K Shanmugam
Singapore
“Bank accounts are frozen when there is reason to suspect that the bank accounts are involved in illicit activities, including money laundering activities.”
“The Singapore Police Force does not track the requested data. Distinguishing artificial intelligence (AI)-generated content typically requires more detailed forensic examination which may not be necessary in every investigation and may also not be conclusive as to whether AI-generative tools were used.”
“The Building and Construction Authority’s Code on Accessibility provides baseline requirements for accessible and inclusive buildings. It stipulates a minimum width of 1.5 metres or 1.8 metres for primary accessible routes, depending on the building type.”
“The Road Traffic (Motor Vehicles, Driving Licence) Rules under the Road Traffic Act set out the scope of the medical assessment required for motorists aged 65 and above who wish to retain their driving licences.”
“When a Police report has been made, the Police will investigate to determine if a criminal offence has been committed. If there is reasonable suspicion that a case is scam-related, the Police can direct online service providers to restrict Singapore users' access to the relevant online activity under the Online Criminal Harms Act.”
“Through intelligence sharing and coordinated enforcement actions, the cross-border operation disrupted a transnational drug trafficking syndicate and downstream drug trafficking activities, with the UK arresting seven persons so far and further investigations underway.”
The complete record
Every one of 4,552 lines we hold for K Shanmugam, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 34 of 92.
“So, Parliament is not just a place where you come and because you see that there are some people who are saying certain things, you resort to rhetoric without offering real suggestions. It requires some courage to say this is a problem and we will deal with it. This is the way we will deal with it and offer solutions. Alternate solutions. And in so far as I have seen, the solutions: I have explained why the High Court process, open court process does not work, and I have heard nothing in response. A judicial process will not be appropriate in matters where we rely heavily on sensitive intelligence and collaboration with foreign counterparts. Many things cannot be publicly disclosed. The Courts themselves, have recognised their limitations in such matters. In Chng Suan Tze, the Court of Appeal recognised that where a decision – say the ISA detention – was based on national security concerns, judicial review of that decision would be precluded. The Court acknowledged that what national security requires has to be left to those responsible for national security, that would be the Executive. And in such situations, we have found alternative ways of providing for checks and balances with the view that we must maintain accountability. Mr Perera asked who checks the checkers? What happens if the Prime Minister or the Minister for Home Affairs are suborned? Well, what happens in any other country if a prime minister or minister for home affairs or any other minister is suborned? Do the Courts intervene? In the case of the US, have we seen the United States Supreme Court intervene? The ultimate check are the people. But do you expect the people as a collective body to deal with day-to-day problems of foreign interference?”
“If we did not and if we did not have the rule of law in Singapore, I would not be here, Mr Singh would not be here, this Chamber would not look this and Singapore would not be like this. In fact, none of you would be here. The reason we are all here is because this is a country run according to the principles of rule of law. We do not mind listening to lectures on rule of law but we subscribe to them too. But we also deal with real problems. If the Workers' Party’s position is taken to its extreme, as I have said, we would have to do away with the CLTPA, the ISA, the MRHA and the Land Acquisition Act. All the laws that have worked well for us. We would have to subject all our laws to judicial review. Will that alone work for us? In matters of national security, immigration, religious harmony? What is the position? So, it is not a reflexive answer each time there is a problem to say that there is only one solution. The point is, as I have said, what is the problem? Identify it. What is the best solution for this particular problem? How do you make sure that the Government is given sufficient powers and how do you make sure that there are checks and balances? So, there are the risks, and the checks and balances. In the end, what is workable? Why are countries in Western Europe, the United States being opened up by foreign adversaries? All the evidences that we have seen in our list. Why is it that they are so open to foreign attacks? Is it because they do not have the technology? There is such thing called political will and political courage and there will have to be a recognition that judicial process will not be appropriate.”
“Liberty and security is a false choice". Did he close down Gitmo? Why is it that we continue to be colonised in our minds that there is only one way of doing things properly? I said what is the answer to the problems we have – practical answers, not just rhetoric. I said we need to see how checks need to be made suitable for the context and the risks we face. I have not heard any answer. I said how are you going to deal with the risks of leaks in open Court hearings or in-camera? No answer. I would say not a squeak. What are the objections to the Tribunal chaired by a High Court Judge? No real answer. So, what we had was not a debate because we are not dealing with these points. Parliament is not just a forum for reading out speeches with an intent of putting it out in social media eventually. We need to engage on the issues. What are the powers? What are the risks? How are the risks being dealt with in the context of the overall legal landscape? So, listening to Mr Singh and Ms He, does that mean that they also suggest we do away with the ISA, the CLTPA, the Land Acquisition Act and various other pieces of legislation? Or do they accept that these are needed? And, if so, why do they say we should not deal with the issues relating or covered by FICA, some part of it, through a Tribunal, given the National Security considerations? The answer may be yes. The answer may be no. But we need to engage. What are the reasons? Is it the Workers' Party's position that all these tribunals established under all these laws that Parliament has approved should be abolished because it offends the principles of separation of powers and the rule of law? We accept separation of powers.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I thank Members for their questions. I will first address some of the points made by Members of the Workers' Party. Mr Pritam Singh spoke about the need for engagement and responding to feedback, but it appears to me that the Workers' Party has really not substantively engaged with anything that I have said. We studied their proposals. I explained in detail in my opening speech where we agreed and also where we disagreed and why. I replied on many of the points and why some of the proposed amendments will not work. Mr Pritam Singh cites the jurist Albert Dicey to remind us of the doctrine of separation of powers and that the rule of law requires a system of checks and balances on the exercise of executive power. He also referred to the concepts that were recently affirmed by the Court of Appeal in Nagaenthran a/l Dharmalingam. Sir, I can tell him, and Members know, these principles are fundamental to us. These are the principles that underpin much of our success. I said in my speech, the starting point is that the rule of law is fundamental to our existence and our well-being as a country. And that is shown in our consistently high rankings on law and order indices and our good international standing. It is also fundamental to ensure that we have good investments; low unemployment; healthy economy. But as I also have explained, we have never taken an absolutist approach. And if you take a dogmatic absolutist approach, it will not work for us and it is not working for many other countries. Rhetoric alone does not solve problems. You can come to this House and have soaring rhetoric. Rhetoric has not solved the Gitmo problem of the United States. President Obama said, "The choice between liberty and freedom or security.”
“Sir, in conclusion, I have articulated the need for the Bill and addressed the misconceptions that have surfaced in the past few days. This Bill is a calibrated piece of legislation that enables us to act surgically against threats that have come and continue to loom over us. Mr Speaker, I beg to move. [Applause.] [(proc text) Question proposed. (proc text)]”
“Just as there is a risk of an order made under MRHA against preachers on religious groups that we do not agree with, or detentions under the CLTPA, or land acquisition. In many countries, the population would not support this kind of land acquisition powers because it only leads to some very wealthy Ministers or not much public benefit. But in Singapore, the population trusted the Government and Singapore has developed in a way which could not even have been dreamt about in 1965. Along the way, we have had to make these choices in a number of areas, as I have shown to Members. And over time, people have seen how our approach proved to be good for the majority of people. And over the same period, Singapore's reputation for Rule of Law, its judicial system, legal system, institutions, both in and outside of the legal field, were all enhanced and they were built up. So, I say to this House: this law gives the Government a set of tools that can help. It is not a complete defence against foreign interference but they can help. The Bill represents the best balance that we can find between dealing with the risks and providing checks against abuse. Ms He Ting Rualso proposes to remove the immunity provision in clause 119. The reason for this suggestion is not clear. We recently amended the Police Force Act to provide that no liability shall lie personally against any enforcement officer who acts in good faith and with reasonable care in the execution of the Act or any other written law. That is clause 119. This provision simply extends the same protection to a competent authority or an authorised officer who assists a Police Officer in the execution of powers under the Act.”
“But what if the Government abuses its power? So, you have to weigh the risks of a rogue Government doing that versus a rogue foreign interference. The latter, is a far greater risk. The risk of a rogue government abusing its power. First of all, what is the power, compared with the powers in other legislation? Second, it can be looked at by a tribunal headed by a Supreme Court Judge. All the decisions published, people can see and assess themselves. And, ultimately, people have the final say in a highly literate population like Singapore. A final say of both public opinion and public opinion expressed through elections. People in Singapore would not stand for a rogue government. The risk of not giving the power or requiring a Court process, in the context of the risks I have outlined, will severely compromise the Government's ability to deal with the real risk of foreign interference which has actually happened. I, like some of those who could have made comments, and I am sure everyone here, wish that there is a world where the Government has the power to act and, at the same time, there is a complete check against abuse. If we can find that formula, we will gladly take that because that is ideal. But there is no such formula. Then, we have to, first of all, admit that there are trade-offs whichever route you take. If you go to Court, there are trade-offs; if you have a tribunal, there are trade-offs. And I agree that, with a rogue government, there is a risk of abuse, as I have said, not just of this power but several other powers; and not just the Executive powers but also even powers which can be looked at or appealed to the Courts.”
“The Government might ask some to disassociate themselves from foreigners if there is an increased threat of foreign interference, but we should compare that against Land Acquisition, against the Orders that can be made under other legislation that I have referred to. And also, it is not as if it is either a Court process or nothing. There is a tribunal, fully empowered, headed by a Supreme Court Judge, and they can consider any appeal brought under section 92. On a separate point, generally, in legislation, the usual rules for judicial review limit review of the Courts to reasonableness, legality and propriety. That has been so in POFMA as well as in other legislation. Members can see, therefore, various pieces of legislation have conferred the Government with generally-worded discretion. Philosophically, the Government has seen that as part of good governance to ensure our laws are effective so that the Government can act when it needs to. You need checks and balances, but the checks must be suited to the task and balanced against the risks. What are the risks? There are risks with giving any government any power, whether or not it is appealable to a Court. There are always risks. It is a degree of risk. There are also risks in not giving power. The real issue is what powers should you give. What are the risks? And what are the risks in not giving the powers? The risk here, which underlies some of the concerns that have been raised and some of the illustrations because the Government says these illustrations do not come within FICA and then you will say, what if the Government abuses its power. I referred to it briefly earlier. And what if the Government interferes with perfectly normal collaboration with a foreigner? it will be an abuse of power.”
“In fact, we inherited this from the British and then changed it. People will be too frightened to give evidence. In the longer term, more harm to society, by leaving gangsters out in society. So, better to give to the Executive these powers to deal with some types of pernicious criminals. It has helped to keep our society safe. If we had stuck to the approach of looking at everything on the basis only of the rights of the persons accused in the way that, say, the US or UK looks at it, and without balancing the rights of the society, we will not have the safe and crime-free society we have today. And the rights of the accused or detainees, both under the ISA and CLTPA, are protected. They are dealt with by tribunals. So, the question for this House is: how do we view the risks of foreign interference? How do we place the risks in the context of the other legislation that I have referred to? Would it be possible to deal with these issues of foreign interference through a normal Court process? Often, we do not even name the countries involved. Can you imagine naming one of our neighbours in Court? Or a larger country? When we asked Huang Jing to leave, we did not say who he was acting for. Why? The foreign policy and national security implications are too serious. The US can name any country that it wishes. But we are a price taker in this business of international relations. Also, how do you have a Court process without leaks? So, if you look at what can be done through Executive Order under FICA, directives can be issued for greater transparency.”
“The theory, and the Americans have been preaching this to us on the ISA, there must be due process, you must not have detention without trial and the State Department will tell us and publish a list. But when it comes to the US, there is due process in the US. They have all these hardened criminals, terrorists picked up from around the world. So, they put them in Gitmo, which is in Cuba, and then they say, well, since this is outside of the US, the US due process laws do not apply, and therefore, we can detain them without trial and they do not get the benefit of US due process. On top of that, basically, Members know about the atrocities that were committed on the prisoners. Which is why I said we look at the world as it is and we avoid hypocrisies. We deal with it in a practical way. Doctors look at the ISD detainees. Justices of Peace go there, see them. We give them religious rehabilitation. We do not throw away the keys. And, after a while, many of them are released, when they are rehabilitated. We do not allow ideology to stand in the way of doing right for society when that ideology does not make sense. The ideology must be to do what is right for Singaporeans. If you go to the CLTPA, it also provides for detention without trial. And I am well aware that the Workers' Party has a different view both on the ISA and the CLTPA, though I do not know what will be the substance of the provisions they will replace the ISA with. But anyway, and, therefore, it may be difficult for them to philosophically agree with this. But I am setting out the approach the Government has taken. The CLTPA provides for detention without trial. It is a practical approach by then Prime Minister, Mr Lee Kuan Yew. Evidence will often not be available; people too frightened to give evidence.”
“Do we wait until they actually attack? What would be the harm to our social fabric? So, the ISA has helped us avoid the bad incidents and hypocrisies we see elsewhere. Recall the incident in New Zealand on 3 September 2021 where an extremist stabbed shoppers at the supermarket. You wake up in the morning, you go the supermarket. Suddenly, someone comes and stabs you. The attacker was known to the security agencies. He was under surveillance since 2016 because of his support for the Islamic State ideology. But under New Zealand's laws, he could not be picked up. There have been other similar cases in the UK and in France. Annex M sets out the details. The global security think- tank GLOBSEC examined 22 terror incidents in France since 2012 and noted that nearly 80% of the people behind those attacks had been on a terror watchlist and 97% had been on the radar of authorities. With the ISA, 97% of those incidents could have been avoided and many lives saved. This included Said and Cherif Kouachi, who were career criminals who killed 12 people in January 2015 in the Charlie Hebdo office in Paris. If you turn to the US, President Obama took office in 2008. He campaigned on the promise to close down Guantanamo Bay or Gitmo. He did not do so during the eight years of his Presidency. One reason: closing Gitmo could mean that several of these hardcore detainees could be moved to the United States and many Americans were opposed to that idea. To date, what we can check – we may be wrong – is that only one Gitmo prisoner has been transferred to the US for prosecution in the federal courts. We may be wrong about the exact number but I think it is a very low number. What is the theory?”
“If you look at the Immigration Act, section 39A, no judicial review for any decision made by the Minister or Controller under the Immigration Act, save in relation to procedural compliance. If you look at the Employment of Foreign Manpower Act, financial penalties can be imposed, other Orders can be made, appeal is to an Appeals Board, chaired by a person qualified to be a Judge of the Supreme Court. May not even be a Judge. A person qualified to be a Judge. And the Appeals Board determines its own procedures and its decision is final. Decisions of the Controller relating to the issuance or cancellation of work passes, variation of its conditions, these are not subject to judicial review, save in relation to procedural compliance. The Internal Security Act (ISA) has been instrumental in ensuring our safety and security. It provides for detention without trial, on Executive Order. Singaporeans understand and accept the ISA. It allows us to pick up would-be terrorists, pre-emptively. In 2017, we picked up a 22-year-old kindergarten teacher. Young and our first female detainee. Do we wait until she does something, perhaps to the kindergarten children? She went through rehab and is now released. In any other country, she could not have been picked up and there are countries where she could have been picked up, but I am referring to the countries that we normally refer to. If she is not picked up and she goes overseas to one of the war zones, she might well not be alive today. But now, she has the prospect of carrying on with her life and achieve her full potential. In the last couple of years, amongst those picked up were two teenagers. One wanted to carry out a knife attack in a mosque and the other wanted to carry out a knife attack in a synagogue.”
“The Orders can be made against religious groups, to prohibit a group from receiving donations from specific or all foreign donors; require the entire governing body of the group to be Singapore Citizens; or require the group to suspend or remove specific foreigners from office. So, you can see the underlining philosophy there again – concern is foreign influence. In some ways, these Orders are more serious than what can be made under FICA. The religious groups were initially concerned. We talked to them, we explained how our powers can be exercised and they understood and they accepted. Second, if we look at the Land Acquisition Act. This is your house, you are living there. You could be living there all your life. The Government can acquire under the Land Acquisition Act. Any appeal against the Collector’s awards have to be heard by an Appeals Board. Good reason: we learnt from the experience of other countries. A small country: we decided if we want to reshape and develop Singapore, the Government must have the power to acquire land quickly, develop it and not be tied up with the normal litigation process. In fact, the inspiration and one of the places we looked at was India, and when it was taken, the then Prime Minister decided the constitutional protection for land which is in the Indian Constitution should be removed from our Constitution. So, a person's property can be acquired and it is the tribunal that decides on the value. The approach to land acquisition, the policy on land acquisition, underpins our entire public housing policy, HDB policy. It underpins our entire industrial land policy and many other aspects, just based on this unorthodox approach.”
“We have legislation that provide for tribunals and limit the Courts power of judicial review to achieve a variety of different objectives. And, so far, Singapore has been successful in this balancing exercise. Let me explain. The starting point is always Rule of Law. It is fundamental, both for the well-functioning of society and to build a modern, economically vibrant society. At the same time, we recognise the normal judicial process is not best suited for specific matters; that is an exercise that requires careful consideration. Let me give a few examples. This is in annex L. If you look at the Maintenance of Religious Harmony Act (MRHA), the Minister can issue Restraining Orders. They are considered by the Presidential Council for Religious Harmony, which, in turn, makes its recommendations to the President to confirm, vary or cancel the order. All orders and decisions of the President and the Minister, and the recommendations of the Council, are final and not subject to judicial review. During the Second Reading of MRHA, I explained that where religious issues are concerned, the trial process may not be the best way to deal with it. It can deepen the fault lines, encourage martyrdom and inflame tensions even more. The Restraining Orders can impose a significant restraint on normal freedoms. The Restraining Order can restrain the person from addressing orally or in writing any congregation, require the person to stop communication activity, stop contributing to any religious publication, and restrain the person from holding office in an editorial board or committee of a religious publication.”
“And how do you have a Court process? So, the theory has to fit the practice. That is why we thought long and hard, and then, said let us have a Tribunal headed by a Supreme Court Judge who can overrule the Minister. The Courts still have a role to play and that is in the Explanatory Statement. They will ensure procedural compliance, proper exercise of jurisdiction, but they will not review the merits, other aspects of executory decisions taken under the Bill. As the House considers this, we must also look at this in the context of some other pieces of legislation we have in Singapore and what our approach to governance is. Mr Speaker, Sir, with your permission, may I display a slide which compares different legislation.”
“The Minister does not get to see it or know about it, unless it is necessary to brief the Minister. Let me give you a simple illustration of the real world by referring to a case that is before the Courts now, which is not anywhere in the category of cases we are now talking about in terms of sensitivity. There is a case pending, an application by 17 prisoners awaiting capital punishment. They are making an application against the Attorney-General. They seek various reliefs against the Attorney-General. Various allegations have been made which the AGC considers to be completely scurrilous and without basis and being made to simply throw mud and stirred. That is the AGC's view. They are represented by a local lawyer. The hearing is in chambers. The lawyers will know the hearing is in chambers. It has not been published yet. Details of the affidavits, everything cannot be published. But details of the plaintiffs' affidavits appeared in a Malaysian news portal within a month of the application being filed and the allegations relate to, well, I was going to say there were very strong racial undertones. In fact, they are about race. Someone wanted to make these assertions in Court and then make sure they were published outside, which AGC considers absolutely scandalous. The info should not have been made public. It is a possible breach of rules. The lawyer claims that his “instructing solicitor” is from Malaysia, for one of the plaintiffs. So, now you investigate and even if you take action for breach of the rules, the info is public. In this case, the info is not security-sensitive. But let us say you have highly secret intel information. First of all, does it make sense to hand it over to the very person who is a suspect or to his lawyers?”
“The question is, should the appeals relating to HIC Directions go to Court and should there be public hearings? In a Court process, the Government may be required to set out its case in public, months in advance of the trial, documents have to be exchanged, witnesses must be available to give evidence, there will be cross examination and then the Judge decides. Going back to my earlier example, assume we get an intel tip-off. Foreign agency tipping us off about someone, which has happened even quite recently, and which then led to us exercising powers under the Internal Security Act. There are no documents. Will we be able to get the foreign intel contact to come to Court? As I said, they will just not hear us. We would not even get a response and that will be the end of the cooperation. If we think the tip-off has some merit, we do our own investigations and then issue Directions. If the person is not happy, he appeals to the tribunal. The tribunal members have the same immunity and protection as High Court judges. They will consider any appeal brought under section 92. Let me give you another example. Some countries – I am not saying we do – but some countries have human assets in other countries. Let us say the information is obtained through such a human asset. You want to reveal that in Court? Depending on the country that the human asset is in, he may not live for very long after that. And even if he lives, he would not be free. One could ask: can you have the case in-camera in Court? That would not solve the problem. You have to file the evidence in Court. A lot of parties get to see the file. Some of this information, frequently, is often known only to two to three persons who need to know, even within the security agency.”
“And added on to that, Assoc Prof Lim and his colleagues want this to be in Court. How do you even prove these documents? How do you put any foreign intelligence agents on the stand? What is actionable intelligence? In the real world, tip-offs come from intelligence agencies, from certain activities, associations, sometimes, it can be definitive, a "smoking gun", but in the vast majority of cases, it is less definite. Links to a foreign state could be through ownership, funding, other associations. It requires a piecing together of different data points. I can tell Assoc Prof Lim from experience, if ever we said that we are going to refer what they said to us publicly, immediately they will disavow all knowledge and, thereafter, they will refuse to have contact with us. That is the real world. So, we need to be practical, not theoretical in this, with an understanding of how intelligence operations work. There is another problem which lawyers will understand – what is the legal standard for actionable intelligence? It will replace "suspects or has reason to believe", which is a concept which lawyers know and is well-defined; at least, there is case law. You have replaced that with "actionable intelligence". Essentially, the tribunal will have the right to consider the information available, which the Government makes available, and decide whether the conclusion that the Government has come to was justified. Let me now move to the final set of amendments. Clause 104, an amendment proposed by Ms He Ting Ru. She wants to replace the tribunal with proceedings in the High Court. This is in respect of appeals against our counter-HIC directions, any Part 3 direction or declaration as a Proscribed Online Location.”
“If you recall the earlier example of a state that apparently worked through a PR agency to get social media influencers to discredit vaccines, people eventually got suspicious due to a combination of indicators: suspicious instructions from the company to mask that they were being paid to push their messages; the company claimed to be based at an address in London, but turned out not to be registered there; company management from Moscow; online presence that disappeared once people started raising suspicions. None of these indicators, on their own, proves a conclusive link to a foreign principal. But, collectively, they paint a suspicious picture. So, if a foreign publication strongly attacks a Government policy and a local person is actively helping them and pushes out that content while accepting donations from them and taking effort to conceal the funding, consistently, over time, circumstances look suspicious, but nothing can be done if we cannot prove that the person was actually acting on behalf of a foreign principal. I think we must be able to act on reasonable suspicion, which is a threshold well-established in law. Under FICA, the Government would be able to take some measures: issue directions to take down the harmful content, or a must-carry direction to inform the public that a HIC is going on and these are executory in nature. Thresholds above do not relate to an offence. If the person receiving the direction is aggrieved, he can appeal to the Tribunal. Clause 21, Assoc Prof Lim wants to add in the phrase "rely on actionable intelligence”. So, we now call this agency to come and prove the actionable intelligence or we get documents and produce them? There is a process. You cannot just produce a document.”
“I make broadly the same points for the proposed amendments to clauses 18, 40 and 75. Related to this, Assoc Prof Jamus Lim wishes to amend clause 17(2), to remove a caveat that "Y does not need to have in mind a particular foreign country or foreign principal in order to be considered to have committed an offence". This, similarly, narrows the mental state for the offence and means that the prosecutor must prove that the person is acting for a specific foreign principal and it is impractical for the reasons I had already given. As matter of principle, knowledge that there is "a foreign principal" and "acting on his behalf" should suffice, even if the person does not know which foreign principal it is. It does not matter whether you are acting for country X, Y or Z as long as you know you are acting for some country. If I may move to clause 20, also the amendment proposed by Assoc Prof Jamus Lim. The current wording is that the Minister may authorise directions where, in the opinion of the Minister, those conditions for HIC are satisfied. The Member wants to remove the phrase "or is suspected of being or having been undertaken". In practice, suspicion of links to a foreign principal would likely arise from a lead, an intelligence tip-off or other kinds of tip-off. If there is such a suspicion, security agencies would probe further, gather data, try to corroborate the information, ascertain if the lead is reliable and they would require triangulation from different sources.”
“Again, for those who cannot read it, you can look at the handout in the grey file that has been handed out. This proposed amendment will narrow the mental state. The phrase, "is likely to be", is sought to be struck out. If this edit goes through, the prosecution must then prove that a person knew that it would likely be prejudicial. Taking one step back, I would say we are using a slide rule here to try and measure and assess people who are going to come with bazookas. This will not work in the real world. Even more so, when it comes to clandestine foreign interference. Any decent intelligence service would know how to cover its tracks, conceal its linkages and disavow knowledge. So, under these proposed amendments, someone could take money from a neighbouring country, attack us, publish allegations against the Police or SAF or other institutions, cause unhappiness and unrest amongst our local ethnic communities. This can be done covertly and not disclose that he is taking money. Yet, if the proposals are accepted, the person cannot be charged in Court because the prosecution has to show that the person knew or had reason to believe that his actions would be prejudicial. The person could claim, for example, that he did not realise that his post would be picked up by others and shared around. He did not know it would be prejudicial and he had no reason to believe so. This is so, even if we can prove that he took money from a foreign agency to put up the posts with the purpose of damaging Singapore. It is really like taking knives to a gunfight. Common sense is, if you had reason to believe that your actions are likely to prejudice Singapore's interests and you are acting for a foreign agency, you are acting covertly, secretly, it should be an offence.”
“Again, it is in page 1, after annex M of the handout that has been given.”
“The first five, I think it is not the easiest to read. I think it is also in the Schedule that I have handed out, after annex M. Pages 1 and 2 with what is proposed to be struck out. For those of us who cannot read this slide, the first five are: (a) to promote the interests of a political party, or a politically significant entity, in Singapore; (b) to seek to influence the outcome of any election or referendum; (c) to seek to influence Singapore Governmental decisions, including by trying to influence the public; (d) to seek to influence any aspect of proceedings of key public institutions, including Parliament, Presidential Council for Minority Rights, and so on; (e) to seek to bring about changes of the law or otherwise influence the legislative process. So, Mr Gerald Giam accepts all of this as legitimate, meaning legitimate for the purpose of defining what is "directed towards a political end", and that these are necessary. But he wants to remove the last two paragraphs. Mr Speaker, Sir, with your permission, may I ask for slide 2 that highlights these changes to be put up?”
“So, leave it to the companies to choose people of integrity and our security agencies need to be alert. Not just about them, but other directors of major companies in Singapore. So, these additional proposals are impractical from a market point of view. Now, I move to clause 8 as proposed by Mr Gerald Giam. He wants to amend the definition of “directed towards a political end in Singapore”. The context is HIC directions can be issued if there is online communications activity where material is published in Singapore, it is undertaken by or on behalf of a foreign principal, and it is in the public interest to issue a direction, such as to prevent foreign interference directed towards a political end. And for a PSP to be designated, that person or entity’s activities must be directed wholly, or in part, towards a political end; and the Competent Authority must additionally assess that it is in the public interest for countermeasures to be applied. So, changing this definition will affect how we can act against foreign interference. The meaning of “directed towards a political end” in the Bill has seven parts. Mr Speaker, Sir, with your permission, may I display a slide with the definition on screen, please?”
“Politicians and others who may be PSPs play by different rules, compared to senior civil servants. If we impose on PSPs the rules that senior civil servants are under, I think it will be very difficult. Ministers are also subject to strict rules, except that political donations are possible. Mr Giam and Mr Pritam Singh would be aware of these requirements, having both been public servants themselves in the past. I also do not think it is appropriate to classify them as PSPs. These senior civil servants are non-political, so, we cannot agree to this proposal. Mr Gerald Giam also wants to include board members, chief executives (CEs) of Statutory Boards, CEs of Fifth Schedule companies. CEs of Statutory Boards, as public officers, are subject to the same rules as DSes and above, and the points I have already made apply equally to them. As for Board Members, it would not be feasible to automatically define them as PSPs. It is preferable to use powers of designation instead. On board members. They will often have foreign members. You ask them to declare all donations received in home countries, migration benefits, all their foreign affiliations? It does not make sense. If we went out and asked not just these companies, but any other listed company, ask them if it will be feasible to impose these requirements on their foreign directors, they will tell you it is too onerous. They will have difficulties getting good people. And if you take banks and you impose these obligations on the Schedule companies, but you do not impose these obligations on their competitors who might be in the same business, then you make it difficult for the Schedule companies to get good people. It is the same for Fifth Schedule companies.”
“On the CEC members, one of the reasons why we left it out is that we did consider CEC members as well as branch secretaries to be included. But we left it out because on the side of the PAP to comply with this, it is not going to be difficult because all except two of the CEC members are PSPs anyway. So, the obligations are more onerous for the other registered political parties because many, in some cases, none, of the CEC members are PSPs. But as I said, we can agree to it if that is what Mr Gerald Giam wants. Mr Giam also wants DS and officers above the DS level to be included as PSPs. What is the status of DSes and Permanent Secretaries (PSes) and what rules are they subject to? They are all subject to various tight rules and requirements which are tighter than FICA requirements on PSPs. They have to hold valid security clearance throughout their appointment. They have to make annual declarations, including on investments, ownership, financial embarrassment, declarations on a variety of matters, going well beyond what PSPs have to do. They have to declare all gifts and entertainment and they cannot work for other employers or engage in trade or business without explicit permission. They can be directed to cease outside activities or divest investments if there is any conflict. A list of their key obligations is set out in annex K. The rules for PSPs are not as tight. PSPs cannot accept anonymous donations over $5,000, which really means they can accept anonymous donations under $5,000 and they can also accept above $5,000 from identified persons. Any DS or PS who accepts that will not remain in service for much after that, and they would be subject to severe disciplinary action if they contravene any of the rules.”
“We can add them today at the Committee stage. I will seek to move a set of amendments to the Bill during the Committee stage of proceedings and for these to be debated alongside the other proposed amendments filed by the other Members of Parliament on the Bill. Insufficient notice has been given for these amendments from my Ministry necessarily, because we are dealing with amendments in turn proposed by Mr Leon Perera and Mr Gerald Giam. So, I will be seeking your consent, Sir, Mr Speaker, as well as the general assent of Members present to waive notice. Copies of these proposed amendments will be distributed to this House so that Members can read them ahead. Mr Speaker, Sir, with your permission, may I ask the Clerks to distribute the proposed amendments?”
“The second category where the Workers' Party wants to make some amendments, Mr Gerald Giam wants to add the following to categories of PSPs: members of Central Executive Councils or equivalent of registered political parties in Singapore, senior public servants holding office of Deputy Secretary (DS) or above or equivalent, board members or chief executives of a Statutory Board or a Government company listed in the Fifth Schedule of the Constitution. I will come back to this. The third category of amendments, Mr Giam wants to amend the definition of what amounts to "directed towards a political end". The fourth category of amendments is to clause 17. Assoc Prof Jamus Lim wants to remove the phrase "likely to be" from "is or likely to be prejudicial"; and he proposes similar edits to clause 18. He also wants to amend clause 17(2) to remove a caveat. The fifth category of amendments, the Bill provides for challenges to some Directions issued by the Minister to be dealt with by a Tribunal, headed by a Supreme Court Judge. Ms He Ting Ru wants this to be dealt with by the High Court, rather than a Tribunal headed by the Supreme Court. So, I will now turn to the specific amendments proposed and set out our views. On Mr Leon Perera's amendments on clauses 47, 48, 78, 79, 81, 84 and 85, we can agree to several of them. I have set out my position. On Mr Gerald Giam's amendment to clause 14 on amending the definition of PSP. Now, once you are designated as a PSP, there is a baseline set of obligations. Declaration of foreign affiliations, declaration of migration benefits, anonymous donations cap of $5,000, declaration of donations of $10,000 or more from permissible donors, no foreign volunteers and so on. So, if you take a CEC member or equivalent, we can agree to this.”
“Mr Leon Perera wants to have this as an obligation for the countermeasures that they have identified. The Government can agree to this. We will make public all designations, stepped-up countermeasures on PSPs, transparency directives and HIC directives, except the technical assistance requirements (TADs) because that would be in the course of investigations and we do not want to tip off hostile actors about the investigations that are going on. There is one issue on the suggestion to make public the names of citizens involved in foreign political and legislative organisations. A substantial number of these citizens may not be PSPs. This reporting requirement under clause 79 applies to non-PSPs, ordinary citizens. If they are a member of, say, the Russian Communist Party, we want to know. They may not be PSPs in Singapore. There are also other communist parties. If they are a member of the Cuban Communist Party, we also want to know. Likewise, if they are a member of the UK's Conservative Party. It could become quite wide and we have to be mindful when making disclosures relating to this group. We are studying that particular issue, whether we should make all these non-PSP reports public. Our previous intention was "no". We should let them have their privacy on this. Reporting to the Government is enough. But given that Mr Leon Perera has raised it, we will relook at that particular point and, if we agree with him, we could make that amendment at a future point in time but not now. Mr Leon Perera also wants a list of all reportable arrangements. I do not think that is necessary. The Bill sets out clearly the conditions where an arrangement is reportable, for example, when the PSP is obliged to act in accordance with the instructions of a foreign principal.”
“It is to be welcomed that the Workers' Party has set out what they disagree with in the Bill. They are, looking at the amendments, in agreement with most of the Bill. And the details are in annex J. Their disagreement with the Bill can be itemised into five categories. Two of the categories are somewhat process-related. The first one is by Mr Leon Perera. He has put in suggested amendments to clauses 47, 48, 78, 79, 81, 84 and 85. He wants the Government to maintain a public registry of all individuals and entities designated as PSPs and persons with declared involvement in foreign "policy" organisations. Now, I would say the Bill does not use the term foreign "policy" organisation. I assume he was referring to a foreign "political" organisation instead. He also wants the Government to make publicly available the following information: (a) all reportable arrangements; (b) all transparency directives, disclosures, reports and explanations for these decisions; and (c) all directives to PSPs to end their affiliation with a foreign principal or to prohibit foreign volunteers. It is unclear to us why he only wants to make public these two stepped-up countermeasures and did not include the other stepped-up countermeasures on prohibition of donations and foreign memberships. The Bill, in clause 116, states that we may make public any designation and the issuance of any stepped-up countermeasures on PSPs and transparency directives issued. The media had asked us about this previously and we said while the Bill says "may", our intention though was to make public the designations and stepped-up countermeasures on PSPs, as well as the directives to counter a HIC. Our response was carried in the mainstream media on 25 September.”
“If I may carry on while it is being distributed, Sir?”
“For example, we may determine foreign interference based on a tip-off or sensitive information shared by a foreign counterpart security agency. The consequences of a leak would be very serious. Most Singaporeans understand the need for this legislation. Sir, I will now deal with the proposed amendments put forward by some Members of the Workers' Party. The Workers' Party has stated that they believe in the "legitimate need to counter malign acts of foreign interference". They also realise the "Purposes" provision of the Bill is important – that is, clause 2 – and obviously so. So, with your permission, Mr Speaker, may I distribute a second folder which contains annexes J to L that I am going to refer to now.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, the points raised in the Petition, assuming it is the same petition that we see online, I have dealt with most of them, I am dealing with them, we can debate the points today and I would say Parliament can fully consider and debate the points today. There is no need to do it at another session. Mr Terry Xu, as many of us know, and as I said in my September 2019 speech at the conference, uses Malaysian and other foreign writers to write incendiary articles on Singapore without bylines and without identification. The articles include a call for Singaporean civil servants to march on the streets like their Hong Kong counterparts. So, you read the articles and what would readers think? These are from local writers writing about Singapore in these terms. But the articles are often by foreign writers who are paid to write these stories. The more incendiary, the better. Mr Xu and others can continue to do this even after FICA. But a direction can be given to them to make it clear that the article is by a foreigner. We all want transparency, right? So, it would be useful for Singaporeans to know whether the writer of the article is local or foreign. FICA will allow us to issue a transparency directive requiring that Singaporeans be told upfront who the article is written by and what nationality the author has. Sir, moving on to a slightly different topic. For HIC directions, appeals go to an independent reviewing tribunal, which has the power to overrule the Minister. The tribunal is headed by a Supreme Court judge. Appeals are made to this tribunal and not the Court so as to protect sensitive information that may be relied on to make a decision.”
“Thum has, meanwhile, written a commentary calling this Bill a "stealth coup" by me. Basically, that I am personally going to take over Singapore and all my colleagues have to be very concerned. I suppose a coup means that I take over from the Prime Minister. A coup in Singapore. The Prime Minister needs to be very concerned too. It requires a turn of mind, completely at odds with reality and living in fantasy, to think of a coup in Singapore. Mr Thum forgets that if there is this fear that I am going to mount a coup, then I or any Minister for Home Affairs has far more powers under other legislation: the Internal Security Act (ISA), the Criminal Law Temporary Provisions Act (CLTPA), the Maintenance of Racial Harmony Act (MRHA), including the powers of detention. FICA, in contrast, is a toy gun. It gives powers to give directions. So, Members can see there is no limit to the absurdities and fantasies that some will put out and an Oxford education, in itself, does not immunise one from spouting such nonsense. But I can see that they are concerned. Han has said, in arguing against this Bill, that it is difficult to get money for these causes in Singapore, so foreign funding is necessary. So, you can see. If Singaporeans are excited about it, interested, they will contribute. But because they will not contribute, I need foreign funding. Mr Terry Xu has joined Han in starting the petition, which some groups have signed up to. I am not sure how many of these groups know what Thum and Han's objectives are. We will look at the Petition that is being put up in Parliament by the PSP. I think Members can look at it in the context of who inspired them and how today's PSP is completely aligned, it appears, with what Thum and Han want to achieve.”
“The nature of activity and who the funding is from will have to be considered in this context. I will say a bit more about Thum and Han before I go on to discuss their objections. Thum wants our Independence Day to be 16 September, which is Malaysia Day. He regrets that Singapore separated from Malaysia. On several occasions, he has publicly said that Singapore should become part of Malaysia again and celebrate Independence on 16 September. Thum and Han and some other activists met with Dr Mahathir on 30 August 2018. They asked Dr Mahathir to bring democracy to Singapore. I suppose Malaysian style democracy. Han described a social movement as "the work that goes into potentially one day having 500,000 people on the streets." She has also said, "When the government says foreigners should not influence domestic affairs, or foreigners should not bring their country's politics into Singapore, we should push back on that as well, because why not, because solidarity is important." Her view is that Malaysians can influence our politics. She says so openly. I believe, I have not seen it, but I assume the Petition that the Progress Singapore Party (PSP) is presenting in Parliament is one that is inspired by Ms Han. So, I would like to know whether they agree with this statement that Singaporeans should push back and say foreigners should be able to influence domestic affairs in Singapore. So, Members can see why the two of them are very concerned that FICA will focus on foreign funding and have been mounting their own disinformation campaign. Han has been posting on social media extensively – I am told, over a hundred tweets, posts and so on – organised a petition, sent around email templates for people to write to their Members of Parliament.”
“So, there are two points here. One, the powers that are necessary to deal with the threat. Second, the possibility of abuse of these powers. So far, I have explained why the powers are necessary and why these powers are no greater – in fact, less so – than powers that already exist, and is more calibration for the Internet age. So, bearing that in mind, I will deal separately, later, with abuse of powers. The fundamental principle is the intention – and we do not believe that legislation prevents bona fide exchange of ideas. Can a government abuse the power? Any government can abuse this power and any power. So, we will come to that and what should be the checks and balances for that. There have also been others, beyond these concerns, who have been actively trying to put out misinformation about the Bill. Chief amongst them are Mr PJ Thum and Ms Kirsten Han. Thum and Han, as I said in 2019, in the conference, take money from George Soros. Some of you may recall, Soros' Open Society Foundations (OSF) has a history of getting involved in the domestic politics of sovereign countries. In 2018, ACRA rejected Thum and Han's attempt to register a company funded by OSF to organise "democracy classroom" sessions in Singapore. They have set up an organisation called New Naratif, which receives significant foreign funding. New Naratif organised a series of "Democracy Classrooms" focusing on Malaysia and that was supported by the US Embassy in Kuala Lumpur. Make no mistake about it. We will say no to that in Singapore. You can organise democracy classrooms. We have no issues. Anyone can organise, anyone can criticise the current state of democracy, but it cannot be funded by Soros or the US Embassy or any other Embassy.”
“Foreign agencies, and even non-agency, NGOs, others, will try and present a legitimate front. So, the language has got to be broad enough to cover that: that what is apparently normal but it is actually not normal. And it is not only the classic foreign state agency subversion sort of thing. It could be foreign associations, NGOs, even individuals, who want to change our laws, for example. So, you got to look carefully at what they are doing, what are all the factors taken in overall, using the proportionality test, what sort of issue are they focusing on, what is the possible impact, is there funding involved, but with the central guiding principle that Singaporeans should primarily decide on issues of importance to ourselves. If you turn specifically to academics, questions have been raised about their collaborations with non-Singaporeans. They collaborate, create, partner, pursue their research interests professionally. No HIC, it does not come within FICA. So, the Bill will not affect the vast amount of academic work that is being done. We value the intellectual output, collaborations, exchange of ideas, the work our academics do. And they need to link with the rest of the world; for work, bona fide and professional work, not affected; it is important for Singapore. But in some situations, there are academics who go into a different realm around the world and they are dealt with, like we did with Huang Jing. There is another thread to some of the points made, underlying all of these explanations and illustrations, that the Government's position and explanations are good but the powers can be abused, they can be used for a wrong purpose. The worry is that the Government will abuse its power and shut down legitimate cooperation because it does not like it.”
“Or, for that matter, the range of public policy issues that are currently or which may in the future become subject to political debates, where there is legitimate reason for concerned Singaporeans to collaborate with international experts, researchers, NGOs; on the face of it, that would not be covered. But if it changes along the lines of what I have said earlier, then there is a case for looking at it carefully. So, one has got to look at the facts, test materiality. Another point that has been made is that presenting research at overseas conferences, writing for international journals, multi-authored book projects, publishing in and reviewing for prestigious academic presses, participating in international collaborative research projects, partaking of fellowships, visiting appointments, training programmes, participation in international funding opportunities, any of these may be subsidised or fully funded by foreign universities, foundations and states. None of that, on the face of it, as it is described, will fit within FICA, for the reasons I have already explained. But if there is a step-up to try and turn the person into an agent of influence, or there is an orchestrated campaign, then, again, it becomes different. So, some of these doomsday scenarios, that FICA is going to close off foreign collaborations, if that is correct, we, as a Government, must have suddenly gone mad. Because in a country like Singapore, which depends so much on the flow of ideas and international collaboration, is that even thinkable? The difficulty we face at MHA, and which many other countries face when dealing with this foreign interference issue, is that out of 10,000 interactions, one might be the sort that we are interested in, where there is an attempt to interfere.”
“The advice I get from AGC is that it is different for this legislation because we are making clear the legislative intent for this specific Bill. I have made similar points in respect of other legislation as well, as part of the Second Reading speech. I will, in this context, invite Members to look at annex I. Sorry, I made a mistake. Annex I is not in a hard copy. Sir, with your permission, it will be emailed directly to Members in soft copy. Part of annex I is there but the part that I wanted to refer to, we did not have time to put that in. One suggestion was open non-clandestine collaboration between Singaporeans and any ordinary private foreign citizen to improve any aspect of our laws and public policies constitutes foreign interference, notwithstanding the absence of any foreign state manipulation or foreign funding. Let me put it this way. On the one side, if there is manipulation with a foreign agency involved, I think everyone will agree, it is quite clear. On the other side, there is foreign collaboration, bona fide work, everyone will agree that cannot be. And then, there is the in-between. There could be a group of foreigners working with Singaporeans, exchanging viewpoints, writing papers and so on, we have indicated that that would not be covered. How does that become necessary or expedient? How is the test of proportionality satisfied? But, supposing, the group comes together and the motive is to effect a change; or take a different example, there is money involved or, let us say, there is materiality, and the entire focus is political change; then, again, Members of Parliament will say that is a very different kettle of fish.”
“Newspapers – it does not mean, automatically, they are all kosher. They have often been used as a front for such activities, which is why I put annex G in. Legitimate newspapers, newswires have all been used as fronts. So, you cannot give a carte blanche exception but it is most unlikely that many of these would be a front unless we have very clear other evidence. If some deception is involved in the campaign, if a foreigner hides his identity or masquerades as a local, we could, under FICA, give orders for them to be transparent, just disclose who you are, so that people can judge for themselves. Collaboration and partnership with a foreign person, by itself, is not the trigger. You have to go further and look at the facts. As I said, is there a hostile campaign, is there damage to Singapore, is there a foreign agency involved, what is the extent of possible damage? These are non-exclusive factors nor must they all be present or any one of them present. You really got to look at the facts, assess based on what you know and assess the proportionality as well. I have referred to proportionality. I said this is my view. But this is what the Government has been advised by AGC and that is one of the reasons for my view. I am capable of forming my own views but we go by the advice of AGC. And this is the intent behind the legislative approach which we are setting out clearly for reference, so that if this Bill becomes law, and if it needs to be interpreted, it will be interpreted in the light of what the Government has said is the legislative intent and how the phrases are intended to cover these things. It has been suggested by some that case law means that the test of proportionality cannot be applied.”
“So, if a decision has to be made on the basis of "necessary or expedient", you have got to look at the facts carefully and the actions you want to take must be proportional. Take an example. Two academics, one of them foreign, collaborate on a paper on LGBT issues. It will be difficult to say it is necessary or expedient to issue Directions under FICA and, really, try explaining that to a Supreme Court Judge, who will chair the Tribunal, that it is necessary or expedient. The vast majority of collaborations, linkages will not meet the required conditions. And they will also not meet the requirement of proportionality. As an aside – and this has been raised by Member of Parliament Assoc Prof Jamus Lim – if a foreigner writes articles on controversial issues using his own name, or is clearly stated to be a foreigner, people can assess the value, credibility and weight, and it is generally unlikely to be necessary or expedient to issue directions. But it depends on the facts. If there is a basis to believe that he is doing so, for example, as part of a hostile campaign, or is acting for a foreign agency, with the intent of causing damage to Singapore, then directions could be given, subject to the test of proportionality. And if he disagrees, he can appeal to the Tribunal. Likewise – and, again, I think this arises from Assoc Prof Lim's proposed amendments – if the Economist or New York Times publishes the articles, it would not be possible to invoke FICA. However, if there is more to it, if a foreign newspaper is being used as part of a campaign targeting Singapore, that may be different. But again, it comes back to proportionality, the nature of the actions, the likely effect, the likely intent, several other factors.”
“On the HIC part and how it applies, I will deal with it later. Let us also look at Australia. The Foreign Influence Transparency Scheme (FITS) covers government-related entitles and individuals who have arrangements with foreign principals or undertake certain activities on behalf of foreign principals. Under Australia's FITS, any activity by a former Commonwealth politician would trigger the threshold for registration. So, you could be an ex-Minister or an ex-Member of Parliament of any political party and, if you did this, it will trigger. Singapore, under FICA, the PSP part only covers Defined and Designated PSPs. So, a much, much narrower group. Why have we taken this approach? Because we are not the US; we are not Australia; we are Singapore; we are an international hub. Interactions with international counterparts, business people, siting of MNCs in Singapore – all of these are vital for us. In this Bill, action can be taken in respect of HIC if the following conditions are satisfied. Internet activity by or on behalf of a foreign principal and public interest in Singapore is affected. I am paraphrasing, but, in essence. A PSP designation is possible if the activities are directed towards a political end and it is in the public interest that countermeasures should be applied. So, one of the key points for both areas is the phrase "Public Interest". The definition of "Public Interest" includes the requirement of "proportionality", which the Minister or Authority will have to consider in arriving at a decision. The "Public Interest" test imports a built-in requirement of proportionality for the Minister before deciding on a Part [3] direction. The definition of "Public Interest" refers to "necessary or expedient"; that is clause 7.”
“Under FICA, directions can be issued to tech companies to disable access to the content or restrict those accounts from view of end users in Singapore, if the thresholds are met. These can stem the HIC without having to block the entire platform. Social media platforms can also be asked to provide information to support an investigation into an HIC. Today, if this data resides abroad, we cannot do so, under the CPC. The Government would also have the option of charging the company and its officers under FICA for clandestine foreign interference and prosecuting them in open Court. So, that deals with the HIC part of FICA. There has been some degree of misrepresentation on FICA, that this Bill seeks to curtail normal interactions with foreigners. That is not true. Singapore depends for its success and vitality on being open, and a government that seeks to close down that will lead Singapore to ruin. I actually want the House to see how our approach compares that with the US and Australia. In the US, under the Foreign Agents Registration Act (FARA), it covers people and organisations that are under the control of a foreign government or organisations or persons outside of the United States. Under the US' FARA, a "foreign principal" is defined very broadly, and any political activity that is designed to influence government decision-making on behalf of a foreign principal will require or trigger registration. For instance, take something that we take as normal. An American citizen meeting a US Congressman and advocating for his company's product. If the company was a foreign company, an MNC, that will trigger registration. So, the American provision is quite broad. That scenario will not meet the thresholds for designation of PSPs under FICA.”
“And the bottom right, the light green boxes show how online, there are powers to intervene under the Broadcasting Act and the Telecommunications Act. What FICA does, in the dark green boxe, are targeted and more calibrated directions. If you look at Chart 2, the existing PDA is in green; FICA in pink or red. On the left, the green box shows what PDA provides today. All the measures in that box apply to gazetted political associations. Under FICA, at the first instance, the only measure that applies to a designated PSP is in the first red box in the second column which is annual declaration of donations. If there is heightened threat of foreign interference, then, the other red boxes can be applied by the Competent Authority. To use another example, suppose we discover that a Singapore company has been secretly hired by a foreign intelligence agency to put out memes and videos on social media and to spread the view that a particular ethnic group is persecuted. And the aim, let us say, is to drive a wedge between ethnic groups in Singapore. What would we do today? The company’s officers can be detained under the ISA. Other laws can also, potentially, be used. This can be reviewed if their detention is under the ISA by the ISA Tribunal. There is no judicial review except in relation to compliance with procedural requirements under the Act. Where the content crosses the threshold of other laws like the Penal Code, of course, criminal investigations can be initiated. The CPC comes in – that will allow any information about the company's activities or that of its staff to be obtained. And there is a legal obligation for the information to be provided by anyone in Singapore when the Police ask for it, including Internet companies. And these actions can be pre-emptive.”
“I referred earlier to the Broadcasting Act and directions can be issued. Under the Telecommunications Act, directions can be issued to telecommunications licensees. And, in both Acts, there are limits to judicial review. So, what in the HIC part of FICA goes further than the current laws? Mainly, in extraterritorial application. Because it now explicitly includes global platforms which are often vectors for HICs. So, that updates the analogue powers for the Internet age. For example, in the analogue world, you have the Newspaper and Printing Presses Act (NPPA) and the Broadcasting Act. They provide powers to proscribe foreign newspapers and broadcasting services. The digital equivalent under FICA is a Proscribed Online Locations App Removal. In the analogue world, the Broadcasting Act provides the power to order a TV station to carry a message. The digital equivalent under FICA is a must-carry direction, issued to communicator, social media services. I will ask Members to refer to annex H which has two charts. First, Chart 1, and this is quite important. If you look at Chart 1, the existing powers are in light green and the updated powers under FICA are in darker green. So, on the left, what is headed "Substantive Powers". Today, you see the existing powers of investigation and of arrest and detention, in light green. It can be seen that FICA is an update to ensure that our laws can deal with online HICs, by allowing for disclosure of information by global platforms, and new offences which have to be proved beyond reasonable doubt in Court for perpetrating HICs in a clandestine way. If you look at the top right-hand side, it shows how existing laws cover foreign interference via traditional media – the Broadcasting Act and the NPPA.”
“The current Political Donations Act requires those that are directly involved in our political processes, be they political parties, election candidates and their agents, to declare their political donations. The Act prohibits the receipt of foreign funding and has a cap on anonymous donations. So, I have taken the House through the current legal landscape. What does FICA add to the current powers? Take the example I gave earlier, say, X is acting for a foreign agency. He has an agenda to subvert our political process, subvert our sovereignty and he conducts an online campaign. Today, as I have explained, action will be taken under the ISA. And bear in mind that foreign agencies will often use legitimate-looking fronts. Annex G sets out the examples of such legitimate-looking fronts. If FICA is passed, then we can proceed under FICA if we can show that online communications activity has been prepared or planned, by or on behalf of a foreign principal, and it is in the public interest to give one or more directions. Example of directions that can be issued include for a communicator to take down his content, for an Internet intermediary to take down the content and for an Internet intermediary to suspend or terminate the account. The person can also be arrested and prosecuted if an offence of clandestine foreign interference is made out. But under FICA, there is no detention without trial. Public interest is defined as including activities "directed towards a political end". This is taken from the Public Order Act to prohibit foreigners from organising or taking part in public assemblies directed towards such ends, and FICA applies this definition to the online space. The Executory Powers under FICA are more calibrated.”
“Any challenge will be heard by the ISA Tribunal, not by the High Court. And it is not public, unless the ISD decides to make it so. This applies equally, whether the subversion is done online or in the physical world. One of the pieces of misinformation that are being put out is that the Foreign Interference (Countermeasures) Act, or FICA, would now allow the Government to get any information and that this is a new power. Section 20 of CPC has been used all these years and it is in broad terms to get any information for investigations. When we talk about powers, the powers to detain, to investigate, I will refer to them as "Substantive Powers". The powers to enforce, like requiring the taking down of material, I will refer to them as "Executory Powers". There are several Executory Powers now available, including under the Broadcasting Act, which allow the Government to deal with objectionable content in the Internet space. It allows for directions to be issued to broadcasting licensees and for content to be taken down or blocked. The Telecommunications Act gives powers to allow for directions to be issued to telecommunications licensees in the public interest, including the stopping, delaying and censoring of messages. The Public Order Act allows the Government to regulate physical assemblies and processions. The Commissioner of Police may deny permits for such events that are "directed towards a political end" and involve foreign entities or individuals. So, the issues of what directions might call the "protest potential" are regulated in the physical world. Logically, similar rules should apply in the online space.”
“Members of Parliament are used to lengthy Bills, you understand the structure, you understand which are the key provisions, you understand the Explanatory Statement, you take a view and then you go through all the provisions again, look at the accompanying statements, infographics and get a better sense. As I have said, more than half of this Bill is based on PDA, which Members will or should be familiar with. The rest on HIC, and it is set out fairly comprehensively. I think the threat of foreign interference and its seriousness are not disputed by most people. Most people also agree that something needs to be done. So, this is the context in which we are moving this Bill. Before we go into the Bill, it is useful to first consider the current powers to deal with subversion. Today, assume a person X is suspected of being a foreign agent or acting for a foreign agency against Singapore's interests. Such a suspected foreign agent can be detained without trial under the Internal Security Act (ISA). Investigations can be conducted. Section 20 of the CPC allows the Police to ask anyone in Singapore, individuals as well as companies, for information. Not just under SA, under any legislation if there are investigations. Ask anyone in Singapore, individuals as well as companies for information and require them to produce any document or item for investigation. So, under current laws, suppose there is an online campaign and there is a basis to believe that this is foreign agency or entity-inspired and it is prejudicial to our national security, then investigations can be conducted under ISA. Information, including the writer's identity, will have to be made available under CPC. The writer and anyone else suspected of subversion can be detained.”
“There were Parliamentary Questions and answers that emphasised our vulnerability. The Select Committee recommended that measures be taken and we have said in Parliament that legislation will be considered and legislation will be necessary. I had made speeches in the Committee of Supply (COS) 2019 as well as COS this year, and made it clear that legislation was needed. You can also refer to my speech at a major international conference in September 2019, pages 26 and 27. I did, at that point, referenced Mr PJ Thum and Ms Han. I will come back to this, but I made it clear that legislation is going to be needed. That conference was held in Singapore on 25 September 2019, with 10 international and local speakers, experts. Prof Allan Rock, a former Canadian Cabinet Minister at that conference, noted that tools of interference were well-known: dissemination of false information, hacking and leaking. And he said governments have got to take this seriously and take counter measures that protect the electoral system and candidates, political parties and voters from information manipulation. This topic of foreign interference has been extensively covered in the media as well. That is set out in annex F(3). If you look at the headlines on some of them, it says, "Stronger laws planned to combat foreign interference" and "Singapore to have legislation to combat increased risk of foreign interference." Annex F(4) shows – and I am giving a small sample of extensive studies internationally – Brookings Institute, RAND Institute and the Council for Foreign Relations have all commissioned and published studies. So, this topic has been extensively discussed and debated for over three years. The other comments made: it is a very long Bill.”
“Dr Gulizar Haciyakupoglu gave testimony behind closed doors, because of the sensitivity, and said there were indicators of information warfare being practised against Singapore. Dr Liew Kai Khiun highlighted the barrage of comments by seemingly Myanmar-based user accounts on social media news portals of Singapore’s mainstream news networks. These were inflammatory, with Islamophobic tones, and incited backlash from Singaporean Muslims. Dr Michael Raska highlighted that foreign states could engage in information operations that target our fault lines as a means of asymmetric warfare, given Singapore’s traditional military strength. This is an important point that I will ask Members to take note of. I once heard our then Defence Minister, Dr Tony Tan, describe our defence strategy in the following terms. Singapore’s defence strategy is predicated on the superiority of our military in the region. Our conventional military strength has got to be clearly superior; and it is clearly superior. The Singapore Armed Forces (SAF) is very well-regarded both in the region and globally for its professionalism, technological edge and the interoperability of our systems – what Mr Lee Kuan Yew said, the vision of a "poisoned shrimp". But what that means, as Dr Raska pointed out, is that the Internet becomes a particularly attractive theatre for our adversaries who would seek to do us harm. I will ask Members of Parliament to register this point, in particular, because our conventional military superiority, ironically, means we become an even bigger target online. This topic was also quite extensively referenced in the Select Committee Report and discussed several times in Parliament. And if you look at annex F(2), that sets out the discussions that had taken place in Parliament.”