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 52 of 92.
“The number of incidents of rioting from 2010 to 2018 is as follows:”
“SCDF will further step up its efforts to educate users to adopt good fire safety habits in partnership with the Land Transport Authority.”
“Since 2016, there have been 230 fires involving electronic devices. Ninety-one percent of these involved personal mobility devices (PMDs), power-assisted bicycles (PABs) and personal mobility aids (PMAs). The remaining involved smaller devices, like power banks, mobile phones, laptops and tablets. Sixty-seven percent of the fires related to mobility devices occurred at Housing and Development Board (HDB) residential units. Six percent occurred at private residential units, and the remaining took place at non-residential premises, such as industrial and commercial buildings. Imposing regulations on how to charge batteries safely will be difficult, given the widespread use of electronic devices and the wide range of devices which would make any such regulations difficult to craft and enforce. Consumers should be aware, however, that the charging of electronic devices carries some inherent risks. We strongly encourage consumers to exercise vigilance when purchasing and charging electronic devices. They should buy from reputable sources and adhere to the safety advice on the charging of the devices. In particular, given the larger batteries in PMDs, PABs and PMAs, users should be especially careful when using and charging these devices. They should regularly inspect the batteries for signs of damage and corrosion and avoid leaving the devices being charged unattended for an extended period of time. I urge all users to refer to the Singapore Civil Defence Force (SCDF) website for best practices. Also, PMD users should switch to UL2272-compliant devices as soon as possible, as they meet higher safety standards. For example, they prevent overcharging by cutting off the power supply to the batteries once they are fully charged.”
“Under the law, drivers are personally liable for violating traffic rules. This is understandably so. Third parties, including employers, could be liable in specific situations, for example, if the employer got the employee to drive while under suspension. In addition, there are obligations on companies that own heavy vehicles. Heavy vehicle owners are required to ensure that the vehicles are fitted with speed limiters that prevent them from exceeding the speed limit of 60 kilometres per hour. If the speed limiter is absent, not in good working order, or tampered with, the owners could be charged under the Road Traffic Act. First-time offenders are liable for an imprisonment term of up to three months or a fine of up to $1,000.”
“The Government has always taken very firm action against individuals or groups who create racial disharmony. Under the Penal Code, it is an offence to commit acts that deliberately wound the racial feelings of any person, promote enmity among different racial groups, or conduct acts that are prejudicial to the maintenance of racial harmony. For example, in January this year, we charged a Chinese man under the Penal Code for deliberate intent to wound the racial feelings of the Malay population. The man had scrawled racist messages about Malays on walls in void decks and sheltered walkways in Geylang and Aljunied. This is not the only example. I will circulate to Members a list of cases involving racial and religious insult that occurred in the past five years. Where a person communicates a falsehood that is likely to incite feelings of enmity, hatred or ill-will among different groups of persons, he may be prosecuted. I will give an example. A few weeks ago, a number of persons made postings falsely alleging racial discrimination in security checks of public transport commuters. They are being investigated. Likewise, investigations are ongoing against persons relating to the rap video which attacks Chinese.”
“Mediation at the Community Mediation Centre (CMC) is generally a voluntary process. It is most effective when the disputing neighbours are willing to work together with the mediator to resolve their dispute. When one neighbour decides not to participate in the mediation process, or when the mediation is unsuccessful, a complainant may seek redress through the Community Disputes Resolution Tribunals (CDRT) as a measure of last resort. The CMC itself does not refer cases to CDRT, though it may advise certain complainants to do so. CDRT does not track data on whether neighbour disputes have been mediated at CMC before an application is made to CDRT. On the other hand, CDRT does refer claims to CMC for mandatory mediation, and has done so in 82 cases, or about 25% of the cases that have come before it so far. This accords with the approach that CDRT is meant to be an avenue of last resort and that neighbours should first attempt amicable resolution of any disputes that may arise by seeking assistance from public agencies, or grassroots or community leaders. A solution that is reached by mutual agreement of the parties is more likely to be sustained. CDRT has received a total of 324 applications between its establishment on 1 October 2015 and 30 June 2019. Orders were made in 94 of those applications. However, we do not track data on the specific number of orders that relate to damages, injunctions, specific performances or apologies.”
“The Singapore Civil Defence Force (SCDF) launched the Save-A-Life (SAL) initiative in August 2015. The initiative aims to increase the survival rate of Out-of-Hospital Cardiac Arrest (OHCA) victims by building a network of community first responders who are trained in performing cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) and in the operation of automated external defibrillators (AEDs) to respond to cardiac arrest cases in their immediate vicinity. Since the launch of SAL, more than 4,800 AEDs have been installed at the lift lobbies of Housing and Development Board blocks. More than 200,000 people have been trained to perform CPR and to operate AEDs. The SAL initiative has seen encouraging results. The bystander CPR rate, which is defined as the percentage of OHCA incidents where a bystander had performed CPR, increased from 50.7% in 2014 to 56.4% in 2016. The bystander AED usage rate has also increased, from 3.6% to 4.6% over the same period. These have contributed to the improvement in the OHCA survival rate from 4.1% in 2014 to 6.5% in 2016. We are working with the Ministry of Health (MOH) to get more recent data. In addition, the number of community first responders who responded to cardiac arrest cases via SCDF's myResponder mobile app increased from 214 in 2015 to 820 in 2017. SCDF will continue to work with MOH and the Singapore Heart Foundation to encourage more public and private establishments to install AEDs. Members of the public who are trained in CPR and AED skills are also encouraged to download the SCDF myResponder mobile app and register themselves as community first responders.”
“From 2009 to 2018, the Immigration and Checkpoints Authority received an average of about 8,600 applications each year for permanent residency (PR) from foreign spouses of Singapore Citizens. Of these applicants, an average of about 4,200 were granted PR each year. The average success rate was around 49%. Forty-five percent of the successful applicants were from Southeast Asian countries, another 45% were from other Asian countries, and the remainder were from non-Asian countries.”
“The median and average time from the final appellate Court decision to the date of execution is around one year, for executions in recent years. Each clemency petition is carefully considered on its own merits. There is no expressly stipulated timeline by which Cabinet's advice should be rendered to the President or by which the President's Office should reply to the petitioner. The Member asked about the timing of the notification of the clemency outcome and the notification of the execution date. It has been the procedure for a prisoner and his family to receive both the notification of the clemency outcome from the President's Office and the notification of the execution date from the Singapore Prison Service at the same time since 2016. Following a consideration of the Court of Appeal's decision in CA/CM 6/2019, we are reviewing the procedure, in particular, to notify the prisoner and the petitioner of the clemency outcome some time in advance of the notification of the execution date.”
“The Volunteer Special Constabulary (VSC) has about 1,000 officers. VSC officers perform frontline policing roles alongside regular officers and are required to serve a minimum of 16 hours each month. To prepare them, VSCs undergo six months of training. To create more opportunities for the public to volunteer with the Police, a new vocation under the VSC, known as the Volunteer Special Constabulary (Community) (VSCC), was launched on 13 April 2018. VSCC officers are deployed in the community to project Police presence in areas with high human traffic, among other roles. Compared to VSC officers, VSCC officers serve a lower minimum monthly commitment of eight hours and can be deployed after completing a shorter training of nine weeks. Today, we have more than 140 trained VSCC officers, and more are currently undergoing training. Recruitment for both VSC and VSCC is done on a regular basis. For example, recruitment roadshows are held regularly in the community, such as at community events, shopping malls and institutes of higher learning. Later this year, the Police will launch a volunteer recruitment publicity drive to create more awareness of the various volunteering opportunities.”
“The Police review all reports of fraudulent websites and fake social media accounts using Singapore Ministers’ names. Perpetrators who use Ministers' names to defraud victims, such as by inducing investment of money through fake endorsements by the Ministers, will be liable to be charged for cheating offences. If convicted, they may be punished with imprisonment of up to 10 years and also a fine. Those who operate fraudulent websites and fake accounts using Ministers' names to cause nuisance may be investigated under the Protection from Harassment Act. If convicted of an offence of intentionally causing harassment, alarm or distress, they may face imprisonment of up to six months, or a fine of up to S$5,000, or both. Some of the perpetrators had been identified and prosecuted. For example, in 2016, the Police successfully traced and charged the perpetrator who impersonated Senior Minister of State, Dr Koh Poh Koon, to promote online courses in his name. The perpetrator was convicted for an offence of attempted cheating by personation and fined $4,000. The Police work with other agencies, such as the Infocomm Media Development Authority, to direct Internet service providers in Singapore to disallow access to known fraudulent websites. The Police also work with social media platforms to remove fraudulent accounts from their online platforms. While the Member has only asked about the fraudulent use of Singapore Ministers' names, the Police also investigate other types of fraudulent conduct that are reported to them.”
“It is not mandatory for building owners, whether private or public entities, to install automated external defibrillators (AEDs) within their premises. We do not assess that there is a need to make it mandatory at this point in time. Many buildings in Singapore are already equipped with AEDs, such as schools, community centres, sports stadiums, bus interchanges, Mass Rapid Transit (MRT) stations, Singapore Armed Forces camps and Home Team facilities. Several commercial and office buildings have also installed AEDs. Under the Save-A-Life (SAL) initiative, the Singapore Civil Defence Force (SCDF) has installed AEDs at the lift lobbies of Housing and Development Board (HDB) blocks in all 89 constituencies, with one AED for every two HDB blocks. SCDF is looking to expand its SAL initiative beyond HDB estates to condominiums. SCDF is also working with the Ministry of Health (MOH) and the Singapore Heart Foundation (SHF) to encourage more public and private establishments to install AEDs and register their publicly-accessible AEDs with SHF, in order to build a national registry of publicly-accessible AEDs. SHF, in collaboration with SCDF and MOH, has also published on its website a set of best practice guidelines on the installation, registration and maintenance of AEDs.”
“Since the casinos started operations in 2010, the Commercial Affairs Department (CAD) has detected nine individuals who used criminal proceeds in the casinos. All nine individuals were prosecuted and convicted for money laundering offences. There is a robust framework to prevent money laundering in the casinos. The casino operators are required by the Casino Regulatory Authority to put safeguards in place, such as conducting customer due diligence and monitoring for suspicious transactions. In addition, we have tough penalties to deter money laundering. The Corruption, Drug Trafficking and Other Serious Crime (Confiscation of Benefits) Act criminalises the laundering of benefits derived from drug dealing and criminal conduct. Individuals convicted of money laundering offences are liable to a fine not exceeding S$500,000 and/or a term of imprisonment not exceeding 10 years.”
“The Ministry of Home Affairs (MHA) does not track the number of minors who tattoo themselves.1 It is not an offence. There is also no requirement for minors to seek parental consent. People may choose to tattoo themselves for reasons, such as beauty and fashion. While there may be others who do so to show their affiliation to unlawful gangs, Police have not observed any evidence to suggest that body tattoos lead individuals towards a life of crime. MHA does not see a need to regulate the tattoo industry for now.”
“In 2018, there were 501 road accidents involving cyclists. Of these, 10 accidents involved cyclists who cycled against the flow of traffic. Cyclists who ride against the flow of traffic are liable for the offence of riding other than in an orderly manner and without due regard for the safety of others. First-time offenders may be fined up to $1,000, imprisoned for up to three months, or both. Repeat offenders may be fined up to $2,000, imprisoned for up to six months, or both. To deter irresponsible riding, Traffic Police (TP) conducts enforcement operations in areas frequented by cyclists. To raise awareness on the importance of safe riding, TP and the Land Transport Authority (LTA) conduct public education initiatives. For example, LTA's "Safer Together" campaign, launched in February this year, reminds cyclists to abide by road traffic rules. In addition, TP conducts regular engagements with primary school students at the Road Safety Community Park. To encourage delivery riders to adopt safe riding practices, in 2018, the Workplace Safety and Health Council (WSH Council) developed the "Guide to Safe Riding", with TP's and LTA's support. The guide is publicly available, on WSH Council's website.”
“We do not track suicide attempts by their cause, for example, due to online influence. The causes are often complex and multifaceted. The Member also asked about the regulation of certain websites as a suicide prevention measure. Under the Broadcasting Act, the Info-Communications Media Development Authority (IMDA) has powers to direct Internet Content Providers to take down prohibited material, such as those which are objectionable on the grounds of public interest, public security or national harmony. IMDA can also direct Internet Service Providers to block access to websites that contain such prohibited material. These standards are defined in the Internet Code of Practice. That said, because of the nature of the Internet, it is neither possible nor practicable to block or remove every website with objectionable or harmful content. Public education on the responsible and safe use of the Internet is the better approach. For example, our schools conduct cyber wellness lessons for students from primary to junior college levels. Students learn to be respectful and responsible users of social media and the Internet, and to identify and avoid inappropriate online content. Community organisations, such as Fei Yue Community Services and Touch Community Services, also promote cyber wellness for youths. The Media Literacy Council educates online users on how to deal with the undesirable effects of social media. Government agencies and stakeholders in the social sector also work together to prevent suicides upstream, including encouraging those at risk to seek help and supporting them.”
“Ongoing public education efforts have helped to raise awareness, and motorists are generally cooperative.”
“During rush hours, the median response time for an emergency ambulance to arrive at the incident location is about seven minutes. The median time taken to travel from the incident location to the nearest hospital is about nine minutes. We use the median rather than the average response time as an indicator of performance, as the average response time will be skewed by outliers. The Singapore Civil Defence Force's (SCDF's) target is to be able to respond to 80% of all emergency medical calls within 11 minutes, regardless of the time of day. This is the time taken by the emergency ambulance to arrive at the incident location. In 2018, SCDF responded to 91% of emergency medical calls within 11 minutes. Like operators of emergency ambulance services in other countries, SCDF does not set a target for the time taken for the ambulance to reach the hospital. The ambulance crew, led by a paramedic, will provide the necessary care to the patients on the way to the hospital. Nonetheless, SCDF strives to reach the nearest hospital in the shortest time possible. Since 1 December 2017, SCDF ambulances are legally allowed to run red lights and make U-turns at non-designated junctions when responding to life-threatening emergencies, provided it is safe to do so. This was further extended to other SCDF emergency vehicles on 1 June 2019. In addition, SCDF is collaborating with the Land Transport Authority to implement a traffic priority system in the vicinity of hospitals. The traffic priority system will provide right of way for ambulances conveying critical cases, enabling them to arrive faster at the hospitals. Road users also play a crucial role to reduce response times by giving way to ambulances and other emergency vehicles.”
“Lawyers also have a responsibility to maintain the confidentiality of client information, and the management of each law practice has a statutory obligation to ensure that their law practice has adequate systems to comply with client confidentiality requirements in written law and any applicable practice directions, guidance notes and rulings issued by the Law Society or its Council or the Professional Conduct Council.2 To help law practices, the Law Society publishes various Practice Management Guides,3 Guidance Notes4 and Advisories5 on its website on matters, such as security risks to a law practice's IT system, cloud computing and email security. Separately, the International Bar Association has also published a set of Cyber Security Guidelines on its website.6 The Personal Data Protection Commission and Cyber Security Agency of Singapore have also issued guides to assist organisations to secure personal data and manage data breaches. Lawyers should take guidance from these publications and apply them as appropriate to their own practices. At the same time, clients must also exercise personal vigilance and due care to ensure that they do not fall prey to such scams. Members of the public should scrutinise email addresses, links and attachments carefully in their correspondence and, where appropriate, take additional steps to cross-check instructions, especially payment instructions, with their lawyers. Victims of such scams should file a report with the Police.”
“The recent reports in the media of scammers impersonating conveyancing lawyers, involved hackers targeting the clients' email accounts, rather than the systems or email accounts of the law practices or lawyers in question. The scammers then sent emails with payment instructions which differed from what the lawyers had earlier told their clients. Unfortunately, these victims then proceeded to carry out these payments, with one of them doing so, even though their lawyer clarified that no such instruction had been given by the law firm. Following these incidents, the Law Society of Singapore has taken steps to highlight the need for careful scrutiny of payment instructions or requests. The Law Society maintains a section on their website with information on email scams targeting lawyers.1 It has also released two advisories to lawyers and conducted a media conference in relation to the recent scams, highlighting steps which lawyers can take to keep themselves, their law practices and their clients safe. Law practices, as with any other business, are ultimately responsible for their own information technology (IT) processes, data protection and cybersecurity. All private sector organisations, including law practices, are also subject to requirements under the Personal Data Protection Act, which imposes on them obligations to protect personal data. In addition, they are supported by a regulatory framework under the Legal Profession Act, to protect clients and guide law practices in best practices within this framework.”
“There were about 250 reported cases of serious sexual crimes, that is, rape and sexual assault by penetration, a year for the period of 2014 to 2018. No further action was taken in about 130 of the cases as no offence was made out after investigations. In about another 10 cases, the Police charged or warned the complainants for making false reports. Of the remaining 110 cases, about 50 cases were prosecuted in Court per year. About 60 cases resulted in warnings in lieu of prosecution. On average, the Police require about 12 months to conclude investigations into such crimes. However, the actual length may differ from case to case depending on their complexity.”
“I would suggest that I really think I have given the best clarification I can, Sir. 9.54 pm”
“Let me try and understand this question: POFMA will not prevent the incumbent party from spreading falsehoods. Well, POFMA deals with falsehoods which are affecting institutions. So, if the falsehoods affect the PAP or the WP, that does not come within POFMA, regardless of who spreads them. You may be "POHAed" but not "POFMAed".”
“I repeat, one amendment to the legislation in Parliament would be necessary to bring us to the same position that we are under the Bill, and that one amendment is on territoriality, to extend it to people outside. And I do not think anyone here has a problem with that amendment. So, when I say this and I said it yesterday, I said it advisedly. But in order to explain it to Members, I also then went into some detail as to how it could have been done. If the Member wants, I could send him a copy of my speech as to how the BA could have been with subsidiary legislation and the class licensing and so on could have applied to all of these people while remaining much broader in scope, and while the judicial review or the judicial oversight is more restricted. If what this Government really wanted was just to amass powers, why do we put up a legislation for debate that gives the Courts greater oversight? Ask yourself that. If we had come to Parliament and said, "We now want to extend the BA to extraterritoriality", how much debate do you think there would have been? And then, that is subsidiary legislation. You could ask us questions, and we would explain this is the Act and we are doing subsidiary legislation to extend. Why are we reducing our powers in that sense and allow, saying the Courts should have greater oversight? Precisely for the points that some of you made. It is not just this Government, it is the future governments. It is a system; it is an institution. So, we want to set in place more judicial oversight as these powers get exercised, but that does not mean that the powers are being expanded. Powers are actually being narrowed. Mr Pritam Singh said sharper, but they are narrowed.”
“So, that’s the first answer. That is why I keep emphasising that the argument does not seem to have engaged, because, Mr Perera, you and your colleagues talk about it as if the Ministers decide and that is the end of the matter. But I keep emphasising that there is a sword hanging over with the Courts, and if we get it wrong, we will be publicly embarrassed. And we have deliberately made the test lower as in, it is an appeal rather than a judicial review. So, the Ministers put their personal reputations at stake every single time a decision is made. It is a very high onus. Second, what recourse does one have if the Government is the originator of fake news? I have dealt with it fairly extensively in my round-up speech; I am not going to repeat it again. Sir, third, the penalties. Mr Leon Perera said compared with section 45 of the TA, the definition is actually broader because it is misleading. Here the Bill, it is both misleading and false. I explained it just now, misleading but it must come back to being false. The second point is, I consider it to be narrower because of the intention. You have two things to prove in terms of intention, not just the misleading falsehood part, but also public interest. In the TA, the knowledge of harm to public interest is not necessary. So, there are two mens rea requirements under the Bill, as opposed to one mens rea requirement under the TA. The Member then said BA, non-licensees, closed platform groups and all these are not covered. I think he missed my speech. I explained it in some careful detail yesterday how the current BA can, through class licensing scheme and through subsidiary legislation, be made to apply to all.”
“The first point on falsehoods and public interest, that an investigative journalist is prevented from publishing something that is embarrassing. I think I would say this: it could be embarrassing, it may not be embarrassing. All those are subsidiary factors. The primary factors, as far as the Bill is concerned is, it has got to be false, and it has got to be of public interest. It could additionally be embarrassing, but that is an irrelevant consideration. The Member's point, I think really, if I understand it, is, it may not be false, and it may not be of public interest, but because it is embarrassing, a Minister tries to stop it. I think that is the point the Member really makes. Let us follow that example through. A journalist is stopped. Now, a journalist can go to Court and say, "Why am I being stopped? What is false?" because the Minister's Direction has got to set out what is false. On the face of it, you can tell whether it is credible or not credible. If on the face of it, it is not false, you think the journalist will keep quiet? An investigative journalist? He will go to Court. I have said in nine days, you can be in Court. And the Minister will suffer greater embarrassment. You know why? Because not only did he try to suppress something embarrassing, but now he would be shown to have used and abused his powers and overruled by a Court. So, double blow. It is far worse for a Minister to do that. It is very serious. Not many Ministers in many countries will survive that kind of action. If a Minister had tried to suppress and the Court says this was neither in the public interest, nor was it false, I think not many Ministers will survive that, particularly if it comes out that it was for an extraneous purpose. And judicial review is available as well.”
“For the rest of POHA, there is no question that the Government could have relied upon — As I have said, it is absurd to suggest that the Government could be harassed. Legally, it does not make any sense, if I could say that. And I note the Member's points on the Contempt Act.”
“I thank the Member for raising the points. The third point is easily answered. Proportionality relates to the kind of remedies that might be directed like takedowns or corrections, and it would be judicial review. Appeal is just on a question of fact or falsehood. And it is a straight appeal. So, the Court can look and substitute its view for that of the Minister; that is what I meant by straight appeal. So, proportionality is more the traditional exercise of government powers; and that would be judicial review. So, thank you for asking for that clarification. The other point that Ms Sylvia Lim made, in terms of section 15, I have not looked at the Court of Appeal judgment recently or the Hansard, but based on memory, what I had said in Parliament is, the word "persons" in POHA must be interpreted in accordance with the Interpretation Act. That is, I think, on the record and that is what we stand by. If you go to the Interpretation Act, it sets out how "persons" are defined. So, the Court of Appeal had to look at the context of the Act and look at who it applied to. And it took a different interpretation from what I had thought was correct, or what we had intended. But that is the Court and we are bound by the Court. They did go through the Hansard and they applied the Interpretation Act, but they looked at it and they said "persons", applying it here, does not include corporate entities. So, okay, if that is their view. But it is not as if we misled Parliament. We said Interpretation Act. It has got to be decided in accordance with the Interpretation Act, and they decided according to the Interpretation Act, except that they took a different view from us. And we stick by that. But that is only for section 15.”
“Two things. Assoc Prof Theseira, I thought you were my friend. I really do not want more work. I have enough as it is. The second point is, you can have false opinions. Your opinions could be wrong, your opinions could be false, but that is not covered by the Bill. But I have no doubt that any Minister who wants to exercise his powers under the Bill when it becomes an Act and if Parliament agrees, will have to be very careful, because, while I have not gone into it in great detail, it is primarily something that might be used against tech companies and platforms. It does not make sense to use it against individuals. You think the tech companies would not challenge? So, when the challenge comes, the Minister will have to justify and it is going to be something that Ministers would have to think carefully about, take proper advice and act only when it is really something that he can stand on. That is why we have not sought to, as I said yesterday, over-egg the pudding in terms of trying to define "fact" and what is not fact. We have relied on existing jurisprudence and leave it to the Courts, if necessary.”
“Firstly, on coffee shop and new media, I was not taking issue. I said the Member's reference to coffee shop triggered in my memory a previous reference to "coffee shop". Secondly, I do not really want to debate the ISA but it is fundamentally different, and you cannot go to Court on the ISA. Third, on facts, I accept in good faith that Mr Low has some lack of clarity on what are facts and opinions. But then, he has got to rely on the law and what the Courts have said. So, I think we can leave it at that.”
“Yes. On the first point, Mr Singh, I think we understand each other. You said it is "sharpened", I explained why everything that we want to do under the Bill can be done under existing legislation and subsidiary legislation, save for the point on territoriality. This is something that you can look at the Bill and the current legislation and work out. It is not a matter of, I think, opinion. So, I will just leave it at that. On the freedom of information, I do not think we want to go into a lengthy debate. I answered because two Members of Parliament, maybe more than two, raised it as fairly substantive points. I suppose one example that you highlighted is the Member of Parliament's expenses' scandal. The main point I made is that Parliament is the representative. So, I can understand why maybe they did not raise that issue themselves because it is related to themselves. But I assume on every other issue, Parliament is in a position to raise and, thankfully in Singapore, you know, we do not do any special favours for Members of Parliament. India has got an FOI. I think Mr Singh would have followed the news as to how much fake news is in vogue, particularly in the current period.”
“Okay, I have no problem. We can do it at some other point in time.”
“Nineteen-ninety-eight. So, you were in Parliament, Mr Low Thia Khiang. So, really, I think it is good for us to have the debate. Really, I was hoping yesterday and I had made this point in a very deliberate way that there is no profit of any sort, including political profit, in trying to allow these lies to proliferate and damage our infrastructure of fact. It will damage the institutions and, frankly, no mainstream political party will benefit from this. It will damage any party that wants to consider itself mainstream and credible. Everyone will be damaged. You have seen what happens in the US, you have seen what happens to the UK. The centre gets hollowed out. It is the extremes that benefit. And it is not a political exercise. It is an exercise to maintain our society and the values and have a set of honest debates on what should be the way forward – honest debates on social policy, honest debates on economic policy, honest debates on how we should structure society. But it should be based on a foundation of truth, foundation of honour and foundation where we keep out the lies. That is what this is about. This is not about the WP or the PAP. Today, it is about Singapore. Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, that ends my answers to the questions in the response speech and, with the support of the House, I beg to move. [Applause.]”
“The PAP introduces this amendment Bill just as the people of Singapore are beginning to avail themselves of some different views and comments from SCV. The Government has been telling the people of Singapore that our information is open. Our people tune in to foreign TV programmes through SCV. However, after this Bill is passed, if Singapore Cable Vision (SCV) is to telecast any programme that contains unfavourable comments on the PAP which are considered to be biased and the office in charge is accordingly found to be guilty of an offence, then is this what the PAP Government means by saying our information is open?" It has been many years. Telecast of critical programmes continues unaffected. Has there been any rampant prosecution of SCV officers? I leave Members to judge for themselves and, if I have gotten the dates wrong, I apologise. An hon Member: 1998.”
“"Kong see mi". Thank you. Mr Leon Perera, not to be outdone, "The result for our democracy from the passage of this Bill and the attendant publicity could well be that no one who does not have $100,000 in cash to spare will dare to speak up about any issue where there is even the slightest risk or perceived risk of prosecution under this law." Earlier, I referred to Mr Low Thia Khiang and his references to the ISA when speaking on the AOJP as well. With the passage of the years, it can be seen, all of these statements were quite unconnected with reality and quite extreme. Meanwhile, the standing of our Judiciary has been going up. Lawyers, including Mr Dennis Tan, make money partly because of the good standing of our Judiciary which was sought to be protected by that Bill. Mr Leon Perera also said, by reference to other countries, "Why are we taking a tighter approach when they are going the other way?" I would say, in the last three years, would he have preferred the trajectory of the UK versus our trajectory, whether in the Courts or in general? I think there comes a time – we were a colony of the UK – but there comes a time when we have to learn to think for ourselves what is good for us and stop being colonised in our minds. Let me refer to another piece of legislation. The Films Act was amended in 1988. The year 1988 does not sound right because I am not sure Mr Low Thia Khiang was in Parliament in 1988. Probably not. So, I will say this but maybe I will have to change the date. The year 1998, is it? I do not know. I quote: "...Bill further deprives the Opposition of their right to make use of other media to reach out to the people in order to express their views on the nation, society and the Government.”
“On the AOJPA, Ms Sylvia Lim said, and I quote, "Such a spectacle if applied to this Bill will clearly have a chilling effect on public discourse. Are we not using a sledgehammer to kill an ant? It would be intimidating not just to persons on the receiving end of such investigations but to society at large. The upshot of reducing the role of the Courts and vesting draconian powers in the Executive...", none of that is true, by the way, "...is to leave Singaporeans at the mercy of administrative discretion. We would be one step closer to being a police state". That was in 2016, very extreme words. Since 2016, I ask Members, have Singaporeans been suffering at the mercy of an administrative discretion? Are we living in a quasi-police state? What happened in 2016? AOJPA largely codified existing law, introduced procedural changes which were necessary and classified how offences were to be investigated. Assoc Prof Daniel Goh, not to be outdone, I quote, "As an ordinary person who relies on the law to protect my family, I find this proposed law cast too large and a fearful shadow on the whole of Singapore and diminishes my sense of security for my family. Reading this Bill as an ordinary person sends a chill down my spine". In the last three years, fearful shadow over the whole of Singapore, chill down his spine every day as he goes to NUS, despite my clarification that before and after the Bill the law was largely the same.”
“So, that is why I said I do not know which Bill you are referring to, and whether you are interested in dealing substantively with the Bill we are dealing with, with a proper debate, or just came with a prepared speech which has no relevance to the debate. And I would suggest that the hon Member stop misquoting what I said in the CNA interview. The point is simply this: every time you elect the government, you vest them with a whole lot of powers, including the power to declare war in extremis. How they should use their powers is not something I can vouch for. What a future government will do with that power is not something I can vouch for. I can only say we look at these problems, we need this legislation in place, and we have to deal with them, just like we deal with a whole variety of issues, just like all the other legislation that we have. Any legislation, any legislative power, any government in place for five years can abuse. It is a commonsensical point. The rest of the WP Members' speeches repeat the points about chilling effect, it conflates opinion with facts, overlooks having a correction does not necessarily mean the original post is censored and the author can continue to post and give new viewpoints. Really none of them bothered to deal with the current position and the important points I have made. Listening to the speeches, one phrase struck me – Mr Leon Perera and his reference to "industrial freezer". It is not free speech which will go into deep freeze. It strikes me that some stock phrases are kept in deep freeze by Mr Perera and his colleagues and brought out of the chiller once in a while and dutifully repeated. Let me explain. Let me explain what has been said previously.”
“First of all, they do not deal with the point that the Bill is narrower in powers. Secondly, they do not deal with the fact that there is greater judicial oversight. They pivot very quickly to the broad points on free speech and that, with respect, overlooks completely the point that what we are talking about is falsehoods, turbo-charged by bots, trolls, fake accounts. So, unfortunately, this debate, for all the rhetoric, there has been no engagement on the key issues on why there should be free speech in this area. What speech are you protecting? Why are these things entitled to free speech? The real point is not the speeches about the importance of free speech – which no one can argue about – but whether we should act immediately to stop the flow of falsehoods and then be subject to the Court, or whether it should go to Court first. That, in essence, is the only difference and I have dealt with that earlier. It comes down, after these two days, to that one difference, really. Mr Png Eng Huat's speech, I listened, and I was a little bit astonished as to whether he had read the same Bill that I have. He starts with the "big brother" government; it gives "big brother" government considerable latitude to silence the common man; catches opinions, comment. Really? You have been listening to the debate, you have read the statements. This Bill covers opinions and comments? I think you did not want the Bill and its provisions to interfere with the flow of the rhetoric. And you also referred to what happens during elections. My colleague Minister Iswaran has pointed out that, during elections, the powers are exercised by civil servants, not Ministers.”
“You expressed a lot of concern that, well, pushing this down may not be useful. Leave that to the judgement of the people who want to push it down. You may not agree with it philosophically but that is not a point of principle. The point of principle is that it is a falsehood that needs to be clarified. If we believe it is necessary, then the next question is proportionality and the Courts, if necessary. We are not seeking to force down orthodoxy. I think we are debating at two different levels. No one is talking about forcing orthodoxies. We are talking about whether Mr Nicholas Lim's father was influential. That is not a question of orthodoxy; it is a question of fact. You bring in arguments of public health – how do they apply? I repeat myself – is it true, is it false, is it an opinion? Assoc Prof Daniel Goh also suggested there is no need for speed. I suggest he reads the SC Report. It may not look urgent but if it sinks in, that is difficult to dislodge. So, even when it does not look urgent, you know the virality of falsehoods. They spread. You need to intervene quickly to break the virality because the people who read the falsehoods may not necessarily read the corrections or the clarifications. We have seen this happen over and over again. There is a well-known saying, and I quote, "A lie can travel halfway around the world while the truth is still putting on its shoes". That is the difference between truth and falsehoods. That is why you need to intervene quickly. Senior Minister of State Edwin Tong spoke yesterday about the different universes that saw the truth and falsehoods on the Macron campaign. The SC Report is full of that. All the WP Members pivot in their speech very quickly.”
“Assoc Prof Daniel Goh gave two examples, of CPF and Mr Nicholas Lim. He said the corrections have helped; he asserted it. Does he know for a fact that the corrections have helped completely cure the original falsehoods? Does he know how many people continue to believe the falsehoods without knowledge of the clarifications? I showed how falsehoods sink in. The SC Report sets that out. My speech yesterday set it out. People who believe in the falsehoods exist in different universes from people who read the clarifications. If everyone was like you, Assoc Prof Goh, we would not need a lot of the laws we have in Singapore. We would have no problems. But unfortunately, there are people – well-meaning people, highly educated people – who do not keep up with current affairs to the level that you do. They read what comes to them. You cannot blame them; people lead busy lives. They read what they get. I had explained yesterday, the SC Report goes into some considerable detail – heuristic tendencies, shortcuts, depends on who you get it from, how authentic the source looks, and nowadays things can be made to look very authentic. It looks as if it is from CNN, Washington Post. I gave you examples like New York Times and Washington Post who were themselves misled and published some fake stories as real. Assoc Prof Daniel Goh did not explain what is the problem with carrying the clarifications. What is the problem? Helps transparency rather than putting in terms of Armageddon. Clause 4(f) he referred to. I gave a lot of examples yesterday. Clause 4(f), he said, is very wide. But in the first place, you got to show that it was a falsehood. And if it is a falsehood, 4(f) is the second gate. Why do you want to protect falsehoods? What do you stand to gain by protecting falsehoods?”
“If you apply the WP's proposal of the Courts first, you cannot be sure that you can act speedily. You will have to bring a person to Court every single time, and that is even without considering other issues. I have said foreign agents. Who do you sue? How long will it take to find the originator? How do you serve? Supposing you have rules which deal with parties and service, and ex parte and inter partes hearing, and when you look for the originator and when you do not, it gets very complex. Are you sure that it can be done within a matter of hours? No real explanation from the WP on an important point. In both approaches, the Court is involved. It is not as if the Court is ousted in one approach. In the Government's approach, you get certainty of speed. The respondent can decide if he wants to go to Court. In your proposal, the respondent has no choice – can become a very complicated exercise, taking time, even if we resource the Courts in such a way that there is a judge on standby all the time. These issues are not academic. So, how is your proposal better than what the Government has proposed? Assoc Prof Daniel Goh made the point about fact and opinion. He said Ministers make the decision but, not accustomed to applying jurisprudence, would they all come and consult me? So, how are they going to act? Ministers make their decisions, Ministries make their decisions based on the law and there is maybe advice by inhouse counsel, which there are in some Ministries, and by AGC, where necessary. It all depends on the speed with which they have to act. They have to weigh the importance of acting immediately, the amount of advice they need, and they will be advised by their civil servants. If they get it wrong, they get overruled by the Court. So, what is the issue?”
“Why am I showing this? What happened then? What Mr Lee said is very relevant here and was in many ways an inspiration for the central thinking. When people say things which are false and hide, what is the best remedy? You shine a powerful light, the light of truth, to show up the falsehoods. The lies will be shown up. People then can decide for themselves what is true and what is false. Why is the WP against that? Is that not a good thing to have? Surely, you do not want these people who put out falsehoods to hide and mislead others. So, you want to shine a powerful light. That power already exists and broader powers exist now. I explained why we are putting up this Bill. It is primarily to shine a light on the various falsehoods that circulate so that people can understand the truth, so that the infrastructure of fact would be powerful, so that democracy itself is protected. Let me move to a different point. I thank Mr Pritam Singh for his clarifications on Recommendation 12 and where they stand. I think that has got to be read together with Mr Leon Perera's clarifications. In essence, as I read the speeches, the main point of difference with the Government appears to be that we agree it is a problem, we agree it is serious, we agree legislation is necessary. In fact, I do not even think there is much disagreement on the provisions but in terms of sequence – let the Court decide first instead of the Minister, whereas the Government's position is Ministers decide, subject to an appeal which will be quick. What the Government has proposed achieves the objective, subjects the Government to oversight, strikes the right balance and, in fact, is a narrowing of the powers from what they are today.”
“I think the opponents were shouting, disrupting when he was speaking, but they did so while remaining in the dark. They wanted to disrupt and engage in rowdyism but did not themselves want to be seen. Mr Deputy Speaker, with your permission, can I show the video, please?”
“So, each time the Government wants to do something, somebody has to be sued whether or not the person wants to go to Court. People, they put up a falsehood, maybe they did not really, after getting the notice, they just want to accept it, they really do not want the fuss of having to go to Court, but you will require them to be sued and brought to Court, every single time. That is the difference between your proposal and the Government's proposal. The Government's proposal – we intervene, we ask for clarifications. In some cases, we ask for a takedown. The person who is on the other end will decide, "Am I going to challenge?" And he knows he has got three days free in Court, he knows that on the issue of falsehoods, he does not even need a lawyer, so it is very low cost and he has got to decide. If he wants to challenge, he can challenge. If he does not want to challenge, he does not have to challenge. Which is better for the citizen do you think? So, how does your proposal make sense if your true objection is, well, you know, people are reluctant to go to Court? Then you should be supporting the Government's position. Leave it to the people who want to go to Court. And do you know we are talking theory here? I told Members yesterday a large number of these people would not be found. Quite a few might be overseas. They might be foreign state actors. They might be people working with foreign state actors. There are a variety of people. So, it is more sensible, what we are proposing. Let me share something with Mr Low Thia Khiang which will explain what we are really doing. Something that Mr Lee Kuan Yew said a very long time ago. He was making a speech in 1963 in the days when Barisan was active.”
“Mr Pritam Singh asked me, does this Bill apply to corporates? And I said, the Interpretation Act will apply. So, Interpretation Act has got to apply and, depending on the context, it can apply to corporates or it may not apply to corporates. Obviously, when it comes to harassment, it cannot apply to the Government. But when it comes to statements, our view was that it can apply to the Government. So, harassment, stalking, would be sections 3 to 7 of POHA as it existed, and section 15, the Government believes applied to the Government but not any of the other provisions. And the Government has never sought to rely on any of the other provisions. But on section 15, in the Court of Appeal, two Judges thought that it did not cover the Government, the Chief Justice thought that it did, and the Government accepted that view. It is public, it is transparent, this is rule of law. We intended and we believed, but if the Court disagrees with us, we just accept it. That is that. But we have never suggested or tried to rely on any of the harassment provisions. Nor can we. It would be absurd for us to try and rely on the harassment provisions. On taking people to Court, Mr Low Thia Khiang and Mr Pritam Singh said Ministers can make decisions but how often will people take Ministers to Court? The first point, I said orders are, as a matter of looking at the framework, likely to be made primarily against tech companies. They certainly can challenge the Government. The second point, there is a very serious logical fallacy at the heart of this point. And what is that? The point that both of you make is that people do not want to go to Court. But what you are proposing will require people to go to Court in every single case because you want the Government to sue them.”
“Or to say that older Singaporeans are unable to accept a non-Chinese Prime Minister would be covered and can be used selectively by the Government to target statements by the Government's opponents. I say to Mr Low, come on, you must know, everybody here knows, none of these are covered by the Bill. So, let us have a debate that deals with the terms of the Bill. Let us not try and get people misled by using examples which have nothing to do with the Bill. These are all comments, even under the Telecoms Act which was in existence all this while. But there is one statement which Mr Low made which is inaccurate and seriously inaccurate. He said on POHA, and I quote, "When POHA was passed in Parliament, the original purpose was only to protect individuals. But a few years ago, the Government then tried to include Government agencies as one of the groups protected by this Act." That is, on its face, not correct. And it is most unfair. It really should not have been made without basis. Mr Low is not a lawyer, so maybe please bear with me. POHA has got, primarily, provisions on harassment, people getting harassed. Mr Low, sit back and think about it. How can the Government be harassed in the context of POHA? How is it possible for the Government to be harassed? And the Government has never claimed that it can be harassed, nor has it brought a single action on the basis of it being harassed. If we had tried it, we would have been laughed out of Court. There was a subsequent exchange between the Law Ministry and the WP where we said harassment provisions cannot apply to the Government. But POHA, the Act, also contains section 15, which does not have anything to do with harassment. It has got to do with statements and refers to statements and persons.”
“But he was unable to explain how, why the Bill changed the law, as Mr Low claimed. There were other clauses where there was a change and I explained in that long debate what the changes were and where it was the same. Likewise, in this Bill, I have explained why the Bill is narrower. No response. As I had said during AOJPA, how does a person sitting in a coffee shop in Hougang, saying that something is wrong in the Courts, how does that statement impact on either the Judge, the witnesses or the proceedings? I mean, it is commonsense. You are trying to frighten people unnecessarily saying that people in coffee shops now cannot talk after AOJPA was passed. And they cannot sit there and have their coffee and talk about Court cases. I said that is completely inaccurate. It has been three years since then. Coffee shops, I think, have grown louder since then. I do not think it has prevented talk. So, after all that talk of chill and fear, I can tell you coffee shops in Yishun do not even think of AOJPA. And I am sure it is the same in Hougang and Aljunied and everywhere else in Singapore. Quite vibrant and we want it to be so. So, what Mr Low says about this Bill amassing power is not quite right and Mr Low must know that. Just as he would have known that what he said about the AOJPA actually was not accurate. So, what is the purpose of saying this? Because people listening to Mr Low might be misled? Let me move on to the Pioneer Generation Package (PGP) and Merdeka Generation Package (MGP). He said that if one says the Government introduced the PGP and MGP to buy votes, that may be covered by the Bill.”
“He has been in the House for almost as long as me and perhaps we both immediately think in terms of coffee shops, which is, of course, a key node of local community and talk. So, I think it will be useful to look at what he had said previously. I think he will remember three years ago, the debate on the Administration of Justice (Protection) Act (AOJPA) Bill in this House. Mr Low said, "This Bill" – referring to that Bill – "covers talk at coffee shops, makes the Government the sole decision-maker of public interest. Elements are similar to the Internal Security Act (ISA)"; all actually completely inaccurate. He said, and I quote, "I stand by what I say, based on my understanding of the effect and implication of the Bill if passed. For instance, there is a definition of publication and according to clause 2 of the Bill, a person is said to have published something when he communicates even orally or even if it is just one member of the public, so that I think it applies to people who talk, discuss at coffee shops." And then he said, "Madam, what I am most uncomfortable with is clause 3(4) of the Bill that gives the Government the right to make statements and allows the Government to become the sole interpreter and decision-maker of what constitutes public interest. And this, I smell a similar element in the ISA." My response at that time, I said this is a strange case. A Minister for Law who puts up the Bill after extensive consultation with the Courts, I kept saying ad nauseam that the law was the same as before it was – common law – and it is intended to be the same on those clauses that you referred to. And Mr Low disagreed with me. He said the law is different in respect of the clauses that you referred to.”
“And they can complain in public and the person can go to Court and the Minister will have to defend himself in Court. So, nothing has been chopped off. Even takedown, the same process, even if there is a takedown. And, of course, proportionality has to be shown as to why it is a takedown, as opposed to corrections. The true analogy is this. It is like shining a torchlight, a flood light, on falsehoods. The Minister is given the torchlight to shine. The person who is upset can decide to go to Court and nobody's head is chopped off, nobody's hands are chopped off. It is shining a torchlight. What is the problem when we ask for transparency – I mean, it is one of the key tenets of the WP – is this not transparency? You put up an article, the Government says this is not correct, you carry a correction, let your readers judge. What is the problem? The more transparency, the better. I would say a First-World Parliament should deal with the evidence and facts. If the Bill is narrower and there is greater judicial oversight, the crucial question that has been side-stepped by every single one of the WP Members of Parliament is: how does it then create a greater chilling effect? How does it create more fear? Why? It is the elephant in the room that nobody has answered. Two days of rhetoric. Mr Low Thia Khiang says this Bill is going to have a chilling effect and he makes a passing reference to a coffee shop – I do not think he meant it in this context – he said speech is no longer confined to coffee shops. That immediately reminded me of another speech by Mr Low. Mr Low is senior to me. I have a great deal of respect for him, in particular, his political skills.”
“I am reminded by Senior Minister Teo that if you mislead Parliament, you will have to resign. There are serious processes available to haul up anyone who misleads Parliament – Member of Parliament or Minister. And certainly, on this side of the House, anyone who misleads Parliament will be made to resign. Let me move on to some things that Mr Low Thia Khiang has said. I think it is equally important to see what he did not say. We face a serious problem. The report sets out the problem and it made recommendations. The Government and Parliament have spent the last 18 months considering the problem. The Green Paper was in early January. Mr Low Thia Khiang, I think, first does not disagree that this is a serious problem. Two, I set out how the powers in the Bill are narrower and there is more judicial oversight. I did not hear him disagree with that either. Nevertheless, he says the Government will amass more powers under the Bill. I will say, "How so?" It is directly contrary to what I have said and contrary to what he seems to accept, that the powers under the Bill are narrower. He knows also that the current powers are quite broad. In fact, he said today, the Government can shut down Facebook. So, he knows the current powers are very broad. He has also suggested that making an order under the Bill is like chopping off a head first and then reporting to the Emperor. It is typical of Mr Low Thia Khiang, it is very colourful. But, in this case, quite inaccurate. Let me explain. There is an original article, a correction is carried. The article stays in full. It could still be there. The head on the shoulders continues to be there. Even the hands are there, they are not cut off. And the hands can be on the computer to continue to type.”