This report was printed from Singapore Parliament

website.
Parliament No: 12
Session No: 1
Volume No: 91
Sitting No: 14
Sitting Date: 13-03-2014
Section Name: Second Reading Bills
Title: Protection from Harassment Bill
MPs Speaking: Mr K Shanmugam Mr K Shanmugam Mr K Shanmugam, Mdm Speaker, Mr Vikram Nair (Sembawang), Mr
Zaqy Mohamad (Chua Chu Kang), Er Dr Lee Bee Wah (Nee Soon), Mr Pritam Singh (Aljunied), Ms Mary
Liew (Nominated Member), Mr Christopher de Souza (Holland-Bukit Timah), Mr Hri Kumar Nair (Bishan-
Toa Payoh), Ms Tin Pei Ling (Marine Parade), Assoc Prof Tan Kheng Boon Eugene (Nominated Member),
Ms Jessica Tan Soon Neo (East Coast), Mr Edwin Tong Chun Fai (Moulmein-Kallang), Mr Patrick Tay Teck
Guan (Nee Soon), Mr Zainal Sapari (Pasir Ris-Punggol), Mr David Ong (Jurong), Ms Ellen Lee (Sembawang)

Protection from Harassment Bill

Debate resumed.

Mr K Shanmugam: Thank you Deputy Leader and Mdm Speaker. As I was saying, there are no
damages, no filing of criminal complaint – a simple process, self-help, which can be applied to a range of
situations, but you must prove or show that there was a false statement of fact. Clause 15 therefore allows
the subject of the falsehood to apply for a court order that will give the court the discretion to make an
order for the publication of a notification that draws attention to the falsehood and the publication of the
correct facts. This will allow readers to assess the truth. It is really for the court to decide when it will be
just and equitable for the court order to be made and in what form that order should be made.

Clause 15 is not intended to apply to mere conduits such as Network Service Providers or search engines.
However, content providers who have some degree of control over the content published on their website
could be subject to a clause 15 order.

Finally, I will highlight two arrangements which have been introduced to address specific challenges
associated with cyber-space, which make harassment and perpetuating falsehoods easier, and in some
ways more egregious: anonymity as well as the borderless and viral nature of online publications.

These apply to harassment or falsehoods arising from published communications, for example, over the
Internet, under clause 12 (Protection Orders), clause 13 (Expedited Protection Orders) and clause 15
(Notification Orders).

I will refer in this context to the party putting out the offending communication in clauses 12, 13 and 15 as
the “publisher”.

First, anonymity in cyber space often emboldens one to pepper online discussions with abuse, insults,
rumours, lies and untruths. Many say things which they would otherwise not utter in the physical world,
for example, telling the mother that her baby should be euthanised.

Clause 19 therefore provides that if the identity of the publisher cannot be ascertained, rules may be made
for such persons to be identified by a unique identifier, for example, an Internet location address, website,
username or account, or electronic mail address. Thus, it is not necessary for victims to discover the real
name of a publisher before applications for Protection Orders or Notification Orders can be made. The aim
is to prevent publishers from hiding behind the cloak of anonymity. Clause 19 is drawn from the Nova
Scotia’s Cyber-safety Act of 2013.
Second, to address the borderless and viral nature of online publications, the Court may grant Protection
Orders, Expedited Protection Orders and clause 15 orders which are good against all publishers.

Take the example of the harasser who uploads a nude photograph of the victim on an online forum. Let us
say the victim has gone to court and obtained a Protection Order requiring the harasser to remove the
photograph. After the Protection Order was granted, the victim discovers that other persons, say, “Jane”
and “Peter”, have also re-posted her nude photograph on other online platforms. The same Protection
Order will also be enough to require “Jane” and “Peter” to remove the nude photographs which they had
re-posted on those other platforms as well. The victim does not have to go back to the court to obtain
another Protection Order. These orders will bind publishers such as “Jane” and “Peter” if they are aware
of the terms of the orders.

Mdm Speaker, to sum up, what we are really doing today is to: look at the consequences to the victims,
and ask whether those consequences – that threat, abuse, alarm, distress – need to be protected against;
and then decide for ourselves, the extent to which the law should intervene and give remedies, or whether
we should just leave the situation alone.

Anti-social and disruptive behaviour, if left unchecked, will strike at the heart and foundations of our
society, and the concept of the rule of law. Public opinion is strong and clear: Harassment is not
acceptable. We must do something about it. And the law must deal firmly with those who harass others.

We have responded with a Bill that provides a calibrated and graduated response to harassing conduct, so
as to better protect our people from harassment and related anti-social behaviour.

Our thinking underlying the Bill is as follows: as far as possible, we keep the strong arm of the law to the
background. But where it is serious, civil and criminal remedies must be applicable.

More fundamentally, harassment cannot be dealt with by legislation alone. Ultimately, it also has to be
addressed by cultivating community norms and public education on what is socially acceptable behaviour.
If everyone frowns upon a particular type of behaviour, that will cast a powerful norm without even
having to resort to the law. The Bill provides a legislative framework which sets standards and can be the
basis on which such norms are cultivated.

Conferences, such as the Cyber Wellness Student Ambassador Programme of 2014, where students learn
how to have a positive online presence by creating meaningful and responsible relationships online, and
the Media Literacy Council’s Safer Internet Day Campaign 2014, a campaign to encourage Singaporeans
to pledge what we can do to make a better Internet, are a good start.

We should try and ensure that our children grow up in a stable and safe environment, free from bullying
by peers and discrimination. Our people, women and men alike, should be free from intimidating, hostile
or abusive environments, be it at home or in the workplace. The Bill is about these and trying to create
norms and put in place a framework for penalising conduct which is unacceptable. What we have tried to
do is to take it from existing legislation and draw reference from legislation elsewhere in the world. And I
have referred Members to other countries which have legislation on harassment.

Mdm Speaker, with your permission, if the Annexes to my speech may now be distributed? Mdm Speaker,
I beg to move.

Mdm Speaker: Yes, please.

Question proposed.

3.07 pm

Mr Vikram Nair (Sembawang): Mdm Speaker, I speak in support of this Bill. This Bill provides a clear
legislative framework for dealing with harassment, stalking and making of false statements, and, in each
case, gives clear remedies to victims who may otherwise have been left without recourse.

I was involved in some of the engagement sessions and was impressed by the wide range of groups
involved and supporting legislation against harassment. This includes VWOs and groups interested in
protecting vulnerable groups, such as women and children, members of the online community, including
bloggers and a number of academics. By and large, there was very wide ranging support for legislation to
deal with harassment. The fact is this Bill provides a relatively simple framework for dealing with such a
wide range of different issues is commendable.

Let me share a few situations in which a Bill like this might help. And the first story I am sharing involves
an Indian lady who came to my MPS who was dealing with her ex-husband. I should add that this is the
case where she might have gotten protection under the Women’s Charter by getting a Protection Order.
She was reluctant to see lawyers about this though. So let me share her story and, if I may, I will do this in
Tamil.

Mdm Speaker: Yes, please.

Mr Vikram Nair: (In Tamil): [For Tamil speech, please refer to Vernacular Speeches.] A few months
ago, an Indian lady who resides in the Admiralty ward of Sembawang GRC came to see me at my Meet-
the-People Session. She told me about her problems.

Her daughter lives with her. She said that she had an acrimonious divorce with her husband. According to
her, her husband continued to send her insulting SMS messages. These messages generally accused her of
being a bad mother and wife.

The lady had reported this to the Police. However, the Police told her that as it did not constitute an
offence, they were unable to do anything about it. As a result, she told me that her former husband
continues to harass her without any fear at all.

Mdm Speaker, with the passing of this new law, the actions of her husband would become unlawful. So
the Police should be able to help her now.

(In English): I will switch back to English. That was just one situation, where a remedy is available now,
in which I believe that this framework will provide an even easier remedy. But that is not all. Another
broad area in which I think such legislation would be helpful would be in relation to cyber harassment.
Surprisingly, very strong proponents of this included a whole range of people who are active online,
bloggers who themselves are strong proponents of free speech. Even they believe that legislation is
needed to prevent harassment.

VWOs taking care of children, who are speaking up against bullying, pointed out that cyber bullying is
one of the biggest issues facing young children. This legislation will at least give a framework for us to
step in. There will be some limits on criminal liability for children below the age of 12, but at least this
framework does give clear measures in the law, to step in where necessary.

Workplace harassment is also an important issue that many groups have brought up, and sexual
harassment, as the Minister has outlined in quite some detail, will also be addressed to a great measure in
this Bill.

While I broadly applaud this Bill, any Bill that deals with such a wide range of issues will necessarily
have some areas where it may potentially lead to matters being criminalised where there may be no
intention to criminalise. I should also highlight a few areas where I think there might be some concerns
where an overly broad reading of the Bill might lead to some potentially unintentional results.

One is, for example, the definition of “harassment” currently criminalises “insulting behaviour” or
“communication”, if it is likely to cause “distress” to a person. Now, if the threshold for insult and distress
is set too low, a very wide range of behaviour may be inadvertently criminalised. For example, in the
course of a football game, it is quite normal for colourful language to be used against opposing team
members, referees and, sometimes, even your own team mates. Such language is often “insulting” and
may cause “distress” to the victim. But my own view is that such behaviour is not intended to be
criminalised because they are just one-off insults that people do not think about later.

At the same time, I acknowledge that it is a defence under the Act saying that if the conduct is reasonable
under section 33 or 43B, then it will not to be treated as harassment. It may be difficult to say that such
behaviour is reasonable, but I do not think that any of this behaviour is really intended to be criminalised
by the Act, unless there is a course of conduct around it.

The same thing: insults by drill Sergeants in the Army or anyone else who has been to the National
Service. All these things seem pretty much par for the course; it may cause distress to the person suffering
at the moment, but I do not think there is any long-term consequence from that. I do not think that is
intended to be criminalised.

One area that may be more difficult is potentially the issue of people getting negative feedback at work.
For example, if a person feels that he has been having a rough ride at work and has been getting a series of
bad performance reviews and things like that, that is potentially insulting, and you can insult a person with
the truth. It will cause distress. I suspect in that case only defence might be that that conduct as
reasonable. The reality is that there is a potential for a lot more workplace situations to end up being
litigated with this Harassment Bill. The courts should probably be slower to criminalise what is normal
workplace activity.

In relation to stalking, I note that section 7 specifies unlawful stalking. I am not sure if there is a
distinction between unlawful stalking and normal stalking. For example, would this section potentially
criminalise the work of private investigators? They generally follow the victims and if the victims were
aware they were being followed, they would probably be distressed. Private investigators are often
involved in contentious matters. So they might find themselves subject to allegations of stalking if and
when the victims realise that they are being followed and a report is submitted. It might be good to clarify
whether such behaviour would be considered reasonable conduct as well.

Some actions taken by private investigators may well be unreasonable and may well qualify for
criminalisation. I do not wish to constrain the courts too much. I think there is a potential with broad
wording for unintentional conduct to be included as well.

I do not have straight answers to whether or not these situations should be dealt with in the Bill or whether
they can be dealt with in subsequent legislation. By and large, that does not change the fact that I strongly
endorse this Bill and think this is timely and necessary.

3.15 pm

Mr Zaqy Mohamad (Chua Chu Kang): Mdm Speaker, thank you for allowing me to speak on the
Protection from Harassment Bill.

As Minister had highlighted earlier, this is a topic that has generated huge public interest over the last few
weeks.

This Bill is a welcome move for victims of harassment, stalking, abuses and insults, whom prior to this
Bill would have had almost little or almost no means of help from the Law. I have spoken in Parliament
on the need for laws to protect the ordinary citizen from harassment and bullying online on three
occasions, and I hope that this fourth occasion does not qualify me under harassment to the Speaker or the
Minister.
In the past year, I have come across two such cases at my MPS. In the more severe case, a female resident
had been stalked by a former boyfriend at home and at work, harassed online, even receiving veiled
threats to her safety and that of her family through instant messaging. Despite making Police reports and
compiling the incidences and messages for the Police, there was nothing the Police or the Law could do to
protect her further.

One day, as she was on her way home, she was nearly hit by a falling object. Not too long after, she
received an SMS from her ex-boyfriend who somehow knew she had a close shave. In that message, it
said that next time, she may not be so lucky. But because the thresholds of the existing laws are vague, the
Police were also unable to help.

I can fully understand that feeling of being at a loss even when the Police are not able to assist because of
the Miscellaneous Offences (Public Order & Nuisance) Act are not effective in handling online
harassment and stalking.

Having handled such cases, I therefore support the Protection from Harassment Bill as it provides a
consolidated law that will offer greater protection and remedies for such victims, such as the resident I
mentioned. The Bill provides greater clarity on the thresholds, offences and remedies for harassment in
the real world or the online world - where threatening, abusing, insulting the victim, loitering near a
victim's home or messaging daily will be criminalised.

I am also supportive that the Bill creates a statutory tort that will make it possible for victims to take out
civil proceedings against perpetrators for harassing or stalking them, and to claim monetary compensation
if their suits are successful. This provides a stronger avenue for civil recourse by victims, giving them
greater empowerment to take action against perpetrators on their own.

The introduction of the Act is therefore timely, given the context of today's use of the Internet and social
media. Penalties for harassment offences have been enhanced to reflect today's context. The penalties take
into consideration the amplification power that social media offers, which sees higher monetary penalties
and jail term, with repeat offenders also facing heavier penalties.

Yet, the Bill also strikes a good balance – and this is what I support - to empower the Court with flexibility
to make community orders, including treatment order at the Institute of Mental Health (IMH). This
reflects an element of realism that at times, the cause of these offences vary, ranging from stress and
mental health issues, to juveniles who may need a more time nurturing treatment and understanding.

On cyber bullying, often cited in the media – and raised earlier by the Minister as well – is the worldwide
study by Microsoft in 2012 that showed Singapore to be one of six countries where bullying among youth
aged eight to 17 was particularly pervasive. This Bill is also timely, as Singapore was ranked second
behind China in terms of cyber bullying among that age group. Given that the social media landscape is
still maturing, I am in support of the Bill which provides greater bite to counter cyber bullying before this
culture goes out of control. But the approach we take has to be of raising awareness to youths and the
public, and at the same time, create a "zero-tolerance for bullying" in our schools -- whether in the
physical or online realm.

The impact of bullying in school -- whether on the Internet or in the physical realm has a significant
impact to a child. Just two weeks ago, I handled a bullying case at my MPS involving a young girl who
was allegedly bullied in Primary school. I say alleged as the case is still on-going. Since the incident, she
refuses to attend school. Speaking to her, I also noticed discomfort when you speak of school and of going
back to class. I have kids of my own and, as a parent, I have also noticed how conscious my children are
of social media and try to avoid situations that could result in being shamed and being the "talk of the
town". Through our own experience, we all know that the emotional development of a child can be
impacted negatively as a result of peer pressure. Unfortunately, in this age of social media, this
environment has been made even harsher.
My hope is that in this new law, we can create a sense of awareness and promote greater education on
cyber bullying and harassment. At the same time, we should promote a zero-tolerance environment for
bullying in school. I hope that the Ministry of Law and MOE can do more to set the tone and guidelines to
put everyone – our children, families, teachers, school administrators and counsellors – on the same page
on acceptable behaviours, what to expect with this new legislation and what we should do about bullying
behaviour in school and outside school. We need to handle such cases with the right touch and reason.

As children, they may not understand that some of their actions or the way they communicate online may
constitute as harassment. Thus, I am also heartened that the law provides a range of measures to provide
this balance and take a nurturing approach in community orders like counselling, psychiatric treatment or
probation.

I stand with many parents for being concerned – whether one is the parent of the victim or the parent of
the accused. As a parent of a victim, the child today, will be accorded greater protection from harassment
and bullying. For parents of those who may have been the harassers or the bullies, the child is also
protected by law to be treated fairly and with a slew of softer measures that could help nurture the child to
obtain the necessary support and education.

On misinformation: Madam, I welcome the introduction of laws on false statement of facts. This now
entitles ordinary people to seek the judgement of the Court for publishers of statements allegedly
containing falsehoods to remove the statements, or display a suitable clarification or rebuttal. Public
figures and celebrities, on the other hand, are better equipped than the common person to manage the
replies and rebut, thus I am sure that they are also aware of the negative implications of invoking this law
too often, or if at all.

I am in support only for the ordinary citizen who is or has been victims of cyber bullying, harassment, or
misinformation by legitimate or anonymous publishers, and is unable to fend for themselves as the
balance of reach and coverage in the online world is not in their favour. I support this as long as it is not a
tool to be used in any manner to censor information and responsible views – alternative as they may be –
on the Internet.

With the new Bill, the Court can issue take-down notices to websites which publish offending material
deemed as harassment. I agree with the overall approach that if a victim wishes to claim in court, the
burden of proof of establishing the facts lies with the complainant. I think this is a fair process and the
Courts are also empowered to direct sites to issue alerts to their readers over falsehoods made against
victims.

I have a concern for the Minister to address in terms of the form of notification for the Courts. We know
how fast information or misinformation travels on the Internet, so I would like to ask, how cumbersome
the process is and how many cases can our Courts handle at the same time and how long and what kind of
time schedule will this process take? Does the law only cover only content publishers, or content site
owners or aggregators as well? There is a difference each may claim in terms of culpability. If a publisher
is anonymous or refuses to comply, is the site owner or aggregator then responsible?

The next concern I have is when an application is made, at which point does the Court issue a takedown?
Will the Court issue an immediate takedown or Protection Order at the point when the application is made
to the District Court; and it will be in force until a resolution is made as to whether the information is fact
or fiction? Or, will the takedown order be made after the Court has decided that the complainant has
established the facts and that there was an error?

Madam, in the era of social media, even three days, three weeks, even three months is a long time, by
which time misinformation can be viralled and shared across different Internet platforms. Thus, even with
this measure, if taken too long, the damage is done. Even if the main site has taken down the wrong
information, or is required to publish a rebuttal, the takedown or rebuttal does not follow-through the
channels where the information may have been viralled or shared by other users or sites.
May I also seek the Minister's clarification if the Court's powers extend to sites that re-publish or users
that have shared or viralled false contents or content involved in cyber-harassment or cyber bullying? Is
this a loophole to the law being enacted?

However, conversely, enforcing a takedown immediately every time a complaint is made may also be seen
as promoting censorship. However, the advantage that content and service publish providers have are that
if proven that they were correct, the posts can still be posted and potentially viralled anyway. Thus, I think
publishers and content providers still have the advantage. So I stand on the side of the ordinary person
whose disadvantaged with limited reach and influence online.

Madam, next on the extent of the law from sites or anonymous users from overseas: under this Bill, the
law also applies to acts committed from outside Singapore as long as certain conditions are fulfilled. For
example, when an offender who is overseas can harass or bully a victim in Singapore and knows that the
victim would be in Singapore at the point in time. We are certainly aware of many overseas platforms
whose owners are anonymous and anyone, including from Singapore, can post on these sites or platforms
anonymously too. What kind of measures is available to the Court to enforce non-compliance of Court or
take-down orders? Will the Court have the authority to block the site for local consumption - as it is not
made clear in the Bill on what measures can be undertaken by the Court in such a scenario?

Madam, on the issue of Public Workers: I am heartened that the harassment involving indecent,
threatening, abusive or insulting words or behaviour against a Public Servant is also extended to Public
Service Workers. Many speculate -- as the list has not been confirmed -- that public healthcare workers,
public transport workers and front-line service staff like the bus-drivers and MRT train personnel are
likely to be covered.

I also propose that in this list, we should also include workers that perform any public service function
which involves enforcement responsibilities or fee collection functions under any Act or laws in
Singapore. As a Town Council Chairman, I hope that Town Council officers and contractors be also
covered as they have constant contact with residents and that they also have to perform enforcement
functions, summons and fee collections – not too dissimilar from any public servants. From a citizen's
point of view, they also belong “to a prescribed class of employees or workers that provides any service
which is essential to the well-being of the public or the proper functioning of Singapore”.

I am also keen to see social service workers be provided the same protection in this category, especially
those who are working under the ambit of the FSCs or organisations who also handle cases where their
assessment could determine whether one receive social assistance, employment assistance or any other
government assistance such rental flats and so forth.

On harassment at the workplace: Madam, I am heartened and I noted AWARE's campaign in relation to
this Bill in championing for a safer work environment for women against sexual or other forms of
harassment at the workplace. I certainly fully agree and support, as I had mentioned in my MOM COS
speech as well, that we need to strengthen our agencies such as TAFEP, to have more bite in the
workplace to ensure fair employment practices.

This new Bill can address, and I hope to be a new thrust, in providing workers greater protection against
harassment and abuse in the workplace. I am aware of AWARE's position of greater accountability by
employers. However, this is where my view differs in that I support this Bill but believe that the law must
be aimed at individuals, rather than employers. I am sure all employers have human resource (HR) core
values and codes of conduct that do not condone harassment of any kind in the workplace. What I hope is
that this law will prove its effectiveness and sends a clear signal to all employers that our workplaces
should be free from any form of harassment or abuse – for both men and women.

Similar to my proposal to MOE, I hope that the Ministry of Law and also MOM, to take the opportunity to
strengthen our awareness of the laws and the measures and recourse available to workers.
Madam, in conclusion, I support the Protection from Harassment Bill for the objective of protecting our
people against various forms of harassment whether online, in our social environment or at the workplace.
The Bill reflects and sets the tone of today's context of how pervasive online content and communications
are in our lives today, and how the online mechanism can amplify the act of bullying and harassment. The
Internet has provided us with a lot of good in developing society, being communities together and
enhancing our work environments. Unfortunately, it also offers sanctuary to the anonymity of perpetrators.
I hope this Bill provides a beacon of light to brighten this space and offer hope to victims, past and
present, that the law today has caught up with technology advancements, to counter harassment and
bullying behaviour.

For the detractors, who may feel that this is a form of censorship to curb against critical speech against
private figures, I hope that the Minister can also continue to assure them that as long as one does not
commit defamation, abuse, insult or threaten anyone, the law is meant to protect the ordinary person
seeking the protection of the law.

The Government has committed to keeping a “light touch” policy online. And I hope that this Bill and the
Government continue to respect the sanctity of a “light touch” on Internet regulations and responsible
freedom of expression.

3.30 pm

Er Dr Lee Bee Wah (Nee Soon): Mdm Speaker, in Mandarin, please.

(In Mandarin): [For Mandarin speech, please refer to Vernacular Speeches.] In an era where our lives are
closely linked to the Internet, the introduction of the Protection from Harassment Bill is timely. In recent
years, there is a rising trend of online harassment, and victims are mostly children and teenagers. The
harm caused by cyber bullying can be more serious than physical bullying. The bullies hide behind the
veil of anonymity and vent their anger on innocent victims, without being caught and punished. To them,
this may just be a cruel game, but unfortunately, some victims find cyber bullying so unbearable that they
choose to commit suicide.

In 2013, Assoc Prof Tom Hawk from Michigan State University published his study on cyber bullying on
CNN. Information gathered by him and his Singapore research partners showed that about 27% of
students have encountered cyber bullying, and 28% were victims of SMS harassment. As a result, these
victims played truant or had intentions to play truant. In comparison, only 22% of victims of physical
bullying did so or had similar intentions. Among the victims of cyber bullying, 28% contemplated suicide.
Hence, one should not underestimate the intangible harm caused by words.

This leads to my next point, which is to identify the symptoms and the culprit behind cyber bullying.
Physical bullying is usually easier to identify, but victims of cyber bullying often suffer in silence,
sometimes they are even misunderstood by their parents and teachers. If laws are enacted without being
effectively enforced, it will not be able to achieve its objectives.

Hence, I hope teachers and parents will be given more resources to help them identify symptoms of cyber
bullying, so that they can help solve the children’s problems appropriately.

On the other hand, if the perpetrators of cyber bullying cannot be identified, can we take action to find out
his identity and punish him? These considerations should be factored into the Bill, so that it is more
effective and comprehensive.

We all know that this kind of bullying can also happen to women. Cyber bullies may stalk their victims,
some even engage in despicable behaviour, such as blackmailing. I hope the Government will study the
various kinds of bullying, so that we can better understand these bullies and take precautionary measures.
There are also many cases of women being sexually harassed by their colleagues and bosses at the
workplace. They either suffer in silence, or simply quit their job, because they do not have the money or
the time to seek legal recourse. Some residents tell me that they are being harassed by their ex-boyfriends
but dare not tell their parents, so they feel very stressed out.

It is heartening to see that we are moving towards a common direction of protecting the weaker members
of our society from unnecessary bullying. I strongly support the Protection from Harassment Bill. I hope
that our children, sisters and colleagues will be better protected.

3.34 pm

Mr Pritam Singh (Aljunied): Mdm Speaker, in the middle of 2013, the Government introduced a new
licensing regime that sought to align online media platforms with the regime that governed mainstream
media licensing. In the second half of 2013, there was a concern that the Government was going to draw
up laws to address online accountability, a prospect which was met with alarm by many Singaporeans.
There was a very real concern that legitimate criticism and fair comment, even if made anonymously, and
the websites which hosted such content, were the real target of new laws that were being considered by
the Government.

I am wary of any attempts, either legislative or non-legislative, to tinker with online commentary for the
principal reason that it remains one of the most important nation-building platforms for a free ranging
debate by members of the public without censorship, be it anonymously or otherwise. This is especially in
view of the significant power of the mainstream media in determining the contours and the content of
public discourse, and the out-of-bound markers it has to operate within.

In the main, the Bill deals with harassment per se and seeks to harmonise our laws pertaining to
harassment into an omnibus regime by re-enacting sections 13A(2) to 13B of the Miscellaneous Offences
(Public Order and Nuisance) Act, and introducing a new law against unlawful stalking, amongst others.

After this Bill was tabled on 3 March 2014 and scrutinised, I am considerably less disturbed by the
prospect of the Bill serving as an impediment to legitimate criticism and as a backdoor mechanism to
curtail freedom of expression online for three reasons.

Firstly, section 15 of the Bill on false statement of facts which is of immediate interest to netizens, serves
to remind Singaporeans that, whether anonymously or otherwise, a basic level of responsibility must be
exercised when comments about any person, either online or offline, are made. This is a legitimate
expectation of the law.

Secondly, the courts are granted with the powers to assess whether it is just and equitable for any party to
make offending harassing statements of fact on a balance of probabilities. In tandem, the powers of the
court are drafted to order the cessation or correct the publication of such false statements of fact.

Finally, the Bill does not operate to prohibit anonymous postings, even if the individuals behind the posts
are subject to the Act, and rightfully so.

One of the more common questions about the Bill is how harassment is defined. While the new
illustrations in the Bill from the re-enacted sections under the MOA are helpful in giving examples of
what constitutes harassment, the Bill has taken a broad approach and continues in the direction of the
MOA, with the precise contours of harassment left to the courts to determine.

In view of rapidly changing technologies and the possible subjectivity of what constitutes harassment, this
is a reasonable position, as it allows a court to assess not just what could be defined as harassment but the
effect of such conduct as well. This is important as exemplified in the case of Chee Siok Chin and others
vs Minister for Home Affairs, where Justice Rajah, as he was then, held:

“Caution, of course, has to be exercised in the employment of subsection 13A and 13B of the
Miscellaneous Offences Act. They will often involve issues of acute factual inquiry coupled with the
delicate calibration of conduct. Imprecise lines will have to be drawn between boisterous and abusive
conduct; between freedom of expression and insulting or abusive conduct; between freedom of assembly
and harassment. It cannot be gainsaid that there can be a point where legitimate conduct may cross the
Rubicon and become harassment. This will always be a matter of degree and the actual concatenation of
circumstances.”

It is evident that the application of sections 3 and 4 of the Bill that cover intentionally causing harassment,
alarm or distress; and harassment, alarm and distress respectively, may not be so straightforward to apply
in practice, notwithstanding egregious conduct. For this reason, I hope prudence is the guiding principle of
the authorities in the exercise of its powers under this Bill and I welcome the Minister’s remarks that the
strong arm of the law will be employed in egregious cases.

On definitions, I seek some clarification whether “persons”, as used in the Bill, is to be broadly read to
include corporate entities as under section 2 of the Interpretation Act or whether our courts will be left to
determine this point. I ask this as there is case law from the UK, which in applying the UK Protection
from Harassment Act, rules that on a proper construction of the term “person”, the Act does not embrace a
corporate entity.

I wanted to ask the Minister what were the thought processes of the Ministry that led to a change in the
maximum sentences under the MOA covering the new sections 3, 4, 5 and 6, but I note from the Minister
that this was partly in response to the feedback from the Institute of Policy Studies (IPS) Conference on
Harassment and public opinion on this point.

But I do note that with regard to the relevant provisions under the MOA and the sentences of the sections
under this Bill, section 41 of the Criminal Procedure Code already provides additional legislative muscle
to address violators of sections 3, 4, 5 and 6 of the Bill through the execution of a bond proportionate to an
accused person’s means, with or without sureties, for a period not exceeding two years.

Mdm Speaker, the illustrations to a number of sections in the Bill cover the acts of school children with
section 4 and 7 featuring prominently. It is evident that the Bill was drafted to also address the issue of
bullying in schools. Research by the Singapore Children’s Society in 2006 and 2007 on school students
revealed that bullying is not infrequent, with about one in four secondary school students and one in five
primary school pupils having been bullied by their peers.

In a previous parliamentary reply to the hon Nominated Member of Parliament Mr Laurence Lien, the
Senior Minister of State for Education replied that schools educate students on bullying through the
formal curriculum as well as school-based programmes, and students are also taught skills to handle
challenging situations. The new Character and Citizenship Education curriculum also teaches students to
report cases, seek help and to care for others. Anti-bullying awareness programmes, organised in many
schools, empower students to help themselves and support their peers who are bullied.

While I applaud these efforts, I would like to ask the Minister if these initiatives are applied with equal
vigour across all schools. I ask this question not to knock these initiatives but to state my opinion that
bullying in both the real and online world, is best addressed through sustained and aggressive educational
efforts both at home and in schools. It is my view that hard law will not succeed in altering norms and
behaviour among school-children as compared to sustained education efforts in schools where each
student knows how to respond to cases of bullying and harassment instead of being overcome with
feelings of guilt and suffering in silence. In the converse, education should also allow students to
instinctively identify when his/her conduct is unbecoming and causing distress to someone else.

While I acknowledge the work done by MOE and other groups in this regard, in the main, I do hope we
can address the issue of bullying in schools outside the legal domain, with this Bill employed as a last
resort on students who are at a stage in their life where mistakes are made and poor judgment is exercised,
a reflection of youthful folly.
Section 7 of the Bill covering unlawful stalking is probably the most challenging area as it breaks new
legislative ground and is potentially open to much interpretation when applied. Section 7(3), which lists
examples of acts or omissions associated with stalking are generally identical to section 111 of the UK
Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 which explicitly added new sections on stalking to the Protection from
Harassment Act 1997.

The potentially problematic nature of a stalking law has been seen in the application of the UK Protection
from Harassment Act, which created an offence of “pursuing a “course of conduct” which amounts to
harassment of another. For example, a UK newspaper reported that in 2001, the UK Protection from
Harassment Act was employed to prosecute protestors outside a US base who were deemed to have
distressed American servicemen by holding up a placard that said “George W Bush? Oh dear!” In 2004,
police in Kent arrested a woman under the Act for sending two emails to an executive at a drugs company
begging him not to test his products on animals, and in 2007, the residents of a village in Oxfordshire
were injuncted from protesting against a power company’s plan to fill their lake with ash, in case they
caused alarm or distress to the company’s big-sized security guards. In fact, anti-stalking laws may
conceivably be used against political activists, market researchers and religious organisations, especially if
individuals or organisations are not fully appraised of the meaning of “course of conduct”, as established
by section 7(10) of the Bill.

Mdm Speaker, while these examples are extreme and perhaps fleeting, it is not too far-fetched to imagine
section 7 of the Bill being used for purposes that stretch Parliament’s intent, far beyond the illustrations
provided in section 7 of the Bill, which have to do with an individual repeatedly sending emails, flowers
and circulating revealing photographs, notwithstanding the Minister’s point that the illustrations are only
some examples of the wide application of the Bill.

While this issue does not offer straightforward solutions, the point remains that the law against unlawful
stalking may also find itself to be a victim of unintended consequences. I would like to seek the Minister’s
assurance that this Bill will not be used for such purposes.

In fact, it is not too difficult to envisage a wide range of situations in the local context. I remember visiting
a wake at my ward in late 2011 over a period of time when there was a spike in the number of deaths at
the Bedok Reservoir, with the media wondering why this was so. In my case, the family of the deceased
was rather distressed that some journalists were keeping a watching brief of the number of people who
came and left the wake before approaching them for a sound bite. By “watching brief”, I also mean hiding
behind pillars and taking active steps to avoid detection. This information inevitably made its way back to
the distressed family, and as the law is drafted, would the Minister comment on the possible employment
of section 7 against journalists and investigative reporters?

Section 7 of the Bill makes the offence of unlawful stalking subject to reasonableness. However, this is
likely to be a challenging moral and ethical exercise made even more challenging by a lower standard of
proof in civil matters. I am concerned that the Bill may be subject to abuse, especially by individuals who
seek to use the law as a weapon, as seen by the UK examples and, on the other extreme, for illegitimate
reasons, like avoiding or strategically delaying public scrutiny which some journalists or bloggers may
seek to pursue.

Finally, while I do believe the law is a positive step forward in terms of putting a symbolic focus on
harassment and society’s abhorrence of such behaviour, I do query what the effect of the law is on
alternative dispute resolution means, such as community mediation, especially in the case of neighbour
disputes, and separately, the number of prosecutions and civil cases with the passage of this Bill.

I do understand from the Minister of Culture, Community and Youth during the Committee of Supply this
week and comments published in the mainstream media on the 9th of March that a new tribunal may be
set up in the second half of the year with powers to issue orders to disputing neighbours, an added
recourse for aggrieved individuals from the current community dispute resolution system which is wholly
voluntary.
Nonetheless, I hope this Bill will encourage businesses and schools to draw up dedicated anti-harassment
and anti-bullying policies and procedures so that employers, employees and students are clear on the
general boundaries of personal conduct, both online and offline, rather than resort to the law at the get-go.

Schools in particular can take some reference from Oxford University’s Policy and Procedure on
Harassment and Bullying, while the Tripartite Alliance on Fair Employment Practices could look at
advising employers on the importance of such policies. Employers in particular should be minded to draw
up these policies in view of the diversity of Singapore population and our privileged position as a meeting
point between East and West and the different cultural values that intersect at the workplace, where a hug
or a pat on the shoulder may be misinterpreted by some employees, intentionally or otherwise, as sexual
harassment.

Finally, I welcome the clarification of this Bill on the law covering harassment in Singapore in view of the
case in AXA Insurance. Mdm Speaker, my concerns about the potentially wide-ranging application of
section 7 notwithstanding, I support the Bill.

3.47 pm

Ms Mary Liew (Nominated Member): Mdm Speaker, I applaud the Minister for seeing the urgency to
introduce the Protection from Harassment Bill. Unlike the past, when bullies were confined to a handful
from school or playground, today the prevalence of bullies is limitless in cyberspace. For too long, many
hide behind the anonymity of the keyboard, getting away with it, while the victims suffer distress and
embarrassment.

As the Minister has passionately shared earlier, it is both shocking and disturbing that Singapore has the
second highest rate of online bullying, among youth aged eight to 17, out of 25 countries, second only to
China, in a survey done by Microsoft. A straw poll conducted by Cyber Wellness also found that cyber
bullying has risen in the past four years. What is even more alarming is that these are the kids who are
only in primary and secondary schools. This group of students, who is our future generation, are partaking
in cyber bullying or being bullied or harassed. What will become of them when they reach adulthood?
Will this behaviour or trauma be carried forward to their future workplaces?

It leads me to ask next, is this law applicable to all school-going children? And what more can the
Government do to stop or punish cyber bullying in schools? It is puzzling that even with talks and
education on cyber wellness, Singapore still has the second highest online bullying rates. What more can
be done? I would like to ask the Minister if it is compulsory for every school to hold safety talks to
educate the students, teachers, as well as parents so that they know the gravity of cyber bullying.

In October last year, a 12-year-old American girl, jumped to her death after being a victim of cyber
bullying. One of her alleged tormentors apparently even boasted about her role online. Closer to home,
Singapore experienced its first cyber bullying death when a 16-year-old took her life by jumping down
from the block. She was accused of being a “loose woman” by her ex-boyfriend on Facebook after his
attempt to salvage the relationship failed. Deeply affected by the flaming online and the judgements by her
schoolmates, she committed suicide.

These precious young lives are forever gone and more must be done to ensure that something like this
never happens again in Singapore. Therefore, there is an urgency to teach the right values and cyber
etiquettes to the younger generation since they will eventually be the future pillars of our society.

This Bill is a step in the right direction to protect the victims. However, turning specifically to the
workplace, are both employers and employees aware of what constitutes workplace harassment?

There must be proper channels for affected employees to file a complaint should there be an occurrence of
workplace harassment. Companies should include this information in their employees’ handbook so that
information is readily available. Employers must also be obligated to take sexual harassment more
seriously, and work towards either preventing workplace sexual harassment or processing and dealing
with harassment complaints better.

This is not something new as other countries, such as Malaysia as well, already have in place a Code of
Practice against Sexual Harassment at the Workplace since 1999. The Code outlines the statement of
purpose, legal definition of harassment, description of behaviours that constitute harassment, how
employees should handle harassment, how companies should handle complaints, what kind of disciplinary
actions must be taken and the names and phone numbers to lodge a complaint.

Madam, companies must recognise that bullying and harassment are not acceptable. If such behaviour is
tolerated and allowed to take place, it will reflect poorly on the organisation. It will affect morale. It may
also lead to poor performance and lost productivity and will even damage the company’s reputation.
Therefore, it is in the best interest of employers to promote a safe, fair and healthy workplace environment
for their employees.

Madam, I am also heartened that this Bill enhanced provision to protect public sector employees including
public service workers. I would like to ask the Minister if this protection also includes our public transport
workers including our bus captains and taxi drivers.

Madam, at the end of the day, enforcement is the key to this new Bill and I hope that the Minister will
share with us how the enforcement can be tightened up and implemented smoothly. With that, Mdm
Speaker, I strongly support the Bill.

Mdm Speaker: Order. I propose to take the break now. I suspend the Sitting and will take the Chair again
at 4.15 pm.

Sitting accordingly suspended

at 3.53 pm until 4.15 pm.

Sitting resumed at 4.15 pm.

[Mdm Speaker in the Chair]

PROTECTION FROM HARASSMENT BILL

Debate resumed.

4.15 pm

Mr Christopher de Souza (Holland-Bukit Timah): Mdm Speaker, I rise in support of the Protection
from Harassment Bill before Parliament today. This Bill is certainly a step in the right direction, as it deals
with the prevalence of harassment, cyber bullying and unlawful stalking in our community head-on. With
the enactment of this Bill, genuine victims of these offences will be given the necessary reprieve from,
and compensation for, the distress that they have experienced as a result of the unwarranted actions of
their harassers and stalkers.

At the same time, with this Bill, offenders that choose to commit these insidious offences can be dealt
with judiciously and firmly, reflecting the tough stance that we are taking for such offences.

The enactment of this Bill is also a timely and necessary response to the increasing utilisation of the
Internet to manipulate and victimise the vulnerable. This issue was first noted by Parliament when the
amendments to the Penal Code were debated in 2007, and the enactment of this Bill is an extension of that
realisation.

With new advancements in technology and the rapid expansion of Internet access in recent years,
harassers are now increasingly capable of utilising the Internet as a potent and expedient means of causing
alarm or distress to others. As a result, existing measures are no longer sufficient to deal with the threat of
online harassment and cyber bullying effectively.

I support this Bill for two main reasons: first, as this Bill extends the scope of harassment to include
words, behaviour or communication used or made by “any means”, including through electronics means.
Secondly, because this Bill adopts a potent two-pronged approach to dealing with the objectionable and
insidious offences of harassment and unlawful stalking.

In the past, in order for a victim to obtain protection from harassment or cyber bullying, they would need
to initiate a civil action against the alleged harasser under the common law tort of harassment, which is
often times hard, expensive, and could take an extended period of time to be resolved.

This is similar to the case of victims of Internet or online defamation – victims currently need to initiate a
civil suit in order to obtain some form of compensation -- this process is public and can be costly.

Some form of Police enforcement or investigation would seem more effective and expedient. However,
the only avenue currently available to victims is to obtain the help of authorities to prosecute the alleged
harasser under the Miscellaneous Offences (Public Order and Nuisance) Act (the MOA). However, the
provisions under that Act are arguably vague and unclear with respect to online harassment and cyber
bullying.

Additionally, for an offence to be made out, it seems the offender would have had to personally make the
alarming or distressing remarks to the victim face-to-face or to have spread rumours or allegations using
the word of mouth.

These days, offenders may perpetuate false rumours and allegations online using websites like Facebook,
Twitter or online blogs. Alternatively, they may also resort to modern electronic means of communication
like e-mails or smartphone-based instant messaging applications, like WhatsApp, to inundate and annoy
their victims, as the Minister had previously explained.

The means utilised and the audience that might be exposed to these unwarranted acts are dramatically
different from the past. By extending their actions into the realm of the Internet and the virtual world, the
magnitude of these actions are amplified. With this evolution of methods utilised by offenders, current
safeguards need to be bolstered to deal with the types and forms of harassment that Singaporeans are
facing in these times.

Therefore, with the expansion of offenses relating to harassment to include words, behaviour or
communication used or made by “any means”, including electronic means, it ensures that offenders who
resort to modern means of harassment or cyber bullying can be swiftly and judiciously dealt with.

Further, by widening the forms of harassment recognised under the law, the Police and other law
enforcement agencies will be empowered to step in and conduct investigations to determine if an offence
of online harassment or cyber bullying can be made out. With the manpower and resources to conduct a
thorough investigation, Police investigation and enforcement would be an expedient and effective means
of dealing with harassment and cyber bullying.

On this, I would like to ask the Minister if dedicated Police units will be created to specialise in the
investigation and prosecution of this sort of crime. Further, what avenues will be made available to alleged
victims to raise possible cases of harassment or cyber bullying to the authorities in an expedient manner? I
would also like to seek a clarification on what criteria will be employed by the Police to distinguish
genuine cases from unmeritorious cases?

I believe that these are important issues to consider as it would allow the authorities to focus their efforts
towards investigating and dealing with legitimate cases of online harassment or cyber bullying.
Mdm Speaker, the enactment of this Bill will help to ensure that our laws are kept up-to-date with modern
technological developments, and would allow for the protection of Singaporeans from all forms of
unwarranted harassment or bullying. Furthermore, this Bill proposes to adopt a potent two-prong approach
to deal, head-on, with the menace of harassment and cyber bullying.

First, by imposing tougher penalties on offenders who are found to have committed harassment or cyber
bullying, a strong deterrent effect will be created. Offenders will think twice about doing anything that
could have the potential of causing harassment, alarm or distress to others. Furthermore, this Bill will
allow the Court to impose imprisonment of up to six months, on top of the enhanced $5,000 fine, where
the offender has intentionally caused harassment, alarm or distress. Building upon that, enhanced penalties
for repeat offenders reflect the seriousness of these offences.

The Court would also be empowered to grant a community order, as defined in the Criminal Procedure
Code, where it finds it necessary to deal with offenders under special circumstances. An example of orders
that could be granted, include a mandatory treatment order or a community service order. This shows the
Bill to be nuanced and compassionate when the facts merit it.

Secondly, this Bill will also provide avenues for victims of harassment or cyber bullying to obtain civil
remedies that are required to protect them from further harassment, alarm or distress. Apart from being
able to grant compensation in the form of damages to the victims, the Court will also be empowered to
grant a Protection Order, or an Expedited Protection Order in cases of urgency. This shows the versatility
and efficient nature of the Bill, should circumstances merit such orders.

These orders could, for example, require an offender to remove any offending communication or post that
is causing alarm or distress to the victim. This ensures that harassers will be stopped from taking any
further actions that may cause alarm or distress, and will help to contain the effect of their harassment.

Interestingly, the Bill also empowers the Court to make an order for the publication of a notice that would
highlight the facts that the harasser had falsely alleged, and to publish the true facts of the relevant
situation. This would be particularly important in cases of online harassment or cyber bullying where the
offender makes false allegations against or about the victim. This remedy will allow the Court to compel
the offender to publish a clarification of any false allegations that have been made.

Essentially, this Bill gives the Court the flexibility to grant civil remedies that will be appropriate and
necessary in each unique circumstance. These measures will ensure that victims of harassment and cyber
bullying will be helpfully relieved of the harassment, alarm and distress that they have been subjected to.

Therefore, it can be seen that this two-prong approach will allow the authorities to deal with offenders
effectively, while at the same time, providing the requisite protection to victims of harassment and cyber
bullying.

Additionally, the creation of a new offence of unlawful stalking would also be effective in ensuring that
individuals do not overstep the boundaries of acceptable social behaviour.

This Bill provides clarity as to what constitutes stalking by providing examples of acts and omissions
which are typically associated with stalking, as well as useful illustrations of behaviour that could
constitute unlawful stalking. Under our current laws, there is arguably a lack of clarity as to what
constitutes unlawful stalking, and thus, this is a welcome clarification on the state of the law.

Apart from being an effective form of deterrence against potential offenders, by clearly setting out the
general characteristics of undesirable social behaviour, this Bill could form a basis for parents and
teachers to educate their children and students about acceptable social behaviour in our society.

Often times, these individuals might not be aware that their actions could amount to stalking or cyber
bullying. Therefore, this could be an opportunity for us to increase awareness and education on the issue
of harassment, cyber bullying and unlawful stalking in our community.

Lastly, the abolition of the common law tort of harassment will ensure that harassment, cyber bullying and
unlawful stalking are dealt with under the proposed Protection from Harassment Bill. This will make
certain that a coherent and consistent legal regime is established to deal with these offences firmly and
expediently. It will also send a clear message to society about the seriousness of these offences and it
provides timely clarification about what constitutes acceptable social behaviour, whether in the real or
cyber world. Madam, I support this Bill.

4.26 pm

Mr Hri Kumar Nair (Bishan-Toa Payoh): Mdm Speaker, I rise in support of the Bill. The old adage
“sticks and stones may break my bones, but words can never harm me” could not be more wrong. Words
can wound deeply, and in some cases, irreparably. Just as we are entitled to live our lives free of crime
against our person and property, we should also have the right to live our lives free of harassment and
bullying.

Does harassment and bullying occur? Of course they do. And as the Minister and a number of Members
have pointed out, in a 2012 Microsoft Study, Singapore is found to have the second highest rate of cyber
bullying in the world. Should we help and protect the victims? Of course we should. Harassment can take
place in the physical and online space, and take many forms, such as sexual harassment, stalking and
bullying in schools. But no matter what form it takes, harassment has severe repercussions on the victim’s
physical and emotional well-being. Technology, and the immediate, direct, multiple and extensive
communications it enables, has exacerbated the problem.

Do our existing laws provide an adequate response? Currently, we have in place piecemeal laws such as
the Miscellaneous Offences (Public Order and Nuisance) Act to deal with limited instances of harassment.
It is not nearly enough.

Our courts have tried their best to fill in the gaps left by legislation. In 2001, the High Court dealt with a
case where an ex-employee was accused of harassing his former boss by telephoning and going to his
home.

The harassment took many forms. For example, his former boss’ baby son had died. And close to the
anniversary of the death, the ex-employee sent his former boss a greeting card used to congratulate people
on the birth of a newborn, as well as a baby rattle.

The learned High Court judge hearing the case said, “In Singapore we live in one of the most densely
populated countries in the world … It will make for an intensely uncomfortable living environment if
there is no recourse against a person who intentionally makes use of modern communication devices in a
manner that causes offence, fear, distress and annoyance to another.” And this is the case of Malcomson
Nicholas Hugh Bertram v Mehta Naresh Kumar [2001] 3 SLR(R) 379.

The learned judge held that in common law a person is said to have committed the tort of harassment if
he: (a) intentionally embarks on a course of conduct; (b) that was sufficiently repetitive in nature; (c) as
would cause worry, emotional distress or annoyance to the victim; and (d) the harasser ought reasonably
to have known that his conduct would have that effect.

Last year, and that is 12 years later, another High Court judge considered the case where an accident
victim claimed on his accident policy. When he did not receive payment, he began to persistently send
emails and make phone calls to his insurance company’s employees and external lawyers. Some of these
emails were abusive. And this was a case of AXA Insurance mentioned by the Minister and other
speakers, as in AXA Insurance Singapore Pte Ltd v Chandran s/o Natesan [2013] 4 SLR 545 (H.C.).

Now, the learned Judge in AXA said that Parliament was better positioned to define the law on harassment
than the Courts. He was also of the opinion that to award a civil remedy for morally and socially
indefensible conduct should go through the legislative process of deliberation and debate.

There is a need for proper laws and remedies, and the Courts have declared that this House is the proper
forum to discuss and debate these issues.

Before I deal with some points about the specific provision of the Bill, I would like to respond to some
criticisms that have been made about it.

First, some have alleged that this law is targeted at curtailing speech, especially online of the anonymous
variety, and is therefore politically motivated. That would be a misrepresentation of the law. The law
makes no distinction between conduct online or in the physical world, nor should there be any distinction.
Indeed, other countries such as the United Kingdom, Australia, New Zealand and South Africa have
enacted legislation against harassment, including online harassment. Why should accountability and the
rules of human decency be different online? If we agree that a person should be made accountable for
causing harm to another by making hurtful statements and uttering falsehoods in the physical world, why
should he obtain a free pass simply because he does it online and anonymously? There are no provisions
in this Bill which stifle legitimate criticisms and free speech.

Second, if not this law, then what is the alternative? Status quo? That is clearly not a desirable remedy and
many in this House have said so. And I have not heard any sensible alternatives.

I do, however, accept that this law may give rise to some difficulties and uncertainties because harassment
is not easy to define. However, that is not a reason for us not to find ways to protect victims and provide
meaningful remedies. This Bill does as good a job as any I have seen doing that. But it is not a silver
bullet and we have to be prepared that there may be practical difficulties in its enforcement.

I now wish to make the following specific points about the Bill, which I hope the Minister will respond to.

First, the Bill creates both criminal offences and provides civil remedies for the same conduct – that is
useful – but I am concerned that victims who turn to the Police may be asked to take civil proceedings
instead. That may not be a viable avenue for many Singaporeans who do not have the resources or stamina
to conduct litigation or even may be intimidated by the process. Even with the simplified approach which
the Minister spoke about, many people may not wish to take that step. In that event, the assurance
intended by the Bill may prove illusory. Will the Minister clarify or provide some guidance as to when the
Police will take action and when they will advise complainants to turn to civil remedies?

Second, there are two practical difficulties when the provisions are applied to cases of cyber-harassment.
The Bill does not address the difficulties associated with identifying the perpetrators of cyber abuse. Even
though the provisions have been worded to take into account harassment made via online
communications, and also to account for offenders in foreign jurisdictions, the cloak of anonymity that
cyber-bullies hide behind may prevent the Bill from being effectively enforced. Therefore, we must beef
up the resources of the Technology Crime Division of the CID so that they can conduct investigations into
technology-related offences beyond the Computer Misuse Act. Will we be putting more resources in these
departments or other departments?

Similar difficulties arise when victims of cyber-harassment pursue civil claims. If the perpetrator is
anonymous, civil remedies may prove ineffective. Again, the victim may have to expend much time and
resources to discover who is behind the attacks, and that may be beyond the means of many. Is there a
way the Government can assist in such technical matters at no or low cost if the applicant is able to
demonstrate a good case?

My third point has to do with the remedies set out in the Bill for false statements. Currently, we have
defamation laws to address false statements but, then, only in cases where a person’s reputation and
standing has been damaged. Those laws also require legal proceedings to be brought and the only
remedies the Court may grant are damages and an injunction against further publication. Contrary to
popular belief, the Court cannot compel the defendant to apologise or to publish a correction. But,
sometimes, all that may be required is a simple clarification, correction or response. This Bill, therefore,
provides a wider range of solutions, such as publishing corrections. It is, however, doubtful how effective
these will be in the online space. In the time it will take for the Court to determine if the statement of fact
complained of is false and for the remedy to be effected, the false statement would have travelled around
the world many times over.

Mdm Speaker, in conclusion, let us be clear about what this Bill is about. It is to protect vulnerable people
from those who seek to harm them mentally and emotionally. There is no good reason to deny such
victims with protection of the law, neither should we ignore what is already going on in the real world and
online world as well. This is not a problem for parents or educators to solve, at least not on their own. It
requires intervention by this House and we would be derelict in our duty if we stood by and did nothing. I
support the Bill.

4.35 pm

Ms Tin Pei Ling (Marine Parade): Madam, I stand to support this Bill because I stand to support the
need to protect the innocent and I believe that this House will also stand to support the need to protect the
innocent and also to preserve justice in our society.

There are many cases that have been highlighted in this House. There are many examples that we have
shared to illustrate the importance of this Bill and how it will help innocent Singaporeans protect their
dignity, protect themselves against, I would say, some very malicious-intent people out there.

Cases that involve physical and verbal harassment are probably relatively straightforward because these
are in the real world, these are tangible. But cyber bullying and cyber-harassment are more complex.
Firstly, any content that is posted online spreads instantaneously, exponentially and has far-reaching
effects. They are harder to contain or control. Some sites operate outside our jurisdiction and these can be
loopholes that scheming perpetrators can use to their advantage. For example, it is relatively difficult for
the victim or even sometimes the authorities to try to identify the perpetrator. And it is also, many a time,
hard, difficult, challenging to request for site owners to remove content, some even at a fee.

There is also an asymmetry of power because it is easy for anyone to post anything online but to get the
offensive content to be removed, the burden of proof is on the victim, especially in cases where the
content has gone online and viral, the ability to claw back such content, to limit the damage is indeed very
limiting. Some sites – and I will give an example later – even demand a removal fee and this is a hefty
amount. And even the original poster – the person who originally posted the comment – may find it
difficult to try to retract that content later.

Cyber predators hide behind anonymity and they are emboldened when they know that they can get away
with it relatively easily. Many cyber bullying and harassment are also sexually explicit, even towards
minors. There are a few of such forums and platforms that we can find online, and there is no lack of new
examples even on a daily basis.

Let me just share an example. In March earlier this year, there was a photo of a young girl on the MRT
and her photo was being posted on this forum. She did not realise that her photo was being taken and
ensuing that were comments in the tens in the same minute – tens of comments just started to flood the
forums – commenting from her legs to her rear to front to her face. I am sure this is not something that we
would proudly declare it out in the public nor is something that would bring any comfort to the lady
involved in the picture.

The Internet has also become the platform for revenges and malicious mischief. One example is the fiance
of my resident. Her ex-boyfriend uploaded very compromising photos of her. These photos were taken
while they were still in the relationship. These photos were then uploaded onto websites such “revenge
porn”, which the Minister had mentioned earlier, and, luckily, it has been outlawed by California. These
sites are hosted overseas. There were many unsavoury comments by people she knew and did not know,
and after a while even her friends started to notice it and came to her to ask about it. Imagine the shame,
imagine the embarrassment, imagine the kind of distress that she had to go through. Perhaps, let me quote
what my resident wrote to me in an email, and I quote: “To complicate matters, the website is hosted in
the United States. The company is registered in Amsterdam and even the individual, who happens to my
fiance’s ex-boyfriend, who uploaded the photo is unable to remove them without the website host’s
approval who ultimately would only do so if the removal fee is paid. Since then, my fiancé has lost sleep,
could not eat or work in peace, especially not while witnessing the links to her compromising photos
appear on search results while looking up her name.”

All of these instances are distressing and alarming to the victims. These victims often times are harassed
by people who they know or do not know on sites of origin or, worse, in some instances, being reproduced
on other sites. In vengeful instances, the perpetrator is simply using the Internet and its netizens to exact
his revenge and in Chinese, I would say this is “ “.

American Psychological Association has a journal, Psychology of Violence, where there is an article on
youth online harassment published in 2013. The results showed that about 69% of such online harassment
victims are girls, and this was in 2010. And this statistic of 69% went up from 48% in year 2000. It also
revealed that distressing harassments as well as repeated harassments have also been on the rise over the
years. These are very worrying trends and we must do more to protect females, to protect young girls
especially, out there who may fall prey to cyber predators who have less than friendly intent.

Madam, I am in support of this Bill and I would also like to raise six questions which I hope the Minister
can help to address or clarify.

First, to what extent will this Bill have powers in tracking down and identifying perpetrators online,
especially if the sites are hosted overseas?

Second, to what extent can this Bill influence or demand sites to remove offensive content, especially if
sites are hosted overseas? “Revenge porn”, even though it has been outlawed in California, is an example
of sites whereby recalcitrant site owner refused to remove the content despite it being offensive because
the owner wanted to extract a removal fee from persons who may or may not have been affected, but the
fact is that they can become very recalcitrant.

Third, does this Bill punish only the first culpable person who posted the offensive content or everyone of
the cyber lynch mob?

Fourth, what kind of self-help is available for cyber victim, for instance, and very specifically, cyber
sexual or related harassments? How will these self-help avenues help these victims seek redress under this
Bill? Victims, especially if they are minors, may not have the adequate financial resources to hire lawyers
to help them seek justice.

Fifth, on Expedited Protection Orders. I understand that the Minister earlier had mentioned that it can be
within one to two days, but for cases online – cyber cases – speed is crucial because within one minute, it
can viral out many, many times. And so how long will it take for this Expedited Protection Order to be
granted in such cases? Can it be even faster than just one day?

And the sixth question that I have is this: Is it provided for, under this Bill, to allow the MDA to step in
immediately to block sites first while investigations continue and allow the due process as set out in the
Bill to proceed?

Madam, freedom is for everyone. The right to be protected from malicious behaviour is as important as, if
not more than, the right to free expression by those who have malicious intent. For some of those who
may worry about being deprived of the freedom of expression, I would say that if the post – if the content
of the message – is constructive, has no malicious intent, then there really is no cause to worry at all.
Otherwise, responding to this, having doubts on this Bill really is, in my opinion, somewhat “
” – basically pointing to a spot saying that I never bury 300 taels of silver in this spot.

So, again, I would stress that freedom is for everyone. The right to be protected from malicious
behaviours is as important as, if not more important than, the right to freedom of expressions by people
who have malicious intent, and I stress malicious intent. Personally, in my opinion, I believe that in
Singapore where we uphold and still value justice in our society, if we believe in this, then we must have
the ability to protect the innocent from unjust behaviours.

4.45 pm

Assoc Prof Tan Kheng Boon Eugene (Nominated Member): Mdm Speaker, I support the Bill. This Bill
is not the silver bullet with regards to the scourge of harassment and stalking. So it is important to manage
expectations. Although this Bill will not decisively end harassment, stalking, and other anti-social
behaviour, it will function as a deterrent.

In today’s wired world, technology is a double-edged sword. Therefore I welcome this Bill’s coverage of
online harassment, including cyber bullying, which can be very damaging given the speed and reach with
which falsehoods can spread. The malicious content can also remain online for an extended period of
time.

I also welcome the Bill seeking to define “harassment” as conduct causing or likely to cause alarm or
distress although the use of “harassment” itself in defining harassment is somewhat puzzling. But that is a
minor point. More importantly, this criminalisation of harassment and unlawful stalking is important
because it draws the line where previously there was none. It should help prevent egregious conduct,
which might otherwise go unpunished without this new law. The Bill also makes clear that speech can be
harassment in the appropriate circumstances.

The Bill will strengthen existing laws through clarifying that the same standards of what constitute
harassment are applicable to online conduct. This has to be so. There should not be an unnecessary
distinction between the virtual and the real especially when online conduct has real world consequences.

I also welcome the extra-territorial reach of the proposed new law. Since the Bill is applicable to online
conduct, then the proposed law has to be borderless in reach subject to the requirements of international
comity and not compromising the sovereignty of other countries.

Clause 7(10) generally defines a course of conduct as being actions that take place on at least two
occasions. Although the Bill does not specify what period of time should elapse between the two
occasions, my sense is that we should not adopt a pedantic or dogmatic reading. In my view, a pragmatic
approach is necessary. Thus, if the behaviour complained of has ceased, even for a short period of time,
and then resumed either in the same or a different form, this can certainly constitute a course of conduct.
By the same token, acts that are some distance apart in time can also constitute a course of conduct. It
goes without saying that each case will fall to be determined on its own facts.

What this means is that, often, it may not be immediately apparent that separate incidents are connected as
a course of conduct. It is therefore important that the Police are alert to the possibility that incidents could
form part of a course of conduct and to take this into account during the investigation of each incident,
making whatever inquiries seem appropriate to determine whether the incident is in fact part of a course of
conduct.

Madam, what about a campaign of collective harassment by two or more people in which one person
commits one act personally and arranges for another person to commit another act of harassment or
unlawful stalking? Can this aiding, abetment and procuring of conduct amount to a “course of conduct”?
I welcome the Bill’s providing for both criminal offences and civil remedies. Conduct caught by the
proposed new law can be subjected to a claim in civil proceedings under clause 11. This can be useful if
the evidence was insufficient to succeed under a criminal prosecution but may be enough to support an
action for statutory tort.

In civil proceedings against the perpetrator, clause 11 empowers the court to award damages to the victim.
One can envisage, for example, financial loss from the harassment. For example, victims have been
known to alter their lifestyle choices and daily routines, move homes or change jobs, and even restricting
their social activities.

However, it is pertinent to ask whether such a claim would include damages for emotional injury. Can the
Minister clarify if this is so? I would argue that clause 11 should not be read narrowly and that, in the
appropriate cases, emotional injury can be covered. Otherwise, the civil remedy would be rather
inadequate.

When one considers the offence of harassment or unlawful stalking, it is very often the fact that such acts
causes, in the words of the Bill, “alarm,” “distress,” or the actions are “threatening,” or “abusive”. Could
the Bill then be explicit in providing that damages may be awarded for anxiety, alarm, distress and other
associated feelings caused by the harassment or unlawful stalking?

The protection and expedited Protection Orders found in clauses 12 and 13 respectively are to be
welcomed. Such non-harassment orders are essential to stop harassment and unlawful stalking. As such, I
appreciate the Minister’s assurance with regards to clause 19 on the civil proceedings framework
envisaged as enabling the victims to obtain the Protection Orders without having to incur high expenses or
the need to engage lawyers. This injunctive relief would be next to useless if the Protection Orders are
hard to obtain and the process expensive and emotionally draining.

In addition, it must be said that the Protection Orders will be difficult to obtain where the identity of the
perpetrator is unknown to the victim. Nonetheless, the power of the court to grant take-down orders and
correction notification orders for false and malicious online content is crucial. In this regard, it is
important to be circumspect as to what the proposed law can do and cannot do.

Enforcement becomes critical in ensuring that the proposed law has the requisite deterrent effect.

Clause 10 provides for the penalty in respect of non-compliance with the Protection Orders. Could the
Minister also clarify how enforcement action will be taken where there is non-compliance? Who has to
initiate action when a Protection Order is breached? Is it the victim or will the police do so? Should not a
breach to the Protection Order be a seizable offence? This will provide the Protection Order with
sufficient bite, otherwise the Protection Order will be a mere paper judgement.

Madam, I would like now to touch briefly on a matter not strictly within the ambit of the Bill but certainly
relevant to its effectiveness since the Bill’s long title states that the legislative intent is “to protect persons
against harassment and unlawful stalking”. This relates to the evidential requirements in prosecuting cases
under this Bill.

Cases involving unlawful stalking and harassment can be difficult to prosecute. Sensitive handling,
especially with regard to victim care, is important. I hope the Police will be equipped with the necessary
skill sets and empathy to handle complaints of the alleged victims. Another major area is evidential in
nature. Here, again the Police must be adequately trained to ensure that the relevant evidence is gathered
properly so that the victim’s case can stand up to legal scrutiny when it presented to the court.

This requires, in turn, the proactive building, management, and execution of a case. Where appropriate
and because of the distress and alarm caused to the victim by the offender, victims should also have access
to relevant care and support. I trust that there will be the necessary capacity and competency in the Police
to this end.
Madam, I now turn to what I call the “oddities” in the Bill. Clause 7(7) and 7(8) seek to immunise what
would otherwise be unlawful stalking but for the purposes of national security, national defence, or the
conduct of international relations. This provision prevents surveillance targets from taking out private
prosecutions against those keeping surveillance and so expose their identities to a larger audience.
However, it is probably hard to envisage circumstances where there will be a need for such a certificate to
be issued by the relevant Minister.

Nonetheless, it would be helpful if the Minister can assure the House that such certificates when issued
relate only to high level operations concerning terrorism, major crime syndicates, or very serious crime.
Will such certificates be issued in relation to the activities of the police or specialist enforcement units?

The Bill provides in clause 12(3)(c) that the District Court in making a Protection Order can refer the
respondent or the victim or both to attend counselling or mediation. If the District Court is satisfied that a
respondent has committed harassment or unlawful stalking as defined in the Bill, what is there then to
mediate? Why should the victim be expected to compromise? What is there to compromise in the first
place? What is there to mediate? Is there the expectation for both parties to make up? Much as I appreciate
the virtues of alternative dispute resolution, I am somewhat perplexed that mediation is envisaged. Could
the Minister clarify what is the intent and what outcomes are sought in mediation in cases where there is
unilateral harassment and unlawful stalking?

In future reviews of this Bill, I hope the Ministry will consider enhancing the penalties where the victim is
physically harassed or stalked in or near his or her home or at their work places.

A further improvement is to make it a legal requirement for companies to put in a framework for handling
harassment at the workplace. While the Bill covers harassment at the workplace, the power asymmetries
that exist between a superior and a subordinate and the fear of losing one’s job as well as the negative and
unnecessary publicity that would accompany the victim even in a criminal prosecution make it onerous for
the victim to seek redress whether via the criminal or civil route.

Had the Bill provided for companies to do more, then a major source of harassment, especially of a sexual
nature, can be better tackled. Some companies do have workplace harassment policies but the Bill could
have made it mandatory for all companies to institute workplace harassment policy. We can also then
reduce the likelihood of workplaces becoming hostile environments.

I hope business enterprises and organisations such as education institutions will be spurred by this Bill to
take workplace harassment seriously and to put in place relevant policies as well as a code of conduct and
formal processes for dealing with complaints of harassment at the workplace.

At common law, an employer has a duty to take reasonable steps to protect the employee from harm to
their physical and mental health. However, this duty is limited to harm that is foreseeable. I hope this Bill
raises the bar where an employer’s duty at the workplace is concerned. Employers would be well-advised
not to wait until misconduct is so serious that the sanctions of criminal law are justified.

Let me now conclude, Madam. It may well be that this Bill will help shape appropriate online behaviour.
If it indeed turns out that way, that will be a bonus. But this Bill reminds us again of the need for
education and the imbibing of proper norms of conduct in the real and virtual worlds.

This proposed law can certainly shape the development of appropriate conduct but it will not be the prime
driver as such since these behavioural norms have to be internalised rather than dictated to. Where online
conduct is concerned, this Bill marks a significant step forward. We need a civil online society --
otherwise, the full potential of social media and Internet will not be realised. Madam, on that note, I
reiterate my support for the Bill.

4.57 pm
Ms Jessica Tan Soon Neo (East Coast): Mdm Speaker, I rise in support of the Bill. This Bill is indeed
welcome as it seeks to create safer environments both in the physical and online world. It includes aspects
of harassment faced by society today at the workplace, in our community and online. Acts which are
threatening, abusive, insulting, causing alarm, distress and fear to victims are harassment. Stalking is also
included as an offence in this Bill.

While turning to the law should not be the first response to addressing acts of harassment, laws do set the
tone of what is acceptable or unacceptable behaviour in society. Recognising the seriousness of the
problem, it is important that those that are harassed have protection. The sad reality is that harassment is
real. I have come across several cases where residents in my constituency have been harassed. These
situations caused much anxiety and distress to the victims and/or their families.

In one incident, a resident who was stalked could not get any help to prevent the perpetrator from
harassing her despite her reporting the matter. The perpetrator was loitering for weeks outside her gate and
verbally abusing her. But as he did not commit any criminal act, there were no grounds for the Police to
take any action against him.

Madam, through laws that are thoughtfully written to balance safety, freedom of speech and expression,
governments play an important role in helping to fight harassment and threats both in the physical and the
online world. The Bill does try to strike a balance on the extent to which a law should intervene and the
extent to which we should leave the situation to self-help remedies. The Bill expands protection to include
workers who deliver public health care and transport services. This is certainly welcomed as it allows
these workers safer work environments as they provide essential services.

The Bill provides a range of self-help measures, civil remedies and criminal sanctions from harassment.
With this Bill, the existing penalties for harassment offences will be increased to include a fine and/or
imprisonment to reflect the seriousness. Offenders can also be ordered to seek treatment at the Institute of
Mental Health. There will also be enhanced penalties provided for repeat offenders. The Court will also be
empowered to make community orders in appropriate cases.

5.00 pm

The offences will also apply to acts committed outside Singapore as long as the victim is in Singapore and
the perpetrator knew or should have known that when he committed the act. This extra-territorial reach
recognises the online and global nature of communication today. The Internet has changed the way we
work, interact, learn, play and even how our children grow. It has also created online communities and
altered the extent and reach of communication. Given the speed, expanse and scale of the impact and use
of online communication, just as in the physical world, we must ensure that we protect vulnerable
members of society online – these include children, the elderly and those with special needs. Online
harassment can involve a range from general “meanness”, for example, teasing/ name calling to bullying
and negative behaviour with clear intentions to hurt. Those who experience online bullying can suffer
damaging mental and physical health consequences. Research from the Cyberbullying Research Centre
revealed a link between cyber bullying and low self-esteem, family, and academic problems, school
violence and delinquent behaviour.

Online harassment and bullying is becoming an extensive problem in countries all over the world. Here,
Madam, I must declare my interest. I am an employee of Microsoft and I am citing a study that was
commissioned by Microsoft. In 2012 Microsoft commissioned a study to understand the pervasiveness of
online bullying. Young people from age eight to 17 in 25 countries were polled. The study showed
Singapore to be one of the six countries where online bullying was particularly pervasive. For Singapore,
46% of youth admitted to having bullied someone online, at least one time or another.

As this Bill is meant to include cyber bullying of children, can Minister help clarify how we will deal with
a scenario where the bully is a child? Based on the findings from the study that I just cited, this scenario is
very likely to happen as we see “playground bullying” migrate online.
I do, however, wonder how effective the remedies will be for a victim whose harasser is out of the country
and potentially will not submit to the jurisdiction of the courts of Singapore. Moreover, such a victim
would face further difficulty of not being able to identify or locate the online harasser hiding behind a
screen or a keyboard. Having coordinated activities amongst agencies in different jurisdictions will play
an essential element that must be considered in the implementation of this law.

To combat online harassment, while legislation is needed, I firmly believe that education and preventive
measures play an important role as this makes the most efficient contribution to the end-goal of changing
user behaviours. This is the long term protection against harassment for users online.

For the Bill to be effective, victims must be aware of their rights and know what procedures to take to
report stalkers, workplace and physical harassment and online abusers. I am glad to hear Minister assured
us in his speech that there would be efforts made to simplify the procedures of victims to seek redress.

While we recognise that we will not be able to fully legislate for every scenario, this Bill on Protection
from Harassment does provide a framework for social norms and what constitutes as acceptable or
unacceptable behaviour both online and offline. It will send a strong signal to deter harassment and
bullying. Legislation should deal with the most serious cases. This Bill is comprehensive but ultimately
we must recognise that self-help is a quicker and more effective redress for the vast majority of cases.
Madam, I support the Bill.

5.04 pm

Mr Edwin Tong Chun Fai (Moulmein-Kallang): Harassment can take many different forms. It can take
the form of physical bullying of our children in school, or as cyber bullying in the online space. It can take
the form of stalking, again both the online and the offline versions. Stalking is often characterised by a
series of acts, all of which on its own, can be perfectly legal and infringe no laws, but which can lead to no
less distressing outcomes.

It can be carried out by and affect many different people from across different walks of life – the young,
the old; harassment is often gender-neutral as well. It can also take place in many different places: in the
real spaces such as schools, offices or the home. Or, online, where the space and time continuum merges
and remains in posterity, often to devastating adverse outcomes.

All of these different forms of harassment are characterised by the intense, often prolonged, hurt and
distress suffered by the victim, sometimes with serious, and perhaps, even unintended consequences.
Often, it is not only the victim, but also the people and loved ones around the victim, who suffer. More
than anything, what is needed in such situations is for the victim to find relief; for quick access to justice
and for any offending material, if online, to be taken down quickly.

Madam, let me relate a recent incident: about six months ago, a resident came to me at my MPS. When
she saw me, she held out her mobile device and showed me a message. The message read, and I quote,
“Saw your lovely daughter in school today. She looks just like you, in her pretty blue dress and matching
shoes.”

To any other mother, this would have been a very nice message to receive. But this resident, let us call her
“Sally”, she looked fearful and gave me a very despairing, hunted look.

It transpired that there was a male acquaintance who had been harassing her for the past few months. It
started with several emails and text messages. It grew to more than 50 messages a day, often late into the
night. And then persistent phone calls. It then progressed to him loitering around her work place and then
her home. He would sometimes drive his car just to be alongside her as she walked home from the MRT.

The message that she showed me demonstrated that her stalker knew which childcare centre her daughter
was in and had in fact seen her that very same day. The stalker’s intention was clearly calculated to cause
mental and emotional anguish and to cause fear and apprehension that her young daughter could be hurt.
And we all know what this can do to a parent of a young child.

Madam, this scenario is unfortunately not all too uncommon. They often arise from a failed relationship,
or an employee who had been let go, or sometimes, having heard Minister’s many different examples for
really no good reason at all. But make no mistake, it is a serious problem. This Bill is therefore both a
timely and necessary recognition that harassment, bullying and stalking are serious problems which have
absolutely no place in the kind of society we want to build.

If left unchecked, we can almost certainly expect the pernicious and insidious effects of harassment to get
worse.

Let me explain that with reference to the growing platform of the Internet. Singapore has one of the
highest Internet penetration rates in Asia. We have a penetration rate of 73% and a Facebook penetration
of 59%. That means of the nearly 5.5 million people in Singapore, there are approximately four million
Internet users and 3.2 million active Facebook users.

And of all of these users, a large majority of them are teenagers. The Microsoft survey has been quoted
several times and we have seen the ages of the people surveyed. Those are the people who actively on the
Internet four to five hours a day.

This rapidly rising trend, coupled with a proliferation of a multitude of different social online platforms
can only mean that cyber bullying, stalking and other types of online harassment will remain a serious
concern.

Further, the Internet, being what it is, often makes it difficult for posters of online comments or pictures to
be traced effectively. The Internet also allows postings to be made anonymously which we have heard
several times from other Members of this House and studies have shown that this veil of anonymity serves
only to embolden perpetrators and bring out the worst in them. Online commentators have called this the
“Online Disinhibition Effect”. These people who are anonymous are likely to do and say things which
they would otherwise not do, if only they had to disclose their real names.

In real terms, just in the last decade, Singapore has witnessed a growing trend of cyber bullying amongst
youths.

Again, we go back to the Microsoft survey which Minister referred to, which certainly to me threw out
very alarming results about the bullying rates of youths between the ages of eight and 17 and that we were
found in Singapore to be second, only behind China in the world in relation to the rate of cyber bullying
amongst youths.

Cyber bullying can take place in so many different forms. They can include creating a fake social media
profiles on Facebook, Twitter, Instagram, or hacking into others’ social media accounts to impersonate
them and posting scandalous and/or embarrassing content, or simply facilitating “hate-talk” on online
forums, all of which can be done not only in minutes but also from the comfort of one’s home.

We have heard the Minister and several Members detailed anecdotal examples of very devastating
tragedies arising from children or youths being unable to handle the distress of the harassment. These
examples are very sad but they are also very real.

Our children are being exposed to the Internet earlier and earlier. They have grown adept at mastering the
computer which has also become easier and easier to manoeuvre. So in a few clicks, they are well on their
way in cyberspace. However, the people they meet there are less forgiving, and our children are not
always sufficiently mature to handle this type of distress.

I, therefore, see this Bill as a step forward in further protecting our young and vulnerable from cyber
bullying and stalking.

Which brings me to my next point as to why this Bill is necessary? Currently, the statutory framework is
somewhat disparate and piecemeal – with most of the provisions appearing in the Miscellaneous Offences
Act, and a series of other specialised ones found in other pieces of legislation such as the Women’s
Charter, the Moneylenders Act, Computer Misuse and Cyber Security Act as well as the Penal Code.

Such protection is limited not only in their application but, more importantly, in the range of available
remedies:-

Indeed, the High Court in the 2001 Malcomson case, which the hon Member Mr Hri Kumar raised earlier,
threw doubt over whether harassment committed over the mobile phone could even amount to an offence
under the Miscellaneous Offences Act. Of course the mobile phone in 2001 – 13 years ago – is quite
different from that today but still.

The most recent judicial pronouncement in AXA Insurance, we have heard from other Members, threw
doubt as to whether such a law could be found in the annals of the common law and instead the High
Court Judge invited Parliament to deliberate on it and to decide whether or not indeed it would be part of
our legislation.

If we in this House accept that harassment is anti-social and wrong, then we have an obligation to fill the
lacuna in the current state of law and provide for clear parameters on how we view and remedy
harassment.

Madam, in that context, this Bill is not only timely, it is very necessary. The omnibus legislation on
harassment does not just dispel doubts in the law in light of the recent judicial pronouncements for this
Bill, the legislation that we now have, and put all the provisions into one convenient place. It actually does
much more in at least two further areas.

First, it offers a range of remedies which strike at the heart of what distresses the victims most. We have
heard other Members deal with the different aspects of the Protection Orders and I would not go into that.

Secondly, and perhaps more importantly, the enactment of this Bill as law will signify where we in
Singapore choose to stand as a civil society against harassment. It sends a strong message to would-be
offenders that we do not tolerate such conduct, which are often perpetrated anonymously and is, indeed,
very cowardly. It also provides an assurance to victims of such harassment that they do not necessarily
have to go through a long protracted trial, often reliving the same offending material which caused them
so much distress in the first place. It is often not a “win” in Court that these victims seek, or even damages
which may be awarded later. All they want is for there to be a ready platform which can render access to
justice and for the appropriate reliefs to be dispensed quickly. And this I see in the architecture of the
current Bill which I strongly support.

Madam, before I end, let me just read out from an email that I received from the same resident who saw
me six months ago whom I called “Sally”. She sent me this email just two days ago, and she said: “Hi Mr
Tong, during your house visit on 8 March, you mentioned that this case will be heard in Parliament
shortly. We are deeply appreciative and would now like the Government to quickly pass this Bill. The
harassment and stalking have caused much anxiety and distressed, not only for myself but also to my
family members, particularly my elderly mother and two young children. Owing to this, our lifestyle and
daily routine have changed dramatically. We do not dare to even step out of our house, for fear that we
would bump into him. We do not feel safe even at our own doorstep or at our home. Do you know that
when we met you at the opening of the garden last weekend, it was also the first time six months after this
incident that we dared to even bring our kids downstairs for a stroll and for them to play.”

Madam, the sentiment expressed in this email tells us that the need for this Bill is unarguable. It is
absolutely necessary, it is for the protection of people in Singapore, and it is to ensure that we can go
about our lives as it is supposed to. With that, Madam, I thank Minister and his team for introducing this
Bill, which I support strongly.

5.16 pm

Mr Patrick Tay Teck Guan (Nee Soon): Mdm Speaker, I would like to support and applaud the
enactment of this Bill that will further protect our people, be it in the community or our workers in all
workplaces. It will also add a layer of much needed protection to those working in the public sector,
including a new category called “public service workers”, from threats, insults or abuse.

This Bill serves to enhance the protection of persons against harassment and anti-social behaviour, such as
cyber bullying and unlawful stalking. It is wide-ranging in its definition and the scope of acts covered is
broad and the illustrations in the Bill are enlightening. With this Bill come self-help and civil remedies as
well as criminal liabilities against perpetrators.

During a Legal Primer for Women on their Workplace Rights organised by our National Trades Union
Congress (NTUC) PME Unit on 12 July last year, more than 100 ladies attended and a number of them
shared that they had encountered some form of sexual harassment in their workplaces. Other than physical
touch and brushes which may well amount to Penal Code offences, they echoed that their male superiors
or co-workers make suggestive, obscene or lewd remarks and, at times, language peppered with sexual
innuendoes. Whilst sexual harassment involves female victims, there are also instances where males are
victims as well.

I am glad with this Bill that this issue of sexual harassment in the workplace will be addressed. Besides
sexual harassment at the workplace, there are other forms of distressing behaviour in the workplace such
as online and offline stalking, and I am glad this Bill will also sharpen our definition of harassment and
stalking and criminalise it specifically.

In more ways than one, this piece of legislation will also address workplace bullying in Singapore. This
issue of workplace bullying came to public attention, when an intern who was slapped went viral, online
last year. The case may have been closed and perpetrator prosecuted but in that case, there may not have
been an employer-employee relationship and, hence, certain recourse may not have been available.
However, with the introduction of this new piece of legislation with targeted and specific provisions, it
will cover all workplaces and whatever the working relationship between the victim and perpetrator. I
believe this Bill will provide a deterrent effect to would-be perpetrators and provide victims with recourse
and closure to their fears, grief and distress.

While there are several useful illustrations in the Bill about what constitutes harassment and stalking, I
would like to propose for the Ministry of Law and relevant ministries to provide a comprehensive
Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ) and information booklet with a compendium of illustrations of the
scenarios and situations where an offence under this Bill has been committed, as well as examples where
no offence is disclosed. The FAQs and illustrations will complement NTUC’s and the Law Society’s
booklet we are preparing on workplace bullying, for the benefit of our workers and union members.

In the workplace, cases of harassment could be easier identified as the offender and victim will usually
know each other through a formal work relationship such as superior-subordinate or co-workers. The
challenge is when harassment happens in a power relationship such that a superior has power over the
career of the victim. These cases tend to go unreported. There is nothing in this Bill to dictate what
companies and employers are required to do in the establishing of anti-harassment policies in workplaces
and procedures for handling complaints or whistle-blowers.

As such, I strongly urge our tripartite partners to issue a set of guidelines setting out an Employer’s Code
of Practice which should encompass comprehensively what procedures and practices companies should
have in place to prevent and resolve harassment and stalking, employee reporting, complaints mechanism,
whistle-blowing management as well as whistle-blower protection and possible internal staff remedies.
This is not something new and I am aware companies operating in United States, Australia and the United
Kingdom where similar anti-harassment and bullying legislation are in place would have good processes
and precedents for us to take a leaf from.

Interestingly, this Bill also has hints of extra-territorial jurisdiction. For example, if two co-workers are
overseas together for a work assignment and one sexually harasses the other while overseas in that foreign
land, the effects are felt by the victim and that victim has sufficient nexus and should by virtue of section
17 of the Bill to make the perpetrator liable. By the same token, even when the perpetrator is overseas and
the victim is in Singapore and vice-versa, section 17 may well give jurisdiction for the perpetrator to be
prosecuted for a breach of the provisions of this Bill.

Notwithstanding an offence is disclosed, the two challenges to expeditious investigation and successful
prosecution lies in the areas of evidence gathering and ensuring complaints are substantiated and not
started by trigger-happy complainants. On the flip side, I urge victims of harassment or stalking that they
not keep mum and suffer in silence but step forward.

I am glad that the offence of using indecent, threatening, abusive or insulting words or behaviour will be
extended to “public service workers”, who are defined as individuals who belong “to a prescribed class of
employees or workers that provides any service which is essential to the well-being of the public or the
proper functioning of Singapore”. I am keen to find out which types or categories of workers will be
prescribed by the Minister and hopes he sheds light on this.

In my capacity as the Executive Secretary of the Health Services Employees Union (HSEU), I am aware
of the manpower crunch and increase of patients at our hospitals and polyclinics. In fact, I have raised a
Parliamentary Questions (PQ) in this House last year in May about the incidence of abuse on healthcare
workers in Singapore. The increase in workload and stresses that our healthcare workers, whether doctors,
nurses, frontline admin, allied or ancillary staff, face daily is already challenging as it is. They certainly do
not need the unwanted abuse from patients and family members. In extreme scenarios, there could even be
physical violence.

Besides healthcare workers, whether in public or private hospitals, polyclinics or step-down care, I know
of many other types of workers who are also subjected to similar verbal abuses, insults, threats and
harassing behaviour in the course of their work. Their plight and stories have appeared in our local
newspapers including one just last night. These workers include frontline service staff like public and
private bus-drivers, taxi-drivers, SMRT frontline staff and private security officers. On behalf of the
unions and associations representing these workers, I suggest and submit that all of these whom I mention
be classified as “public service workers” and given the needful protection under this Bill.

What I have shared above is also happening to the frontline officers at our statutory boards and public
services like Town Councils, NEA, HDB, LTA etc. While I can understand that there are high expectations
of our public sector, this should not necessarily translate into unruly behaviour and a “me-first at all costs”
mentality. No amount of law can govern a lack of social grace, consideration and kindness. Madam, in
Mandarin, please.

(In Mandarin): [For Mandarin speech, please refer to Vernacular Speeches.] The labour movement
welcomes the introduction of this Bill. In the past, when workers were sexually harassed or bullied in the
workplace, there was no legislation to protect them. Now, finally, they have legal recourse. I hope that,
when encountering suggestive, lewd and insulting remarks in the workplace, workers should not be afraid
of coming forward to expose their boss or colleague’s ugly behaviour for fear of their job being impacted.
I hope they can speak up courageously.

Frontline workers, such as healthcare workers, bus drivers, MRT staff, taxi drivers and private security
officers, also face harassment or threat sometimes. I hope the public service workers who come under the
protection of this Bill can also include them.
Lastly, I also hope that the tripartite partners can issue a set of guidelines for employers to implement in
the workplace.

(In English): Mdm Speaker, in conclusion, I strongly support this Bill and hope it would be administered
robustly so as to eradicate harassment and stalking in the workplace and community, and also raise the bar
in terms of protection of many categories of frontline workers who provide service to our people and our
country. I hope this Bill would give all of us peace of mind by giving perpetrators a piece of mind.

5.25 pm

Mr Zainal Sapari (Pasir Ris-Punggol): Mdm Speaker, thank you for allowing me to speak on this Bill.
If you may allow, I would like to read an email that was sent to me by my resident, to help us understand
the need for this Bill.

“Mr Sapari, I need your help. I am begging you to help me resolve the harassment I have
been receiving from my neighbour for the past one year.

He has been coming to my flat at all hours of the day, drunk, attempting to open my door. He
comes and bangs my door & windows, shouting. He even urinates outside my flat.

Sir, I am a single father staying with my 15-year-old daughter. Both of us are scared for our
safety especially my daughter who does not even dare to be left alone when I go out to throw
my rubbish.

I have attempted to speak with the man's family but they have brushed me off saying it is not
their problem. I have called the police many times but by the time they arrive, this person has
already moved off and the police tell me they cannot do anything.

As you can see from the letter my doctor has written to you, this harassment has caused me
much mental and emotional distress. Now, whenever I hear noises outside my flat, I start to
have very bad panic and anxiety attacks.

Sir, please, I am begging you to help me and my daughter. I cannot take much more of this
stress and fear.”

Madam, harassment and unlawful stalking will cause distress and alarm to the victim, and if done over a
prolonged period of time, the damage could be irreversible. It is quite common when a harassment or
stalking case is reported, it may seem trivial because of the lack of immediate threat but when a series of
incidents are put together, they become far more sinister.

There is a gap in the current law and, many times, victims are not getting the help and protection they
need. The key to protecting victims and lessening their fear and harm is for everyone to take the issue
seriously. There must be widespread awareness-raising and effective response to harassment by law
enforcement agencies.

Mdm Speaker, I am also concerned that this Bill falls short in defining what constitutes unlawful stalking.
The Bill stated that in considering whether a course of conduct is unlawful stalking, it would take into
account the number of occasions on which the acts or omissions associated with stalking were carried out;
and the frequency and the duration of the acts, amongst others.

Unlike other crimes which can be more definitive, stalking is in the eye of the beholder. What may seem
acceptable to one may not be acceptable to others, regardless of the number of occasions, frequency and
duration of the acts. Nobody knows when stalking begins – there is no cut-off point. Experience in United
Kingdom, where there is such legislation, showed that many victims are too often reluctant to act; unsure
of whether they are being stalked or just avidly pursued. Perhaps, we would also like to consider setting
up a national helpline for stalking to give victims the confidence to act and to create greater public
awareness. With stalking being a non-sizeable offence, what can be done to effectively prevent further
cases of stalking by the individual? Under what circumstances will the police take enforcement action?

Mdm Speaker, with regard to harassment in the online sphere, how can we justifiably differentiate a
posting that reflects a viewpoint of a person compared to a posting that is conducted with malicious intent
targeted at a particular person? This is potentially a grey area when it comes to defining online
harassment. How does the law intend to assist victims in identifying their perpetrators? Moreover, a large
amount of resources may have to be devoted to track the culprits. Will this itself be a hindrance for
effective enforcement?

Studies have showed that early identification is critical in helping a victim of harassment or stalking. What
measures will be put in place to equip our Police or social service officers with the skills to identify the
danger sign to put the legislation to effective use and be able to conduct a thorough investigation?

The Government has also brought up the possibility of fines and imprisonment being meted out to those
that are guilty of these offences, but I would like to ask how the imprisonment terms and fines are decided
upon.

Mdm Speaker, as a unionist, I am also heartened that this protection will also be extended to workers who
deliver public service which may include workers in public healthcare, public transport and other essential
services to the well-being of the public and functioning of Singapore. I hope we can extend this to include
the cleaners, security officers and carpark attendants as well.

Let me share a horror story to illustrate why this group of workers must be protected. This story was
surfaced to me when I engaged cleaning companies to understand the challenges faced by the industry.
Last year, a 51-year-old cleaner was cleaning the alley of Geylang Lorong 25A. She was startled when she
heard someone shouting loudly at her. She eventually realised that it was a lorry driver who was angry that
her company vehicle was blocking his vehicle from going into the back lane. After unloading his
vegetables, the driver approached her aggressively and continued shouting at the old lady. Unprovoked, he
punched the defenceless lady cleaner on the face! A Police report was made and she was advised to file a
Magistrate’s Complaint against the person. Obviously, she did not pursue the matter further.

Even our parking attendants have their fair share of horror stories. A female parking attendant issued a
notice of offence on a vehicle for unauthorised parking at a particular housing estate. While checking on
other vehicles with her partner, she was approached aggressively by the driver of the earlier vehicle issued
with a notice of offence. The man, later joined by his son and his wife, shouted and screamed at her to
cancel the ticket. They followed her to obstruct her from carrying out her duties, causing her great distress
and only stopped after the Police came. In another case, a parking officer was even molested while
performing her duties! For both cases, Police reports have been filed but, again, they were either told to
file a Magistrate’s Complaint or await investigation.

Mdm Speaker, the Bill must be enhanced to ensure justice can be meted out swiftly from the victim’s
point of view. Will claims for damages for emotional injury be allowed? The dangers of harassment are
the stress and anxiety it brings upon a person. I believe that the Bill should be expanded to allow victims
to get compensation based on the emotional tremor that they suffered from.

I would also like to share my take with regard to harassment within the workplace. Madam, I believe
employers must bear greater responsibility to protect their employees against harassment at workplace. Of
all cases of harassment at workplace, sexual harassment is perhaps the most complex, the most
ambiguous, subtle and highly subjective. Hence, could we make it mandatory for companies to clearly
define and educate their employees on what would constitute harassment in the workplace? Are there
appropriate avenues that the employee is able to take if he or she would like to disclose cases of
harassment in full confidence even those involving top management? Would companies be guided to set
up disciplinary structures that promote internal action before bringing it up to become a court case? I
believe more responsibility should be expected from employers to protect their employees from workplace
harassment. Madam, in Malay, please.

(In Malay): [For Malay speech, please refer to Vernacular Speeches.] Mdm Speaker, I welcome the
introduction of the Protection from Harassment Bill so that victims obtain justice and continue with their
lives. Although this Bill will make the act of stalking an offence, I feel that it is imperative that police
officers and social workers be given training to identify victims of stalking. This is because stalking cases
are difficult to detect and, when victims make their first report, usually it appears trivial and does not
constitute an immediate threat, and therefore does not require prompt action.

In terms of online harassment, I would like to know how we will differentiate comments that are made as
an opinion in Facebook or social media, against comments made with the intent to harass or distress the
victim. Furthermore, many of the perpetrators of online harassment do so anonymously. Hence, how can
we provide protection to victims of online harassment because there are so many of them who are
involved and it will be costly to track these cases?

This Bill will also provide protection at the workplace in cases of harassment where a worker feels
distressed, for instance, from sexual harassment. I think employers should also have programmes to
educate their workers on the kinds of conduct that could be considered workplace harassment. I think it is
important for the Government to encourage employers to set up a process where complaints of harassment
at the workplace can be managed by the employer and need not necessarily be taken to court.

The extension of the protection in this Bill to public servants is also a good move. Public service staff
sometimes has to face members of the public who are angry at certain actions that have been taken. At
times, insults and abusive words are used to put pressure on the staff.

Before there was this Bill, most victims were advised to file a complaint to the magistrate before further
action can be taken, or they are suggested to file a civil suit which will incur a huge expenditure.

(In English): Madam, I am supportive on the push to set up the Harassment Act. I believe that as our
society marches into an era of cohesion and inter-connectedness, there is a need to protect our citizens
from those that bear ill intent or misbehave at the spur of the moment. Madam, I strongly support the Bill.

5.37 pm

Mr David Ong (Jurong): Mdm Speaker, thank you for the opportunity for me to debate on this timely
Bill that seeks to address an existing gap in our current law. Although we may not be forerunners in this
area of the law globally, credit must go to the Minister of Law and the Attorney-General’s Chambers for
putting up this Bill. This is indeed a comprehensive Bill, which would go a long way of according new
levels of protection to victims of harassment and stalking, both in the real and cyber world. Indeed, it is a
long time coming that our current laws need to catch up with social media and new crimes in the cyber
world.

In a 2012 Microsoft study, Singapore has the second highest rate of online bullying after China among
young people. Where traditional bullying was confined to verbal or physical intimidation, the social media
has given the bullies a longer arm to torment, harass and humiliate their victims, even right into their own
bedrooms.

This Bill comes most appropriately at a time when there is rising concern that cyber bullying is on the
rise. This is sufficiently serious to warrant the authorities to take notice and provide victims access to
protection and justice.

As shared by the Minister earlier, there were many news reports, from other countries and Singapore,
where teenagers and even adults have been driven to harmful actions, even suicide, from cyber bullying
and harassment. This is not something which Singapore should have, the ignominy of experiencing.
A Bill like this needs to balance the rights of free speech and the need to protect victims from harassment.
Although I am confident MinLaw works hard at striking that balance, may I add my observations which I
believe more can be done for victims? In particular, I will be touching on the difficulties of identifying the
perpetrator of harassment or stalking, especially when the acts are done through social media, which is
pervasive in our society.

Legislating against the wrongful acts is one thing, but enforcement is another. While there can be clear
legislation as to what acts are prohibited under the new Act, there is still a need, under the provisions of
the Act, for the perpetrator of the harassment, or stalking, to be identified, before action can be taken. On a
related note, while the authorities have the power to compel the taking down of material which
contravenes the Act, we need to keep in mind that the vast majority of social media is located overseas,
and the foreign service providers are often slow and careful in taking down material, unless the person
who posted the material gives instruction, or takes it down himself. This also requires the identification, if
not, the presence of the perpetrator. And this is where some difficulty lies.

A lot of harassment and stalking can be done through the anonymity of the Internet, through social media
websites like Facebook, which have massive penetration in Singapore. The short messaging system
Whatsapp is said to be adding one million new users daily. It is easy for harassers to create new accounts
and use these accounts to commit acts of harassment, without betraying their true identity to the victim.

I fear that pulling the perpetrators out of the shadows may be as difficult as finding a needle in the
haystack. A lot of emotional, psychological and physical harm inflicted through the harassing acts
committed online can also propagate very quickly through social networks. A single innocuous post in a
social website can be re-posted in multiple websites within minutes, if not hours, and removing the
material from one website is scant comfort for a victim, if the same material had been reproduced ad
nauseam. It may thus be necessary for the eventual Act to be effective in combating harassment,
especially online harassment, to give the authorities the ability to respond quickly to allegations of
harassment.

While the Bill’s original intent is noble enough, the execution may exacerbate the pains victims felt.
Victims may face extreme difficulty in identifying who the perpetrator is, especially when it is done
through the Internet.

Victims do not have the powers or means to conduct investigations on their own and find out who the
perpetrators are, before reporting the matter to the Police.

For all intent and purposes, the perpetrator may not have broken any law yet for the Police to make an
arrest. All they can usually do is to report to the Police that someone is harassing or stalking them, and
provide only online identities. We cannot expect victims of harassment or stalking to be able to identify
their tormentors, or even be able to give much information about the identity of the perpetrators.

Police should not simply turn away or file away such cases on the basis that there is no suspect identified,
but should consider devoting some resources to investigating such cases, especially where the incidents of
harassment are serious. This is especially so since the Police have far more thorough investigative powers
as compared to individuals. For individuals to hire private investigators is usually prohibitively expensive.

It is also a safety issue, since harassment and stalking can subsequently lead to violent acts, both on the
part of the victims who may self-harm themselves in despair, or taking their own violent action against the
perpetrator; or on the part of the perpetrators whose unfulfilled longing leading to violence. All such
outcomes should be avoided as far as possible.

It is heartening to see that some of these concerns, especially about public safety, have been addressed in
the Bill, with the introduction of Protection Orders for victims of harassment and stalking. This is a logical
and effective extension of the Women's Charter protection regime, and useful experience can be gleaned
from that well established framework. The Women's Charter also provides for a quick and relatively
inexpensive way for women under threat to obtain Personal Protection Orders, without the need for
lawyers, unless the allegations are fiercely contested. This ensures that those people who are in need of
such Protection Orders can obtain them expeditiously and without taking a hit on the pocket. It would be
good if such a framework is also put in place for victims of harassment or stalking, which would go
towards allowing them quick access to protection without having to expend much resources of their own.

On a related area, I note that the Bill does provide for civil remedies, like damages, for acts of harassment
or stalking. Under the law of torts, in the common law, a claim can be made by the victim for "nervous
shock" or "pain and suffering" which the victim suffers arising from the perpetrator's acts. The Bill
appears to be silent on this aspect, on whether claims for such psychological harm can be made by victims
of harassment or stalking. Such harm commonly occurs to victims, and it would provide clarity for the
public for the Government to state whether such claims are allowed under the eventual Act.

Under the existing Criminal Procedure Code, the Courts have the power to order persons convicted of any
offences to pay compensation to victims injured by their crimes. It would be useful, for public knowledge,
for the Government to clarify that this power extends to persons who are sentenced by the criminal courts
for harassment or stalking offences.

Madam, notwithstanding what Home Affairs Minister had assured this House of the adequacy of the
Home Team, we are all aware of the tight labour shortage all sectors of the Singapore economy is facing. I
fear that there may be little additional manpower that may be allocated to the policing of harassment,
especially cyber harassment.

Moreover, we need to guard against an environment of paranoia, of being over-protective, or having

people who think they are victims of harassment and make reports at the drop of a pin. Not everything
which is irritating or bothersome is harassment. Hurtful or insulting statements may not always be
harassment. Checking up another person's profile on a social media website may not, by itself, constitute
stalking.

The general public need to be educated as to what constitutes harassment or stalking. We need to ensure
that criticism is not stifled. For example, if an artist’s work is heavily criticised online and in a non-gentle
manner, this, while possibly impolite, is not harassment. Similarly, given the open nature of comments
posted on social media websites, eg, Facebook, comments which may put a person in a bad light, but not
specifically directed at a person’s webpage, that is public gossip, also may not be harassment, even though
the person being commented upon may not feel too good, and may be considering using the law.

It is all about the matter of degrees. The Protection of Harassment Bill needs to have the deftness of water
finding its own level regardless the form of its container. It is about striking the fine balance of protecting
the public while not stifling free speech. It is legal taichi. With that, I support the Bill.

5.45 pm

Ms Ellen Lee (Sembawang): Madam, in Mandarin, please.

(In Mandarin): [For Mandarin speech, please refer to Vernacular Speeches.] As a lawyer, I have been
providing pro-bono legal advice to the community for the past 30 years. At times, I had helped female
victims who suffered sexual harassment at the workplace, as well as women who were harassed or
sexually harassed by strangers or even people familiar to them; some victims were young girls. Hence, the
debate on the Protection from Harassment Bill is one that I have been looking forward to; it is also one
that I fully support and is long overdue.

At present, the victims of harassment can seek legal recourse or protection under the Miscellaneous
Offences (Public Order and Nuisance) Act or the Women’s Charter. If the act of harassment includes
serious threats or even sexual offences, then offenders would have contravened provisions pertaining to
criminal intimidation under the Penal Code.
However, to the unfortunate victims whom I know, these provisions are completely useless. The problem
is, the victims and their families cannot afford the expensive legal costs involved in applying for
protection order, injunction or expedited protection order, to get the offenders to stop harassing them
immediately. To the victims, the law puts the onus on them to provide sufficient evidence. This is very
challenging, especially when the offenders are their supervisors at the workplace, whose words are
unquestionable to others. Colleagues will not dare offend them either. Even if colleagues witness the
entire incident, they will generally choose to remain silent to protect their livelihood. As for engaging a
private investigator to gather evidence, victims often abandon that option as they cannot afford the high
costs. As for children, it is even more difficult because they are often doubted and most cases are left
unresolved.

Some victims are even suspected of dressing provocatively to attract the attention of the opposite sex, so
they “deserve it”. Victims deserve sympathy for their suffering. Yet, accusations by family members and
those around them only serve to add salt to their wounds. Victims often become depressed under such
circumstances and are unable to continue to seek legal recourse, they feel very helpless and find it very
unfair.

During my tenure as the vice-president of the Singapore Association of Women Lawyers, a single lady
who was not young, average-looking and did not dress provocatively, came to me at the insistence of
friends. She had a very unusual request, because she was charged in court for harassing her boss. The truth
is, she was the victim. Her boss was a foreigner who started off harassing her in the office, then sexually
assaulted her, forcing her to become his mistress, and eventually made up an excuse to dismiss her. In the
end, she had to reveal her boss’ true colours, but nobody believed her. After understanding her situation, I
felt that the best option for her is to defend herself in court. However, as she had no money to engage a
lawyer, I decided to help her prepare the court papers and also take care of all the complicated procedures,
as well as the pre-trial preparations.

A year later, she managed to win the case and justice was served, but by then she was very drained and
depressed because the court case took a toll on her. From the victim’s point of view, to resort to legal
recourse is a painful process. Her experience in this case clearly illustrates that the Protection from
Harassment Act can provide better protection for the victims, as the victims can apply for protection
orders on their own, and do not need to be represented by a lawyer. This targeted Bill means that the
victims can save legal costs, and put an end to the harassment earlier.

However, the Bill does not list protection from harassment as the legal responsibility of employers so as to
better protect women at the workplace. Personally, I feel that what the Government has done is not
comprehensive enough. The Government should ask companies or employers to conduct legal workshops
regularly, so that employees understand their rights, employers know their responsibilities and the
definition of harassment.

Without harassment, employees’ productivity will also improve. We also need to help Singaporeans
understand that the new Bill targets only offenders. Victims can sue the perpetrators, but the company or
organisation they are working in will not be considered as having violated the law.

We also need to educate our students so that they have a better understanding of harassment, help them
understand that bullying both in school and on the Internet is not only illegal but also immoral. To build a
more civic-minded, gracious and compassionate society, our young generation has to learn to respect
others from young, and to always be considerate of the feeling of others. They also need to understand
that harassing others may cause life-long suffering to the victims. Education is, therefore, very important.

5.53 pm

Mr K Shanmugam: Mdm Speaker, I thank all the Members who spoke. There is overwhelming support
for the Bill outside this House and unanimous support for the Bill in this House for all of its provisions.
The questions raised by Members can be grouped into several common themes, which I will now address.
Mr Zainal Sapari asked how we can differentiate between the expression of one’s viewpoint online and
the publication of anti-social comments online with malicious intent. Mr Vikram Nair has also raised
similar questions.

Whether or not a particular conduct amounts to harassment under the Bill depends on the factual matrix of
each case. Reasonableness of conduct is a defence to all of the offences under the Bill and the Court will
have to consider, inter alia: the nature of the allegedly offending act in question; the context in which
those acts occurred; and the effect of those actions on the victim. These have to be considered in their
totality before deciding whether an offence is made out, or whether other civil remedies should be
ordered. Let us remind ourselves of the way in which the provisions are structured - these provisions are
not new – they are already part of the Miscellaneous Offences Act. Our courts have, in the past,
interpreted the meaning of these words. And so have the UK courts. So we can rely on the body of case
law.

The key point is this: it is not the medium; it is whether the actions amount to harassment. We all accept
that harassment should be treated as criminal conduct. And indeed, it is a crime under the Miscellaneous
Offences Act. We are now making it clear that harassment is a crime – regardless of the medium –
whether it is physical or online. The law was not so clear on this point previously. It must also be “just and
equitable” before remedies such as Protection Orders can be made.

Mr Patrick Tay proposed that an FAQ with a compendium of illustrations showing when offences are
made out and when they are not made out. Mr Tay is concerned with clarifying more precisely the ambit
of harassment, but there are just far too many situations to be exhaustively covered in an FAQ. Further,
really whether something is or is not an offence, will have to depend on the specific circumstances
surrounding the conduct or the communication at hand. And it is not desirable for us today to fetter the
discretion of the courts in these matters.

Mr Pritam Singh queried if the term “person” in the Bill extends to corporate entities. The term “person”
is defined in the Interpretation Act, and where this Bill references to “persons”, the Interpretation Act will
apply.

Mr Patrick Tay raised a technical issue about extraterritorial effect. He said that if a person harasses
another while both were out of Singapore, whether this would be caught by clause 17 of the Bill.
Depending on the offence, extraterritorial jurisdiction can be founded on the offending acts being
committed in Singapore, or the harassing effect being felt in Singapore, or some other similar criteria. So
acts of harassment which occur entirely outside of Singapore, without any nexus whatsoever to Singapore,
should not be caught. And this is consistent with international law principles on extraterritorial criminal
jurisdiction.

Mr Zainal Sapari and Mr Patrick Tay spoke on the definition of public servants and public service
workers. The Bill does not seek to alter the meaning of “public servant”. It follows the current and
established definition of “public servant” in the Penal Code. This definition has worked well for us.

The term “public service workers” is defined under clause 6 of the Bill to mean persons who provide any
service which is essential to the well-being of the public or the proper functioning of Singapore. It is our
intention to have subsidiary legislation which will prescribe the classes of public service workers who will
be covered. This list will include public healthcare workers and – as queried by Mr Tay – also public
transport workers, amongst others.

The precise classes of workers covered will have to be updated as the operating landscape of public
service workers evolves over time. We will certainly consult the relevant stakeholders as the initial list is
drawn up. That must include union representatives. However, there must be a framework for them being
public service workers. Others will rely on various other clauses – clauses 3, 4 and so on -- which also
provide for people to be protected from harassment.
Next, let me turn to stalking. Members called for greater clarity as to what constitutes unlawful stalking. I
think Mr Singh referred to it with examples from the United Kingdom.

In drafting clause 7, we have tried to strike a balance between: (1) certainty, so that people will know
clearly what is criminal conduct and what is not criminal conduct; and (2) flexibility, so that the various
forms of stalking will be caught. Section 7 really draws inspiration from the United Kingdom legislation.
If I may refer Members to Annex E which was handed out, it shows the other countries which have passed
legislation relating to stalking and you will see that it has been quite extensively dealt with.

The types of acts that can be associated with stalking have to be wide ranging. It is really not practicable
to try and prescribe beforehand the situations which should be caught by the law. We have to trust the
Courts to assess based on the facts before the Courts, whether particular forms of conduct amount to
unlawful stalking under the Bill.

6.00 pm

We have also built in defences to the offence of unlawful stalking in clause 7. The Court would have to
review in each particular case whether the alleged stalking conduct was reasonable in the circumstances,
whether the claim of stalking is made out, or whether the alleged victim is being unreasonable.

Assoc Prof Eugene Tan queried about the scope of certificates issued by the Minister under clause 7(7).
This relates to the defence concerning course of conduct done on behalf of the Government and necessary
for the purposes of national security, national defence or the conduct of international relations. The
certificates will relate to operations concerning, for example, terrorism, serious crimes. The key
consideration is really what is the certificate for, rather than who it is for.

Mr Zainal Sapari and Mr Pritam Singh also asked how the revised fine and imprisonment terms were
determined. With the exception of section 13D, which relates to harassment of public servants, the current
penalties under sections 13A to D of the MOA only carry a fine. These penalties have not been reviewed
since their introduction in 1996. The Bill therefore increases the maximum fines for offences under
clauses 3, 4 and 5. It includes imprisonment as an option for offences under clause 3, which is intentional
harassment; and, clause 5, which is harassment involving threat or provocation of violence.

The new maximum penalties are, for example, in line with those under the United Kingdom’s Protection
from Harassment Act. These amendments are intended to better reflect the seriousness of the offences
under the Bill and their growing prevalence. The higher maximum penalties will also give the Courts
greater sentencing discretion. Egregious cases which significantly impact a victim can now be more
appropriately punished.

Bullying among children and youth was a concern of many Members who spoke. Ms Mary Liew and Ms
Jessica Tan queried how the Bill would apply if the bully is a child.

The Bill applies equally to adults and children alike, although its application is subject to existing laws
governing conduct by juveniles and minors under the Criminal Procedure Code and Rules of Court. For
instance, if a juvenile, say, a child between seven and 16, is convicted of an offence which is punishable
by fine or imprisonment or both, the CPC provides that the Court may deal with the juvenile in accordance
with the Children and Young Persons Act. This allows the Court to make an order, for example,
counselling or probation where appropriate. And our Courts have developed a fairly systematic approach
to dealing with juveniles

There were suggestions that we can and should do more to protect our children against bullying, and from
becoming bullies themselves, especially in the cyberspace. For instance, to educate students on the
importance of respecting others and the seriousness of acts of harassment; to make it compulsory for
schools to hold online safety talks; to train teachers to recognise and take actions against cyber bullying;
having a code of conduct or anti-bullying code to create greater awareness. Parents, of course, also have
an important role to play in educating their children. This cannot be the responsibility of schools alone.
We certainly take the safety of our children as a paramount consideration.

MOE has an existing Code of Conduct for Educators which prohibits behaviour which may be construed
or perceived as unprofessional, discriminatory or harassing, intimidating, threatening or abusive.

On the clarification that Mr Pritam Singh required, MOE has guidelines to help schools develop
disciplinary rules to deal with bullying amongst children. I cannot speak on behalf of MOE, but my
understanding is that they will consider further refinements to existing guidelines to ensure greater
synergy with the Bill and implementation by schools through disciplinary rules.

MOE has also developed a “School Bullying Management Kit” for all Primary and Secondary schools.
This kit contains information on what bullying is; how schools can reach out and respond to instances of
bullying; and how schools can assist students who have been bullied. This kit will enable teachers and
school counsellors to provide better support for victims of bullying.

At the end, of course, the rules are effective only when they are effectively applied and that is what we
have to try and do.

Several Members spoke about workplace harassment, including educational efforts and workplace
guidelines to deal with such conduct. The Bill prohibits harassment committed at the workplace. It is
broader than that, but workplace harassment is covered.

The Ministry of Manpower has been working with NTUC, the Singapore National Employers Federation
(SNEF), as well as the Tripartite Alliance for Fair Employment Practices (TAFEP) to address issues of
workplace harassment. There are also workshops to better educate employers on these aspects. And these
reinforce certain key principles, including the importance of treating complaints seriously; and taking
corrective action where necessary.

Protection from harassment has to be an ongoing conversation between many different stakeholders – the
victims as well as the employers – and it cannot end with this Bill. Issues like Codes for employers, other
measures such as legislatively requiring employers to institute policies against workplace sexual
harassment would have to be part of this conversation. And really the feasibility of these will have to be
considered; some may be feasible, some may not be feasible. So we will have to take this one step at a
time.

Ms Tin Pei Ling and Mr Zaqy Mohamad both touched on the removal of offensive content online and
whether the Bill provides for such removal and, if so, when this would take place. I think this can be
addressed at two levels. If the offensive content contravenes one or more of clauses 3 to 7, and if the
requirements set out in clause 12 of the Bill is satisfied, a Protection Order may be made. As part of a
Protection Order, the court can order that no person can publish or continue to publish an offending
communication. This would, of course, include requiring the removal of the offending content and for
there to be no further publication of that content.

The Protection Order can be obtained on an expedited basis, and Expedited Protection Orders can even be
obtained within the same day if the court agrees that it is urgent. Thereafter, the publication of the
communication would be proscribed. That is at the first level.

If, supposing the offensive content does not cross the threshold set out in clauses 3 to 7, or if for some
reason the victim does not wish to avail himself or herself of clauses 3 to 7 and wishes to proceed with the
lesser remedy, in either of those situations, the victim can obtain a court order under clause 15 to make
sure that the falsehood is set right and the true facts are brought out clearly. The idea behind clause 15, as I
earlier explained, is to let readers judge the facts for themselves, and the court is given substantial
discretion under clause 15 to decide how that should be done. That is at the second level. So it is a tiered
response – clauses 3 to 7 carry a higher level of penalties; clause 15 no penalties, just correction,
clarification, whatever the court thinks is necessary to bring the truth across. So we try to strike a balance
between the competing considerations.

Ms Tin Pei Ling raised a query as to whether the Bill would apply to cyber-lynching by groups of people
and whether site blocking would be possible – really, site blocking is under MDA and we will pass on Ms
Tin’s questions and suggestions to MCI. I think the different parts, whether it is MCI or others, will have
to work in sync with what we are trying to do here, so that there is a clear central message on harassment,
protecting victims from harassment and, where there are falsehoods, making clear those falsehoods and
bringing them to light.

Assoc Prof Eugene Tan queried whether a campaign of collective harassment by two or more people can
fall within clause 7. In such cases, the general principles of accessory liability under the criminal law
would apply. In addition, multiple Protection Orders can also, of course, be sought against the various
perpetrators in question and, in any event, if there is a Protection Order against one person, and if others
have knowledge of it, and if they go ahead and contravene, then they are also contravening the court order
– that is quite serious.

As I say all these, I do want to put it in a caveat. This Bill is not a panacea for all the ills that people face.
It is not going to change behaviour overnight. It will set in place some serious standards, some pretty stiff
penalties, it will make people more aware. But there will be a wide variety of cases, and the Bill will cover
a large number of them, but it does not immediately mean that in some of the instances that have been
highlighted – everyone is overseas, somebody is doing something – whether there can be a complete and
effective remedy; it depends. It is not possible to say today that we will be able to cover everything, and
people should not go away thinking that everything can be covered. But it is an important first step. Let us
look at it, let us see how it applies, how it works out and whether further amendments are necessary.

Assoc Prof Eugene Tan sought clarification on the outcomes sought in mediation in cases of harassment
and stalking. His point really is when it has come to that, why bother with mediation? I think the point is it
can be ordered, may be ordered, either in itself a part of a Protection Order, or together with other
directions that the court sees necessary, such as orders prohibiting certain conduct. Mediation and
counselling can also help the harasser understand the impact of his actions on the victim. We are not
putting it in substitution of other orders. The latter consideration is particularly important if the harasser
and victim know each other and, perhaps, have to continue to have future interactions. Then in such
situations, maybe mediation is an option. If it does not work, it does not work.

If you look at the remedies, we have tried to create tiered responses: mediation, criminal penalties, civil
penalties, and also self-help without damages to try and deal with different situations so that we do not
have to run to the criminal law in all cases. That would really rupture the relationship completely. Nor do
we have to run to the civil law and claim damages all the time. We see what is possible, and mediation
where it makes sense for the parties to try and move on without any of this.

Several Members raised the issue of cost of obtaining relief as well as the ease with which that can be
done. We have tried to craft this Bill to make sure that the remedies are quick, easy, inexpensive and
accessible to victims. For example, the procedural rules for obtaining Protection Orders and expedited
Protection Orders are intended to be simple – a concern which Ms Ellen Lee had raised.

Let me put it this way. I am not sure that you can completely remove the sight of lawyers from these
things, as much as many would like that. Whatever you do, lawyers pop up everywhere – whether they are
likeable or not likeable. But we will try to keep it simple and the Bill envisages subsidiary legislation. One
of the things that we have in mind is to have a set of procedures which are simple, easy, effective, such
that you can go and do it yourself without having to use lawyers. But the other side might get lawyers.

The intention in the way that we will draft the rules is that expedited Protection Orders can be obtained.
“Can be” obtained does not mean it will “always be” obtained because if the other side turns up and they
oppose and they have valid arguments, then the Courts may well feel obliged to hear them. Sometimes,
the Courts will say, “I do not need to hear. I will give the Protection Order first and then I will hear the
arguments later.” That can be a sensible approach. Sometimes, the Courts may say, “Let me hear both
quickly.”

We are dealing with a situation where something can go viral in seconds and minutes and the Court
processes alone may not be adequate to deal with all those situations. That is why I have said that it is not
full panacea for everything that Members have highlighted. It is because of the nature of the medium that
we are dealing with. Let us put this through and see what happens. Meanwhile, the other legislation that
can be looked at, will be looked at to see whether we need to better buttress the approach here through
other amendments.

Ms Mary Liew asked how enforcement will be tightened against harassment-related offences. Mr Hri
Kumar, Assoc Prof Eugene Tan, Mr Zainal Sapari, Mr Christopher de Souza and Mr David Ong asked
about the circumstances when the Police will take action.

Police officers -- MHA has told me -- will be trained on the application of this new legislation, including
the assessment and investigation of cases and breaches of Protection Orders. They will not turn away a
victim simply for the reason that the harasser is not identifiable prima facie.

I accept Mr Hri Kumar’s basic point that we need to make sure that our Police should be able to
investigate into technology-related offences. Demand for investigations into such offences will
undoubtedly grow. Police are looking into strengthening their capabilities in cyber and technology-related
crimes. But we also need to be aware of the severe limitations that the Police are under, in that, like the
rest of Singapore, the Police are also struggling to find people of the appropriate quality to join the Police
Force. There is a general shortage all around, and they will work within very, very severe constraints and
so people have to understand that.

Ms Jessica Tan suggested having coordinated activity amongst agencies in different jurisdictions. This is
certainly something that needs to be considered. Police will have to work closely with overseas law
enforcement agencies, as well as other partners such as Internet Service Providers. We will continue to see
how we can do better but not all of these things are within our own control. It depends on others
cooperating with us as well.

Members like Er Dr Lee Bee Wah and Ms Jessica Tan raised the issue of anonymity on cyberspace, in
particular identifying perpetrators online. This is not unique to offences of harassment under the Bill. Law
enforcement agencies face similar challenges in tackling cyber crimes and transnational crimes. The Bill
does take several modest and cautious steps in addressing these challenges. It provides for rules to be
made to allow victims to take out Protection Orders even though the harasser’s real name is not known.
That is significant. Not only does it go towards ensuring that victims’ efforts at self-help would not be
stymied by anonymous harassers, anonymous harassers can be identified in appropriate cases by the
Police and by the Courts.

Let us give the Bill some time to see how it plays out. Our focus is clear: harassment or stalking is not
acceptable. We will continue to monitor, tweak and see how we may build better on what we have.

Mr Zaqy Mohamad queried if the Court’s powers will extend to third parties who republish offending
communications. The answer is yes. Protection Orders, expedited Protection Orders and clause 15 orders
may be granted against all publishers. The Court can direct, generally, that “no person” can repeat the
offending publication. The prohibition goes beyond publication of the original statement to cover
republication by third parties. Victims need not go back to Court to obtain additional Court orders. That
could save much time and effort. At its heart is the nature of the impugned conduct, and its impact on the
victims in question. In line with this, the processes, like I have said earlier, will be kept as streamlined as
possible.

Mr Zainal Sapari and Assoc Prof Eugene Tan also queried whether damages for emotional distress will be
available under civil remedies provision in the Bill. The Bill does not expressly deal with this and the
intention is that we should leave it to the Courts to decide on the categories of damages which should be
ordered in each case. There is no prohibition in the Bill against ordering such damages for emotional
distress. So let me make that clear. Whatever the common law allows the Courts can order. There is not
prohibition but whether such damages ought to be awarded really depends on the fact of the case and
existing principles. If the Court regards damages for emotional distress as appropriate, it can make an
order.

Mr David Ong asked whether compensation orders would be available for offences under the Bill. CPC
will apply to these offences as it does to any other offence.

Assoc Prof Eugene Tan also asked why the breach of a Protection Order is not an arrestable offence. What
we have done is in line with the First Schedule of the CPC for which non-Penal Code offences are
generally non-arrestable if they carry a maximum penalty of less than three years’ imprisonment. Whilst
the offences are non-arrestable, this does not mean that the Police will not take action in such cases. It
really depends on the nature of the cases and also given that Protection Orders are orders of Court, if there
is non-compliance, the Courts can also take action.

Finally, Members stressed the importance of public education to shape behaviour, and to raise the public’s
awareness of the rights and remedies under the Bill. Some suggestions were also offered, for example,
setting up a national helpline for victims. We thank Members for the suggestions. They will be considered.
This is certainly an important area, as I mentioned in my earlier speech. The Government has been
working, and will continue to work with the media and stakeholders, including the Voluntary Welfare
Organisations, for example, AWARE, to raise general public awareness.

In respect of clause 6, many public service organisations have put up service charters and posters. This is
to underscore their commitment to quality service. These posters will remind customers that mutual
courtesy and respect is important and the agencies will take action to protect public servants and public
service workers against abuse. Mdm Speaker, I beg to move.

Mdm Speaker: Are there any clarifications? If not, we will proceed.

Question put, and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read a Second time and committed to a Committee of the whole House.

The House immediately resolved itself into a Committee on the Bill. - [Mr K Shanmugam].

Bill considered in Committee; reported without amendment; read a Third time and passed.