Online Safety (Relief and Accountability) Bill

Debate resumed.

Mr Deputy Speaker: Mr David Hoe.

6.34 pm

Mr David Hoe (Jurong East-Bukit Batok): Mr Deputy Speaker, this Bill is a significant step towards a more accountable digital space. Specifically, it gives victims of online harms, new avenues of relief through the Commissioner of Online Safety, impose clear duties on online service providers, and creates civil rights of action for victims. This Bill is close to my heart, because I have met Singaporeans who suffered from the harms described in Part 3 of the Bill. For them, the humiliation and emotional distress that they have gone through are overwhelming.

This Bill, if implemented well, will go some way to deter perpetrators of online harms and give victims of online harms much clearer routes of recourse. Against this backdrop of my support for this Bill, I would like to seek clarifications on how this Bill works in practice across five areas.

My first clarification is about the operational tempo and service standards of the Commissioner’s office. On operational tempo, the Bill rightly allows victims to seek the Commissioner’s intervention without first going to court. Beyond "being fast", we also need to communicate what is being done fast. This means that efforts should be made to lay out the process as clearly as possible to the general public, so that the victim knows what actions will be taken and what to expect from the moment they decide to make a report.

You see, it makes a difference by telling someone that within a certain number of hours, they will receive a response versus telling someone that over the next X number of hours, actions a, b and c will be taken and they will be updated at the end. As part of implementation, the Commissioner should consider issuing advisory guidelines that set out triage principles, communication milestones, indicative response time across various categories of online harms by severity.

On service standards, clause 23 in Part 4 enables victims to make a report of alleged online harmful activity. But while the Bill mentions that it aims to provide a timely means of redress, it does not yet prescribe what counts as a timely response. The point here is this: online harm spreads by hours, not by weeks or months. Hence, I wonder if the Commissioner’s office can consider setting and publicly communicating service standards or target response times for various categories of online harms by severity.

Saying this, I am cognisant that speed also requires resourcing. The Commissioner’s office should be staffed and supported to act with urgency. I would welcome the Ministry’s plan for resourcing so that operational targets are achievable rather than aspirational.

I also think that it is more appropriate to leave service expectations and operational key performance indicators (KPIs) as guidelines as compared to statute because hard timelines in primary legislation like this Bill may risk overwhelming staffing when spikes in online harm cases occur. Hence, the guidelines can be updated swiftly and calibrated to capacity at the agency level, so that the bar can be set at achievable and meaningful levels. To strengthen this approach, the Commissioner should also consider having a standing advisory group of relevant practitioners such as technologists, clinicians, child-safety specialists and academics to refresh workflows, KPIs, and give guidance on online harms periodically.

My second clarification involves accessibility and public readiness. Clause 23 of Part 4 provides that victims can report online harms to the Commissioner, but it is also equally important that they know how to do it. Online harm victims will also include those who are less technologically savvy. It is hence vital that we ensure that the process of online harm reporting is kept simple, multilingual and accessible. This could mean: (a) ensuring that the online and mobile service platforms use plain English, not technical jargon, and official languages to communicate to the public and guide victims of online harms through reporting; (b) proactively providing step-by-step guides via major online and mobile platforms, so that they know how to file an online harm notice; and (c) at the same time, setting up offline helplines and community touchpoints for those who are digitally less-confident users to keep them informed of the work of the Commissioner and the Office.

Clause 94 in Part 12 of the Bill also allows victims to send an online harm notice to an online service provider. This is a positive step towards direct accountability. But for this to be utilised effectively, online services must make sure that reporting is easy to find and use.

In this regard, would the Government, along with the Commissioner and the Office, study how major platforms will implement their online harm reporting in practice and consider whether they are accessible, especially to the vulnerable users. For instance, sending an online harm notice within a mobile app or website should never require a user more than 20 minutes navigating multiple different landing pages and entering unnecessary inputs that the provider would already have gotten from the moment they had registered for an account. You see, these design features are not cosmetic, because they determine whether victims can exercise their rights effectively.

Thirdly, we should also consider the practical aspects of civil proceedings and cost of justice. The Bill introduces statutory torts, which gives victims the right to bring civil proceedings for defined harms such as intimate image abuse, child abuse imagery and so on. Hence, civil action involves practical hurdles, legal costs, disclosure processes and emotional strain.

I would like to ask the Government to provide more clarity on what the typical steps will be for a victim to bring such proceedings and whether there will be support measures, especially for those who might not have adequate financial resources to do this. The Commissioner and the Office should also consider communicating the availability of these resources from the onset, because at the end of the day, justice should never be determined by income. This upfront assurance will reduce the barriers to entry to report and deter the actions of perpetrators.

My fourth point of clarification is on issues related to damages, humiliation and redress. Part 5 of the Bill on the directions and orders of the Commissioner, as well as Part 13 of the Bill on Damages and Remedies provide various reliefs and remedies to victims of online harms such as removal of content, account restrictions and compensation. However, I would like to seek clarification on whether non-monetary losses could also be considered within this Bill framework. This may go further in helping the victims to rebuild their lives.

Relatedly, public communications and victim-facing materials by the Commissioner and the Office should be trauma-informed and non-stigmatising. They should state plainly that the responsibility lies with the perpetrator and not invite interpretations that the clothing, occupation, social activity has caused harm to be done unto them. This is important because victim-blaming deters reporting and delays help-seeking, and compounds humiliation and distress.

My final point: prevention and safety-by-design. Deterrence after harm is necessary, but prevention of online harms upstream is better. This Bill defines serious harms clearly, but we should also work to ensure that major online platforms operating here continue to prioritise user safety and privacy-by-design principles.

These include features: (a) age-appropriate design; (b) high-privacy default settings applied for minors; and (c) safer recommender settings for young users. Such upstream measures would ensure that our protections are not only reactive but proactive making the digital environment safer before harm occurs. Hence, I hope that the Government will actively work with major online and mobile platforms on this.

In conclusion, Mr Deputy Speaker, this Bill gives Singapore a strong framework: defines harms; swift administrative directions; and civil routes for redress. But to make online safety real, we must pair with speed, prevention, and accessibility. This is how we build an online environment that is safe, fair and inclusive, while upholding responsible speech and due process. I stand in support of the Bill.

Mr Deputy Speaker: Mr Xie Yao Quan.

6.44 pm

Mr Xie Yao Quan (Jurong Central): Sir, it is worthwhile to take a step back and see where we are as a jurisdiction today in securing the online commons for our people, and where we will be if we pass OSRA today.

It was opportune that we debated and passed the Criminal Law (Miscellaneous Amendments) Act yesterday. That Bill provided enhanced penalties under our criminal laws for many of the same online harms that are the subject of this Bill. Online harms, such as image abuse, circulation of obscene materials, including child abuse materials, AI-generated images, doxxing and so on.

Previously, Parliament had also passed other Acts, like OCHA, to deal with online scams, hate speech and so on. In other words, we have been keeping our criminal laws up to date and fit for purpose, and these updated laws provide our people the assurance of statutory retribution for online harms.

Operating alongside our criminal laws, OSRA, before us today, will provide statutory relief, including injunctive relief and statutory torts and civil remedies for online harms. Taken together, this body of laws, while providing justice to our people experiencing online harms, can also help deter online harmful actors, thus further protecting our people in the online commons.

I will say that on the whole, the Government has done a tremendous job architecting our laws to protect and secure the online commons for our people, in a very thoughtful, thorough, yet calibrated and pragmatic manner.

This is an important thought, because after OSRA is passed today, if it is passed, the focus will increasingly turn towards the enforcement of these laws, the implementation of policy and the painstaking work of building up organisations, capabilities and practice to deliver on the intended legislative and policy outcomes. Implementation is policy, and the focus will turn towards implementation. Minister Josephine alluded to this in her speech as well.

And so, the point I wish to make is this: that in implementation, let us have trust that the Government will go about this implementation in the same thoughtful, thorough, yet calibrated and pragmatic way as it had architected our laws for the online commons.

Being a later speaker in this debate, I have had the privilege to hear many colleagues who spoke earlier. Most called for sufficient resourcing of OSC to handle workload and do its job, and most also called for clear service levels – time taken between reporting and relief – to give Singaporeans certainty and assurance of the relief they can expect when they report to OSC.

I understand where colleagues are coming from. Speed of relief is, indeed, so crucial for victims of online harm. And this Bill, which provides for the establishment of a dedicated agency to deliver such relief to victims of online harm, could not have come soon enough. And so our natural instincts will be to say, "Let us get the relief out to the victims who need it today, who needed it yesterday. Let us get this relief out quickly."

But the reality is that building up an organisation, building up capabilities, especially fast-cycle capabilities, takes time. We cannot rush the building of fast-cycle capabilities, paradoxically. So, I hope all of us, including and, perhaps, starting from this House, can give the Government the time and space needed to build up OSC properly, so that it can deliver the quick, effective, on-point relief that we, ultimately, are all seeking out for victims, present and future.

On workload and resourcing of OSC, my thoughts are as follows. MDDI's survey has found that one-third of respondents experienced online harm in the past year. We have more than three million Singaporeans alone in our population. And so, if the MDDI survey is representative of the general population, we could well be looking at hundreds of thousands of potentially reportable online harms every year.

How might we be able to resource OSC to deal with a potential workload like this? I am going to posit that we may never be able to resource it enough, because, fundamentally, there will be, to a large degree, what we call supply-induced demand for the OSC's services. Meaning, the more services the OSC supplies, the more demand it may actually induce and therefore, demand will likely keep running ahead of supply.

And so, beyond doing our level best to resource OSC to keep up with demand, the central task of implementation, in my mind, is to keep the gap between supply by OSC and demand for OSC tight. This means we must also find a way to manage demand, to manage expectations – manage our expectations – on OSC.

On service levels, report to relief times and having clear guidelines and standards at the outset, especially given the Australians' experience with operationalising their eSafety Commission, I, myself, have thought about this issue a fair bit and I have come to the conclusion that it may be better for us to not impose definitive performance guidelines on OSC at this stage, as we are building it up. Rather, I say, let us give time and space for OSC to establish a baseline, to establish its rhythm and give time and space for supply and demand to find an equilibrium and most importantly, give time and space for all of us to go through the necessary discovery process on relief standards collectively – as a society. And then, we can look to codify these service levels and standards at the right time.

Because as what the Minister alluded to, we have very few precedents to refer to and OSC has to pretty much create its own playbook. So, the best way to set OSC up for success, borrowing the hon Member, Mr Sharael Taha's words, "the best way to set it up for success is to give it the time and space to build itself up properly."

In the meantime, like I said, let us trust that the Government will go about implementing OSC with the same verve and in the same thoughtful, thorough, yet calibrated and pragmatic manner that it has architected our laws to secure the online commons. Sir, I support the Bill.

Mr Deputy Speaker: Mr Ng Shi Xuan.

6.54 pm

Mr Ng Shi Xuan (Sembawang): Deputy Speaker, Sir, I rise in support of the Bill. For the young, or whom we call the digital natives, the Internet is their classroom to the world, where they learn, play and form friendships. Yet, this classroom has few teachers at the door.

I have met parents who tell me their children can mute a chat or delete a post, but they cannot delete the hurt or the humiliation that came with it. Online harms – whether harassment, doxxing or intimate-image abuse – can follow a child home long after the device is switched off.

This Bill gives victims faster, cheaper routes to seek help. It also holds platforms more responsible for keeping their spaces safe. I support this Bill because it recognises two simple truths: that people need protection and platforms need accountability. However, I would like to seek clarifications on the points below.

Sir, I seek clarification on how the statutory torts under OSRA interact with those already in POHA. Both laws allow victims to take civil action, but if their boundaries are unclear, victims may end up filing under multiple laws – OSRA, POHA and common law, all at once.

That could inflate time and cost, which runs counter to OSRA's intent for quick and affordable relief. I hope the Ministry can issue guidelines or practice directions to make these boundaries clear on when OSRA applies and when POHA remains the better channel. Clarity will help claimants, lawyers and judges navigate cases efficiently, reducing unnecessary litigation.

Sir, one key motivation behind this Bill was to protect children and youths from cyberbullying and emotional harm. Yet, the current text does not distinguish between victims who are minors and adults. I hope OSC will develop tiered response protocols that give priority to victims under-18, especially when harm is ongoing.

If we can respond quickly to a child being targeted online, we can often prevent lasting damage. Online safety should be seen as part of raising happy and healthy children, not separate from it. Our online space must give children room to explore safely – to learn, play and make mistakes, without being preyed upon.

I hope that OSC can also work closely with relevant Government agencies and non-governmental organisations to educate and empower victims to speak up. It is imperative that the protections and recourse available to victims, especially those from vulnerable groups, are easily understandable and accessible. Doing so will help to encourage victims to seek help early and safely.

I have received feedback expressing concerns that victims may run the risk of being exposed to further harm by seeking recourse under the proposed new legislation. To ensure that the new legislation achieves its intended purpose of protecting victims, adequate safeguards should be implemented, including to safeguard the victims' identities and to ensure that the process is fair. In this regard, I am heartened to see that the Bill contains certain safeguards, including clause 54, which imposes secrecy obligations on persons who may receive sensitive information in the course of carrying out their duties; and Part 7, which establishes mechanisms for reconsiderations and appeals.

In addition, I have received feedback that seeks clarity on the types of information that would be considered "private information" for the purposes of clause 11 of the Bill, including sexual orientation, gender identity, sexual diseases or sex-related occupation status. Although the definition of this phrase in the Bill is worded in wide terms and the illustration makes it clear that non-public information relating to medical conditions constitutes private information, it would, perhaps, provide clarity and assurance to potential victims if regulations, which are contemplated under clause 11(2) of the Bill, are swiftly introduced following the passage of the Bill.

I have also received feedback regarding the list of persons who are eligible to make a report to the Commissioner on behalf of a victim under clause 22(2)(a) of the Bill. In particular, there are concerns that there may be victims, who are under the age of 18, who may either be estranged from their parents or guardians, or are fearful of informing them of the online harm that is occurring to them. For example, due to shame associated with the information that is being published about them online, a minor could be fearful of informing his or her parents. Could the Minister clarify the recourse that the minor would have in such a scenario, please?

This Bill builds on lessons from other countries. UK and Australia have implemented similar online safety laws, and it would be useful to understand whether their experiences led to fewer harms or faster response times. If certain measures have proven effective, we should localise and adapt them early. For example, the Australia Online Safety Act requires platforms to comply with removal notices relating to children within 24 hours. Could the Minister clarify the principles that would give the Commissioner's imposition of deadlines for compliance with directions issued under our Act, and whether guidelines embodying such principles will be published, please?

Sir, as someone who supports a pro-enterprise environment, I recognise that compliance must also be realistic. Large platforms have legal teams, moderators and automated filters. Smaller and community-based platforms, including start-ups and local networks, may not.

To keep the playing field level, I hope the Commission will provide clear workflows and templates for reporting and response; set service benchmarks on how quickly cases are acknowledged, investigated and resolved; and offer capacity-building support, such as training, reporting templates or open-source moderation tools, for smaller platforms to plug into. Otherwise, we risk a two-speed digital economy where global platforms comply easily while smaller innovators struggle to keep up. Regulation should lift everyone, not leave the smaller players behind.

Sir, the success of this Bill will also depend on how OSC is set up and supported. OSC will carry heavy responsibilities – from handling victim reports to issuing directions to platforms and coordinating with law enforcement. It must, therefore, be adequately resourced, not only with technical and legal expertise, but with experienced officers who understand the social and emotional dimensions of online harm.

To build public confidence, OSC should not only set but publish clear service benchmarks publicly, on how quickly cases are acknowledged, investigated and resolved. However, this is different from an annual reporting, as service standards are listed out clearly and pre-emptively, rather than post-incident. This is akin to how teachers would set out clear rules in their classrooms prior to conflicts and bullying. The success of OSC should lie in whether parents, children and all users of our online space feel safe even before logging online.

In time, I hope the Commission will also act as an educator and facilitator, promoting digital literacy and empathy across communities.

Deputy Speaker, Sir, OSRA is like a set of classroom rules in our digital school to ensure every Singaporean, especially our young, can learn, share and express themselves safely. Sir, in Mandarin, please.

(In Mandarin): Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I support the Online Safety (Relief and Accountability) Bill.

The Internet is like our digital campus and should be a place where people can communicate, learn and grow with peace of mind. This Bill can help the victims obtain relief more quickly and requires online platforms to take responsibility. However, the Government should also pay attention to the following during implementation.

First, clarify the distinction between this Bill and POHA. Second, prioritise cases of online harm involving minors. Third, ensure that the OSC has sufficient resources and capabilities to assist small- and medium-sized platforms to improve their content control standards.

( In English ): Sir, in conclusion, I support this Bill because it protects our people, strengthens accountability and encourages a healthier digital culture. But beyond regulation, it also reminds us of our shared duty to build a safe digital environment for our young.

Mr Deputy Speaker: Dr Choo Pei Ling.

7.04 pm

Dr Choo Pei Ling (Chua Chu Kang): Mr Deputy Speaker, in Mandarin, please.

(In Mandarin): I support the Online Safety (Relief and Accountability) Bill. The Bill is timely.

The Bill will empower the newly established OSC to take action against users who abuse the Internet to harm others. Victims of online harassment or malicious disclosure of their privacy will receive more timely and comprehensive protection and will be able to seek compensation. The Commission will be able to instruct distributors of harmful content, platform administrators and platform operators to remove harmful content, restrict perpetrator accounts or publish victim responses. These measures will help curb many forms of online misconduct and are crucial for building a responsible and healthy online ecosystem.

The enactment of this Bill is a landmark achievement in shaping a civilised, responsible and trustworthy online environment. I sincerely thank all relevant departments and the public for their efforts and contributions over the past five years. I am gratified and encouraged to see everyone working together to make the online environment safer and more civilised.

The Internet's appeal lies in connecting people and ideas around the world, fostering understanding and solidarity. However, it has also been abused for disseminating pornography and violence, cyberbullying and inciting racial or religious conflict. Many of these misdeeds are carried out anonymously and this trend is escalating.

Currently, the avenues for help available to Internet victims are extremely limited. Beyond the direct psychological and emotional harm, we are also seeing increasing indirect impacts. Many people are beginning to self-censor, even choosing to reduce their Internet use to protect themselves and their families. If we do not address this issue promptly, this online environment will further deteriorate.

I welcome the establishment of the new OSC to enable victims to seek timely remedies. I cheer the Government's decision to enhance information and identity disclosures. Especially important is the introduction of statutory torts. They will provide victims the legal basis to seek accountability.

I understand that enforcement will require significant resources and hence, the OSC will start with five of the 13 types of online harms, focusing on online harassment, doxxing, online stalking, intimate image abuse and image-based child abuse. I support the Ministry's plan to progressively expand coverage. At the same time, I would like to ask, when would the other online harms be progressively included?

I would like to express appreciation on behalf of some of my residents who have shared they have been victims of doxxing. They shared that their addresses, car numbers and details of when they are resting are being shared online, as are videos and photos showing their family members, neighbours and visitors.

I would like to ask the Minister whether the OSC will address such problems in online private chat groups, such as WhatsApp and Telegram? If so, what actions will the OSC take? In addition, the POHA provide protection from online harassment as well. How can victims decide on when to seek help from OSC or POHA?

With this new legislative framework, new standards will be set for online behaviour and communication. Over time, these guidelines will guide our Internet users. I urge relevant departments to continue raising public awareness of this new framework and its corresponding penalties. Internet abusers must understand that they can no longer easily hide behind seemingly anonymous avatars and commit offences, they would be punished if they do so.

Under the Bill, individuals may be fined up to $20,000 and jailed for up to 12 months, while entities may be fined up to $500,000 for failing to comply with the OSC’s orders. I urge the Ministries to consider increasing the caps for the fines and jail terms and include caning, to empower judges to have more discretion for particularly egregious crimes. In the UK, the Online Safety Act can impose penalties of up to S$31 million.

[Mr Speaker in the Chair]

Finally, I would like to ask about adult victims who refuse to lodge complaints with OSC due to fear of the perpetrators, for example. Under special circumstances, can someone else lodge, even if the victims do not give consent?

( In English ): Mr Speaker, online harm is real, and its impact is deeply personal. This Bill sends a clear message: our digital spaces must be safe, accountable and respectful. Victims deserve swift protection and perpetrators must know – anonymity is not immunity.

This new online safety framework enhances protection online and provides an additional option for victims who want quick termination of online harm. We currently have several statutes to deal with harmful online activities, content and interactions – POHA, the Broadcasting Act, POFMA, the Foreign Interference (Countermeasures) Act and OCHA.

I hope that there will be public education and awareness campaigns to help Singaporeans and residents understand their uses; and hotlines or centres where victims can approach for advice and assistance. With this, I would like to conclude with my support for the Bill.

Mr Speaker: Mr Cai Yinzhou.

7.12 pm

Mr Cai Yinzhou (Bishan-Toa Payoh): Mr Speaker, Sir, I rise today in support of the Online Safety Bill.

A recent survey by MDDI found that in the past year, more than four in five Singapore residents encountered harmful online content across platforms, like Facebook, Youtube, Instagram, TikTok, X, Reddit, Telegram and WhatsApp. This highlights a clear and urgent need to enhance current mechanisms for help seeking relief.

The Bill is, therefore, a crucial and timely step to ensure that the safety and civility we value in the physical world, on our streets, extend to our digital lives. An anecdote that Minister Edwin Tong had alluded to as well.

An Institute of Policy Studies survey found that sexual content depicting voyeuristic or intimate images recorded without consent was overwhelmingly perceived as the most severe of online harms. Victims need fast action. The current reality, as an IMDA report revealed, is that major platforms often took five days or more to act appropriately on user reports of harmful content. For a victim whose intimate images have been non-consensually recorded and distributed publicly, five days can be catastrophic.

I am, therefore, concerned about the need for timely relief and clarity of the administrative process for victims of online harm.

The Bill rightly grants the Commissioner wide discretion to carry out its own investigation and empowers to issue legally enforceable directions to take down content and restrict accounts.

I understand that it will take time and extensive consultations, after the appointment of the Commissioner and other relevant office holders, to formulate the detailed rules governing how the Commissioner may exercise investigative powers. I, therefore, seek clarification on the Commissioner's investigative process, specifically on the following questions:

Will the Commissioner publish advisory guidelines indicating the expected timelines for the investigation and resolution of a complaint, with processes put in place for urgent investigations to take place? Will the perpetrator being investigated be made aware of the investigation, and at what stage? What information will be disclosed to the perpetrator about the complaint made against them?

I understand the Commissioner is already working with SHE in the design of this initiative, including referral to SHECARES@SCWO for counselling and pro bono legal advice.

Will the Commissioner consider engaging other organisations who provide victim care and support, like AWARE's Sexual Assault Care Centre and Project X, to improve trauma-informed processes and joint case management and outreach to encourage more victims, especially those in minority communities, to be assured when seeking help.

For victims under immense stress, clarity on the steps involved for bringing a complaint and the expected time for resolution is vital. With great power holds great responsibility, and the transparency of the process can help reassure and encourage help-seeking efforts.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I appreciate how this Bill is a product of extensive consultation. A month-long public consultation on the proposed legislation, which received broad public support and directly informed the final Bill. Our citizens have asked for accountability and this Bill delivers.

This legislation strikes a critical balance. It empowers the victim, yet holds the perpetrator accountable, and sets clear expectations for platforms. It is a necessary act of legislative fortitude to protect our citizens in an increasingly complex digital world. Notwithstanding these clarifications, I support the Bill.

Mr Speaker: Ms Lee Hui Ying.

7.16 pm

Ms Lee Hui Ying (Nee Soon): Mr Speaker, Sir, the Online Safety (Relief and Accountability) Bill is one that I, as well as many Singaporeans and my residents, support fully.

With the growing prevalence of cyberbullying and the rise of illegal black markets and harmful online chatrooms that benefit profit from disseminating obscene and dangerous materials, this Bill could not have come at a more timely moment.

It is even more important that Singapore will be among the first countries to introduce comprehensive legislation on this issue, a significant milestone that did not happen overnight. It took years to get here; years of heart, hope and hard work by the many stakeholders and public officers.

In supporting this Bill, I have four clarifications: two concerning the contents of the Bill and two concerning its enforcement.

Part 12 of the Bill imposes obligations on online service providers to respond to reports against certain harmful content in a timely and adequate manner, with the potential for tortious liability if they fail to do so.

Currently, many major social media platforms, such as Instagram and TikTok, have internal reporting mechanisms and community guidelines, which will need to be aligned with the new legislation. Some of these platforms already provide warning labels for potentially distressing images, for example, content that may contain self-harm, violence or sensitive materials.

However, I note that there may still be grey areas. Certain artistic or educational materials, which are excluded from the definition of obscene materials under clause 9(2), may still be distressing for some users.

In the UK, for example, their Online Safety framework has included protections for what is called "epileptic trolling", content that is designed to trigger seizures and other materials that may trigger individuals with mental health conditions.

To ensure that such Singaporeans do not fall through the gaps, may I ask the Minister whether the Government would consider requiring online service providers to implement warning systems for potentially harmful content?

My second question concerns an issue close to the hearts of many Singaporeans, especially our senior youths and that is cyberbullying. This has become an issue of serious public concern in recent years and there is growing anxiety that our youths and senior youths' young children are being exposed to obscene and harassing behaviours online. It is critical that we create a safe online environment for our young.

So, I would like to ask the Minister whether we are considering to introducing strict liability for certain classes of offences under the Bill, to strengthen deterrence and provide stronger protection for the public, especially our young children?

A further concern relates to enforcement, especially in cases where harmful content is disseminated through transnational online platforms. A lot of these harmful materials are transnational in nature, or if not, the online platforms themselves that host these materials are transnational themselves. Some global companies have proactively aligned their internal policies with global legislation on online harms, while others have not been as forthcoming.

Given that Parts 5 and 6 of the Bill will require the cooperation of entities and individuals beyond our borders, I would like to ask the Minister how will the Government currently intend to work with these transnational stakeholders? And if work has already started, what are the current stakeholder sentiments and negotiations done to ensure that such online platforms, in particular, adopts and abides by the Online Safety Bill?

Finally, Mr Speaker, Sir, this Bill matters deeply to Singaporeans because the harms it addresses are personal and oftentimes, deeply traumatic and can be financially burdensome to some.

Under the current framework, victims must first report harmful content to the relevant service provider and in more serious cases, escalate it to the newly established Online Harms Commission. The Bill also provides for victims to bring civil actions against offenders or platforms in cases of online harm.

As the hon Member Mr David Hoe has also mentioned, many Singaporeans may lack the financial resources to pursue such claims. May I ask if we could consider allowing online harm torts to be heard before the Small Claims Tribunals or alternatively, provide legal or financial assistance for victims seeking redress through civil action?

The technology and social landscape will continue to evolve, and while this Bill marks an important step forward, the work should not stop here.

Ensuring a safe and trusted online space requires a holistic approach, one that looks beyond legislation to how we build a supportive and resilient ecosystem. This includes strengthening community networks and drawing on the support of stakeholders, such as social and religious organisations, as well as deepening public education efforts.

Together, these efforts will foster a culture of responsibility, empathy and care in our digital spaces.

This Bill represents a crucial step forward in safeguarding our digital spaces and ensuring that our laws keep pace with the realities of the online world. I hope this brings safer spaces online, with protection and recourse for all. Mr Speaker, notwithstanding these clarifications, I support the Bill.

Mr Speaker: Ms Elysa Chen.

7.22 pm

Ms Elysa Chen (Bishan-Toa Payoh): Mr Speaker, Sir, I rise in support of the Online Safety (Relief and Accountability) Bill. This legislation is a thoughtful and compassionate response to the growing challenge of online harms, such as cyberbullying, intimate image abuse, doxxing and online stalking.

These are not just breaches of privacy, but attacks on dignity and are harms that leave deep scars on victims, scars that are no less real for being inflicted through screens rather than in person. When people experience online harm, every hour of delay multiplies their suffering. That is why we need to act quickly.

The establishment of the OSC by the first half of 2026 demonstrates the Government's commitment to protecting Singaporeans in our increasingly digital lives. Our citizens deserve an agency that can act swiftly on their behalf, providing the support and relief they need during what can be a highly vulnerable moment. I am deeply grateful to the Minister and the entire Ministry team for their dedication in crafting this important piece of legislation and I hope to explore several queries where additional clarity and detail would help us achieve our common goal of protecting Singaporeans online.

First, on extraterritorial enforcement and international cooperation for cross-border protection. The Bill wisely grants extraterritorial reach, recognising the global nature of online harm. Online harms rarely stop at our shores. A perpetrator in another country can cause immense damage here. I appreciate that the Bill includes important tools, such as access blocking in section 44 and app removal in section 45 and that it establishes calibrated penalties that reflect the seriousness of non-compliance. These provisions show careful thought about practical enforcement.

Like Mr Foo Cexiang, I hope the Minister can share how the Government intends to enforce this law outside Singapore's territory other than access blocking and app removal orders. I note that access blocking can be circumvented with technology like VPNs; apps can be accessed by means other than app stores, for example, through web versions. What are the concrete steps for enforcement of directions and orders against overseas actors? Are there plans to expand the available slate of mechanisms and means of enforcement, or if there are any international cooperation protocols for extraterritorial enforcement? Let us build international partnerships that match the borderless nature of the Internet with equally borderless protection for victims.

Second, many Members have already pointed out the need to adequately resource the Commission. I will not belabour this point. The Commission's promise is clear – to offer swift relief for those facing online harm. The Commission will also seek to handle reports across 13 categories of online harms, with a phased approach implementing five categories by mid-2026 and others following progressively.

Could the Minister share what is the estimated case load expected for the new Commissioner's Office and Appeal Panel, and how resourcing will scale with time?

The victims who turn to the Commission will be in their most vulnerable state. Let us make sure the system they encounter is not just efficient, but also humane, staffed by people who listen, understand and act with compassion.

Third, on appropriate oversight and accountability. Section 64 establishes an Appeal Committee to review the Commissioner's decisions. The Appeal Committee has been granted powers to affirm, revoke or vary decisions and directions, providing an important internal check on decision-making.

Given the significant powers being granted to the OSC, including directions carrying criminal consequences and orders with substantial penalties, I believe that clear accountability mechanisms will strengthen public trust and confidence in the system.

I would like to ask if the decisions of Appeal Committees regarding the Commissioner's reconsidered decisions may be further appealable to the courts. Judicial oversight by direct appeal would ensure accountability, fairness and transparency and thus strengthen the credibility of the OSC. To address concerns of ensuring swift and low-cost resolution for the relevant parties, there can be prescribed short timelines, standard forms and low court fees. This would be a similar approach to that under POFMA.

Fourth, on inter-agency collaboration. I appreciate that section 5(1)(e) requires the Commissioner to collaborate with IMDA and other public agencies, and section 24(4)(d) allows appropriate referrals. This reflects understanding that protecting Singaporeans online requires coordinated effort across Government.

Many situations, including doxxing with intent to harass, non-consensual sharing of intimate images and image-based child abuse, constitute both harm under this Bill and criminal offences requiring Police involvement.

How will the Commissioner's actions and investigations coordinate with possible Police investigations into potential criminal offences arising from the same online activity? Will there be a framework to automatically refer certain types of online harm cases to the Police? When agencies work seamlessly, victims would not need to repeat their trauma at multiple doors, ensuring that the system itself becomes a source of healing, not exhaustion.

Fifth, on potential over censoring by online service providers (OSPs) and administrators. OSPs and administrators may over censor content to avoid risks. They may err on the side of caution and may remove content upon receiving any purported online harm notice that superficially appears to have some basis, unnecessarily silencing voices. Unlike the Commissioner's decisions, which can be reconsidered or appealed against, their decisions are not statutorily subject to reconsideration or appeal. While there is a statutory tort available to OSPs and administrators against people sending frivolous or false notices, people adversely impacted by their decisions have no statutory recourse. In most cases, there will be an imbalance of power and resources such that those impacted will have little or no means to pursue recourse.

Can we avail to people whose content have been removed by OSPs and administrators, statutory torts similar to sections 91 and 94 if OSPs and administrators fail to respond reasonably to online harm notices by unreasonably removing their content? Would the Ministry consider mechanisms for recourse, a form of appeal or review, to ensure that fairness applies not just to victims of online harm, but also to users who are wrongly penalised by overzealous moderation?

I would like to end off this speech by calling for comprehensive online protection for our children and young people.

Today, the Code of Practice for Online Safety covers six designated social media services and the new Code of Practice for App Distribution Services, effective 31 March 2025 and introduces important age assurance measures.

Building on this strong foundation, I hope we might explore opportunities to extend these protections even further. Our young people are creative and curious, exploring online spaces we might not immediately think of as social media. Games like Roblox, Minecraft and Fortnite bring children together but include private messaging functionalities where risks can emerge. Messaging platforms, like Discord, WhatsApp and Telegram enable connections but can also expose young users to unwanted contact and harmful content.

Would we consider extending privacy safeguards and age assurance to gaming platforms, messaging apps and other services where young people gather by requiring these platforms to implement similar protective features such as disabling unwanted messages, restricting profile viewing, disabling location sharing, and empowering parents to guide the content their children access?

Furthermore, as our young people increasingly engage with generative AI services and chatbots, I hope we might consider whether age assurance and safety features should extend to these emerging technologies. Children approach AI with trust and curiosity. We should ensure these powerful tools are designed with their safety in mind.

The Broadcasting Act amendments and Codes of Practice represent genuine progress. I hope we can continue this important work, advancing "safety by design" principles across the entire digital ecosystem our children and young people inhabit. This must be coupled with continued public education across all segments of our society, especially parents and young persons, on digital safety, so every child and young person can explore, learn, create and connect safely.

Mr Speaker, Sir, when there is a fire, we do not delay while the flames spread. Online harm spreads in the same way a fire does: fast, invasive and devastating, and every second counts. With this Bill, we are ensuring that when victims cry out, the system answers not with delay, but with decisive, immediate protection.

A law is only as strong as its capacity to be enforced. Let us ensure that this Commission has the teeth, resources, and clarity to deliver justice by providing clarity on how legal pathways work together, guidance that helps everyone understand proportionality, robust international cooperation, adequate resourcing, appropriate oversight, seamless inter-agency coordination, balanced platform responses and comprehensive protection for children. Mr Speaker, Sir, I support the Bill.

Mr Speaker: Minister of State Rahayu Mahzam.

7.32 pm

Ms Rahayu Mahzam: Mr Speaker, I thank Members for their support and interest in this Bill. We are all in agreement that victims should have access to swift and effective relief. Statistics and stories tell us this is what victims primarily want. We also all agree that the implementation of OSRA is key and that the OSC must always be fair and consistent in its decisions with accountability through due processes. There is consensus that platforms also need to do their part in creating safer online space for their users.

I am heartened that both sides of the House are aligned in wanting to do more to help victims of online harms.

Where we differ is in some of the details. We thank the WP for proposing the amendments, which we have considered seriously, because we share the common goal of helping victims of online harms.

We think OSRA strikes the right balance as it stands, between swift protection for vulnerable victims with sufficient accountability through reconsideration and appeal. What is important are the outcomes when the OSC commences operations. We all want the OSC to succeed, and in this vein, I ask Members to give OSC the time and space to stand up what we all agree are new and novel functions, so that it can progressively build its muscles to help victims.

I acknowledge that Members have questions about the statutory reporting mechanism and how the OSC will carry out its functions. Understandably so, given that this is a new agency that we are setting up, I will address Members' questions thematically.

First, on the scope of the OSRA Bill and its interaction with other laws. Members have noted that there are several statutes addressing harmful online content and conduct.

Mr Speaker, when faced with an online harm, what most victims want is direct and timely relief. This includes removing the harm as soon as possible. With the OSRA Bill and the set-up of the OSC, we hope that victims will be granted more timely relief with a new channel for support.

Besides timely redress, the OSRA Bill also expands the scope of online harms covered in our current criminal and regulatory regime. From the research and surveys on online harms in Singapore, we know of emerging issues like inauthentic material abuse, also known as "deepfakes" and online instigation of disproportionate harm, or "cancel campaigns". With this, we hope to protect victims not just from existing but future harms.

Therefore, the OSRA Bill is complementary to the existing laws and frameworks. Most importantly, it supports victims in ways they have asked for, putting a stop to the online harm as soon as possible.

Ms Tin Pei Ling, Mr Henry Kwek and Dr Choo Pei Ling have asked how victims can navigate the various laws, and whether they would need to make multiple reports when seeking help for online harms. Mr Gabriel Lam and Ms Elysa Chen raised the need for clear processes and guidance on how victims can approach the various agencies like the Police, IMDA and the OSC.

Mr Speaker, I wish to assure Members that we will adopt a no-wrong-door policy for victims of online harms. The OSC will work closely with other agencies, including the Police, to ensure backend coordination and minimise the need for multiple reports. This means that regardless of which agency a victim first approaches, they will be guided on the appropriate help. I also take Mr David Hoe’s point that the process of online harm reporting should be kept simple and accessible. We will bear this in mind as we refine the OSC’s operational details.

Some Members have also asked about the scope of the harms covered by the OSRA Bill. Ms Tin Pei Ling raised the point that victim’s exposure to online harms may be prolonged if we are unclear about what constitutes online harms in the OSRA Bill.

With the OSRA Bill, we sought to clearly capture the key characteristics of each harm. To aid public understanding, explanatory notes and illustrations are included, where appropriate. I would also like to refer Members to Handout 4, which gives further illustrative examples.

While we have given definitions for each of these harms in the OSRA Bill, the OSC will assess each case based on its unique context and facts. I think Members would know that no two types of online harm will be the same. Some flexibility must be accorded to the OSC to act according to the harm concerned.

Ms He Ting Ru suggested that we consider including sexual grooming and the publication of online material that encourages or promotes suicide or acts of self-injury as specified online harms that OSRA covers. We agree with the Member that these are egregious harms, and I have explained why these harms would be better addressed through other legislation in our online safety framework.

Under the Broadcasting Act today, the IMDA would already be able to issue directions to platforms to disable Singapore users' access to egregious content on online communication services, such as social media services and app stores. Such content includes child sexual exploitation material and content advocating or instructing on suicide or self-harm. If such online content is connected to the commission of criminal offences, action can be taken under the Penal Code or Online Criminal Harms Act.

If sexual grooming is displayed through online harassment or stalking conduct, the victim will have recourse to seek directions from the OSC. For the victim, who is under 18 years old, a parent or guardian can make a report on their behalf.

On the suggestion to add "fair comment" exception to online harassment and public interest exception to the harms of non-consensual disclosure of private information and online instigation of disproportionate harm, I would like to highlight to Members that these factors will be taken into consideration as the Commissioner assesses each case. If we included the suggestions and make them exceptions to the online harms, communication that meets the "fair comment" or "public interest" criterion will automatically not be actionable by the OSC.

In comparison, the current formulation allows the OSC to consider a basket of factors when deciding whether to issue directions.

Specifically, clause 27 states that the OSC can consider whether the comment was reasonable and the circumstances the comment was made in deciding whether OSC should issue a direction. This allows the OSC to weigh whether something counts as "fair comment" or "public interest", while also considering the features of the post, and not immediately say it cannot act. So, if a member of a public raises in good faith or exposes serious wrongdoing, this will be taken into account as part of OSC's case assessment. We should not pre-emptively restrict the OSC from considering any one factor.

Leader of the Opposition, Mr Pritam Singh, and Mr Ng Shi Xuan sought clarity on what would be considered private information. Private information refers to information about a person that is not widely available to the public at large, as explained in Handout 4 that Members received earlier. This includes someone's medical history.

Mr Ng has asked whether the harm of non-consensual disclosure of private information would cover information such as sexual orientation and gender identity. We believe as a matter of principle that generally everyone in Singapore should be protected against having their private information shared publicly without consent. Hence, if such information was not public before and disclosed without consent, the person can file a report to the OSC. As we implement this harm in future, the Minister may issue regulations to clarify the types of information that is or is not private information.

Ms Mariam Jaafar highlighted the need for the OSRA Bill to be technology-neutral and future-ready to deal with harms generated by algorithms and AI. I wish to assure the Member that the 13 harms under the OSRA Bill are generally technology-neutral. As shared in Handout 4, if person D uses an application to digitally alter an image of person C fully clothed into a nude image and posts it online without consent, that would be intimate image abuse.

We recognise that online harms are constantly evolving, and new harms may emerge over time, especially with the proliferation of new technologies. The OSRA Bill allows the Minister to prescribe additional types of online activity that are likely to cause harm to persons in Singapore. We will continuously review the online landscape and expand the list of harms, if there is a need to, in future. This will be done judiciously.

For the harm of “inauthentic material abuse”, Ms Cassandra Lee asked for clarity on how "likeness" would be assessed in the context of AI-generated content and whether there needs to be intent to mislead. The OSC will assess based on objective standards whether the content is a false or misleading depiction of the victim’s words, actions or conduct; and if it is realistic enough such that a reasonable person would believe that the victim said such words or did such actions or conduct. Such content may cross the thresholds of likely to cause the victim harassment, alarm, distress or humiliation, even if there was no intent to mislead.

Ms Elysa Chen asked about how the harm of "publication of statement harmful to reputation" interacts with defamation under common law. For the harm of "publication of statement harmful to reputation", the only direction that may be issued by the Commissioner is a Right-of-Reply Direction. This enables a victim to put out their reply or their side of the story quickly in order to protect their reputation, which matters especially in the online world where allegations spread with great speed and ease.

We see this as a complementary pathway for the victim, that may be an alternative to, or concurrent with, a defamation suit. A victim may find sufficient relief in a Right-of-Reply Direction, that they no longer need to resort to a defamation suit. Or, they may still need or want to sue, for example to seek monetary damages. In either case, putting their reply out helps to limit the damages suffered.

Ms Elysa Chen asked how the OSC would ascertain disproportionality in the case of "online instigation of disproportionate harm" (OIDH) and if there will be guidelines published for what constitutes disproportionate harm. [Please refer to the clarification later in the debate.]

As illustrated in Handout 4, disproportionate harm can take on various forms, such as physical harm. The Bill currently lists non-exhaustive factors that the OSC may consider when assessing the requirement of disproportionality, such as whether the act instigated is or is likely to constitute a criminal offence and the nature and severity of the harm mentioned.

The OIDH framework does not mean that members of public can no longer call out certain problematic behaviours, or express views on issues of public interest. Even as we reject mob behaviour, we continue to uphold the principle that there must be space for online discussions, within the bounds of civility and respect.

Some Members, including Ms Valerie Lee and Ms Elysa Chen and Ms Eileen Chong, asked about the set-up and composition of the OSC. The appointed Commissioner for Online Safety will be someone of suitable seniority and experience. We will also ensure that the OSC is appropriately staffed with individuals that have the relevant experience and expertise, and have a good understanding of our society and online norms, so as to address reports as they come in.

Mr Henry Kwek and Ms He Ting Ru asked about training for OSC officers and if the OSC will be working with community partners to support victims of online harms who need psychological and legal support. OSC officers will be trained in communications and victim management to ensure that each case is handled sensitively. They will also refer victims requiring further support beyond the mitigation of an online harm to community partners.

Mr David Hoe suggested having a standing advisory group of relevant practitioners to provide guidance on online harms periodically. I thank Mr Hoe for the suggestion. Under the OSRA Bill, the Commissioner is empowered to consult with any person that the Commissioner thinks appropriate, for the purposes of performing the Commissioner's functions and duties. This could include the relevant experts and practitioners in the field of online safety.

Ms Elysa Chen, Mr Foo Cexiang, Mr Sharael Taha, Ms Yeo Wan Ling, Mr Xie Yao Quan and Mr David Hoe asked about the expected case load of OSC, and how it will be adequately resourced to provide effective and timely redress. We estimate the initial caseload of OSC to be high, based on various factors, including Australia's eSafety caseload for similar harms, adjusted for Singapore's population. We also took into account Singaporeans' Internet-use practices, such as the time spent online. Depending on the volume of the cases, we will calibrate and reallocate resources, as necessary, to resource and size OSC adequately.

Mr Cai Yinzhou asked about the rules that will govern how the OSC carries out its investigations to determine further action. Each case will be assessed based on the nature and severity of the harm, and investigations will be carried out fairly, working with the relevant agencies to determine the appropriate follow-up actions. The relevant parties will be notified at the appropriate junctures, as the OSRA Bill accords the OSC powers to require documents or information and to examine and secure attendance of persons for investigations. To Mr Pritam Singh's question, the Commissioner's power would not extend to the seizure of devices.

Overall, the focus will be to ensure that the victims are not denied timely relief, even as we accord due process to all involved. Mr Foo Cexiang also proposed expanding OSC's powers, such as by giving its officers powers under the Criminal Procedure Code. The scope and nature of every law is different; hence the respective officers are accorded different powers to ensure they are fit-for-purpose. In considering how OSC might conduct investigations in various scenarios, such as investigating reports to determine whether to issue a direction or offences under OSRA, we had accorded OSC the appropriate powers.

On the suggestion for the Commissioner to submit an annual report to Parliament, the OSC will consider publishing regular reports on its website for public awareness on online harms and the OSC's work. The OSC will require time to assess what and how to put up information that would complement its processes, as it gradually stands up its operations. We are, therefore, taking a more adaptive approach towards the OSC's publication of reports, as opposed to legislating this as a requirement.

The regular reports may include information on aggregated caseloads and anonymised case information, insofar as these do not re-traumatise victims. Members are also welcomed to file Parliamentary Questions to request such information, if it is not already published in the public domain.

On the suggestion for the OSRA Bill to require platforms to publish annual reports on their measures to enable users to seek recourse from harm and response times, among others. I would inform Members that under the Code of Practice for Online Safety – Social Media Services, designated social media services (DSMSs) with significant reach or impact in Singapore are already required to submit annual reports to be published on IMDA's website. These reports contain information on the DSMSs' measures to combat harmful and inappropriate content, and metrics, such as number of reports received from users, as well as the DSMSs' response time to act on these reports. IMDA also publishes an Online Safety Assessment Report. We will continue to drive the point on platforms' accountability through the OSRA Bill.

On the phased implementation of OSC's reporting mechanism, Mr Sharael Taha, Ms Yeo Wan Ling and Dr Choo Pei Ling asked about the timeline for introducing remaining categories of harm. Mr Sharael Taha and Ms Yeo Wan Ling also asked what happens when a victim experiences a form of harm covered only in a later phase.

Mr Speaker, as mentioned in my opening speech, we want to do right by the victims. A phased implementation approach is necessary so that OSC builds its capabilities in a sustainable and scalable way, focusing the right level of attention to each case, to ensure a positive user journey. It will also manage the OSC's caseload, allow officers to properly develop the necessary guidelines and frameworks, to ensure that the OSC's decisions are consistent and appropriate.

For a start, OSC will focus efforts on addressing the most severe and prevalent harms, such as online harassment and intimate image abuse. The remaining harms will follow progressively. If victims write in to the OSC regarding their experience of a specified online harm that is not covered in the first phase, officers will, nevertheless, guide the victims on the appropriate process. This could be making a report to the platforms, filing a Police report or reaching out to community partners for support.

Ms Cassandra Lee asked about measures to safeguard victims' confidentiality during the reporting process. I assure Members that all victims' reports will be stored securely, and the agency will adopt practices to ensure victims and all other parties involved are treated with sensitivity and care. We have also built-in legislative safeguards on preservation of secrecy. Unauthorised disclosure of information is an offence. Any information published for public education and awareness will be in an anonymised form.

Members, including Dr Choo Pei Ling and Mr Alex Yeo, sought clarifications on who can or cannot file reports to OSC. Dr Wan Rizal asked about the process for unions and professional bodies to file a report on behalf of their members.

Generally, victims have two options: they can submit a report on their own; or authorise another individual or entity to do so on their behalf. Where the victim is under 18, their parent or guardian can file a report on their behalf. To Dr Wan Rizal's question, unions and professional bodies can file reports to OSC if they obtain written authorisation from their member who suffered the specified online harm.

Mr Andre Low and Mr Pritam Singh asked for clarity regarding those with a prescribed connection to Singapore. I mentioned in my opening speech that we intend to prescribe foreigners who stay in Singapore for the long term. For a start, this would include foreign spouses who are in Singapore on a Long-Term Visit Pass. We are still studying the full scope and will share more details in due course.

Mr Ng Shi Xuan and Mr Alex Yeo had suggested for OSC to take differentiated approaches between groups of victims. I thank Members for the suggestions. For a start, the response time will likely be shorter for more severe harms.

Ms Tin Pei Ling and Ms Yeo Wan Ling asked about the measures to prevent devious characters from submitting vexatious reports or weaponising the OSC reporting mechanism. Dr Choo Pei Ling also asked how OSC can minimise mischief reports. OSC will have mechanisms in place to filter out and dismiss trivial, frivolous or vexatious reports. Those submitting a report will have to explain how the content or conduct is a specified online harmful activity and be required to declare that the information that they have provided is true. Submitting false information to the OSC will be an offence. If these complainants persistently make such reports, the OSC will also not consider any further reports from them. This would allow the OSC to focus its time and resources to the real victims who need redress.

On the OSC's assessment of reports, Mr Sharael Taha asked how the threshold for online harassment will be determined; Mr Andre Low asked whether victims who publish identity information of their harasser would be caught under doxxing; Mr Low and Ms Eileen Chong also asked about consistency in the OSC' decisions; and Mr Pritam Singh sought clarifications on the information that OSC will share at the reconsideration stage.

As drafted in the OSRA Bill, OSC will take an objective approach when assessing reports, and the thresholds for online harms are based on objective standards. While each case will be fact-specific, the "reasonable person" test is a well-established legal standard, including in tort and criminal law. The question will not be whether someone personally feels offended, but whether OSC has reason to suspect that online harmful activity was conducted, before issuing a direction.

Members discussed the thresholds of "reasonable grounds to believe" versus "reason to suspect". I would like to reiterate the points I made in my opening speech. First, that "reason to suspect" is an established legal threshold that applies in other legislation, such as the Online Criminal Harms Act. Second, we have assessed this threshold to be appropriate to meet the intent of ensuring that online harms can be stopped in a timely manner.

As mentioned in my opening speech, the OSC will also publish guidelines that will inform its decisions to ensure consistency and objectivity. These guidelines will inform the public on the factors that the Commissioner will take into account for present and future cases.

Victims and recipients of OSC's directions will be able to seek OSC's reconsideration if they disagree with it, and appeal to an independent Appeal Committee thereafter.

Ms Cassandra Lee asked about the requirement for victims to file reports to the platforms first before the OSC. We believe the platforms should be the first port of call or, as Dr Wan Rizal put it, "first responders". They have a duty to protect their users, and the statutory torts will make this clear, especially when notified by the users of harms on their service. The OSC will continue to work closely with the platforms to ensure that they comply with directions in a timely manner. Where platforms fail to act on online harms within 24 hours, victims can then file a report to the OSC.

Mr David Hoe, Ms Yeo Wan Ling, Ms Lee Hui Ying and Ms Mariam Jaafar raised broader points on platforms' design and accountability to prevent online harms, beyond OSRA and the OSC. In this regard, we will also continue working with the major platforms to ensure that they strengthen their online safety measures.

That said, we recognise that some harms are simply so serious or urgent that they warrant immediate intervention. Ms Valerie Lee asked for clarification on the categories of online harm that will be prioritised for urgent attention. For a start, victims can file a report directly to the OSC for the following harms: image-based child abuse, intimate image abuse and doxxing. In such cases, speed is of the essence to minimise the harm that may be caused to the victims.

Several Members of Parliament, like Mr Ng Shi Xuan, Dr Wan Rizal, Mr Sharael Taha, Mr Cai Yinzhou and Ms Yeo Wan Ling, have asked or spoken about the OSC's service benchmarks to respond to and resolve cases. Mr David Hoe also suggested laying out the operational process clearly, so victims are aware of the actions to be taken.

We want to ensure that victims get the help they need, as soon as possible. The OSC's response time and corresponding compliance timeline to a direction, will likely be shorter for more severe harms. Practically, some cases may be more easily resolved than others; for example, it may be easier to make out if the harm of intimate image abuse is present, as compared to a report on online harassment. For the latter, the OSC officer will have to go through the details more carefully, to understand the nature and the severity of the case.

Ms Valerie Lee asked whether the Commissioner will be required to conduct a preliminary assessment before issuing directions. The answer is yes. OSC will assess if it has reason to suspect that online harmful activity was conducted before issuing a direction.

To recap, the Commissioner will be empowered to issue directions to stop online harms from continuing to occur or to prevent further online harms from affecting the victim, where there is reason to suspect that the online harm was conducted in respect of the victim or the victim group. These directions will be used judiciously.

Mr Andre Low raised a few clarifications on specific directions. First, on the Engagement Reduction Directions. Mr Low had asked about the scenarios where Engagement Reduction Directions should be considered. Mr Speaker, I refer the Member to Handout 4, where we had illustrated a case where an Engagement Reduction Direction could be considered for an online harassment case to temporarily limit end users' liability to make posts mentioning a victim's name, thereby reducing engagement with insulting posts regarding a victim. The intent for such a direction would be to stem the virality of online harms, which can spread quickly through similar posts.

Second, Mr Low also asked about potential overreach when the OSC issues a Stop Communication (Class of Material) Direction. This direction protects victims from floods of harmful content, sharing common identifiers, such as a coordinated harassment campaign. Rather than requiring the Commissioner to identify each harmful post individually, the direction covers all such content in proportion to the scale of the harm occurring.

Mr Ng Shi Xuan raised the need to keep the playing field level for smaller platforms. We recognise that we must take a pragmatic approach when engaging the platforms on compliance with directions. This is why we intend to engage online platforms with significant reach or impact first, noting that the harms on such platforms have the potential to travel further and faster. Such platforms would also have the technical capabilities to implement more complex directions.

Mr Sharael Taha asked what qualifies as an online service provider and whether the term extends to closed or encrypted platforms, such as WhatsApp, Telegram and WeChat. He and Dr Choo Pei Ling also ask how the Bill would deal with cases arising from private or semi-private chat groups. Under the OSRA Bill, online service providers would include social media services and online messaging services, such as WhatsApp, Telegram and WeChat.

While we have no intentions to proactively intervene in private communications, I believe Members know how quickly something harmful can spread via private messages or in online chat groups. The OSC’s reporting mechanism is victim-led. For all harms except incitement of enmity, if a victim files a report to OSC and brings its attention to the specified online harms made via private communications, the OSC can then assess the case.

I refer Members to the example case given for intimate image abuse in Handout 4. Here, B posts an intimate image of A in an online chat group, without A’s consent. In such a case, the OSC can issue a Stop Communication Direction to the administrator of the group to remove B’s post. If this online chat group continues to circulate A’s intimate image on subsequent occasions, or intimate images of other persons, if made aware, the OSC could also consider an Access Disabling Direction to the platform whose service the chat group is maintained on. This will disable access to the chat group for Singapore users.

Next, Members sought clarifications on the OSC's reconsideration and appeal processes. Mr Zhulkarnain urged caution against allowing extensive appellate processes that risk re-traumatising victims. We are still working through the implementation of the Appeal Committee, including its powers to affirm, revoke, vary or substitute a reconsidered decision by the OSC. But I want to assure the public that each case will be given the necessary time and due consideration. Ms Elysa Chen would also be assured to know that it is possible for persons who are still dissatisfied with the decision of the Appeal Committee to seek to challenge it in the Courts by way of judicial review. We will provide more details on the appeal process at the later stage.

Ms Elysa Chen and Mr Foo Cexiang asked how the OSC will take enforcement action against bad actors who are overseas, noting the added complexity that technology like VPNs brings. Ms Lee Hui Ying and Mr Henry Kwek also asked how we would ensure that transnational or cross-border online platforms comply with OSRA directions.

As mentioned, the OSC's directions apply to all communicators, administrators or platforms, regardless of where they are based. This applies as long as the harmful content is communicated in Singapore or accessible by users in Singapore. Where Access Disabling Directions are issued to overseas platforms, the platform will be required to geo-block the content to prevent Singapore end-users from accessing it. Non-compliance with OSC directions is an offence. Further, in such cases of non-compliance, the OSC is empowered to take escalatory measures to require providers of Internet access services to block access to non-compliant online services and online locations or to require providers of app distribution services to remove non-compliant apps from their app stores. The issuance of these escalatory measures will be carefully considered and used judiciously.

Lastly, the use of VPNs to circumvent restrictions and detection affects all Internet laws and regulations, including the OSRA Bill. We will have to take a practical approach and do our best to deal with those within the bounds of our law.

Mr Foo Cexiang asked whether the penalties prescribed under OSRA are adequate. Dr Choo Pei Ling also suggested increasing the maximum penalties.

The Bill sets out maximum penalties for non-compliance with OSC's directions and orders. These were determined with reference to similar offences already on the books, such as the Online Criminal Harms Act, the Foreign Interference (Countermeasures) Act, the Protection from Online Falsehoods and Manipulation Act and the Broadcasting Act, because these are statutes that have directions similar to the OSC's directions. You will see that while there are similarities, the penalties are not exactly the same because we have calibrated it against the different purposes of these laws, and the gravity of the situations that would usually give rise to non-compliance.

Mr Foo also asked if guidance could be given on how the Courts should sentence. Sentencing is a multifactorial exercise and highly context-specific. It is a matter for the Courts to decide in applying general sentencing principles, with the benefit of submissions by the prosecution and the defence. The Court would generally treat the maximum penalty in legislation as representing the appropriate sentence for the most serious form of the offence and calibrate accordingly for the case before it. This can be adjusted in view of aggravating factors, such as defiant conduct, and mitigating factors, like being a first-time offender.

Ms Mariam Jaafar suggested incorporating digital literacy or restorative programmes, especially for younger offenders. Ms He Ting Ru also asked whether perpetrators could be issues counselling orders to stop them from reoffending.

We agree with the Members that, in some cases, rehabilitation may be the more appropriate action than prosecution. As shared in my opening speech, the Commissioner may put in place an Online Harmful Activity Remedial Initiative, which consists of the completion of volunteer programmes. This may be taken into account when deciding whether to prosecute a person for non-compliance with the OSC's directions.

Mr Sharael Taha, Mr Cai Yinzhou and Mr Henry Kwek suggested ways that the OSC can work with partners in the public and people sector to strengthen victim care and support. Dr Wan Rizal asked whether practical guidelines will be issued to schools, hospitals and care agencies on how to activate the OSC’s remedies. I thank Members for their suggestions. Better support for victims of online harms is at the heart of what this Bill serves to do.

Firstly, the OSC will work with other Government agencies and community organisations to ensure that victims can access the OSC's reporting mechanism. Secondly, we recognise that OSC remedies may not meet all the needs of victims. Should they require further support as they cope with an incident, OSC will refer cases to its appropriate partners. One such partner is SHE, who partners with the Singapore Council of Women's Organisations (SCWO) to run SHECARES@SCWO. SHECARES@SCWO is an online harms support centre that provides counselling services and legal assistance if needed. The centre is supported by full time counsellors and volunteers, and offers pro bono legal clinics with the support of Pro Bono SG.

Mr Gabriel Lam, Ms Valerie Lee, Ms Tin Pei Ling and Ms Eileen Chong have highlighted the importance of public education in the promotion of responsible online behaviour. Mr Pritam Singh also asked about outreach and preventive education programmes.

Indeed, legislation is not a silver bullet. As Ms Tin Pei Ling said, social norms and education matter. Beyond legislative measures, we will improve public education and outreach to make online safety resources more accessible, practical and action oriented. In collaboration with community, industry and corporate partners, more ground-up initiatives, such as workshops and webinars, will be organised to foster healthy digital habits and raise awareness of key online safety and digital well-being issues. These efforts will equip Singaporeans with practical skills and knowledge to navigate the online space safely and responsibly, and empower them to support others in their communities.

Mr Speaker, the Bill before us today seeks to protect victims from online harms. Let me conclude by leaving Members with three key takeaways.

Firstly, the OSRA Bill's victim-centric approach in offering relief from online harms plugs a gap in the online safety landscape. It complements our existing measures to address various harmful online content.

Second, the OSC will provide timely redress for victims of online harms. This will be done in calibrated manner, starting with most severe and prevalent harms.

Third, the OSRA Bill will strike a balance between protecting victims from online harms, while preserving space for healthy discourse.

The road ahead will bring its share of challenges, but also opportunities to make a real difference. I seek Members' support for the office of the Commissioner of Online Safety, and your understanding as we refine the details of OSC’s implementation. We are committed to doing right by victims of online harms and to do so in good time, with care.

I urge all Members to support this Bill. Together, we can foster positive norms of online behaviour, such that Singaporeans can go online safely and confidently. [ Applause. ]

Mr Speaker: Minister Edwin Tong.

8.10 pm

Mr Edwin Tong Chun Fai: Mr Speaker, thank you. I also thank all Members who have spoken in support of the Bill and for their thoughtful contributions to this very important debate. I am very heartened to see that actually we are on very common ground, not just in our thoughts and in the way in which we want to advance the Bill and the work of the OSC, but also in our views and in our values on what this means to society.

And I think, ultimately, after almost eight hours, I think we are not really disagreeing on much. And I found speeches on both sides of the House thoughtful, with good suggestions, and even if we are not able to take them onboard today, I think, they will be relevant for future iterations of this Bill.

Members have raised a number of questions, in fact, many questions, and I thought I will take them thematically, as Minister of State Rahayu Mahzam has done. But I beg your indulgence, that I am not going to be able to respond to every Member’s specific questions, nor I suspect would you want me to.

But let me quickly recap the fundamentals of what this Bill seeks to achieve to set it in perspective.

The OSC is set up as an independent agency to provide quick relief and can grant directions quickly in respect of platforms, something that, today, if you wanted to do with the platforms directly, you almost certainly would find that you have a huge hurdle to scale.

Second, we provide, in complementary to that, a private remedy framework by way of the statutory torts. The law on torts itself is not new. It is established and the jurisprudence is well-established, but to allow victims, individuals, to avail themselves of that framework is something that is new and novel.

Finally, the End-User Identification, which supports the tortious framework, because without understanding and knowing who it is, you cannot bring the action. It is important to remember that we do not have any of these tools today. And this Bill, therefore, in my view, will create a low-barrier and accessible framework for victims to obtain remedies. In many ways, this has democratised relief for victims.

And as I respond to questions, I would like to say that I hope we can keep it that way because it is a key design feature, as I said at the outset, for this Bill to be speedy, to be efficacious and to allow there to be a low barrier to getting the relief obtained. And I think we would like to keep it that way as far as possible. And I like the way in which Mr Sharael Taha and Mr Xie Yao Quan put it – give it space to grow up, build up and let it take off. And I think that is exactly what we would like to see it do.

Many Members' spoke about the Statutory Torts Framework, and I will respond to this as much as I can. The Courts have contended with issues of establishing liability, quantifying damages and enforcing judgments for as long as the law of torts has existed, and it is not going to be a novel area in which they look at the way you assess breach of duty, the way in which you assess proof of damages and also whether the damage is foreseeable or too remote.

But I think the speeches have put the different issues that are at tension with one another into perspective. On one hand, Ms Elysa Chen made a very thoughtful speech and cautioned against over-censorship – that administrators and platforms might then remove content too readily. On the other hand, Mr Henry Kwek said, we should be careful not to allow this to be weaponised. Ms He Ting Ru also said that over-censorship is already happening today. People today are already, in some cases, withdrawing from social media entirely.

So, you can see the tension, pulling in different directions. What this Bill tries to do is to set up a framework that allows individual relief but also one which allows you to go to a third party, in this case, the OSC, for quick relief by a regulator.

On top of that, I want to also emphasise that this Bill is, however, not intended to remove discourse. You take, for example, the Explanatory Statement on Incitement of Enmity. You will see in there that we have specifically provided in the Explanatory Statement that when you have statements that express an opinion, you are free to do so, even if they may be an opinion on the law or on Government policy. That alone, an opinion, is not something that would fall foul of the provisions of this Bill.

Neither is expressing a person's belief or the practices of a group of persons inconsistent with another set of beliefs, something, that will fall foul of this Bill. It would not. You are entitled to your views, expressing your opinion and pursuing discourse as much as you can, as long as you keep to ensuring that you do not fall into one of the buckets of online harms.

To do this, we have carefully calibrated the Statutory Torts Framework, and I thought I would just reiterate in my answer to Members' questions on how this framework is designed to work.

First, we are dealing with online harms with a clearly defined threshold. There is a formula that is set out in the Bill and in respect of all online harms, the OSC must make an assessment, and the Statutory Torts Framework must reach that standard. Those are the duties that are set out in this Bill. You must fall below those duties before it becomes actionable. So, there is a threshold that is fairly clear-cut. In fact, many of them, you will find that these standards are not inconsistent with what the platforms self-profess to be their standards as well.

Second, I think Members will know that there is no criminal offence or liability or criminal punishment for the online harm. This is not the design architecture of this Bill. When there is an online harm, OSC determines it. It then makes one of the directions as may be appropriate.

Third, by and large, liability under the Statutory Torts Framework is compensatory. It seeks to compensate a victim, sometimes for loss of earnings, sometimes for distress, but it is compensatory in nature, by and large. And to Mr Henry Kwek's question, the courts will know when a case is frivolous or taken on trivial or unmeritorious grounds. It is well-established. There are cost consequences. There are ways in which we can stop a vexatious litigant.

Fourth, liability for platforms is conditional on them receiving proper notice. We designed that framework because we do not expect the platforms to trawl the Internet or trawl social media to look out for these harms. But once you get a notice, then that duty arises and you then have to act in a manner in which the duty would be commensurate with the remedy.

Mr Pritam Singh made the point about what is reasonable, and I think the hon Member talked about an illustration and asked whether "prompt" means it must be forthwith and so on. We have put the formula as "reasonable" because in some cases, you can simply disable access with a flip of the switch. In that situation, unless you have some other reason why you cannot do that very quickly, then otherwise, we expect the timeframe to be much shorter.

In other situations where you might take a bit more time to comply with the order and some steps might be taken, or you might have to make some enquiries or there are some technological issues or challenges, then the framework that we have for "reasonable" allows the Court to take all that into account. And so, it is not a single standard. We are not able to say it must be X number of days in every case, but "reasonable" in the context of the particular circumstances of that case.

Fifth, we will prescribe the contents and mode of service of these notices. I know many Members have talked about whether it is going to be difficult to fill up, or is it going to be something that we will have to go back and forth with the platforms. The answer is, as far as we can, we will prescribe the contents and the way in which we will do service of these notices so that you have, almost like a fixed framework of information that you will have to provide. And once the platforms receive it, they will have to respond to this.

I know what the hon Member Ms Chen said about how there might be an over-reaction. Platforms might then be a bit more cautious when dealing with online harms. Sir, in many ways, I will say it is not a bad thing. That with these frameworks, for the platforms, the administrators, the communicators, there is a pause for thought, to think about whether an item crosses the threshold or not and whether you should be doing it. I think that is the kind of mindset that we hope to build – for everyone to be a little bit more cautious, not self-censor in the way which I have told you. All opinions are welcome. Discourse is welcome. But to have a care, to think about it one more time whether that is something that passes muster for online harms. And I think if they have to take a second look and thereby improve protections for users and for potential victims, then I think we have achieved something.

Mr David Hoe, Mr Sharael Taha, Ms Lee Hui Ying and Ms He Ting Ru observed that some claimants might lack the means to pursue a claim. Let me just put it in perspective. We have introduced this now as an additional avenue for our victims to pursue this claim. Previously, on whatever resources you might have, it was not possible. But today, you now have an additional framework.

We will always, in the context of how we discuss and enhance access to justice, we will have people who fall at the margins and may not be able to be well-resourced enough to pursue the claim. In those cases, my Ministry, MinLaw, will continue to work on Access to Justice principles to ensure that those who deserve assistance, whether through Legal Aid with the usual means and merits test, or Pro Bono SG or the Community Law Centres, or various other legal clinics or pro bono schemes around Singapore. We will continue to support these schemes and ensure that those who are at the end of the spectrum, who are unable to have resources to pursue their own claim, will not be left by the wayside.

In many ways, that is just as an aside, that is precisely why we have also created the OSC framework – that it is simple, really cost-efficient and fast. You do not have to pursue a claim in Court to get the immediate relief of having the takedown or right-of-response or any other of the measures that OSC can prescribe.

I note that Ms He Ting Ru talked about the prospect of engaging in court proceedings will be daunting for victims and asked what simplified processes could be introduced. In a similar way, Ms Lee Hui Ying made the same point and talked about the Small Claims Tribunal.

I am not immediately currently persuaded that the Small Claims Tribunal is set up to investigate and hear tortious claims like this. But the points are taken, and we will see whether there is a way in which we can introduce a simplified framework and process that will be able to handle these cases, particularly the simpler ones, much quicker and much more cost-efficient.

Mr David Hoe suggested that it should be easy for victims to send "online harm notices" to them and avoid unnecessary information. I covered this earlier. I will just make one other point. We will also be working with the platforms to ensure that the process is straightforward and accessible. So, we will be designing this process with them in mind. They will tell us what is it that they need to identify the harm appropriately and we will work with them as well to design this into the information that will be needed to trigger the process with the platforms.

Mr David Hoe and I think Ms Cassandra Lee asked whether non-monetary damages or losses can be considered under the Bill's framework, the Statutory Torts Framework. The short answer is yes. The claimants are not limited to monetary compensation and indeed, many of the harms that is contemplated in this Bill, whether it is harassment or intimate image abuse, they lead to distress and humiliation, and the Bill does empower the court to grant damages as it thinks just and equitable. Of course, the usual tortious principles, as I outlined earlier, will have to apply: is it foreseeable? Is it too remote? And so on.

Ms Cassandra Lee asked if the identifying information of victims who commence civil proceedings can be automatically redacted. I would say that, whilst redaction is appropriate in some cases, there will also be many where it would not be. And I think you got to put it in context. You are now having to face a civil suit, and you have to understand and know who is bringing the claim. And so, in most cases, I think that would not be the case. Not all, but most cases. And once an assessment has to be made as to whether it is appropriate, then, an automatic reduction upfront would not be suitable for this scheme.

Mr Ng Shi Xuan and Ms Tin Pei Ling asked for clarification on how the Statutory Torts Framework in OSRA might interact with that in POHA. Let me just quickly explain this. Victims of harassment, doxxing and stalking should continue to sue the communicator or bring action under POHA. And I made the point in my opening speech that we will provide for remedies against the administrator and the platforms for these harms under OSRA. We did consider, but ultimately, decided not to subsume the POHA statutory torts under OSRA. Harassment, doxxing and stalking under POHA all have offline dimensions to it as well, which continue to call for protection and it is, therefore, necessary to preserve this. OSRA deals with online harms, so, we thought it will be more expedient and better coverage to not subsume that under OSRA.

Mr Ng also suggested that guidance be issued to help parties understand the interaction. We will do so. I noted what the hon Member said, having a healthy online culture and I think that is what we would like to promote.

The OSC and the Courts provide complementary avenues for victims to obtain protection from online harms. Some Members asked what happens if there are inconsistencies. In most cases, victims will want to use the OSC's directions at the first instance. As I said, it is quick, fast and swift relief. Many might consider to go further. For example, you might need to seek an injunction from the Courts. Like OSC's directions, injunctions are also intended to be quick and can protect the victim. But for tort claims, the claims in Court, it seeks to impose a civil liability on the other party. And so, for these reasons, the Courts are better placed to address such cases, which sometimes will need a more complex evaluation of the evidential positions on both sides and also considering the legal position and the arguments of parties.

Mr Henry Kwek asked what happens if the OSC and the Courts take a different view on whether an online harm occurred. The decisions of the OSC and the Court will not bind the other. The former is an administrative decision by an agency, and the latter is a matter of law decided by the Judiciary. But the OSC may take the Court's decision, and after a while, a body of case law and jurisprudence into account. Nothing to stop the OSC from having regard to the body of jurisprudence over time, developed as a result of this framework. And the OSC is empowered to also revisit past decisions and to vary or cancel them to the extent relevant or appropriate.

Mr Andre Low asked whether the OSC would be bound by Minister's clarifications made in the House today. Sir, it is usual that Parliamentary intention as discerned from the debate that we have engaged in and as recorded in Hansard can and should be taken into account when interpreting the Bill and this is not just by the OSC, but also by the Courts at a subsequent juncture when construing the interpretation and construction of a particular provision in this Bill.

Ms Valerie Lee asked whether the Right-of-Reply Directions which OSC may issue are intended to complement civil remedies for defamation. The short answer is yes, and it is because they serve different purposes. Currently, a successful claim in defamation provides compensation for reputational loss. But as I said at the outset, not all victims want that financial compensation. They do not want just to go to court for monetary compensation, and we have learned this from many consultations from the stakeholders.

Instead, many of them want to set the record straight as quickly as possible before their reputation is further harmed, and that is where the Right-of-Reply mechanism meets this need, and victims can choose to pursue either or both remedies, and I would say that it is not a prerequisite to seek a Right-of-Reply Direction first before commencing court proceedings for defamation. But the Court may consider the claimant's duty to mitigate loss and if an avenue is available for you to have a right of reply and you do not trigger that for good reason, then, that might be taken into account as part of the claimant's duty to mitigate.

Several Members asked questions about the balance between the desire to ensure accountability of wrongdoers and the need to safeguard personal information. This is under the End-User Information. Let me explain the framework in this context.

In my opening speech, I covered the safeguards to ensure that information disclosed is not misused. The OSC may impose any condition in disclosing the information, including limiting the use of the information to the approved purpose. Further, any misuse of information may be an actionable wrong in itself.

So, for example, if the victim uses the information to dox the perpetrator, that may be an offence under POHA. It may also be an offence under OSRA. These safeguards would protect the information disclosed and prevent misuse. The foregoing answers the questions of Dr Wan Rizal, Mr Henry Kwek and Ms Mariam Jaafar.

Mr Henry Kuek also asked about the OSC's directions under the End- User Identification measures and how they interact with PDPA. The short point is that the obligations imposed by the PDPA do not prevent platforms from complying with the OSC's directions.

Ms Eileen Chong also asked, I think, similar questions on the End-User Identification. Apart from what I have just said, I would like to refer to clause 53, which allows conditions by the OSC to be set in the course of providing information. I know the hon Member Ms Chong said that these proposals have, and I quote the Member, "real value", and I thank her for that; but that giving information to the victim is a "one-way door". That is also correct. But likewise, posting an online harm to the world, is also a "one-way door".

And so, the question for us really is, with most of the issues in this Bill, is to grapple with the right balance to be struck. On the one hand, you have information or a post to the world that is harmful. On the other hand, you are getting information that might be subject to conditions and there are also consequences, some of which are penal in nature if you misuse it. So, we believe overall that this provides the right balance to redress the victim's harm, provide an avenue to pursue the action. Without the identity, you cannot pursue the action and also ensure that the information is not used in a collateral way. I hope that answers Ms Chong's question.

Mr Henry Kwek noted that some anonymous perpetrators may abandon their account when a platform subsequently, after finding out that there is an online harm, attempts to collect their identity through the Collection Notice. Sir, that is possible. In such cases, the reality is that their information will then not be collected and both OSC and victims will, then, not be able to identify the perpetrator.

But we did consider what the alternative would be. The alternative would be to require all platforms to collect all information upfront, regardless of whether or not anyone has conducted online harm. As I said at the outset, the vast majority of users will not fall in that category. So, it will inconvenience and in some cases, perhaps, add an additional hurdle, and there is also a burden on platforms. Taking into account, as I said earlier, that balance, we decided that we will require the platforms to do so once we have established the online harm. We know that, with doing that, there is a real risk, that in some cases they will just abandon. But at the very least, with the provisions that OSC has under this Bill, OSC will be able to take action to deal with the harm being continued online.

Sir, I believe I have covered most of the points. I would just want to address Mr Low's point about clause 4. I think he raised a point about clause 4. The general position in law is that the Government is not bound by legislation unless it provides expressly for that to be so. In clause 4, Mr Low will be aware that neither the Government will be bound by this legislation nor can the Government avail itself of this legislation. So, on that basis, we do not think that it is suitable not to include the Government either way and for the reasons that we set out in the Explanatory Statement. I hope that answers his question.

Sir, I think that is really all the questions and, as I said, I apologise if I have not been able to go into the specifics but I think what I have said on both End-User Information and the Statutory Tort Framework elucidates our thinking behind those two measures in this Bill, and we ask for Members' support because, like Minister of State Rahayu, I believe this will be a game-changer in the online space, not just in what we do online but it will translate into how we interact with one another offline as well.

Mr Speaker: Minister of State Rahayu.

8.32 pm

Ms Rahayu Mahzam: Mr Speaker, I would like to make a clarification regarding my speech earlier. I had made reference to Ms Elysa Chen's speech; and I note that she actually did not ask about how defamation interacts with the harm of publication of statements harmful to reputation and how the OSC would ascertain disproportionality of OIDH. Instead, my reply actually addresses the general point on how victims can put out a reply quickly to protect their reputation and how it interacts with other laws, and I shared further on the threshold for OIDH.

Mr Speaker: Thank you. Can I now invite Minister Josephine Teo?

8.33 pm

Mrs Josephine Teo: Mr Speaker, I thank all Members who have spoken on the Bill, for your thoughtful comments and suggestions. Minister Edwin Tong and Minister of State Rahayu have responded to all of your comments comprehensively. Let me share just a few more observations about the overall thrust of the debate today.

The first observation is that Members agree no one should be beyond accountability when their actions harm others. Ms Mariam Jaafar was most emphatic about it. The stories shared by Members today illustrate the mental toll that victims of online harms experience. They are visceral and emotional, and it is why it is so important to help victims get closure through restitution. It goes to the heart of the OSC's mission to provide timely, effective and accessible relief for victims of online harms.

My second observation, Sir, is that Members recognise the complexity and tensions within the online sphere. Online interactions and the nuances of harmful activities can shift and evolve rapidly. No two cases of online harms will be the same. Every hour that passes by makes a difference to victims. This is why the OSC's work will be very challenging. Mr Xie Yao Quan posits that it will also be voluminous.

The Government has explained how the OSC's processes strike a balance between speed and due process, efficiency and effectiveness. As much as possible, we will rely on clear criteria for action. We will also provide avenues for independent review of decisions so that outcomes are consistent and fair.

Our framework will hold all stakeholders accountable – from platforms to perpetrators – for the safety of users. The OSC will not be undertaking this work alone. We have regularly worked together with our network of partners. Many have been on this journey with us since the beginning. The Bill, itself, has been years in the making. At every stage, local community organisations and advocates provided valuable insights that shaped our approach.

Feedback from industry stakeholders further refined our framework. I am heartened they see Singapore as a determined, yet pragmatic regulator. I also hope they will continue to actively contribute to improving online safety. The OSC will draw upon the extensive experience and expertise of our partners. It is essential to how we navigate the evolving digital landscape. It will also help us improve our practices and stay responsive to victims' needs.

My third observation is that Members agree the OSC must earn the trust of Singaporeans that it is effective and impartial. There are different thresholds for acting on online harmful activities that may occur. The Commissioner and the OSC have the delicate job of assessing reports and issuing directions on a case-by-case basis. We need to consider, for example, that what causes distress to a child may not be distressing to an adult. Mr Sharael Taha, Ms Eileen Chong, Ms Elysa Chen and Mr Alex Yeo have rightly pointed these out.

We may adopt a victim-led approach to filing reports, but OSC will need clear guidelines, adequate oversight and accountability mechanisms. This is so that all parties, whether victims, alleged perpetrators, platforms and administrators know that the OSC makes its assessment based on objective criteria.

The OSC's directions should only go so far to protect any immediate or further harm to victims. It should not be seen to be taking the side of one party over another. This is important, whether or not political personalities are involved. Trust in the OSC's objectivity and fairness will be critical to its success.

Minister of State Rahayu has explained how the OSC will take an objective approach in assessing online harms. These thresholds are not met simply because someone says they feel offended by the content, no matter who that someone is. Clear definitions of each harm have been provided in the Bill, supported by explanatory notes and illustrations. Mr Alex Yeo and Mr Foo Cexiang acknowledged and agree with this approach.

In time, the OSC will also publish guidelines on factors that it will consider in its decision making. This is important to aid public understanding. The transparency also ensures that the OSC's decisions can be held to clear standards. It is a necessary safeguard for fairness and consistency. I hope these assurances address Ms Chong's concerns on the independence of the Commissioner.

To Mr Pritam Singh's question on the use of Ministerial Directions. I would like to assure him that there is no intent to issue directions to interfere in the day-to-day workings of the Commissioner in specific cases. An example of a type of direction that may be provided for is on resource prioritisation for the Office of the Commissioner of Online Safety.

At this juncture, let me also thank Ms He Ting Ru for her proposed amendments to the Bill. Over the years, many Members of Parliament have given suggestions on strengthening online safety for Singaporeans. The Government has welcomed them. I spoke about this when I opened the debate.

As with all well-intentioned suggestions, the Government's approach is to review them carefully and rationally. Minister of State Rahayu and Minister Edwin have comprehensively addressed why the amendments filed by Ms He are either already provided for in the Bill or could inadvertently limit the work of the OSC in providing relief for the victims.

For instance, we agree that public interest is an important factor. In fact, the Bill provides that the Commissioner may consider it. But making public interest and overriding exemption could inadvertently provide a shield to bad online actors. Ms Tin Pei Ling underscored this risk. Under the pretext of public interest, these bad actors can continue to undermine victims' recourse.

To be clear, the Government has no disagreement with the intent behind Ms He's amendments. We will also operationalise the law in the same spirit. But as with any law, 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.

MDDI and MinLaw have tried to get this balance right. OSC has both the latitude to act quickly and the duty to act responsibly within clear bounds. In designing the OSC's remit, we have taken every care to scope it precisely, proportionately and as practicably as we can, so that it fulfils its mission. OSC will learn from experience, continually refine its processes and always strive to do better. It will continue to monitor and report on its progress, refining the system openly as needed.

We welcome the Workers' Party's (WP's) shared interest in ensuring that OSC is well-positioned to achieve its objectives. Our end goals are aligned. We all want better support for victims of online harms. I hope Members will agree that our priority is to allow OSC to focus on building its capabilities, clarifying its policies and cultivating its partnerships. It will take time and things may not work perfectly at first but, step by step, we will get it right.

I thank Mr Singh for stating that the WP supports the Bill. If the WP agrees, I hope it will also consider withdrawing its amendments. Mr Speaker, I seek to move.

Mr Speaker: It is time for clarifications. Ms He Ting Ru.

8.43 pm

Ms He Ting Ru: Mr Speaker, the WP still believes that the amendments we tabled would enhance the effectiveness of our laws in working for victims of online harms, while providing careful consideration for the Bill's powers. We disagree that these changes will cause the protection regime to be problematic or toothless.

Nevertheless, I am grateful that we have had the chance to have a debate on these important issues and to the officeholders who have provided substantial clarifications. I think we all agree that the legislation covering online harms is very much something that will need continued review, refinement and development as the scale and nature of online harm shifts alongside changes in technology in our society.

On Minister of State Rahayu's point that the Broadcasting Act covers the two categories of harmful online activity covered by our proposed amendments, we note that the Broadcasting Act does not allow victims to seek a swift recourse. As I stated earlier, both these categories were also rated by respondents as the most egregious of harms and, thus, we believe that they should be explicitly covered.

Regardless, IMDA should work with the new agency under the Bill and study the types of reports received, emerging trends and effectiveness of the Broadcasting Act. We believe that victims should more appropriately lodge a report to OSC, not IMDA, to seek redress, and for OSC to issue directions and orders fast.

Additionally, the Broadcasting Act is more of a governance for entities which does not provide recourse for victims. Also, I believe that the new agency's powers are wider and contain more remedies that will be available to victims. Thus, will the Minister of State clarify how our concerns outlined above will be addressed?

Ms Rahayu Mahzam: Mr Speaker, I thank the Member for her further question.

As I have explained in my opening speech as well as my response, the nature of this particular Bill is really victim-led and in the manner in which there are certain specified online harms that are created as a result of that interaction online. In the case of sexual grooming, for example, as explained, if the victim realises that he or she is affected and there are actions that are causing harassment, alarm, distress or humiliation and there is content for OSC to act upon, we can act upon it.

So, it is the nature in which you are describing that action, because sexual grooming in itself is a whole transaction and it is a crime that can be dealt with better under the Penal Code. With regard to the materials that are online, again, if the materials are something that is causing harassment, distress, alarm and humiliation to the victim, that person can file to OSC and we will address it.

So, it is really a function of whether the victim sees a particular content that is triggering certain characteristics pursuant to this Bill, they can pursue it through OSC. The other point I would make is that OSC – we are taking a no-wrong-door approach, no-wrong-door policy with OSC. So, in the event some of these issues are raised to OSC, OSC will assess it and make appropriate references to make sure that the appropriate help is given to the victims.

Mr Speaker: Mr Andre Low.

Mr Low Wu Yang Andre: Speaker, my clarification is directed to Minister of State Rahayu. I just have a quick clarification to make.

In addressing a point made by hon Member Ms Elysa Chen, I believe Minister of State stated that, "Ms Chen would also be assured to know that it is still possible for persons who are still dissatisfied with the decisions of the Appeal Committee to seek to challenge it in the Courts by way of judicial review. We will provide more details on the process at a later time."

Sir, I just wanted to clarify if Minister of State Rahayu is still referring to the existing statutory power of the Courts to exercise supervisory jurisdiction over executive actions or is this envisaged as a distinct process?

Ms Rahayu Mahzam: I am referring to the existing power of judicial review.

Mr Speaker: Mr Pritam Singh.

Mr Pritam Singh: Mr Speaker, just a quick clarification. I am assuming this will be to Minister Tong.

On one of the clarifications that I had sought – I thank the Minister for addressing a number of those that I had put out. The point about the Online Criminal Harms Act, a sister legislation; and the implementation direction that the Government had issued to Facebook on their measures against scams, I think they had a timeline: first, end of September; then, end of October. I asked that question, actually, not specific to that, but just to have a better understanding of how the platforms will respond to the Bill the Government seeks to pass today.

As an example, Handout 2 states the platform – a victim will essentially go to the platform at first instance, except in a few different circumstances, and these pertain to intimate image abuse, doxxing, image-based child abuse – that one you go straight to OSC.

In the first case, I am trying to understand from the victim's perspective, how quick can we expect the platforms to respond to victims of online harm? I think this aspect of it is really the substance of that particular clarification, where I sought to understand how promptly and the extent to which the social media platforms would be able to comply.

Mr Edwin Tong Chun Fai: Thank you, Sir. I understand where the Leader of the Opposition is coming from.

I will not provide information on the first question because that is not the subject of OSRA. But I think on your more general point, the question really is this – two points.

First, as I mentioned, we did have extensive consultations, including with the platforms. The idea here is obviously we do not want to devise a framework in a scheme that will be unworkable and inoperable, practically speaking, so we have been consulting with them.

I mean, if truth be told, you start from a blank canvas and you ask the platforms, would they want to see a Bill like this? The answer probably is, no, if they had a choice. But we were quite determined to ensure that there would be a Bill of this nature, and a Bill of this nature would not have the teeth if it did not involve the platforms and have powers over the platforms, and I think they quickly understood that. So, we have been working with them.

There will be differences of views on what can be done, what cannot be done, but we have navigated the path forward and we will continue to do so.

To the Member's point about how quickly it can be done in this case, I would like to say that all of the provisions they work with one another. The OSC, on the one hand, the Statutory Tort Framework on the other and, bear in mind, that in the Statutory Tort Framework we have now prescribed in the case of platforms, administrators, communicators, tortious duties that are triggered from the time they get notice.

So, unlike in the past where you can get notice and the Member has heard what Minister Josephine said earlier about the requests from individuals being ignored in the case, sometimes five days or more. It would not happen here, because the time runs from when they get the notice. And, thereafter, their conduct as to what is reasonable will be measured by how easy it is to disable in the case, if it is very easy, then it should be very quick, as I mentioned earlier. Or if there is some reason why they cannot do so expeditiously, all that will be taken into account.

But the conduct, they cannot sit on it. The conduct from the time they receive notice will be under scrutiny. And in a way, that Statutory Tort Framework complements the OSC framework in ensuring that the platforms respond, react and do something about the harm that is complained of.

8.52 pm

Mr Speaker: Are there further clarifications for the Ministers? No. Just to be clear, Ms He Ting Ru, you are not withdrawing the amendments, right?

Ms He Ting Ru: No.

Mr Speaker: Aright, thank you.

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. – [Mrs Josephine Teo].

Bill considered in Committee.

[Mr Speaker in the Chair]

The Chairman The Chairman: Members, this Committee stage will be a rather long one, so please bear with me.

Clauses 1 and 2 inclusive ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 3 –

The Chairman : Clause 3. There is an amendment. Ms He Ting Ru.

Ms He Ting Ru: Mr Chairman, I move the amendment* to clause 3, standing in my name as indicated in the Order Paper Supplement. The reasons for the amendment have been addressed in my speech during the debate on the Second Reading of the Bill.

*The amendment read as follows:

In page 14: after line 12, to insert –

"(n) publication of online material encouraging or promoting suicide or an act of deliberate self-injury;

(o) sexual grooming of any person below 18 years of age or vulnerable adults;"

Consequential Amendment:

In page 14, line 13: to reletter paragraph (n) as paragraph (p).

The Chairman: As the amendment to clause 3 is related and interdependent with new clause A and new clause B, I shall allow the debate on the amendment to clause 3 to range over new clause A and new clause B.

Ms He Ting Ru, is there anything else you would like to add to the debate? You are entitled to speak. Not that I am asking you to speak, but you are entitled to speak if you wish to make any additional points.

Ms He Ting Ru: No, Sir. Thank you.

Question put, and amendment negatived.

Clause 3 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clauses 4 to 8 inclusive ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 9 –

The Chairman: Clause 9. There is an amendment. Ms He Ting Ru.

Ms He Ting Ru: Mr Chairman, I move the amendment* to clause 9, standing in my name as indicated in the Order Paper Supplement. The reasons for the amendment have been addressed in my speech during the debate on the Second Reading of the Bill.

*The amendment read as follows:

In page 24: after line 21, to insert –

"(5) For the purposes of subsection (1), communication of online material is not "online harassment" if it constitutes, or is part of a course of conduct that constitutes, fair comment on a matter of public interest.”

Question put, and amendment negatived.

Clause 9 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 10 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 11 –

The Chairman: Clause 11. There is an amendment. Ms He Ting Ru.

Ms He Ting Ru: Mr Chairman, I move the amendment* to clause 11, standing in my name as indicated in the Order Paper Supplement. The reasons for the amendment have been addressed in my speech during the debate on the Second Reading of the Bill.

*The amendment read as follows:

In page 25: after line 27, to insert –

"(4) A person's conduct does not constitute "non-consensual disclosure of private information" under subsection (1) if, having regard to all the circumstances, the public interest in the disclosure of the private information outweighs the public interest in maintaining privacy.

(5) Without limiting subsection (4), matters which may constitute a public interest in the disclosure of the information include —

(a) informing the public on a matter of significant public concern;

(b) exposing wrongdoing, corruption, or a serious miscarriage of justice;

(c) the proper administration of government or the conduct of public services;

(d) open justice;

(e) protecting public health and safety;

(f) national security;

(g) the prevention or detection of serious crime or fraud."

Question put, and amendment negatived.

Clause 11 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clauses 12 to 18 inclusive ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 19 –

The Chairman: Clause 19. There is an amendment. Ms He Ting Ru.

Ms He Ting Ru: Mr Chairman, I move the amendment* to clause 19, standing in my name as indicated in the Order Paper Supplement. The reasons for the amendment have been addressed in my speech during the debate on the Second Reading of the Bill.

*The amendment read as follows:

In page 37: after line 26, to insert –

"(6) Communication of online material does not constitute "online instigation of disproportionate harm" under subsection (1) if the communication relates to a matter of public interest."

Question put, and amendment negatived.

Clause 19 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clauses 20 to 25 inclusive ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 26 –

The Chairman: Clause 26. There is an amendment. Ms He Ting Ru.

Ms He Ting Ru: Mr Chairman, I move the amendment* to clause 26, standing in my name as indicated in the Order Paper Supplement. The reasons for the amendment have been addressed in my speech during the debate on the Second Reading of the Bill.

*The amendment read as follows:

In page 42, line 28: to leave out "reason to suspect" and insert "reasonable grounds to believe".

Question put, and amendment negatived.

Clause 26 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clauses 27 to 62 inclusive ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 63 –

The Chairman: Clause 63. There is an amendment. Ms He Ting Ru.

Ms He Ting Ru: Mr Chairman, I move the amendment* to clause 63 standing in my name, as indicated in the Order Paper Supplement. The reasons for the amendment have been addressed in my speech during a debate on the second reading of the Bill.

*The amendments read as follows:

In page 75: to leave out lines 22 to 25.

Question put, and amendment negatived.

Clause 63 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clauses 64 to 111 inclusive ordered to stand part of the Bill.

New Clause A –

The Chairman: New Clause A. Ms He Ting Ru.

Ms He Ting Ru: Mr Chairman, I introduce a new clause entitled "Publication of online material encouraging or promoting suicide or an act of deliberate self-injury."

Brought up, and read the First time.

The Chairman: Ms He.

Ms He Ting Ru: Mr Chairman, I move that the new clause* be read a Second time.

*The new clause read as follows:

“Publication of online material encouraging or promoting suicide or an act of deliberate self-injury

A.— (1) In this Act, "publication of online material encouraging or promoting suicide or an act of deliberate self-injury" means the communication of online material that encourages, promotes, or provides instructions for suicide or an act of deliberate self-injury.

(2) Despite subsection (1), "publication of online material encouraging or promoting suicide or an act of deliberate self-injury" does not include the communication of material that:

(a) has a legitimate purpose related to science, medicine, education or art which a reasonable person would regard as such; and

(b) does not pose an undue risk of harm to any person below 16 years of age.

Explanation. — Material has a legitimate purpose related to an academic enquiry, or as an expression related to art which a reasonable person would regard as art.

Illustration

A is a professor at an educational institution. A conducts a study relating to suicide or self-injury and communicates this online as part of A’s work as a professor. A’s communication has a legitimate purpose related to education.”

Note: It is intended that this new clause A be inserted immediately after clause 21.

Question put, and amendment negatived.

New Clause B –

The Chairman: New Clause B. Ms He Ting Ru.

Ms He Ting Ru: Mr Chairman, I introduced a new clause* entitled "Sexual grooming of any person below 18 years of age or vulnerable adults."

Brought up, and read the First time.

The Chairman: Ms He.

Ms He Ting Ru: Mr Chairman, I move that the new clause* be read a Second time. The reasons for the new clause have been addressed in my speech during the debate on the Second Reading of the Bill.

*The new clause read as follows:

“Sexual grooming of any person below 18 years of age or vulnerable adults

B.— (1) In this Act, "sexual grooming of any person below 18 years of age or vulnerable adults" means the communication of online material by any person of or above 18 years of age (A) with another person (B) on at least one previous occasion —

(a) A intentionally communicates online material with B which encourages, promotes, or provides instructions of sexual communication or sexual activity;

(b) B is below 18 years of age or a vulnerable adult; and

(c) A does not reasonably believe that B is of or above 18 years of age or a vulnerable adult.

(2) For the purposes of subsection (1) —

(a) "Sexual communication" means intentional communication for the purpose of obtaining sexual gratification or of causing another person (B) humiliation, alarm or distress, and the communication is sexual.

(b) "Sexual activity" means —

(i) intentional engagement of an activity for the purpose of obtaining sexual gratification or of causing another person (B) humiliation, alarm or distress, and the activity is sexual; or

(ii) For the purpose of obtaining sexual gratification or of causing another person (B) humiliation, alarm or distress, A intentionally causes B to observe an image or recording which is sexual.

(c) "Vulnerable adult" means an individual who is 18 years of age or older, and by reason of mental or physical infirmity, disability or incapacity, incapable of protecting himself or herself from abuse, neglect or self-neglect.

(3) To avoid doubt, it is not a defence that B consents to the communication of the online material under subsection (1).

(4) Despite subsection (1), "sexual grooming of any person below 18 years of age or vulnerable adults" does not include communication of material that —

(a) has a legitimate purpose related to science, medicine, education or art which a reasonable person would regard as such; and

(b) does not pose an undue risk of harm to any person below 18 years of age."

Note: It is intended that this new clause B be inserted immediately after new clause A.

Question put, and amendment negatived.

New Clause C –

The Chairman: New Clause C. Ms He Ting Ru.

Ms He Ting Ru: Mr Chairman, I introduced a new clause* entitled "Appeal to General Division of High Court."

Brought up, and read the First time.

The Chairman: Ms He.

Ms He Ting Ru: Mr Chairman, I move that the new clause* be read a Second time. The reasons for the new clause have been addressed in my speech during the debate on the Second Reading of the Bill

*The new clause read as follows:

"Appeal to General Division of High Court

C.— (1) An appeal against, or with respect to, a decision or direction of an Appeal Committee on an appeal under section 65 lies to the General Division of the High Court.

(2) An appeal under subsection (1) may be made only on one or more of the following grounds:

(a) on a point of law; or

(b) that the online harmful activity did not occur; or

(c) that it is not technically possible to comply with the decision, direction, or order that is the subject of the decision or direction of the Appeal Committee.

(3) In any appeal under this section, the General Division of the High Court may confirm, vary or set aside the decision or direction of the Appeal Committee and make such further or other order as the Court deems fit.

(4) The procedure for an appeal under this section is to be governed by the Rules of Court."

Note: It is intended that this new clause C be inserted immediately after clause 67.

Question put, and amendment negatived.

New Clause D –

The Chairman: New Clause D. Ms He Ting Ru.

Ms He Ting Ru: Mr Chairman, I introduced a new clause entitled "Risk Assessment, Reporting, and Accessibility."

Brought up, and read the First time.

The Chairman: Ms He Ting Ru.

Ms He Ting Ru: Mr Chairman, I move that the new clause* be read a Second time. The reasons for the new clause have been addressed in my speech during the debate on the Second Reading of the Bill.

*The new clause read as follows:

“Risk Assessment, Reporting, and Accessibility

D.—(1) The Commissioner shall, on an annual basis, cause to be prepared and transmitted to Parliament a report, which must state the particular kinds of activities and content present during the preceding financial year, including the following —

(a) consolidated information on the number of reports or complaints received by the Commissioner;

(b) information on the types of complaints and reports from persons affected by online harmful activity as received by the Commission;

(c) number of directions and orders issued by the Commissioner, the type of directions and orders issued, the classes of material pursuant to which a direction or order was issued (if any), and the time taken from the date of a report and the issue of directions and orders;

(d) categories of persons or entities who have been issued a direction or order by the Commissioner, which includes an administrator, communicator, online service provider, owner, or prescribed online service provider;

(e) findings by the Commissioner on the risk assessments and trends relating to online harms;

(f) steps the Commissioner has taken, and its processes to address privacy concerns in accordance with the Personal Data Protection Act 2012; and

(g) an assessment of the accessibility of recourse provided by online service providers for vulnerable adults.

(2) For the purposes of subsection (1), "vulnerable adult" means an individual who is 18 years of age or older, and by reason of mental or physical infirmity, disability or incapacity, incapable of protecting himself or herself from abuse, neglect or self-neglect.

(3) In preparing the report under this section, the Commissioner may consult —

(a) persons (including a public agency) to represent the interests of women and children (generally or with particular reference to online safety matters);

(b) persons (including a public agency) to represent the interests of vulnerable adults; and

(c) such other persons as the Commissioner considers appropriate."

Note: It is intended that this new clause D be inserted immediately after clause 111.

Question put, and amendment negatived.

New Clause E –

The Chairman: New Clause E. Ms He Ting Ru.

Ms He Ting Ru: Mr Chairman, I introduced a new clause E.

Brought up, and read the First time.

The Chairman: Ms He Ting Ru.

Ms He Ting Ru: Mr Chairman, I move that the new clause* be read a Second time. The reasons for the new clause have been addressed in my speech during the debate on the Second Reading of the Bill.

*The new clause read as follows:

“E.— (1) For the purposes of the preparation of the report in section 112, the Commissioner shall have the authority to require online service providers to provide and publish publicly accessible information on an annual basis on —

(a) risk assessments and trends relating to online harms;

(b) privacy of its users;

(c) clear procedures for reporting content and making complaints;

(d) the measures taken or in use to enable users and others to seek recourse on such online platforms for victims; and

(e) the time taken and remedy granted for such online platforms in response to reports and complaints."

Note: It is intended that this new clause E be inserted immediately after new clause D.

Consequential Amendments:

Amendments to be made to the numbering of clauses, cross-references, and contents page consequent on the addition of any new clause(s).

Question put, and amendment negatived.

The Schedule ordered to stand part of the Bill.

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

9.07 pm

Mr Speaker: Deputy Leader.

ADJOURNMENT MOTION The Deputy Leader of the House (Mr Zaqy Mohamad): Mr Speaker, Sir, I move, "That Parliament do now adjourn."

Question proposed.

Towards a Safer, Plastics-Lite Singapore Mr Speaker: Ms Poh Li San.

9.07 pm

Ms Poh Li San (Sembawang West): Mr Speaker, I must thank Members for staying back for this Adjournment Motion despite this late hour.

In this Adjournment Motion, I will outline the significance of the problem of microplastics, the need for sacrifice from all of us to address it and to propose two carrots that the Government could implement, to reduce single-use plastics. Doing so will not only be good for the environment, it will make a material impact on our health.

Plastics are artificial beings called into reality by humans – often, they are used only once, but live forever.

Today, we are living with the disastrous consequences of global plastic waste because of its non-biodegradable nature. Plastics poses a significant threat to wildlife, when animals ingest plastics debris. Production of plastics relies heavily on fossil fuels and contributes significant greenhouse gas emissions. Burning plastics releases toxic chemicals into the environment.

The damage to our health from microplastics leeching is even more urgent and deadly. Microplastics enter our body because of what we eat and drink, we breathe them in and absorb them through skin contact. Some researchers show that we are probably ingesting the weight of a plastic credit card every week without realising it.

When we drink from low quality, single-use plastic cups or microwave food wrapped in plastics, we are sprinkling microplastics into our food and drinks.

While the research on microplastics and their health impact is still developing, there is significant evidence that microplastics are related to health issues in the gastrointestinal, respiratory, reproductive, cardiovascular and autoimmune systems.

According to a recent release by Harvard School of Public Health, microplastic exposure can lead to damage to cells, DNA and the immune response. Observational studies have shown an association of microplastics with increased risk of heart attack, stroke, dementia, or early death.

We need action on two fronts: first, internationally, everyone on this planet – countries, businesses, people – need to limit plastic pollution and to find environmentally-safe alternatives; second, on the individual, consumer front – we can and should make changes to our habits and lifestyle, to reduce the use of single-use plastics in Singapore.

Here, let me speak about the two carrots.

The first carrot is to incentivise re-use of plastics. First, let me talk about why reuse and not recycle. Re-use is always greener than recycle, but in the case of plastics, especially so. Singapore’s current plastics recycling rate is a dismal 5%. This single digit phenomenon is not just prevalent in Singapore but in the United States and many countries as well.

It is not the fault of the National Environment Agency (NEA) nor Singaporeans. It is an intractable economics problem because it simply costs more to recycle than to produce new plastic products.

Global plastics production jumped from 234 million tonnes in year 2000 to 435 million tonnes in year 2020 and is expected to jump by another 70% by year 2040.

Last year, in Singapore alone, we produced 957,000 tonnes of plastic waste and about four in 10 items are single-use plastics. Since plastics recycling rate is very low at around 5%, even if we double plastics recycling, nine in 10 items will still become trash. Hence, there is an urgent need to step up upstream prevention. And this is the real solution in the long run.

Economics also fails for single-use plastics because the price does not reflect its true cost. Because when we include the cost of removal, to collect, transport and burn, plus the cost of carbon emissions to the environment, the real costs are actually much higher.

It is just that they are unpriced, or not paid directly by consumers, unless we count the price of poor health.

Government, businesses and communities can work together to encourage and incentivise businesses to offer re-use solutions. In every household, many consumer items can be stored in re-usable containers. If there are more options for refills stations for common household items such as laundry detergents, dishwashing liquids, or even hair and body shampoos, especially if they are offered at a discounted price, consumers will be motivated to switch to reuseable options. This shift in consumer behaviour would directly cut down the usage of single-use plastics.

One good ground-up commercial solution is the EcoWorks vending machines that dispense laundry detergent and washing liquids. Residents save money too as the average cost of $3 per litre is about 20% to 30% cheaper than individually packed ones. I am happy to share that four out of eight members in the Government Parliamentary Committee for Sustainability and Environment have implemented the EcoWorks vending machines in their respective constituencies. The residents of my colleagues, Mr Foo Cexiang, Ms Valerie Yap, Mr Ng Shi Xuan and myself, have been enjoying the convenience and cost savings from refilling laundry detergents and washing liquids into their own bottles.

I call for the Government to do more to support start-ups with environmentally-friendly and commercially scalable ideas.

Currently, NEA’s 3R instruments have strong collection and recycling levers. I recommend an explicit "Prevention & Reuse" pillar with budget lines for pilot siting, rental offsets, measurement, reporting and verification, as well as community engagement.

I ask NEA to consider grant schemes to incentivise re-use solutions, on top of its current emphasis on recycle and waste management. The 3R Fund, Eco Fund and related grant schemes should also recognise measurable avoidance, so prevention is funded on outcomes, just like in the case of recycling tonnage.

Recently, it was reported that 84 paper SGRecycle bins were removed due to lack of sponsors. The Government could consider reclassifying some of these recycling points into reuse or refill points as waste-prevention infrastructure, so that public sites can host them under green allocations. Such reuse or refilling points would help to reduce packaging upstream, avoiding what would otherwise go into the blue recycling bins or the green general-waste bins.

I hope the Minister for Sustainability and Environment will consider this request and review the scope of its incentive schemes.

The second carrot is to incentivise BYO – or the acronym for “Bring Your Own”. Businesses in support of sustainability have put their money where their mouth is, to reduce single-use plastic cups. For instance, customers of Starbucks and Toast Box, who bring their own cups, will enjoy savings of 60 cents and 10 cents respectively for their beverages. This practice is a four-time winner because customers save money, businesses enjoy green branding, Government spend less on waste collection and incineration, and toxic waste and CO 2 on our planet is reduced.

In August, a BYO campaign was started in the National University of Singapore (NUS) campus to encourage the community to bring their own cups, bottles and tumblers. Previously, a takeaway drink would cost $1.70, whereas it is now $1.90 if a disposable cup is used. If one brings his or her own cup, one would get a 60-cent discount, making it $1.30. This BYO campaign is supported by all nine food courts and canteens across the entire campus.

Three months in, many students have started to bring their own cups, so they do feel that this discount has incentivised them to reduce plastic waste and they are quite happy about the money they are saving! This is a positive example of how concerted efforts by NUS and their business partners can change consumer behaviour.

The Government and businesses can certainly do a lot more to accelerate the BYO movement. I would call for all our coffee shop and food court chains, to join in this BYO movement, to give a discount to customers who bring their own cups. After all, for every cup that is not used, the drink stalls will also save on their operating costs.

The Government could also encourage large F&B chains and public venues such as malls, campuses and hawker centres to adopt returnable cups and containers for dine-in customers. Where feasible, they should track return rate and litter reduction metrics.

The Government can give a carrot to reward businesses that are pro-health and pro-environment. This carrot will hardly cost the Government any resource. I would ask the Singapore Food Agency to consider adding a new criterion in their Food Hygiene Recognition Scheme. A Green Mark rating could be given to F&B operators that adopt environmentally-friendly measures such as offering BYO discounts to customers or use sustainable packaging materials. This Green Mark rating will be an effective differentiator for discerning customers who care about the planet and their health and saving some money will be a bonus.

From 1 April 2026, NEA will roll out the Beverage Containers Return Scheme. This is a good scheme to incentivise recycling and reduce waste, by returning 10 cents for each plastic or metal container returned to the reverse vending machines. Hopefully, over time there will be fewer plastic bottles and metal cans trash on our streets. More importantly, I hope the Beverage Containers Return Scheme will boost our dismal plastics recycling rate.

We also need to drive greater consumer awareness about the harmful impact of single-use plastics, to both our environment and our health. Perhaps what we need now is a new slogan to reignite the BYO movement. It could go like this: BYO: A Greener Planet, A Healthier You.

I was recently in Switzerland. The streets and the lakes are clean and there was hardly any trash. In cafes and supermarkets, few items were placed inside plastic containers. People bring along their own cups and bottles. The BYO culture is a big part of the Swiss society.

Back in 1984, our then Prime Minister Mr Goh Chok Tong, had set a target for Singapore to meet the Swiss standard of living. In terms of gross domestic product (GDP) per capita, we have indeed caught up with the Swiss. But in terms of our respect for the environment, I think we will need to do more.

I hope our Government and our people will continue to strive towards the Swiss standard of sustainability. In fact, a standard of living would be better measured in health and sustainability than it is by GDP, because all the wealth in the world cannot buy back ruined health nor a damaged environment.

I hope the Government will carefully consider my two proposals. In fact, we should continue to incentivise and implement more good ideas that will drive the reduction of single-use plastics in our society. Additionally, with less trash generated, the cost of waste collection and incineration will reduce. The savings should be ploughed back to promote more circular economy solutions.

This move will not come without sacrifice – inconvenience, time spent, old habits disrupted, new behaviour and change is seldom welcome. But it will be worthwhile. Every big change starts with a single small act. Ultimately, it is our choice. I choose good health and a green environment, over the convenience of single-use plastics. I hope more Singaporeans will make the same choice. And I call for our Government to make the right policies that will help people make the right choice. Because the real carrots are not the two small ones I have outlined, but the innumerable benefits we reap in good health and a green planet. [ Applause. ]

Mr Speaker: Senior Minister of State Janil.

9.22 pm

The Senior Minister of State for Sustainability and the Environment (Dr Janil Puthucheary): Mr Speaker, I thank Ms Poh Li San for her interest, her passion and her hard work on this important issue and for urging us all to reduce our plastic waste. We share her concerns about the impact of waste and plastic waste in particular, and welcome her efforts to reduce, reuse and recycle. She has highlighted areas where we can as a society do more, and she has also made it clear that a key shift is necessary in our behaviour.

In my speech I will highlight the efforts that we are already making, as well as programme funding that already supports initiatives to reduce waste. I would urge Members of the House to encourage further participation in these programmes by community stakeholders.

Sir, the topic of plastic waste and pollution has been widely debated around the world. Each country has its own unique context and challenges. Let me start by setting the context for Singapore as these directly shape what effective interventions would look like.

In Singapore, we have a robust waste management system. All of our plastic waste is collected for disposal or recycling. Any waste that cannot be recycled is treated at our waste-to-energy incineration plants before the ash is sent to Semakau Landfill. This robust waste management system and our strict anti-littering regulations limit the leakage of plastic waste into our environment. One study found that about 97% of plastic waste found on Singapore’s beaches originate from offshore sources.

Ms Poh Li San has a concern about the potential health impact of microplastics that leak into our environment. NEA, Public Utilities Board and the Singapore Food Agency regularly monitor the latest scientific developments on this issue. Our agencies are also monitoring the levels of microplastics in our drinking water and our food.

While we have been successful in limiting the leakage of plastics into the environment, managing our consumption and disposal of plastics remains a challenge. In 2024, almost 14% of all waste generated was plastics, with a large proportion being packaging and single-use plastics. Recycling of plastics is also low, with only 5% recycled in 2024. This in turn results in carbon emissions when we incinerate plastic waste.

However, plastics serve many useful functions and some will continue to be essential to our daily lives. For example, plastic packaging protects goods such as fresh foods from moisture, contamination and damage. In our daily lives, many of us also use plastic bags to dispose of our household waste. This is why our approach has been to reduce the use of disposables, minimise irresponsible consumption and improper disposal, and encourage reuse and recycling as much as possible.

In line with this approach, the Government has implemented several initiatives to promote individual behavioural change and help industry become more sustainable. Let me share more about the initiatives and progress we have made, which span across the 3Rs – reduce, reuse and recycle.

To encourage sustainable individual consumption patterns, we introduced the Disposable Carrier Bag Charge in 2023, to encourage shoppers to bring their own reusable bags when grocery shopping at supermarkets and hence reduce the use of disposables. A survey by NEA a year after its implementation found that more than 90% of shoppers brought their own reusable bags, with supermarket operators reporting a 70% to 80% reduction in the number of disposable carrier bags issued.

Industry is another key partner in our efforts and we have a suite of measures to support industry in adopting and scaling up more sustainable practices. To build industry capability, we launched the Packaging Partnership Programme (PPP) in 2021. Under this programme, NEA conducts regular outreach sessions and training, supporting companies in adopting sustainable packaging waste management practices, such as improved design to optimise packaging size and weight. The PPP today has over 570 members and is an important platform for industry collaboration on sustainable packaging.

These efforts have paid off. We have seen industry players stepping up in response. In March this year, the Alliance for Action on Packaging Waste Reduction for the E-commerce Sector, which comprises 14 companies across the e-commerce supply chain, published a set of practical guidelines on sustainable e-commerce packaging. The guidelines provide a comprehensive list of practical 3R solutions for e-commerce. This is a much-needed resource given the rapid growth of e-commerce in Singapore.

Government efforts alone will not be enough. Reducing plastic waste is a shared mission and this requires the participation of everyone. I am heartened to hear Ms Poh’s two suggestions to incentivise re-use and encourage BYO. We have worked with community members, non-governmental organisations and businesses to implement similar ideas.

To encourage more ground-up initiatives, we launched the SG Eco Fund in 2020 to support community projects that aim to advance environmental sustainability, including those that reduce, reuse and recycle waste. The SG Eco Fund complements other sources of funding provided by NEA, including the Closing the Resource Loop Funding Initiative which promotes research and development on resource recovery solutions, and the 3R Fund which supports organisations in the implementation of projects that reduce waste generation by promoting reuse or recycling systems.

I am glad to hear that Ms Poh Li San and her colleagues are actively supporting ground-up commercial solutions that promote reuse, such as refill services for laundry detergent. I would like to highlight that the SG Eco Fund can support projects promoting reuse or BYO initiatives such as refill services. One example is Muuse, which ran a pilot project to provide reusable containers for customers at a hawker centre. If you have more of such innovative sustainability ideas that can benefit the community, I encourage you to apply for the SG Eco Fund.

The idea of encouraging BYO is a good one. At a national level, we have seen many like-minded organisations come forward to offer such incentives. This year, we welcomed 99 new partners to NEA’s annual “Say YES to Waste Less” campaign, with several such as NUS and AtTea leading the way in introducing incentives for customers to bring their own reusable tumblers or lunchboxes for takeaway food and drinks.

We welcome more to join these efforts, including coffee shops who offer discounts on drinks when patrons bring their own reusables. Food and beverage (F&B) operators who are interested in additional recognition for their sustainable practices can also apply for the Singapore Environment Council’s Eco F&B certification.

Small changes in habits can have a big impact when adopted widely. I thank Ms Poh for highlighting the Beverage Container Return Scheme which we will introduce next year to encourage the public to return used plastic and metal beverage containers for recycling. Like other initiatives to encourage reduction and reuse, this scheme will require support from the public to deliberately collect and return your beverage containers for recycling. We seek everyone’s support to participate actively and make this scheme a success.

Mr Speaker, Sir, the global challenge of tackling plastic pollution requires everyone to pitch in. While the Government has a significant role to play in supporting this journey, sustained change will be dependent on our choices. Choices to cultivate new habits and choices to adopt greener practices. With the right mindset, habits and systems in place, we can build a more sustainable Singapore together.

Mr Speaker Mr Speaker: Sorry, Ms Poh, there are no provisions for you to make a response.

Question put, and agreed to.

Resolved, "That Parliament do now adjourn."

Mr Speaker : Pursuant to Standing Order 2(3)(a), I wish to inform hon Members that the Sitting tomorrow will commence at 11.30 am. Order. Order.

Adjourned accordingly at 9.31 pm.