Victims of online harms will soon get better support under new laws

Key Concepts

• Online Safety Commission (OSC): A new dedicated, one-stop government agency to support victims of online harms and expedite the removal of harmful content.
• Statutory Torts: New legal rights allowing victims to seek legal recourse and damages for online harms.
• Harmful Online Content: Content encountered by individuals online, with a recent survey indicating over 80% of people experienced it in the past year.
• Types of Online Harm: Initially five types, including online harassment, doxing, and intimate image abuse, with eight more to be added progressively (e.g., online impersonation, incitement of violence).
• Reasonable Grounds to Believe vs. Reason to Suspect: A debate point regarding the threshold for the OSC to act, with "reason to suspect" allowing for quicker intervention and "reason to believe" requiring more established proof.
• Legitimate Speech vs. Harassment: Concerns raised about the potential for the OSC to inadvertently silence free speech, such as fair criticism or investigative journalism.
• Resourcing and Manpower: Practical considerations for the OSC, including the need for adequate staffing, expertise, and technology to handle caseloads effectively.

New Laws for Enhanced Online Harm Support

New legislation is being introduced to provide improved support for victims of online harms. A central component of this initiative is the establishment of a dedicated, one-stop government agency, the Online Safety Commission (OSC). This agency is designed to streamline processes, notably the removal of harmful online material, and to ensure offenders are held accountable. The urgency for such measures is underscored by a recent government survey revealing that over 80% of individuals encountered harmful online content in the past year.

Powers and Scope of the Online Safety Commission

The OSC will be empowered to issue directions and restrict abusive accounts when necessary. The agency is projected to commence operations in the first half of next year. Initially, it will address five categories of online harm: online harassment, doxing, and intimate image abuse. Subsequently, eight additional types of harm will be progressively incorporated, including online impersonation and incitement of violence or enmity.

Legal Recourse and Compensation for Victims

Victims will gain new legal rights through statutory torts, enabling them to seek legal recourse. Under these provisions, victims can pursue damages that a court deems just and equitable. Additionally, regulations may prescribe other forms of damages, such as compensation for lost earnings or an account of profits where perpetrators have benefited from their harmful actions. The overarching intent is to ensure comprehensive victim compensation and to prevent wrongdoers from profiting from their behavior.

Debates and Amendments: Balancing Safety and Free Speech

During the legislative process, Members of Parliament (MPs) from the Workers Party proposed several amendments, primarily focusing on the precise wording of certain clauses. Non-Constituency MP Andre Lao expressed concerns regarding the potential impact on legitimate speech, suggesting that even fair criticism could be misconstrued as abusive and classified as harassment. He advocated for clearer language to safeguard individuals from online harm without stifling free speech. Lao stated, "Our amendments do not weaken the bill, they sharpen it. They ensure that the commissioner's powers are used to protect victims, but not to chill legitimate speech. They prevent this bill from inadvertently silencing criticism, investigative journalism, or public interest disclosures."

The Workers Party proposed that the OSC should consider the reasonableness of a comment and the circumstances under which it was made when deciding whether to issue a direction. This approach would allow the OSC to weigh factors like fair comment or public interest alongside the features of the post, rather than immediately deeming it actionable. For instance, if a member of the public raises a concern in good faith or exposes serious wrongdoing, this would be taken into account during the OSC's case assessment.

Threshold for Action: Reason to Suspect vs. Reason to Believe

The Workers Party also suggested that the OSC should only act when there are reasonable grounds to believe that harmful acts have occurred, rather than acting on mere suspicion. In response, MP Tinping argued that raising this threshold could delay action and leave victims exposed to harm for extended periods while authorities gather proof. Tinping explained, "Members proposed amendments suggest or seem to suggest the removal of finality to appeals and to switch from reason to suspect to reason to believe. These will drag out the process and extend a victim's exposure to harm. I do not think that these are helpful to victims of online harm."

Tinping further elaborated on the implications of the threshold: "From reason to suspect. It means that when the harm is first detected that allows the agency or the authority to quickly step in and take measures to remove the harm. That's one. But to change it to reason to believe will mean that there must be sufficient grounds established to prove that there is indeed harm. And this process will take time. So during this period of time, I am fearful or I am worried that this will cause the victim who is already traumatized to be exposed to the harm further."

Practical Realities and Resourcing Challenges

Several MPs also highlighted practical challenges the OSC might face, including potentially high caseloads and resource limitations. Questions were raised about the identity and assessment methods of OSC case workers, and how the agency would scale its operations. One MP emphasized, "I guess the key point I'm trying to make is how do we adequately resource the OSC with the expertise, the manpower, the technology required to ensure that victims can get effective and timely relief. We need to set the OSC up for success."

The need for adequate resourcing to ensure speed and effectiveness was acknowledged. The commission's office is expected to be staffed and supported to act with urgency. There was a call for ministry plans detailing resourcing to ensure operational targets are achievable. Estimates for the initial caseload of the OSC are high, based on factors including Australia's e-safety caseload adjusted for Singapore's population. The OSC will calibrate and reallocate resources as necessary to ensure adequate sizing.

Conclusion and Common Ground

In his concluding remarks, Law Minister Edwin Tong expressed gratitude for the support and thoughtful contributions from MPs. He noted a significant common ground in the shared vision for advancing the bill and the OSC's work, as well as in their values concerning societal impact. Tong stated, "I'm very heartened to see that actually we are on very common ground, not just uh in our thoughts and in the way in which we want to advance the bill and the work of the OC, but also in our views and in our values on what this means to society." He acknowledged that despite extensive debate, there was little fundamental disagreement, and that suggestions made, even if not immediately adopted, would be valuable for future iterations of the bill.