Workers' Party (WP) Secretary-General Pritam Singh spoke in Parliament on May 7 regarding the Protection from Harassment (Amendment) Act (POHA).

POHA will include changes such as a simplified court process, along with better protection for victims. Doxxing will also be criminalised.

WP supportive of the bill, but sought clarifications

Pritam said in his speech in parliament that WP supports the Bill.

However, he sought some clarifications on how certain clauses would be carried out in practice.

Here's a summary of what he said.

Borderline cases in doxxing

Pritam noted that the Bill outlines specific factual circumstances that can give rise to the offence of doxxing.

However, he highlighted that there may be "borderline cases" where the intent of the individual carrying out the doxxing does not neatly fit in with the illustrations laid out in the Bill.

He also added that some users who carry out doxxing are sometimes anonymous on third-party social media pages.

Given that these page moderators have no intention to harass the individual, Pritam asked if these sites would be found liable for the offence of doxxing.

Intimate partner violence

Pritam cited data from the World Health Organisation, stating that intimate partner violence also occurs in same-sex relationships.

On enhancing the penalties for offences against a victim in an intimate relationship with the offender, he sought clarification on whether the remedies proposed under the Bill also apply to unmarried individuals in same-sex relationships.

Statement that is false or 'misleading' -- what does 'misleading' mean?

According to the Bill, both false and misleading statements are targeted.

Pritam said that the meaning of misleading "may not be without controversy", and sought clarification on how "the Government expects the Courts to interpret the boundaries of a statement that is misleading".

Will the Harassment Courts be able to provide urgent relief?

Pritam said that the Protection from Harassment Courts, as part of the amendments, is to be welcomed.

The amendment will include simplified procedures involving a straightforward claims form for victims of harassment.

However, he had his reservations on the speed at which the Harassment Courts will hear an application given "significant damage".

He asked:

"Is such a shorter application hearing timeline within the contemplation of the Bill for individuals or entities who seek very urgent relief, failing which significant damage or losses would inevitably increase with every passing hour? If so, how quickly can the public expect the Harassment Courts to hear an interim application in the case of an online falsehood against an individual or entity?"

Individuals cannot sue government for malicious use of power?

Lastly, Pritam pointed out that "an individual or company cannot apply to the Harassment Courts" if the government makes misleading or false statements against them.

In that sense, he questioned why the public is not receiving protection against a prospective government official who uses their powers "maliciously".

He added that this "does not conform to the principle that the rule of law applies equally to all".

Top photo via gov.sg YouTube.