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 34 of 45.
“In any case, any further savings will be fully returned to policyholders, such as in the form of higher payouts or the premium adjustments that I just spoke about. In short, the Fund is not for profit and, should there be any surpluses, it will be put back into the Fund for the benefit of all policyholders. Next, I would like to assure Members that no one will lose coverage due to his or her inability to pay. But it has to be a genuine inability to pay, not just a refusal. The Government will provide Additional Premium Support to Singaporeans who cannot afford CareShield Life premiums even after premium subsidies, MediSave and family support. Dr Chia Shi-Lu had a question about Additional Premium Support criteria for both CareShield Life and MediShield Life and whether we intend for it to be the same. An individual's additional premium support status will be shared across both CareShield Life and MediShield Life so that an individual would not be put through the task of having to apply for Additional Premium Support twice over. Let me now turn to the third key principle, which is that of sustainability. Members would agree that we must ensure that the long-term care financing system that we put in place must remain sustainable and must work in the long term. This is so that our children and the generations beyond that will not be unnecessarily and unduly burdened by the needs of the current generation. Let me elaborate with reference to a few points. First, CareShield Life and ElderShield are designed to be self-sustaining schemes. So, that again is in the policy design. It is, in fact, hard wired into the design of the schemes.”
“While at Mr Leon Perera's point, I would like to clarify clause 15 of the Bill that allows the offsetting of premium subsidies from premium refunds, for administrative ease. So, let me just illustrate it with a scenario. For example, if an auto-enrolled policyholder decides to opt out before the deadline of end 2023, which Minister Gan Kim Yong outlined, the premiums he had paid will be fully refunded and the mechanism that is being used is designed in clause 15. Any premium subsidies and incentives he received previously will then, of course, also be offset from this refund. So, you do not retain the subsidies whilst at the same time choosing to exit from the Scheme. Separately, if the Council considers at its regular adjustments to consider premium rebates, for instance, in that situation, if there is a premium rebate to be paid to a policyholder, the rebate computation will not take into account the subsidy that has been given. So, if part of what you have been paying as a premium is assisted through the subsidy, then, the rebates that are given will not take that into account in giving the rebate to the policyholder. Instead, the rebate will be retained in the fund, for the benefit of all the other policyholders. That, we believe, is the fairest arrangement. Mr Png Eng Huat also asked if the savings from Government administration have already been reflected in the CareShield Life premiums. Let me confirm that the CareShield Life premiums from existing cohorts are based on the expected expenses under Government administration and would thus have also reflected the savings that we expect to see from such administration.”
“In response to Assoc Prof Walter Theseira's point, we allow the use of MediSave, but judiciously, because we recognise that it may be difficult for individuals to save and plan ahead for long-term care. We facilitate them starting these preparations early by allowing individuals to tap on their existing savings in MediSave as another financing source, instead of requiring them to use only cash which, as the Member knows, will cause a strain in their cashflow. This also helps to buffer individuals against the vagaries of life, sometimes from unintended or temporary unemployment. As a safeguard, we only allow MediSave to pay fully for basic healthcare and long-term care insurance. For additional coverage, we have set withdrawal limits to protect MediSave adequacy. This is in line with the discipline that Assoc Prof Walter Theseira spoke about in the way in which we use MediSave to fund these schemes. Mr Png Eng Huat also asked whether permitting MediSave uses for CareShield Life premiums would affect adequacy. The current MediSave contribution rates allow most working households in future cohorts and auto-enrolled existing cohorts to pay for CareShield Life, MediShield Life premiums and other healthcare needs from their monthly MediSave contributions. Fourth, I would like to assure Members that the Government is committed to keeping the premiums affordable through the provision of subsidies. This includes permanent premium subsidies for lower- and middle-income policyholders. Ms Jessica Tan, Miss Cheryl Chan and Dr Chia Shi-Lu asked some questions about this. In addition, we will also provide incentives to encourage existing cohorts to join the scheme, and these incentives are netted off against their premiums. Younger cohorts will also receive transitional subsidies.”
“Dr Chia Shi-Lu and others in this House asked about the type of Supplements that will be offered by private insurers and whether MediSave can be used to purchase the Supplements. Singaporeans can purchase Supplements from the private insurers which currently provide coverage starting from two ADLs, and also a higher payout. So, you can choose either one or both of these Supplements. As with ElderShield Supplements, Singaporeans can use up to $600 of their MediSave annually, per insured person, to pay for CareShield Life Supplement premiums. Dr Lily Neo asked if the Government could administer these Supplements. As I explained earlier, our approach for the Government in this Scheme is to provide basic coverage, whilst at the same time allowing the private sector to innovate in the provision of supplementary coverage. We believe that there are benefits to be reaped, for instance, in the diversity and type of products that are being offered, by allowing private insurers to compete in this space beyond the basic tier. Second, in response to Prof Fatimah Lateef's query, we keep premiums affordable by starting earlier. So, that is one principle behind why 30 and not 40, which is ElderShield. A 30-year-old would have been working for some years at that age, and starting premium payment at that stage lengthens the payment duration and also reduces the annual premium payable, making CareShield Life premiums more affordable and more within reach, including for a person who has started work for some time at around 30. Third, we allow the use of MediSave for CareShield Life premiums, similar to the approach for MediShield Life and ElderShield today.”
“A 30-year-old joining the Scheme in 2020 may receive around $1,200 per month should he become severely disabled at age 67 or later. So, that is the projection that we take into account and also to keep up with the value of money over time. So, for those reasons, we have kept the focus on basic long-term care needs and looked at other ways to provide additional support. And I urge Members to remember that the payout from CareShield Life is intended and designed to be complementary. It complements the other pillars of financing support, not replace and not take over, and also not put in place and reduce others. It is to complement as an add-on. Lower- and middle-income Singaporeans, including those with moderate disabilities, will be supported with subsidies of up to 80% for residential and non-residential care services, and can also receive other disability grants. For example, the existing Pioneer Disability Assistance Scheme and the new Home Caregiving Grant, which will be launched at the end of this year, will provide support for persons with moderate disability. So, the threshold will be different from what is otherwise required in the CareShield Life Scheme. In response to Dr Lily Neo's query on the disability criterion and assessment process for the Home Caregiving Grant, I should explain that the Home Caregiving Grant is targeted at precisely that, the moderately disabled Singaporeans who require some assistance with at least three ADLs. This is less stringent than the severe disability claims criteria for CareShield Life and the current ElderShield, where a higher level of dependence is required for each ADL.”
“Ms Anthea Ong, in particular, asked if CareShield Life payouts could be tiered based on the extent of disability. We have previously considered this. I think Ms Anthea Ong would also know that lowering the claims criteria to two ADLs would immediately increase the CareShield Life premiums of a 30-year-old policyholder by about one-third. That is anything in the order of 25% to 33% of increment, just by dropping down to two ADLs. The premium increase for CareShield Life would likely be significantly and also exponentially higher if the claims criteria are then further lowered to one ADL, given the higher incidence and length of disability. Not only will there be more persons with one or two ADLs, as opposed to three, but the period of support, which is for life, will also be for longer. Both will have an impact on the amount of premium that will have to be collected. The Committee had also recommended that CareShield Life payouts start at $600 per month and increase over time. Dr Lily Neo asked, and I think many others as well, such as Mr Chen Show Mao, if the payouts could be higher. CareShield Life payouts already start at an amount which is, at present, significantly higher than the current ElderShield scheme. Increasing the starting payouts from $600 to, say, $800 a month would also increase premiums for a 30-year-old policyholder by around a third. So, recall I said at the start that we have to find a design architecture for the Scheme that is affordable and that meets the interest of basic long-term care of Singaporeans. In addition, as Members would know, CareShield Life payouts are set to increase at 2% per year for the first five years of scheme implementation. Assuming a continued increase of 2% per year after that, that is 2% thereafter after the five years.”
“We recognise that individuals' circumstances from person to person may vary widely, and hence ElderFund is a discretionary scheme designed to take into account different circumstances as being applied to different persons. Singaporeans who are unable to meet their long-term care needs even after relying on other sources of financing can be considered for ElderFund. In response Dr Chia Shi-Lu's query on how we review ElderFund, we will review the adequacy of ElderFund payouts over time as we have more experience and we will also look at it in conjunction with several other factors that will determine the adequacy of the payout. These new schemes and initiatives provided by this Bill should, however, not be seen in isolation, but instead, should be seen as complementary to the existing Government subsidies and assistance schemes. I have outlined a few, such as ComCare and MediFund, earlier. Our system is designed to support all Singaporeans, regardless of their income levels. So, it is that to which I now turn on the question of affordability, the second key principle behind the design architecture of the Scheme. Affordability involves keeping CareShield Life premiums affordably priced, whilst at the same time also providing premium assistance to those Singaporeans who need it. There are several points. First, to ensure that CareShield Life premiums remain affordable, the ElderShield Review Committee had recommended that the CareShield Life Scheme focus on providing basic coverage for Singaporeans’ long-term care needs. One of their recommendations was to keep the existing ElderShield claim criteria, which is the inability to perform at least three out of six ADLs, a point that we have heard many Members touch on earlier.”
“To embed more touchpoints in the community, we will create four more AICare Link touchpoints co-located at Silver Generation satellite offices, and this will be done by end-2019. At the same time, we will improve our coordination with the Social Service Offices and other Government touchpoints within the community, so that our support for vulnerable Singaporeans is more cohesive and also resides more closely to where the residents and the policyholders might be. We will also continually review our various initiatives to consolidate and, as far as possible, simplify them. We encourage Members to continue to refer needy individuals – and I think we heard some stories earlier – refer them to us, give us some specifics and we will reach out and see how we can assist. Third, we recognise that not everyone can afford or will be covered by ElderShield or CareShield Life. Members have asked for more to be done to help such seniors who need financial support for their long-term care needs. The CareShield Life and Long-Term Care Bill facilitates this by providing for cash withdrawals from MediSave for long-term care. That is a more recent event and one which we believe strikes the right balance. The Bill also sets up the Long-Term Care Support Fund, which the Minister for Finance has committed to set aside $5.1 billion to service this Fund. ElderFund, the discretionary scheme for the lower income who are severely disabled, will be supported by this Long-Term Care Support Fund. Dr Lily Neo asked for more details on the eligibility criteria. As Minister Gan Kim Yong has explained, this Scheme is targeted especially at Singaporeans who are unable to join CareShield Life, have low MediSave balances and also face financial difficulties in meeting their long-term care needs.”
“To elaborate on this, a policyholder may well be physically able to perform the various ADLs but require significant prompting or reminding as he is unable to remember what those steps might entail or how that is to be done. Under the current framework, assessors who may not be sure how to assess this policyholder might well classify him as not being disabled, being able to perform the ADLs since he can physically complete them. Under the new framework and revised training curriculum, assessors will be guided with more information, more teaching and learning, and will be more explicitly guided on the aspects that should be taken into consideration if a policyholder is suspected to be cognitively impaired, including whether the policyholder's problem-solving ability and memory impacts his or her ability to actually carry out the physical acts of the ADL. This will result in cognitively impaired policyholders being able to more consistently qualify for CareShield Life claims. Members have expressed concerns about vulnerable Singaporeans who may not be able to navigate the long-term care financing and social support landscape on their own. Again, as I said earlier, we understand this and we want to ensure that Singaporeans know and understand the schemes well, that is, know how to make the claims, know when it applies to them and know what kind of claims to make. AIC, which administers all of MOH's disability schemes, and in particular the Silver Generation Office under AIC, will be our key partner in providing Singaporeans with guidance on the disability schemes they are eligible for, and also how to apply.”
“Beyond what Minister Gan Kim Yong has mentioned about increasing the number of accredited disability assessors to about 300, progressively expanding the types of disability assessments that can be accepted for claims and also proactively reaching out to disabled individuals to inform them of their eligibility for claims, we will also be waiving the first assessment fee for CareShield Life claims to further reduce any hesitation or reluctance that an individual policyholder might have in making the claim. I would like to also assure Miss Cheryl Chan that only one assessment is required. Furthermore, the same assessment can then be made for other schemes as well, other different multiple schemes. In addition, policyholders need not pay for assessment fees for periodic disability reviews. Such periodic reviews are, however, important to ensure that we continue to make payouts only to policyholders who are and remain severely disabled. But to address Dr Lily Neo's concern, we will be adopting a more targeted approach for periodic disability reviews. For example, policyholders who have been assessed to be clearly permanently disabled may then be exempted from further reviews. I would like to assure Ms Anthea Ong that we understand and we accept her suggestion that we should, indeed, be assessing what an individual does, instead of what an individual can do. So, the focus is on the ability or inability to do something. In particular, we have been working with experts to improve the disability assessment framework, to explicitly recognise the impact of cognitive impairment on physical ability. This is in line with requests from a number of Members for CareShield Life to also assist those who may have that mental condition or the cognitive impairment.”
“Notwithstanding that, we have other schemes available which are outside the scope of the current Bill. But let me just outline some of them to help the younger severely disabled Singaporeans. First, MediShield Life will help to support their bills for inpatient and selected outpatient treatments. They can also benefit from other assistance schemes, such as the Assistive Technology Fund and the new Home Caregiving Grant, which I think Ms Anthea Ong mentioned, which does not have an age criterion. In addition, hospitals, such as KK Women’s and Children’s Hospital and the National University Hospital, offer programmes, such as subsidised therapy services, to help parents with children who need that specialised care. Finally, Government-funded safety nets, such as MediFund and ComCare, will also continue to provide additional assistance to needy Singaporeans. On that score, I would like to assure Prof Fatimah Lateef that overseas Singaporeans can avail themselves of CareShield Life. They will be able to file CareShield Life claims from abroad wherever they may be, and to receive payouts to support their care costs in those chosen countries. The second aspect of inclusiveness lies in making the claims process accessible and as seamless as possible, which several Members have raised queries and concerns about. Let me give Members a broad sense of the measures that we will be taking or have taken.”
“I will reiterate what Minister Gan Kim Yong has shared that individuals born between 1970 and 1979 who are ElderShield policyholders and are not severely disabled will be offered the convenience of auto-enrolment. For those born in 1969 or earlier, they will not be auto-enrolled, as their individual circumstances are far more varied, as I have explained. In particular, there is a significant number of ElderShield 300 and uninsured individuals in the older existing cohorts who will have to pay a catch-up component to join and get onto CareShield Life. They may thus prefer to have the option to choose to join CareShield Life at their instance instead of being auto-enrolled and that is the thinking behind the scheme mechanism. Nevertheless, I agree with Er Dr Lee Bee Wah’s point that it is important to reach out to these groups, too, to help them understand, to raise awareness. Certainly, we are of the view that if we design a scheme that is good and well, it is of no use if people do not understand it and do not know it. So, I accept Er Dr Lee's point and I would also in return urge all Members of this House to use opportunities that you have on the ground in your events to explain the policy, to explain the scheme design and to reach out and explain and deal with queries that your residents may have. Ms Irene Quay and Ms Anthea Ong have asked about the schemes available to help younger severely disabled Singaporeans, in fact, below the age of 30, including newborns, and whether it is possible to extend CareShield Life to these people. CareShield Life is primarily designed to provide financial support for Singaporeans who become severely disabled during old age, which is when Singaporeans are most likely to need long-term care and support.”
“So, it is used in those limited exceptional circumstances and certainly not to be used arbitrarily. As CareShield Life remains optional for existing cohorts, we will not be able to cover those in the existing cohorts who are already severely disabled, and I think Mr Png Eng Huat understands this point. Miss Cheryl Chan had raised this as well and I also hope that this addresses the point because if you cover everyone who is already severely disabled, that has an immediate impact on the premium that has to be borne by the remaining persons who subscribed onto the Scheme at that stage. These individuals with pre-existing severe disabilities will be able to make claims immediately under the Scheme and so it is going to impact on the way in which you price the premiums for the rest of the members and also have an impact on whether their peers decide to join the Scheme or not. This is not a sustainable insurance scheme design. However, we will assist these Singaporeans with pre-existing disability in other ways and I will elaborate on them. Prof Fatimah Lateef and Mr Christopher de Souza asked how ElderShield and ElderShield Supplement coverage will be affected. As Minister Gan Kim Yong has explained, ElderShield policyholders who decide not to join CareShield Life will remain covered by their existing ElderShield policy. I would also like to clarify that ElderShield Supplements will continue to be administered by the private insurers. ElderShield Supplement policyholders will remain covered by their existing Supplement policy, regardless of whether they upgrade to CareShield Life or not. Dr Lee Bee Wah asked about encouraging existing cohorts who would not be auto-enrolled onto CareShield Life to join CareShield Life.”
“First, in terms of coverage, the Bill reinforces and strengthens inclusiveness by making CareShield Life universal for future cohorts of Singaporeans born in or after 1980. Such a design is essential to protect vulnerable groups, such as the lower income and those with pre-existing disability. For older existing cohorts of Singaporeans, which are those born in 1979 or earlier, we have kept CareShield Life optional for them as we acknowledge that the profile of this cohort, this group, is a lot more diverse. Many have previously decided to opt out from ElderShield, or may have made other long-term care financing arrangements of their own. In addition, the older cohorts would also have fewer economically active years left to spread out their premiums, and hence face higher entry premiums. Given that the Scheme remains optional for these cohorts, members of these cohorts will need to assess their own preparations, their own provisions for long-term care, when deciding whether or not to join CareShield Life. To address Dr Chia Shi-Lu's point, we will provide ample Government support and incentives to encourage their participation in CareShield Life. I would also like to assure Mr Png Eng Huat that those who are not severely disabled in existing cohorts can still join CareShield Life when it is launched in 2021. Mr Png also sought clarifications on clause 6(4). Let me explain that. This clause is used to cater for exceptional situations, such as when someone had submitted an application for CareShield Life and it is being processed but, in the interim, fell into disability before the Scheme was effected or valid for this person. This clause allows the Minister to use flexibility to still provide CareShield Life cover on compassionate grounds.”
“Mr Deputy Speaker, I thank the various Members in this House for having spoken up in support of the Bill – Members from all sides of this House. I will round up this debate on behalf of Minister Gan Kim Yong. As Minister Gan has outlined, Singaporeans are living longer and healthier. However, many of us will face the risk of severe disability and require long-term care at some point in our lives. Therefore, it is important that we protect ourselves and our families. I would like to assure Members that even as we enhance our long-term care financing system and implement the CareShield Life Scheme, we are and have been enhancing the existing infrastructure and the ecosystem for care. We have been rolling out services to support Singaporeans in old age and we have more than doubled in this respect the home care and day-care places since 2011. We continuously look at key aspects of ageing and also the related issues around successful and active ageing, including, as Mr Leon Perera has exhorted, the use of technology. I thank the Members for the various suggestions, questions and queries in the course of this debate. I would like to use the opportunity to round up the debate and address those queries by focusing on the core principles behind the design of this financing scheme. I will anchor the response around the key principles of inclusiveness, affordability and sustainability. Let me start with inclusiveness. An inclusive long-term care financing system is one that supports all Singaporeans and enables them to afford essential basic long-term care. The design architecture of the Scheme must be to achieve that goal – to support Singaporeans and be able to do so while keeping premiums affordable.”
“(proc text)] [(proc text) Bill accordingly read a Second time and committed to a Committee of the whole House. (proc text)] [(proc text) The House immediately resolved itself into a Committee on the Bill. – [Mr Edwin Tong Chun Fai]. (proc text)] [(proc text) Bill considered in Committee; reported without amendment; read a Third time and passed. (proc text)]”
“My Ministry and the relevant agencies will be engaging stakeholders in the IP and legal sector to explain how these changes can benefit them, how they will operate in this new landscape, and how they could make use of it. This will not just extend to practitioners, but also businesses in the business environment, big and small companies which use the system, and whom our IP regime is really intended to support, in other words, the stakeholders who benefit from the IP regime. I think Mr Christopher de Souza also raised a point about costs. The point that Mr Christopher de Souza made was why is it that the Bill provides for indemnity cost under certain conditions in clause 6, but only for geographical indications. Similar amendments to those – he referred to clause 6(b) which amends the Geographical Indications Act – they will also be made in this Bill at clause 28, to the Registered Designs Act, and clause 34, to the Trade Marks Act, to bring them to the same footing as what Mr Christopher de Souza referred to. And that can be found at clauses 28 and 34 respectively for the Registered Designs and the Trade Marks Act. Sir, in conclusion, the reforms introduced will enable IP rights owners to resolve their IP disputes efficiently in Court and at IPOS, whether they are individuals, SMEs or large corporations. This will give IP rights owners greater assurance of the enforceability of their IP rights and also increase the overall quality of granted patents in Singapore. These reforms are part of our continual efforts to improve our IP regime to support our innovative and creative industries. I wish to thank the Members who have spoken and who have supported the Bill. Mr Speaker, I beg to move. [(proc text) Question put, and agreed to.”
“Mr Christopher de Souza asked how an arbitration award involving IP rights affects a third-party holder of a security interest. Such an award does not affect any existing right or liability between a third-party holder of a security interest and a party to the arbitral proceedings, whether arising in contract or arising by operation of law. And this is clarified in the new section 52C(3) of the Arbitration Act and section 26C(3) of the International Arbitration Act. I turn now to the other queries that had been raised. Mr Patrick Tay also asked whether more could be done to help SMEs and startups navigate the IP registration and dispute resolution regime. I thank Mr Patrick Tay for looking out for the interest of the Labour Movement, and Mr Christopher de Souza also asked some questions about training and whether the users of the system will have the knowledge and know-how. The IPOS website provides useful information on the IP registration system. If anyone requires further assistance, they can always call IPOS for help with queries or make an appointment to see an officer at IPOS. For assistance with IP-related disputes, there are legal clinics at IPOS, where there is a panel of lawyers available to provide preliminary advice on, for example, infringement or opposition matters. To assist those seeking such advice, they can obtain reimbursement from IPOS for the consultation fee for the first session. IPOS also runs complimentary IP business clinics that allow participants to speak with private business consultants on IP strategies, franchising and licensing, audits and valuation, among other issues related to or arising from IP rights. Mr Christopher de Souza asked about the efforts to strengthen our legal industry, so that they can benefit from these reforms.”
“First, as to whether IP rights found in employment contracts are arbitrable. The Bill is intended to clarify that a wide range of IP disputes are arbitrable. In employment contracts, it is common to find clauses about the ownership of IP rights that arise in the employee’s course of work, and I think that is what Mr Louis Ng seemed to be referring to in his speech. If there are disputes subsequently about the ownership of these IP rights, then these disputes are arbitrable. Ownership disputes are within the scope of "IP rights dispute", which would be defined in the new section 52A(3) of the Arbitration Act and section 26A(4) of the International Arbitration Act, inserted by clauses 2 and 8 of the Bill respectively. I just want to add that what is arbitrable does not necessarily mean that it will be the subject of an arbitration because it is still defined by the scope of the arbitration agreement. Second, Mr Louis Ng asked whether the arbitral awards for patent validity disputes can serve as a basis to amend the patent on the Register. In my speech earlier, I had explained that the arbitral awards only affect the parties to the arbitration agreement and will not affect the status of IP rights on the Registers. This is because we take the view that decisions that affect the status of IP rights on the Registers should only be made by the Courts or the relevant Registrars from the jurisdictions that issued those IP rights, since these are decisions that affect the world at large concerning the registration and not just the parties to the arbitration proceedings. This is true not only of patents, but of other forms of registrable IP rights, such as trademarks and also registered designs.”
“So, that helps to address Members' concern about an overall prolongation of the process because of the observations. A healthy patent regime encourages innovation and protects only deserving inventions. Third-party observations which are meritorious contribute to this and would be worth the time taken to consider it, so that, overall, we develop a more robust and a more trustworthy IP system and regime. Mr Christopher de Souza also asked a few questions about the post-grant patent re-examination process. First, he asked about safeguards. When a re-examination request is made, the specification of the patent will first be re-examined by a patent Examiner. The Examiner would ask the patent proprietor to respond only if there are possible grounds for the patent to be revoked. This avoids placing an unnecessary burden on the patent proprietor. Second, Mr Christopher de Souza asked why there is no bar against filing a re-examination request when there is an ongoing arbitration proceeding in which the validity of the patent may be put in issue. This is because arbitration proceedings cannot affect the status of the patent on the Patents Register. In contrast, proceedings before the Court or IPOS in which the validity of the patent may be an issue could lead to the patent being revoked. In other words, the patent itself being revoked as opposed to the right between two parties. Hence, the new section 38A(5) is necessary to prevent concurrent proceedings in which the status of the patent on the Patents Register could be affected. This is not applicable in the context of arbitration. Mr Louis Ng and Mr Christopher de Souza asked some questions about the arbitrability of IP disputes. Let me address those.”
“First, as far as anonymity is concerned – I think Mr Louis Ng raised this point – if there is no identifier on the documents containing the third-party observation, then the identity of the third-party observer will not be known. So, in other words, you can choose to be anonymous or not anonymous as you wish as a third party. Second, Mr Louis Ng also asked about whether the records will be available. The records of the patent search and examination history are available to the public on the Patents Open Dossier service. This will include the contents of the third-party observations filed before the deadline as well as the applicant’s response to the examiner’s written opinion incorporating any observation, where there is one. So, all of that will be made available on the Patents Open Dossier service. Third, the new section 32(1) of the Patents Act, inserted by clause 10 of the Bill, provides that third parties may make observations on the question whether the invention in the patent application is a patentable one. I touched on this in my earlier speech. The statutory requirements for an invention to be patentable can be found in section 13 of the Patents Act. Hence, for example, the third party could make an observation that an invention is not new because of an earlier publication. Fourth, there will be no fee to submit third-party observations. Finally, when a third-party observation is made, the patent Examiner would have to take some additional time to consider it. However, the patent application period will not be unduly lengthened as Rule 46(8)(a) of the Patents Rules requires the Examiner to issue the examination report within a fixed time period, regardless of whether a third-party observation is made or not.”
“Regarding appeals, final decisions in cases on the “specialised track” will be appealable in the same manner as final decisions in cases on the “default track”. As the appeal is a separate process, the time spent on the appeal hearing is not included in the two-day hearing cap for cases on the “specialised track”. Mr Patrick Tay asked whether the costs of arbitration of IP disputes will escalate as a result of moving certain IP disputes to the High Court. That has not been our sense. Also, when we look at the feedback from the Committee, that is also not the sense that they got. But we will continue to monitor this as we actually implement this process. As arbitration and litigation are separate and distinct methods of resolving disputes, we do not anticipate that the amendments to consolidate litigation of most civil IP disputes in the High Court will directly impact the costs of arbitration. In other words, parties choose arbitration sometimes for different reasons from why they have the matter resolved in Court. Mr Patrick Tay and Mr Christopher de Souza asked about the expertise and resources required by the High Court, pursuant to the consolidation of civil IP disputes in the High Court. As I mentioned in my speech earlier, the High Court already has a specialist bench of IP judges, with greater expertise and experience in IP matters. My Ministry will continue to work with the Courts to ensure that there are sufficient resources to handle the caseload as may be appropriate. I next turn to Mr Louis Ng and Mr Christopher de Souza’s questions around the rigour of the third-party observation process. I will just address queries that have been raised together.”
“The “specialised track” is appropriate for lower-value cases, which tend to be less complex. The cap on the value of the claim reflects this. We are also considering a cap on party-and-party costs awarded. This would be stage-based, in other words, based on the stage of proceedings of the litigation, with an overall cap of $50,000. This will also help to lower the business risk of litigation that Members spoke about. On the two-day cap for the length of trial, we propose to cap it but, at the same time, allow the trial judge discretion to extend this in the appropriate circumstances. So, for example, if a case is being heard and halfway through, you might need another half a day, obviously the trial judge will have the discretion to do so. This will reduce the time spent and, consequently, the costs for the parties. The cap on two days, Mr Louis Ng asked how it was arrived at. It was based on the recommendations of the IP Resolution Review Committee which, I am sure, Mr Louis Ng knows comprises representatives from the judiciary as well as IP lawyers who handle these cases, academia and also IP-rich companies which viewed this as appropriate for the less complex cases. So, we took a sampling of these views and proposed the two days on that basis. Regarding the relief that the trial judge can grant, it is intended that the trial judge’s power to grant interim and final relief would be the same, whether a case is on the “specialised track” or “default track”. In other words, the remedies that one would expect to see ought not be different. It is just that the process and the speed by which you resolve the case could be different, depending on the complexity and nature of the case.”
“Mr Speaker, I thank the Members who have spoken for their support of the Bill, and, in particular, I appreciate the IPSA’s inputs through Mr Louis Ng. Their activism and their interest in legal development in their chosen area is something to be encouraged. Members have raised points for clarification in four main areas, and I propose to deal with them as a whole under these four areas. Mr Patrick Tay asked whether the “specialised track” would be effective in keeping litigation costs down. Mr Louis Ng also asked a few questions about the features of the “specialised track”. First, Mr Louis Ng's suggestions and proposals in relation to how we design this track, what we take into account, we will consider them when we prepare the relevant rules. The “specialised track” focuses on lowering costs by having simplified processes and other cost-saving features. These obviously have to deal with the appropriate types of cases and not every case will be suitable for this "specialised" track. I will elaborate on some of the features which we are considering although they are not part of the Bill. There will be early and active case management by the Courts. This will ensure that cases are managed in an appropriate manner, with procedures that are streamlined and cost-effective. So, we sieve the cases upfront to ensure that they are appropriate. To Mr Louis Ng's point about whether separate proceedings may be filed if one determines halfway through that the "specialised" track is not suitable, that is unlikely to happen, given the upfront pre-judicial management or rather case management of the process. We are considering a cap of $500,000 on the value of the claim for damages or an account of profits.”
“These amendments will lend further certainty to arbitrators and stakeholders who may wish to challenge the validity of IP rights in arbitration proceedings. I turn now to other ancillary amendments related to IP dispute resolution, and I will highlight two main ones. First, clauses 9(c), 12(c) and 20(i) provide the Registrar of Patents with greater flexibility to refer disputes before the Registrar to the High Court. This could, for example, lead to cost savings by reducing one layer of appeal, when it is clear that the parties to the dispute before the Registrar of Patents intend to appeal against the Registrar's decision anyway. Second, clauses 5, 26, 29 and 33 of the Bill harmonise across all the Acts relating to IP rights the availability of the right to appeal against High Court decisions made on appeal from the relevant Registrar. Going forward, the consistent approach will be that when decisions from the relevant Registrar are appealed to the High Court, where further appeals are possible, such appeals can only proceed with the leave of Court. Sir, this Bill is a part of important reforms to the IP dispute resolution system, which is a key part of a well-functioning and reputable, trusted IP regime that is needed to support an innovative economy. We are giving IP rights owners greater confidence that they can effectively enforce their IP rights. This preserves their incentives to continue investing in innovative and creative activities, which, in turn, benefits our economy and our society. These reforms also build on Singapore's considerable strengths, to enhance our standing as a hub for international IP arbitration. Mr Speaker, I beg to move. [(proc text) Question proposed. (proc text)]”
“Singapore is also highly-regarded internationally as an arbitration venue, and offers a choice of leading arbitral institutions. According to the 2018 International Arbitration Survey by Queen Mary University of London and White & Case, Singapore is now the third most preferred seat of arbitration globally, and the Singapore International Arbitration Centre (SIAC) the third most preferred arbitral institution. Clause 2 amends the Arbitration Act, and clause 8 amends the International Arbitration Act, to clarify that IP disputes are capable of settlement by arbitration, in other words, that they are arbitrable. The amendments also clarify that such arbitral awards bind only the parties to the arbitration proceedings. These amendments will provide greater clarity and certainty to users, as well as encourage the use of arbitration in IP disputes, and strengthen Singapore's attractiveness as a venue for international IP arbitration. Arbitral awards cannot affect the status of IP rights on the IP Registers. The arbitral award only affects the parties that have submitted the dispute to arbitration. As Members know, arbitration is essentially an agreement by which two parties agree to submit a dispute to a chosen tribunal. So, for example, if an arbitral tribunal finds that a patent issued by any country is invalid, the consequences of such a finding, which, for example, could affect the licence fee payable by one party to the other, affects the parties in the arbitration only, and no one else. The patent remains on the Register in whichever country it may originate from. Decisions that affect the status of IP rights on the Registers can only be made by the Courts or the relevant Registrars from the jurisdictions that issue those IP rights.”
“If the patent examiner finds that there are grounds for the patent to be revoked, he will correspond with the patent proprietor only. Therefore, for the requestor, this provides an additional, lower-cost option to challenge the validity of a patent. Sir, in summary, these two procedures – third party observation and post-grant re-examination – are intended to be low-cost, lower barriers of entry, and provide easier avenues for third parties to bring to the Registrar's attention information about the patentability of an invention. This helps to strengthen the quality of granted patents in Singapore, and is the latest step in our efforts to improve the patent system. In 2013, IPOS began to examine patent applications inhouse, having built up a team of examiners to do so. Our patent examination capabilities were recognised internationally when, in 2014, IPOS was appointed an International Searching and Preliminary Examining Authority for international PCT patent applications. In 2014, we also tightened the system such that a patent is granted only if the invention fully meets the patentability requirements in our law. Now, these latest measures provide even more avenues for third parties to scrutinise and submit information for IPOS to consider, thus helping to further enhance the quality of the Patents Register. Sir, I now move on to the third group of amendments, which concern arbitration of IP disputes. Singapore offers a suite of dispute resolution options. Besides going to the Courts or to IPOS, parties can also consider resolving their disputes by way of arbitration. Arbitration holds certain advantages. For example, arbitration proceedings can take place in private, and parties have a greater degree of control over how the proceedings are conducted.”
“This is a process in which a third party can, after a patent application has been published, submit observations to the Registrar of Patents on the patentability of the invention in the application. The third party provides reasons and documents to the Registrar, which can be useful in the Search and Examination process. This helps to ensure that only deserving inventions are granted patent protection, as the patent examiner has another source of information available to him or her when making that assessment. Currently, third party observations are already being filed, but informally. Setting out the process in legislation makes it clear and transparent for all, and increases awareness about how the process can be used. Clause 11 of the Bill introduces a process for re-examining the specification of a patent after it has been granted. After a patent has been granted, information which affects the validity of the patent could come to light, which was not previously available at the earlier stage. For example, a competitor or a researcher could come to know of some document or earlier published literature which may suggest that the invention in question is actually not new or inventive and, therefore, the patent should never have been granted in the first place. Currently, the main means of challenging the validity of a patent at the Registry of Patents, after it has been granted, is through the patent revocation process under section 80 of the Patents Act. With patent revocation, the requestor is involved as a party in the entire revocation proceeding. The new patent re-examination process is ex parte in nature. This means that all the requestor does is make the request and submit the documents. Thereafter, he is no longer involved.”
“Litigants in the High Court will generally be able to choose between this "specialised track" for IP cases, and the "default track" where IP cases are treated in a similar manner to other types of civil cases. More details about the time and cost-saving features of the "specialised track" will be shared in due course. My Ministry consulted practitioners when developing these reforms. We received feedback that IP litigation tends to be more expensive than most other types of litigation, given its specialised and highly technical nature and, in some cases, the need for expert witnesses as well. This could put it out of reach for some enterprises that need to turn to the Courts to resolve their disputes. This "specialised track" is being developed with a focus on lowering litigation costs. Next, I turn to proceedings at IPOS, specifically those before the Registrar of Patents. The Bill seeks to raise the quality of granted patents in Singapore. Before elaborating on the amendments, let me provide an overview of the patent application process. After a patent application is made at the Registry of Patents, it undergoes Search and Examination. A patent examiner will search publicly available information at the time of the patent application to understand the current state of technology. The examiner then assesses whether the invention in the application meets the statutory criteria of being new, inventive and capable of industrial application. Only inventions that fully meet these criteria are granted patent protection. Clause 10 of the Bill legislates a process of third party observations.”
“Clause 20(a) gives the High Court jurisdiction over patent revocation, where such proceedings do not arise in the context of an existing dispute before the High Court. Clauses 31 and 32 remove the jurisdiction of the Magistrate's Court and the District Court over an action in passing off. As a result, the High Court will have exclusive jurisdiction over: (a) Civil infringement of copyright and all forms of registrable IP rights; (b) Passing off actions, which are closely related to trademark infringement; (c) Declarations of non-infringement of patents and registered designs; and (d) Breach of confidence actions where the amount claimed exceeds $250,000. The High Court will also have concurrent jurisdiction with the relevant Registrar over post-grant revocation and invalidation proceedings for patents, and not just trademarks, registered designs and geographical indications. Such proceedings are about whether the IP rights are validly registered or granted. This gives the parties commencing revocation or invalidation proceedings a choice between doing so in the High Court and doing so before the relevant Registrar who granted the right in the first place. To ensure that parties may continue to access the Courts in a cost-effective and expeditious manner, in conjunction with the consolidation of IP disputes in the High Court, MinLaw and the Supreme Court are looking into the introduction of a specialised IP litigation "track" in the High Court, with simplified processes and also cost-saving features. This is outside the scope of this Bill and will be done via amendments to civil procedure. This "specialised track" will be especially useful for less well-resourced parties, such as individuals and SMEs, who may otherwise be unable to enforce their valid IP rights.”
“Today, a copyright or trade secret owner commences his case in the State Courts, if he or she is seeking damages of up to $250,000 for copyright infringement or breach of confidence. Above this amount, the case must be commenced in the High Court. On the other hand, for infringement of patents, trademarks and registered designs, the case must be started in the High Court, regardless of the value of the claim. This, itself, adds complexity and different layers to determine which kinds of cases are commenced and heard in which Court. Going forward, the IP dispute resolution system will be improved. First, the system will be streamlined, and it will be clearer to users what the appropriate forum is when they have a dispute. Second, parties who litigate in Court will benefit from the expertise of High Court judges. The High Court has a specialist bench of IP judges, with greater expertise and experience in IP matters. Third, IP rights owners and users in general will benefit from the development of IP jurisprudence through High Court judgments. The Bill, therefore, makes the following amendments to the jurisdiction of the Registrar of Patents, the Magistrate's Court, the District Court and the High Court over IP disputes. Clause 4 makes the High Court the exclusive forum to hear civil proceedings for most copyright matters. Cases before the Copyright Tribunal, for example, cases about licensing rates charged by copyright owners, are not affected. They will remain with the Copyright Tribunal. Clauses 13 and 19 remove the jurisdiction of the Registrar of Patents over patent infringement and declarations of non-infringement of patents, respectively.”
“We are doing so from a position of strength. An important plank of our legal and judicial system is the efficiency of our Courts. In the latest 2019 World Bank Doing Business Survey, it was noted that it takes 164 days to resolve a claim in Singapore, compared to 370 days in New York and 437 days in London. In addition, this Bill strengthens Singapore’s position as a choice venue for the arbitration of international IP disputes. Let me now outline to this House the key features of this Bill. First, we are consolidating most of the civil IP disputes to be heard in the High Court. Second, we are legislating certain patent-related procedures before the Registrar of Patents. Third, we are clarifying that IP disputes may be arbitrated in Singapore. Let me take Members through each of these features. The first two groups of amendments facilitate the effective resolution of IP disputes in Court and at IPOS. IPOS is responsible for the Registries of the various IP rights, for example, the Registry of Patents and the Registry of Trade Marks. I will first discuss dispute resolution in Court. The Bill consolidates most civil IP disputes in a single forum – the High Court. Currently, IP disputes are heard in multiple forums, namely, the High Court, the State Courts and at IPOS. Where a dispute is to be heard depends on a few factors. First, on the IP right in issue, for example, whether the dispute is about a patent over an invention, or copyright in song lyrics. Second, the nature of the dispute, for example, whether the dispute is about infringement of someone's IP right, or the validity of the IP right itself. Third, the value of the claim. Let me illustrate.”
“For example, international trademark registrations can be secured under the Madrid system, and international patent applications can be filed under the Patent Cooperation Treaty (PCT). Patent applications in many major markets can also be accelerated under the Global Patent Prosecution Highway programme and the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) Patent Examination Cooperation programme. However, obtaining IP protection would have no commercial value to an enterprise if, when its IP rights are infringed, it finds itself unable to enforce its IP rights due to a lack of financial resources. This Bill focuses on this final mile. The cost-effective resolution of IP disputes increases the confidence that IP rights owners have in maintaining their competitive edge and maximising the rewards of their innovative and creative efforts. In 2018, there was a total of 11,845 patent applications. This is an increase of almost 22% from five years earlier. The number of applications from locals has increased by even more, at about 40% from 2013 to 2018. The pace of innovation, by both local businesses and individuals, is accelerating. So, therefore, not only must the IP registration process be cost-effective and easy to navigate, in the event that IP rights need to be enforced, the IP dispute resolution process must also be cost-effective and easy to navigate. This was why in 2015, the Ministry of Law (MinLaw) appointed a committee to review the IP dispute resolution system in Singapore. One of the objectives of the review was to make the IP dispute resolution system more accessible, particularly for less well-resourced parties, such as individuals and small and medium enterprises (SMEs). This Bill implements some of the Committee’s recommendations.”
“Mr Speaker, on behalf of the Minister for Law, I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time." Sir, this Bill amends our intellectual property (IP) regime, specifically in the area of dispute resolution. In today’s technology- and knowledge-driven economy, where intangible assets are increasingly important, a robust and trusted IP regime is essential for growth and enterprise. A McKinsey Report in January 2019, titled “Globalization in Transition: The Future of Trade and Value Chains”, found that capitalised spending on research and development (R&D) and intangible assets, such as brands, software, and IP, is growing as a share of revenue, from 5.4% in 2000 to 13.1% in 2016. Singapore is well-recognised internationally for its world-class IP regime. In the latest 2018 Global Competitiveness Report published by the World Economic Forum, Singapore is ranked third in the world, and first in Asia, for IP protection. In today’s rapidly changing world, we cannot rest on our laurels and must continually assess and review our IP regime to ensure that it remains relevant and supports our enterprises. This Bill is very much in this vein. Sir, cost-effective IP dispute resolution complements efficient IP protection. Innovative and creative enterprises that develop IP and protect it can secure a commercial advantage over their competitors. They can protect their IP in Singapore swiftly and efficiently through the suite of e-services that the Intellectual Property Office of Singapore (IPOS) provides. In addition, they can also secure protection overseas with ease and speed through the international agreements and networks that Singapore is a part of.”
“For the efficacy and safety of the treatment, in this case acupuncture, particularly the context of pain management and post-stroke rehabilitation, this will be considered. Indeed, the Member might wish to know that PG subsidies are already available for acupuncture treatments, not all forms, but for certain types of acupuncture treatments at the Singapore General Hospital and Sengkang Hospital. And the MG benefits will also extend when the package is rolled out on 1 November. For all other aspects of TCM, including acupuncture at other Public Healthcare Institutions, we will consider to study the efficacy and safety and decide incrementally when to introduce them.”
“The Pioneer Generation (PG) package and the Merdeka Generation (MG) package outpatient benefits have been designed to help Pioneers and Merdeka Generation seniors better afford subsidised services and medications at public healthcare institutions, as well as at clinics participating in the Community Health Assist Scheme. There are currently no plans to extend PG and MG subsidies to Traditional Chinese Medicine (TCM) clinics as TCM plays a complementary role in our healthcare system. The Ministry of Health provides support for TCM development in various ways, including funding and support for TCM capability development, continuing education as well as research. Charitable TCM establishments with Institution of Public Character status also benefit from tax exemption and are eligible to receive tax deductible donations, which then enable them to provide affordable TCM services in the community. Seniors who wish to seek TCM treatments can receive these affordable TCM services in such establishments in the community. As of today, there are more than 50 charitable TCM clinics.”
“That may be Mr Pritam Singh's philosophical position. But the Member was trying to quote my speech to make that point. I do not think that is accurate.”
“The point that Mr Pritam Singh is trying to put across is that the Courts can do so in a matter of – and, I think, to say, in the Member's words – five to six hours. And I have explained earlier that whilst the Courts can try, it will be very difficult to do so, especially having regard to the fact that they will have to access the merits of the matter. And it is not possible to bring the case within that period of time.”
“Yes, Mr Speaker, I have a clarification for Mr Pritam Singh. He quoted me earlier in my speech in the POHA debate. Would Mr Pritam Singh accept that, while I said that the Courts can try, I went on to say that it would be very difficult and I went on to explain also that in the context of this kind of cases, it would be extremely difficult for a Court to have a proper marshaling of the details and the facts and to decide on the case. I went on to explain all of that.”
“The Bill has benefited from the analysis of the relevant issues by the SC who had many representors come forward, many of whom had experience and some of whom are experts in this field. The provision in this Bill is based closely on the recommendations in the SC Report and the Bill seeks to achieve these outcomes.”
“The Executive weighs the competing interests and acts decisively to protect society, and the Courts will then have the final say over whether the content in question is false. During the SC process, some representors preferred a Court order to an Executive Direction. But even an expedited Court process may not be fast enough to deal with virality, some of which examples Members have seen outlined in the Minister's speech. Falsehoods can reach many with great speed, and lead to serious consequences just as quickly. We saw earlier the false video of Muslims celebrating a terrorist attack. That video generated 500,000 views within hours of being posted on one Facebook page. In Indonesia, a falsehood was spread that a pro-communist rally was being held. There was a real event that actually took place, but it was not a pro-communist rally. It took less than 24 hours for the falsehood to mobilise thousands to turn up at the event to disrupt it and to protest. In France, false posts were put out claiming that leaked campaign documents showed that Macron was engaging in illegal activity. The claims were posted just hours before an election reporting "black-out" – similar to our own "cooling-off" period. The posts were then amplified by bots, trolls and fake accounts. Within four hours, there were 47,000 tweets and the topic had hit Twitter’s "trending" list of most popular topics within hours. One final example. In 2017, a falsehood was put out that the founder of a cryptocurrency called "Ethereum" had died in a car crash. The hoax wiped out $4 billion in market value within five hours. So, the essence of the remedies is that they have to be able to address and counter the quick, wide and deep spread of falsehoods.”
“We will also find additional ways of dealing with the harm that can materialise from falsehoods spreading on encrypted closed platforms. For example, in such a case, a General Correction order may be used instead. It is not enough, as the Minister mentioned earlier, for there to be a false statement of fact. It must also be in the public interest for the Direction to be issued. The Government powers recommended by the SC were intended to prevent the public interest from being harmed. Clause 4, therefore, sets out a non-exhaustive list of examples of public interest. This list reflects the dangers of deliberate online falsehoods identified by the SC, based on real events around the world. The Minister had already explained the thinking behind the definition. Finally, I will now deal with the safeguards. The Select Committee stated, at recommendation 12, "There should be adequate safeguards in place to ensure due process and the proper exercise of power, and give assurance to the public of the integrity of the decision-making process… Measures… should include judicial oversight where appropriate." At the same time, the Committee also stated that "The measures will need to achieve the objective of breaking virality by being effective in a matter of hours." That is a quote from the SC's report. The Bill thus incorporates both speed and due process. The Minister will first issue the Direction. An appeal can then be brought to the High Court to set aside the Direction. The Minister has outlined the procedure in the House earlier. This, in our view, is the best way to be effective, while ensuring that there is always adequate judicial oversight.”
“Similarly, news reports that omit material facts can be a falsehood. This, as experts told the SC, is a common disinformation tactic. For example, in Germany, online news websites spread a girl’s claims that she had been raped by refugees, and that the police were covering it up. They showed real interviews but omitted the police’s debunking of the claim. This led to thousands of people protesting on the streets against the alleged cover-up. Directions can also be issued against false "statements" communicated over the Internet, regardless of the platform. This means that Directions can be used against both open and closed platforms and also remain flexible enough to deal with falsehoods spread on platforms that are developed in the future. Platform neutrality was, in fact, an important design principle, based on the SC’s own findings at paragraph 362. In particular, evidence was given to the SC of the serious concerns with falsehoods in closed spaces. As falsehoods can be hidden from view, they are ideal platforms for the deliberate spread of falsehoods. Researchers believe that in closed spaces, people are more susceptible to emotive falsehoods, because these are the spaces inhabited by the familiar and trusted, those they know. The Bill, therefore, recognises that platforms that are closed are not necessarily private. They can be used not only for personal and private communications, but also to communicate with hundreds or thousands of strangers at a time. Closed platforms – chat groups, social media groups – can serve as a public megaphone as much as open platforms. As regards closed platforms, even those with end-to-end encryption, the legislation also covers them.”
“Directions could also, in some situations, be issued to those with large followings. It would often not make sense to issue Directions to every single person who shares a falsehood. Corrections must be published to users in a clear and conspicuous manner. Two conditions must be satisfied before the Directions can be issued. Minister Shanmugam touched on this. First, a false statement of fact must be communicated in Singapore. Second, it is in the public interest to issue a Direction. The phrase "false statement of fact" is, as already explained, a legal term drawn from existing law. It covers statements that a reasonable person would consider to be a representation of fact. Opinions, comments, criticisms, are not covered by the Bill. A statement is false, if it is false or misleading, whether wholly or in part, and whether on its own or in the context in which it appears. This definition addresses the various ways in which reality might be distorted. Real words and real actions can also be edited and presented in a way that completely transforms their meaning. In a live interview, Hillary Clinton’s adviser referred to a news article that had blamed Clinton for the death of US diplomats in Afghanistan. A clip of the interview was shown out of context to say that Clinton’s own adviser had blamed Clinton for the deaths. That is wrong. In Sweden, a real police report listed "vulnerable areas" where police needed to regularly respond to volatile situations. A Swedish newspaper columnist exaggerated the report and claimed that there were 50 "no go" zones in Sweden, areas filled with illegal immigrants that were too dangerous for even the police to enter. This reportedly remains one of the most persistent myths in Sweden, despite repeated attempts to debunk it.”
“The second type of correction is set out in clause 23 and this correction must be generally amplified on certain platforms, such as news outlets and Internet intermediaries, even if these platforms are not carrying the falsehood. For convenience, I will call this the General Correction. A General Correction is important to inoculate the public before a falsehood reaches them. Psychological research has shown that corrections, used in the same manner as vaccines, can be very effective. This is especially appropriate when a campaign to put out falsehoods is ongoing, or a broad false narrative based on various lies could be developing and gaining traction. A General Correction can also help when a falsehood is serious and persistent, or is moving underground, into less visible spaces on closed platforms. Let me now describe the takedowns. Besides corrections powers, the Bill also provides for disabling of access to falsehoods, where it is in the public interest to do so. These powers are set out at clauses 12 and 22. There can be a Direction to cease communication of the falsehood to viewers in Singapore. There can be a further order to require that a correction be communicated to those who had previously viewed the falsehood. The Bill requires these Directions to be published in the Government Gazette. Who may receive these Directions? There are several groups. Falsehoods, when spread online, may pass through hands and cascade through and move across different platforms. To curb dissemination, it will be most effective to issue Directions to key nodes of dissemination. These will mainly be the Internet intermediaries, which almost always play a crucial role in the spread of online falsehoods.”
“These powers are needed because of the difficulty of getting corrections to overcome the reach of falsehoods. The SC’s report covers the findings on this issue in great detail, at paragraphs 171 to 177. Let me just highlight a few. First, by way of example, the SC cited a 2018 study by the Massachusetts Institute of Technology that false news was 70% more likely to be retweeted than true news. The SC also cited a very interesting study by a tech startup examining a rumour in 2017 about then-French Presidential candidate Emmanuel Macron. It found that, on Twitter, there was almost no overlap between the audience of the rumour, which was false, and the audience of the correction of that same rumour. So, no overlap between the two groups. Research shows that corrections tend to be effective when they provide an explanation of the facts and give prior warning about the falsehood to come. This is also mentioned in paragraph 361 of the SC’s report. As such, the Corrections Directions are designed with this in mind. Corrections will take the form of a notice warning people about the falsehood and the notice can set out the facts or provide a link to the facts. The powers relating to Corrections are set out in clauses 11, 21 and 23 of the Bill. There are two main types of Corrections possible, both of which are designed in accordance with the recommendations in paragraph 361 of the SC’s report. The first is set out in clauses 11 and 21. For convenience, I will call this the Targeted Correction. A Targeted Correction must be made accessible to viewers of the falsehood. It acts as a warning tag on the falsehood.”
“The Bill also allows for the issuing of Codes of Practice binding the platforms. Minister Iswaran will speak later on this. The tools fall into the following categories, which closely reflect the SC’s recommendations: one, providing access to and increasing the visibility of corrections, which implements recommendation 12 of the SC's report; two, disrupting fake accounts that amplify falsehoods, which also implements recommendation 12. Likewise, discrediting online sources of falsehoods; and finally, the levers which cut off financial incentives of online sources of falsehoods which implements recommendation 15. Let me elaborate on the powers that target falsehoods. The Minister will be empowered to issue Directions against falsehoods, where it is in the public interest to do so. The Courts will have the final say over what is false. The provisions are divided into two fairly self-contained Parts: Part 3 for individual publishers and Part 4 for the platforms, which are the "persons" covered under this section of the Bill which are the Internet intermediaries, and mass media service providers such as newspapers, broadcasters and telecommunications service providers. Let me outline the corrections regime. In line with this new approach, I mentioned earlier that the primary tool that we intend to use is the power to give people direct access to corrections. In other words, the falsehood stays up. People will then have access to both the falsehood and the corrections, and they can decide for themselves. In such a case, the Directions add to and not remove the discourse. In general terms, the corrections powers will require a person to "tag" a falsehood with a correction or amplify a correction generally.”
“The SC made the following findings: one, that the BA already relies on Executive action; two, judicial process is not fast enough; three, in situations involving public order, national security and public institutions, only the Executive would hold the facts, and facts should be backed up by the Executive’s authority; judicial oversight could assuage concerns over the abuse of Executive power. The unanimous recommendation of the SC was that the Government should have powers to swiftly disrupt online falsehoods. Let me now take Members through the key provisions of this Bill. Consistent with the SC's recommendations, this Bill provides a toolbox of Government powers to address the impact of specific individual falsehoods and source of falsehoods. This implements recommendations 15 and 16 of the SC’s report. It provides regulatory oversight of Internet intermediaries to ensure that they take effective measures to prevent and combat the problems. This implements recommendations 17 to 20 of the SC’s report. Let me go into some details and take Members through the various levers in this Bill that deal with the impact of falsehoods. I must emphasise that these levers remedy the impact of falsehoods primarily and not punish wrongdoers. In other words, just because one might receive a Direction does not mean that that person has done something illegal. I mentioned earlier how the digital revolution has given falsehoods a new power. In particular, the proliferation of social media services, content aggregators, blogs, search engines and other intermediary services, has profoundly changed the way we consume information. A large majority of the toolkit is, therefore, designed for platforms, not individual publishers.”
“Three, we take a hands-off approach altogether and leave matters to be dealt with organically by the marketplace of ideas. The Committee considered these positions in some detail. Its findings explained why the theory of the unregulated marketplace idea was based on assumptions that are flawed in the digital age. Why the conduct of tech companies – their repeated failures and inadequate responses pointed to a fundamental conflict of interest between their business goals and acting in the public interest. The Minister has also covered this point in some detail in his speech. Essentially, the Committee accepted robust and credible legal analysis showing that existing laws in Singapore were inadequate. It concluded that new laws are needed and, importantly, the SC found that the concerns over free speech could be addressed using a calibrated approach in legislation. This Bill reflects the fundamental principle of calibration. The Government examined the SC's various findings, some of which I have referred to earlier, and found this approach would, in the long run, be more supportive of encouraging good quality public discourse and increasing public trust. We thus decided that a new approach is needed. This will be a shift away from the blunt tools that we already have and which many other jurisdictions are considering. In considering how powers should be exercised, four decision-making models were discussed and considered by the SC. This is set out at paragraph 364 of the report. The four models are: one, have Courts, including an expedited process; or two, an Executive, followed by recourse to the Courts; third, an independent body; and fourth, online platforms.”
“Hence, the importance of putting out corrections swiftly and circulating them vigorously. The social transformations caused by the digital revolution have given falsehoods renewed power. This was something that the SC also addressed at paragraphs 178 to 185. It is useful to see what this means in the Singapore context. And on that score, the SC looked at it, evaluated, made its findings at paragraphs 208 to 237. A few of its key findings include: first, that there are increasing signs of the phenomenon in Singapore and evidence of foreign disinformation; two, there is a real risk of slow-drip falsehoods exploiting Singapore diversity to damage society in the long term; thirdly, Singapore is also vulnerable due to its regional circumstances. The SC ultimately concluded that such deliberate online falsehoods are a problem that Singapore has to take action against. How should we respond to this? The SC gave five broad areas for action: first, nurture an informed public; second, reinforce social cohesion and trust; third, promote fact-checking; fourth, disrupt online falsehoods; and fifth, deal with threats to national security and sovereignty. The SC also underscored the importance of having to preserve public trust, something that the Minister spoke about at some length. It noted at paragraph 311 of the report that loss of faith in public institutions increased the success of disinformation operations significantly. There was very detailed discussion as well on legislation. Three broad positions emerged from the representations received. First, that legislation should play a role. A considerable number of experts recommended this. Two, voluntary regulation by technology companies.”