Foreign Interference (Countermeasures) Bill

Debate resumed.

Mr Speaker: Mr Zhulkarnain Abdul Rahim.

6.31 pm

Mr Zhulkarnain Abdul Rahim (Chua Chu Kang): Mr Speaker, Sir, I declare my interest as a practising lawyer. In 2018, I submitted written and oral representations to the Select Committee on Deliberate Online Falsehoods. I raised the need for us to be mindful of the power of lobbyists with political or commercial objectives, who may fund the spread of falsehoods online and cause divisions in our society.

I expressed that social media and online news websites should be transparent on its funding and/or political affiliations.

I was concerned about sinister campaigners meant to spread disinformation, evoke emotions and provoke reactions to advance a certain agenda.

Intrinsic in what I said, was how easy it was for any foreign principals to interfere in our social compact and political institutions if there are no checks on transparency or accountability. This Bill seeks to address that.

There has been many discussions on this Bill outside this Chamber. However, I think, as Singaporeans, all of us can agree on the following two fundamental principles: first, that Singaporean politics must be determined and decided by Singaporeans alone; second, Singaporeans all want open and transparent discourse in politics, one that is accountable to Singaporeans and not motivated or interfered in a covert or deceptive manner.

In this speech, I will focus on foreign interference by electronic communications activity. My speech will be in three parts: first, my thoughts on the threshold proof required to best protect our national interest; second, my clarifications in relation to the mechanism to safeguard our collective interest; and third, the importance of maintaining trust and defending the institutions of our country, which I will deliver in Malay.

The foreign interference threat that Singapore faces, can take various forms and employ different tactics. These tactics evolve over time and are difficult to track.

In New Zealand, the Ministry of Justice in a statement on mitigating foreign interference stated that: "… due to its covert nature, direct evidence of foreign interference on our democratic system, and its impacts, can be difficult to obtain, and often emerges post-facto."

The situation in Singapore is no different. By the very nature of foreign interference, direct evidence of the same is very difficult to find, much less to prove. Often times, if we wait for such direct evidence, it would be too late.

Against this backdrop, I am concerned about the amendments proposed by Member Jamus Lim as I fear that in actual reality and practice, these amendments may potentially blunt the protection under the Act and weaken the steps that our civil servants can take to protect Singapore and Singaporeans from covert foreign interference.

There are two main categories of amendments which I am concerned with: a

first, the amendments relating to the mental state of mind of the perpetrators in clauses 17, 18, 20, 40 and 75 of the Bill; second, the proposal to introduce a new threshold of proof in clause 21.

On the proposal to amend the mental state of mind in the offences to require actual knowledge, it would be difficult to prove that a person actually knows that his action is prejudicial to Singapore’s national interest. It will be too easy for perpetrators to just disclaim knowledge that something is for example prejudicial to the security of Singapore. This may have the unintended effect of weakening the protection of our national interests under the Bill. Such knowledge or belief must be pegged I think to an objective standard of likelihood which any reasonable person ought to have in the circumstances, which is what the current wording in the Bill suggests.

Specifically, on the proposal to remove clause 17(2)(a) and clause 18(2)(a), this effectively means that a perpetrator must have in mind a particular foreign country or principal during the activity. However, in reality, foreign state or principals are likely to disavow any links to Hostile Information Campaigns (HICs). I think it matters less who that foreign principal is, so long as we know that the perpetrator is acting on behalf of a foreign principal. The fact that one is a puppet on a string is enough; without needing to know or prove who the puppet master is.

In relation to the powers of the Minister to issue anticipatory directions, I can understand that given the urgency and covert nature of foreign interference, the authorities may require action to be taken on the basis of reasonable suspicion, which is a standard well established in law. This means that the Reviewing Tribunal or the Courts can be guided by past case law and decisions to assess if indeed the Minister has fulfilled the legal threshold to issue such anticipatory directions.

On the contrary, there is no established standard for an “evidence or actionable intelligence” test in the common law or commonwealth jurisdiction. Ultimately, I think the Member and all of us here want the same thing – which is greater certainty and clarity before the issuance of such directions.

In practice, the test on reasonable suspicion is objectively met if there is a reasonable suspicion or belief and that it is in the public interest to do so. This is based on Court of Appeal cases that have construed the meaning of reasonable suspicion test. This is not Hollywood. This is based on case law with a Judiciary that carries out its duty with no fear or favour.

I now move on to my second part on the clarifications to further safeguard our national interest and Singaporeans. I have five clarifications in this regard.

First, in relation to clauses 17 and 18 of the Bill, is it a requirement for the perpetrator or accused to actually know that the proxy was indeed acting on behalf of a foreign principal? What if he or she does not even know that the proxy was acting for a foreign principal?

Alternatively, he or she may not know that the proxy was acting on behalf of an undisclosed principal. What would the approach be then?

I ask these questions because it should not be made easy for perpetrators to disclaim actual knowledge in situations when they could or ought to have made reasonable enquiries with the proxy regarding the principal.

This is not an ordinary crime or offence we are talking about here. The stakes are too high given the harm and prejudice that can be caused to our country.

Second, with regard to clause 16 on determining the purpose of an activity or conduct having regard to the intention or belief of the persons involved, what is the threshold of determining such intention or belief? Does such belief need to be objectively ascertained on a reasonable basis? Also, what is the approach, assuming there is more than one or competing beliefs or intentions?

Third, on what is to be determined as covert or clandestine, may I ask the Minister, what about communications over WhatsApp or other end-to-end encrypted messaging platforms or communications through VPNs? These are widely available and platforms commonly used.

Do we consider the varying degrees of concealment? On the flipside, if there was no attempt at all to hide the prejudicial interference, then I think the perpetrators should still not be allowed to get away with it.

Fourth, on the Reviewing Tribunal and judicial proceedings, clause 112 makes every offence in Part 3 arrestable and non-bailable and the rest of the offences arrestable. In this regard, what are the measures that will be in the subsidiary legislation or otherwise to ensure that the Reviewing Tribunal proceedings can be concluded expeditiously?

Also, given that such proceedings will touch on matters on national security and interest, what are the safeguards in place to ensure the confidentiality and secrecy of the information or any evidence produced in those proceedings, whether under the OSA or other applicable legislation?

Fifth, I feel that it would be useful for the public to know on a periodical basis the types of threats and attempts of foreign interference made. I can understand that full disclosure would be extremely sensitive to the mission success of any intelligence operations. However, perhaps MHA can consider, from time to time, giving a report on the FICA offences or directions without the need to go into the specific details or naming the individuals or foreign principals involved.

In this way, Singaporeans and the public can appreciate the good work done behind the scenes by the men and women of our public service to protect our national interests and at the same time, maintain and increase public confidence in the Public Service and Government.

Mr Speaker, Sir, for the final part of my speech, in Malay, please.

( In Malay ) : [Please refer to Vernacular Speech.] Every country takes part in activities to influence, shape perceptions and make decisions in other countries. This is the nature of international diplomacy.

However, these activities reach the level of interference when it is deliberately done in an irresponsible manner to damage the sovereignty of other nations.

In a study by the Strategic Research Institute at the French Military College, or IRSEM, which was published just last week, Singapore was found to be highly exposed to foreign interference. First, our country’s high level of digital literacy means that online intervention campaigns can be carried out very easily. Secondly, because we are a plural society, those with nefarious intentions can attempt to divide us.

Therefore, it is right that we, as one country, seek to further strengthen our solidarity and our mutual trust with the Government by reviewing the legal framework to combat elements that want to divide us. The Act seeks to achieve this goal.

In my English speech, I recounted my experience as a community leader and lawyer when I was providing evidence at the Select Committee on Online Falsehoods in 2018. I stated my concern that social media and online news websites should be transparent in their sources of funding or political links. What was inherent in my evidence was my worry that any foreign actor can easily interfere in our country’s politics and disrupt the stability of our social and political institutions. In fact, many other observers and individuals have voiced similar concerns to the Select Committee, as what was listed by the Minister earlier.

In my role as Vice Chairerson of the Government Parliamentary Committee for Home Affairs and Law, I have also been involved in various discussions and consultations on the issue of foreign interference as reflected in this Act. Therefore, the discussion on the threat of clandestine foreign interference has been going on for more than three years and not just recently as portrayed by the hon Leader of the Opposition, Mr Pritam Singh. In fact, Mr Singh was also a panel member of the Select Committee in 2018 and he was present during my testimony on March 27, 2018.

Mr Speaker, this Act will allow the Ministry to take strategic measures against the mastermind or proxy, who is like a snake in the grass within our country. Their activities or plans are difficult to detect and sometimes we should take immediate action before it is too late.

This is not new. As a lawyer in international cases in court and arbitration, I had to often accept urgent orders to preserve certain evidence or assets temporarily before the case goes to court for trial. As for this Act, in order to balance the rights of an individual with our public and national interests, the Act provides the space and opportunity for the accused to submit appeals and provide evidence to the tribunal that reviews MHA orders or the Reviewing Tribunal.

I feel that the proposed process in this Act is reasonable. This is in view of the pressing situation to prevent interference by foreign parties and the adverse consequences to our country and citizens if such interference are implemented successfully. In this way, no clandestine enemy can divide our plural society.

The Ministry must also meet the prescribed conditions before it can issue an order through this Act. This is based on the definition grounded in previous caselaw. In fact, the court still has the power to establish a judicial review in certain cases according to the existing court's inherent jurisdiction.

Singapore also has an excellent reputation and high degree of trust in the police and Government, a robust legislative system and an independent judiciary. If an individual is truly not involved, it is very easy for him to refute the accusation with strong evidence. But in my experience, for serious criminal cases especially against the country and our entire society, the Ministry will not simply accuse a person without any reasonable cause or proof. There is no smoke without fire.

We have gone through decades of independence. However, the battle to colonize the minds of our people still exists. Let us unite and strengthen the trust between us and within our institutions.

( In English ): Mr Speaker, Sir, in conclusion, the law and our public officers operate in the light to protect us, while sinister clandestine actors operate in the shadows against our collective interest and our country.

Hence, we should even the odds in this fight. Let us put our trust in the men and women of our public service and grant them the tools that they need to uphold their sworn duty to protect our lives and our Singaporean way of living.

Notwithstanding the clarifications, I stand in support of this Bill. [ Applause. ]

Mr Speaker: Mr Darryl David.

6.47 pm

Mr Darryl David (Ang Mo Kio): Mr Speaker, Sir, the Foreign Interference (Countermeasures) Act (FICA) broadly aims to counter foreign attempts to influence domestic politics of Singapore through information campaigns that shape public’s opinions on topics of interest to Singapore and the use of local proxies to influence political outcomes.

Given the nature of FICA, there are expectedly numerous questions from various quarters on what FICA is, what does it cover or not cover, who or what is affected by it, how will it change the current operating models of NGOs that are part of a larger global body, or whether FICA will end up as a political muzzle on active citizenry and citizens’ participation in politics. These questions are clearly important and should be thoroughly addressed and debated so that all Singaporeans will have a clear understanding of what the Act entails.

Mr Speaker, Sir, the interference of foreign actors in the affairs of other countries is not new. History is replete with examples of how different states and state-sponsored actors had tried to influence the course of political and social development in other states.

In modern times, foreign influence might take the overt form of Embassies and Foreign Chambers of Commerce lobbying and advocating for their interests. It may also take the covert form of actions such as state-sponsored actors conducting black ops and clandestine disinformation campaigns that sow discontent and distrust between the government and people and discord among citizens on contentious social issues. Such ops can also create an impression of mass support among the country’s citizens for a foreign country’s position on important bilateral issues.

Such pernicious foreign influence creates a drip effect that can change the attitudes of citizens towards their own government and even towards their own fellow citizens, leading to the destabilisation of the country in the long run, and the weakening of its position vis-à-vis that of the foreign country that could be behind, exerting the covert influence. This is why an open economy and a small country like Singapore needs intelligence and counter-intelligence resources to help manage such threats.

In the hyperconnected world that we are in today, everyone, individuals, organisations and governments, are susceptible to online attacks. Such attacks can be conducted by hackers who are motivated by monetary gains or by state-linked groups that are trying to make a political statement. For example, the hacking of Sony Pictures, an entertainment company, in 2014 by the “Guardians of Peace” who supposedly had links with a North Asian nation. Cyberattacks can even be sponsored by foreign states as part of political espionage to retrieve embarrassing information about politicians or classified government information from rival states.

Of course, we all know about the biggest attack that Singapore was subject to in 2018 where the personal particulars of more than 1.5 million patients were stolen and the health records of Prime Minister Lee was also targeted specifically by hackers.

While it has never been officially reported, it was hinted, Mr Speaker, Sir, that the cyberattack then was likely to have been orchestrated by state-linked hackers. So, my question is, if there is sufficient evidence that a foreign entity, be it a government or organisation, is behind certain activities that are deemed harmful or detrimental to Singapore, how transparent will the Government be in making that information known to Singaporeans?

I know that Singapore has always tried to be diplomatically sensitive when disclosing information on foreign influence. I do understand the need to diplomatically sensitive, but if we were to act against the agent of that particular foreign entity, then should we also not make that entity’s identity and activities known so that we can, as a country, take a particular united position against that particular other country?

For example, if Country X is behind certain activities that could be deemed detrimental to Singapore and Country X is known to be popular with Singaporeans, either as a tourist destination or perhaps a country that that Singaporeans tend to purchase goods and service from, then exposing this country as a country that does not have Singapore's and Singaporeans' interests at heart might allow us, as Singaporeans, as one people, to take a stand of solidarity and take a position against Country X.

After all, why would we want to contribute to the economy of a country who is determined to affect Singapore negatively? I said earlier that Singapore is a small country, and as a small country, we might not have much of an impact on that particular country’s economy, but it is important to take a principled stand, in a show of collective Singaporean solidarity that you cannot mess with us, you should not mess with us.

Mr Darryl David (Ang Mo Kio): My next point is countermeasures from donor activities funding from overseas sources for NGOs.

Overseas funding for Politically Significant Persons (PSPs), political parties or for organisations involved in political activities are clearly undesirable. They are clearly undesirable. Clearly, we should not allow foreign entities to indirectly influence or get involved in Singapore’s politics via donations they make to PSPs. I believe every Member of this House would agree with me broadly on this point.

However, I would like to seek clarifications from the Minister on the position regarding NGOs, especially if these NGOs are local chapters of a global NGO. What would the Government’s position be if the local chapters of global NGOs happen to be supporting a particular cause that might be regarded as not being fully in alignment with what is best for Singapore? Because, sometimes, those issues are a bit grey, they are matters that are open to debate and interpretation. With FICA in place, would these NGOs be classified as agents of influence and be ordered to cease their operations here?

I would also like to seek clarifications on the Government’s position regarding local chapters of global NGOs that are currently receiving regular funding support from overseas donors and their parent NGOs. With FICA, would these NGOs then be forbidden from accepting funding from those channels, thus affecting the ability of these local chapters to operate in Singapore?

I ask this, Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, because there are NGOs that might be receiving overseas funding or support that are doing work, good work, that is beneficial to Singaporeans and the Singaporean community as a whole, and we would not want them or the work they are doing to be inadvertently affected by this Act.

Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, the threat of foreign interference is real, more so in today’s hyperconnected world where we are bombarded every day by an overwhelming amount of information on social media and on digital media. Some of this information could be deliberate attempts by nefarious foreign entities to shape and influence our opinions on certain social and political topics.

In an ideal world, we would be discerning enough to differentiate between genuine information versus attempts to influence. But sadly, we are living in a less than ideal world. Although not perfect, FICA is still useful legislation to help safeguard Singapore against foreign interference.

Mr Deputy Speaker, the debates over FICA could be polarising. However, we must not let the debates over the form of the Act or partisan politics detract us from the spirit of what the Act intends to do. We need to acknowledge that the core spirit of the Act is aimed at protecting our country from foreign influences that might destabilise our society or undermine the national interest of Singapore. With that in mind, I end my speech in support of the Act.

Mr Deputy Speaker: Mr Leon Perera.

6.55 pm

Mr Leon Perera (Aljunied): Mr Speaker, Sir, five Workers' Party Members of Parliament are speaking on the Foreign Interference (Countermeasures) Act and four have filed amendments to the Act to bring balance to this Bill. Why?

Some Singaporeans might think that this is an arcane and obscure bill that will probably only impact those politicos who comment on or get involved in politics. Should we not be spending the time talking about COVID-19 jobs and other bread-and-butter matters? We should talk about bread-and-butter matters and Workers' Party Members of Parliament make parliamentary interventions on these matters even during the Sittings such as Parliamentary Questions on COVID-19. But this Bill is important too. It is important not only because there have always been malicious foreign actors who seek to twist our politics to their own ends and always will be, it is also important because the Bill the Government has placed before Parliament today promises to give yet more levers of power to the Ruling party, which can potentially be abused for partisan purposes, to limit criticism and disadvantage political opponents, plus corroding the very functioning of our hard-won democratic society.

Mr Speaker, Sir, since entering this Chamber in 2016, I have had the privilege of participating in debates on the Constitution Amendment Bill, the Administration of Justice Bill and POFMA, all of which altered the rules of our politics in significant ways to increase broad discretion held by the Government to affect political outcomes. Sir, sometimes in life changes happen bit by bit.

They are subtle and we do not notice them and, like the proverbial frog boiling in water, one day after many of these changes, will we wake up and find that we are no longer living in a democratic society envisaged in that most Singaporean of documents, our pledge.

If our rules become more and more and more tilted by a skew towards the ruling party, the government of the day, against critics, alternative parties, or even independent minded citizens, who simply have a point to make in the public square, even at a time when our citizenry is more educated and politically aware than ever before, we love Singapore. What will happen is that our politics will become less accountable, less contestable, less meaningful. The ideas that get raised in the public square may become more and more limited to a narrow field of opinion. Abuses, mistakes, may not come to light, or will get glossed over in public debate when they do. Fear of the enormous discretionary power of the government may poison political discourse. And if all of these things happen to our politics then that will affect our policy outcomes on COVID-19, on jobs, on HDB lease decay, on retirement adequacy, reducing inequality and much else.

Sir, the Minister for Home Affairs earlier spoke about the political philosophy behind such legislation that the risk of a rogue government is perhaps less than the risk of foreign interference or words to that effect among other arguments. The thing about giving the executive government more and more and more power in exchange for stability and economic benefits, is this: it is that if that government turns rogue one day and that stability and those benefits no longer get delivered, well-meaning patriots and alternative parties may struggle to change that entrenched government because the legal and institutional tools to bring about that change are all stacked against them and by then it will be too late.

Some may say that such new laws, like POFMA, have not stifled debate. There is still debate and criticism of the Government in the public square. Sir, I will make two points here. It is hard to know what the effect of these laws has been in the past from the quantity and quality of debate versus if these had not been passed. Secondly, hobbling genuine debate is something that could still happen if future governments decide to use these laws to a greater extent than has thus happened. That could well happen one day if a Ruling party in the future, for example, faces a political crisis of confidence and decides to use the most draconian provisions latent in these laws to suppress criticism so as to stay in power.

Sir, when we face a danger, fake news, foreign interference, whatever, the first impulse should not be to simply give more and more and more discretionary power to the government of the day. That could well backfire and create ammunition for those who want to disrupt our society, those who want to turn people against the state, those who want to turn people against one another. No, the first impulse should be to build independent institutions and education amongst our citizens so that we respond as a society to meet that threat, as the Leader of the Opposition alluded to and he spoke of non-legislative measures.

Sir, let me move on to the provisions of the Bill. Overall, as my colleagues have elaborated on, this Bill fails on three counts. The three overs, if I may, namely insufficient oversight, executive over-reach and overlooking some areas of policy where foreign interference could act, but which this Bill does not provide clear remedies for.

Firstly, it provides no independent oversight of the Government, save for the flawed mechanism of a Government-appointed Tribunal that does not meet the standard of independent oversight that is seen to be independent, a standard that is embodied in our judiciary. The Leader of the Opposition and my colleague Sengkang Member of Parliament Ms He Ting Ru had elaborated on this and explain why we propose to allow High Court appeals and judicial review on FICA matters.

Secondly, it over-reaches by giving the Executive Government too much power to act, based on suspicions about likely eventualities rather than evidence and with no obligations to state reasons publicly. This creates the potential for abuse of power, especially when we recall that the Minister, like all Ministers regardless of Party, is still a political partisan at the end of the day, with a vested interest in winning arguments over critics and opponents and winning elections. The Minister is also subject to error, even with the best of intentions, as are all of us. I am not singling out any Party or Minister for blame here, my point is about system design.

The Government may respond to such arguments by providing assurances that they will not use the broad powers in FICA in ways that are inappropriate. Sir, that is unsatisfactory. It is a bit like saying that I should give you a blank cheque but I assure you that I will not write a figure on that cheque that is more than what you agree to pay. The fact is you can. The language of the Bill should reflect intent; language of the Bill, not assurances given outside of that language.

Thirdly, Sir, it overlooks the potential for foreigners to interfere by influencing senior government figures or even a Minister for Home Affairs himself or herself one day. Who checks the checkers? Or to follow the Latin expression "quis custodiet ipsos custodes", who watches the watchman? Surely foreigners with malicious intent would seek influence over those holding more power first of all, and that means Ministers.

Oversight, over-reach and unmet needs overlooked are what the Workers' Party’s amendments and speeches seek to address today.

In the rest of my speech, Sir, I will touch on three broad themes.

Firstly, on the theme of overlooking needs. What redress does Singapore have in cases where malign foreign influence succeeds in influencing Government Ministers or even the Prime Minister, and Minister for Home Affairs himself or herself?

Secondly, on the theme of overreach, a number of miscellaneous clarifying questions.

Thirdly, on the theme of oversight, I shall explain the rationale for the amendments I have moved to this Bill.

First of all, Sir, I would like to speak on the danger of foreign interference, or FI, successfully directed at Ministers or even the Prime Minister or Minister for Home Affairs. Of course, I am not suggesting that that has happened in the past or is happening now, but it could. How does this Bill address that? What recourse do Singaporeans have were that to happen? And this is a subject my hon colleague Mr Gerald Giam also spoke about.

This Bill does not create an independent investigative authority that could look into all cases of malicious FI, whether directed at the Ruling Party or Opposition, nor does it specify a clear route of complaint and follow-up action in cases where a member of the public, be they an NGO, a researcher or an ordinary citizen, has formed suspicions that a Minister is under inappropriate foreign influence. Instead, the Bill, like other Bills in the past, vests broad discretionary powers with the Minister for Home Affairs to act against FI directed at others. What is to be done if the FI is directed at him or her and succeeds?

Some academics refer to such a scenario as elite capture. It is not hard to understand why this can happen. A malicious foreign actor bent on interference may find that they have more power to influence Singapore’s politics if they can bring a Minister or even the Minister for Home Affairs himself under their influence rather than an Opposition politician. For a malicious foreign actor, influencing the Prime Minister and his or her Ministers brings more bang for the buck. This scenario is not academic, arcane or improbable. In the USA, one popular narrative that became a significant political issue, and I am not stating that this is ever true, was that the previous President of the United States had been suborned by a foreign power.

I would like to ask the Minister, how does this Bill enhance Singapore’s ability to check FI directed at Ministers, Minister for Home Affairs and the Prime Minister? This unpacks itself into a few distinct questions.

Firstly, can the Minister for Home Affairs under this Bill apply prescribed actions like transparency directives to his Ministerial colleagues and even the Prime Minister, notwithstanding the fact that the Prime Minister, could, presumably, remove him from his job as a consequence but at least the public would see that action before that happens?

Secondly, what is the recourse if the Minister for Home Affairs himself falls under foreign influence?

Thirdly, is there going to be a FICA Office under this Bill, along the lines of the POFMA office, staffed by trained professionals who could in theory investigate Ministers? And if so, how would their independence be established in cases where MHA office-holders are themselves the target of investigation?

I would like to conclude on this topic by suggesting that the answer to all of these questions could lie in a proposal that has been put forth to this House in the past by Workers’ Party Members of Parliament – the creation of the office of an independent Ombudsman. I do not have the time to elaborate on this here but this is a WP Manifesto proposal and I spoke about it at length during the debate in this House last year on access to justice, including rebutting objections to the idea.

The office of a public Ombudsman would, if properly designed and resourced, be a good receptacle for public complaints of FI directed at Ministers and would have the organisational independence and separation from the government of the day to be able to investigate Ministers credibly.

Before I leave this subject, I would like to pose two very distinct questions to the Minister for his reply during this debate.

Firstly, does the Minister, in the exercise of his powers under FICA as the Bill stands, agree that he and his office will apply FICA directives and actions equally to foreigners who improperly intervene in domestic partisan politics whether they intervene on the side of the Ruling Party or the Opposition or other Parties?

Let me offer an illustration. Media reports have described the work of a gentleman residing in Europe who runs a Facebook page that makes frequent interventions concerning partisan politics in Singapore, often to defend the Ruling Party and criticise the Opposition in Singapore. Just a short quote from one of his more recent posts: “People often accuse me of bias because I never criticise the Government in Singapore. As I explained many times, it would be a bit like criticising Usain Bolt for not running fast enough.”

To be sure I am not calling for action to be taken against this person under FICA and I would argue for a more liberal approach towards debate in general, so long as there is transparency. However, does the Minister agree that he will apply FICA directives and actions equally to foreigners who improperly intervene in our domestic politics whether on the side of the Ruling Party or the Opposition.

Secondly, the Bill allows for the Government to require reports on foreigners volunteering in political capacities. Does this extend to volunteering for the People’s Association or PA? The PA works with grassroots advisors who are Ruling Party Members of Parliament or individuals associated with the Ruling Party. It does not formally work with Opposition Members of Parliament. Much of the work of the PA serves to build political capital and visibility for the Ruling Party by way of the Ruling Party Member of Parliament or individual gracing events as the Guest of Honour, being featured in publicity materials and so on. Given these political connotations and corollary political effects associated with some of the PA’s activities involving Ruling Party figures, will foreigners volunteering for the PA also be subject to foreigner volunteer reporting? This could be one route along which foreign interference directed at the Ruling Party travels.

I would like to move to the second broad theme of my speech, Sir, which is clarifications on miscellaneous points, and I would like to pose four clarifying questions for the Minister's replies and, hopefully, assurances.

Firstly, the subject of a Part 3 direction or POL declaration can apply, within a 30-day timeframe, to the Minister for a reconsideration of his or her decision under clause 23(1). That is as the Bill stands. However, it appears that the Minister does not have a corresponding deadline against which he or she has to come to a decision on the application for reconsideration. This is problematic given the potentially deleterious effects which such a Part 3 direction could have on the reputations of individuals and entities. Will the Minister commit to such a timeframe?

Secondly, clause 76(1) requires that all PSPs disclose every reportable arrangement during a reporting period to a competent authority. These reportable arrangements are defined broadly and could cover arrangements where the PSP, in her private sector capacity, secures a new foreign client for her business, for example. The language of the Bill repeatedly states that such arrangements are reportable even if not directed at political ends. This would be very onerous to PSPs who depend on doing business with foreigners for a living or for certain individuals who work with foreigners frequently, like academics, for example.

What will the Government do to minimise the onerousness while maintaining the flow of information that is potentially actionable?

For example, can the reporting arrangements be made to report on classes of foreign clients and partners, such as, for example, multinational companies in France or academics in Italian business schools, rather than being required to specify each and every one of the names of the foreign individuals or entities which the PSPs have dealings with? This still flags out the countries that the PSP has dealings with. At this point, I declare my interest as the CEO of an international research consultancy.

Thirdly, pursuant to clause 93, those who are designated as PSPs or PSEs or issued directives under Parts 5 and 6, may only appeal against that decision to the Minister. They have no right of appeal to the Tribunal, unlike those who are issued Part 3 directions. What is the basis for this? I ask this question notwithstanding the fact that my colleague Sengkang Member of Parliament Ms He has argued for replacing the Bill’s Review Tribunal mechanism with appeals to the Courts, a proposal I agree with.

Fourthly, in the Explanatory Note on page 205 on defining the offence of clandestine acts of foreign interference by electronic means, one example cited might suggest covert links to a foreign principal would be if the person moves communication with the foreign principal to encrypted communication platform. Sir, many communication platforms nowadays are encrypted end-to-end, such as WhatsApp, Telegram, Facebook, Messenger and Signal. Does communicating with a foreigner on such a platform like WhatsApp, for example, in and of itself constitute proof that the communication is covert and clandestine?

To turn to my third and last broad theme, Sir, I have moved amendments to this Bill, specifically clauses 47, 48, 78, 79, 81, 84 and 85. I do not propose to repeat these amendments here word for word. These are set out in the Order Paper Supplement.

The overall thrust of these amendments is to require the Government to publicise all of its decisions under this Bill, in terms of designating PSPs, issuing directives and taking other actions. The amendments also require that the Government publish the reasons why decisions are taken, including reasons for designating persons or entities, PSPs as dealt with in clause 48 or PSEs as dealt with in clause 47. This will allow the public to understand the reasons behind the Government's actions to form their own conclusions about the justifications for those actions. This is important because how FICA's powers are used is a matter of public interest and deserves scrutiny.

These amendments require the Government to publish this information over the internet in a searchable, sortable and downloadable manner without charge, in the words of my amendment to clause 81 to which other amendments make reference, and this is for the sake of transparency and should be self-explanatory. An exception to transparency in publicising the register of PSEs and PSPs is made for national security grounds, but under the amendments moved by my colleague Ms He, this would be subject to appeals to the High Court and judicial review.

In clause 48(1)(b), I have moved an amendment to add the word "reasonable" for the Government’s ability to designate someone a PSP if their employment and activities are not obviously political. This enables a person to apply for judicial review of executive action taken against them under clause 48(1)(b).

The amendment to clause 78 requires reportable arrangements to be made public. I would add that our call here is for such publicity to be made with due cognisance taken towards commercial sensitivities and individual privacy. This call should be seen in conjunction with my earlier suggestion to make these reportable arrangements less onerous.

In general, published information should be concise and focus on key types of foreign interests associated with PSPs and PSEs.

Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, the Government has previously said that it would publish some of these details. So, why am I moving these amendments? Are they redundant? No, for a few reasons.

First, the Government did not say that it would publish the reasons behind their FICA decisions, which my amendments to clause 47, 48, 81, 84 and 85 require the Government to do.

Second, there is an amendment to clause 48 that requires the Government to exercise its executive discretion in designating PSPs reasonably.

Third, the amendments call on the manner of publishing to be over the internet in a searchable, sortable and downloadable manner without charge, centralised for ease of use by stakeholders and for accountability.

Fourth and, most importantly, Sir, notwithstanding the Government’s public assurance that it would publish information about FICA, we believe that this should be codified in law, so that this Government and future governments are obligated to do this under the law. There must be rule of law, not rule by law.

In conclusion, Sir, I have no doubt that there is a need to safeguard Singapore against foreign interference and I think we are all in agreement of that. However, the Bill as it stands has insufficient independent oversight, enables government overreach and overlooks real dangers like foreign interference directed at Ministers.

Like all dangers Singapore faces, the solution should never be to simply give the Government more and more and more broad discretionary powers that can be used against citizens, critics and opposition parties among others.

By staking so much on strengthening state discretionary powers in this manner, we diminish the role of education and trust in the political maturity of our citizens, who are better educated than ever.

We also risk executive over-reach and abuse, and the risk of that overreach or abuse diminishes trust in our institutions potentially, turns our citizens against one another potentially and harms national unity in the face of these foreign threats potentially.

Mr Deputy Speaker: Mr Perera, could I invite you to wrap up your speech, please.

Mr Leon Perera: Mr Deputy Speaker, you are just in time, so, my last sentence. Sir, I beg to move my amendments as described in the Order Paper Supplement.

Mr Deputy Speaker: Mr Xie Yao Quan.

7.15 pm

Mr Xie Yao Quan: Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, youths in Singapore are concerned about FICA. I wished to be about their concerns today. I will focus instead on two issues: one, the apparently sweeping scope of powers provided in this Bill; and two, the desire for transparency in the Government's administration of these powers.

Zooming straight into clause 5 of the Bill, there are concerns that this clause defines activities or conduct "on behalf of a foreign principal" too broadly, to include those "in collaboration with" a foreign individual or entity.

Youths are understandably worried if their everyday interactions with foreign friends will run afoul of this Bill. And more precisely, whether any activity or conduct critical of the Government or Government policies and with any shade of foreign involvement, will be hit by FICA. If one reads the proposed legislation with its plain meanings, one can quite naturally come to these conclusions and concerns.

But at the same time, a foreign principal with malicious intent to interfere with our affairs can very well exploit, or may already be exploiting, the cover of seemingly innocuous day-to-day activities or conduct, to achieve its insidious objectives. That is the whole point of artful interference and manipulation: to operate under cover. And this could certainly involve a seemingly innocent collaboration with another party.

Let us take an example, a foreign principal can collaborate on a song about vaccines. We already have a song, a collaboration, may I add, about 菜饭, Economical Rice, so I think we can all agree that a song about COVID-19 vaccines is entirely conceivable. The song could be about the supposed superiority of certain vaccines and/or the alleged risks of certain other vaccines. If the song is catchy, if it is funny, engaging and sung with passion, it will have the potential to viral, no pun intended. And the foreign principal can very well do this in collaboration with some other parties. A foreign principal can also exploit the pretext of collaboration to create memes, videos, articles, even games, essentially, any number of platforms to achieve its sinister objectives.

Mr Xie Yao Quan: And so, herein lies the central paradox that we have to deal with when we discuss our approach as a people to counter foreign interference. Because the tactics of foreign interference can be so sophisticated, so clandestine, these efforts slide themselves effortlessly into our everyday lives and can so easily masquerade as normal activities and conduct. And so to counter these, we really need to fight these forces where they are, in other words, our laws and actions will have to operate within the realm of everyday activities and conduct in order to be effective. But this grates against our basic sensibilities, It touches a raw nerve and it causes worry, rightly so.

But the basic point I am making is that ultimately, we are contemplating laws like FICA, which can intersect so much with the realm of our daily lives, only because the very threats that FICA seeks to counter have invited themselves into our daily lives first, whether we want it or not and the powers of FICA scoped on the basis of these fundamental reality.

I would like to suggest three key principles as we contemplate what is the right balance in the scope of powers.

First, the enemy is without, not within. The real and only threat is insidious foreign interference from overseas, not alternative voices, whether domestically or abroad. Second, to deal with this external enemy, the purpose of FICA is in fact very narrow, even if the range of tactics provided for in this Bill is indeed quite broad. So, there is a whole toolkit of directions and directives and countermeasures, but all these tactical modalities are ultimately to serve a very narrow purpose that FICA is intended for. Third, the principles of FICA are neither unique nor novel. In other words, Singapore is neither the only nor the first country moving such laws.

Australia, for example, has the Foreign Influence Transparency Scheme (FITS) since 2019. Their definition of activities "on behalf of" a foreign principal is similarly broad. An applicable arrangement with a foreign principal under FITS could be "formal or informal, written or verbal. It could be a contract, understanding or agreement of any kind."

As illustration, if Company A and a foreign government make plans to import Australian foods into the foreign country and Company A lobbies the Australian government on export regulations, Company A is deemed to be acting "on behalf of" the foreign government, even if it is also acting for itself. One can also certainly say that Company A in this illustration is working "in collaboration with", in its plain meaning, the foreign government. So, Australia has defined these activities quite broadly and the principles behind FICA are really no different.

I will also note that none of the amendments that the Workers' Party has moved actually touches on clause 5, on what constitutes activities or conduct "on behalf of" a foreign principal. So, I am glad to see that the Workers' Party agreed on the definitions in clause 5 of the Bill.

Having said all these, how can we then assure Singaporeans nonetheless and keep their confidence in the Government's judicious administration of FICA?

I have three suggestions. First, and most fundamentally, we should recognise that the ultimate check and balance on Governmental powers is not in more and more legislative guard rails, but rather, in the democratic vote in our own hands. We should recognise that any government, today or in future, as Executive of this and other laws of the land, will be held accountable to the people and by the people in Singapore. And in turn, we the people should have a key interest to choose suitable persons who will exercise these powers, any legislative powers, discretionary powers under the laws, judiciously and wisely.

Notwithstanding this, secondly, I think transparency and timely disclosure by the Government to the public in its Executive actions under FICA will go a long way towards modulating the Government's administration of the law and keep trust with the public. In this light, I agree with the spirit of the amendments to clauses 78, 79, 81, 84 and 85 moved by Mr Leon Perera. I agree with the spirit of Mr Perera's proposed amendments.

I am heartened to hear the Minister reiterate his Ministry's commitment made to the media last week that any designation of Politically Significant Persons, any stepped-up countermeasures for these Persons, any transparency directive to publish on political matters with foreign links and any Part 3 Direction against harmful foreign online communications except for Technical Assistance Directions will be made public. These commitments generally go further than Mr Perera's proposed amendments which do not cover Part 3 Directions and do not cover some of the stepped-up countermeasures for Politically Significant Persons.

Except for the public disclosure of individuals who are reporting to the Government on their involvement in foreign political organisations and public disclosure of individuals and entities reporting certain arrangements to the Government, these are what Mr Perera has proposed to disclose, but I agree with the Minister that information reported by individuals and entities in general to the Government should not be publicly disclosed if the key intent of transparency is really to hold the Government accountable for its actions.

At it stands now, clause 116 of the Bill already provide that authorities may make public any designation of Politically Significant Persons and and any stepped-up countermeasures for these Persons, and any transparency directive. So, the commitment that the Minister has expressed on transparency goes even further than the clause 116 in the Bill itself. In that number one, the Ministry will make public these actions and two, it will include Part 3 Directions against harmful foreign online communications with one exception.

To this end, I am glad to note that the Minister has also served notice in his speech just now, to move an amendment to clause 116 itself, with the new language reading, "...it must prepare a notice informing about every Part 3 Direction except the Technical Assistance Direction given, every designation made under Part 4 or every directive given under Parts 5 or 6". These proposed amendments will capture the Government's definitive commitment to public disclosure and transparency under FICA and I look forward to the passing of these amendment at the Committee Stage later.

At this point, I would like to seek some clarifications. One, the Ministry has mentioned a Registry of Foreign and Political Disclosures for Parts 4, 5 and 6 in its interview with the media last week. So, my question is, where will Part 3 directions be published? Two, will the reasons for actions taken under Parts 3, 4, 5 or 6 also be published, as much as practicable? Three, will the Registry or Registries be accessible online, free of charge, searchable, sortable and downloadable, so as to maximise its intended potential for public education and awareness? And four, will appeals made and decided under FICA be similarly published?

Sir, my third suggestion to better assure Singaporeans and keep their confidence in FICA is that the Government needs to constantly communicate the law's intended purpose and the Government's commitment to this intent. This is difficult to do, as the concerns that Singaporeans may have towards the Bill can be very visceral, as I noted at the start of my speech.

So, to this end, can the Minister give definitive assurance, in this House, once again, that the youth climate activist working with regional and or international friends to advance their joint vision for climate justice has nothing to worry about as regards FICA and can indeed look forward to continuing and growing his or her work?

Can the Minister assure that the Singaporean youth working overseas and writing, posting from overseas about his or her racialised experience with previous job searches or employers in Singapore will not be deemed a vector of a Hostile Information Campaign and thus, slapped with some Part 3 Direction under FICA?

Can the Minister assure that indeed, students, lecturers, academics in our schools and Institutes of Higher Learning here, interacting with foreign students, discussing, exchanging views on any number of political issues will not find themselves subject to designation as Politically Significant Persons?

Can the Minister assure that patriots, well-meaning Singaporeans who want to lend their own voices to civic discourse here, no matter how critical of the Government and Government Policies, will not be caught by FICA, simply on account of any actual or suspected interaction with a foreigner?

Sir, let me conclude. The Select Committee on Online Falsehoods heard evidence in 2018 on a troll farm cottage industry in Macedonia. Macedonian teenagers worked in these farms and subverted the US presidential elections in 2016.

They might very well have zero actual interest in US politics and it is unclear if they were taking directions from other foreign state players. But it was clear that they did this to earn money through advertisements. One teenager reportedly earned US$16,000 – more than 40 times the average monthly salary in Macedonia.

There were even dedicated classes to train young Macedonians in this trade.

There are two points to note here. One, the content created by this troll farm were not all "fake news" or falsehoods per se. So, not everything can be caught by POFMA. Second point and equally fundamental is that the Select Committee report came out in 2018. We are debating FICA today, three years later. Indeed, it would be fair to ask, what actually took us so long?

Mr Speaker, the threat of foreign interference is real and urgent and the broad powers provided by this Bill are necessary. But Singaporeans, including youths, are concerned and I implore the Government to double down on transparency commitments as well as constantly communicate on the narrow intent of FICA so as to assure Singaporeans while ensuring that the Government has the wherewithal to effectively protect us against a common threat.

Ultimately, each government will be held to account by Singaporeans through the exercise of our individual democratic rights.

To end, I would like to touch on Mr Gerald Giam's proposed amendments to clause 8 on what is defined as being "directed towards a political end in Singapore".

Mr Giam has proposed to remove limbs (f) and (g) of the definition in the Bill, namely, (f) on public opinion about a matter of public controversy in Singapore and (g) on political debate.

Now, I have listened to the Minister explain the philosophy behind clause 8 and Mr Giam's argument for the proposed omissions.

Sir, clause 8 sets out the entire political landscape, the entire surface area that foreign threat vectors can and will operate on to subvert our affairs. I therefore like to ask Mr Giam if he would not agree that the real effect of his proposed omissions will not so much scope the powers of the executive to limit the potential for over-reach and abuse of power but rather the real effect will be to curtail the real powers that the executive needs to counter the real and highly complex threats that FICA is exactly designed to counter?

Would Mr Giam not agree that his proposed omissions defang FICA and strip it of its basic effectiveness to fight foreign interference? It is a bit like saying, let us fight with one arm tied behind our backs, or maybe more, because we are worried about the power of having two arms.

Sir, lastly, I would also point out that the definition of what is "directed towards a political end in Singapore" in clause 8 of FICA is already found in existing laws such as the Public Order Act amended in 2017. In that debate in 2017, the Workers' Party had expressed no concern about the very same definition. So, it is not clear to me why the Workers' Party would have a concern now about the same definition four years on.

Mr Speaker: Mr Gerald Giam.

7.34 pm

Mr Gerald Giam Yean Song: Sir, I thank Mr Xie for his questions on my speech.

I believe I actually explained that quite clearly in my speech as to why I think that even with the removal of clause 8F and G, the Minister will still have all the powers he needs to stem hostile foreign interference.

I mentioned that clause 7, which defines what public interest is, already gives the Minister the power, in the public interest, to take actions if it is necessary to ensure the public health, public finances, public safety, public tranquility, public peace and public order. All those are already in clause 7 and so there is no reason why the Minister cannot use those clauses to invoke directions in the public interest.

I do not believe it is necessary to have such a broad and wide sweeping catch-all clause, which is what we believe parts (f) and (g) are, in order to give the Minister the power that he needs. He has already all the power that he needs.

Mr Speaker: Mr Xie Yao Quan.

Mr Xie Yao Quan: Sir, I thank Mr Gerald Giam for his clarification.

The Public Order Act as amended in 2017 deals with foreign organisation and participation in activities directed towards a political end in physical spaces in Singapore. So, as we debate FICA, I think it is quite clear and we can all agree that the same logic and the same definition should apply to even more nefarious and insidious threats in the online space that can apply to both Singaporeans and foreigners.

Mr Gerald Giam mentioned clause 7 in FICA, specifically, I think, clause D. He cited as an example and I would read out clause D – "to prevent incitement of feelings of enmity, hatred or ill will between different groups of people in Singapore".

I would point out that the Public Order Act has exactly the same clause 7(2)(E). In fact, it has an additional word, "hostility".

I think the construct of the Public Order Act and FICA are essentially the same and I do not see why the Workers' Party, who had no issue four years ago, should have the issue today.

Mr Speaker: Mr Giam. Keep it brief, please.

Mr Gerald Giam Yean Song: Sir, I would like to point out that the Workers' Party opposed the Public Order Act and with respect to Mr Xie's specific points on part E of the Public Order Act, yes, it is. But the Public Order Act does not have clause 7F – to prevent any foreign interference directed towards a political end in Singapore. Clause 7F leads on into clause 8, where it defines the political end in Singapore.

So, I think it is important for us to understand that we want to scope down the Bill to make sure that we focus on the acts that actually cause harm to Singapore, not provide a catch-all phrase inside the Bill for the Minister, if he cannot find anything else to use, to use that as a tool against harm. There are specific qualifications for what qualifies as harm against public interest, against public health and so on.

I have given examples on how, let us say, if there is a threat to public health, the Minister can take action on that. There is nothing preventing him in this Bill from taking action and the Bill has many other strong clauses to give the Minister the power to be able to take action. So, nothing is preventing him from doing that just because (f) and (g) are removed.

Mr Speaker: Mr Murali Pillai.

7.39 pm

Mr Murali Pillai (Bukit Batok): Mr Speaker, Sir, in my first speech in this session of Parliament, I said that I saw building consensus as an important outcome of our work here. The outcome of such a process where areas of agreement are identified would possess the unique legitimacy of all voices in this House.

The hon Leader of the Opposition started his speech by observing that there are quarters outside this House whose views on this Bill are diametrically different from the Government. That may or may not be so. But what is more important is to make it clear, as elected representatives of our people, where we stand, either together or apart on matters under deliberation – not just the broad strokes but the detailed issues as well. That is accountability.

I had carefully reviewed the proposed amendments of the Workers' Party. We only have a few matters upon which we disagree.

Both sides of the House are aligned with the aim of the Bill.

The hon Leader of the Opposition agreed that intrusive powers may have to be vested with the Minister to deal with this scourge of foreign interference, subject, of course, to checks and balances, which I will come to later. I thank the hon Leader of the Opposition for recognising this.

Both also agree on what constitutes public interest under clause 7 of the Bill.

Clause 7 represents the heart of FICA. It enumerates the areas of public interest, including to prevent any foreign interference directed towards a political end in Singapore.

The hon Member Mr Gerald Giam wants to be more specific about what is meant by the meaning of this clause. In my mind, we should equally be mindful of the agreed position of what is not the intention of the clause. It is not to curtail political activity by Singaporean civil society or politicians.

There is also consensus on what constitutes Politically Significant Persons and the responsibilities they should assume. Such persons, because they carry political weight, there is a need to ensure they do not become pawns for foreign influence.

Clause 14 deals with defined PSPs. It is noteworthy that the hon Member Mr Gerald Giam wishes to enlarge this list in the clause further to include more classes of people.

The Bill, as it stands, requires the Government to make a case if there is any other person outside the list it feels should be designated as PSPs. The hon Member Mr Gerald Giam's rendering puts even more people on this list. That is to say, this Bill has a net which the hon Member Gerald Giam wants to make larger.

On the issue of criminalising conduct amounting to foreign interference and influence operations under clauses 17 and 18, there is broad consensus. There should be little controversy over this. We are, after all, talking about actions of spies and saboteurs.

The hon Member Assoc Prof Jamus Lim wishes to limit the ambit of the clauses to only criminal acts that the accused knew would be prejudicial to the security of Singapore as opposed to acts that are likely to be prejudicial to the security of Singapore.

The focus here is on the impact of the accused's action. But before that, he has to be proven to be acting on behalf of a foreign principal. So, that is a narrow issue.

I turn now to the proposed authorisation of the Minister to issue Part 3 directions under clauses 20 and 21.

There is, again, broad consensus to allow the Minister to issue directions, including anticipatory directions where in his opinion there is online communication activity being undertaken by or on behalf of a foreign principal in or accessible in Singapore to protect public interest.

Here, the hon Member wishes to limit the Minister's powers to circumstances where he secures a higher threshold of evidence of foreign interference instead of reasonable belief or suspicion.

Given the protean nature of foreign interference, this has to be resolved on the basis on which wording protects Singapore's interest.

Currently, the Police powers of investigations are triggered as long as there is reasonable suspicion of a commission of a crime. The question arises as to why should there be a higher bar to trigger appropriate action when it comes to foreign interference affecting Singapore's security interests?

This House is unified on the point of vesting in the Minister the power to issue the 14 types of directions to various entities – known as Part 3 directions – in particular, to social media companies described in clause 29 to protect public interest.

I now come to powers of proscription. There is consensus to vest in the Minister the power under clause 24 to Proscribe Online Locations which would be subject to Part 3 directions.

There is agreement to criminalise behaviour that involves the making of money or providing financial support to Proscribed Online Locations.

The only difference here, again, based on the proposed amendment by the same hon Member is on the ambit of evidence required to make out the offence.

Again, this issue is a narrow issue that has been dealt with on the basis of which wording would better protect Singapore's interest.

On the measures of designating an entity or person as a PSP under clauses 80 and 81, there is full agreement on the ability of a competent authority to designate an entity or person as politically significant entities or Politically Significant Persons.

The additional point here, as proposed by the hon Member Mr Leon Perera is that the public list of politically significant entities and persons be maintained unless there is a national security ground, not to name these persons or entities.

I agree with the suggestion. I understand that MHA had earlier indicated that it had intended to do this based on its response dated 25 September 2021 to queries from The Straits Times.

There is consensus in this House on the provisions dealing with political donations. There is full consensus to impose on politically significant persons during election period, a requirement that they declare that they are not subject to foreign influence. There is broad consensus to require these persons to make disclosures of any dealing with/or on behalf of foreign principals or foreign political organisations under clauses 78 and 79, even if the Acts are not directed towards a political end in Singapore, as well as benefits received from these principals.

What is proposed here again by the hon Member Mr Perera is for such disclosures to be made publicly available. From a practical perspective, it seems to me the sting behind this provision will be to deal with the consequence on the part of the PSP for failing to file the report. I say this because if a PSP files a report stating that he has dealings with a foreign principal, directed to a political end in Singapore, it is likely to spell the death knell of his political career. In other words, the publicness of the report maybe neither here nor there.

Turning to the arena of requiring disclosure of foreign involvement in publication of political matters, I know again there is consensus in vesting with the competent authority the power to issue transparency directives to newspapers, broadcasting services and PSPs requiring a disclosure of foreign principals and links. The hon Member, Mr Perera suggested that such directives be made public. I agree but I think the suggestion is already present in the current version of the Bill which specifically provides that the subjects of the directives must make disclosure conspicuously.

There is consensus in the ability on the part of the competent authority to issue directives to PSPs to end their afflictions with foreign principals and foreign volunteers. The additional suggestion made by the hon Member Mr Perera that is being made here is that to have these directives together with any other modification of cancellation made public. In this regard, I understand MHA had issued a statement on making public such countermeasures issued against PSPs.

There is broad agreement on what constitutes exempt activities, that is activities that should not be covered under this Act. The hon Member Assoc Prof Lim proposed adding in this list an exemption on the part of Singaporeans exercising their right to discuss politics and foreign individuals and publications commenting on Singapore politics in an open, transparent and attributable way. I do not disagree that such acts should be outside the jurisdiction of this Bill. The only issue is whether it is necessary, given that the structure of this Bill already makes it clear that it is not intended to stifle such activities.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I accept the hon friends across aisle feels strongly about the differences with the Government which are set out in the Notice of Amendments. My objective here is simply to point out to the fact that there is much more agreement on significant matters than disagreement. This may not be apparent to members of public outside this House.

In my view, the most substantive area of difference lies with the redress mechanism under the Bill which I now turn to.

Under the Bill, it is proposed that appeals made to the Reviewing Tribunal and the Minister with limited judicial review by the Supreme Court. The hon Member Ms He Ting Ru, proposed that appeals be heard hurt by the High Court, with the right of further appeal. I appreciate that her motivation is to provide checks and balances. I would respectfully demur with her suggestion although I must acknowledge there are merits to the broad rationale behind her proposal. As for my reasons for demurring, I need only refer to my Adjournment Motion speech made recently this House when I spoke about judicial review in March 2021.

Both the hon Leader of Opposition and the hon Member Ms He, kindly referred to some parts of my speech today. I said then that each generation of political leaders and people must find their own equilibrium on what is acceptable. They will also recall that in my same speech, I went on to state that, in my view, the status quo should be preserved for the ISA. I recounted the point made in 1991 by Prof S Jayakumar, the former Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Home Affairs in this House that when it comes to issues of national security, putting a Court to scrutinise exercise of powers would be tantamount to giving the Court, an unelected body, the final say on such matters. That, in the scheme of things, was not desirable.

To me, FICA raises the same issues. It is preferable, when it comes to assessment of what action is to be taken, to counter foreign interference affecting public interest, the Minister must be held responsible and accountable through the political process. Also, in my respectful view, since we are dealing with issues of foreign interference affecting public interest, as defined under this Bill, a different form of procedure to ensure the swift and agile handling of cases and judicious safeguarding of sensitive information will be needed.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I seek your permission to make a short speech in the national language.

( In Malay ) : [Please refer to Vernacular Speech.] Mr Speaker, first I would like to thank the hon Leader of the Opposition, Mr Pritam Singh for commenting on the speech that I delivered in March.

I said that each generation of political leaders should find and achieve their own equilibrium, of what our people would accept.

The Leader of the Opposition would probably remember that I also said, with regard to the ISA, I am of the opinion that there is a reasonable reason to maintain the status quo as it is a bill that is crucial for the security and stability of our country.

FICA is a similar Act like the ISA, because we are discussing about national interests and the country's sovereignty being threatened by foreign interference.

Due to this, I can understand why the Reviewing Tribunal should hear appeals in FICA instead of the courts. This does not mean that there is no protection for an individual. The courts may still hear appeals and the case if there an overreach in power or in certain matters.

Sir, may I resume my speech in English?

( In English ): The hon Member Ms He referred to the point I made in my speech in March this year on the need for sunlight of scrutiny of Government action. I thank her for remembering my speech. She may also remember that I stated then in my speech that ISA did not act and does not act in darkness, having regard where checks and balances embedded in the Act and the Constitution.

Similarly, having regard to the subject matter of FICA, establishment of the appellate process in the Bill to set up the Review Tribunal and the preservation of the Supreme Court's powers of judicial review on the issue of procedure as well as when there is an excess of jurisdiction and political accountability of the Minister to our people, I am similarly of the view that there are sufficient checks and balances in place for FICA. The Bill does not confer unlimited power to the Executive, which is a concern of the hon Leader of Opposition.

I think it is worthwhile holding up again this handout, page 36, which the hon Minister Mr Shanmugam showed us earlier. There are already general powers. You can see that in light green. What FICA aims to do is to give targeted powers, and you see that in dark green. I heard the hon Member Mr Perera saying just now a theory about FICA having some latent powers being embedded which can be used later on by a Government which is malevolently intending to use these powers. If that is really the case, it will be better to use the latent powers already embedded in the current Acts. You do not have to pass FICA for that. So, with respect, I have difficulty following his argument.

Notwithstanding what I said, I have a few questions on the redress mechanism concerning the Reviewing Tribunal under clause 92 of the Bill. The Reviewing Tribunal deals with appeals against an authorisation of a Part III direction. I note it is contemplated that the chairperson of the Reviewing Tribunal must be a Supreme Court Judge. I also note that the decision is to be made by the President on the advice of the Cabinet. To me, the President should be consulting the Chief Justice, who heads our Judiciary in deciding who should be the chairman. This is the case under Article 151(2) of the Constitution which provides the chairman and two members of the Advisory Board which deals with preventive detention under the ISA shall be appointed by the President after consulting the Chief Justice. I seek the hon Minister's explanation on this matter.

Next, may I ask if the Reviewing Tribunal will be a standing tribunal that is appointed at the outset for a period of time or will it be an ad hoc tribunal that is created as and when there is an appeal? My preference is that it should be a standing tribunal to ensure transparency.

Moving on to the powers of the Reviewing Tribunal, is it contemplated that the Tribunal will have powers to compel the appearance of witnesses and production of documents? This does not appear to be specifically referred to in the clauses that I have reviewed.

I now turn to appeals to the Minister against decision of competent authority's decision, designating a person as a PSP or given a directive to comply with on that basis. May I please ask what is the rationale of designating the Minister as the primary Appellate body as opposed to designating the Reviewing Tribunal as the Appellate body?

To clause 102, I note that the Minister may appoint an Advisory Committee for consultation purposes but he may not follow the advice. May I ask if the appointments will be gazetted and made public, without going to merits of the case, which is obviously sensitive? How would the public know that the Minister is not following the Advisory Committee's advice in making the determination on an appeal?

Mr Speaker, Sir, in my speech, I have noted that the hon Opposition Members have raised some points of disagreement. I have argued, however, there is a lot more agreement on the main issues. I have seen more that unites than divides us. I acknowledge there is one major sticking point on whether the review should be a political or legal matter. I argued that, like other matters of national security, it ought to be a political matter and hence should rest with the Minister.

An important point of agreement, however, is where and how we disagree in such matters, such as public interest. The PAP and the Workers' Party may disagree on what this interest is, both in substance and form and in the matters, both trivial and significant. But we both agree that such discussions must remain our own. These discussions must enjoy the most important freedom of all, that they be free of interference from foreign principals who ought to have no voice in this House. That is all, Sir. [ Applause .]

Mr Speaker: Leader of the Opposition.

7.57 pm

Mr Pritam Singh: Thank you, Mr Speaker. I just have one question for the hon Member Mr Murali Pillai and that pertains to the reference he made in his speech about his earlier Adjournment Motion on the sunlight of scrutiny and I will repeat the quotation where the hon Member says, "It is important for each generation of political leaders and people to find their own equilibrium of what our people would accept without question, under what circumstances and towards what ends."

Would the Member not agree that the Bill in question introduces an ouster clause. It is a new piece of legislation and this is one more piece of legislation for which we have an ouster course. And would the Member also not agree that there has been no equilibrium sought from the people by virtue of an absence of public consultation as to whether this ouster clause has been considered by the public?

Mr Speaker: Mr Pillai.

Mr Murali Pillai: Obliged, Sir. I thank the hon Leader of Opposition for asking the question. And the question, as I understand, posed to me, is whether there has been an equilibrium reached within the present generation of political leaders and the people of Singapore on the matter involving FICA, which contains an ouster clause.

The point I wish to make is this. In my earlier speech in March 2021, I have already stated that when it comes to issues of national security, a different approach should be taken. I found instructive, the speech made by Prof Jayakumar about why the powers dealing with national security should be sited with the political leaders. So, in my personal view, the equilibrium is still the same vis-a-vis FICA because here, we are dealing with issues of national security. Additionally, I would add that FICA does not contemplate detention without trial.

And the powers of FICA is actually quite targeted. What you see here are powers that are already reposed with the Executive. And as I said earlier in my speech, the focus of FICA is to give targeted powers so that you could better deal with national interest. So, in those circumstances, I would say, having regard to the fact that this is an area that has been traversed and the need to provide targeted directives, the equilibrium that we have in ISA would be the equilibrium that I am comfortable with vis-a-vis FICA and there is no contradiction.

Mr Speaker: Dr Shahira Abdullah.

8.00 pm

Dr Shahira Abdullah (Nominated Member): Mr Speaker, Sir, the Foreign Interference (Countermeasures) Act recognises that Singapore remains vulnerable to foreign interference. In cyberspace, the cyberattacks and hostile information campaigns have increased in complexity and have become more illicit, masking themselves in seemingly innocuous ways. Therefore, these risks should be actively pre-empted and addressed for the national security of Singapore.

I believe in the legislative intent of the Bill. However, I have concerns about certain aspects, namely transparency and the need for more checks and balances. Is there a way we can realise and uphold the good intentions of the Bill while at the same time provide some amendments which can address the concerns?

I will speak on three points. First, on the possible avenues of check and balances that can be incorporated into the Bill. Second, on how we can increase the transparency of this Bill. Thirdly, I will speak on how the definition of foreign principal may bring about potential discrimination which may affect Singapore’s reputation as a global hub.

First, the Bill grants considerable powers to the Government. For example, section 21 allows the Minister to give anticipatory directions even when the Minister only suspects or has reason to believe that the person is “preparing for, or planning to undertake, online communications activity by or on behalf of a foreign principal”. The substance of these decisions under the Bill are not subject to judicial review.

I understand that in cases of foreign interference, speed may be of the essence and information received must be acted upon quickly. Moreover, this information may be sensitive and require confidentiality to be preserved. However, provisions can be enacted in the Bill to require that sensitive information be sealed or otherwise not disclosed in the Court hearing such as to allow a judicial review to still be carried out. We have seen some precedent for this in the treatment of whistleblowing information and whistleblowers' identity in court proceedings. If time is of the essence and there is need for judicial reviews under this Bill to be expedited, surely this can also be provided for in the Bill as well. A reviewing Tribunal, even if presided by a High Court judge cannot replace the role of judicial oversight. We must strive to maintain Singapore’s reputation of holding and protecting the rule of law while recognising the ills of foreign interference.

Second, there have also been concerns about the transparency of the Bill. One example is the criteria on who can be designated a Part 4 PSP. In the Bill, a Part 4 PSP is a person or organisation whose activities are directed in part towards a political end in Singapore and the Competent Authority opines that it would be in the public interest to impose countermeasures on the entity. This is further elaborated on in sections 7 and 8 of the Bill. These definitions, though, are still broad and not easily understood by the community.

Section 20 will also grant the Minister for Home Affairs powers to issue directions to various entities such as social media services, relevant electronic services, internet access services, as well as persons who own or run websites, blogs or social media pages, to help the authorities investigate and counter hostile communications activity that is of foreign origin. Although it does not apply to Singaporeans expressing their own views on political matters, unless they are agents of a foreign principal and it may not be the intent of the Bill to stifle political speech, there are some members of the community, for example, members of academia or humanitarian and advocacy groups who have genuine concerns about this. These groups have many foreign connections due to their nature that encourages cross-border collaboration. The fear is that their work, which may touch on complex local political issues, and their ties with foreign entities, foundations and states as well as associated funding, may mean that they are at risk of running afoul of the law.

It may be argued that this does not cross the threshold of “public interest”. However, there is a sense of unease on the ground and reasonable concern that the current non-exhaustive way that “public interest” is defined in section 8 would still mean that their activities fall under it. Could more be done in the wording of the Bill to provide greater certainty to organisations on the types of entities that would be designated a Part 4 PSP and subject to directives, such that it avoids casting a shadow on their activities? After all, unless winter is coming in Singapore, surely it would be in the country's best interest to avoid casting a chilling effect on such complex cross-border research and activities.

I am also concerned about how our youths have received this. Youths include Singaporeans, foreigners and PRs among them, interacting together. And our youths value the ability to talk about potentially politically sensitive and difficult topics and is increasingly comfortable doing so on an online platform. Would these regulations give the impression that the Government is discouraging this? If it does, it will cast a shadow on the trust that the youths have for the Government which is something we should guard against. Youths are our future and trust is essential for governments to effectively lead.

Third, section 4 has defined the meaning of “foreign principal” very broadly to capture any and everything that is remotely foreign in nature, regardless of whether such foreign nature is political or government-related or has a public interest. A foreign principal includes a foreigner even if he or she is a Permanent Resident of this country. This is understandable, as foreign interferences may masquerade as normal foreign entities when in essence they are not.

However, I would like to caution and remind, in the wake of these broad definitions and this House's very recent extensive debates on foreign manpower and CECA, to guard against inadvertently enacting legislation that is potentially discriminatory in nature. This may have unintended effects on Singapore’s reputation as a hub for global trade and investments that upholds its constitutional values of equality and fairness. This is something we should always be vigilant about.

Mr Speaker, Sir, at the end of it all, the fundamental question that needs to be asked is if the needs of national security outweigh the needs of checks and balances and transparency. A balance must be struck and its consequences understood as it also has a bearing on the trust Singaporeans may have in the Government and its systems. I fully agree that Singapore must always be prepared against the threat of foreign interference. This is something I recognise and that no one can deny. However, I do hope that in the implementation of this Act, we do not inadvertently lose public trust, discourage local political discourse or advocacy, or affect Singapore’s reputation as an open trading hub.

Mr Speaker: Mr Sharael Taha.

8.07pm

Mr Sharael Taha (Pasir Ris-Punggol): Thank you, Mr Speaker, Sir. I would like to declare my interest as an employee in a global MNC.

In 2018, the Select Committee of Online Falsehood, which comprises of members from both sides of this House, concluded that “this phenomenon (of foreign interference) is real and a serious problem in Singapore,” and that the “Committee received evidence that state-sponsored information operations have been carried out against Singapore” and the Committee provided 22 recommendations which included implementing specific countermeasures to combat state-sponsored disinformation operations.

Hence, I am glad that three years later, after the recommendations of the Select Committee, discussions in Parliament, conferences, publication and speeches during the Committee of Supply, we are ready to debate this piece of legislation to protect our national interest.

The threat of foreign interference is a global problem and the threat to Singapore is real, is growing and we need to enact strong safeguards to protect our “national sovereignty and security, social cohesion and democratic institutions”.

In protecting ourselves from foreign interference, there are several factors that makes it even more important for this Bill to be enacted.

Firstly, Singapore has a small and digitally connected population with IMDA citing 87% of our four million resident population having access to the internet. Unfortunately, a recent IPS survey also found that our digital literacy rates are worryingly low with 6 in 10 respondents believing false information to be true and found that no one is immune to false information regardless of age, socio-economic status and educational background. The IPS study also found that more than two-thirds of over 2,000 respondents trusted a manipulated "news article" presented to them as part of the study.

Secondly, the existence of fault lines in our society is undeniable. Sensitive issues of race, religion, foreign workforce versus local hires, can be easily manipulated to sow social discord. We cannot allow others the chance to destabilise the delicate balance that we have continuously been working on.

Lastly, our open economy. It keeps us relevant and competitive globally. International investors from various industries are attracted to set up operations in Singapore. Facebook, Google, Twitter, Tencent, Alibaba, Huawei, Wechat. These are all foreign companies that have established substantial operations in Singapore. We value the partnerships we have forged with each one of our trading partners and we seek to continue to be able to balance their needs while propelling our national interest forward.

However, the increased Sino-US tensions will invariably affect Singapore. We will have to be able to assert our neutrality and independence to maintain the balance that we have. We must prevent foreign interference from destabilising what we have. We must keep in mind to pursue what is best for Singapore. As Minister Vivian aptly said in a CNA interview, there is a big difference between “being useful” and “being made use of”.

We are not isolated from the impact of foreign interferences, as Minister Shanmugam had mentioned earlier. With the rise of technology and even more ubiquitous use of social media, these interferences are expected to be more frequent and more sophisticated and they will attempt to sway public opinions and even destabilize the precious balance that we have so carefully cultivated.

I understand that there are some reservations to this Bill. However, let me just point out that such legislation to ensure non-interference by foreign agents are currently already in place in countries such as Australia, EU, US and Canada. They have laws to prevent, detect and disrupt foreign interferences conducted through hostile information campaigns and the use of local proxies in their domestic politics. For example, in June 2018, Australia passed laws targeting foreign interference in politics and other domestic affairs and the European Commission is proposing a new Digital Services Act which will, among other things, regulate online platforms by transposing what is already illegal offline to the online space.

These examples serve to illustrate the fact that it is only expected that states will have to protect their self-interests and prevent foreign intervention especially when its intention is to harvest protest potential.

Notwitstanding the above, I wanted to share a concern which was addressed by the Minister in his speech earlier. One concern was from foreign businesses and Singaporeans working in MNCs on whether discussions between a Singaporean and non-Singaporean individual on policies which may affect their business may be seen as foreign interference and captured within the scope of the Bill especially if it is done on an online platform.

This has been of particular concern, especially in light of the current labour crunch causing delays and pushing up the cost of doing business. This labour crunch is brought about by border restrictions, the lack of access to foreign labour and the perceived increasingly anti-foreigner sentiments exacerbated by the current COVID-19 environment. Rightfully, foreign businesses and MNCs are concerned that such discussions on the impact of our policies on their businesses may run them foul of the law. I am glad to hear that Minister has reiterated that discussions of this nature does not meet the threshold to be foul of the law. Mr Speaker, in Malay, please.

( In Malay ) : [Please refer to Vernacular Speech.] The Select Committee on Online Falsehoods was established three years ago and comprises Members of Parliament from both sides of the House. After considering 169 written representations and oral evidence from 65 individuals and organisations, it has concluded that the spread of online falsehoods is a "real and serious problem" in Singapore. The Select Committee was also presented with evidence that information operations sponsored by foreign countries were carried out against Singapore.

Since 2018, the threat of foreign interference has been discussed repeatedly in this Chamber and in online media and publications. It is time that our laws deal with the threat of foreign interference which is increasingly threatening our national security.

There are other factors that make it important for this law to be implemented. A survey by the Institute of Policy Studies, or IPS, found that our digital literacy rate was low, with two-thirds of respondents believing in a manipulated article. Imagine, two-thirds of respondents inadvertently believed an article that was manipulated by the study! And imagine if article is manipulated by those who seek to divide our society. We should and must overcome such online falsehoods, especially when it is done through foreign interference.

The spread of online falsehoods through foreign interference is a real and growing problem around the world. One of the ways it is done is by using fake social media accounts to influence and divide a harmonious society by using sensitive matters such as racial and religious issues. In one case in the United States, an organisation from a foreign state used fake accounts that promote Islamic objectives, as well as fake accounts that spread anti-Islam messages, in order to start a protest against the building of an Islamic library – at the same time and place! This prompted many Americans to attend the protest with one protester reportedly carrying a gun.

In Singapore, we are not immune from the impact of foreign country intervention. For example, in 2018 and 2019, amidst disputes with neighbouring countries over airspace and maritime issues, online comments on social media were found to be made by anonymous accounts aimed at creating fake opposition against Singapore's stance.

As we strive to improve the law to address this problem, we should also realise that we can play a role as Singapore citizens. We must be more careful and sceptical of what we read on social media including the comments and we must not be easily influenced that is not based on truth; especially on sensitive issues which are more easily manipulated to heighten racial discord. We should check the source of information so that we can get the accurate information.

If in doubt, we should not share the messages in case we spread the wrong information. Therefore, this law is an important step that should be taken to protect our national interests and also protect ourselves from being used by those with nefarious intentions.

( In English ): In summary, Mr Speaker, Sir, since 2018, the Select Committee on Deliberate Online Falsehood provided 22 recommendations, which included implementing specific countermeasures to combat state-sponsored disinformation operations.

We have sensitive issues like race and religion which can be easily manipulated by foreign actors to fracture our social cohesion.

Our status as an open economy attracting investments globally implies that we must balance the needs of all stakeholders while putting forward our national interest. We need to enact strong safeguards to protect our national sovereignty and security, protect our social cohesion and protect our democratic institutions.

As we chart the path for Singapore forward, we need to have open conversations, open conversations with all Singaporeans but protected from foreign interferences which may not be in the best interest of Singapore. As such, Mr Speaker, Sir, this is an important step to take. I support the Bill.

Mr Speaker: Mr Liang Eng Hwa.

8.19 pm

Mr Liang Eng Hwa (Bukit Panjang): Mr Speaker, Sir, I will speak from the businesses' perspective. As a sovereign country, we must always ensure that there is no foreign interference in our politics and in our political process, whatever the intentions. As citizens of this land, we are solely and ultimately responsible for the governance and the future of this country, and we live with whatever the political outcomes and its consequences.

In an increasingly digitised world and given Singapore's global interconnectedness, it is necessary to update our laws from time to time to deal with the new threats that may infiltrate our shores and destabilise or divide us. Many countries like the US, Australia, New Zealand, Germany and India have done so in various forms in recent years and so must we.

Sir, the business community can understand why the Government needs to institute new safeguards against foreign interference and to jealously defend our political sovereignty.

As key stakeholders in the economy and society, it is in the businesses' interest to see political and social stability in the country and that the democratic processes are carry out in an orderly, transparent and legitimate manner.

While the intent and purposes of FICA is clear, there are some who still felt that this Bill could make Singapore seem less welcoming of others.

In a Business Times article on 1 October titled "FICA could affect perceptions of Singapore as global hub", it raised a number of concerns.

Firstly, among others, the article cited a hypothetical example of an international pharmaceutical company funding Singapore-based academic research on a drug that may be caught as "influence(s) or seek(s) to influence Singapore Government's decision" under section 8(c) of FICA.

The article also questioned a situation in which a multinational company's (MNC) employee is vocal about Singapore politics and policy, whether that would be construed as undertaking on behalf of the MNC and hence will come under the ambit of FICA.

Thirdly, the article also mentioned that FICA "is designed such that there will be little opportunity for the Courts to interpret and define the scope of its provisions", unlike the Common Law.

Can I ask the Minister if he could address those issues raised and whether there is a basis to be concerned that FICA could impact our status as a global hub? Sir, in Mandarin.

( In Mandarin ) : [Please refer to Vernacular Speech.] Mr Speaker, having heard the speeches of several Members of Parliament, my overall feeling is that we have one key consensus on this Bill, and that is: we do not want external forces to interfere with our internal affairs and weaken our sovereignty as an independent country. Our own affairs should be resolved by ourselves and there is no need for foreign political forces to interfere. Some of them may even harbour ill intentions.

Singapore is not the first country to put in place a preventative mechanism to prevent foreign interference. Many countries such as the US, Australia, India and Israel have different types of legal and administrative means to deter foreign interference.

In the recent US elections, we have seen from media reports of alleged foreign interference during the elections. During the 2018 Yellow Vest movement in France, the French government was also aware of the presence of clandestine foreign interference that exploited existing social conflicts to stir up public resentment and incite riots. During the 2019 unrest in Hong Kong, the Hong Kong government repeatedly mentioned that the demonstrators had received funding from foreign organisations.

Mr Speaker, the business community recognises the need for Singapore to introduce FICA and understands that this Bill is not targeted at any country.

Of course, the business community also hopes that Singapore's economy and society, as well as the democratic process can develop steadily, and that our society will operate according to the rule of law and public opinions, and not be influenced by external forces.

However, some business, especially those that often do business overseas, still have concerns about this Bill.

Singapore is a small island state, lacking a large and high growth domestic market. Hence, our economic development strategy must be open and connected to the world. It is only natural for local companies to seek business and growth opportunities through internationalisation and cross-border operations.

Singapore companies that do business overseas will inevitably have dealings with organisations that are connected to the local Government or semi-Government organisations. Sometimes, they may also have exchanges with these local entities in cultural, educational or ancestral matters.

Some of these companies support various exchanges between the two countries in the form of sponsorship, charity or donations. For example, at anniversary celebrations, trade associations or clan associations may receive congratulatory support from foreign organisations or receive goods, sponsorships and donations according to etiquette.

Not all businesses are familiar with the intricacies of FICA. Some are concerned that they may inadvertently be caught under the new law.

We all know that in the eyes of law, ignorance does not mean you are not guilty. Hence, they are worried that their past interactions and future engagement with overseas organisations might cause them or their company to be listed as being politically influenced.

I hope that the Minister can give a more detailed and simpler explanation of the coverage of this Bill, what is allowed and not allowed. It is best to illustrate with situations that we often encounter, for example, how the authority designates individuals or organisations as "politically significant persons/entities". This will require MHA's further clarifications. Given that the conditions in different countries are different, will there be room for flexibility under the Bill?

Will the Government set up a consultative mechanism to allow companies to discuss and communicate with relevant authorities so that the business community can better understand the purpose of the Bill? In this respect, I feel that if trade associations can participate more in the communication, the objective of the Bill can be better achieved.

Lastly, I would like to ask the Minister for his view on the medals, honorary degrees and awards conferred to Singapore businessmen by overseas governments.

Businesses in overseas markets often have to follow local customs and contribute in many ways to the local community and society. These acts of kindness are sometimes recognised by the local government. Some Singaporean businessmen or enterprises will also receive awards or medals from the local government. Here, I would like to seek clarification on these matters too.

( In English ): Sir, notwithstanding the points above, I support the Bill.

Mr Speaker: Minister Shanmugam.

8.28 pm

Mr K Shanmugam: Mr Speaker, Sir, I thank Members for their questions.

I will first address some of the points made by Members of the Workers' Party. Mr Pritam Singh spoke about the need for engagement and responding to feedback, but it appears to me that the Workers' Party has really not substantively engaged with anything that I have said.

We studied their proposals. I explained in detail in my opening speech where we agreed and also where we disagreed and why. I replied on many of the points and why some of the proposed amendments will not work.

Mr Pritam Singh cites the jurist Albert Dicey to remind us of the doctrine of separation of powers and that the rule of law requires a system of checks and balances on the exercise of executive power. He also referred to the concepts that were recently affirmed by the Court of Appeal in Nagaenthran a/l Dharmalingam .

Sir, I can tell him, and Members know, these principles are fundamental to us. These are the principles that underpin much of our success. I said in my speech, the starting point is that the rule of law is fundamental to our existence and our well-being as a country.

And that is shown in our consistently high rankings on law and order indices and our good international standing.

It is also fundamental to ensure that we have good investments; low unemployment; healthy economy.

But as I also have explained, we have never taken an absolutist approach. And if you take a dogmatic absolutist approach, it will not work for us and it is not working for many other countries.

Rhetoric alone does not solve problems. You can come to this House and have soaring rhetoric. Rhetoric has not solved the Gitmo problem of the United States. President Obama said, "The choice between liberty and freedom or security. Liberty and security is a false choice". Did he close down Gitmo? Why is it that we continue to be colonised in our minds that there is only one way of doing things properly?

I said what is the answer to the problems we have – practical answers, not just rhetoric. I said we need to see how checks need to be made suitable for the context and the risks we face. I have not heard any answer.

I said how are you going to deal with the risks of leaks in open Court hearings or in-camera? No answer. I would say not a squeak.

What are the objections to the Tribunal chaired by a High Court Judge? No real answer.

So, what we had was not a debate because we are not dealing with these points. Parliament is not just a forum for reading out speeches with an intent of putting it out in social media eventually. We need to engage on the issues.

What are the powers? What are the risks? How are the risks being dealt with in the context of the overall legal landscape?

So, listening to Mr Singh and Ms He, does that mean that they also suggest we do away with the ISA, the CLTPA, the Land Acquisition Act and various other pieces of legislation?

Or do they accept that these are needed? And, if so, why do they say we should not deal with the issues relating or covered by FICA, some part of it, through a Tribunal, given the National Security considerations? The answer may be yes. The answer may be no. But we need to engage. What are the reasons?

Is it the Workers' Party's position that all these tribunals established under all these laws that Parliament has approved should be abolished because it offends the principles of separation of powers and the rule of law?

We accept separation of powers. If we did not and if we did not have the rule of law in Singapore, I would not be here, Mr Singh would not be here, this Chamber would not look this and Singapore would not be like this. In fact, none of you would be here.

The reason we are all here is because this is a country run according to the principles of rule of law. We do not mind listening to lectures on rule of law but we subscribe to them too. But we also deal with real problems.

If the Workers' Party’s position is taken to its extreme, as I have said, we would have to do away with the CLTPA, the ISA, the MRHA and the Land Acquisition Act. All the laws that have worked well for us.

We would have to subject all our laws to judicial review. Will that alone work for us? In matters of national security, immigration, religious harmony? What is the position? So, it is not a reflexive answer each time there is a problem to say that there is only one solution. The point is, as I have said, what is the problem? Identify it. What is the best solution for this particular problem? How do you make sure that the Government is given sufficient powers and how do you make sure that there are checks and balances? So, there are the risks, and the checks and balances. In the end, what is workable?

Why are countries in Western Europe, the United States being opened up by foreign adversaries? All the evidences that we have seen in our list. Why is it that they are so open to foreign attacks? Is it because they do not have the technology?

There is such thing called political will and political courage and there will have to be a recognition that judicial process will not be appropriate.

So, Parliament is not just a place where you come and because you see that there are some people who are saying certain things, you resort to rhetoric without offering real suggestions. It requires some courage to say this is a problem and we will deal with it. This is the way we will deal with it and offer solutions. Alternate solutions.

And in so far as I have seen, the solutions: I have explained why the High Court process, open court process does not work, and I have heard nothing in response.

A judicial process will not be appropriate in matters where we rely heavily on sensitive intelligence and collaboration with foreign counterparts. Many things cannot be publicly disclosed.

The Courts themselves, have recognised their limitations in such matters. In Chng Suan Tze , the Court of Appeal recognised that where a decision – say the ISA detention – was based on national security concerns, judicial review of that decision would be precluded.

The Court acknowledged that what national security requires has to be left to those responsible for national security, that would be the Executive. And in such situations, we have found alternative ways of providing for checks and balances with the view that we must maintain accountability.

Mr Perera asked who checks the checkers? What happens if the Prime Minister or the Minister for Home Affairs are suborned?

Well, what happens in any other country if a prime minister or minister for home affairs or any other minister is suborned? Do the Courts intervene? In the case of the US, have we seen the United States Supreme Court intervene?

The ultimate check are the people. But do you expect the people as a collective body to deal with day-to-day problems of foreign interference? That is why we are elected and we are in Parliament here to debate what is the best way possible for the people.

We talk about consultation. We have had consultations for three years now. Mr Singh read out an answer given by Second Minister Josephine. Yes, she said we will consult. We have to bring people in, and this is what we have been doing from the Select Committee hearing. For three years we have been doing that: conferences, Select Committee hearings for over eight days, if I recall rightly, discussions in Parliament, speeches, extensive discussions.

So, we agree entirely on the principles. In fact, if this Government had not stuck to those principles, fundamentally, and had not recognised that that is the foundation of our existence – rule of law, separation of powers, doing things according to the law – we would not be here. Not just the PAP. PAP would have been long out of power but Singapore would not be here.

So, yes, Executive powers must be subject to checks and balances. The question is in what form and that depends on what is appropriate for the situation. When the Courts are not suitable, we have introduced other types of bodies or tribunals with statutory imposed safeguards. The further safeguards here, like requiring a Supreme Court Judge to consider the matter.

I have taken this House through various pieces of legislation, where we have vested powers in tribunals as an alternate to the Courts as a form of check and balance.

And we also have a series of cases where ouster clauses have been upheld by the Courts. These relate to areas which are traditionally regarded as non-justiciable. National security and foreign relations are classic areas.

Ms He Ting Ru made some points on the Tribunal: the scope of what they can review and their independence.

First, on the scope of its review. She seems to be under the mistaken impression that the Tribunal’s remit is narrow. That is incorrect. The Tribunal can consider any appeal brought against a Part 3 Direction and there can be a review of the merits of the decision. It is not confined to procedural compliance or legality. And the Tribunal, chaired by a Supreme Court Judge, will look at sensitive intelligence and information.

Mr Perera, I think, called it the Government-appointed Committee. I mean, again, rhetoric. Let us please not insult our High Court Judges. Please. And this Tribunal has powers to overrule the Minister’s decision.

The Tribunal has been, as I said, expressly vested with the powers to override the Minister's decision and it is useful to point out clause 95(2) of the Bill insulates the members of the Reviewing Tribunal from pressure and states very clearly that the Minister cannot reduce the salary and terms of office once they are appointed by the President.

Mr Singh pointed out that under clause 99(2)(b), the Tribunal will be able to consider a matter, without the appellant being given full particulars of the conduct which is the subject to the appeal. He talked about natural justice. I accept. But I also explained why sometimes we cannot give the full evidence. I said that in my opening speech which Mr Singh did not refer to at all. There might be times when the evidence would have to be given to the Tribunal for it to look at and decide for itself whether it makes sense to make the orders and it is proportionate to the kind of orders that can be made. We are not talking about the liberty of the individual. Also, clause 99(2)(f) allows the Tribunal to give a summary of any evidence to the appellant.

Mr Singh highlighted the importance of education about foreign interference and its dangers. We agree with that. I have explained that FICA is part of a comprehensive strategy to deal with foreign interference. Powers under FICA are only part of the picture and I have said that it is a calibrated piece of legislation to allow us to act surgically against threats.

Besides legislation, we have been and will continue to strengthen other defences – detection and response capabilities, Singaporeans’ ability to discern legitimate and artificial online discourse, though that is going to be very difficult, to counter the threat of foreign interference.

Our security agencies do their best. On public education, the Government has introduced various programmes.

Let me give some examples. The Digital Media and Information Literacy Framework was launched by MCI in 2019. It educates the public on using information responsibly and the risks and benefits of technology.

The Source, Understand, Research, Evaluate Programme by the NLB educates the public to be responsible producers and consumers of information.

The Media Literacy Council also runs programmes to promote responsible online behaviour.

And we have had extensive communications efforts over the past three years, which I have detailed. We will continue our efforts. But Government cannot do this alone.

Mr Giam is right that a whole-of-society effort is required for public education. So, we will welcome everyone's assistance in helping to engage and educate the population.

But these efforts have to be complemented with laws, which is the focus of FICA.

At the same time, this is something that has been considered at length for at least three years. We have engaged the media to put out examples to increase awareness of the threats happening around us. For example, in CNA and others.

We have also engaged various stakeholders since 2019 and their feedback had been incorporated into conceptualising the Bill: Internet companies – over a period since 2019 and senior lawyers, academics, security experts, students – many of them were closed-door discussions; some were open Panel discussions. So, it has been going on for three years which is what Minister Josephine Teo mentioned.

I think, perhaps, Mr Singh misunderstood that to mean that it will be post whatever she said some months ago. What she meant was during this entire period.

Local academics have also written various commentaries and these were published online. Some of them were mentioned in Annex F which was distributed earlier. Articles have been published, written by security experts from RSIS.

Moving on to foreigners who comment on Singapore politics and whether they are liable. Mr Perera mentioned someone. Again, I think he either missed it or was not listening to my speech, I dealt with it in my opening speech. A foreign commentator putting out his name and commenting is unlikely to be called "covert" per se. Depends on the facts and I said this arose from something that Assoc Prof Jamus Lim had put out in the context of his amendments. So, I addressed it.

If a foreigner puts his name, writes articles, people can assess for themselves what is the weight to be attached. It probably will not come within the proportionality test. But depending on the facts, there is some covert action, some other factors, or the intensity or the nature of the matter, there are a variety of factors to be considered.

For those who have pointed out that the Bill is 249 pages long; in the interest of accuracy, it is 189 pages long. The other 60 pages are the Explanatory Statement which is to help Members and Members will know more than half it, as I said, is based on the Political Donations Act (PDA).

Now, I will go on to the points made by other Members that I have not touched on.

Members brought up questions and suggestions in five main areas. First, the impetus for FICA. Second, the scope of the Bill and its application. Third, on the rules for the Tribunal. Fourth, the implementation of the Bill. Finally, specific clarifications to clauses of the Bill. I will deal with these issues.

Mr Leong Mun Wai asked why is FICA necessary when we already have extensive powers and substantial resources to deal with foreign interference. I have, in my speech, pointed out how the Internet has opened an entirely new front for hostile action. Information forces are seen as a fourth branch of armed service. This Bill is about updating our powers to ensure that they are fit for the Internet age. Given the threats, we think there is a clear and present danger that justifies us acting now.

Assoc Prof Jamus Lim asked how MHA came to the conclusion that Singapore was being attacked in 2018 when Facebook’s assessment was that there had been no cases of foreign influence operations targeting Singapore since 2017. We do not know how Facebook makes its assessment and whether it depends only on Facebook. We look at the wide variety of communication tools. Based on the information we have available to us, we reached a different conclusion. And I would say to Assoc Prof Lim, matters of our national security should not be outsourced to private companies and they should not be made to decide what our fate ought to be.

Dr Tan Yia Swam and Dr Shahirah made the point that there are extensive powers given to the Minister and that provisions are not clearly defined. Mr Xie Yao Quan asked that we explain the targets of the Bill and how the law will be applied, especially with regard to young people. Various Members, several Members have asked if FICA would affect various types of foreign interactions with academics, businesses, NGOs, clan associations, whether there will be a chilling effect on freedom of speech.

The short answer really is no. I mentioned this in my speech earlier; I will just summarise. FICA will not stop individuals, businesses and organisations in Singapore from building overseas partnerships, soliciting overseas business, networking with foreigners, sourcing for donations, discussing government policies or political matters that affect their businesses with foreign colleagues or business partners or supporting charities. As long as these are done in an open and transparent manner and not part of an attempt to manipulate our political discourse or undermine public interest such as security.

It will also not cover Singaporeans expressing their own views. It goes without saying Singaporeans have every right to speak up on our domestic politics. They are also free to engage in advocacy. That is not touched by FICA.

Mr Louis Ng and Mr Zhulkarnain asked how the Government decides what is covert or deceptive. It is an assessment that has to depend on many factors. No different from many of the other things that the Government does.

Primarily, we have to examine the behaviour of the actor involved. Indicators of covert or deceptive behaviour will include attempts to mask their tracks, misrepresent their identity, attempting to launder their narratives by having them amplified by sympathetic or unwitting locals. And these can never be exhaustive. Tactics will continue to evolve and become more sophisticated, and I even attempted to set out the full list of tactics or factors that might be used or need to be considered.

In response to Mr Zhulkarnain and Mr Perera's questions on the use of encrypted messages, VPNs and so on, use of such services is common. The fact that communications is private, on its own, would not make it hidden or covert. The use of such messages or VPN to intentionally avoid detection could be a factor in an assessment but it really must be taken into account with all the other facts and circumstances and the legal requirements set out in the law including proportionality.

Mr Zhulkarnain asked in relation to the offences in clauses 17 and 18, why we should allow an individual to "get away” if there is no covert or deceptive behaviour.

I had previously said that this Bill was calibrated, and this is one example of how. There is a line, a fine one, between a campaign to persuade and a campaign to manipulate. When campaigning is done openly, Singaporeans know who the content is from. They are able to make up their own minds and are free to agree, disagree, depending on whether they are persuaded. So, in our view, that should not be criminalised. But separately, directions can be given against a foreign party, depending on whether the thresholds have been crossed, which I explained earlier.

Mr Leong Mun Wai said someone can be arrested, no reasons given, and if the evidence is offered later, the Government is not entitled, or not obliged to reveal a source. So, you can be detained, trialed in absence, and there is no judicial review for all the actions taken against you

Now, this one, of all the things that have been said today, this one takes the cake. I do not know if he has read the Bill. Or if he has read it, I do not know if he has understood it, because I think we are talking about two different Bills. All of these statements are completely untrue, so I do not know what Mr Leong has read. I will ask him to read the Bill carefully and also ask him to make some preparation before he comes to Parliament and also listen to what is going on in Parliament, including the Minister's speech.

In the Bill, the powers of arrest relate to specific offences which need to be proven in Court like any other offence, and proven beyond reasonable doubt. Those will be prosecuted in open court. I specifically said so in my speech. There is no detention without trial in this Bill. So, to suggest that someone can be detained, trialed in absence, no judicial review? All of that is utter nonsense. I do not know where he got these ideas from. It brings to mind another debate we had a few weeks ago, but this one goes further.

So, we are talking about, I think, completely different things. I can tell Mr Leong, there is no power for detention without trial in this Bill. There is the power to give some directions, so perhaps that might help him change his mind on the Bill now that we know that he has been talking about some other Bill.

These clarifications also address Assoc Prof Jamus Lim’s concerns on whether we will charge those who were duped into committing harmful activities. In such circumstances, the elements of an offence would not be made out. There would be no basis for any criminal action.

Now, we come to the Tribunal. The question really is what kind of powers are needed and how we make the processes work. Mr Murali Pillai and Mr Louis Ng asked how do we select and appoint members of the Tribunal and the rules that will be set out, including whether the Tribunal will provide written reasons for their decisions.

Mr Zhulkarnain asked if there are safeguards to ensure that the Tribunal does not disclose information they have access to during the proceedings. The Reviewing Tribunal will be a standing Tribunal. There will be a few discrete and fixed panels set up, members will be selected for their areas of expertise, they will have to undergo security vetting because they will be receiving highly classified and highly confidential information. They must be people with experience and standing, just like any other tribunals or independent committee, like the ISA Advisory Board. Members will be given the same protection and privileges as a Supreme Court Judge and they must protect secret information, under the Official Secrets Act.

Mr Pillai raised the concern on separation of powers and suggested consulting Chief Justice for the appointment of the Chairperson rather than for the Cabinet to advise the President. While it is not written in law, that is the way Supreme Court Judges are appointed to panels. We consult the Chief Justice and he suggests some names. I have spoken to the Chief Justice to suggest some names.

We will work out the specific rules for the Tribunal in the coming months as subsidiary legislation. These rules will be public. Some broad principles: (a) the Government will have to present the evidence to convince the Tribunal; (b) Tribunal will have powers to call witnesses and compel the production of documents; (c) information will be disclosed to the appellant to the extent that it is not sensitive from a national security perspective; (d) the Tribunal can take an inquisitorial approach when the information cannot be given to the appellant and (e) the Tribunal will decide whether to uphold or overturn directions.

Mr Zhulkarnian asked about the expeditious proceedings of the Tribunal. The Tribunal can consolidate and hear similar appeals as a single case, or they can take one case as a reference point that will apply to other similar cases. They can also dismiss frivolous or vexatious appeals.

Rules of the Tribunal will be set out in subsidiary legislation and the key features drawn from reviewing bodies in other laws.

Mr Pillai asked why is the Minister, and not a reviewing tribunal, the appealing authority for PSP decisions, and why there is no requirement, similar to the Tribunal, for the Minister to review the appeal expeditiously. I think Mr Perera may have raised the same question.

The level of authorisation required for various powers is calibrated based on the impact of the directions and countermeasures. PSP directions are targeted in their applications and scope. They are issued to a specified individual or entity. The impact of the directives are limited to that person or entity and compared with a HIC.

So, the authorisations are accordingly calibrated. HIC directions authorised by the Minister and PSP designations and countermeasures by a civil servant within MHA.

The appropriate appellate authority is therefore framed by reference to the level of authorisation and the respective direction appealable to the next level of authority.

Mr Liang Eng Hwa asked for more details on the process to how a Competent Authority can designate someone as a PSP, and whether businesses can take rectification measures to remove their designation as PSPs.

The processes for designation and appeal are spelt out in clauses 47 to 49 and clauses 100 to 102 of the Bill. Operational details on the designation and appeals process are still being worked out and will be introduced in subsidiary legislation and as Regulations.

Being conferred with an honorary title or degree by a foreign state or University alone is unlikely to be sufficient grounds for designation as a PSP. It is not FICA's intent to stop these types of interactions and activities. But, again, we will look to see whether there is an attempt by a foreign actor to cultivate a Singaporean to undermine our national interest.

Mr Murali Pillai asked if the appointments to the advisory committee to advise the Minister on PSP appeals will be gazetted and make public and how would the public know that the Minister is not following the advisory committee's advice. We have no issues with making the appointments public. The committee will comprise third parties to render advice to the Minister.

In response to Mr Louis Ng's question on whether individuals will receive written responses to explain decisions made by the competent authority on designating PSPs, this would be done as the specific activities that qualified them for designation will have a direct impact on how the controls will apply to them. For instance, a designated NGO that advocates on a variety of issues will have to report donations that it specifically receives for its activities that are directed towards a political end. The explanation will be important in setting out which are its activities of concern and those would be the donations that have to be disclosed.

Mr Louis Ng asked if MHA will release guidelines and illustrations that can facilitate compliance by good-faith actors. Mr Liang Eng Hwa asked if there will be engagement to help businesses navigate how FICA applies to them. Non-compliance is an offence. A recipient of a direction who fails to comply, can be prosecuted. We agree with the intent of Mr Ng's and Mr Liang's questions, there is a need to help good faith actors comply. We will continue to engage stakeholders including tech companies and Internet access service providers to understand their capabilities and constraints, identify suitable modes of compliance and we will continue to work with our stakeholders to operationalise.

The exact mode of compliance with disclosure and declaration obligations and other requirements from counter-measures that they may be subjected to will be articulated in subsidiary legislation. But the vast majority of foreign dealings between Singaporean companies and their business counterparts will continue unchanged.

Mr Xie Yao Quan asked where will Part 3 directions be published and whether the reasons for actions taken under Parts 3, 4, 5 and 6 will be published. Mr Zhulkarnain suggested giving a report on the FICA offences or directions without the need to go into specific details or naming the foreign principals. Mr Darryl David suggested informing the public when there is sufficient evidence that there is foreign interference and said we should make the entity's identity and activities known so that we can take a united position against such a country.

We have taken the approach to not name the foreign state actors whom we suspect to be involved in these foreign attempts. There are wider national and foreign policy considerations in doing so. However, we will alert Singaporeans when such communications activity has been detected and if FICA directions were issued to block and contain such foreign interference. All Part 3 directions, except for the Technical Assistance Direction, will be published on a website accessible to the public.

As Mr Xie has pointed out, national security concerns may make it impracticable to publish the reasons for actions taken. Where possible, we will inform the public on the broad grounds for issuance of directions. In response to Mr Xie's question on whether appeals made and ruled under FICA would be published, we can consider, although it would depend on the facts and circumstances of the case. The more sensitive the information used, the less likely we are able to do so.

Mr Xie suggested making the Registry of Foreign and Political Disclosures accessible online, free of charge, in a searchable, sortable and downloadable format, to maximise its potential for public education and awareness. We will consider his suggestions.

Mr Zhulkarnain pointed out that it is easy for a person to deny that he is aware of the purpose of undertaking an activity and asked for the threshold in clause 16 in determining that a person has intention or belief to undertake the activity for a particular purpose. He also asked if a person would be held liable if he was not aware that he is acting on behalf of a foreign principal. The short answer is no. The Member can refer to clause 5(1)(b). The starting point is indeed we want to make it an offence to conduct or abet a HIC. But we cannot remove intentionality from the offence elements, otherwise we will end up making criminals out of Singaporeans who unknowingly aid an HIC by sharing content without knowing better. Given the sophistication of threat actors, this is more than likely.

A deliberate perpetrator may of course deny, which is why we need to set the offence threshold at a reasonable level, "is or is likely to", for example. And making out that case would be the job of our law enforcement agencies.

Referring to clause 49, Mr Louis Ng asked for clarification on what would not be practicable or desirable for individuals to have the opportunity to be heard. If the designated individual is a Singaporean based overseas and not planning on returning to Singapore, it may not be practical to delay his or her designation until he or she is given an opportunity to be heard.

Also, if we have received intelligence that a target for designation may already be compromised and counter measures are required immediately to mitigate the threat, it may not be desirable to wait for the hearing before designation.

Mr Speaker, Sir, this Bill is intended to address a serious threat that concerns Singapore national security and sovereignty. These are important to ensure that Singaporeans continue to make our own choices on how we should govern our country and live our lives.

There is also the question of the Petition as I said in my Second Reading speech. Sir, I will ask that this be treated as being dealt with during this debate, so that we do not have to postpone that to some other time. Sir, with that, I beg to move.

Mr Speaker: Clarifications. Leader of Opposition.

9.07 pm

Mr Pritam Singh: Thank you, Mr Speaker. I thank the Minister for closing speech. I have three clarifications.

I will start with the first which covers the Second Minister for Home Affairs, Minister Josephine Teo's comments at this year's Committee of Supply. Sir, I do not believe I misread that speech. Mr Christopher de Souza filed a cut, asking MHA what it would do to deter foreign interference in our domestic affairs. Minister replies, quite an extensive reply. It goes on for about a page, and right at the end, she says, "Given the experience of other countries, we need to consider further measures". This is post-Select Committee on Deliberate Online Falsehoods' findings, post some other seminars that have been referred to. And she says, "We need to consider further measures to guard against foreign subversion, what levels of transparency, support, leadership are appropriate for home and the public has to play a big part in this to shape proposals and to give safeguards the strongest support". It seems to me that it is not a misunderstanding of this but it is probably more accurate to say that, that does not seem to be an answer as to why the Bill could not be put before public consultation, like other Bills are. This is an omission for which I do not think we have heard any responses yet.

The second point pertains to the role of the Courts, which I think is the fundamental disagreement between the Government and the Workers' Party (WP)'s position is the oversight mechanism. I think there is scope to discuss some of the other points and I think Minister has agreed with some of our amendments but Minister referred to the case, the 1988 case of Chng Suan Tze v Minister for Home Affairs . Let me refer to it and try to capture the spirit of the WP's approaches to oversight mechanisms the way we see them vis-à-vis this Bill.

I refer to the Constitution of the Republic of Singapore (Amendment) Bill. A debate that took place on the 25 of January 1989 and it also dealt with, the main debate also dealt with Internal Security Act (ISA) (Amendment) Bill, which sought to abolish appeal to the Privy Council in case of review of ISA cases.

Then, Minister K Shanmugam, as a backbencher said the following and I would start with the reference to Chng Suan Tze and Minister said, "It will be useful to consider exactly what the Court of Appeal said. It did not say that it can itself decide whether or not the detainee posed a threat. The Court said that it can consider, within broad parameters, whether or not there was any ground at all for the detention. It will set aside the detention only if there were absolutely no grounds for the detention, that is, it takes the view that no one in his right mind could possibly have concluded that the detainee posed any threat to national security. Otherwise, it will not interfere with the Minister's decision.

Sir, the amendments will deny the Courts that power. This Government believes it has never abused the ISA and there is nothing to fear. The Government works on the basis that the persons in Government should be upright, moral and only do what is good for the country. Thus, the people have nothing to fear, despite the powers that the Government has. These powers will never be abused because they are so effective, they help the Government govern effectively for the greater good of all. So, that has worked."

And Minister says this, "But can we be sure that down the road, the situation will be the same? We cannot guarantee that the future government will comprise of honourable men." Minister then goes on, "An argument, therefore, can be made out that there must be checks and balances within the system. The Minister in taking his decision can arguably be made to realise that if his decision is so unreasonable that one look at the facts will show that he could never have considered the detainee a threat, then his decision should be reversed by the Courts."

Insofar as FICA is concerned and as it is drafted with the limited judicial review clause, what we are taking away is precisely what the Minister was warning about in 1989. Illegality, irrationality are not grounds for judicial review consideration in this Bill, only procedural impropriety. And I was listening very carefully to the other People's Action Party (PAP) Members who spoke and I compared the speeches of those Members with the PAP Members who spoke in 1989. The Minister was not the only one who was concerned about an appeals mechanism or other appeals mechanism and that there be appropriate checks and balances. There were a few other PAP Members.

I am not going to go through the entire debate, but I think the point is, the WP does not understand at the very base level, why it has to be limited judicial review in this case. I think Minister gave some reasons and the Minister referred to leaks – that there could be leaks in the system, when you go to Court. Sir, I do not mean to just facetiously give a counter response, but there could be leaks in the reviewing tribunal as well.

So, that question, I think if you ask me on balance, should a Court at least look into and review the decision of the Minister? Should judicial review be allowed to be captured in its entirety by a Court of Law? I think the answer is yes and that is a fundamental difference. Notwithstanding this, Minister makes the point about national security and so forth, which is why the Workers' Party Members have proposed potential in-camera hearings and files can be sealed after that as well.

My third clarification, Sir, is a bit more specific and this pertains to designated PSPs. I am not sure it is appropriate for me to direct this question at Minister because it would probably be more appropriately directed at the other office holders in MHA who spoke on the Bill and this is with regard to designated PSPs. I will give an example, a hypothetical.

Let us assume there is a cause-based, a single cause-based NGO in Singapore. Their cause is, they are very aghast at the idea of foreign workers being transported at the back of hard-top lorries. This is their single cause, they are all Singapore members and they regularly write to their Members of Parliament and encourage their Members of Parliament to bring this issue up in Parliament. Let us assume this NGO receives foreign funding. It receives foreign funding from another International Organisation, whose main object is that they seek to ensure and uphold the human rights of foreign workers all over the world. They are prepared to extend funding to anyone.

Now, one reading of FICA, by virtue of a clause 8(f) and (g) and even (e) perhaps, will suggest that, this Singapore NGO could be classified as a Politically Significant Entity (PSE). My question is, will such a PSE be barred at the first instance, at the baseline, from continuing to accept foreign funding. That means will the Competent Authority say, "No, sorry, you cannot receive this funding." Because, I know under stepped-up countermeasures, you can do that.

At the baseline, I believe it says you cannot accept impermissible donations. I believe the Bill in clause 55 tells you what a permissible donor is. Are we to read that in the opposite, as in everybody who is out of that range is an impermissible donor?

Because this has knock-on implications for other arguments that the Government and other Members of Parliament have made. If you work with climate activists, for example, there is an international solidarity movement on certain issues. How will this be addressed and considered by FICA?

This, I hope explains Mr Gerald Giam's amendments for clause 8(f) and (g), as to how do we balance this exercise. Because if you compare clause 8(a) to (e), there is a very clear target – legislature, presidential counsels, trying to change the laws – but the last two limbs are far more broad and that also explains why the Workers' Party proposed additional oversight arrangements.

Mr K Shanmugam: Mr Speaker, I will deal with the first two points and one of my colleagues will deal with this last point on NGOs and designations.

On what the Second Minister said, I thought I was quite clear. What she was saying and this is an answer I myself looked at, previously. We have seen the experiences of other countries. We have to consider what further measures are necessary. For example, what levels of transparency in funding, support and leadership and for whom? The public has a big part in this to shape the proposals on these further measures to give the eventual safeguards their strongest support.

What does that relate to? What have we been doing with the public for the last three years? We have been engaging in extensive consultations. In fact, we have taken into account the viewpoints that have been given to us by a wide variety of actors.

But if we talk about whole-of-society, this is not the end. It is the beginning. We will face a major attack at some point. We need to bring the entire society together. We need to do a lot more to bring and shape public thinking.

So, there is a long haul ahead of us and the public has to be involved in that. The public has been involved, primarily, experts, in the thinking through of the Bill too.

On the second point. To take that and say – that means for the drafting of the Bill, the public will be involved and how come it was not involved – that is a misreading of that statement.

Let us go to the second question, which I think is the crux of the difference between the Government and Mr Pritam Singh and his party.

He quoted what I said in 1989. I did not only say it in 1989. If you went back and checked, I think I have said it at various points – 1989, 1990. I have said it just for the record since it is all in Hansard anyway. I have said it in respect of the original MRHA. I have said it in respect of the CLTPA and I have said it in respect of the Internal Security Act.

Why? This is fundamental. This is important. I have given this answer to your colleague, Mr Dennis Tan, when he asked me, probably trying to suggest that I am being inconsistent. A person who is prepared to be thinking about issues sometimes has to change his views when he is faced with the real world and experiences.

In 1989, I was a lawyer four years out of law school, four years after being called, and like many other lawyers, my assumption was every problem, the solution is in the Courts. Just like Mr Pritam Singh and others, I also take the separation of powers very seriously. The constitutional principles, the independence of the judiciary, all of these, I take very seriously. We imbibed this in law school.

I believed in it, I believe in it and I believe we try and uphold it. So, any time when there is an approach that seeks to cut back on judicial review or take away the powers of the judiciary, my instinctive reaction is negative. I do not like it, I do not want to do it and I instinctively try and see if there is a different way of doing it.

Which is why when the MRHA was originally brought in, I expressed my discomfort within the bounds of what is possible for the backbench Members of Parliament of the ruling party. Likewise, I expressed my concerns about the CLTPA. Likewise, I expressed my concerns about the Internal Security Act.

Likewise, today, I said, if we can find a better model, I will be the first one to do it. Tell me a better model. Going to the High Court for FICA is not a better model.

I think, Mr Pritam Singh, based on what he says, he obviously does not deny that there will be leaks. Do you want us to take the risks?

Will there be a possibility of a leak with a Tribunal? Much, much, much less. To the point of being close to zero. That is the big difference.

What has made me change my mind? If a man looks at the facts, the real world and refuses to change his mind, he is either stupid or he is ideological. I am neither. I think. Even if I say that of myself.

So, you see 9/11. You look at the way the Americans have dealt with it. You see the issues in Western Europe. You see the issues around the world where lip service is paid to all these grand concepts but the societies live in utter misery, where rule of law is a concept for lawyers but it does not operate in the real world. And you ask yourself.

So, I look at all of this experience practising in the Courts and too many years as a Member of Parliament. Long conversations with the late Mr Lee Kuan Yew, discussing, I would say arguing though it is not easy to argue with him, discussing, tough discussions and then I began to understand the meaning of his original speech to the Law Society when he said, "Law and order, I reverse it. Order first, before law." Because if you do not have order, you cannot have law.

When we all read it, we think we understand it. But I do not think we really do. You need to really imbibe what is the meaning of that. If you cannot have the CLTPA and arrest the gangsters, how are you going to have law? It will be a paper law. But if you can bring order into society, then your law will take full effect.

Look at the state of our society. Look at the number of people under the CL today compared to the number of people under the CL even 10 years ago. It is halved and the reason is as society develops, as society progresses, as there is stability, as there is order, the law takes stronger and stronger roots. If you get that wrong, you will neither have law nor order.

So, I began to understand why we have a strong commitment to the rule of law, a strong commitment to the separation of powers and at the same time, in specific areas, there are some exceptions. For example, I said the Land Acquisition Act. Your property could be worth millions of dollars. The Government could acquire it and you could be asked to leave. It is socialism in action. It is a social policy and there is a need for that. Even today.

Would we in Singapore be where we are if we had taken the Indian approach and every matter goes up to the Supreme Court on land acquisition and it takes years to deal with it?

So, I saw the genius in the adaptations that our system has made or the founding generation has made, being very strict in building up our judiciary.

You look at all the countries in the post-colonial world. They inherited the institutions from the British – a civil service, a judiciary, laws, schools, education. What have they done with it? Most of them have gone down the tube while they have grand rhetoric.

What has Mr Lee and his team done with it? Built up the judiciary. If we do not have a commitment to the rule of law, do you think our judiciary will be ranked as it is today? Internationally?

Built up our civil service so that it is a strong, outstanding, excellent civil service. Built up the other institutions, including SAF, the Police force, our education system, our middle class. All of these were built up with the foundations of bringing order first and making sure that the law and the commitment to the rule of law are there.

But making the exceptions where necessary and I took you through the exceptions.

To me, the best example of how this operated in practice is when I saw how the Americans were struggling with it. They had an ideological commitment to due process. Everyone must be tried. Everyone must have a lawyer. Everyone must be given a full trial.

But then, they have these, I do not know, hundreds or a thousand plus terrorists whom they do not want to give a trial to. America was never under an existential threat as a result of 9/11; never like the threat that we faced. But when they did it, they said Guantanamo Bay is in Cuba, our rules and laws do not apply there, there is no due process, we lock them up and we throw away the keys.

That is why I said, let us get out of this colonisation of our minds. Let us look at what works, what is fundamental. Checks and balances are important. But what is wrong with the checks and balances we have built in here?

So, yes, I am not embarrassed to say that I had certain views, straight out of law school the first four years. The only mistake is I should not have become a Member of Parliament when I was 29 years old. I should have waited a bit longer.

But I am not embarrassed to say those were my views and those views have changed because of the realities of life, not because I became a Minister but because over time, long before I became a Minister, I saw how laws are meant to operate and where the exceptions have to be made.

So, as I sat with my officers and drafted this and with the AGC, yes, there were parts that I wished were different. But that threat we face, as I said, are people armed with bazookas and I described this legislation as a toy gun. Because Singapore believes in the law, so we put forward the law, we give ourselves legal powers, but in reality, the kind of threats we face, the kind of adversaries and the resources they have in terms of manpower are far greater than what we have.

So, that, and our people have not even begun to realise what the problem is and the nature of the problem despite all the speeches and the conferences and the seminars and the Select Committee hearings.

If anybody else from the Workers' Party wishes, I will give you the references to my different speeches where I have expressed my views so that I do not have to keep coming back to the speech once every year or two years. [ Applause. ]

Mr Speaker: Minister of State Desmond Tan.

Mr Desmond Tan: Thank you, Mr Speaker, I just want to respond to Leader of Opposition's question with regard to a Singapore NGO that is designated as a Politically Significant Entity (PSE). Will it therefore be required to cease the foreign funding at the onset of the designation? So, the short answer to the question is no. At the onset of designation, the PSE will only be required to declare the foreign donors and where the funding is coming from. Only when there are reasons and it meets certain conditions will it be required to step up the countermeasures, the further measures to require the NGOs to then beyond declaring, to have to cease the funding, only when certain conditions are met. I hope that answers the question.

Mr Speaker: Leader of the Opposition.

Mr Pritam Singh: I thank the Minister and Minister of State Desmond Tan.

Minister, I have heard you carefully. On the first point about Second Minister Josephine Teo, I stick to my position that I do not believe it was a misreading. Minister has a different view. I think I can leave that at that.

The point about judicial review, again, that reflection of how one's views changes over time is not something that I take lightly. I think all of us go through such a catharsis in our lives as we build up a crucible of experience.

But I would like to ask whether the Ministry considered judicial review in the usual sense and not limited judicial review. Why was it that illegality and irrationality were deemed, that they ought not to play a part in this Bill. It is not the ISA. We are talking of a different sort of threat. Yes, it could be "ISA-like". I would concede that point. But we are only asking the Court to just look at the lawfulness of a decision. Nobody is asking the Court to substitute the Minister's decision. And this, I believe is an important matter because we cannot use the experience of having legislation with ouster clauses to justify new legislation with ouster clauses. So, I think each legislation must be unpacked to why judicial review has to be limited.

Mr K Shanmugam: I will answer that shortly. The reason is, our assessment was that here, a lot of the evidence we will rely on would probably be based on highly sensitive information that comes from our partners; by definition, partners meaning from outside. They could be from a variety of different intelligence sources. As I said, I am not saying we have the human assets but a variety of different types of assets.

And our view was this. While the actions we take are nowhere near as serious as the Internal Security Act, nevertheless, in some ways, the Internal Security Act is often focused on the people within and we will be able to have our own evidence that would be able to be used. Here, we would have to depend on other types of evidence, other sources, whether our sources or partner sources, and there is a great deal of requirement for secrecy and confidentiality and this should not go to the Court process at all.

But we all agree there needs to be a robust process for making sure that the process we set up can properly look at what the Minister has done. So, the direct answer to the question is we assess that that the kind of information we will be looking at and assessing on deciding would be much, much, much more confidential and secret.

And really, in ordinary circumstances, it would be known to no more than one or two persons. And we have to rely on that kind of information, sometimes for this.

But if there are suggestions on how we can make it more robust, because we want it to be robust. That is why we have a High Court Judge sitting there. As I said, even though it is not in the Bill, I have asked the Chief Justice for names. So, he will give us the names. The President will appoint. And if there are other suggestions to make it robust without affecting the secrecy and confidentiality, we will be very happy to consider.

Mr Speaker: Assoc Prof Jamus.

Assoc Prof Jamus Jerome Lim: Thank you, Speaker. And I thank the Minister for his extensive discussion about our questions. I have three clarification questions for the Minister. The first is to ask if in referring to the events of 2018-2019, whether he continues to believe that there was indeed malign foreign state influence in that case. And if I appreciate the point that he raised, that we should not outsource our national security to a private company. But by the same token, I am sure he will appreciate that the tools available to large and sophisticated Internet companies such as Facebook might indeed throw additional light on an issue.

So, for me, the question is, does this apparent disagreement not already raise caution about how the Competent Authority's suspicions may not always be correct? Or does the Minister believe that MHA will always retain its own Counsel on what he believes to be true.

My second clarification has to do with the standards of suspicion embedded in the Bill. Does this always refer to the term reasonable suspicion, a point that I believe Members of Zhulkarnain and Murali also mentioned.

I ask this because for starters, this was not codified specifically in this form in the Bill. Second, while we do have a long history of, as other Members have said, of using this term in case law, lest we forget the Bill as it stands, does exclude judicial review. So, any such precedent strikes me as a largely advisory and informative rather than binding.

And third, I think it is worth remembering that the types of actions typically afforded by reasonable suspicion tend to be much more limited than those associated with probable cause. And that is part of the reason why, for me at least, this hurdle remains a little too low for establishing offence.

And my last question has to do with whether the Minister continues to believe that there is a misunderstanding of the law by those who have raised reservations. I mention this because the reservations brought by scores of academics, activists, other lawyers who have all scrutinised the Bill and thought that the language was vague. So, for me, it seems like either the language is indeed vague as claimed and hence subject to misunderstanding. Or it is not vague, in which case, then these individuals should not be accused of misunderstanding.

Mr K Shanmugam: Let me try and deal with those points. On the first point, do we believe that there was a foreign state involved response. We believe it to be so. So I think Assoc Prof Lim's real point is, "Facebook says, there is no such thing. You say there is. Doesn't that throw into question your credibility of assessment?"

Let me try and give Mr Lim some examples, or at least one example. At many stages, Facebook has denied something only to come back and reverse itself. I am not saying, therefore, they do not really mean what they say when they have not seen any state attack. I also pointed out that Facebook is not the only medium. There are a variety of other medium, other than Facebook. And I do not know if they have considered a complete survey. We were watching all the different media that was used.

Now, in Sri Lanka, and I think this was 2017 or 2016, on Facebook, Sinhalese were calling to gather together to go and kill Muslims. The Minister for Communications in Sri Lanka called up Facebook to say, can you do something about this? This is a riot being organised on Facebook in order to kill other people. Facebook told him this does not affect our community standards. So, I do not know. Their definition of what is or is not a foreign hostile activity, may well be different from ours. So, if I organise a pogrom to go and kill people, that apparently does not breach Facebook's community standards. And Muslims were killed.

Does Assoc Prof Lim think that a responsible state authority should outsource the way it handles law and order to Facebook, whose primary concern is, how much money it can make with the best thrill in the world?

When someone took Nancy Pelosi's speech and re-did it to make it look as if she was drunk and slurring, Facebook also felt that in the interests of free speech, that does not breach their community standards.

When attacker in the New Zealand mosque was killing people and livestreaming his attack, Facebook said it did not breach its community standards and it felt that attack should continue to be livestreamed, until there was such a furore and uproar that they reversed course. So, I do not know. I do not know what their definitions are. I do not know what are the different types of medium they considered.

So, I cannot comment exhaustively, nor can I take it at face value that if they say, so it must be so. Maybe they do not know what happened. But we noticed activity, we draw certain lines. We have intelligence experts. We have people and they have come to the conclusion that the sudden spike in activity on a variety of platforms, specifically targeted for specific messages to be absorbed by our Mandarin speaking population was a very clear indication. And I am not going to all the details.

As I said, we are a price taker, we do not name countries, we cannot afford to.

Another question by Assoc Prof Jamus Lim is, do I believe there is a misunderstanding by all those who have raised issues? Or is the language indeed vague. There are different points. I think in any debate, again, after long years of experience in Parliament, my view is on any debate, it broadly breaks out into some who are honest and they understand; a large group who do not follow very carefully and may have views which are not accurate.

How many people read very closely? How many people look at Bills? How many people look at even the detailed newspaper reports? And viewpoints tend to be impressionistic; and often impressionistic viewpoints tend to be inaccurate. But for good reasons – people have busy lives and they have a limited bandwidth. They absorb whatever they can absorb.

I do not know about Assoc Prof Lim, but if I was not doing this job and I was a lawyer in private practice, I would also have very limited time to understand what is going on in Parliament, which Bills are coming up. I will probably have, perhaps, a little bit more than the average layperson's understanding. But all our viewpoints tend to be impressionistic on areas that we are not directly dealing with because we all have busy lives.

And then, there will be a small group which will go out to deliberately misinform and confuse the population. There will always be that group and I have indicated that some of that has been happening too.

Quite apart from that, on language, let me try and explain to Assoc Prof Lim one more time. It is going to be 10 o'clock but I will try again. I said in my Opening Speech, I think I said out of 10,000 people, you are trying to catch that one case. Even in that one case, the foreign agency will try and make it look like it is a normal case. So, the facade will be normal, everything will look normal. In fact, if they are worth anything, they will make it look very normal. So, you have to have definitions; just because it looks normal does not mean that you do not have the powers. How do you go behind that, how do you deal with it.

So, that is why you say it is to foreigners' involvement affecting public interest. The way in which it is done, I have explained the framework. If the idea is hostile information campaign, foreign state agency, payments, covert activities, I think it is quite clear. But there are also situations where it is not so clear, and that is where you build in the proportionality test.

And it seems to me quite a few of the commentators do not understand the proportionality test. That is why I made it a point to say AGC advised me; that test is there. When you do not understand the proportionality test, then you say, "Oh dear, it says 'collaboration', so, any collaboration with a foreigner on a matter that is of importance to Singaporeans could potentially run afoul", because you misunderstand the proportionality test.

Beyond that, there is a second vein. Again, there are people who fall into those who deliberately push this line but there are also a large number, genuine people, honest people, who are genuinely concerned.

I would not say a large number of people are concerned with this Bill. In fact, our assessment is that, by and large, a large number of people understand, a vast majority of Singaporeans understand the need for FICA. So, of the very small group who are concerned, a significant number you can put down as honest people who, either for impressionistic reasons or other reasons, may have had some misunderstanding and like the two Nominated Members of Parliament who spoke up, say, is there a possibility of abuse.

And that lies behind some of the points that have been made outside. Yes, if you apply the law as you say it should be, and if you apply the proportionality test correctly, yes, then it will be done properly. But what if you abuse your power? And my answer to that, I gave an extended analysis this morning about how abuse can take place under any legislation. Your question is, do you give the power and what are the checks you put in. So, we have put in, we think, a strong check through the appointment of a High Court Judge with extensive powers. We have drafted this to deal with a very large threat which is clear and present here. It is not in the future. It has happened, it is happening all around us and it will happen to us. It is not for nothing that the French study Singapore and showed it as a test case or one of the case studies.

So, our task is to continue to explain to people how this law works and, over time, just as with the many other pieces of legislation, if the Government operates it properly and honestly, it will be understood. If it operates it wrongly, the people will express their views in a variety of ways.

I think Mr Perera said, "Trust in institutions should be built up". I think listening to Mr Perera over the years, his ideal state, if you take the UK or the US, they have all the things that he says we should have – Freedom of Information Act, they have all these other bodies, many things go to the courts, they do not have an Internal Security Act. Can anyone tell me why the trust in their Congress in the US, I think, is now down to, perhaps, a single digit or maybe low double digits? Why is the trust in the Government in Singapore so much higher?

So, let us, again, get real. Trust depends on how you exercise your power and your track record. Trust depends on whether people's lives have really improved and whether you work to improve people's lives. Trust depends on whether you have the courage of your convictions, in the face of some opposition, to say this is the right way, this is the way I will explain and I will do it for the benefit of people. Trust does not depend on putting in a series of legislation, just copying others whose trust levels are abysmally low.

Assoc Prof Lim asked me about the phraseology "the authorisation by Minister for anticipatory direction". I think the phrase used is "suspects or has reason to believe".

Mr Speaker: Mr Leong Mun Wai.

Mr Leong Mun Wai: Mr Speaker, I would like to ask the Minister three questions. One, basically, the question revolves around what the Leader of Opposition has also been asking. I do not think the Minister has given enough convincing arguments about what is the hurry, why FICA is needed and why the judicial review is not needed.

First of all, my first question, what is the hurry. The Minister has been saying for hours that three years of consultation has been done, they have done a lot of things and all that. But what we have heard here is that those things are about identifying what need to be done and what are the threats, what are the foreign interference threats and all that. But just now he mentioned something that, oh, he also consulted some Singaporeans. But at the end of the day, I think we can all agree that there is little consultation of the general public. And what the Minister was trying to say just now is that it seems to be – I mean that is how I interpret it – let us have the law first and then Singaporeans will understand the law, that the law is good for them and all that. That is not the way the law should be implemented. So, since there is not enough consultation of the general public, should the Minister not consider postponing the passage of the Bill? That is my first question.

The second question, is FICA effective in protecting us much more than all the resources and the laws we have before this? We already have them, they are all there. Can the Minister point out a few examples, do not quote all the foreign countries example, quote Asian countries example, examples of Asian countries that have suffered from foreign interference. Because as an ordinary citizen watching the TV and all that, all the foreign interferences in Taiwan and Australia, for example, seem to be a joke. It was just a theatre of actions and all that but in the end, all the foreign interference seems to be unravelled. So, I ask the Minister to quote us some examples and educate us.

The third question is, we spend a lot of time talking about judicial review. What the Minister seems to be saying is "Trust me, trust me". I ask two questions with regard to that. The Tribunal is appointed by the Minister, right, under this FICA? Two, if judicial review can be done in other country, even with respect to national security issues, why can we not do it?

Mr K Shanmugam: Well, Sir, I will answer to the extent that I understand the questions. On the first point, what is the hurry? I assume now, Mr Leong, we are talking about the same legislation because the legislation you talked about just now seemed to be a very different one. Do you understand that almost everything you said earlier about this Bill is actually untrue and inaccurate?

Mr Leong Mun Wai: Minister, you want me to respond now?

Mr K Shanmugam: Yes, please.

Mr Leong Mun Wai: Okay, what I have said is according to the legal advice that my Party had gotten from senior lawyers. So, you say those are not accurate, they are not right. Then, that is exactly what we have been saying or I have been saying in this Parliament. The discussion and the debate in this Parliament actually should not be conducted in a way that is just interpretation by you. Let us have a Committee, let the experts trash it out and then bring it to this main Chamber. We might as well call this legislative Chamber, legal Chamber. The legal experts who are advising me disagree with you.

Mr Speaker: If I can request both Members to direct your comments through me.

Mr K Shanmugam: Yes, I am sorry, Sir. Sir, can I ask through you for Mr Leong to show me which clause allows for detention without trial in FICA, please, as he suggested? Detention without trial, trial in absence and no judicial review for such detention. Since his senior lawyers have advised it, he should be able to tell me which clause.

Mr Speaker: Mr Leong.

Mr Leong Mun Wai: Mr Speaker, there the Minister goes again. I am not going to go into all these legal interpretation. If we want to argue, we argue out of this. But most of the things that I have said is in section 99, and I did not say detention without trial. I say he can arrest you, of course, through due process, but after he arrests you, you are not bailable and all that, those are provided in section 99. But, anyway, I am not going down that line. Minister, let us go on with the other questions.

Mr Speaker: Minister.

Mr K Shanmugam: Sir, I was listening very carefully when Mr Leong spoke and my blood pressure went up quite significantly when he said detention without trial. That phrase is there, I am sure it is captured in the Hansard. Detention without trial, trial in absentia and no judicial review. So, I just order and the person is arrested and detained, and he has got no rights of review.

And now, Mr Leong says clause 99. He reads English, I read English, I can tell him that neither clause 99 nor any other clause in the Bill has detention without trial. Not just that, he says "There he goes again". When Mr Leong refers to provisions in FICA, I asked him which provisions. When Mr Leong says you can detain without trial, he says it, I asked him which clauses.

So, we will take it that his position is that clause 99 allows the Minister to detain without trial. I can assure the House, he is reading something which I do not know anything about.

Mr Speaker: Mr Leong, would you like to respond to that?

Mr Leong Mun Wai: I have no response.

Mr Speaker: Minister, carry on.

Mr K Shanmugam: Thank you, Sir. Sir, I do not want words put in my mouth. I did not say there was little consultation with Singaporeans nor did I say let us have the law first and then, go and explain to Singaporeans. I think I said a number of things in context and I would ask Mr Leong not to misquote me. I did not say it in those terms nor did I mean it in those terms.

The second the question is, is FICA effective in protecting us, given all the other resources that the Government has at its disposal? And Mr Leong says give us examples of Asian countries which have suffered such an attack. Sir, again, I am not usually at a loss for words. But is the suggestion that somehow because we are Asian, Asian countries will not be affected by foreign interference?

Is that the suggestion? I will suggest Mr Leong reads the French report and that he reads the Select Committee report. And I can tell him in the annexes we gave out this afternoon, while the names are not there, some of those countries are Asian.

It is absolutely shocking to hear that the suggestion of foreign interference in Taiwan and Australia are jokes. I think, in the case of Taiwan, of course, it is a territory, or it is said to be a territory; in the case of Australia, it is a country. Those places will be very surprised that someone in Singapore thinks the attacks on them, for which Australia has passed legislation, very draconian legislation on reporting requirements. I said this afternoon, you are an ex-parliamentarian, your obligations are very onerous.

I think no one who knows the facts will say what Mr Leong has said, that it is a joke that these places have suffered foreign interference.

Whether they have suffered it from the countries they have named, we do not express a view because it is not our business to go and say they were attacked by X or Y or Z. But all the evidence that was laid out this afternoon – I talked about an Australian parliamentarian who was said to have been suborned by foreign money and making a statement on South China Sea that is contrary to his own party's position – what do you call that?

When we say that Singapore itself has been subject to foreign interference recently, are you saying that what we are saying is untrue?

There are reports that the Indian electric infrastructure was brought down as a result of an attack from outside of India. There are reports of foreign inspired attacks in a number of Asian countries, which I think you can see both in the Select Committee report and if you read the newspapers.

The third point he makes is, well, the Judge is appointed by the Minister and basically the approach is, trust me.

No. The Tribunal is appointed by the President, on the advice of the Cabinet. It is headed by a High Court Judge, who has security of tenure, and he is a Judge of the Supreme Court. He does not owe any obligation to the Government.

Mr Leong asks why is it possible that other countries can have judicial review and we cannot. Well, I gave an answer. It is a question of what those countries can do and if you look at New Zealand, they have not had to face very severe threats. For the first time now, they are facing different types of threats. In the absence of an Internal Security Act, they have to allow this man to be free for years outside and one day, he goes into a supermarket and knifes people. Do you want to wait for that?

If you take France, I said 80% of the attackers were known to the security forces. Ninety-seven percent were on their radar. How many people have been killed? I said there were 22 incidents, including the Charlie Hebdo incident. Scores of people have been killed. The entire country brought to a standstill. Paralysed with fear.

These are choices. There are trade-offs. So, I explained the trade-offs we make.

Mr Speaker: Mr Leong Mun Wai.

Mr Leong Mun Wai: Sir, I would like to clarify further with the Minister. One is that the appointment of the tribunal is recommended by the Cabinet, right, t o the President? In that case, does the President have the power to reject the appointment? First question.

Second question is, just now I asked for some examples of Asian countries that are affected by foreign interference. I am looking for examples where there are more permanent damage, like really affected a national election and things like that. But what the Minister has pointed is this one senator being found with connections with a country.

Those things in the normal course of our security operation, we can identify already. Do we need an extra law?

Secondly, is that Minister talked about the Indian electric infrastructure and all that? Similarly, our healthcare system data was compromised some years ago. Is FICA needed before we can prevent all these things? Or even with FICA, are we going to be able to prevent these kind of events? Minister, please.

Mr K Shanmugam: Sir, I do not intend to keep repeating my opening speech. I think Mr Leong has got to, I would suggest he goes and listen again or reads and the answers are all there. And it is not just one senator. I suggest he read some material that has been given. Thank you, Sir.

Mr Speaker: Mr Leon Perera.

Mr Leong Mun Wai: Minister, Mr Speaker —

Mr Speaker: Mr Leong, I called Mr Leon Perera.

Mr Leong Mun Wai: Mr Speaker, Sir.

Mr Speaker: You could wait your turn.

Mr Leong Mun Wai: Minister did not answer my question. I asked a question.

Mr Speaker: Mr Leong. I called Mr Leon Perera. Kindly sit down.

Mr Leong Mun Wai: Okay, he did not answer my question.

Mr Speaker: Nor did you answer his questions when he asked you earlier.

Mr Leong Mun Wai: No, but I can ask —

Mr Speaker: You can sit down now, I will call you again later. Thank you.

Mr Leon Perera: Thank you, Mr Speaker, Sir. I know the hour is late, I will try and keep it short.

Mr Speaker: It is late.

Mr Leon Perera: Four supplementary questions. The first two are actually related to my speech and I do not think the Minister answered them, that is, unless I missed them. The first one is the subject of a Part 3 Direction or POL declaration can apply within a 30-day timeframe to the Minister for an appeal for reconsideration. But does the Minister have a timeframe within which he must respond on that; so, would the Minister commit to that?

The second question is relating to clause 93, those who are designated as PSPs or PSEs issued directives on the Parts 5 and 6 may only appeal against that decision to the Minister. They have no right to appeal to the Tribunal, I believe, unlike those who are issued Part 3 Directions. So, what is the basis for that?

The third question is in relation to what the Minister mentioned about my speech and speeches that I have made over the years. He talked about the trust deficit in countries like the UK and the US which have things like ombudsman and Freedom of Information Act, and so on and so forth. I would like to ask the Minister, would he agree that perhaps the trust deficit in the UK, the US and other countries which have those kinds of institutions that he is referring to may not be because of those institutions. It could be for other factors. And would he not agree that maybe if we took some of the kind of laws that we have in Singapore and applied it to those countries, it may not necessarily increase trust in those countries? And would he not agree that perhaps in Singapore, if we put in place laws a little bit more balanced, along the lines that we have argued today in Parliament, that might possibly increase the trust levels that we have here, even though those trust levels, you think are high. So, that is sort of the third question.

The fourth question and the last one, is on the part of my speech where I talked about who checks the checkers. I think it is a big subject. Essentially, I asked what recourse does a concerned citizen have in Singapore if they feel that very senior officials – Prime Minister, Minister of Home Affairs himself – has been suborned by a foreign power? What is their channel to redress that, to have that addressed? As far as I could discern, the Minister responded by saying that the form of redress would be the same as it is in other countries, which is through other people. So, actually, I would like to put this back to the Minister and say that in the spirit of coming to Parliament, not with rhetoric, but with concrete and practical solutions, could you expand on really what is the redress in that kind of scenario, very practically speaking?

Mr K Shanmugam: First, on the first four questions. On the first question, 30 days and whether there will be a time limit. It is difficult to commit to a time limit for the Minister to respond, simply because it depends on the facts and the kind of evidence that needs to be assessed. But what we can commit to is that it will be done as expeditiously as possible. On the stepped-up measures, I explained it in my speech, I responded.

On the trust levels, I think finally we are beginning to get to some sort of narrowing of the gap. So, let us agree, you have all these institutions, Freedom of Information and the kind of media that they have and the ombudsman, does not automatically mean trust levels go up. In fact, trust levels have been declining. It may be because of other problems. And I think there is a kernel of accuracy in what Mr Perera said. And the kernel that I extract is this: each country has got to look at its own situation and decide what works for it.

A country like China with 5,000 years and a single race – different considerations. A country like the US – different considerations. A country like Singapore with 700 square kilometres – different consideration. I think if we can agree on that and that therefore, we need to factor in what works for us, then the next question is, why have trust levels been so high in Singapore? They are very high. Why have they been high? There is a trust based on performance. There is a trust based on probity. There is a trust based on how leaders behave. There is a trust based on how powers are exercised.

So, anytime there is abuse, there is corruption, there is lack of probity, there is a performance deficit, trust will dissipate. I believe in Singapore, it will dissipate very quickly because we are such a small place, everyone understands everything pretty much in broad terms.

Whether bringing in some of these institutions will add to trust is a conversation we can have as long as it is not a priori argument: if you have it, trust will increase. That is just not true. You have to ask, is it really going to? Why? Why do you say that? Or is it actually going to affect the performance of the Government in such a way that actually trust will go down?

Finally, who checks the checkers. I think Mr Perera must be aware the CPIB can investigate anyone including the Prime Minister. When the CPIB wants to investigate the Prime Minister, there is a higher authority they report to, independently. The CPIB can investigate me and any Minister. And the man who was considered – or Mr Lee Kuan Yew had publicly said, "Where will I get another Teh Cheang Wan?" because he solved the housing crisis.

If you were to consider one of the inner core of Ministers, Mr Teh Cheang Wan would have been in the inner core of Ministers. Powerful, heavyweight Minister. What happened when there were allegations? Mr Lee Kuan Yew told him, when Mr Teh wanted to see him, "I am not speaking with you. Let the CPIB investigate." That is Singapore. That is why our trust levels are high. [ Applause. ]

Mr Speaker: Mr Leong.

Mr Leong Mun Wai: Thank you, Speaker. I want to ask the Minister, is he going to answer my question on the appointment of the Tribunal?

Mr Speaker: Minister.

Mr K Shanmugam: Sir, the position is clear. When the law says "on the recommendation or advice of the Cabinet", then the President acts in accordance with the advice given by Cabinet.

The point I made is that the High Court Judge who will head the tribunal is independent, has security of tenure, is someone whose job is in the Supreme Court. And his primary appointment, the first appointment is approved by the President. So, let us get that clear. Thank you, Sir.

10.17 pm

Mr Speaker Mr Speaker:

Mr Speaker: The question is, that the Bill be now read a Second time. As many as are of that opinion, say "Aye".

Hon Members said "Aye".

Mr Speaker : To the contrary say "No".

Some hon Members said "No".

Mr Speaker : Leader of Opposition.

Mr Pritam Singh: Sir, I would like to call for a Division, please.

Mr Speaker: Would you like to record a dissent instead?

Mr Pritam Singh: No, Sir, I would like to call for a Division. Thank you.

Mr Speaker Mr Speaker:

Mr Speaker Mr Speaker: The "Ayes" have it. Will the hon Members who support the Division please rise in their places?

More than five hon Members rose.

Mr Speaker : Clerk, ring the Division bells.

After two minutes –

Mr Speaker : Serjeant-at-Arms, lock the doors.

Question put, "That the Bill be now read a Second time."

Mr Speaker : Leader of Opposition, you have claimed a Division, would you like to proceed with the Division?

Mr Pritam Singh: Yes, Sir.

Mr Speaker Mr Speaker:

Mr Speaker: Take a Division. The Clerk will call the names of Members to indicate their votes in the order based on the current seating arrangement. When called upon, Members are to stand up, raise your vote cards in my direction to indicate their votes. The Clerk will repeat each Member's vote for confirmation. If the vote read is not according to their vote indication, Members should inform me immediately to have the correct vote recorded.

The Clerk will now proceed to record the votes.

Whereupon the vote of each hon Member present was indicated and read aloud for confirmation.

Mr Speaker : There are 75 "Ayes", 11 "Noes" and two "Abstentions". The "Ayes" have it.

Bill accordingly read a Second time.

Mr Speaker : The Bill has now been read a second time. Before I call on the Minister for Home Affairs, there is an issue that I feel compelled to have to clarify – rather reluctant to have to address Parliament at this time of the night.

Mr Leong has asked me to refer the Bill to a Select Committee under Standing Order No 68. Standing Order No 68 requires me to refer a Bill to a Select Committee if I am of the opinion that it is a hybrid Bill. A hybrid Bill is one that prejudicially affects individual rights and interests.

Some of you will recall, as an example, the Kwong-Wai-Shiu Free Hospital (Transfer of Undertaking and Dissolution) Bill in 2016, which specifically affected the Kwong Wai Shiu Hospital. The Foreign Interference (Countermeasures) Bill now before the House applies to the public at large and does not specifically apply to an individual. It is therefore, not a hybrid Bill and Standing Order No 68 does not apply. I do not have such power as the Member would like to bestow upon me. Minister for Home Affairs.

The Minister for Home Affairs (Mr K Shanmugam): Mr Speaker, I intend to move amendments* to the Bill in the Committee Stage. The amendments have been distributed to the Members earlier on and as inadequate notice has been given of these amendments, I would like to seek Speaker's consent and the general assent of Members present to take these amendments in the Committee of the whole House.

Mr Speaker: I give my consent. Is it the pleasure of hon Members that the amendments be so taken?

Hon Members indicated assent.

Question put, that Parliament would immediately resolve itself into a Committee on the Bill, and agreed to.

The House immediately resolved itself into a Committee on the Bill.

Bill considered in Committee.

[Mr Speaker in the Chair]: Clauses 1 to 7 inclusive ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 8 –

The Chairman: There are two amendments. Mr Gerald Giam, you may wish to take them together.

Mr Gerald Giam Yean Song: Sir, I beg to move the two amendments* to clause 8 standing in my name, as indicated in the Order Paper Supplement. The reasons for the amendments have been explained in my speech earlier.

*The amendments read as follows:

(1) In page 29: to leave out lines 31 to 33.

(2) In page 30: to leave out lines 1 to 4.

Consequential amendment:

In page 29, line 30: to leave out “;” and insert “.”.

Question, put and amendments negatived.

Clause 8 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clauses 9 to 13 inclusive ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 14 –

The Chairman The Chairman: There are two amendments to this clause standing in the name of Mr Gerald Giam and the Minister for Home Affairs. It may be convenient that the debate on amendments moved by Mr Gerald Giam and the Minister for Home Affairs be proceeded with simultaneously as though it is a debate on a single question. Do I have hon Members' agreement to this?

Hon Members indicated assent.

The Chairman : Mr Gerald Giam, please move your amendments.

Mr Gerald Giam Yean Song: Sir, I beg to move the two amendments* to clause 14 standing in my name, as indicated in the Order Paper Supplement. The reasons for the amendments have also been explained in my speech earlier.

Question proposed.

The Chairman: Minister for Home Affairs, please move your amendment.

Mr K Shanmugam: Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move, in page 42, after line 19: to insert – "(f) A member of the executive committee or similar governing body and political party, whether or not he or she is also a responsible officer of that political party (called in this Act a senior political party official);".

Sir, I have given my reasons earlier and do not propose to repeat them.

The Chairman The Chairman:

The Chairman: The question is as proposed by Minister for Home Affairs. Members may debate on both amendments simultaneously.

We have now come to the conclusion of debate. I shall put the necessary questions to the House for decision. We will first deal with Mr Gerald Giam's amendments to clause 14. The question is that the amendments as proposed by Mr Gerald Giam be made.

Question put, and amendments negatived.

The Chairman : We will now deal with the Minister's proposed amendment. The question is that the amendment as proposed by the Minister for Home Affairs be made.

Question put, and agreed to.

Clause 14, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clauses 15 and 16 inclusive ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 17 –

The Chairman : There are five amendments. Assoc Prof Jamus Lim, you may wish to take them together.

Assoc Prof Jamus Jerome Lim: Sir, I beg to move the five amendments* to clause 17 standing in my name, as indicated in the Order Paper Supplement. The reasons have been outlined in my speech earlier.

*The amendments read as follows:

(1) In page 44, lines 25, 27 and 29: to leave out “or is likely to be”.

(2) In page 45, line 1: to leave out “or is likely to incite”.

(3) In page 45, line 5: to leave out “or is likely to diminish”.

(4) In page 45, line 10: to leave out “or is likely to be”.

(5) In page 45: to leave out lines 18 and 19.

Consequential amendments:

(1) In page 45, line 17: to leave out “—”.

(2) In page 45, line 20: to leave out “(b)”.

Question put, and a mendments negatived.

Clause 17 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 18 –

The Chairman: There are four amendments. Assoc Prof Jamus Lim, you may wish to take them together.

Assoc Prof Jamus Jerome Lim: Sir, I beg to move the six amendments to clause 18 standing in my name, as indicated in the Order Paper Supplement. The reasons have been outlined in my speech earlier.

The Chairman: You have four amendments, rather than six.

Assoc Prof Jamus Jerome Lim: Excuse me, I stand corrected. I beg to move the four amendments* to clause 18 standing in my name, as indicated in the Oder Paper Supplement. The reasons have been outlined in my speech earlier as well.

*The amendments read as follows:

(1) In page 46, line 17, 19, 21 and 32: to leave out “or is likely to be”.

(2) In page 46, line 23: to leave out “or is likely to incite”.

(3) In page 46, line 27: to leave out “or is likely to diminish”.

(4) In page 47: to leave out lines 4 and 5.

Consequential amendments:

(1) In page 47, line 3: to leave out “—”.

(2) In page 47, line 6: to leave out “(b)”.

Question put, and a mendments negatived.

Clause 18 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 19 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 20 –

The Chairman: Assoc Prof Jamus Lim.

Assoc Prof Jamus Jerome Lim: Sir, I beg to move the one amendment* to clause 20 standing in my name, as indicated in the Order Paper Supplement. The reasons have been outlined in my speech earlier.

*The amendment read as follows:

In page 49, lines 3 and 4: to leave out “, or is suspected of being or having been undertaken,”.

Question put, and a mendment negatived.

Clause 20 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 21 –

The Chairman: There are three amendments. Assoc Prof Jamus Lim, you may wish to take them together.

Assoc Prof Jamus Jerome Lim: Sir, I beg to move the three amendments* to clause 21 standing in my name, as indicated in the Order Paper Supplement. The reasons have been outlined in my speech earlier.

*The amendments read as follows:

(1) In page 49, line 21: to leave out “suspects or has reason to believe”, and insert “has evidence or actionable intelligence indicating”.

(2) In page 50, line 1: to leave out “reason to believe” and insert “evidence or actionable intelligence indicating”.

(3) In page 50, lines 4 and 5: to leave out “is of the opinion that it is in the public interest to authorise the giving of the anticipatory direction” and insert “has evidence or actionable intelligence indicating that withholding the anticipatory direction presents a real risk to the public interest”.

Question put, and amendments negatived.

Clause 21 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clauses 22 to 39 inclusive ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 40 –

The Chairman: There are four amendments. Assoc Prof Jamus Lim, you may wish to take them together.

Assoc Prof Jamus Jerome Lim: Sir, I beg to move the four amendments* to clause 40 standing in my name, as indicated in the Order Paper Supplement. As before, the explanations were provided in my speech earlier.

*The amendments read as follows:

(1) In page 69, lines 26, 28 and 30: to leave out “or is likely to be”.

( 2) In page 69, line 32: to leave out “or is likely to incite”.

(3) In page 70, line 3: to leave out “or is likely to diminish”.

(4) In page 70, line 8: to leave out “or is likely to be”.

Question put, and a mendments negatived.

Clause 40 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clauses 41 to 46 inclusive ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 47 –

The Chairman: Mr Leon Perera.

Mr Leon Perera: Sir, I beg to move the amendment* to clause 47 standing in my name, in the Order Paper Supplement. The reason for this amendment was given earlier in my speech.

*The amendment read as follows:

In page 80: after line 21, to insert —

“(6) Any entity designated a politically significant entity shall be listed along with reasons for designation on a registry that is provided free-of-charge and easily accessible to the public through electronic means unless the competent authority considers it not practicable or desirable to do so on national security grounds.”.

Question put, and a mendment negatived.

Clause 47 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Mr K Shanmugam: A point of order, Sir. On clause 47, we agreed in principle to part of the stepped-up countermeasures on PSPs, the Transparency Directives, all except the TAD. And our position is that the proper place to do this, without affecting the coherence of the Bill, is to amend clause 116. Members would be aware that under clause 116, the Competent Authority is empowered to make transparent his or her decisions regarding designating of PSPs.

So, if any amendment is to be made to require that as a matter of course as opposed to discretion, the amendment to the Bill should be to clause 116.

So, while we agree in principle to part of it, we propose to reject the amendment proposed to clause 47 but we will reflect it later at clause 116. I just wanted to have that recorded.

The Chairman The Chairman: We will put this on record.

Clause 48 –

The Chairman : There are two amendments. Mr Leon Perera, you may wish to take them together.

Mr Leon Perera: Sir, I beg to move the two amendments* to clause 48 standing in my name, in the Order Paper Supplement. The reasons were given in my speech earlier.

*The amendments read as follows:

(1) In page 81, line 1: after “authority’s”, to insert “reasonable”.

(2) In page 82: after line 12, to insert —

“(6) Any person designated a politically significant person shall be listed along with the reasons for designation on a registry that is provided free-of-charge and easily accessible to the public through electronic means unless —

(a) the person is not a politically significant person under this Act; or

(b) the competent authority considers it not practicable or desirable to do so on national security grounds.”.

Question put, and a mendments negatived.

Clause 48 ordered to stand as part of the Bill.

Clauses 49 and 50 inclusive ordered to stand as part of the Bill.

Clause 51 –

The Chairman: Minister, you have four amendments to clause 51, please move your amendments.

Mr K Shanmugam: Sir, thank you. I beg to move, the first amendment, that in page 86, line 19: "after in relation to", to insert "a senior political party official or".

The second amendment, in page 86, line 22: after "lent to", to insert "the senior political party official or".

The third amendment, in page 86, line 27: after "benefit of", to insert "the senior political party official or".

And the fourth amendment, in page 86, line 29: after "used by", to insert "the senior political party official or".

Sir, these amendments are consequential to amendments to clause 14 to include "members of the central executive committee of political parties or equivalent".

Question put, and agreed to."

Clause 51, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clauses 52 to 57 inclusive ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 58 –

The Chairman: Minister, you have an amendment to clause 58. Please move your amendment.

Mr K Shanmugam: Sir, I beg to move, that in page 96, line 28: after the phrase "political office holder", to insert "a senior political party official". These are consequential to the amendments we have made to clause 14.

Question put, and agreed to.

Clause 58, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clauses 59 to 61 inclusive ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 62 –

The Chairman: Minister, you have an amendment to clause 62. Please move your amendment.

Mr K Shanmugam: Sir, I beg to move, that in page 105, line 9: after "political office holder", to insert "a senior political party official".

Question put, and agreed to.

Clause 62, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 63 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 64 –

The Chairman: Minister, you have an amendment to clause 64. Please move your amendment.

Mr K Shanmugam: Sir, I beg to move, that in page 108, line 2: after "who is", to insert "a senior political party official or is".

Question put, and agreed to.

Clause 64, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 65 –

The Chairman: Minister, you have an amendment to clause 65. Please move your amendment.

Mr K Shanmugam: Sir, I beg to move, that in page 108, line 14: after "subsection (2)", to insert "or (3)".

Question put, and agreed to.

Clause 65, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 66 –

The Chairman: Minister, you have two amendments to clause 66. Please move your amendments.

Mr K Shanmugam: Sir, I beg to move, that, the first amendment in page 110, line 19: to leave out the word "or".

The second amendment in page 110, after line 19: to insert – "(f) a senior political party official of a political party; or".

Question put, and agreed to.

Clause 66, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clauses 67 to 70 inclusive ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 71 –

The Chairman: Minister, you have an amendment to clause 71. Please move your amendment.

Mr K Shanmugam: Sir, I beg to move, that in page 115, line 18: to leave out "section 89", and to insert "sections 89 and 116".

Question put, and agreed to.

Clause 71, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clauses 72 to 74 inclusive ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 75 –

The Chairman: Clause 75. Assoc Prof Jamus Lim.

Assoc Prof Jamus Jerome Lim: Sir, I beg to move the amendment* to clause 75 standing in my name as indicated in the Order Paper Supplement. The reasons have been provided in my speech earlier on.

*The amendment read as follows:

In page 119, lines 25 and 26: to leave out "or is likely to facilitate".

Question put, and amendment negatived.

Clause 75 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clauses 76 and 77 inclusive ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 78 –

The Chairman: The Chairman: Clause 78. There are two amendments to this clause standing in the names of Mr Gerald Giam and Mr Leon Perera. It may be convenient that the debate on the amendments moved by Mr Gerald Giam and Mr Leon Perera be proceeded with simultaneously as a debate on a single question. Do I have hon Members' agreement to this?

Hon Members indicated assent.

The Chairman: Mr Gerald Giam, please move your amendment.

Mr Gerald Giam Yean Song: Sir, I beg to move that the two amendments* to clause 78 standing in my name as indicated in the Order Paper Supplement. Reasons for the amendments have been explained in my speech earlier.

*The amendments read as follows:

In page 126: after line 9, to insert —

"(f) a member of the central executive council, or its equivalent, of any registered political party in Singapore;

(g) a senior public servant holding the office of deputy secretary or above, or its equivalent;

(h) a board member or chief executive of a key statutory board or government company listed on the Fifth Schedule of the Constitution of the Republic of Singapore,".

Consequential amendment:

In page 126, line 9: to leave out "," and insert";".

The Chairman: Mr Leon Perera, please move your amendment.

Mr Leon Perera: Sir, I beg to move that the amendment* to clause 78 standing in my name in the Order Paper Supplement for the reasons provided in my speech earlier.

*The amendment read as follows:

In page 127: after line 26, to insert —

"(7) A list of reportable arrangements under this shall be made publicly available by the competent authority in accordance with section 81 of this Act.".

The Chairman: Members may debate on both amendments simultaneously.

We have now come to the conclusion of the debate. I shall put the necessary questions to the House for a decision. We will first deal with Mr Gerald Giam's amendments to clause 78.

Mr K Shanmugam: Sir, can I put on record?

The Chairman: Yes.

Mr K Shanmugam: Sir, as earlier mentioned, we have no issue with Mr Giam's proposal to include members of the CEC or equivalent of any registered political party. And I have given my views on the other amendments. I have also given my views on Mr Perera's amendments.

The Chairman: The Chairman:

The Chairman: Duly noted. Let me repeat this. We have now come to the conclusion of the debate. I shall put the necessary questions to the House for a decision. We will first deal with Mr Gerald's Giam amendments to clause 78.

Question put, and amendments negatived.

The Chairman: We will now deal with Mr Leon Perera's proposed amendment.

Question put, and amendment negatived.

Clause 78 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 79 –

The Chairman: Clause 79. Mr Leon Perera.

Mr Leon Perera: Sir, I beg to move that the amendment* to clause 79 standing in my name in the Order Paper Supplement for the reasons given earlier in my speech.

*The amendment read as follows:

In page 129: after line 2, to insert —

"(5) A registry of the persons with declared involvement in a foreign policy organisation shall be made publicly available by the competent authority, together with the terms of these relationships, in accordance with section 81 of this Act.".

Question put, and amendment negatived.

Clause 79 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 80 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clauses 81 –

The Chairman: Clause 81. Mr Leon Perera.

Mr Leon Perera: Mr Speaker, Sir, with your permission, I would like to withdraw the amendments* standing in my name in the Order Paper Supplement to clauses 81, 84 and 85.

And I also seek your permission to speak very briefly on the reasons for the same.

*The amendments read as follows:

Clause 81:

In page 132: after line 9, to insert —

"(4) All transparency directives, directive modifications, directive cancellations, disclosures, reports and explanations for these decisions shall be made publicly available by the competent authority over the internet in a searchable, sortable and downloadable manner without charge."

Clause 84:

In page 133: after line 29, to insert —

"(3) Any directive to a Part 4 politically significant entity, the suspension, modification or cancellation of the directive, and explanations for these decisions under this section shall be made publicly available in accordance with section 81 of this Act."

Clause 85:

In page 135: after line 30, to insert —

"(7) Any directive to a politically significant person, the suspension, modification or cancellation of the directive and explanations for these decisions under this section shall be made publicly available in accordance with section 81 of this Act."

The Chairman: Mr Leon Perera, you would like to speak on this?

Mr Leon Perera: Yes, briefly.

The Chairman: Yes, please do.

Mr Leon Perera: Mr Speaker, Sir, I would like to withdraw the amendments to clauses 81, 84 and 85, in light of the Minister for Home Affairs' proposed amendments that he had tabled to clause 116.

The Minister earlier on verbally referred to that amendment and in the expectation that the House will pass the amendment to clause 116 that the Minister for Home Affairs has proposed which, in my opinion will substantively cover the same ground as covered by my amendments to clauses 81, 84 and 85, I would like to withdraw those three amendments with the proviso of this comment that in relation to Technical Assistance Directives, the Minister shared that these are difficult to publicise due to the sensitivity of investigations being ongoing.

I would like to ask if the Minister and the Government will give due consideration to this as time goes by to consider perhaps the delayed publication of such actions at the point when it no longer compromises an ongoing investigation.

So, that is just something I would like to express but my intention here today is withdraw my amendments to clauses 81, 84 and 85 in my name in the Order Paper Supplement, for the reasons I have given.

Amendments withdrawn.

Clauses 81 to 91 inclusive ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clauses 92 to 103 –

The Chairman: Clauses 92 to 103. Ms He Ting Ru.

Ms He Ting Ru: Sir, I beg to move the amendment* to clauses 92 to 103 standing in my name as indicated in the Order Paper Supplement for the reasons explained in my speech earlier.

*The amendment read as follows:

In page 144: to leave out line 19, to the end of line 26 in page 151.

Question put, and amendment negatived.

Clauses 92 to 103 inclusive ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 104 –

The Chairman: Clause 104. Ms He Ting Ru.

Ms He Ting Ru: Sir, I beg to move the amendment* to clause 104 standing in my name as indicated in the Order Paper Supplement for the reasons explained in my speech earlier.

*The amendment reads as follows:

In page 151: to leave out line 27 to the end of line 13 in page 152, and insert —

"Appeals to High Court

92.— (1) Any person who is subject to a determination, order or any other decision under this Act may appeal to the High Court against such a determination, order or decision.

(2) No appeal may be made to the High Court by any person unless the person has first appealed to, or sought reconsideration from the Minister or the alternate authority mentioned in section 106, made or purportedly made under this Act and the appeal is first refused whether in whole or in part.

(3) An appeal may only be made to the High Court within such a period as may be prescribed by the Rules of Court.

(4) The High Court must hear and determine any such appeal and may either confirm the determination, order or decision or set it aside.

(5) A determination, order or any other decision that is the subject of the appeal in subsection (1) remains in effect despite the appeal, and only ceases to have effect if it is set aside by the High Court, or if it expires or is cancelled under the provisions of this Act.

(6) There is such further right of appeal from a decision of the High Court under this section as exists in the case of a decision made by that Court in the exercise of its original jurisdiction.

(7) The Rules of Court may provide for the manner in which and the time within which an appeal under subsection (1) may be made and the procedure for an application to stay a determination, an order or any other decision appealed against.

(8) The High Court may order that the whole or any part of any appeal heard under this Act shall be dealt with in camera if it is satisfied that it is expedient in the interests of justice or of public safety or security to do so."

Consequential amendments:

(1) In page 20: to leave out lines 9 and 10.

(2) In page 152, from line 15: to re-number clauses 105 to 127 as clauses 93 to 115, respectively.

(3) In page 167: to leave out lines 25 to 29.

Question put, and amendment negatived.

Clause 104 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 105 to 115 inclusive ordered to stand part of the Bill.

The Chairman: Minister, you have three amendments to clause 116. Please move your amendments.

Mr K Shanmugam: Sir, I beg to move, that, the first amendment in page 165, line 28: to leave out "section 49", and insert "sections 49 and 71 (2)".

The second amendment in page 165, lines 28, 29 and 30: to leave out "may prepare a notice informing about any designation made under Part 4, or any", and to insert "must prepare a notice informing about every Part 3 direction (except that technical assistance direction) given, every designation made under Part 4, or every".

The third amendment in page 166, line 3: after "fact of", to insert "the giving of Part 3 direction,".

Sir, I have explained it. I have also noted Mr Perera's request for the Government to consider on Technical Assistance Directions. That will be considered carefully.

Question put, and agreed to.

Clause 116, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clauses 117 to 119 inclusive ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 120 –

The Chairman: Clause 120. Assoc Prof Jamus Lim.

Assoc Prof Jamus Jerome Lim: Sir, I beg to move the amendment* to clause 120 standing in my name, as indicated in the Order Paper Supplement, the reasons for which have been provided earlier in my speech.

*The amendment read as follows:

In page 169: after line 15, to insert —

“(i) an activity undertaken by Singaporeans to exercise their right to discuss politics by expressing their own views on political matters, unless they are agents of a foreign principal;

(j) an activity undertaken by foreign individuals or foreign publications reporting or commenting on Singapore politics, in an open, transparent and attributable way, even if their comments may be critical of Singapore or the Government.”

Consequential amendment:

In page 169, line 15: to leave out “.” and insert “;”

Question put, and amendment negatived.

Clause 120 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clauses 121 to 127 inclusive ordered to stand part of the Bill.

The Schedule ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Bill considered in Committee, reported with amendments.

Mr Speaker: Minister for Home Affairs.

Mr K Shanmugam: Sir, I beg to report that the Bill has been considered in Committee and agreed to with amendments.

Mr Speaker: Third Reading, what day?

Mr K Shanmugam: Now, Sir. I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a third time.

Mr Speaker Mr Speaker: The question is, that the Bill be now read a Third time. As many as are of that opinion, say "Aye".

Hon Members said "Aye".

Mr Speaker : Mr Pritam Singh.

Mr Pritam Singh: Mr Speaker, Sir, I would like to call for a Division.

Mr Speaker: Would you like to record your dissent?

Mr Pritam Singh: Sir, I call for a Division.

Mr Speaker Mr Speaker:

Mr Speaker Mr Speaker: Will the hon Members in support of the Division, please rise in their places?

More than five hon Members rose.

Mr Speaker : Clerk, ring the Division bells.

After two minutes –

Mr Speaker : Serjeant-at-Arms, lock the doors.

Question put, "That the Bill be now read a Third time."

Mr Speaker : Leader of the Opposition, you have claimed a Division. Would you like to proceed with the Division.

Mr Pritam Singh: Yes, Sir.

Mr Speaker Mr Speaker: Take a Division. The Clerk will call the names of Members to indicate their votes in the order based on their current seating arrangement. When called upon, Members are to stand up and raise their vote cards in my direction to indicate their votes. The Clerk will repeat each Member's vote for confirmation. If the vote read is not according to their vote indication, Members should inform me immediately to have their correct vote recorded.

The Clerk will now proceed to record the votes.

Whereupon, the vote of each hon Member present was indicated and read aloud for confirmation.

Mr Speaker : There are 75 "Ayes", 11 "Noes", two "Abstentions". The "Ayes" have it.

Bill accordingly read a Third time and passed.