Second reading Closing Speech by MOS Rahayu Mahzam on the Online Safety (Relief and Accountability) Bill

Introduction

1. Mr Speaker, I thank Members for their support and interest in this Bill.

2. 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.

3. 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.

4. We think OSRA strikes the right balance as it stands, between swift protection for vulnerable victims, with sufficient accountability through reconsideration and appeal.

5. 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.

6. I acknowledge that Members have questions about the statutory reporting mechanism and how the Online Safety Commission will carry out its functions – understandably so, given that this is a new agency that we are setting up.

7. I will address Members’ questions thematically.

Scope of OSRA and interaction with other laws

8. 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.

9. Mr Speaker, when faced with an online harm, what most victims want is direct and timely relief. 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.

10. 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.

11. 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.

12. 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.

13. 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.

Types of harms covered by OSRA

14. Some Members have also asked about the scope of the harms covered by the OSRA Bill.

15. 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.

16. 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.

17. 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.

18. 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.

19. 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.

20. 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.

21. 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 OSC. In comparison, the current formulation allows the OSC to consider a basket of factors when deciding whether to issue directions.

22. 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.

23. So, if a member of the public raises issues in good faith or exposes serious wrongdoing, this will be taken into account as part of the OSC’s case assessment. We should not pre-emptively restrict the OSC from considering any one factor.

24. 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, this includes someone’s medical history.

25. Mr Ng 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.

26. 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. 

27. 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 artificial intelligence, or AI. I wish to assure the Member that the 13 harms under the OSRA Bill are generally technology-neutral.

28. 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.

29. 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.

30. 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. 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 1.             thresholds of likely to cause the victim harassment, alarm, distress or humiliation, even if there was no intent to mislead.

31. On how the harm of "publication of statement harmful to reputation" interacts with defamation under common law, 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 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.

32. 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 damage suffered.

33. On how the OSC would ascertain disproportionality in the case of "online instigation of disproportionate harm" (OIDHs) and if there will be guidelines published for what constitutes disproportionate harm, as illustrated in Handout 4, disproportionate harm can take on various forms, such as physical harm. 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.

34. The OIDHs 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.

The Office of the Commissioner of Online Safety and the Online Safety Commission (OSC)

35. 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.

36. 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.

37. 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. 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.

38. 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 the OSC, and how it will be adequately resourced to provide effective and timely redress. We estimate the initial caseload of the 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 cases, we will calibrate and reallocate resources as necessary, to resource and size the OSC adequately.

39. 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 victims are not denied timely relief, even as we accord due process to all involved.

40. Mr Foo Cexiang also proposed expanding the 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 the 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 the OSC the appropriate powers.

41. 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 out 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.

42. The regular reports may include information on aggregated caseloads and anonymised case information, insofar as these do not retraumatise victims. Members are also welcome to file Parliamentary Questions to request such information, if it is not already published in the public domain.

43. 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.

44. I would inform members that under the Code of Practice for Online Safety – Social Media Services, designated social media services 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 number of reports received from users as well as the DSMSs’ response time to act on these reports. The IMDA also publishes an Online Safety Assessment Report. We will continue to drive the point on platforms’ accountability through the OSRA Bill.

Implementation Plans

45. On the phased implementation of the 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.

46. Mr Speaker, as mentioned in my opening speech, we want to do right by the victims. A phased implementation approach is necessary so that the 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.

47. For a start, the 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.

48. 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.

49. Ms Cassandra Lee asked about measures to safeguard victims’ confidentiality during the reporting process. 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.

50. Members including Dr Choo Pei Ling and Mr Alex Yeo sought clarifications on who can or cannot file reports to the OSC. Dr Wan Rizal asked about the process for unions and professional bodies to file a report on behalf of their members.

51. 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 the 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. 

52. Mr Ng Shi Xuan and Mr Alex Yeo had suggested for the 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.

53. 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 the OSC can minimise mischief reports. The OSC will have mechanisms in place to filter out and dismiss trivial, frivolous or 1.             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 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.

54. 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’s decisions, and Mr Pritam Singh sought clarifications on the information that OSC will share at the reconsideration stage.

55. As drafted in the OSRA Bill, the 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 the OSC has reason to suspect that online harmful activity was conducted, before issuing a direction.

56. 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.

57. 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.

58. Victims and recipients of the OSC’s directions will be able to seek the OSC’s reconsideration if they disagree with it, and appeal to an independent Appeal Committee thereafter.

59. Ms Cassandra Lee asked about the requirement for victims to file reports to the platforms first before the OSC.

60. 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.

61. 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.

62. 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.

63. Several MPs 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.

64. 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 severity of the case.

65. Ms Valerie Lee asked whether the Commissioner will be required to conduct a preliminary assessment before issuing directions. The answer is yes – the OSC will assess if it has reason to suspect that online harmful activity was conducted before issuing a direction.

66. 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.

67. Mr Andre Low raised a few clarifications on specific directions. First, on 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’ ability 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.

68. Second, Mr Low also asked about potential overreach when 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 harm occurring. 

69. 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. Such platforms would also have the technical capabilities to implement more complex directions.

70. 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 asked how the Bill would deal with cases arising from private or semi-private chat groups.

71. Under the OSRA Bill, online service providers would include social media services and online messaging services such as WhatsApp, Telegram and WeChat.

72. 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. 

73. 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.

74. 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.  

Oversight mechanisms

75. Next, Members sought clarifications on the OSC’s reconsideration and appeal processes. Mr Zhulkarnain urged caution against allowing extensive appellate processes that risk retraumatising victims.

76. 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.

77. We will provide more details on the appeal process at a later stage.

Offences, Penalties, and the Online Harmful Activity Remedial Initiative

78. 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 Virtual Private Networks, or 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.

79. 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 1.             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.

80. 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.

81. 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.

82. Mr Foo Cexiang asked whether the penalties prescribed under OSRA are adequate. Dr Choo Pei Ling also suggested increasing the maximum penalties.

83. 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.

84. 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.

85. Ms Mariam Jaafar suggested incorporating digital literacy or restorative programmes, especially for younger offenders. Ms He Ting Ru also asked whether perpetrators could be issued counselling orders to stop them from reoffending.

86. We agree with 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.

Support for victims

87. 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.

88. 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.

89. One such partner is SG Her Empowerment (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.  

90. 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.

91. 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.

Conclusion

92. Mr Speaker, the Bill before us today seeks to protect victims from online harms.

93. Let me conclude by leaving Members with three key takeaways:

    1. 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. 

    2. 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.

    3. Third, the OSRA Bill will strike a balance between protecting victims from online harms, while preserving space for healthy discourse.

94. The road ahead will bring its share of challenges, but also opportunities to make a real difference. 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.

95. 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.