Second Reading Opening Speech By Minister Josephine Teo On The Online Safety (Relief And Accountability) Bill

Introduction

1. Mr Speaker, I move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time.”

2. Sir, Ms He Ting Ru has filed a notice to move amendments to the Bill.

   1. They relate to the principles and outcomes of the Online Safety (Relief and Accountability) Bill.

   2. I therefore seek your consent to have the Second Reading of the Bill and the amendments debated together.

Protecting Victims of Online Harms

3. Sir, the Online Safety (Relief and Accountability) Bill, or OSRA, is designed to protect victims of online harms.

4. Unfortunately, we know of too many victims.

5. In too many cases, we actually know the victims.

   1. We know their families, and the pain they suffer.

   2. We know too that this is a very difficult problem.

6. We want to take further action. But how?

7. This Bill is our answer.

8. While the Bill is new, Members’ concerns are not.

9. As far back as 2014, when the Protection from Harassment Bill was debated,

   1. Ms Tin Pei Ling asked about removing offensive content,

   2. and identifying perpetrators online.10.

10. In 2019, we amended the Protection from Harassment Act (POHA) to cover online harassment.

    1. MPs including Mr Chris de Souza, Mr Patrick Tay,

    2. and MOS Rahayu Mahzam, then a first-term MP,

    3. asked if victims would be given sufficient assistance when they approached the Courts for help.

11. In 2021, deep in the trenches of COVID-19,

    1. my Ministry set up the Sunlight Alliance for Action (AfA)

    2. It was a serious attempt to address online harms, especially those targeted at women and girls.

    3. Members like SMS Sim Ann and Ms Hazlina Abdul Halim were actively involved. 

12. Sunlight shone a spotlight

    1. on the prevalence of online harms,

    2. and their severe impact on victims.

13. Arising from this effort, a new organisation, SG Her Empowerment (SHE), was born.

14. Subsequent studies by SHE showed that:

    1. Two in five online harms survivors experienced at least one severe form of impact.

       1. These include serious emotional, mental or physical consequences,

       2. like depression or self-harm[1].

    2. Three in four victims of online harms choose not to voice their opinions online.

       1. for fear of being targeted

       2. if they did so.

15. In 2022, Members debated the White Paper on Singapore Women’s Development. 

    1. The Government made a clear commitment to tackle online harms.

    2. Many victims are women and girls.

    3. But men and boys have also suffered in silence.

16. With your permission, Mr Speaker, may I ask the Clerk to distribute handouts to the Members? Members may also access these materials through the SG PARL MP mobile app.

    1. Members may refer to Handout 1.

    2. We can see that the many victims add up to some very disturbing numbers.

17. An MDDI study^[2]  revealed that

    1. more than four in five had encountered harmful online content in the past year.

    2. This included content supporting illegal activities, sexual content and violent content.

    3. Many of these harms occur on platforms

       1. where people go for entertainment,

       2. such as Facebook, YouTube and Instagram.

Genesis of OSRA

18. In addition to POHA, the Government has made several moves to enhance online safety.

19. In 2022, we amended the Broadcasting Act

    1. to require social media services

    2. to disable access to egregious content.

    3. Including content advocating suicide or self-harm.

20. In 2023, we introduced the Code of Practice for Online Safety.

    1. Designated social media services were required to put in place systems and processes

    2. to enhance online safety, especially for children and youth.

21. These laws have helped in some measure to stem the tide of online harms.

    1. However, they were not a panacea

    2. nor could they be.

22. The impact of technology evolves and is often understood only with time. 

23. We have therefore made it a point to review our laws regularly. 

24. Most recently in January 2024, Parliament debated a Motion on “Building an inclusive and safe digital society”.

    1. The Motion, and other Parliamentary Questions filed by MPs,

    2. have contributed many useful ideas.

25. They include calls by:

    1. Mr Darryl David for victim-centric remediation

    2. Ms Mariam Jaafar and Dr Wan Rizal for better platform accountability

    3. Ms Tin Pei Ling for more timely responses and respectful behaviours online

    4. Ms Nadia Samdin to lift the veil of online anonymity

    5. Ms Hany Soh to address the use of deepfakes for extortion

    6. Mr Yip Hon Weng to firmly combat cyberbullying; and

    7. Mr Abdul Muhaimin to deter hate speech

26. Mr Speaker, these calls by Members have reinforced

    1. where we can do more

    2. to strengthen protection for victims of online harms.

27. They align closely with multiple studies

    1. conducted over the years

    2. by the government, academics, and non-government organisations.

28. Let me share some important findings from these studies.

29. The first important finding is that victims often want quick takedowns of online harms[3].

    1. A study by the Infocomm Media Development Authority[4] showed that platforms take about five days or more to act on valid reports of online harm.

    2. Many valid reports are not even acted on.

    3. This is highly unsatisfactory to victims.

30. The second important finding is that victims are daunted

    1. by the existing channels for seeking remedies[5].

    2. In particular, they find court processes complex and expensive.

31. The third important finding is that victims face difficulties seeking restitution.

    1. This is because they are often unable to confirm who was responsible for the harm[6].

    2. They continue to be in fear

    3. and cannot find closure

OSRA and the OSC

32. Today, we are taking a decisive step to introduce legislation.

    1. It will give victims of online harms an avenue

    2. of timely, effective and accessible redress.

33. OSRA aims to do this in three ways. 

34. First, OSRA will establish the office of the Commissioner of Online Safety.

    1. An agency, the Online Safety Commission (the OSC), will be set up

    2. to support the office of the Commissioner.   

35. The OSC will be empowered to issue directions to

    1. communicators of harmful content,

    2. administrators of groups or pages, and

    3. platforms.

36. These directions require the recipients to act quickly on the harmful content.

37. The OSC will start by tackling online harms

    1. that are most prevalent,

    2. and Singaporeans consider the most severe[7].

    3. Other harms will be dealt with progressively.

38. MOS Rahayu will elaborate on how the OSC is intended to operate.

39. Second, OSRA will introduce statutory torts.

    1. This is a major improvement.

    2. It provides a legal basis for the victim to take action

    3. Most importantly, it will allow victims to initiate legal proceedings

       1. against those responsible

       2. for causing or continuing the harm.

40. Sir, studies have shown that Singaporeans see online safety

    1. as a shared responsibility

    2. between tech companies, individuals, the government, parents and schools[8].

41. The proposed statutory torts will

    1. clarify the duties

    2. that users, administrators of groups, and platforms

    3. owe to each other.

42. It will significantly reduce ambiguity

    1. about what online behaviours

    2. are considered harmful and unlawful.

43. Third, OSRA provides victims with a means to identify the person who caused the harm.

    1. Not all victims want this.

    2. But for those who do, OSRA plugs a gap.

    3. Minister Edwin will elaborate on this.

The Online Safety Commission (OSC)

44. Sir, If Parliament passes OSRA,

    1. Singapore will be one of only a few countries worldwide

    2. to have an agency dedicated to helping victims of online harm.

45. While we have few counterparts to learn from, this does not deter us.

46. In setting up the OSC, we considered various models, such as mediation and dispute resolution.

47. Victims are at the very heart of OSC’s mission.

    1. But the OSC’s operational model

    2. and its oversight process

    3. are designed to be reasonable and fair to all.

48. This is balanced against

    1. the need to act expeditiously,

    2. and reduce the possibility of victim re-traumatisation.

    3. We also need to minimise long-drawn investigations and appeal cases.

49. In designing our set-up for the office of the Commissioner of Online Safety,

    1. we drew lessons from Australia’s eSafety Commissioner.

    2. We learnt much from their generous sharing of experience

    3. to build a model that works for Singapore.

50. For example, eSafety started small,

    1. focusing only on image-based child abuse material

    2. and cyberbullying of a child or young person under 18.

51. To put the OSC on a firm footing,

    1. we will similarly also start off by tackling the most severe and prevalent harms.

    2. MOS Rahayu will share more on the phased implementation approach.

52. While we learnt important lessons from Australia’s eSafety, I should point out there are differences. For example:

    1. The Commissioner of Online Safety in Singapore will be empowered

       1. to deal with a wider set of harms.

       2. OSRA identifies 13 types of harms

       3. which affect Singaporeans from all walks of life.

    2. The Commissioner can issue directions other than what is known colloquially as “take down”.

       1. For instance, it can issue a Right-of-Reply direction

       2. that will allow the offending content to be seen alongside the victim’s reply.

    3. The Commissioner can also seek the platform’s cooperation to obtain identity information of perpetrators.

53. Sir, I cannot overstate the importance of OSC being able to act swiftly and effectively.

    1. This victim-centric approach is the cornerstone of the OSC. 

    2. After all, what Singaporeans have said they want most is

       1. a simple and effective way

       2. to protect themselves from online harms.

54. Importantly, it sends the signal that

    1. harms to victims

    2. inevitably become harms to society.

55. Our collective well-being is compromised

    1. when those who are harmed

    2. are denied restitution. 

56. With online harms becoming more prevalent,

    1. our barometer for acceptable online behaviour

    2. has been steadily eroded.

57. But just as we would not tolerate harmful behaviours in the physical world,

    1. we also cannot allow bad behaviours

    2. to become normalised online. 

58. Through OSRA, we hope to avoid such an eventuality.

    1. In its place, we want to lay new foundations for our citizens’ online interactions.

    2. By fostering trust in online spaces, Singaporeans can participate safely and confidently in our digital society.

59. Sir, we will continue to work with all our stakeholders

    1. from tech companies to community partners

    2. to implement OSRA.

60. We continue to welcome Members’ views on how we can further improve online safety for Singaporeans.

61. Mr Speaker, may I have your permission to provide a summary in Mandarin, please?

62. 网上的有害内容

    1. 已经严重影响了我们的网络风气，

    2. 违背我们的社会价值观。

63. 互联网安全（援助与问责）法案

    1. 主要在三方面

    2. 加强网络安全

    3. 和保护国人免受网络伤害

64. 首先，设立互联网安全委员会

    1. 将让受害者能更快地得到帮助。

    2. 遇到有害内容时，互联网安全委员会也可以发出指示，

    3. 要求加害者或平台 

    4. 迅速删除相关内容  并禁止传播。

    5. 这正是大部分受害者所期待·的结果。

65. 其次，法案也明确列出

    1. 网络上违法的行为，

    2. 让受害者可以对这些行为提出诉讼，

    3. 并让加害者  为他们的所作所为   承担法律责任。

66. 最后，互联网安全委员会能帮助受害者

    1. 获得加害者的身份信息。

    2. 虽然加害者往往会隐藏自己的身份，

    3. 我们正和各平台商讨，

    4. 如何让加害者逃得了一时, 逃不了一世。

67. 总的来说，法案的目的

    1. 不只是为受害者提供及时的帮助

    2. 也能帮他们讨回公道

68. 我们也希望法案能起得

    1. 以儆效尤的作用，

    2. 规范网络上的行为标准

    3. 并打造一个更安全，更富有正能量的网络空间。

The Next Bound for Online Safety

69. Sir, our journey towards building a safer online world does not stop with OSRA. 

    1. We are especially concerned about younger persons.

    2. and plan to do more to ensure that usage of online services is age-appropriate.

70. We know anecdotally and from studies[9] that

    1. youths can easily bypass age restrictions online.

    2. They use false birthdays, spam email accounts, or borrowed credentials for verification.

    3. When one person figures out how to do so, they teach their friends too.

71. Such behaviours may cause more youths to be exposed to inappropriate content or persons.

72. To moderate such risks, we have introduced age assurance measures on app stores. 

    1. Hopefully, young users do not download age-inappropriate apps in the first place.

    2. But this is not enough.

73. A more holistic approach is needed.

    1. This means extending age assurance requirements to social media services which attract many young users.

    2. We will explore better protections on other platforms,

       1. such as online games,

       2. where children and youth spend much of their time.

    3. In addition, we will look beyond content

       1. to address unwanted interactions

       2. and excessive time spent on such apps.

74. We will review the additional measures needed to better protect younger users online.

    1. As and when new technology arises,

    2. we will study them

    3. and update our safeguards where required.

Conclusion

75. Mr Speaker, let me conclude.

76. In the debate to follow, I suggest Members keep in mind three points:

    1. One, OSRA introduces many new features in our online safety ecosystem

       1. They are novel and meaningful

       2. Nevertheless, there is much work ahead 

       3. to ensure that these features can be effectively implemented.

    2. Two, OSRA is designed to help victims

       1. in areas and ways that matter most to them.

       2. This was how we determined the types of harms, range of directions, and thresholds of harms.

       3. We have also introduced safeguards to prevent overreach of the Commissioner and OSRA.

    3. Three, these considerations should therefore inform further proposals and suggestions.

       1. We should be careful not to distract the Commissioner and the OSC,

       2. or impose more conditions

       3. which will impede victims from getting timely, effective and accessible relief.

77. With that, I look forward to the debate on the Bill.

78. Sir, I beg to move.

[1] SG Her Empowerment (2023). Study on Online Harms in Singapore 2023

[2] MDDI (2025). Perceptions of Digitalisation Survey

[3] SG Her Empowerment (2023). Study on Online Harms in Singapore 2023.

[4] IMDA (2025). Online Safety Assessment Report.

[5] SG Her Empowerment (May 2025). 404 Help Not Found: Lived Experiences of Online Harms Survivors.

[6] SG Her Empowerment (May 2025). 404 Help Not Found: Lived Experiences of Online Harms Survivors.

[7] Institute of Policy Studies (Oct 2025). Singaporeans back stronger safeguards and faster remedies for online harms, IPS study finds.

[8] Institute of Policy Studies (Oct 2025). Singaporeans back stronger safeguards and faster remedies for online harms, IPS study finds.

[9] UNICEF Australia (2025). Tech Savvy teens bypass online safety barriers, hand over sensitive information.