Protection from Harassment Bill

Mdm Speaker, thank you for allowing me to speak on the Protection from Harassment Bill. As the 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, abuse and insult, who, prior to this Bill, would have had 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 my doing so as 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

Page: 82

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 the Miscellaneous Offences (Public Order & Nuisance) Act is 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 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 terms, 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 cyberbullying, 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 cyberbullying 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 cyberbullying before this culture goes out of

Page: 83

control. But the approach we take has to be one of raising awareness among 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 on 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 ongoing. Since the incident, she has refused 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 cyberbullying and harassment. At the same time, we should promote a zero-tolerance environment for bullying in school. I hope that MinLaw 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.

Page: 84

On misinformation: Madam, I welcome the introduction of laws on false statement of facts. This now entitles ordinary people to seek the judgment 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 cover only content publishers, 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 take-down? Will the Court issue an immediate take-down or Protection Order at the point when the application is made to the District Court? And will it be in force until a resolution is made as to whether the information is fact or fiction? Or will the take-down 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

Page: 85

across different Internet platforms. Thus, even with this measure, if taken too long, damage would be done. Even if the main site has taken down the wrong information, or is required to publish a rebuttal, the take-down 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 republish or users that have shared or viralled false contents or content involved in cyber-harassment or cyberbullying? Is this a loophole to the law being enacted?

However, conversely, enforcing a take-down immediately every time a complaint is made may also be seen as promoting censorship. However, the advantage that content and service 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 who is 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 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 frontline service staff, like bus drivers and MRT train personnel, are likely to be covered.

I 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 law in Singapore. As a Town Council

Page: 86

Chairman, I hope that Town Council officers and contractors be also covered as they have constant contact with residents and have to perform enforcement functions, summons and fee collections – not too dissimilar from any public servant. 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 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 receives 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, 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 send 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 MinLaw and also MOM will 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

Page: 87

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 technological 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.

Mdm Speaker, in Mandarin, please.

(In Mandarin): [Please refer to Vernacular Speech.] 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 cyberbullying 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.

Page: 88

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.

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.

Page: 89

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 (MOA), 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

Page: 90

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

Page: 91

period not exceeding two years.

Mdm Speaker, the illustrations to a number of sections in the Bill cover the acts of school children, with sections 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 Member 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 worlds, 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 judgement 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, is generally identical to section 111 of the

Page: 92

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. 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 apprised 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

Page: 93

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 for Culture, Community and Youth during the Committee of Supply this week and comments published in the mainstream media on 9 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's 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.

Page: 94

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.

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 cyberbullying 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 are 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 cyberbullying.

In October last year, a 12-year-old American girl jumped to her death after being a victim of cyberbullying. One of her alleged tormentors apparently even boasted about her role online. Closer to home, Singapore experienced its first cyberbullying 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

Page: 95

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 enhances the 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

Page: 96

Bill.

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

Page: 97

online harassment and cyberbullying 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 (MOA). However, the provisions under that Act are arguably vague and unclear with respect to online harassment and cyberbullying.

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 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.

Page: 98

Therefore, with the expansion of offences 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 cyberbullying 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 cyberbullying 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 cyberbullying.

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 cyberbullying 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 cyberbullying.

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 cyberbullying.

First, by imposing tougher penalties on offenders who are found to have committed harassment or cyberbullying, 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

Page: 99

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 cyberbullying 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 cyberbullying will be helpfully relieved of the harassment, alarm and distress that they have been subjected to.

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

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

Page: 100

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 cyberbullying. Therefore, this could be an opportunity for us to increase awareness and education on the issue of harassment, cyberbullying and unlawful stalking in our community.

Lastly, the abolition of the common law tort of harassment will ensure that harassment, cyberbullying 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.

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 cyberbullying 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

Page: 101

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 had 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

Page: 102

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

Page: 103

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 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 have 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 facts 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 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

Page: 104

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.

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 cyberbullying and harassment cases 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.

Page: 105

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. Ensuing that were comments in the tens in the same minute – tens of comments just started to flood the forums – commenting from her legs, rear, to her front and face. I am sure this is not something that we would proudly declare in public nor is it something that would bring any comfort to the lady involved in the picture.

The Internet has also become the platform for revenge 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 as "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 “借刀杀人“.

The 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.

Page: 106

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 the recalcitrant site owner had 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 every one of the cyber lynch mob?

Fourth, what kind of self-help is available for cyber victims, 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 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?

The sixth question 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 “此地无银三百两” – basically,

Page: 107

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.

Mdm Speaker, I support the Bill. This Bill is not the silver bullet with regard 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 cyberbullying, 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

Page: 108

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

Page: 109

inadequate.

When one considers the offence of harassment or unlawful stalking, it is very often the fact that such acts cause, 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 regard 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.

Page: 110

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 skillsets 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 is 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. Clauses 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 crimes. 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?

Page: 111

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 workplaces.

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 policies. 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 the Internet will not be

Page: 112

realised. Madam, on that note, I reiterate my support for the Bill.

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 worlds. 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 worlds. 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 healthcare 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

Page: 113

appropriate cases.

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 extraterritorial 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 cyberbullying 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 at one time or another.

As this Bill is meant to include cyber bullying of children, can the 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

Page: 114

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 the Minister's assurance that there would be efforts made to simplify the procedures for 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.

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, 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 that with this Bill, 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 them 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 the 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 the perpetrator. I believe this Bill will provide a deterrent effect to would-be perpetrators and

Page: 120

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 MinLaw 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 establishing 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 the 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, 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.

Page: 121

Notwithstanding an offence is disclosed, the two challenges to expeditious investigation and successful prosecution lie 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 the increase of patients at our hospitals and polyclinics. In fact, I have raised a Parliamentary Question (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 that I have mentioned 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 and so on. 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,

Page: 122

consideration and kindness. Madam, in Mandarin, please.

(In Mandarin): [Please refer to Vernacular Speech.] 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 our mind.

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 on my door and windows, shouting. He even urinates outside my flat.

Page: 123

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 the United Kingdom, where there is such legislation, showed that many victims are too often reluctant to act; unsure of whether they are being stalked

Page: 124

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 shown 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 signs 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 who 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 Lorong 25A, Geylang. 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.

Page: 125

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 told to either 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 trauma that they have suffered.

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 the workplace. Of all cases of harassment at the 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): [Please refer to Vernacular Speech.] 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.

Page: 126

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 have 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 who bear ill-intent or misbehave at the spur of the moment. Madam, I strongly support the Bill.

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 for 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

Page: 127

need to catch up with social media and new crimes in the cyber world.

In a 2012 Microsoft study, Singapore had 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 cyberbullying 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

Page: 128

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 a 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 intents 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 with unfulfilled longing leading to violence.

Page: 129

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

Page: 130

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

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

Page: 133

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

Page: 134

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.

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

Page: 135

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 (CPC) 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, for 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 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

Page: 136

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.

In 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.

MOM 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

Page: 137

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 are 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 have 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

Page: 138

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 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

Page: 139

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 a 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

Page: 140

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 in 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 are 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.

Page: 141

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 no prohibition. But whether such damages ought to be awarded really depends on the facts 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. The 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 are important and the agencies will take action to protect public servants and public service workers against abuse. Mdm Speaker, I beg to move.