Rahayu Mahzam
Singapore
“We engage the insurance providers quite regularly, but we are very mindful about where we intervene, especially because they need to be competitive and there is a commercial dimension to it, which we feel that we should respect. So, how we intervene is via the conditions that are put in place vis-a-vis the consumers.”
“So, that is not something they can worry about. There is already the S+3M framework that is already in place, so we know that MediShield Life is one, they have their MediSave and if all else fails, there is MediFund.”
“Should there be disputes over specific claims, policyholders can take it to the Financial Industry Disputes Resolution Centre (FIDReC), an independent and impartial institution that assists with insurance-related disputes.”
“It is just a symptom, so the underlying cost pressures still need to be addressed. The description that we had put earlier in the past is that it is a knot that we need to untangle; and that is something we are doing with a multi-pronged, with engagements with different parties and stakeholders.”
“I appreciate the Member's feedback. As I said earlier, this is something that we will continue to consider. But we do also have to appreciate that the information that we get is live, in terms of waiting times and all that.”
“But I do take the point and we are actually reviewing to see what is a meaningful way to put out this information so that the public can understand, so that we can all track properly whether the good health outcomes are a result of the efforts that we are making. I will take the feedback back and we will continue to review this.”
The complete record
Every one of 1,289 lines we hold for Rahayu Mahzam, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 2 of 26.
“Thank you, Speaker. Yes, indeed, there is a large body of international evidence showing that flavoured tobacco products increase smoking initiation, particularly amongst youths. Because, as the Member had mentioned earlier, the flavours, like menthol or fruit, are used to mask the harsh tobacco flavour and this actually increases its appeal to the youths. He also mentioned about The Straits Times report, it is still fairly accurate that menthol cigarettes take up almost half of Singapore's cigarette market. So, we are definitely not close to reviewing this. We are looking into this matter. As I mentioned in the earlier answer, we are reviewing as to whether or not we will introduce a ban on the flavoured tobacco products.”
“Mr Speaker, on the first question, the Member has already rightly pointed out that we assess for clinical and cost effectiveness of the treatments as well as clinical needs. We do not publish the thresholds as this will have impact on our negotiating leverage with the industry. On the second question, actually, our subsidy framework is already poised and framed to support those from the lower-income groups. Those from the lower-income groups would already get a higher means-tested subsidy. This is the whole point of the CDL because it is really nudging towards affordability. We have already seen very good early results, we have seen a reduction in the price by about 30% on average and for some treatments, 60%. So, we already are seeing very good results. It means that there is more accessibility to these drugs. There is nothing stopping the higher-income individuals from loading themselves with expensive insurance that actually covers all drugs. We cannot stop that from happening; that is a fact of life. But what we can do is to ensure that the most clinically effective, the most cost effective drugs are available to all.”
“Mr Speaker, to date, from our records, approximately 99% of the sites taken down are linked to overseas posts that appear on platforms, like Facebook, Instagram, TikTok, WeChat, YouTube and Telegram, and the remaining are more local platforms, like Carousell and Lazada. On the second question, certainly, we will continue to look at how to improve our efforts in enforcement, but we are not without levers. We already have a cadence of operations that HSA does. On a daily basis, there is a surveillance done with bots to target commercial sites, to trawl and see what other sites that are offending that we need to take down. This is complemented by the efforts by HSA officers who look at the social media sites. We also work off the tip-offs, ad hoc tip-offs from public and partner agencies. Once the offending sites are taken down, we will work together with IMDA, SPF and the Online Criminal Harms Acts Office to block specific vape commercial sites. So, there are already efforts in place and also, we look at the various platforms on a regular basis to see how we can further improve our efforts. This is an ongoing effort. We do take a multi-pronged approach as well. It is not just about the enforcement but also about educating the public and our people in understanding and reporting some of these sites that are available online.”
“You would be interested to know that we continue to be in engagement with Dr Koong Heng Nung, who was the original advocate of tobacco-free generation and we remain open to see how this can evolve. We will study and see what the developments are in the other countries. 2.00 pm”
“Thank you, Mr Speaker. I note the Member's concern on this policy, and I also want to acknowledge that there were also many other Members when this matter was raised who were very interested in this tobacco-free generation policy, and for its implementation in Singapore. I wanted to clarify that when we look at learning from other countries, the main focus is looking at what is it that we want to try and resolve, the issue that we want to solve. In Singapore's context, we are looking at the concerns with regard to smoking. We already have in existence a very robust multi-prong strategy with regard to how we want to curb smoking. This includes having a comprehensive mix of policy measures, public preventive education, as well as cessation programmes, including also our tax prohibitions. These efforts have helped us to see a decline in the smoking prevalence, and at this juncture we have achieved an all-time low of 8.4% in 2024. As we continue to look as to how we can improve the statistics and how we can help the generations moving forward, we do have to be mindful about what is the problem that we want to solve. We have looked at how the other countries have rolled this out. As I mentioned, New Zealand has decided to repeal this legislation. Malaysia, also, who had announced it, had also removed it. Yes, UK had announced plans in October 2023 for a generation that will not be legally able to purchase tobacco in their lifetime. We will be continuing to look at how they will implement this. We have concerns about how the implementation will be carried out, and so we are mindful as to how this would affect the implementation here. We are continuing to be open to this. We will announce if there are any movements in this front.”
“So, it is not just about having the legislation; it is also about building capability within the community, and which is why I mentioned about helping to build healthy digital habits and providing support for parents through resources and programmes on the ground. This is something that we will be ramping up in time. I hope that this is something that we can work together on because there are multiple stakeholders: parents have to play a part, the regulators, the social media platforms. Indeed, we are in close contact with them to ensure that they are doing their best. So, these engagements are underway. And we are also studying the technology. We are trying to figure out what is the best solution in these circumstances. I hope that gives an appreciation that we are really appreciating and understanding the concerns and we are trying to figure out a robust approach that fits and would be meaningful for parents and children in Singapore.”
“So, we need to make sure that the enforcement measures are clear cut because children can use their parents' identification, so, the structure needs to be in place there. There was also a rise in virtual private networks, which then, undermines all these. So, we want to make sure that we can address some of those concerns meaningfully. Second, I would highlight that we are not starting from a blank slate. It is not like we do not have measures in place. There are very strong regulatory measures that are already in place. We already have the Code of Practice on Online Safety for designated social media services, which we have already put in place. We have also implemented age assurance requirements for apps and so, it means that they now have to stop the users who are below a certain age from coming in. We have not been prescriptive with how age assurance measures are put in, because even for age assurance, you have age verification and age estimation. These are some of the things that we know we want to allow platforms to put in. We have set the targets. We are outcome-driven. We say, "You must put in place these things to ensure that children are not exposed to these things." How they actually do that is something that they have to look at in their circumstances. So, that is the second bit. There are already some structures in place to provide safeguards and ensure that it is a healthy ecosystem for children. And the third thing is that we are doing more. We are actually looking at how we can continue to improve regulatory infrastructure to support this and we take a multi-prong approach.”
“Mr Speaker, I thank the Member for the question, and I appreciate the concern. I would like to assure the Member that we are indeed studying and trying to figure out what is the best approach for this. How we have been looking at this issue is that, yes, indeed, it is not just a function of accessing it. There are three main things that we look at. First is screen time, which is one key area and that leads to addiction. If you are spending too much time and you are not controlling that, that is a big issue. The second is inappropriate content. And which is why, we then need to have certain measures to make sure that children are not exposed to this. The third is undesirable online behaviours, such as cyber bullying and all the types of behaviours we have tried to prevent through the Online Safety (Relief and Accountability) Bill, for example. So, we are categorising and looking at the multi-dimensional effect of the social media platforms. While the legislative changes that the Member is hearing which are happening in other countries sound very attractive and seem like an obvious solution, what I think we want to ensure is a meaningful implementation that will actually make a difference in the experience of the children and the parents. So, we have been looking at it. I would want to highlight a couple of points. Firstly, we have observed some implementation challenges in what Australia is trying to do. There was an observation that there was a migration of children or the users to platforms that are not within the regulatory ambit. So, we have to make sure that if we do this, it is something that will be quite meaningful. We are also seeing people bypassing it.”
“Let me clarify, Mr Speaker. The description of what the ADLs are, is quite clear. So, if, let us say, the care recipient is not able to perform those daily activities permanently and the doctor certifies that he or she is not able to do so, then they would be eligible to apply for this. So, it is not a separate assessment. I note the Member's concerns that it is not so clear cut. In those cases, perhaps that could be surfaced to us and we will see where we could streamline that a bit better. But there are quite clear descriptions as to what the ADLs are.”
“In the meantime, if there are some specific concerns, she can raise the issues and then, we can see what are the existing infrastructure or support that is already existing that we can channel to the residents who are in need.”
“I thank the Member for the question and also acknowledge her interest in advocating for the caregivers of those with different needs. I would want to explain that the HCG is actually designed to help defray caregiving costs and expenses for those with greater needs and that is why it is actually means-tested. The recipients are those who are unable to perform the ADLs. That is how it is structured, because we see ADLs as being a key function and essential portion of our daily living. So, HCG itself is a specific scheme for caregivers. When the Member asked the question about the caregivers of those with autism or intellectual disability, as well as those with mental health conditions, actually, if they meet the criteria of not being able to perform the ADLs, they will satisfy the requirement of HCG. And then, of course, there is the means testing. I understand and appreciate where the Member is coming from, because there are clearly other concerns with those who are caring for individuals with special needs. There are many different other schemes that are in place to address many different concerns. In particular, with regard to those with special needs, there are existing efforts that we are looking at and reviewing, and trying to understand and appreciate better how we can support them. So, it may not just be from the HCG. I want to assure the Member that, at the moment, yes, HCG has certain requirements. It is meant and intended to help those with the most or greater needs with regard to ADLs. I do see and appreciate the concerns she has with regard to those with other types of caregiving challenges. And we are looking at some of those to see how we can fill in the gaps.”
“Mr Speaker, on the first question as to whether we are tracking the functional outcomes, we do for some of the more structured programmes. The data though, I do not have the details with me. If the Member is interested in some of those, she could file a further PQ on that. On the second question, relating to those who may not be as familiar with the gym equipment, I can imagine the concern and how we want to encourage people to use the gyms more. For the ActiveSG gyms, there are trainers who are onsite, who are very willing to support and encourage those who come and attend to use the equipment. We also have introductory programmes for those who may not be familiar with the gym equipment. And so, I hope these are things that will encourage some of the new users to use the gyms more often. On the third question, I know that Ms Mariam Jaafar is asking for her constituency and I am sure many others feel the same way. For the North, attention is being given to see how we can look at the needs. I do not want to pre-empt the answer to the written PQ, but we can definitely look into this. At the moment, the Healthy 365 app is quite comprehensive. So, there are already in existence many opportunities in places. Perhaps, we could look at where the gaps are and look at how we can improve on that. I would encourage those of your residents whom you say are not very familiar and are lethargic, and they do want to seek some guidance, the Healthy 365 app does provide a very good starting point and perhaps, that could be an initial introduction to a change in healthy living of the residents.”
“The Health Promotion Board (HPB) and Sport Singapore (SportSG) have undertaken many initiatives to raise awareness of the risk of muscle loss and encourage strength training. This includes jointly issuing the Singapore Physical Activity Guidelines, which recommend that adults engage in muscle-strengthening activities at least twice per week, conducting outreach through multiple channels, exploring organising gym orientation workshops to familiarise seniors with gym equipment and offering various structured physical training programmes in the community, such as Start2Move, a beginner-friendly programme with guided introduction to strength-building exercises in a supportive environment. A significant development is the expansion of community nodes, such as the Active Ageing Centre (AAC) network. With this expansion, plus the Healthy 365 app, we can better reach out to seniors and engage them in strength training exercises.”
“I am referring to the existing power of judicial review.”
“Mr Speaker, I thank the Member for her further question. As I have explained in my opening speech as well as my response, the nature of this particular Bill is really victim-led and in the manner in which there are certain specified online harms that are created as a result of that interaction online. In the case of sexual grooming, for example, as explained, if the victim realises that he or she is affected and there are actions that are causing harassment, alarm, distress or humiliation and there is content for OSC to act upon, we can act upon it. So, it is the nature in which you are describing that action, because sexual grooming in itself is a whole transaction and it is a crime that can be dealt with better under the Penal Code. With regard to the materials that are online, again, if the materials are something that is causing harassment, distress, alarm and humiliation to the victim, that person can file to OSC and we will address it. So, it is really a function of whether the victim sees a particular content that is triggering certain characteristics pursuant to this Bill, they can pursue it through OSC. The other point I would make is that OSC – we are taking a no-wrong-door approach, no-wrong-door policy with OSC. So, in the event some of these issues are raised to OSC, OSC will assess it and make appropriate references to make sure that the appropriate help is given to the victims.”
“Mr Speaker, I would like to make a clarification regarding my speech earlier. I had made reference to Ms Elysa Chen's speech; and I note that she actually did not ask about how defamation interacts with the harm of publication of statements harmful to reputation and how the OSC would ascertain disproportionality of OIDH. Instead, my reply actually addresses the general point on how victims can put out a reply quickly to protect their reputation and how it interacts with other laws, and I shared further on the threshold for OIDH.”
“I seek Members' support for the office of the Commissioner of Online Safety, and your understanding as we refine the details of OSC’s implementation. We are committed to doing right by victims of online harms and to do so in good time, with care. I urge all Members to support this Bill. Together, we can foster positive norms of online behaviour, such that Singaporeans can go online safely and confidently. [Applause.]”
“Mr Gabriel Lam, Ms Valerie Lee, Ms Tin Pei Ling and Ms Eileen Chong have highlighted the importance of public education in the promotion of responsible online behaviour. Mr Pritam Singh also asked about outreach and preventive education programmes. Indeed, legislation is not a silver bullet. As Ms Tin Pei Ling said, social norms and education matter. Beyond legislative measures, we will improve public education and outreach to make online safety resources more accessible, practical and action oriented. In collaboration with community, industry and corporate partners, more ground-up initiatives, such as workshops and webinars, will be organised to foster healthy digital habits and raise awareness of key online safety and digital well-being issues. These efforts will equip Singaporeans with practical skills and knowledge to navigate the online space safely and responsibly, and empower them to support others in their communities. Mr Speaker, the Bill before us today seeks to protect victims from online harms. Let me conclude by leaving Members with three key takeaways. Firstly, the OSRA Bill's victim-centric approach in offering relief from online harms plugs a gap in the online safety landscape. It complements our existing measures to address various harmful online content. Second, the OSC will provide timely redress for victims of online harms. This will be done in calibrated manner, starting with most severe and prevalent harms. Third, the OSRA Bill will strike a balance between protecting victims from online harms, while preserving space for healthy discourse. The road ahead will bring its share of challenges, but also opportunities to make a real difference.”
“Ms Mariam Jaafar suggested incorporating digital literacy or restorative programmes, especially for younger offenders. Ms He Ting Ru also asked whether perpetrators could be issues counselling orders to stop them from reoffending. We agree with the Members that, in some cases, rehabilitation may be the more appropriate action than prosecution. As shared in my opening speech, the Commissioner may put in place an Online Harmful Activity Remedial Initiative, which consists of the completion of volunteer programmes. This may be taken into account when deciding whether to prosecute a person for non-compliance with the OSC's directions. Mr Sharael Taha, Mr Cai Yinzhou and Mr Henry Kwek suggested ways that the OSC can work with partners in the public and people sector to strengthen victim care and support. Dr Wan Rizal asked whether practical guidelines will be issued to schools, hospitals and care agencies on how to activate the OSC’s remedies. I thank Members for their suggestions. Better support for victims of online harms is at the heart of what this Bill serves to do. Firstly, the OSC will work with other Government agencies and community organisations to ensure that victims can access the OSC's reporting mechanism. Secondly, we recognise that OSC remedies may not meet all the needs of victims. Should they require further support as they cope with an incident, OSC will refer cases to its appropriate partners. One such partner is SHE, who partners with the Singapore Council of Women's Organisations (SCWO) to run SHECARES@SCWO. SHECARES@SCWO is an online harms support centre that provides counselling services and legal assistance if needed. The centre is supported by full time counsellors and volunteers, and offers pro bono legal clinics with the support of Pro Bono SG.”
“Lastly, the use of VPNs to circumvent restrictions and detection affects all Internet laws and regulations, including the OSRA Bill. We will have to take a practical approach and do our best to deal with those within the bounds of our law. Mr Foo Cexiang asked whether the penalties prescribed under OSRA are adequate. Dr Choo Pei Ling also suggested increasing the maximum penalties. The Bill sets out maximum penalties for non-compliance with OSC's directions and orders. These were determined with reference to similar offences already on the books, such as the Online Criminal Harms Act, the Foreign Interference (Countermeasures) Act, the Protection from Online Falsehoods and Manipulation Act and the Broadcasting Act, because these are statutes that have directions similar to the OSC's directions. You will see that while there are similarities, the penalties are not exactly the same because we have calibrated it against the different purposes of these laws, and the gravity of the situations that would usually give rise to non-compliance. Mr Foo also asked if guidance could be given on how the Courts should sentence. Sentencing is a multifactorial exercise and highly context-specific. It is a matter for the Courts to decide in applying general sentencing principles, with the benefit of submissions by the prosecution and the defence. The Court would generally treat the maximum penalty in legislation as representing the appropriate sentence for the most serious form of the offence and calibrate accordingly for the case before it. This can be adjusted in view of aggravating factors, such as defiant conduct, and mitigating factors, like being a first-time offender.”
“We are still working through the implementation of the Appeal Committee, including its powers to affirm, revoke, vary or substitute a reconsidered decision by the OSC. But I want to assure the public that each case will be given the necessary time and due consideration. Ms Elysa Chen would also be assured to know that it is possible for persons who are still dissatisfied with the decision of the Appeal Committee to seek to challenge it in the Courts by way of judicial review. We will provide more details on the appeal process at the later stage. Ms Elysa Chen and Mr Foo Cexiang asked how the OSC will take enforcement action against bad actors who are overseas, noting the added complexity that technology like VPNs brings. Ms Lee Hui Ying and Mr Henry Kwek also asked how we would ensure that transnational or cross-border online platforms comply with OSRA directions. As mentioned, the OSC's directions apply to all communicators, administrators or platforms, regardless of where they are based. This applies as long as the harmful content is communicated in Singapore or accessible by users in Singapore. Where Access Disabling Directions are issued to overseas platforms, the platform will be required to geo-block the content to prevent Singapore end-users from accessing it. Non-compliance with OSC directions is an offence. Further, in such cases of non-compliance, the OSC is empowered to take escalatory measures to require providers of Internet access services to block access to non-compliant online services and online locations or to require providers of app distribution services to remove non-compliant apps from their app stores. The issuance of these escalatory measures will be carefully considered and used judiciously.”
“Such platforms would also have the technical capabilities to implement more complex directions. Mr Sharael Taha asked what qualifies as an online service provider and whether the term extends to closed or encrypted platforms, such as WhatsApp, Telegram and WeChat. He and Dr Choo Pei Ling also ask how the Bill would deal with cases arising from private or semi-private chat groups. Under the OSRA Bill, online service providers would include social media services and online messaging services, such as WhatsApp, Telegram and WeChat. While we have no intentions to proactively intervene in private communications, I believe Members know how quickly something harmful can spread via private messages or in online chat groups. The OSC’s reporting mechanism is victim-led. For all harms except incitement of enmity, if a victim files a report to OSC and brings its attention to the specified online harms made via private communications, the OSC can then assess the case. I refer Members to the example case given for intimate image abuse in Handout 4. Here, B posts an intimate image of A in an online chat group, without A’s consent. In such a case, the OSC can issue a Stop Communication Direction to the administrator of the group to remove B’s post. If this online chat group continues to circulate A’s intimate image on subsequent occasions, or intimate images of other persons, if made aware, the OSC could also consider an Access Disabling Direction to the platform whose service the chat group is maintained on. This will disable access to the chat group for Singapore users. Next, Members sought clarifications on the OSC's reconsideration and appeal processes. Mr Zhulkarnain urged caution against allowing extensive appellate processes that risk re-traumatising victims.”
“To recap, the Commissioner will be empowered to issue directions to stop online harms from continuing to occur or to prevent further online harms from affecting the victim, where there is reason to suspect that the online harm was conducted in respect of the victim or the victim group. These directions will be used judiciously. Mr Andre Low raised a few clarifications on specific directions. First, on the Engagement Reduction Directions. Mr Low had asked about the scenarios where Engagement Reduction Directions should be considered. Mr Speaker, I refer the Member to Handout 4, where we had illustrated a case where an Engagement Reduction Direction could be considered for an online harassment case to temporarily limit end users' liability to make posts mentioning a victim's name, thereby reducing engagement with insulting posts regarding a victim. The intent for such a direction would be to stem the virality of online harms, which can spread quickly through similar posts. Second, Mr Low also asked about potential overreach when the OSC issues a Stop Communication (Class of Material) Direction. This direction protects victims from floods of harmful content, sharing common identifiers, such as a coordinated harassment campaign. Rather than requiring the Commissioner to identify each harmful post individually, the direction covers all such content in proportion to the scale of the harm occurring. Mr Ng Shi Xuan raised the need to keep the playing field level for smaller platforms. We recognise that we must take a pragmatic approach when engaging the platforms on compliance with directions. This is why we intend to engage online platforms with significant reach or impact first, noting that the harms on such platforms have the potential to travel further and faster.”
“That said, we recognise that some harms are simply so serious or urgent that they warrant immediate intervention. Ms Valerie Lee asked for clarification on the categories of online harm that will be prioritised for urgent attention. For a start, victims can file a report directly to the OSC for the following harms: image-based child abuse, intimate image abuse and doxxing. In such cases, speed is of the essence to minimise the harm that may be caused to the victims. Several Members of Parliament, like Mr Ng Shi Xuan, Dr Wan Rizal, Mr Sharael Taha, Mr Cai Yinzhou and Ms Yeo Wan Ling, have asked or spoken about the OSC's service benchmarks to respond to and resolve cases. Mr David Hoe also suggested laying out the operational process clearly, so victims are aware of the actions to be taken. We want to ensure that victims get the help they need, as soon as possible. The OSC's response time and corresponding compliance timeline to a direction, will likely be shorter for more severe harms. Practically, some cases may be more easily resolved than others; for example, it may be easier to make out if the harm of intimate image abuse is present, as compared to a report on online harassment. For the latter, the OSC officer will have to go through the details more carefully, to understand the nature and the severity of the case. Ms Valerie Lee asked whether the Commissioner will be required to conduct a preliminary assessment before issuing directions. The answer is yes. OSC will assess if it has reason to suspect that online harmful activity was conducted before issuing a direction.”
“Members discussed the thresholds of "reasonable grounds to believe" versus "reason to suspect". I would like to reiterate the points I made in my opening speech. First, that "reason to suspect" is an established legal threshold that applies in other legislation, such as the Online Criminal Harms Act. Second, we have assessed this threshold to be appropriate to meet the intent of ensuring that online harms can be stopped in a timely manner. As mentioned in my opening speech, the OSC will also publish guidelines that will inform its decisions to ensure consistency and objectivity. These guidelines will inform the public on the factors that the Commissioner will take into account for present and future cases. Victims and recipients of OSC's directions will be able to seek OSC's reconsideration if they disagree with it, and appeal to an independent Appeal Committee thereafter. Ms Cassandra Lee asked about the requirement for victims to file reports to the platforms first before the OSC. We believe the platforms should be the first port of call or, as Dr Wan Rizal put it, "first responders". They have a duty to protect their users, and the statutory torts will make this clear, especially when notified by the users of harms on their service. The OSC will continue to work closely with the platforms to ensure that they comply with directions in a timely manner. Where platforms fail to act on online harms within 24 hours, victims can then file a report to the OSC. Mr David Hoe, Ms Yeo Wan Ling, Ms Lee Hui Ying and Ms Mariam Jaafar raised broader points on platforms' design and accountability to prevent online harms, beyond OSRA and the OSC. In this regard, we will also continue working with the major platforms to ensure that they strengthen their online safety measures.”
“Ms Tin Pei Ling and Ms Yeo Wan Ling asked about the measures to prevent devious characters from submitting vexatious reports or weaponising the OSC reporting mechanism. Dr Choo Pei Ling also asked how OSC can minimise mischief reports. OSC will have mechanisms in place to filter out and dismiss trivial, frivolous or vexatious reports. Those submitting a report will have to explain how the content or conduct is a specified online harmful activity and be required to declare that the information that they have provided is true. Submitting false information to the OSC will be an offence. If these complainants persistently make such reports, the OSC will also not consider any further reports from them. This would allow the OSC to focus its time and resources to the real victims who need redress. On the OSC's assessment of reports, Mr Sharael Taha asked how the threshold for online harassment will be determined; Mr Andre Low asked whether victims who publish identity information of their harasser would be caught under doxxing; Mr Low and Ms Eileen Chong also asked about consistency in the OSC' decisions; and Mr Pritam Singh sought clarifications on the information that OSC will share at the reconsideration stage. As drafted in the OSRA Bill, OSC will take an objective approach when assessing reports, and the thresholds for online harms are based on objective standards. While each case will be fact-specific, the "reasonable person" test is a well-established legal standard, including in tort and criminal law. The question will not be whether someone personally feels offended, but whether OSC has reason to suspect that online harmful activity was conducted, before issuing a direction.”
“I assure Members that all victims' reports will be stored securely, and the agency will adopt practices to ensure victims and all other parties involved are treated with sensitivity and care. We have also built-in legislative safeguards on preservation of secrecy. Unauthorised disclosure of information is an offence. Any information published for public education and awareness will be in an anonymised form. Members, including Dr Choo Pei Ling and Mr Alex Yeo, sought clarifications on who can or cannot file reports to OSC. Dr Wan Rizal asked about the process for unions and professional bodies to file a report on behalf of their members. Generally, victims have two options: they can submit a report on their own; or authorise another individual or entity to do so on their behalf. Where the victim is under 18, their parent or guardian can file a report on their behalf. To Dr Wan Rizal's question, unions and professional bodies can file reports to OSC if they obtain written authorisation from their member who suffered the specified online harm. Mr Andre Low and Mr Pritam Singh asked for clarity regarding those with a prescribed connection to Singapore. I mentioned in my opening speech that we intend to prescribe foreigners who stay in Singapore for the long term. For a start, this would include foreign spouses who are in Singapore on a Long-Term Visit Pass. We are still studying the full scope and will share more details in due course. Mr Ng Shi Xuan and Mr Alex Yeo had suggested for OSC to take differentiated approaches between groups of victims. I thank Members for the suggestions. For a start, the response time will likely be shorter for more severe harms.”
“These reports contain information on the DSMSs' measures to combat harmful and inappropriate content, and metrics, such as number of reports received from users, as well as the DSMSs' response time to act on these reports. IMDA also publishes an Online Safety Assessment Report. We will continue to drive the point on platforms' accountability through the OSRA Bill. On the phased implementation of OSC's reporting mechanism, Mr Sharael Taha, Ms Yeo Wan Ling and Dr Choo Pei Ling asked about the timeline for introducing remaining categories of harm. Mr Sharael Taha and Ms Yeo Wan Ling also asked what happens when a victim experiences a form of harm covered only in a later phase. Mr Speaker, as mentioned in my opening speech, we want to do right by the victims. A phased implementation approach is necessary so that OSC builds its capabilities in a sustainable and scalable way, focusing the right level of attention to each case, to ensure a positive user journey. It will also manage the OSC's caseload, allow officers to properly develop the necessary guidelines and frameworks, to ensure that the OSC's decisions are consistent and appropriate. For a start, OSC will focus efforts on addressing the most severe and prevalent harms, such as online harassment and intimate image abuse. The remaining harms will follow progressively. If victims write in to the OSC regarding their experience of a specified online harm that is not covered in the first phase, officers will, nevertheless, guide the victims on the appropriate process. This could be making a report to the platforms, filing a Police report or reaching out to community partners for support. Ms Cassandra Lee asked about measures to safeguard victims' confidentiality during the reporting process.”
“Mr Foo Cexiang also proposed expanding OSC's powers, such as by giving its officers powers under the Criminal Procedure Code. The scope and nature of every law is different; hence the respective officers are accorded different powers to ensure they are fit-for-purpose. In considering how OSC might conduct investigations in various scenarios, such as investigating reports to determine whether to issue a direction or offences under OSRA, we had accorded OSC the appropriate powers. On the suggestion for the Commissioner to submit an annual report to Parliament, the OSC will consider publishing regular reports on its website for public awareness on online harms and the OSC's work. The OSC will require time to assess what and how to put up information that would complement its processes, as it gradually stands up its operations. We are, therefore, taking a more adaptive approach towards the OSC's publication of reports, as opposed to legislating this as a requirement. The regular reports may include information on aggregated caseloads and anonymised case information, insofar as these do not re-traumatise victims. Members are also welcomed to file Parliamentary Questions to request such information, if it is not already published in the public domain. On the suggestion for the OSRA Bill to require platforms to publish annual reports on their measures to enable users to seek recourse from harm and response times, among others. I would inform Members that under the Code of Practice for Online Safety – Social Media Services, designated social media services (DSMSs) with significant reach or impact in Singapore are already required to submit annual reports to be published on IMDA's website.”
“Under the OSRA Bill, the Commissioner is empowered to consult with any person that the Commissioner thinks appropriate, for the purposes of performing the Commissioner's functions and duties. This could include the relevant experts and practitioners in the field of online safety. Ms Elysa Chen, Mr Foo Cexiang, Mr Sharael Taha, Ms Yeo Wan Ling, Mr Xie Yao Quan and Mr David Hoe asked about the expected case load of OSC, and how it will be adequately resourced to provide effective and timely redress. We estimate the initial caseload of OSC to be high, based on various factors, including Australia's eSafety caseload for similar harms, adjusted for Singapore's population. We also took into account Singaporeans' Internet-use practices, such as the time spent online. Depending on the volume of the cases, we will calibrate and reallocate resources, as necessary, to resource and size OSC adequately. Mr Cai Yinzhou asked about the rules that will govern how the OSC carries out its investigations to determine further action. Each case will be assessed based on the nature and severity of the harm, and investigations will be carried out fairly, working with the relevant agencies to determine the appropriate follow-up actions. The relevant parties will be notified at the appropriate junctures, as the OSRA Bill accords the OSC powers to require documents or information and to examine and secure attendance of persons for investigations. To Mr Pritam Singh's question, the Commissioner's power would not extend to the seizure of devices. Overall, the focus will be to ensure that the victims are not denied timely relief, even as we accord due process to all involved.”
“The Bill currently lists non-exhaustive factors that the OSC may consider when assessing the requirement of disproportionality, such as whether the act instigated is or is likely to constitute a criminal offence and the nature and severity of the harm mentioned. The OIDH framework does not mean that members of public can no longer call out certain problematic behaviours, or express views on issues of public interest. Even as we reject mob behaviour, we continue to uphold the principle that there must be space for online discussions, within the bounds of civility and respect. Some Members, including Ms Valerie Lee and Ms Elysa Chen and Ms Eileen Chong, asked about the set-up and composition of the OSC. The appointed Commissioner for Online Safety will be someone of suitable seniority and experience. We will also ensure that the OSC is appropriately staffed with individuals that have the relevant experience and expertise, and have a good understanding of our society and online norms, so as to address reports as they come in. Mr Henry Kwek and Ms He Ting Ru asked about training for OSC officers and if the OSC will be working with community partners to support victims of online harms who need psychological and legal support. OSC officers will be trained in communications and victim management to ensure that each case is handled sensitively. They will also refer victims requiring further support beyond the mitigation of an online harm to community partners. Mr David Hoe suggested having a standing advisory group of relevant practitioners to provide guidance on online harms periodically. I thank Mr Hoe for the suggestion.”
“The OSC will assess based on objective standards whether the content is a false or misleading depiction of the victim’s words, actions or conduct; and if it is realistic enough such that a reasonable person would believe that the victim said such words or did such actions or conduct. Such content may cross the thresholds of likely to cause the victim harassment, alarm, distress or humiliation, even if there was no intent to mislead. Ms Elysa Chen asked about how the harm of "publication of statement harmful to reputation" interacts with defamation under common law. For the harm of "publication of statement harmful to reputation", the only direction that may be issued by the Commissioner is a Right-of-Reply Direction. This enables a victim to put out their reply or their side of the story quickly in order to protect their reputation, which matters especially in the online world where allegations spread with great speed and ease. We see this as a complementary pathway for the victim, that may be an alternative to, or concurrent with, a defamation suit. A victim may find sufficient relief in a Right-of-Reply Direction, that they no longer need to resort to a defamation suit. Or, they may still need or want to sue, for example to seek monetary damages. In either case, putting their reply out helps to limit the damages suffered. Ms Elysa Chen asked how the OSC would ascertain disproportionality in the case of "online instigation of disproportionate harm" (OIDH) and if there will be guidelines published for what constitutes disproportionate harm. [Please refer to the clarification later in the debate.] As illustrated in Handout 4, disproportionate harm can take on various forms, such as physical harm.”
“This includes someone's medical history. Mr Ng has asked whether the harm of non-consensual disclosure of private information would cover information such as sexual orientation and gender identity. We believe as a matter of principle that generally everyone in Singapore should be protected against having their private information shared publicly without consent. Hence, if such information was not public before and disclosed without consent, the person can file a report to the OSC. As we implement this harm in future, the Minister may issue regulations to clarify the types of information that is or is not private information. Ms Mariam Jaafar highlighted the need for the OSRA Bill to be technology-neutral and future-ready to deal with harms generated by algorithms and AI. I wish to assure the Member that the 13 harms under the OSRA Bill are generally technology-neutral. As shared in Handout 4, if person D uses an application to digitally alter an image of person C fully clothed into a nude image and posts it online without consent, that would be intimate image abuse. We recognise that online harms are constantly evolving, and new harms may emerge over time, especially with the proliferation of new technologies. The OSRA Bill allows the Minister to prescribe additional types of online activity that are likely to cause harm to persons in Singapore. We will continuously review the online landscape and expand the list of harms, if there is a need to, in future. This will be done judiciously. For the harm of “inauthentic material abuse”, Ms Cassandra Lee asked for clarity on how "likeness" would be assessed in the context of AI-generated content and whether there needs to be intent to mislead.”
“If sexual grooming is displayed through online harassment or stalking conduct, the victim will have recourse to seek directions from the OSC. For the victim, who is under 18 years old, a parent or guardian can make a report on their behalf. On the suggestion to add "fair comment" exception to online harassment and public interest exception to the harms of non-consensual disclosure of private information and online instigation of disproportionate harm, I would like to highlight to Members that these factors will be taken into consideration as the Commissioner assesses each case. If we included the suggestions and make them exceptions to the online harms, communication that meets the "fair comment" or "public interest" criterion will automatically not be actionable by the OSC. In comparison, the current formulation allows the OSC to consider a basket of factors when deciding whether to issue directions. Specifically, clause 27 states that the OSC can consider whether the comment was reasonable and the circumstances the comment was made in deciding whether OSC should issue a direction. This allows the OSC to weigh whether something counts as "fair comment" or "public interest", while also considering the features of the post, and not immediately say it cannot act. So, if a member of a public raises in good faith or exposes serious wrongdoing, this will be taken into account as part of OSC's case assessment. We should not pre-emptively restrict the OSC from considering any one factor. Leader of the Opposition, Mr Pritam Singh, and Mr Ng Shi Xuan sought clarity on what would be considered private information. Private information refers to information about a person that is not widely available to the public at large, as explained in Handout 4 that Members received earlier.”
“Some Members have also asked about the scope of the harms covered by the OSRA Bill. Ms Tin Pei Ling raised the point that victim’s exposure to online harms may be prolonged if we are unclear about what constitutes online harms in the OSRA Bill. With the OSRA Bill, we sought to clearly capture the key characteristics of each harm. To aid public understanding, explanatory notes and illustrations are included, where appropriate. I would also like to refer Members to Handout 4, which gives further illustrative examples. While we have given definitions for each of these harms in the OSRA Bill, the OSC will assess each case based on its unique context and facts. I think Members would know that no two types of online harm will be the same. Some flexibility must be accorded to the OSC to act according to the harm concerned. Ms He Ting Ru suggested that we consider including sexual grooming and the publication of online material that encourages or promotes suicide or acts of self-injury as specified online harms that OSRA covers. We agree with the Member that these are egregious harms, and I have explained why these harms would be better addressed through other legislation in our online safety framework. Under the Broadcasting Act today, the IMDA would already be able to issue directions to platforms to disable Singapore users' access to egregious content on online communication services, such as social media services and app stores. Such content includes child sexual exploitation material and content advocating or instructing on suicide or self-harm. If such online content is connected to the commission of criminal offences, action can be taken under the Penal Code or Online Criminal Harms Act.”
“This includes removing the harm as soon as possible. With the OSRA Bill and the set-up of the OSC, we hope that victims will be granted more timely relief with a new channel for support. Besides timely redress, the OSRA Bill also expands the scope of online harms covered in our current criminal and regulatory regime. From the research and surveys on online harms in Singapore, we know of emerging issues like inauthentic material abuse, also known as "deepfakes" and online instigation of disproportionate harm, or "cancel campaigns". With this, we hope to protect victims not just from existing but future harms. Therefore, the OSRA Bill is complementary to the existing laws and frameworks. Most importantly, it supports victims in ways they have asked for, putting a stop to the online harm as soon as possible. Ms Tin Pei Ling, Mr Henry Kwek and Dr Choo Pei Ling have asked how victims can navigate the various laws, and whether they would need to make multiple reports when seeking help for online harms. Mr Gabriel Lam and Ms Elysa Chen raised the need for clear processes and guidance on how victims can approach the various agencies like the Police, IMDA and the OSC. Mr Speaker, I wish to assure Members that we will adopt a no-wrong-door policy for victims of online harms. The OSC will work closely with other agencies, including the Police, to ensure backend coordination and minimise the need for multiple reports. This means that regardless of which agency a victim first approaches, they will be guided on the appropriate help. I also take Mr David Hoe’s point that the process of online harm reporting should be kept simple and accessible. We will bear this in mind as we refine the OSC’s operational details.”
“Mr Speaker, I thank Members for their support and interest in this Bill. We are all in agreement that victims should have access to swift and effective relief. Statistics and stories tell us this is what victims primarily want. We also all agree that the implementation of OSRA is key and that the OSC must always be fair and consistent in its decisions with accountability through due processes. There is consensus that platforms also need to do their part in creating safer online space for their users. I am heartened that both sides of the House are aligned in wanting to do more to help victims of online harms. Where we differ is in some of the details. We thank the WP for proposing the amendments, which we have considered seriously, because we share the common goal of helping victims of online harms. We think OSRA strikes the right balance as it stands, between swift protection for vulnerable victims with sufficient accountability through reconsideration and appeal. What is important are the outcomes when the OSC commences operations. We all want the OSC to succeed, and in this vein, I ask Members to give OSC the time and space to stand up what we all agree are new and novel functions, so that it can progressively build its muscles to help victims. I acknowledge that Members have questions about the statutory reporting mechanism and how the OSC will carry out its functions. Understandably so, given that this is a new agency that we are setting up, I will address Members' questions thematically. First, on the scope of the OSRA Bill and its interaction with other laws. Members have noted that there are several statutes addressing harmful online content and conduct. Mr Speaker, when faced with an online harm, what most victims want is direct and timely relief.”
“Efforts to enhance online safety require the involvement of every level of society, and the Government is ready to step forward to strengthen these efforts. With the establishment of the OSC, we will be able to provide timely follow-up actions for victims, help stop harms as quickly as possible and build a more robust support ecosystem for victims. (In English): Mr Speaker, the OSRA and the OSC are just the one of the many steps that we are taking to enhance online safety. I am heartened to note that online safety is a matter that both sides of this House are passionate about and I invite all Members of this House and the public to continue our conversations on how we can better enhance online safety.”
“These are also the online harms that Singaporeans are the most concerned about. For example, The Institute of Policy Studies’ 2025 Online Safety Study showed that targeted harassment was seen by Singaporeans as “highly harmful”. Members may refer to Handouts 1 and 5, for a broader overview of recent survey results and studies relating to online harms. This will allow us to better manage the OSC's caseload and to properly develop the necessary guidelines, frameworks and capabilities to ensure that the OSC's decisions are consistent and appropriate in all cases. Mr Speaker, allow me to say a few words in Malay. (In Malay): [Please refer to Vernacular Speech.] The need to provide accessible and timely programmes and resources to victims of online harms is not new. Over the years, we have taken steps to educate and better empower our citizens to act against online dangers. For example, in 2021, we established the Sunlight Alliance for Action (AfA) to tackle online harms. In the span of one year, AfA organised campaigns to raise public awareness about online harms and their impact. These campaigns also equipped youths to provide better support to their peers who were affected by online harms. As co-chair of this AfA, I was informed by our partners about the experiences that many victims went through. This is what drives me, to this day, to build a safer digital space. The Sunlight AfA also inspired many of its members to continue their noble efforts to help victims. One example is the establishment of SHECARES@SCWO, a collaboration between SHE and the Singapore Council of Women's Organisations (SCWO). It is Singapore's first one-stop support centre for victims of online harms.”
“The appeal panel will consist of individuals from academia, society and industry, across different areas of expertise, and will focus on assessing whether a specified online harm had occurred and whether the reconsidered decision made by the OSC is proportionate and justifiable. Where the victim, recipient or prescribed person is dissatisfied with the OSC’s reconsidered decision, they may submit an application to the appeal panel to appeal against the OSC’s reconsidered decision. Similar to the reconsideration process, the appeal panel will be able to affirm, revoke, vary or substitute decisions of the OSC in relation to the issuance or non-issuance of a direction. The appeal panel will also be able to hear appeals on the issuance of an order following non-compliance. Each individual will be given one chance to have their case heard by the independent appeal panel. Should the individual continue to be dissatisfied with the outcome of the appeal, they may seek judicial review. The establishment of a new office and the statutory reporting mechanism is a monumental task, one that will require close collaboration across Government. We have to do the OSC right, so that we can do right by the victims. This is why we will be implementing the reporting mechanism in phases. What this means is that we will be bringing the first five harms I shared about earlier into force within the first six months after the OSC opens its doors. These are: intimate image abuse; image-based child abuse; online harassment, including sexual harassment, doxxing and online stalking. The rest of the harms will follow progressively. These five harms are prioritised for a reason. They represent the most prevalent and serious harms faced by Singapore users online.”
“Individuals found guilty of this offence will be subject to a fine of up to $20,000, or imprisonment for a period not exceeding 12 months, or both. Entities will be subject to a fine of up to $50,000. In some cases, it may be more appropriate to focus on rehabilitating the perpetrator rather than prosecuting them for non-compliance with an OSC direction. To that end, the Commissioner may put in place an online harms remedial initiative. This initiative could include the completion of volunteer programmes by the perpetrator, which may be taken into account when considering prosecution for non-compliance with the OSC’s directions. As I mentioned earlier, we will be putting in place oversight mechanisms, which will be governed by Part 7 of the Bill. These mechanisms ensure that the OSC will be able to move quickly and with confidence on the face of the information it has received. Victims, recipients of directions or orders, and other prescribed persons will have access to a two-step appeal process. Eligible persons may first apply to the Commissioner to reconsider the OSC’s decision. Thereafter, eligible persons may appeal against the OSC's reconsidered decision to an independent appeal panel that will be appointed by the Minister for Digital Development and Information. For the reconsideration process, the OSC will re-assess the relevant case afresh, and may also take into account any new information that may be presented by the relevant parties after the initial assessment was conducted. Applicants will be able to submit such new information to the OSC. When a decision has been made, the OSC will inform the applicant and other affected parties of their reconsidered decision. The OSC may affirm, revoke, vary or substitute any earlier decision, direction or order issued.”
“These actions include the issuance of orders following non-compliance, such as: access blocking orders, which may be issued to providers of Internet access services, to disable Singapore end-users' access to an online location; or app removal orders, which may be issued to providers of app distribution services, to remove the specified app from the Singapore app stores. As these orders may affect all users in Singapore since they will no longer be able to access the apps or websites, they may only be used after careful consideration. Part 8 of the Bill provides for offences and enforcement. The directions and orders issued by the OSC are legally binding, and non-compliance with these directions and orders will be a criminal offence. Where there has been non-compliance, the Commissioner will be empowered to conduct further investigations, such as requesting information or documents from individuals. These are the same Part 6 investigative powers that the Commissioner may exercise when assessing reports in the first instance. In developing the penalties under the OSRA Bill, we have referenced other existing legislation, such as the Broadcasting Act, OCHA and the Penal Code. For example, the penalty for non-compliance with directions will be a fine of up to $20,000, or imprisonment for a period not exceeding 12 months, or both, for individuals. Individuals will also be subject to a continuing fine of up to $2,000 for each day the offence continues after conviction. Entities will be subject to a fine of up to $500,000 and a continuing fine of up to $50,000 for each day the offence continues after conviction. The provision of false information to the Commissioner or the OSC will also be an offence.”
“These Enhanced Directions impose additional requirements on the prescribed online service and may require the recipient to act on identical online harmful material, to take further steps to prevent online harm from occurring in the future or to reduce engagement of its users with a class of material. Members may refer to Handout 3 for the full list of directions that the OSC may issue, and Handout 4 for illustrations of online harmful activity and possible OSC directions. In deciding whether to issue a direction and the type of direction to be issued for a case, the OSC may consider a basket of factors, including: the degree of the harm caused or likely to be caused; the number of persons harmed or likely to be harmed; the manner and circumstances in which the online harmful activity occurred; whether the conduct of the online harmful activity was reasonable, such as when a comment or post would be considered to be a "fair comment"; the likelihood of further online harmful activity being conducted; and whether the direction would be contrary to any public interest. These factors provide the OSC with much needed flexibility, to ensure that appropriate action is taken in every case. The OSC will also publish guidelines detailing the factors that the OSC will consider in its decision-making process. Such guidelines will also include illustrative examples of when the OSC will or will not act. In cases where the OSC is made aware of non-compliance with its directions, the OSC may take further escalatory actions.”
“The OSC may issue directions to three different parties: the communicator of the online harm, the administrator of a group or location where the online harm occurred, and the platform on which the online harm occurred. Broadly, communicators and administrators may be issued directions that require them to remove specified material or disable a specified location, to restrain them from posting certain types of content or carrying out certain types of conduct or to require them to put up a victim's reply. Administrators may also be issued other directions, such as directions that require them to put up a label to warn visitors that the online location has been subject to previous OSC directions or to restrict access by a Singapore account to the online location managed by them. Platforms may be issued directions that require them to prevent end-users in Singapore from accessing specified content or online locations, to restrict interactions between an account and end-users in Singapore, to ban a Singapore account or to post a victim’s reply on its service. As I mentioned earlier, two of the categories of harm – publication of false material and publication of statements harmful to reputation – differ slightly in terms of remedies that victims may receive. Generally, victims of these harms will only be able to seek a Right-of-Reply Direction to allow them to have their side of the story heard. We will be introducing new types of directions requiring recipients to act on content that can be distinguished by unique identifiers, such as usernames, keywords or hashtags. The OSC may also issue what we consider as Enhanced Directions to certain prescribed online services.”
“The OSC is also exploring partnerships with third-party organisations which victims may be referred to for support, such as counselling services or further resources. The details of this are still being worked out and we will provide more details in due course. Each report will be assessed on its own merits and the OSC will be able to act on the face of the report submitted. This is to ensure that the OSC can move fast to address the online harm. Where necessary, such as where the information provided in the report is unclear, the Commissioner will be empowered, under Part 6, to conduct investigations, to better identify the relevant facts of each case. The OSC will also develop internal practices and ensure that case officers are trained to handle each case sensitively. Let me turn now to directions, which are listed in Part 5 of the Bill. The Commissioner will be empowered to issue directions to stop online harms from continuing to occur or to prevent further online harms from affecting the victim where there is reason to suspect that the online harm was conducted in respect of the victim or the victim group, as the case may be. The threshold for the issuance of directions is modelled after the threshold set for the Police to take protective action in the Criminal Procedure Code and the Online Criminal Harms Act (OCHA). We had considered raising the threshold for the issuance of directions to "reasonable grounds to believe". However, we ultimately landed on "reason to suspect", to ensure that online harms can be stopped in a timely manner. We will be putting in place oversight mechanisms to ensure that OSC directions are only issued where appropriate. I will speak more on the oversight mechanism later.”
“We intend for this to cover foreigners who are residing in Singapore for the long-term at the onset. Where victims are under the age of 18, the parent or guardian of the victim may also submit a report on their behalf. For example, earlier in November 2024, we saw deepfake nude photos of students at the Singapore Sports School being created and circulated by the student-athletes. In such a case, both the student victims and the parents of the victims depicted in the deepfakes would be able to submit a report to the OSC. We have also considered situations where a victim strongly prefers that the report be filed for them. In such situations, victims will be able to authorise other persons to file reports on their behalf. This includes authorising employers or public agencies. For example, a hospital, if authorised, may file a report on behalf of a healthcare worker who is a victim of a specified online harm. In the spirit of the reporting mechanism, OSC will only assess reports submitted. OSC will not actively monitor and identify cases of online harms. Reports will be submitted through the OSC's website, which will be designed with the user in mind. We are consulting other agencies and third-party organisations, such as SHE, in designing the website and the reporting form, to take into account user-centric language. Accounting for victims' needs early is important, as survivors of online harms may, sometimes, avoid seeking external support to avoid re-traumatisation. The OSC's website will also provide victims and other persons with access to resources on online harms and advice on how to keep themselves safe online. This will include, for example, information on the different types of online harms and what to do when you have experienced them.”
“Members may also access these materials through the MP@SGPARL mobile app. Members may refer to Handout 2 for an overview of the user journey with the OSC. First, prior to submitting a report to the OSC, victims will, generally, be required to report the online harm to the platforms. While we are setting up the OSC to provide timely relief to victims of specified online harms, platforms remain the first port of call. Platforms must continue to play an active role and take responsibility for the safety of their users online. Where platforms fail to act on online harms within 24 hours, victims can then file a report to OSC. The requirement to first report to platforms before reporting to the OSC will, however, not be required for certain egregious harms, such as intimate image abuse and image-based child abuse. This step will also not be required for doxxing. Victims of these harms can submit a report directly to the OSC. Our view has always been that platforms should take responsibility for keeping their users safe online. This is evident from the approach we have taken under the Broadcasting Act. For example, under the Code of Practice for Online Safety – Social Media Services, designated social media services (DSMSs) with significant reach or impact in Singapore are already required to submit annual reports to be published on IMDA's website. These reports contain information on the DSMSs' measures to combat harmful and inappropriate content, and metrics, such as the number of reports received from users, as well as the response times to act on these reports. There are other baseline requirements. To be eligible to submit a report, victims must be Singaporean Citizens, Permanent Residents or have a prescribed connection to Singapore.”
“This includes the power to issue directions, which I will speak more on later. However, the Commissioner may not delegate the power of appointment or delegation, or the power to issue advisory guidelines. The OSC will be administratively supported by the IMDA. As announced by Prime Minister Lawrence Wong during his speech at the Smart Nation 2.0 Launch in October 2024 and reiterated by Minister Josephine Teo earlier in March this year, the OSC will be set up in the first half of 2026. We have also considered the importance of transparency. To that end, the Commissioner will consider publishing regular reports for public awareness on online harms and the Commissioner's work, which may include information on aggregated caseloads, and anonymised information, insofar as these do not re-traumatise victims. Let me now say more about the reporting process, which, as I shared earlier, is governed by Part 4 of the Bill. With your permission, Mr Speaker, may I ask the Clerk to distribute a set of handouts to the Members?”
“OSRA is intended to complement these existing legislations by expanding the scope of harms covered, through including new harms, such as inauthentic material abuse and non-consensual disclosure of private information, and by allowing victims to seek recourse in a simple and timely manner. We acknowledge that the Internet evolves rapidly and the online harms ecosystem may change drastically over short periods, with new harms emerging or with bad actors finding new ways to cause harm. Thus, OSRA has been designed in a way to allow us to adapt to changes in the online harms ecosystem. The Minister for Digital Development and Information will be able to prescribe additional types of online harms. This power will be vital in ensuring that we address emerging harms as soon as possible. We will ensure that this power is used judiciously and for harms that are particularly egregious to individuals, to prevent the unchecked expansion of the scope of OSRA. Part 2 of the Bill establishes the Office of the Commissioner of Online Safety. It will be responsible for administering the statutory reporting mechanism to provide timely relief for victims of online harms. The Commissioner of Online Safety will be appointed by the Minister for Digital Development and Information and will be supported by Deputy Commissioners and Assistant Commissioners. While the Minister may provide broad guidance to the Commissioner, the Commissioner will be the final decision-maker for all cases. We will also establish a new agency, called the OSC, that will support the Office of the Commissioner for Online Safety. The Commissioner may delegate the exercise of all of, or any of, the functions or powers of the Commissioner to the officers of the OSC, to allow them to effectively support the Commissioner.”
“Members might observe that not all of these 13 categories are new and some of them are already being addressed by existing law. For example, online harassment is already being covered by POHA. The Penal Code as well as the Criminal Law (Miscellaneous Amendments) Bill, which was debated in Parliament earlier, both address intimate image abuse. Such content might also be covered as egregious content under the Broadcasting Act. The suggested additions to the categories of harm would also be covered by the Penal Code and the Broadcasting Act. The group harms have also already been addressed by the Maintenance of Religious Harmony Act and the Maintenance of Racial Harmony Act, for groups distinguished by religion or race. The common law action of defamation, as supplemented by the Defamation Act, provides individuals with an avenue of recourse for defamatory statements or statements which harm a person's reputation. OSRA will complement these existing laws. Some laws address harms that affect the public interest, such as the Maintenance of Religious Harmony Act, the Maintenance of Racial Harmony Act and the Broadcasting Act. Others provide individual remedies through legal action in Courts, such as POHA. However, victims have shared that seeking legal remedies is often a lengthy and expensive legal process, which often deters them from seeking recourse. This can be seen from the SHE's 2023 Online Harms Report, which showed that 28% of respondents who decided not to take legal action did so due to the cost. The same SHE report also found that most respondents preferred the swift and permanent removal of content over taking legal action.”