Second reading Closing Speech by Minister Josephine Teo on the Online Safety (Relief and Accountability) Bill

Introduction

1. Mr Speaker, I thank all Members who have spoken on the Bill for their thoughtful comments and suggestions.

   1. Minister Edwin Tong and MOS Rahayu have responded to all of your comments comprehensively.

   2. Let me share a few more observations about the overall thrust of the debate today.

2. The first observation is that Members agree no one should be beyond accountability when their actions harm others.

   1. Ms Mariam Jaafar was most emphatic about it. The stories shared by members today illustrate the mental toll that victims of online harms experience.

   2. They are visceral and emotional.

   3. This is why it is so important to help victims get closure through restitution.

   4. It goes to the heart of the OSC’s mission – to provide timely, effective, and accessible relief for victims of online harms.

Fulfilling OSC’s mission

3. My second observation is that Members recognise the complexity and tensions of the online sphere. 

   1. Online interactions and the nuances of harmful activities can shift and evolve rapidly. 

   2. No two cases of online harm will be the same.

   3. Every hour that passes by makes a difference to victims.

   4. This is why OSC’s work will be very challenging.

4. Mr Xie Yao Quan posits that it will also be voluminous. The Government has explained how the OSC’s processes strike a balance between speed and due process, efficiency and effectiveness.

   1. As much as possible, we will rely on clear criteria for action.

   2. We will also provide avenues for independent review of decisions, so that outcomes are consistent and fair.

   3. Our framework will hold all stakeholders accountable - from platforms to perpetrators - for the safety of users.

5. The OSC will not be undertaking this work alone.

   1. We have regularly worked together with our network of partners.

   2. Many have been on this journey with us since the beginning.

6. The Bill itself has been years in the making.

   1. At every stage, local community organisations and advocates provided valuable insights that shaped our approach.

   2. Feedback from industry stakeholders further refined our framework.

      1. I am heartened they see Singapore as a determined yet pragmatic regulator.

      2. I also hope they will continue to actively contribute to improving online safety.

7. The OSC will draw upon the extensive experience and expertise of our partners.

   1. It is essential to how we navigate the evolving digital landscape.

   2. It will also help us improve our practices, and stay responsive to victims' needs.

Ensuring safeguards

8. My third observation is that Members agree the OSC must earn the trust of Singaporeans that it is effective and impartial.

   1. There are different thresholds for acting on online harmful activities that may occur.

   2. The Commissioner and the OSC have the delicate job of assessing reports and issuing directions on a case-by-case basis.

   3. We need to consider, for example, that what causes distress to a child may not be distressing to an adult.

9. Mr Sharael Taha, Ms Eileen Chong, Ms Elysa Chen, and Mr Alex Yeo have rightly pointed these out.

   1. We may adopt a victim-led approach to filing reports.

   2. But OSC will need clear guidelines, adequate oversight and accountability mechanisms.

   3. This is so that all parties – whether victims, alleged perpetrators, platforms, and administrators – know that the OSC makes its assessment based on objective criteria.

10. The OSC’s directions should only go so far to protect any immediate or further harm to victims.

    1. It should not be seen to be taking the side of one party over another. This is important whether or not political personalities are involved.

    2. Trust in the OSC’s objectivity and fairness will be critical to its success.

11. MOS Rahayu has explained how the OSC will take an objective approach in assessing online harms.

    1. These thresholds are not met simply because someone says they feel offended by the content, no matter who that someone is.

    2. Clear definitions of each harm have been provided in the Bill, supported by explanatory notes and illustrations.

    3. Mr Alex Yeo and Mr Foo Cexiang acknowledge and agree with this approach.

12. In time, the OSC will also publish guidelines on factors that it will consider in its decision-making.

    1. This is important to aid public understanding.

    2. The transparency also ensures that the OSC’s decisions can be held to clear standards.

    3. It is a necessary safeguard for fairness and consistency.

    4. I hope these assurances address Ms Chong’s concerns on the independence of the Commissioner.

13. To Mr Pritam Singh’s question on the use of Ministerial Directions, I would like to assure him that there is no intent to issue directions to interfere in the day-to-day workings of the Commissioner in specific cases.

    1. An example of a type of direction that may be provided for is on resource prioritisation for the office of the Commissioner of Online Safety.

14. At this juncture, let me also thank Ms He Ting Ru for her proposed amendments to the Bill.

15. Over the years, many MPs have given suggestions on strengthening online safety for Singaporeans.

    1. The Government has welcomed them. 

    2. I spoke about this when I opened the debate.

16. As with all well-intended suggestions, the Government’s approach is to review them carefully and rationally.

    1. MOS Rahayu and Minister Edwin have comprehensively addressed why the amendments filed by Ms He are either already provided for in the Bill;

    2. or could inadvertently limit the work of the OSC in providing relief for victims.

17. For instance, we agree that public interest is an important factor.

    1. In fact, the Bill provides that the Commissioner may consider it.

    2. But making “public interest” an overriding exemption could inadvertently provide a shield to bad online actors. 

    3. Ms Tin Pei Ling underscored this risk. Under the pretext of public interest, these bad actors can continue to undermine victims’ recourse.

18. To be clear, the Government has no disagreement with the intent behind Ms He’s amendments.

    1. We will also operationalise the law in the same spirit.

    2. But as with any law, we must strike a careful balance between being specific to make the law clear and operable, and being too specific as to inadvertently make the law less effective.

    3. MDDI and MinLaw have tried to get this balance right. OSC has both the latitude to act quickly, and the duty to act responsibly within clear bounds.

19. In designing the OSC’s remit, we have taken every care to scope it precisely, proportionately, and as practicably as we can, so that it fulfils its mission.

    1. The OSC will learn from experience, continually refine its processes, and always strive to do better.

    2. It will continue to monitor and report on its progress, refining the system openly as needed.

20. We welcome the Workers’ Party’s shared interest in ensuring that the OSC is well positioned to achieve its objective. 

    1. Our end goals are aligned.

    2. We all want better support for victims of online harms.

21. I hope Members will agree that our priority is to allow the OSC to focus on building its capabilities, clarifying its policies and cultivating its partnerships.

    1. It will take time, and things may not work perfectly at first.

    2. But, step by step, we will get it right.

22. I thank Mr Singh for stating that the Workers’ Party supports the Bill. If the Workers’ Party agrees, I hope it will also consider withdrawing its amendments.

23. Mr Speaker, I beg to move.