individual who reads and responds to these messages implicitly acknowledges the sender as a legitimate marketer. Compliance with the labelling requirement could serve as simple first level indication to a consumer that the email sender is a legitimate marketer. This will further encourage responsible marketers to be more targeted in their approach of sending messages and to differentiate themselves from the indiscriminate foreign spammers.

Column: 608

Miss Penny Low and Mr Zainudin commented on the need for international collaboration. These are valid comments. I agree with them. I would like to reiterate that legislation is but one of the measures in our multi-pronged approach to address spam.

Another important component is, of course, international cooperation. Once the Bill is passed, it will give clarity with regard to Singapore's spam control regime. This would enable better and more meaningful engagement with the international community for further collaboration in the global effort against spam. I would like to reassure the House that my Ministry will certainly work with all like-minded countries and international organisations to more effectively combat spam.

Sir, Miss Penny Low had queried whether unsolicited messages sent by a private company, charitable organisation or Government agency will fall under this Bill. Such messages would fall under the Bill if they are unsolicited and primarily commercial in nature, because the Bill deals with electronic messages. In such cases, these messages would have to comply with the unsubscribe and the labelling requirements set out in the Second Schedule of the Bill.

However, I would like to highlight that non-commercial electronic messages, such as those promoting charitable causes or promoting volunteerism which are sent out by non-profit organisations, will not be caught under the Bill, provided these messages do not advertise, promote or offer goods and services for sale. Government agencies that send out mass messages in the context of promoting a public cause or of public interest in an emergency will also not be caught under this Bill.

Sir, commercial spam forms the bulk of the spam received by users, and commercial spam is a well defined area. That is the target for this Bill and we should keep it this way.

Column: 609

Mr Siew expressed concern as to why messages sent as a result of a pre-existing relationship was not addressed under the definition of "unsolicited electronic messages" in the Bill. Sir, one key consideration was the ambiguity involved in the definition of what constitutes "pre-existing relationship". For instance, a customer may have simply purchased a product from a company leaving behind his contact particulars for the purpose of registration and warranty. In this sense, a pre-existing relationship exists. Most Members would agree that this should not automatically constitute consent for the company to spam the customer with electronic marketing materials regarding other products by the same company, unless the customer has specifically consented to it.

Sir, I agree with Mr Siew that we should have clarity on this point. Hence, the Bill adopts the approach of defining the term "unsolicited" as an individual not having requested or consented to receiving the message. In this way, the boundaries are clearly defined with much less ambiguity.

However, this does not mean that companies wanting to leverage on the existing customer database for legitimate marketing purposes cannot do so. It simply means that under the proposed opt-out regime, which Mr Siew supports, these companies would need to comply with requirements stipulated in the Second Schedule of the Bill when sending out their messages.

Sir, even if a pre-existing relationship exists, I would suggest that it is good and socially responsible business practice to label marketing messages clearly and accurately, as well as to allow customers the choice to unsubscribe from such mass circulation and to honour such choice.

Column: 610

Miss Penny Low had remarked that it would not be viable to expect online marketing companies to restrict themselves to 100 messages within a 24-hour period, as their business normally depends on a large volume of emails being sent out. Sir, I would like to clarify that this Bill places no such restriction on companies. Instead, it mandates that mass messages above this volume are required to adhere to the requirements set out in the Second Schedule. Hence, companies are not restricted in their legitimate marketing activities as long as they comply with the provisions of this Bill.

Miss Penny Low has also pointed out that there may be various ways of circumventing the bulk threshold. In this instance, I am of the view that the requirements that are imposed by this Bill are not so onerous as to incentivise companies and marketers to adopt such elaborate and complicated manoeuvres. I would like to advise against making this Bill too complex in order to cater to all kinds of possibilities.

Sir, on the issue of use of address harvesting software or dictionary attacks, Miss Low had proposed that the Bill should focus on how the list was being used instead of the methods that were being employed in the generation of the list. I would like to clarify that clause 9 of the Bill states that "no person shall send, cause to be sent, or authorise the sending of, electronic message through the use of dictionary attack or address harvesting software." This means that the Bill focuses on preventing the use of address harvesting software and dictionary attack to send spam without prohibiting the use of such software for other legitimate purposes.

Mdm Ho raised the issue of computers being hijacked and used to send spam. I would like to highlight that the hijacking of computers to create zombie computers is, in fact, a serious

Column: 611

offence. Spammers who hijack other people's computers can be dealt with under the existing Computer Misuse Act for committing unauthorised access. I would like to assure this House that unsuspecting owners of hijacked computers would not be caught under this Bill if they can show that the sending of spam was the result of malicious intervention by a computer programme or a third party. The Bill is very clear in its intent to curb illegal spamming activities by specifically targeting the spammer and not innocent third parties.

Miss Penny Low has suggested that we emulate the Japanese spam regime by getting a state agency to intervene on behalf of individual users who suffer the nuisance of spam. Mr Siew has also mentioned enforcement action taken by the Federal Trade Commission in the US.

Sir, in response to these examples from other jurisdictions raised by Members, I would like to advise against making such comparison of the role played by governments across the different spam control regimes. While we have studied and tried to adopt other people's best practices, we cannot import wholesale the approaches being used elsewhere. Different regimes have different approaches. Each regime is shaped by the respective historical and infocomm development, which in turn influences the public's view and expectation of the role of government in spam control regimes.

I would like to highlight that the enactment of this Spam Control Act is but the first step in erecting a spam control regime for Singapore. We are starting with a light touch approach with more focus on industry self-regulation. If subsequent development of the landscape calls for a heavier role of the Government, we are open to suggestions on how to improve the law.

Sir, Mr Siew had requested for a clarification on the nature of the code of

Column: 612

practice, as stated under clause 16 of the Bill, given that the consequences for non-compliance are not clear. I would like to clarify that under clause 16(2), the issuance of a code of practice by the industry is voluntary. Compliance may or may not be mandatory depending on the terms of the code that have been adopted by the industry and also the adopted enforcement mechanism. One possibility could be expulsion from an industry group which may result in a certain amount of bad publicity and odium. Industry players may become sensitive to such adverse publicity, so there will be an incentive for them to comply with the code.

These are really issues for industry players and the relevant industry associations to decide. Hence, I agree with Mr Zainudin when he pointed out that the fight against spam must involve industry players, and this is in line with my Ministry's effort to encourage greater industry self-regulation whenever possible under our multi-pronged partnership approach towards addressing the spam problem.

Sir, in recent years, IDA has been working with the relevant industry associations, such as the Direct Marketing Association of Singapore and the Contact Centre Association of Singapore, to set direct marketing guidelines and a code of ethics. This is in response to Mr Siew's remark on why nothing has been said about telemarketing in the Bill. I am glad to inform him that the industry and the stakeholders have been more than receptive to IDA's concern on telemarketing practices. Hence, we would like to give the industry the opportunity to demonstrate their readiness and ability to regulate their practices in telemarketing before Government steps in.

Mr Lim Biow Chuan and Mr Siew queried the exclusion of fax messages from the Bill. We have focused the scope of this Bill on emails and mobile messages

Column: 613

owing to the prevalence of email spam and the potential of mobile spam to become a bigger problem in the future. Faxes have been in use much longer than email. Thus far, it has not caused the same level of nuisance or abuse unlike email, although I take note of Mr Lim Biow Chuan's comment about his personal experience in his office.

One reason may be that fax messages do not have the same reach as mobile electronic messages or emails, given that fax machines are neither personalised equipment - we do not carry our fax machines with us everywhere we go - nor are they prevalent in our households, unlike computers. In the light of this experience, my Ministry has decided at this juncture not to include fax transmission within the ambit of the proposed Bill.

Sir, Miss Penny Low enquired whether a survey on spam would be carried out after the Bill is passed. I would like to assure this House that IDA will continue to monitor the spam situation and work closely with the industry players and the ISP to have a sense of how this problem is evolving. This monitoring action will include conducting the appropriate surveys to ascertain the impact and the effectiveness of the Bill.

This Bill represents, as I said earlier on, the first step towards having a legislative regime to regulate and to control spam activities in Singapore. This is not the end. We are taking the first step. And in the light of experience, we will be able to perhaps modify or amend the law in future so that we can have a more effective regime to address this growing problem.

Sir, I hope I have addressed Members' concerns and seek the support of the House on the Spam Control Bill.

Column: 614

Question put, and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read a Second time and committed to a Committee of the whole House.

The House immediately resolved itself into a Committee on the Bill. - [Dr Lee Boon Yang].

Bill considered in Committee; reported without amendment; read a Third time and passed.