Before the Online Criminal Harms Bill was passed on Jul. 5, 2023, Members of Parliament (MPs) raised various concerns such as free speech, privacy, and how criminal liability would be assessed.

Addressing their concerns, Second Minister for Home Affairs Josephine Teo reminded the House that there is "no silver bullet" to resolve the complexities of the online world, but the new law is yet another important step towards creating a safer online space for Singaporeans.

Growing global recognition for new rules to combat online harms

In her speeches for the second reading of the Online Criminal Harms Bill, Teo, who is also Minister for Communications and Information, highlighted a growing global recognition that new rules and levers are needed to combat criminal harms online and that proactive approaches are needed to prevent them.

While the government recognises and encourages initiatives by online services to improve safety, Teo noted that they tend to be designed for a global user base and do not cater to "unique circumstances in specific locations".

"Where we have identified a need for additional measures to tackle the risks of criminal activities, it will be better to require them by law than to leave things to chance."

Teo summarised what the new law aims to achieve — allowing enforcement officers to issue "Directions" when criminal offences occur.

"Reasonable suspicion" needed for action

The law authorises five types of Directions, which all aim to stop online material involved with criminal activity to stop circulating or limit its exposure to Singaporeans.

For the Directions to be issued, there has to be a "reasonable suspicion".

However, Teo explained there would be a lower threshold for issuing Directions for scams and deceptive, malicious cyber activities, as victims' initial contact and grooming might not be criminal.

She said that such activities tend to unfold with great speed and scale. For example, 2022 saw nearly 10,000 investment and job scams, with victims losing more than S$300 million.

Hence, a more proactive and pre-emptive approach is necessary to stop them before any harm is caused.

What exactly is "reasonable suspicion"

Multiple MPs sought clarification on what exactly constitutes "reasonable suspicion".

Teo explained that "reasonable suspicion" is often apparent in many cases, such as those involving child abuse materials.

When the cases are not "clear-cut", Teo said that officers would first investigate.

"Police action is not unfettered — you have to cross the threshold — and the Bill sets the bounds within which the police can act and beyond which it cannot."

Balance between privacy and protection

Teo assured the government would strike an appropriate balance between preventing online criminal harm and privacy.

For example, online companies would not be required to "break" end-to-end encryption in private messaging but rather issue Directions to restrict the criminally-involved accounts and ask for information on suspects.

However, if members of the public choose to circumvent the Directions with VPN or other means, Teo emphasised that they do it at their own risk.

"We can't protect people who deliberately avoid the protection. "

She also pointed out that the Bill only applies to online content and activity that already constitute a criminal offence in Singapore, such as inciting hatred against a religious group.

Therefore the Bill does not create any new criminal offences in respect of speech, nor does it restrict legitimate content.

How to hold online service providers liable

Teo also addressed questions regarding the responsibilities and expectations that would be placed on online service providers.

She explained that to promote collaboration between the service providers and enforcement agencies, Codes of Practice will be developed and updated periodically in response to evolving threats and technological developments.

On whether the government intends to hold key executives of online platforms criminally liable, Teo clarified that while the government wants them to take online harm seriously, it does not mean they must be held personally liable for non-compliance.

She pointed out that blocking access to the platforms would be more effective.

"I don't think any executive, in his or her right mind, would find it easy to explain to their colleagues why because of non-compliance, access had been blocked."

She added that in this "era of user-generated content", many content creators are very hard to pin down. Hence, one has to consider if the priority is to chase down perpetrators or prevent harm from happening.

"We want to be able to do both, but we need to be able to 'nip it in the bud' quickly first."

Law will be kept up-to-date with tech advancements

When asked whether the new law would be kept up-to-date with evolving online criminal harms, Teo agreed that it is important and highlighted that the Bill had been drafted with that in mind — allowing new offences to be added via amendments to the First and Second Schedules.

Teo said that MHA will work closely with other agencies to monitor technological developments and potential threats posed by emerging technologies such as generative AI.

While the new law currently focuses on criminal offences that pertain to national security, national harmony and individual safety, MHA would consider the inclusion of offences relating to the sale of animals, birds and wildlife in future reviews.

Reply to Pritam Singh on POFMA

In response to Leader of Opposition Pritam Singh's points on previous legislation targeting online content, Teo pointed out that Singh's characterisation of the government deciding what the" truth" is using POFMA (Protection from Online Falsehoods and Manipulation Act) is not quite correct.

She stated that POFMA deals with false statements of fact.

"There has to be a basis for making those allegations. Opinions – people are free to continue to make. But if you say something that is factually incorrect, it is carried online, it can go very far, and it has public interest, then that is where POFMA could be considered."

Teo added that most receivers of POFMA directions have complied in full, and the original content they had put out remains fully accessible — anyone who reads them can decide for themselves.

New law has new role

Other MPs questioned whether the new law overlaps with other legislation such as POFMA, FICA (Foreign Interference [Countermeasures] Act) and Broadcasting Act.

Teo explained that POFMA and FICA were designed to handle online falsehoods and foreign interference, respectively, and will continue to be used for those threats.

The Broadcasting Act, amended after the Online Safety Bill, covers egregious content such as those posing public health risks and causing racial or religious disharmony.

Online Criminal Harms Bill covers a broader scope of online criminal harms, including illegal money lending, unlawful gambling, and drug-related offences.

However, she recognises that some cases are complex and that levers under multiple legislation could apply and complement each other.

Related Story

Top image via MCI