Edwin Tong Chun Fai
Singapore
“These questions have been answered in the reply to Questions Nos 26 to 31 for Oral Answer on today's Order Paper. [Please refer to "Addressing Issues Identified in Legal Profession Sustainability Study", Official Report, 7 July 2026, Vol 96, Issue 32, Written Answers to Questions for Oral Answer not Answered by End of Question Time secti…”
“I am answering in my capacity as the Minister charged with the responsibility for the People's Association. The Community Development Council (CDC) Vouchers Scheme was first introduced in June 2020 during the COVID-19 pandemic with two key objectives: one, to help Singaporean households cope with daily expenses; and two, to support hawker…”
“If the incident is a result of bilateral obligations relating to data protection and inviolability of equipment not being complied with, then the Government will consider all available legal and diplomatic options, in accordance with the bilateral RTS Link treaties, as well as the relevant international law.”
“In 2024, community sentences under part 17 of the Criminal Procedure Code 2010 (CPC) were imposed in 86 criminal cases handled by the State Courts.”
“It is a five-minute journey across both ways; and with the availability of closed circuit television coverage and the real-time monitoring that will be done by the officers on both sides, we did not think that this will be necessary.”
“The Ministry of Law will provide an oral reply to this Parliamentary Question, together with other Parliamentary Questions which have been filed on this topic at the next available opportunity.”
The complete record
Every one of 2,221 lines we hold for Edwin Tong Chun Fai, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 3 of 45.
“In my opening speech, I covered the safeguards to ensure that information disclosed is not misused. The OSC may impose any condition in disclosing the information, including limiting the use of the information to the approved purpose. Further, any misuse of information may be an actionable wrong in itself. So, for example, if the victim uses the information to dox the perpetrator, that may be an offence under POHA. It may also be an offence under OSRA. These safeguards would protect the information disclosed and prevent misuse. The foregoing answers the questions of Dr Wan Rizal, Mr Henry Kwek and Ms Mariam Jaafar. Mr Henry Kuek also asked about the OSC's directions under the End- User Identification measures and how they interact with PDPA. The short point is that the obligations imposed by the PDPA do not prevent platforms from complying with the OSC's directions. Ms Eileen Chong also asked, I think, similar questions on the End-User Identification. Apart from what I have just said, I would like to refer to clause 53, which allows conditions by the OSC to be set in the course of providing information. I know the hon Member Ms Chong said that these proposals have, and I quote the Member, "real value", and I thank her for that; but that giving information to the victim is a "one-way door". That is also correct. But likewise, posting an online harm to the world, is also a "one-way door". And so, the question for us really is, with most of the issues in this Bill, is to grapple with the right balance to be struck. On the one hand, you have information or a post to the world that is harmful. On the other hand, you are getting information that might be subject to conditions and there are also consequences, some of which are penal in nature if you misuse it.”
“Sir, it is usual that Parliamentary intention as discerned from the debate that we have engaged in and as recorded in Hansard can and should be taken into account when interpreting the Bill and this is not just by the OSC, but also by the Courts at a subsequent juncture when construing the interpretation and construction of a particular provision in this Bill. Ms Valerie Lee asked whether the Right-of-Reply Directions which OSC may issue are intended to complement civil remedies for defamation. The short answer is yes, and it is because they serve different purposes. Currently, a successful claim in defamation provides compensation for reputational loss. But as I said at the outset, not all victims want that financial compensation. They do not want just to go to court for monetary compensation, and we have learned this from many consultations from the stakeholders. Instead, many of them want to set the record straight as quickly as possible before their reputation is further harmed, and that is where the Right-of-Reply mechanism meets this need, and victims can choose to pursue either or both remedies, and I would say that it is not a prerequisite to seek a Right-of-Reply Direction first before commencing court proceedings for defamation. But the Court may consider the claimant's duty to mitigate loss and if an avenue is available for you to have a right of reply and you do not trigger that for good reason, then, that might be taken into account as part of the claimant's duty to mitigate. Several Members asked questions about the balance between the desire to ensure accountability of wrongdoers and the need to safeguard personal information. This is under the End-User Information. Let me explain the framework in this context.”
“Some Members asked what happens if there are inconsistencies. In most cases, victims will want to use the OSC's directions at the first instance. As I said, it is quick, fast and swift relief. Many might consider to go further. For example, you might need to seek an injunction from the Courts. Like OSC's directions, injunctions are also intended to be quick and can protect the victim. But for tort claims, the claims in Court, it seeks to impose a civil liability on the other party. And so, for these reasons, the Courts are better placed to address such cases, which sometimes will need a more complex evaluation of the evidential positions on both sides and also considering the legal position and the arguments of parties. Mr Henry Kwek asked what happens if the OSC and the Courts take a different view on whether an online harm occurred. The decisions of the OSC and the Court will not bind the other. The former is an administrative decision by an agency, and the latter is a matter of law decided by the Judiciary. But the OSC may take the Court's decision, and after a while, a body of case law and jurisprudence into account. Nothing to stop the OSC from having regard to the body of jurisprudence over time, developed as a result of this framework. And the OSC is empowered to also revisit past decisions and to vary or cancel them to the extent relevant or appropriate. Mr Andre Low asked whether the OSC would be bound by Minister's clarifications made in the House today.”
“Is it too remote? And so on. Ms Cassandra Lee asked if the identifying information of victims who commence civil proceedings can be automatically redacted. I would say that, whilst redaction is appropriate in some cases, there will also be many where it would not be. And I think you got to put it in context. You are now having to face a civil suit, and you have to understand and know who is bringing the claim. And so, in most cases, I think that would not be the case. Not all, but most cases. And once an assessment has to be made as to whether it is appropriate, then, an automatic reduction upfront would not be suitable for this scheme. Mr Ng Shi Xuan and Ms Tin Pei Ling asked for clarification on how the Statutory Torts Framework in OSRA might interact with that in POHA. Let me just quickly explain this. Victims of harassment, doxxing and stalking should continue to sue the communicator or bring action under POHA. And I made the point in my opening speech that we will provide for remedies against the administrator and the platforms for these harms under OSRA. We did consider, but ultimately, decided not to subsume the POHA statutory torts under OSRA. Harassment, doxxing and stalking under POHA all have offline dimensions to it as well, which continue to call for protection and it is, therefore, necessary to preserve this. OSRA deals with online harms, so, we thought it will be more expedient and better coverage to not subsume that under OSRA. Mr Ng also suggested that guidance be issued to help parties understand the interaction. We will do so. I noted what the hon Member said, having a healthy online culture and I think that is what we would like to promote. The OSC and the Courts provide complementary avenues for victims to obtain protection from online harms.”
“I note that Ms He Ting Ru talked about the prospect of engaging in court proceedings will be daunting for victims and asked what simplified processes could be introduced. In a similar way, Ms Lee Hui Ying made the same point and talked about the Small Claims Tribunal. I am not immediately currently persuaded that the Small Claims Tribunal is set up to investigate and hear tortious claims like this. But the points are taken, and we will see whether there is a way in which we can introduce a simplified framework and process that will be able to handle these cases, particularly the simpler ones, much quicker and much more cost-efficient. Mr David Hoe suggested that it should be easy for victims to send "online harm notices" to them and avoid unnecessary information. I covered this earlier. I will just make one other point. We will also be working with the platforms to ensure that the process is straightforward and accessible. So, we will be designing this process with them in mind. They will tell us what is it that they need to identify the harm appropriately and we will work with them as well to design this into the information that will be needed to trigger the process with the platforms. Mr David Hoe and I think Ms Cassandra Lee asked whether non-monetary damages or losses can be considered under the Bill's framework, the Statutory Torts Framework. The short answer is yes. The claimants are not limited to monetary compensation and indeed, many of the harms that is contemplated in this Bill, whether it is harassment or intimate image abuse, they lead to distress and humiliation, and the Bill does empower the court to grant damages as it thinks just and equitable. Of course, the usual tortious principles, as I outlined earlier, will have to apply: is it foreseeable?”
“Discourse is welcome. But to have a care, to think about it one more time whether that is something that passes muster for online harms. And I think if they have to take a second look and thereby improve protections for users and for potential victims, then I think we have achieved something. Mr David Hoe, Mr Sharael Taha, Ms Lee Hui Ying and Ms He Ting Ru observed that some claimants might lack the means to pursue a claim. Let me just put it in perspective. We have introduced this now as an additional avenue for our victims to pursue this claim. Previously, on whatever resources you might have, it was not possible. But today, you now have an additional framework. We will always, in the context of how we discuss and enhance access to justice, we will have people who fall at the margins and may not be able to be well-resourced enough to pursue the claim. In those cases, my Ministry, MinLaw, will continue to work on Access to Justice principles to ensure that those who deserve assistance, whether through Legal Aid with the usual means and merits test, or Pro Bono SG or the Community Law Centres, or various other legal clinics or pro bono schemes around Singapore. We will continue to support these schemes and ensure that those who are at the end of the spectrum, who are unable to have resources to pursue their own claim, will not be left by the wayside. In many ways, that is just as an aside, that is precisely why we have also created the OSC framework – that it is simple, really cost-efficient and fast. You do not have to pursue a claim in Court to get the immediate relief of having the takedown or right-of-response or any other of the measures that OSC can prescribe.”
“In that situation, unless you have some other reason why you cannot do that very quickly, then otherwise, we expect the timeframe to be much shorter. In other situations where you might take a bit more time to comply with the order and some steps might be taken, or you might have to make some enquiries or there are some technological issues or challenges, then the framework that we have for "reasonable" allows the Court to take all that into account. And so, it is not a single standard. We are not able to say it must be X number of days in every case, but "reasonable" in the context of the particular circumstances of that case. Fifth, we will prescribe the contents and mode of service of these notices. I know many Members have talked about whether it is going to be difficult to fill up, or is it going to be something that we will have to go back and forth with the platforms. The answer is, as far as we can, we will prescribe the contents and the way in which we will do service of these notices so that you have, almost like a fixed framework of information that you will have to provide. And once the platforms receive it, they will have to respond to this. I know what the hon Member Ms Chen said about how there might be an over-reaction. Platforms might then be a bit more cautious when dealing with online harms. Sir, in many ways, I will say it is not a bad thing. That with these frameworks, for the platforms, the administrators, the communicators, there is a pause for thought, to think about whether an item crosses the threshold or not and whether you should be doing it. I think that is the kind of mindset that we hope to build – for everyone to be a little bit more cautious, not self-censor in the way which I have told you. All opinions are welcome.”
“You must fall below those duties before it becomes actionable. So, there is a threshold that is fairly clear-cut. In fact, many of them, you will find that these standards are not inconsistent with what the platforms self-profess to be their standards as well. Second, I think Members will know that there is no criminal offence or liability or criminal punishment for the online harm. This is not the design architecture of this Bill. When there is an online harm, OSC determines it. It then makes one of the directions as may be appropriate. Third, by and large, liability under the Statutory Torts Framework is compensatory. It seeks to compensate a victim, sometimes for loss of earnings, sometimes for distress, but it is compensatory in nature, by and large. And to Mr Henry Kwek's question, the courts will know when a case is frivolous or taken on trivial or unmeritorious grounds. It is well-established. There are cost consequences. There are ways in which we can stop a vexatious litigant. Fourth, liability for platforms is conditional on them receiving proper notice. We designed that framework because we do not expect the platforms to trawl the Internet or trawl social media to look out for these harms. But once you get a notice, then that duty arises and you then have to act in a manner in which the duty would be commensurate with the remedy. Mr Pritam Singh made the point about what is reasonable, and I think the hon Member talked about an illustration and asked whether "prompt" means it must be forthwith and so on. We have put the formula as "reasonable" because in some cases, you can simply disable access with a flip of the switch.”
“Ms He Ting Ru also said that over-censorship is already happening today. People today are already, in some cases, withdrawing from social media entirely. So, you can see the tension, pulling in different directions. What this Bill tries to do is to set up a framework that allows individual relief but also one which allows you to go to a third party, in this case, the OSC, for quick relief by a regulator. On top of that, I want to also emphasise that this Bill is, however, not intended to remove discourse. You take, for example, the Explanatory Statement on Incitement of Enmity. You will see in there that we have specifically provided in the Explanatory Statement that when you have statements that express an opinion, you are free to do so, even if they may be an opinion on the law or on Government policy. That alone, an opinion, is not something that would fall foul of the provisions of this Bill. Neither is expressing a person's belief or the practices of a group of persons inconsistent with another set of beliefs, something, that will fall foul of this Bill. It would not. You are entitled to your views, expressing your opinion and pursuing discourse as much as you can, as long as you keep to ensuring that you do not fall into one of the buckets of online harms. To do this, we have carefully calibrated the Statutory Torts Framework, and I thought I would just reiterate in my answer to Members' questions on how this framework is designed to work. First, we are dealing with online harms with a clearly defined threshold. There is a formula that is set out in the Bill and in respect of all online harms, the OSC must make an assessment, and the Statutory Torts Framework must reach that standard. Those are the duties that are set out in this Bill.”
“Finally, the End-User Identification, which supports the tortious framework, because without understanding and knowing who it is, you cannot bring the action. It is important to remember that we do not have any of these tools today. And this Bill, therefore, in my view, will create a low-barrier and accessible framework for victims to obtain remedies. In many ways, this has democratised relief for victims. And as I respond to questions, I would like to say that I hope we can keep it that way because it is a key design feature, as I said at the outset, for this Bill to be speedy, to be efficacious and to allow there to be a low barrier to getting the relief obtained. And I think we would like to keep it that way as far as possible. And I like the way in which Mr Sharael Taha and Mr Xie Yao Quan put it – give it space to grow up, build up and let it take off. And I think that is exactly what we would like to see it do. Many Members' spoke about the Statutory Torts Framework, and I will respond to this as much as I can. The Courts have contended with issues of establishing liability, quantifying damages and enforcing judgments for as long as the law of torts has existed, and it is not going to be a novel area in which they look at the way you assess breach of duty, the way in which you assess proof of damages and also whether the damage is foreseeable or too remote. But I think the speeches have put the different issues that are at tension with one another into perspective. On one hand, Ms Elysa Chen made a very thoughtful speech and cautioned against over-censorship – that administrators and platforms might then remove content too readily. On the other hand, Mr Henry Kwek said, we should be careful not to allow this to be weaponised.”
“Mr Speaker, thank you. I also thank all Members who have spoken in support of the Bill and for their thoughtful contributions to this very important debate. I am very heartened to see that actually we are on very common ground, not just in our thoughts and in the way in which we want to advance the Bill and the work of the OSC, but also in our views and in our values on what this means to society. And I think, ultimately, after almost eight hours, I think we are not really disagreeing on much. And I found speeches on both sides of the House thoughtful, with good suggestions, and even if we are not able to take them onboard today, I think, they will be relevant for future iterations of this Bill. Members have raised a number of questions, in fact, many questions, and I thought I will take them thematically, as Minister of State Rahayu Mahzam has done. But I beg your indulgence, that I am not going to be able to respond to every Member’s specific questions, nor I suspect would you want me to. But let me quickly recap the fundamentals of what this Bill seeks to achieve to set it in perspective. The OSC is set up as an independent agency to provide quick relief and can grant directions quickly in respect of platforms, something that, today, if you wanted to do with the platforms directly, you almost certainly would find that you have a huge hurdle to scale. Second, we provide, in complementary to that, a private remedy framework by way of the statutory torts. The law on torts itself is not new. It is established and the jurisprudence is well-established, but to allow victims, individuals, to avail themselves of that framework is something that is new and novel.”
“In addition, SMU Yong Pung How School of Law partnered us to organise our Online Harms Symposium. The sharing from the experts and survivors at the Symposium informed much of our thinking on this matter. SHE's surveys and research on online harms and their experience in running SHECARES@SCWO, Singapore's first support centre for targets of online harms, provided us with data and insights to refine our policy. And, finally, all those, many from the public who responded to our public consultation or who have engaged with us with very constructive comments and suggestions or written to my Ministry to share their stories. Every story helps us to shape the contours of this Bill. We thank them for their suggestions over the years. Mr Speaker, we have in the audience today, in the gallery above, a few who have contributed deeply to our work and gave valuable feedback in developing our proposals. We have members from SHE and SHECARES@SCWO – Natalie, Hemavalli, Lorraine, Saira and Si Han – who together with their teams, served as vital pillars of support for those experiencing online harms today. We also have representatives from YouthTechSG – Ben, Zoe, Beatrice and Kok Thong – who, together with many others, shared the perspectives of young Singaporeans with us. We are deeply grateful for their partnership and commitment to making our digital spaces safer for all and we record our thanks and gratitude for the time that they have taken and the experiences that they have so generously shared.”
“We also conducted over 20 engagement sessions with technology companies in the past two years to ensure that the provisions in the Bill are robust, workable, feasible and can be carried out when OSC issues directions. We discovered, through these extensive engagements, a shared belief that the online world should reflect the same values of respect, decency and fairness that we all know and often assume, and which guide us in the offline space. Around the world, societies are grappling with similar challenges – in Europe, the United Kingdom (UK), Australia and the US. We are moving in step with these global efforts, but shaping our own path, our own course, contextualised and nuanced to what Singapore needs. Sir, ultimately, law and regulation alone cannot keep our people safe. We will require a whole-of-society effort. Public education must teach users to protect themselves, and every user must take ownership of their safety and behaviour online. But if we can do this together – build sound laws, responsible platforms and a thoughtful public – we will strengthen not only our digital safety, but over time, our social fabric. And in time, our online norms will not erode, but endure – grounded in respect, anchored in responsibility and guided by the same values that make Singapore strong. Sir, that leaves me to express gratitude to a few persons and groups who have contributed deeply to our work. As mentioned by Minister of State Rahayu, we convened a Steering Committee who guided our team in shaping our policy. In particular, let me acknowledge two members from the private sector: Ms Stefanie Yuen Thio, joint managing partner of TSMP Law Corporation, member of the Sunlight Alliance for Action and founder and chairperson of SHE; as well as Assoc Prof Eugene Tan from SMU.”
“In the Public Consultation launched by MinLaw and MDDI in 2024, respondents expressed strong support for establishing a dedicated agency to address online harms – over 90% support; allowing victims to take legal action, such as seeking compensation in Court for private remedies on top of the OSC framework – over 95%; disclosing a perpetrator's user information to the victim for certain specified purposes – over 80%. Sir, the Government started this work a long time ago. We started looking at developing this Bill as far back as 2021, even as the amendments to the Broadcasting Act and OCHA were being worked on. We spent close to five years carefully examining the issues. We conducted numerous surveys and studies into the issue of online harms in Singapore, the findings of which have been presented to this House earlier. We also partnered with the SMU Yong Pung How School of Law to organise the Online Harms Symposium, where distinguished speakers and panellists, including experts on online safety from around the world, shared their insight on key issues and solutions for online harms. In addition to the Public Consultation exercise, we also met and consulted extensively with over 100 different stakeholders over the years. This includes local and foreign experts, foreign regulators, victims of online harms, social service agencies, lawyers and the Judiciary, the Ministry of Education (MOE) and other educational institutions. We recognise that the impact of online harms may be felt and experienced differently across different communities. We have heard from various segments of society, including the youths, disability and the community groups. We learnt much from their experiences and their insights and their stories.”
“It protects victims, sets fair expectations for online actors and strengthens trust and accountability in our digital commons. If we proceed steadily and work together – Government, industry and users – I believe we can keep our online spaces open, but also safe; vibrant, but also responsible. Sir, we have shown clearly how online harms exact a cost – on individuals, on families and on the social fabric that holds us together. And as technology evolves, new harms will emerge. Our laws must, therefore, remain future-ready. We must be bold and innovative to stay ahead but also compassionate in how we protect those who are most vulnerable. This Bill gives victims a clear and practical framework to seek relief when harm occurs. It also sends a clear, unambiguous signal – that everyone who shapes our digital spaces in Singapore must act responsibly. Through OSC, the Statutory Torts Framework as well as the End-User Identification provisions, we are building a coherent system of protection and accountability. Each prong complements the other: the OSC is a safety net, providing rapid relief to victims of online harms; the Statutory Torts Framework provides private remedies, and it also is the standard-setter, encouraging all actors to play their part; and the End-User Identification measures ensure that no one can cause harm from behind a mask. Sir, public support for these measures has been strong across communities, professions and also generations.”
“One can imagine – most platforms are very well resourced, and likewise, a number of administrators and content creators too. What happens when an individual victim might need to seek redress against one of these giants, with deep pockets, in Court and with lawyers? With the additional prospect of having to bear substantial costs in the litigation if one does not succeed? Overall, we fear that this will dissuade victims from coming forward. And over time, this will render the framework toothless, not because of the provisions, but because individual victims will find it more difficult to seek redress and might shy away. This will make the framework less inclusive, and we hope not to see that. In contrast, we believe that the current framework already strikes the right balance. In the first place, the framework that you heard Minister of State Rahayu outline earlier, these are administrative decisions by the OSC, who assess the harm based on the prescribed factors in this framework and they make a poly-centric decision, taking into account policy and public interest considerations when deciding on whether it is a harm and if so, what the appropriate remedy ought to be. Such administrative decisions are subject to judicial review and not an appeal. In fact, this is not unusual. Sir, at its heart, this Bill, as I said at the outset, is about empowering victims. The OSC's process is deliberately designed to be straightforward, fast and simple and focused on stopping harm quickly and hopefully, not spending time arguing about it. We think that Ms He's proposed amendments, though well-intentioned, would probably make that journey harder and not easier. Mr Speaker, Sir, this Bill is pragmatic, proportionate and principled.”
“And the provisions have been drafted with that goal in mind. Minister Josephine Teo spoke about how the OSC will be empowered to issue directions quickly to address harmful content, and Minister of State Rahayu explained the appeal mechanisms available. Sir, the hon Member, Ms He Ting Ru has proposed two amendments which I would like to address. Her amendments speak to the removal of finality of an Appeal Committee's decision, and second, to add a right to appeal to the General Division of the High Court. Sir, I would like the House to know that both the MinLaw and MDDI teams had carefully considered the appeal process, and it includes options similar to Ms He's proposals. However, we felt that we could not support them in this Bill and let me explain why. These mechanisms will make the process slower, with less finality to the proceedings. It will make it more complex and ultimately, less accessible for victims. Let me reiterate that the purpose of the OSC is to deliver speedy, practical relief to give redress to what has objectively been determined to be an online harm. Allowing repeated appeals would prolong litigation and each new appeal means fresh rounds of arguments, delay and also uncertainty in dealing with harmful content, as well as renewed anxiety for those already hurt, who quite likely will have to remain engaged throughout the appeal process. We expect that there will be likely higher case volume in OSRA cases, which also adds to the administrative load of the OSC. And, Sir, the further point is this. If a case goes on appeal to the High Court, lawyers will probably be instructed. In such an instance, will there be equality in how this might play out?”
“We intend to eventually extend this for other purposes as well, such as allowing victims to safeguard themselves from the perpetrator, and to take proactive future measures. Mr Speaker, we recognise that some may have concerns that these measures might intrude on users' privacy or go too far. Let me be clear: that is not the case, and we thought about this framework quite carefully. The measures are aimed squarely at those who hide behind anonymity to cause online harm. They are not meant to affect ordinary users who act responsibly. In fact, for the vast majority and for most users, nothing will change. Most platforms today already require some form of verified contact or payment information at the point of registration. Additionally, when the OSC discloses a perpetrator's identity to a victim, there will be safeguards to ensure that the information is protected and not misused. First, the OSC may impose strict conditions on how the information can be used, such as limiting the use of the information to seeking protection or pursuing legal remedies. Any breach of those conditions will be a criminal offence. Second, the misuse of the information may itself attract legal consequences. For example, if the victim were to use the information obtained from the OSC to dox the perpetrator, that could, itself, be an offence under POHA or under an online harm under this Bill. In short, the Bill has in-built safeguards. They balance and they protect both the victim's right to know as well as the perpetrator's right against misuse. Sir, this Bill is designed above all, as Members can see from how I have articulated the framework and the schema of this Bill, to be as victim-centric as possible, to give swift accessible access to those who have suffered real harm online.”
“There are existing mechanisms currently available in Court, such as pre-action discovery and non-party discovery. All of these are mechanisms which can be used to obtain information about the identity of wrongdoers. But victims will still need to commence Court proceedings which may be costly and time-consuming. And so, we believe the Bill's proposed End-User Identification measures offer an accessible option. To start with, clause 49 empowers the OSC to obtain information and documents for the discharge of its functions. This includes identity information of an end-user which is in the possession of platforms. This is akin to how law enforcement agencies are empowered to obtain such information for investigative purposes, akin but not similar. Second, clause 52 empowers the OSC, where it reasonably suspects a user of committing an online harm, to require prescribed platforms to take reasonable steps to obtain specified information that may identify the user. This can take the form of the user's name or perhaps, verified phone numbers or credit card information, which can then be used to make further inquiries with telcos or banks. This obligation to collect information is carefully scoped to target those users who are suspected of carrying out online harms. This is following close consultations that we had with industry partners who expressed difficulty with a general obligation upfront for platforms to collect information of all their Singapore users. Third, clause 53 empowers the OSC to disclose the perpetrator's identity information to a victim or to their authorised representatives, upon receiving an application from the said victim. At the initial stage, disclosure will be limited to the purpose of enabling victims to bring their claim.”
“But with the passage of time, history has proved those laws right. They made cars safer, saved countless lives, changed attitudes and mindset, and re-shaped how the industry designed every vehicle thereafter. We hope that this Bill, with a clear framework, can also have the effect of setting the right tone for online behaviour, shape mindset and attitudes, of both users as well as service providers. They define what is acceptable and what is not. They will guide conduct not only through monetary damages, but through shared expectations made explicit. Overall, our intention is that as our online norms mature, we will rely less and less on reports and lawsuits, because, like road safety, the law will have done what it set out to do, not just punish harm, but nurture the habits that prevent harm in the first place. Sir, I move on now to address how the Bill handles anonymity. From time to time, anonymity can serve a good purpose – it allows users to speak freely, sometimes, obtain assistance and, on occasions, allows marginalised groups to speak up. But at the same time, it must not shield wrongdoing. And unfortunately, many online users abuse the power and privacy which online anonymity affords them. I had earlier covered how online anonymity is a driver of online harms and leads to the Online Disinhibition Effect. Anonymity also exacerbates the impact of harm on victims. First, victims may become more distrustful of those around them. They wonder who it is posting on their social media sites. They do not know if the perpetrator is, indeed, someone they might know. Second, victims will not be able to obtain legal recourse from perpetrators. By definition, they cannot commence legal proceedings, or enforce Court judgments, against an unknown person.”
“And the enhanced damages framework also compensates victims for any additional harm resulting from failure to comply. And we hope to drive overall a strong enough messaging with a deterrent impact on the actors in the online space. Therefore, enhanced damages may be awarded to compensate the victim for additional harm caused by the refusal to stop the online harm, penalise the communicator or the administrator for bad conduct, and the Court will consider the overall justice of the situation, when assessing whether to impose enhanced damages. In addition, clause 99 empowers the Court to issue injunctions, both interim as well as permanent, to stop harm swiftly. These injunctions operate independently of any direction from the OSC, giving victims complementary routes to relief. The OSC and the Courts operate independently of each other, and neither is bound by the decision of each other. The OSC seeks to act quickly and takes public interest into account in making its decisions. The Court decides any claim for statutory tort relief based on the applicable legal principles and a framework for remedies. Taken together, Sir, we believe that we have fashioned a suite of remedies that strike the right balance: accountability for wrongdoers; fair recourse for victims; and flexibility for the courts. The statutory torts are designed to change and strengthen norms – to make self-responsibility a default in our online spaces. And I come back to the time when the first motor-safety laws were introduced in the 1960s. There was an American publication, Automotive News, which lamented the passing of these laws with the headline, and I quote: "Tough safety law strips auto industry of freedom". There was fear; there was resistance in the industry.”
“If a victim successfully establishes a claim, the victim must have access to effective and fair remedies. Under clause 96, victims may seek damages that the Court finds just and equitable, and other heads of damages that the Minister may prescribe in regulations, such as compensation for loss of earnings or an account of profits where perpetrators benefited from the harm. The intent is to ensure that victims are properly compensated and that wrongdoers are not allowed to benefit from their behaviour. For some harms, therefore, the victim's earning capacity or livelihood may be affected and they should be compensated for loss of future earnings or loss of earning capacity, as the case may be or as may be appropriate. In other cases, such as where intimate images have been put online and for sale and perpetrators profit from this harm, then, in those cases, an account of profits may be ordered so that the wrongdoer does not get to retain the benefits of the harm caused. The regulations in this Bill reduce victims' uncertainty as to what remedies they are entitled to. But ultimately, it is for the Court to decide on the appropriate orders, based on the facts of each case. Clause 98 introduces the concept of enhanced damages and empowers the Court to award such damages where a communicator or administrator persists with their conduct despite notice. We think that enhanced damages should apply to those who are the root cause of the harm, such as recalcitrant communicators or administrators who create harmful websites or chatgroups. We have, therefore, excluded the platforms. This framework is intended to incentivise and drive reasonable compliance and, in some cases, as quickly as possible.”
“For example, putting up a post or creating a website to whistle-blow on serious misconduct may well be "reasonable" if done for a legitimate purpose and in a proportionate manner, even if it might cause harassment, or might be considered as online instigation. There are also safeguards to address concerns that administrators and platforms may be inundated with frivolous notices or notices with insufficient information. The Bill provides that the particulars, which an online harm notice must contain are to be prescribed. We set it out clearly in a prescribed form so that the categories of information is known upfront and this ensures that only genuine, properly documented cases trigger the duty to act, and the administrators and platforms have enough information to take "reasonable steps". Ultimately, it is the Court that will look at the facts of each case, weigh the totality of the evidence and decide whether a claim is made out and if so, what remedy should follow and against which party. These are all fact-sensitive judgments that reflect the diverse realities of online interaction. The Bill therefore avoids the use of fixed or rigid formulas, to allow the Court to develop the law incrementally, while at the same time, keeping the focus squarely on online safety and responsibility. The Bill recognises that platforms and administrators need not proactively scan for all harms. They only have to act responsibly once notified. Take together, these duties encourage vigilance without imposing impossible burdens. They reflect a simple idea embodied in many legal principles, which is, if you control the space, then you must play your part in keeping it safe. Next, Sir, let me turn to remedies.”
“This will cover the administrators of such a chatgroup. Second, when notified of harm, they must act reasonably – more specifically, they must take reasonable care to assess if there is harm and if so, to take reasonable steps to address it. Clause 94 therefore imposes a similar duty on platforms to act reasonably when notified of harm. I want to make clear to Members that the duty to take "reasonable steps" does not require the platform to do constant surveillance and monitoring. Their liability arises only when an actor fails to act reasonably after receiving proper notice. They are not liable if, through no fault of their own, they did not receive the notice sent by the victim. In assessing reasonableness, the Court will consider the circumstances of the case, including the seriousness as well as the persistence of the harm. Let me illustrate this: an administrator or platform that receives notice of a harmful post for the first time may act reasonably by simply removing that post if that is the appropriate remedy under the framework. But if the same account repeatedly causes harm in the same way, simply taking down each time the post is put up may no longer suffice. In such cases, taking stronger action, such as suspending or disabling the offending account, may be the reasonable steps required under clauses 91 and 94 and that is what I meant when I said you assess the entire factual matrix and situation holistically. What is “reasonable” will therefore depend on the facts. The Courts can take into account factors such as the nature of the conduct; the context in which it occurred; and the effect and impact on the victim.”
“Harassment, doxxing and stalking will continue to be dealt with under POHA for communicators, but the new statutory duties for these harms will extend to administrators and platforms under this Bill, since POHA does not cover them. The online harms omitted from the statutory torts, mainly, false material, statements harmful to reputation and non-consensual disclosure of private information – are already well-covered under the existing legal framework, laws on defamation as well as on privacy and confidentiality. This alignment ensures coherence in our legislation – no overlapping and no double remedy. In this Bill, the statutory torts will also not cover Incitement of Enmity. We think it is unwise to encourage such matters – which can be potentially explosive, emotive and divisive – to be dealt with litigiously, in a courtroom and so it will be dealt with by the OSC. The statutory torts will be implemented in phases, as you heard Minister of State Rahayu sketch out the OSC’s implementation of harms framework earlier in coordination with the OSC. Second, Sir, the Bill assigns clear duties to the key actors in the online ecosystem, and they are the communicators, the administrators and the platforms. Clauses 83 to 88 therefore impose duties on communicators not to make or share any communication which constitutes an online harm. Clauses 90 and 91 impose two duties on administrators. First, they must not develop or maintain an online location in any manner that facilitates or permits online harm to take place – with the intention or knowledge that online harm is likely to take place. This duty covers administrators that are complicit in the online harms, and Members might be aware of the infamous chatgroup "SG Nasi Lemak" previously.”
“Through legislative changes, safety was made a core design principle in the manufacturing of cars. And it has been estimated that between 1960 and 2012, over 600,000 lives were saved in the United States (US) as a result of this. In a similar way, not exactly the same, but in a similar way, we hope that this Bill will make online safety a design principle of the online space upfront, and not just an afterthought. Sir, let me now outline how the Statutory Torts Framework is intended to work. At the outset, our focus and intent is to empower victims. It is a very victim-centric approach and today you look at the example of one victim who tries to speak to the platforms, you heard the statistics that Minister Josephine Teo cited earlier, it is very difficult, and they are pretty much powerless today. At the Government level, we have the Broadcasting Act, we have the Protection from Online Falsehoods and Manipulation Act (POFMA), we have OCHA that empower the Government to act in a variety of ways. OSRA provisions will empower private persons to obtain relief, and Members might, therefore, be aware that clause 4 makes it clear that a public agency cannot commence a claim under the Statutory Torts Framework. This is a private citizens' private remedy. I will now explain the types of online harms covered by the statutory torts. This framework will cover the same categories of harms that the OSC will act on, the same categories that Minister of State Rahayu took you through earlier, with some exceptions and refinements for coherence. Clauses 83 to 88 cover the following harmful online activities: intimate image abuse; image-based child abuse; online impersonation; inauthentic material abuse; online instigation of disproportionate harm; and incitement of violence.”
“Second, there is little that victims can do to hold anonymous users accountable, simply because they remain anonymous and perpetrators know that they are unlikely to get caught and do not fear consequences. Overall, in general, anonymity fuels bad behaviour. To address these issues, the Government has taken proactive steps. Minister Josephine Teo outlined the reforms that protect users. Minister of State Rahayu explained how the new OSC will provide timely relief to stop harm. Let me address the remaining mechanisms in this Bill for Members. Sir, we start with the proposition that, in some cases, stopping the harm alone might not be enough. Victims might require additional recourse, for example, compensation. And to do that, they will also need to know who lies behind that anonymous social media handle. The Bill therefore seeks to introduce a framework to close those gaps. It will introduce clear statutory duties for online actors, defining what responsible conduct and therefore, what the standard of duty that is expected of them, ought to be. It provides civil remedies for breaches of those duties, giving victims the right to seek justice in Court and it creates an additional avenue of relief, complementing the quick administrative recourse that can be obtained through the OSC, so that victims can choose the path that best suits their needs. During the Online Harms Symposium that I referred to a short while ago, Ms Haugen likened Internet and social media regulation to the evolution of road safety, something that happened several decades ago. In the 1960s, US car manufacturers vigorously resisted safety reforms. But informed legislators persisted with greater regulation, coupled with a push, a very determined push from concerned citizens as well as investors.”
“Viral, harmful content draws engagement, higher engagements draw eyeballs so their removal will impact revenue. We have some basis to believe that online safety considerations might well yield to profit generation, if left unregulated. Today, tech companies have community standards which ostensibly address online harms. Members can see some examples of these standards which are set out in Handout 7. However, most platforms do not necessarily adhere to their own community standards. Indeed, in the IMDA study cited by Minister Josephine Teo a short while ago, over 50% of legitimate user complaints were not addressed in the first instance. And this, we believe, is far from ideal, as victims are reliant on platforms to stop online harms. At present, there is no framework which can give redress to victims for harms that happen at the speed and the extent to which they happen online. While victims may try and seek relief in court, there is a limit to how fast court proceedings can be and may also be costly. And we all know that in these types of cases, speed of redress is crucial. And most victims of such harms do not want to have to seek relief in Court, through the Court process. It is also clear that online users behave on the Internet differently from the offline world. Perpetrators are emboldened to act with impunity especially when they can remain anonymous. First, they experience what we call the "Online Disinhibition Effect", a term coined by Prof John Suler. Prof Suler explains that anonymous Internet users separate their online persona from their in-person identity and they do not feel responsible for their behaviour online.”
“The sense of safety we have offline does not translate into the online space. The SHE 2023 study found that 58% of respondents reported personally experiencing and/or knowing others who faced online harms. We studied why this might be so. And in the course of our study, three issues stood out: first, fragmented standards and weak accountability in the online harms regulation space; second, economic incentives that unfortunately reward sensational content; and third, online anonymity that emboldens misbehaviour. These three issues have very much shaped the thinking behind the construct and the framework of this current Bill. Let me elaborate that for Members. Thus far, the development of the rules and norms of the Internet has been largely left to the tech companies. Left on their own, different platforms will apply different rules, largely shaped by their own interests. And in the absence of any common set of enforceable norms, it is not easy to expect or enforce accountability. Instead, these differing standards will continue to exist and operate in a manner which allows wrongdoers to exploit the gaps. This lack of accountability is exacerbated by the structural features of the Internet. There is a misalignment between tech companies' profit motive and the need and desire to enhance online safety. At the Online Harms Symposium co-organised by the Ministry of Law (MinLaw) and the Singapore Management University (SMU) Yong Pung How School of Law in 2023, former Facebook employee turned whistle-blower, Ms Frances Haugen spoke about how tech companies do have solutions to address online harms, but implementing them will eat into their profits and hurt their bottom line. Social media platforms profit from the amplification of sensational and inflammatory content.”
“Sir, Members may also access these materials through the MP@SGPARL app. Sir, Handout 6 sets out several other accounts: students, women, working adults and their loved ones. Online harms affect not only individuals and their families, but also the confidence and the trust of our society as a whole. In the SHE 2023 Study on Online Harms cited by Minister of State Rahayu a short while ago, 76% of respondents were not comfortable expressing their personal views on potentially controversial issues and topics online. Women, youths and minorities are especially vulnerable: 22% of female youths experienced sexual harassment compared to 14% across all respondents; 52% of respondents aged 15 to 24 years old personally experienced online harms compared to 38% across all respondents; 14% to 21% of respondents believed they experienced harms because of their identity, such as race and religion. As a result, victims exit from public life or they choose to stay offline. Their voices, and their representation, are lost. And proper discourse in the community becomes weaker. If this continues, we will have a divided society, and a weakening of our social fabric and collective trust. Sir, in contrast, most Singaporeans feel safe on our streets. About 98% of Singaporeans feel safe walking out alone, even at night. In the offline world, we are mindful of how we behave towards one another. We know not to threaten, harass or insult other people. And in our everyday interactions, there are social norms that we know to abide by. In public spaces, schools and also in work spaces. Such norms allow us to function and thrive as a society. But when it comes to the online world, these norms are not quite observed in the same way.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, today, we take an important step to make our online spaces safer and fairer. The Bill before this House clarifies duties, provides relief and also strengthens accountability across the online ecosystem to deal with online harms. My colleagues have earlier taken Members through the key aspects of the Bill, and I will focus on outlining the new Statutory Torts Framework, as well as the End-User Identification measures in this Bill. Sir, let me start by reiterating why we saw a need for this Bill. The victims of online harms are not just statistics. They may be our children, classmates, colleagues or neighbours. Their confidence, studies and indeed their livelihoods can be shaken and seriously affected. For one Primary 4 student, cyber-bullying reared its ugly head when she started using Instagram. She based her self-esteem on how many "likes" and "followers" she had. She would ask her friends to "like" her photos or "follow" her account to appear popular, and if a photo did not receive over 100 "likes", she would delete it. She began receiving comments about her appearance and hurtful messages from those who were supposedly her friends. Her mental health worsened. She self-harmed and she was later diagnosed with Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD) when she eventually sought help at the Institute of Mental Health (IMH). She was on medical leave from school for most of the year. Sir, this is a sad story. But what is worse is that it is not an isolated case. With your permission, Mr Speaker, may I ask the Clerks to distribute a handout?”
“I am answering in my capacity as the Minister charged with the responsibility for the People's Association. The Marine Parade shuttle bus service, a local community programme by the Grassroots Organisations (GROs) of the Marine Parade Town Cluster, was started with the aim of trialling a bus service to meet last-mile connectivity needs as a pilot project. Usage of the bus service varied across routes, locations and time periods. This reflects a need for the bus as a last mile connector which was more pronounced at certain times of the day and in certain geographical locations. In some areas, usage was low whilst at other areas, it was much higher, at varying times of the day. The initial estimated pilot cost of $1 million remains accurate. The majority of the funding for the shuttle bus pilot came from donations raised by GROs, supplemented by a $200,000 seed grant provided by the South East Community Development Council.”
“For the period from 2016 to September 2025, the number of individuals adjudicated bankrupt aged (a) 24 and below; (b) 25 to 39; (c) 40 to 54; and (d) 55 and above are tabulated in the table below.”
“The Ministry of Law (MinLaw) does not capture data on bankruptcy applications that were terminated for want of prosecution. For the period from 2016 to 2022, 3,741 bankruptcy applications were withdrawn by the petitioning creditor. This was about 17% of all bankruptcy applications made during this period. For the period from 2016 to 2022, 8,455 bankruptcy applications did not culminate in a bankruptcy order. This was about 39% of all bankruptcy applications made during this period. The bankruptcy regime already provides a structured process for engagement between the petitioning creditor and the debtor. As part of the assessment process for the Debt Repayment Scheme, a meeting of creditors will be scheduled to allow the debtor and his creditors to express their views or pose questions to the debtor's proposed debt repayment plan before the plan is approved. Any proposal to mandate a new requirement in the bankruptcy process needs to be studied carefully to ensure that the administration of bankruptcies remains cost-efficient. MinLaw will continue to review the bankruptcy regime and make adjustments as necessary to balance the interests of debtors and creditors.”
“Mr Speaker, I am answering in my capacity as the Minister charged with the responsibility for the People's Association. The Community Development Council (CDC) funds support community programmes that help and benefit the community, strengthen the social glue, build a more compassionate society and foster community bonding. In response to feedback from residents for last-mile connectivity, the Marine Parade shuttle bus service was launched as a pilot by the Grassroots Organisations (GROs) of the Marine Parade Town Cluster to address the needs. The majority of the funding for the shuttle bus pilot came from donations raised by the GROs, supplemented by a $200,000 seed grant provided by the South East CDC. Learning points from the pilot include the fact that some routes experienced higher usage than others across different time periods due to varying needs of residents in different locations. The data collected from the usage patterns were useful. Adjustments were made, taking the usage data and feedback into consideration; bus frequencies were adjusted and one of the routes was discontinued earlier this year. The GROs will continue to adopt this approach of piloting, adapting and reviewing how to deploy resources to best serve resident needs. Marine Parade GRC Grassroots Advisers have studied the detailed findings from the operations and have decided to terminate the shuttle bus and to deploy resources in a more targeted manner to meet the connectivity needs of residents across Marine Parade. More details will be announced soon.”
“Mr Speaker, I am answering in my capacity as the Minister charged with the responsibility for the People's Association (PA). PA maintains a periodic Upgrading and/or Cyclical Maintenance Programme to keep our community clubs well-maintained, functional and fit-for-purpose. Eunos Community Club was selected for upgrading in 2023 under this programme and a tender for upgrading works for Eunos Community Club was called in September 2022. PA received 11 bids for the tender. Following an investigation by the Competition and Consumer Commission of Singapore (CCCS), two bids were disqualified and excluded from the tender evaluation. CCCS made public their findings, and this was known. The remaining nine bids were then evaluated using the Price-Quality Method. Eventually, the tender was not awarded because the assessed bids were substantially higher than the estimated value of the works needed. As previously explained, after an assessment, it was decided that it would not be prudent to proceed with the upgrading works at that time, given the substantial deviation from the estimated value. Instead, PA decided to scale down to only essential works, at a lower cost of around $3.1 million, to ensure that Eunos Community Club can continue to be well-maintained and fit-for-purpose for residents' use. This includes mechanical and electrical works, such as upgrading of the lift system. Eunos Community Club is currently undergoing these essential works and remains on track to reopen by early 2026. Thereafter, PA will make a progressive assessment on the scope of works that might be needed to be done at the next scheduled upgrading. This will be done in consultation with residents, community stakeholders and relevant authorities.”
“I am answering in my capacity as the Minister charged with the responsibility for the People's Association. Every Singaporean household can only claim one set of Community Development Council (CDC) vouchers per tranche. Some Singaporean households might be unable to claim their CDC vouchers for a variety of reasons, for example, when more than one Singaporean household resides in the same rental address or their registered address is not a residential address. The CDCs are working with the Ministry of Health (MOH) to facilitate the claiming of the vouchers by eligible Singaporeans in MOH-funded nursing homes by obtaining the necessary documentation from the homes for their appeal at the Community Centres or Clubs. We will continue to work with the relevant Ministries to assist eligible residents to access benefits and support measures.”
“The percentage of proven debts that have been repaid in bankruptcy cases varies from case to case and depends on factors such as the circumstances in which the bankruptcy took place and other extraneous factors, as well as the subsequent recovery (or otherwise) of the bankrupt. The corresponding percentage for cases under the Debt Repayment Scheme (DRS) has been comparatively more favourable given that the DRS applies in cases where the debtor has a regular income and where the unsecured debt does not exceed $150,000. The DRS benefits both the debtor, who can avoid bankruptcy if he meets his obligations under the Scheme, and his creditors, who will receive no less than what they would have otherwise received had the debtor gone into bankruptcy. The Ministry of Law has regular dialogues with creditors to ensure that the debtors' repayment plans under the DRS continue to be viable. While the Official Assignee will make reasonable efforts to help creditors recover debt, it is necessary to balance creditors' interest against allowing bankrupts and debtors to make a fresh start in their financial affairs. We encourage lenders to exercise prudence in extending credit.”
“The top five causes of bankruptcy in the past 10 years were business failure, overspending on consumer goods and services, loss of income due to unemployment or retrenchment, liability due to guarantees and low income. This information is self-declared by debtors in their Statement of Affairs (SA), either in their bankruptcy application or upon their being made bankrupt on a creditor's application. When filling up the SA, the debtor selects the most applicable cause of insolvency from a drop-down list. To foster a vibrant, innovation-led environment for entrepreneurs to thrive, the Government has introduced a comprehensive range of schemes and programmes to support our local startups and encourage innovation. These include mentorships from Accredited Mentor Partners, grants to entrepreneurs, talent support and providing startups with spaces to meet the needs of promising founders and startup enablers and help them grow. To encourage healthy and responsible entrepreneurship, it is important that our entrepreneurs make sound financing decisions and have a stake in the outcome. For example, the Startup SG Founder grant requires a dollar-for-dollar matching by entrepreneurs. The Ministry of Law also regularly reviews the bankruptcy regime, which strikes a balance between the interests of persons seeking to engage in business activity and financial responsibility.”
“I am answering in my capacity as the Minister charged with the responsibility for the People's Association. The Marine Parade shuttle bus service is a ground-up initiative by the Grassroots Organisations (GROs) of the Marine Parade Town Cluster. It was started with a seed grant of $200,000 by South East Community Development Council (CDC), with the aim of trialling a bus service for better connectivity for residents. There is a total of six bus routes each plying different routes. It was a pilot project which started in early July 2024. The service has been regularly reviewed throughout its pilot, with some adjustments being made at the end of last year after user feedback was obtained. On the whole, utilisation of the service varies from route to route and also depending on the time of the day. Following the latest review, the GROs of the Marine Parade Town Cluster have assessed and decided not to continue with the bus service when the current contract period is up on 20 November 2025 and instead re-direct their resources in a more targeted manner. Further information on this and alternative plans will be shared by the Marine Parade Town Cluster GROs with their residents. Beyond the $200,000 seed grant provided by the South East CDC to implement the pilot, the rest of the funds used to run the bus service throughout the entire period were raised by the GROs and through donations. As to whether any other GROs are planning such community-based shuttle services, it would depend on factors, such as the specific local needs of the residents, the cost of any such services and the availability of alternatives.”
“If Singaporeans do not need the vouchers, they can donate the balance vouchers to their preferred Institutions of a Public Character charity.”
“I am answering in my capacity as the Minister charged with the responsibility for the People's Association. The Community Development Council (CDC) Vouchers Scheme aims to help Singaporean households cope with the cost of living and support hawkers and heartland merchants. Over the years, the CDCs have received feedback from residents asking why there was a need for notification letters. Upon review of achieving a consistent high claim rates for CDC vouchers since 2021, averaging about 97% in the past tranches, and in support of environmental sustainability, the CDCs decided to stop sending notification letters from the seventh CDC vouchers tranche onwards, that is, from the May 2025 tranche, after much deliberation. While there were no notification letters for the May 2025 tranche, the CDCs continued to create public awareness by publicising through various platforms, such as media announcements, newspaper advertisements, social media channels, street banners, digital display panels at lift landings, CDC Vouchers Website and also community posters to guide residents on how to claim and spend their vouchers. Singaporeans who have difficulties with the digital claim process could also seek help at all community centres or community clubs and SG Digital Community Hubs. This assistance to the digitally-less savvy Singaporeans remains unchanged. In fact, even without the notification letters, the claim rate for the May 2025 tranche remains comparable to the other tranches. This high claim rate is a testimony that Singaporeans are already familiar and comfortable with the claim process. As for the suggestion to roll-over the vouchers to future tranches, we would like to reiterate that the CDC vouchers are meant to help Singaporeans with their daily expenses.”
“The provision of wills and probate courses is not restricted to the legal profession. However, members of the public are reminded that, unless conducted by an advocate and solicitor, businesses which provide courses on wills, probate and estate planning cannot give legal advice and cannot provide the services of an advocate and solicitor. Any unauthorised person, who holds himself out as an advocate and solicitor, is potentially liable for a criminal offence under the Legal Profession Act. Members of the public should therefore research the background of the course provider before they sign up for a will and probate course, to ensure that they are satisfied as to the background and quality of the course provider. A person who has doubts about legal issues or who requires legal advice should engage an advocate and solicitor. To assist Singaporeans with making a will, information about legacy planning can be found on the Government's My Legacy @ LifeSG website1.”
“As the concept of target contribution was introduced in August 2016 as part of the Differentiated Discharge Framework (DDF), the figures provided relate only to cases that come under the DDF. The target contribution is fixed as a multiple of the monthly contribution, being either 52 months of monthly contribution for first-time bankrupts or 76 months of monthly contribution for repeat bankrupts. The monthly contribution is in turn determined in accordance with statutory criteria that take into account the bankrupt's income or earning ability, and allowances for reasonable expenses. The Ministry of Law regularly reviews the bankruptcy regime to balance the interests of debtors and creditors.”
“The mean and median times taken for Singaporeans and Singapore Permanent Residents to be annulled and discharged from bankruptcy between (a) 2010 and 2015, (b) 2016 and 2020, and (c) 2020 and 2025 are tabulated below. The median and mean durations in bankruptcy have come down in the latest five-year period. There is negligible difference in the mean and median times when repeat bankrupts are excluded. The 2015 reforms, which introduced the Differentiated Discharge Framework, came into force on 1 August 2016. In 2023, we transited to a regime where all new bankruptcies now come under the administration of private trustees, except where there is a public interest reason for the Official Assignee to consent to act as trustee. The Debt Repayment Scheme is currently being reviewed to prevent its misuse, particularly by debtors who may be guided by third-party consulting firms to borrow irresponsibly, and subsequently apply for bankruptcy. The Ministry of Law will continue to work with stakeholders to maintain a rehabilitative bankruptcy regime that balances the interests of debtors and creditors.”
“The Legal Aid Bureau (LAB), a department in the Ministry of Law, provides legal aid to Singapore Citizens and Permanent Residents who satisfy a means test and a merits test. This legal aid covers civil matters including deputyship applications for cases where there is an absence of a Lasting Power of Attorney. There are two types of deputyship applications: standard and simplified applications. For standard applications, LAB can provide legal representation to eligible applicants. For simplified applications, applicants can generally file the applications themselves using the Family Justice Courts' iFAMs system. If necessary, LAB can assist eligible applicants who are not digitally savvy. Individuals who are not eligible for Government legal aid schemes may seek legal advice at the Community Law Centres by Pro Bono SG, as well as various legal clinics across Singapore.”
“Mr Speaker, I am answering in my capacity as the Minister charged with the responsibility for the People's Association (PA). Under the Primary 1 (P1) Registration Framework, current serving committee members of the Residents' Network (RN), Residents' Committee (RC), Neighbourhood Committee (NC), Citizen's Consultative Committee (CCC), Community Club Management Committee (CCMC) and the Community Development Council (CDC) are eligible to register their child under Phase 2B as active community leaders in schools within two kilometres of their residence. This is not exclusive to grassroots leaders (GRLs) and is also extended to other volunteers who have served or are connected to the school in one way or another. To qualify as active community leaders, PA requires GRLs to serve actively in these Committees for at least two years continuously prior to the P1 registration exercise. GRLs who meet the qualifying criteria may submit their applications to PA for assessment and endorsement. On average, less than 1.5% of GRLs seek to register their child under Phase 2B yearly and out of this pool, not all are successful. The outcome still depends on factors, such as demand and vacancies, which can vary year to year. Regardless of the outcome, many volunteers continue serving in the grassroots. PA does not have the data on the number of GRLs who have been successful or unsuccessful in registering their child with ballot and without ballot.”
“The Mandatory Treatment Order framework under the Community Disputes Resolution (Amendment) Act 2024 has not come into operation. Cases where there are mental health conditions need to be managed carefully and sensitively. The Government is working through the details to ensure that the framework, when operationalised, is effective and robust.”
“In Singapore, the strong partnership among the Government, the legal fraternity, and civil society is key to enhancing access to justice for vulnerable Singaporeans. The Legal Aid Bureau (LAB), under the Ministry of Law, provides legal aid to Singapore Citizens and Permanent Residents, who satisfy a means test and a merits test. This legal aid covers civil matters, such as monetary claims, matrimonial and probate matters. The means test criteria were last updated in 2024, with an increase in the per capita household income and the annual value of the applicant's residence to $1,050 and $21,000 respectively. LAB will continue to exercise flexibility for deserving cases who may not meet the criteria at the margins. For instance, a means test panel appointed by the Minister can recommend that aid be granted to an applicant who cannot afford basic legal services due to extenuating circumstances. Individuals who are not eligible for Government legal aid schemes may seek legal advice at the Community Law Centres by Pro Bono SG (PBSG), as well as various legal clinics across Singapore. PBSG also runs schemes that provide legal representation to eligible applicants, such as the Family Justice Support Scheme for matrimonial issues and the Ad Hoc Pro Bono Scheme, which accepts referrals for needy and vulnerable individuals who do not qualify for other legal aid schemes but require legal help due to exceptional circumstances.”
“Mr Speaker, I am answering in my capacity as the Minister charged with the responsibility for the People's Association. The CDC Vouchers Scheme was first introduced in June 2020 during the COVID-19 pandemic with two key objectives: (a) to help Singaporean households cope with the cost of living; and (b) to support hawkers and heartland merchants. In line with the policy intent, our aim is to onboard hawkers and merchants in the Housing and Development Board (HDB) heartlands, such as those in the National Environment Agency-managed centres and HDB heartlands, including shops which offer daily goods or services. However, there are instances where few or no heartland merchants are found within or near residential areas. In such locations, we have onboarded, on a case-by-case basis, small businesses that provide goods and services needed by residents. Since October 2021, the Community Development Council (CDC) has been engaging hawkers and merchants in the heartlands and onboarding them onto the Scheme. CDCs also work closely with associations, like the Federation of Merchants' Association, Singapore and Heartland Enterprise Centre Singapore, as well as various merchant and hawker associations, to reach out to the merchants and hawkers. To date, we have onboarded over 23,000 hawkers and heartland merchants on the CDC Voucher scheme, including those who successfully appealed, and will continue to work closely with the earlier mentioned key partners to onboard eligible merchants in the heartland.”