=================
.
FICA is law now.
Singapore authorities will be able to order from Thursday (7 July, 2022) takedowns of content deemed to be part of hostile information campaigns by foreign parties to interfere in domestic affairs.
Let us watch who will be the first to be given the order under FICA, and how many in the first 100 days.
PSP… politically significant persons…..
Included in FICA as definition is: any member of a CEC of a political party is a PSP. That means cadre card-carrying ordinary members of a political party are not PSPs.
FICA will not go after all the birds in the sky…the insignificant persons. How to be a SPS under FICA? An ordinary journalist or commentator of no significance, import or repute will not be a SPS under FICA.
.
We watch who will be the first to get the order, and how many will get it in the first 100 days? How will the FICA law be used/applied to protect or harm Singapore. We watch.
The acid test of FICA will be in the tasting and eating. Who will be the first to receive the ministerial order under FICA? How many will be given the orders under FICA in the first 100 days? We watch.
.
====
.
.The acid test of FICA will be in the tasting and eating. Who will be the first to receive the ministerial order under FICA? How many will be given the orders under FICA in the first 100 days? We watch.
.
We watch who will be the first to get the order, and how many will get it in the first 100 days? How will the FICA law be used/applied to protect or harm Singapore. We watch.
.
========
.
MCI warns The Economist’s bureau chief over ‘actions that constituted interference in domestic politics’
Follow us on Instagram and Tiktok, and join our Telegram channel for the latest updates.
- Mr Dominic Ziegler, the bureau chief for The Economist newspaper in Singapore, has been issued a warning for “actions that constituted interference in domestic politics”
- MCI said that it had also expressed “clear expectation” to Mr Ziegler that he does not do so again
- He had compared Singapore to an “illiberal state” and encouraged Singaporeans to “embrace an alternative vision”
BY
CHARLENE GOH
Published September 8, 2023 in todayonline.com
SINGAPORE — The bureau chief for The Economist weekly newspaper in Singapore, Mr Dominic Ziegler, has been issued a warning for “actions that constituted interference in domestic politics”, said the Ministry of Communications and Information (MCI).
In a press release on Friday (Sept 8), MCI said that it had also expressed its “clear expectation” to Mr Ziegler that he does not do so again.
MCI said that on Aug 25, Mr Ziegler publicly endorsed in writing a local online publication, Jom.
He had compared Singapore to an “illiberal state” and encouraged Singaporeans to “embrace an alternative vision, instead of what was being offered by the state and an allegedly captive media”.
MCI said that Mr Ziegler had “clearly crossed the line” from reporting on Singapore to participating in Singapore’s domestic affairs.
“Ziegler has exploited his status in Singapore as a journalist in a prestigious international publication to advocate to Singaporeans for his viewpoint on domestic politics in Singapore, a country which he is not a citizen of,” said MCI.
The ministry added that it is longstanding government policy that such foreign interference in domestic politics will not be tolerated.
“Singapore politics is reserved only for Singaporeans,” it said.
MCI said that foreign correspondents are free to report and comment on Singapore in their respective publications for a global audience, something which Mr Ziegler has done so regularly.
Mr Ziegler writes the Banyan column, which focuses on Asian politics and culture, for The Economist.
“The Government insists on the right of reply to correct foreign reports that it considers inaccurate or biased, but it does not prevent foreign correspondents from engaging anyone they wish here and reporting on Singapore in any way they think fit,” it said.
Noting that many foreign correspondents and media outlets base themselves in Singapore, MCI said that the Economist has also expanded its bureau here in recent years.
It has transferred many of its correspondents previously based elsewhere in the region to Singapore, said MCI.
“We continue to welcome foreign correspondents and media outlets to operate out of and report on Singapore, including The Economist. However, they must comply with our laws and must not interfere in our domestic politics,” said the ministry.
TODAY has reached out to The Economist and Mr Ziegler for comment.
=============
.
.
Does he qualify as a SPS under the FICA law?
Does he own any Virgin company in Singapore?
===============
.
Forum: Foreigners should not think they can tell Singaporeans how to run the country
PUBLISHED 2 HOURS AGO on 8th Nov 2022 in ST Forum.
FacebookTwitter
As a Singaporean, I was very heartened to read the Ministry of Home Affairs’ respectful and succinct response to British billionaire Richard Branson’s false statements on Singapore’s judicial system and the country’s carrying out of the capital punishment on a drug trafficker (Richard Branson ‘pontificating from a distant mountaintop’, his reasons to decline debate don’t hold water: MHA, Nov 5).
Foreigners, whether celebrities or not, should not think they can tell Singapore and Singaporeans what they should do and how they should run the country. Only Singaporeans can decide how the country should chart its course.
Singapore respects other countries’ sovereignty and respectfully requests that they do so too.
Using one’s status as a celebrity with a huge following to perpetuate misinformation is a dangerous thing to do in this increasingly fractured and polarised world.
Singaporeans must be cautious and discerning when celebrities who have no stake in the country make spurious statements, as we cannot allow such falsehoods to take root and divide our country.
Lee Swee Mei
===============
.
Law to counter foreign interference in Singapore to take effect from 7 July, 2022.
·Senior Reporter
Wed, 6 July 2022 at 4:36 pm·3-min read in sg.news.yahoo.com
SINGAPORE — Singapore authorities will be able to order from Thursday (7 July, 2022) takedowns of content deemed to be part of hostile information campaigns by foreign parties to interfere in domestic affairs under a controversial law.
The Foreign Interference (Countermeasures) Act (FICA), passed in Parliament last October, will empower the Minister for Home Affairs to compel, among others, internet, social media service providers, and website operators to disclose user information, block content, and remove applications, the Ministry of Home Affairs (MHA) said on Wednesday.
The legislation also provides measures to counter foreign interference in Singapore’s domestic politics conducted through the use of local proxies who are deemed or designated as “politically significant persons”. These will come into force at a later stage, said MHA.
Under the law, these local proxies will have to declare donations worth $10,000 or more and their links to foreign entities.
“In recent times, the threat of foreign interference has risen in potential and severity because of the internet and social media,” according to MHA.
Such platforms have contributed to the “increasing ease, sophistication, and impunity” with which hostile foreign actors are able to carry out hostile information campaigns.
A range of tools and tactics can be used and employed on these platforms, including creating inauthentic accounts and bots, as well as inciting other users to “troll”, harass or intimidate a particular target.
When Singapore faced bilateral issues with another country in 2018, there was an abnormal spike in online comments which were critical of Singapore on social media, MHA said.
These posts, made by anonymous accounts, sought to create an artificial impression of opposition to Singapore’s positions, it added.
During a period of tension with another country between 2016 and 2017, Singapore experienced a coordinated hostile information campaign that attempted to undermine its foreign policy position.
“Online commentaries and videos were uploaded by social media accounts which had lain dormant for years. These contents were also widely circulated via chat apps and aimed at influencing sentiments among Singaporeans,” MHA said.
FICA does not apply to Singaporeans expressing their own views and acting on their own accord.
It also does not apply to foreigners reporting or commenting on Singapore politics, in an open, transparent, and attributable way, even if their comments may be critical of Singapore or the government, said MHA.
An independent tribunal – chaired by a judge and includes two other individuals from outside the government with legal or technical expertise – will hear any appeals against the minister’s decisions. The tribunal’s decisions can override the minister’s and will be final.
This content is not available due to your privacy preferences.
Update your settings here to see it.
The law has been criticised by some opposition politicians and academics for its broad provisions and lack of judicial review, which leaves it vulnerable to abuse by a rogue government.
Such concerns were also raised by several MPs during the parliamentary sitting last October, where FICA was passed after more than 10 hours of intense debate.
.
==================
.
FICA is law now. The President assented and it became law last weekend, 10th Oct 2021. First 100 days will be on 17 Jan 2022.
.
We shall watch how this law will be used/applied to protect or harm Singapore.
How many orders will be issued in the first 100 days under FICA by 17th Jan 2022?
.Who will qualify as a PSP?
Who will be the first to be given the order under FICA?
.
=============
.
FICA is now law.
Who will be the first to receive the order under FICA?
How many orders will be issued in the first 100 days to protect or harm Singapore?We wait.
.
========
.
Forum: Put principle above politics in Fica debate
PUBLISHED6 HOURS AGO on 25th Oct 2021 in ST Forum.
I agree with Forum writer Chirag Agarwal that issues such as foreign interference affecting our national security should get bipartisan support (Fica a missed opportunity to demonstrate bipartisanship, Oct 20).But I am left wondering why no such agreement was reached in Parliament.The difference in views between the Workers’ Party (WP) and the Government seemed to come down to one issue – whether the Supreme Court judge that reviews a minister’s decision should do so in court, or by way of an independent tribunal.I thought Home Affairs Minister K. Shanmugam took some pains to explain why the WP’s proposal for a court process would not work, and why a tribunal, headed by a Supreme Court judge, would be more suitable.It was obvious to me that there were considerations on security and our relationships with other countries involved. But neither the WP nor the Progress Singapore Party explained its position, or responded to any of the points made by the minister.It is a pity, and indeed an opportunity lost. Since the WP was not able to explain its position in Parliament, or offer any viable alternatives, I wonder how more debate in a Select Committee would help.Mr Agarwal adds that the country is sharply divided over the Bill, and he refers to a commentary by Straits Times editor-at-large Han Fook Kwang (Not too late to bridge Fica divide, Oct 17), in which Mr Han quoted a piece by the S. Rajaratnam School of International Studies’ Dr Shashi Jayakumar.But Dr Shashi also said that “legislatively – in terms of the scope, coverage, and thinking through various threat scenarios – I would give the Government a pretty high mark in terms of what it has accomplished to thwart organised disinformation, hostile information campaigns and foreign interference in recent years”.Dr Shashi’s concerns were not about the scope or necessity of the Bill, but about how there was room for improvement regarding the ways in which the Bill was communicated to the public.I think most Singaporeans would instinctively understand that the legislation was done in good faith to protect Singapore from foreign interference. It would have been good if principle had been put above politics, when the matter was debated in Parliament.Leong Kum Weng.
.
=
.
Who will be the first among equals?
How many will receive the order under FICA in the first 100 days?
Will the FICA law when used/applied protect or harm Singapore?We wait?
Law against foreign interference: Who checks the checkers?
- PUBLISHED8 HOURS AGO on 9th Oct 2021 in Straits Times
SINGAPORE – Hours into a lengthy, testy Parliament debate over the merits of a law against foreign interference in Singapore, it was clear that contesting arguments across the aisle were converging on a somewhat esoteric but essential dynamic: one between law and order; court and government; judiciary and executive.
This, said Home Affairs and Law Minister K. Shanmugam that day, was the “crux of the difference” between the ruling People’s Action Party Government and the Workers’ Party (WP).
Leader of the Opposition Pritam Singh described it as a “fundamental disagreement” between the parties – and relating to the role of the courts in reviewing or even revoking the Government’s exercise of powers.
The Foreign Interference (Countermeasures) Act, or Fica, was passed on Monday (Oct 4), three weeks after it was tabled in Parliament. It aims to combat foreign interference in domestic politics, through giving the Government powers to block content, remove apps, and proscribe an online location to demonetise it, among other things.
A clause in the comprehensive, 189-page legislation states that decisions by the minister for home affairs, an alternate authority or a tribunal to hear appeals are final; and cannot be quashed in any court except with regard to compliance with procedures.
In legal terms, this is called an “ouster clause” – a provision included in a law to exclude judicial review of decisions by the executive.
Is Fica the latest legislation to erode the judiciary’s powers of oversight, as critics have claimed? To what degree is the ouster clause justified in this instance, when highly confidential matters of national security are involved?
Legal scholars, former MPs and political observers agree that the key question is how the real threat of foreign interference can be tackled without unnecessarily constraining legitimate activities, or relying too much on government benevolence.
They say time will tell whether Fica is used as intended – to protect national sovereignty from foreign threats – or whether it will be used to quash criticism and healthy discourse from foreign academics and commentators, although the Government has said such criticisms will continue to be allowed.
Tribunal or Court?
The key contention is how big a role the courts will have to review the minister’s use of various powers granted under the Act.
In her speech during Monday’s debate, WP MP He Ting Ru noted that the clause in question – Section 104 – means no decision under Fica can be challenged through the process of judicial review, except on very narrow grounds of purely procedural compliance, with the Act not being properly followed.
What Fica provides for is a reviewing tribunal to handle appeals against directions to counter hostile information campaigns. The tribunal is headed by a Supreme Court judge, and has the power to overrule the minister.
Mr Singh said the most critical issue at hand was the “high level of executive power” introduced by Fica, “which demands that there must be strong oversight mechanisms, namely our courts”.
When it was put to him that sensitive information pertaining to national security could be leaked during an appeals process in court, Mr Singh countered that there could be leaks in a reviewing tribunal as well.https://www.straitstimes.com/embed/6275508119001
“If you ask me, on balance, should a court review the decision of the minister, should judicial review be allowed to be captured in its entirety by a court of law, I think the answer is ‘yes’,” he reiterated.
Earlier, the WP chief cited how Mr Shanmugam, while a backbencher in 1989, had spoken out against an amendment to the Internal Security Act that sought to abolish appeals in reviews of cases.
Mr Singh said: “Insofar as Fica is concerned and as it is drafted with the limited judicial review clause, what we are taking away is precisely what the minister was warning about in 1989 – illegality, irrationality are not grounds for the judicial review consideration in this Bill, only procedural impropriety.”
Typically, in judicial reviews of executive action, lawfulness is understood as the legality of the decision-making process, Associate Professor Eugene Tan from Singapore Management University’s law faculty tells The Straits Times.
For example, depending on the allegations, the courts will examine whether the procedural requirements imposed by law have been strictly followed – what is known as “procedural propriety”.
The courts could also see whether the authorities had acted “irrationally” or misused their powers, Prof Tan says. This includes taking into account an irrelevant consideration, such as the person being a political rival or no evidence of a person being a national security threat.
With passage of law to counter foreign interference, winning over public is next challenge: Experts
What laws are there in the region to address foreign interference?
In his response to Mr Singh on Monday, Mr Shanmugam said he takes the concept of separation of powers very seriously. “We imbibed this in law school… I believe in it, and I believe we try and uphold it.
“So any time when there is an approach that seeks to cut back on judicial review, or take away the powers of the judiciary, my instinctive reaction is negative.
“I don’t like it, I don’t want to do it and I instinctively try and see if there is a different way of doing it.”
But Mr Shanmugam maintained that going to the High Court for Fica was not ideal in view of the serious risks and consequences of leaks of sensitive information. Such information could be known only to two or three people, with the minister himself not privy unless necessary, he said during the debate.
He later concluded: “If we can find a better model, I’ll be the first one to do it. Tell me a better model.”
Adjunct Professor Kevin Tan of the National University of Singapore’s (NUS) law faculty, who specialises in constitutional and administrative law, agrees that while laws need to be grounded in reality, “contingency and exigencies cannot unilaterally trump the rule of law”.
This requires that powers be separated between the various branches and that an independent judiciary is sole adjudicator of what the law requires, he says.
5 things to know about Fica, the law to counter foreign interference
Foreign interference law is necessary, but so too is good communication
National security is the only area where the courts here have made an exception with respect to judicial oversight, since the decision is primarily a political rather than a legal one, he adds. “Nevertheless, if it is shown that the minister has abused his power or failed to properly consider the relevant facts before ordering a detention, the courts will step in. In this case, it is the courts that decide that they have limited competence in dealing with specific matters.
“Executives around the world will always want to limit judicial review; nothing new here. It is left to be seen how the courts push back.
“In my view, this attempt at circumventing judicial review is unconstitutional since it impinges on the judicial power of the court under Article 93 of the Constitution.”
Prof Eugene Tan says it is more of an open question whether Fica’s provision for limited judicial review will be held by the courts as unconstitutional.
“Ouster clauses are not always unconstitutional. It is correct that they are potentially in breach of Article 93, but our apex court has also ruled that an appropriate ouster clause would be lawful and given effect to,” he notes, adding that a challenge would first need to be mounted on the constitutionality of Section 104 for the courts to rule on it.
Are there alternatives?
On whether there were other options that could have been considered, Professor Simon Chesterman, dean of the NUS law faculty, says a modified court procedure might satisfy security concerns.
“There is already provision for in-camera hearings, meaning proceedings are not open to the public. This is done for vulnerable witnesses, for example. The normal court system also deals with, among other things, violations of the Official Secrets Act,” he says.
Alternatively, a specialised court could be constituted. “That’s how it’s done in the United States, for example, where the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court is a special federal court with judges appointed by the Chief Justice,” says Prof Chesterman.
This operates like a normal court, but in a manner that is generally closed to the public – precisely because it handles national security information when approving investigative actions for foreign intelligence purposes, he explains.
While Prof Eugene Tan believes that concern over potential leaks of national security information is legitimate, he favours robust “workarounds” instead of a tribunal.
Other than in-camera hearings not open to the public, any court documents for the defence counsel can be carefully redacted, with the courts having full access to unredacted documents.
“What we have under Fica is judicial oversight that is heavily circumscribed,” he says, describing Section 104 as “the most elaborate and comprehensive ouster clause in our statute books”.
Legal powers in foreign interference law a necessity because of seriousness of threats: Shanmugam
MHA asks 9 to correct false statements, apologise for misrepresenting minister’s remarks
But Mr Ong Keng Yong, executive deputy chairman at the S. Rajaratnam School of International Studies, says a tribunal is necessary, given the covert nature of foreign interference methods.
“The uncovering of these tactics is necessarily a matter of security and intelligence, and our agencies concerned would not want their tricks of the trade exposed,” he says.
In the run-up to the Fica debate on Monday, Mr Ong, a lawyer by training and Ambassador-at-Large at the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, had co-authored with Senior Counsel Stanley Lai a rebuttal to an opinion piece by Senior Counsel Harpreet Singh Nehal expressing concerns over the legislation – including its restrictions on judicial review.
“Civil society and academics have different opinions and different threat perceptions but that does not mean the Government’s way of dealing with the challenges is sinister and driven by personal ambitions of certain political leaders or civil servants,” Mr Ong adds.
Mr Shanmugam, in his speech opening the debate on the Bill on Monday, had described Fica as representing “the best balance that we can find between dealing with the risks and providing checks against abuse”.
But some contend that the law tips the equilibrium heavily in favour of the authorities.
Prof Eugene Tan says: “To be clear, the Government is responsible for and the domain experts in countering foreign interference. A call for more judicial oversight does not seek to usurp the executive’s role at all.
“The courts are only concerned about the lawfulness of the executive’s action, and they have consistently demonstrated that they will duly defer to the executive in matters which are properly the province of the executive.”
How real is the threat of foreign interference?
The cat-and-mouse game of ferreting out influence operations
Former PAP MP Inderjit Singh says it is a case of the Government believing that having the balance “tilted towards them” would enable fast and decisive action against foreign interference.
At the same time, he warns that Singaporeans who actively contribute to a range of global issues – that could one day be linked to domestic policy and legislation in the Republic – may be spooked by Fica, notwithstanding the difficulty of actually proving foreign interference.
“We will be left to the views of a very narrow group of people who may seem to be from the same side,” he says.
He adds that independent judicial review could prevent such a scenario – and even go some way towards bolstering the Government’s credibility and trust levels.
“Time will tell whether the balance is right.”
It boils down to trust
During Monday’s debate, as Mr Shanmugam sparred with lawmakers over the trade-offs between judicial oversight and executive powers, he raised a familiar point: Singaporeans’ high trust in the Government, compared with other societies.
“Trust depends on how you exercise your power and your track record. Trust depends on whether people’s lives have really improved and whether you work to improve people’s lives,” he said.
“Trust depends on whether you have the courage of your convictions in the face of some opposition to say ‘this is the right way, this is the way I will explain and I will do it for the benefit of people’.”
WP MP Leon Perera took a different view. “If we put in place laws that are a little bit more balanced along the lines that we’ve argued today in Parliament, that might possibly increase the trust levels that we have here?” he said.
Mr Shanmugam disagreed, saying: “You have to ask, is it really going to? Or is it actually going to affect the performance of the Government in such a way that actually, trust will go down?”
That Singaporeans register high trust levels in an honest, responsible Government should not be taken as a natural state of affairs, observers say.
“Even if we accept the PAP Government will not abuse power, we must ensure laws are made in a manner that will not become the tools of abuse by future governments that may not be a PAP government,” says Mr Inderjit Singh.
“The balance of power must be something that has to be regularly reviewed and changed. We cannot use past successes to project into the future reality.”
Prof Kevin Tan adds: “I may trust this minister but not the next one. Rules cannot be left up to chance – the Constitution is there to protect the people in the event that virtue eludes our leaders.”
Gerasimov Doctrine? Spamouflage Dragon? 10 unusual terms from the Fica debate
Pritam calls for more checks in law on foreign interference to guard against abuse
In fact, Prof Eugene Tan argues, checks and balances by an independent body do not limit government powers. On the contrary, they further them by allaying nagging concerns and fears in the population over whether such powers are misused.
Mr Shanmugam himself warned on Monday that “any time there is abuse, there is corruption, there is lack of probity, there is a performance deficit, trust will dissipate”.
As Fica is enacted in the months ahead, the onus is on the Government to live up to these yardsticks.
“Performance” will naturally be measured by how it tackles the threat posed by foreign interference to Singapore’s national security and sovereignty.
More concrete steps must also be taken beyond legislation, in other compartments of the toolkit against foreign interference.
As experts and the Government have repeatedly acknowledged, building ground-up resilience through education, literacy and critical thinking is the best defence there is. Singaporeans will be all the better for making their own choices – instead of being told how or how not to.
.
=========
.
FICA is now law.
Who will be the first to be served the order under FICA?
How many orders will be served in the first 100 days of FICA?
We will watch how the orders will protect or harm Singapore.
.
=======
.
Forum: Fica a missed opportunity to demonstrate bipartisanship
PUBLISHED3 HOURS AGO on 20th Oct 2021 in ST Forum.
I read with interest Straits Times editor-at-large Han Fook Kwang’s commentary arguing that it is not too late to bridge the Fica divide (Not too late to bridge Fica divide, Oct 17).
The passing of Fica, or the Foreign Interference (Countermeasures) Act, in Parliament along party lines was, indeed, a missed opportunity to send a strong message to foreign state and non-state actors who want to destabilise Singapore and undermine its hard-fought peace and prosperity.
More than the law itself, a bipartisanship approval of the legislation would have made any foreign actor think twice before attempting to pit us against one another.
We should expect, from time to time, that our politicians have fundamental disagreements on everything from minimum wage to health insurance coverage, or even the ideal size of a class, and have robust debates about these issues in Parliament.
But on issues of national security and foreign policy, which under-gird our sovereignty, displaying a united front is a lot more powerful than any law or policy can ever be.
Such an important piece of legislation, however, should have been deliberated further with the largest opposition party in Parliament.
This could have been done through a Select Committee or even in private before it was tabled, to get everyone on board.
In publicly disagreeing over the details of Fica, we may have missed this larger point and emboldened the very people the Act intended to weaken.Chirag Agarwal
.
============
.
Who will be the first to be given the order under the FICA law?
How many orders will be given in the first 100 days? We wait?
Who are in the PSP list?
.=======
.
Not too late to bridge Fica divide
The polarised manner in which the debate was conducted has set back the effort to sensitise S’poreans to the danger of foreign interference
Han Fook KwangEditor-at-Large
The Government has repeatedly assured that Fica will not apply to legitimate activities.PHOTO: LIM YAOHUI
PUBLISHED2 HOURS AGO on 17th Oct 2021 in Sunday Times.
Singapore has a new law to counter foreigners making use of citizens here to influence the domestic politics of the country.It is a complicated set of legislation to deal with a problem that exists in a world far removed from the ordinary lives of people which the Government says it cannot talk about openly without compromising national security.
Cloak and dagger was so yesterday. Facebook and bots are the new weapons of choice of today’s secret services using fake news, disinformation, hate speech and hijacked identities.To deal with this new menace, you want a law that is able to anticipate the many ways that foreign intelligence services have at their disposal to do their dirty tricks.But you also want to make sure that legitimate activities by both foreigners and Singaporeans are not unwittingly made illegal.
This is the crux of the problem with the Foreign Interference (Countermeasures) Act (Fica) passed last week.Because the law needs to cover as many scenarios as possible to be of any use, parts of it contained language deemed by lawyers and academics to be so broadly defined as to include bona fide work by them that might now be considered illegal.
The Government has repeatedly assured that Fica will not apply to these legitimate activities.But I agree with my colleague at the S. Rajaratnam School of International Studies, Dr Shashi Jayakumar, who in a recent personal post said that these concerns by Singaporeans should have been more sympathetically acknowledged and addressed.
This was how he put it:”With a law as broad as Fica, it is natural to want light to be shed on whether freedom to engage in certain kinds of work is going to be affected. These are legitimate concerns. I would prefer it if MHA (the Ministry of Home Affairs) had dealt with these questions in a more measured manner… The introduction of a significant Bill like Fica was an opportunity to set markers for the tone of discourse and public engagement.”I cannot help but feel that some of what transpired was a missed opportunity.”I fear though that the bigger problem isn’t just what was missed in the debate but that the public may now be unsure over whether such a law is really necessary to counter the threat that the Government says is imminent and dangerous.The polarised manner in which the debate was conducted has set back the effort to sensitise Singaporeans to this new danger.Why do I say this?The parliamentary debate on the Bill resulted in all 10 opposition MPs from the Workers’ Party (WP) rejecting the new law.This might cause confusion because it creates the impression that the WP is opposed to having such a law when, in fact, in its first statement commenting on the Bill, it stated that it “believes in the legitimate need to counter malign acts of foreign interference”.
MORE ON THIS TOPIC5 things to know about Fica, the law to counter foreign interferenceForeign interference law is necessary, but so too is good communicationBut it had problems with parts of the new law, especially in having a government-appointed tribunal as the final appeal body.It argued that judicial review was necessary as part of Singapore’s constitutionally protected system of checks and balances against executive powers exercised illegally or corruptly.
The Government refused to budge saying that it was concerned there might be leaks if the hearings were done in open court, given the sensitive nature of intelligence gathered.In the event, both sides stood firm, the Bill was passed in the same sitting with all the ruling party’s members saying aye and all of the WP MPs voting against it.Both sides are to blame for not trying harder to reach an acceptable compromise.In its haste to get the Bill passed, the Government left no time for this to be achieved.On its part, the WP failed to offer an alternative proposal to replace the proposed government tribunal.
Meanwhile, the divide continues outside the House.As this newspaper reported on Oct 9, several law academics interviewed remain unconvinced that it was prudent to enact a law that placed the legality of executive action beyond the reach of the courts.
Some of their suggestions include having a specialised court hearing these matters with safeguards in place to protect sensitive information from being disclosed in public, as is practised in the United States.The present outcome, with an unresolved division between the two main political parties and among experts in academia and the legal profession over such an important piece of legislation is highly unsatisfactory.You might think that it is not unusual for opposition parties to argue against government Bills.On issues of national security, though, every country should try to forge a national consensus.
MORE ON THIS TOPICPritam calls for more checks in law on foreign interference to guard against abuseProposed law to tackle foreign interference calibrated for the Internet age: ShanmugamEven in Australia, where partisan politics is the order of the day, when a similar law called the National Security Legislation Amendment (Espionage and Foreign Interference) Act 2018 was passed, it received support from the main opposition party.
This, after 60 changes to the original Bill were recommended by a bipartisan committee during six months of discussions and negotiations.The tradition in Australia, as it is in many countries, is for all parties to try to reach an agreement over national security, even as they politick tooth and nail over other issues.The same should have happened here.Alas, it did not, and it has resulted in a divided House, and worse, a divided country.
So, what to do now?I don’t think the matter should be left unresolved, even though the Bill has now been passed.It is not too late for the Government to begin a series of consultations with interested parties, including the WP, to work out additional changes, addressing the concerns over arbitrary executive decisions but without eroding the effectiveness of the new law and the need to protect the secrecy of evidence gathered.If some of Singapore’s toughest laws including the Internal Security Act and those involving the possession of drugs and firearms can enjoy wide support even among opposition parties, why not Fica?
Compared with these uncompromising but necessary laws, Fica should have been a walk in the park.But it will require political will to break the impasse.Both sides should recognise that it is better to have a law acceptable to all than one which creates division in the country.Will it be seen as a meaningless exercise now that the law is in place?
In fact, precisely because it has been passed and the Government need not undertake such an exercise, doing so will signal how important it regards having a national consensus on this issue.Most experts agree that when an unfriendly foreign actor undertakes a hostile disinformation campaign, its main aim is to confuse the public, create division and disaffection in the country.Fica is meant to make it harder for anyone to do this.What an irony that its passing into law might have achieved precisely what it set out to prevent.•
Han Fook Kwang is also senior fellow at the S. Rajaratnam School of International Studies, Nanyang Technological University
MORE ON THIS TOPICRisk of foreign interference ‘far greater’ than risk of Govt abusing its powers: ShanmugamGerasimov Doctrine? Spamouflage Dragon? 10 unusual terms from the Fica debate
.
=======
=
.
=
With passage of law to counter foreign interference, winning over public is next challenge: Experts
- PUBLISHED8 HOURS AGO on 9th Oct 2021 in Straits Times.
SINGAPORE – Singapore’s introduction, debate and passage of the law to counter foreign interference within the span of three weeks has led to criticism that not enough time was given for the public to be consulted and give feedback on a piece of legislation granting the Government broad new powers that cannot be subjected to judicial review.
Concerns have also been raised over how the passage of the Foreign Interference (Countermeasures) Act, or Fica, will affect Singapore’s standing as a global hub, as well as whether the law will come to be accepted and supported at home.
Fica is now pending the President’s assent after being passed in Parliament on Monday following a 10-hour debate. Even as the dust settles, questions remain over how the law will be applied, what effects it will have and how it will come to be perceived.
While experts and observers generally accepted the need for Fica, they said some aspects of how the Government handled the concerns raised could have been improved. The authorities now face the challenge of winning over the public in the coming months, when subsidiary legislation is introduced to flesh out specific rules and when a test case eventually emerges.
Public consultation
In a speech on Monday, Leader of the Opposition and Workers’ Party (WP) chief Pritam Singh said there has been “considerable disquiet in some quarters” at the speed with which Fica was presented to Parliament.
He noted that no public consultation was conducted despite Second Minister for Home Affairs Josephine Teo having said in March that the public would have a big part to play in shaping proposals to guard against foreign subversion and to give these safeguards their support.
Home Affairs and Law Minister K. Shanmugam, in response to calls from the WP to delay the passage of Fica and refer it to a parliamentary select committee for scrutiny, said there had already been extensive discussions on the need for such a law for more than three years, and these viewpoints had been taken into consideration in drafting the law.
Dr Shashi Jayakumar, who heads the Centre of Excellence for National Security at the S. Rajaratnam School of International Studies, agreed that many of the key issues pertaining to Fica were dealt with by the Select Committee on Deliberate Online Falsehoods in 2018.
In a personal commentary published on LinkedIn on Thursday, Dr Jayakumar said foreign interference and hostile information campaigns are deeply intertwined with disinformation and fake news, and many of these issues were discussed in 2018 in the run-up to the enactment of the Protection from Online Falsehoods and Manipulation Act, or Pofma.
He added: “On balance, I do not think there was a need to have a separate select committee to examine this issue.”
However, he echoed Mr Singh’s sentiment that Mrs Teo’s earlier comments had implied there would be a process of consultation and engagement with the public, and that this step should not have been omitted.
Dr Mustafa Izzuddin, a senior international affairs analyst at consultancy Solaris Strategies Singapore, said the severity of the emerging threats posed by foreign interference, which existing laws are ill suited to address, may not be well understood by the public.
“From the security perspective, I can understand the sense of urgency and I think it is necessary. At the same time, it is important to have a strong social compact by letting the public be involved in policymaking, and it would have been in the Government’s interest to do so,” he told The Straits Times.
Dr Mustafa noted that although formal public consultation was not carried out, many academics and civil society groups have flagged their concerns about Fica and should continue to do so. “It is important that the Government addresses their concerns publicly and takes them on board when applying the law.”https://www.straitstimes.com/embed/6275508119001
Mr Shanmugam had also signalled that Fica would not be the final word on Singapore’s efforts to counter foreign threats, and that the public would still have a role to play in shaping further measures.
“This is not the end, it’s the beginning. We will face a major attack at some point. We need to bring the entire society together and we need to do a lot more to shape public thinking. There is a long haul ahead of us, and the public has to be involved in that.”
Communication remains vital
Even after Fica comes into force, the Government’s messaging and how it applies its new powers will determine how much support it will be able to garner for the law.
One area of vulnerability could centre on the exercise of Fica itself, said Dr Gillian Koh, deputy director for research and senior research fellow at the Institute of Policy Studies.
How the discussion of balance – between giving the Government the powers and having checks against abuse – is carried out could potentially be advantageous to hostile foreign entities, who could use the opportunity to sow doubt about whether Fica has been applied in a justified manner, she said.
“What state authorities need to do when they finally use the legislation is to understand how adversaries will try to win either way. A reaction or state action that sparks a sense of incredulity can already cause dissent and political polarisation.”
The danger is insidious as foreign adversaries can nurture an audience using seemingly innocuous content about culture, entertainment or news and opinion without touching on political matters, Dr Koh said.
Law against foreign interference: Who checks the checkers?
What laws are there in the region to address foreign interference?
Having grown such an audience, they can then turn their hostile information campaigns on and off when necessary to achieve specific aims while disguising their intent, and the public might find it difficult to believe that they pose a credible threat.
Dr Koh gave the example of falsehoods that led to Brexit in Britain and how the Black Lives Matter campaign in the United States was hijacked by hostile actors to spread disinformation.
Something similar could happen in Singapore in relation to the Republic’s multilateral partnerships or race relations, with locals being used to cover up a disinformation campaign seeded by foreigners, she said.
She added: “It will be important, of course, for the security services to show us the evidence without divulging the sources of their intelligence, but us fighting each other about the veracity of what the state is saying, and the justification for the action, will mean that polarisation will have taken place.
“Citizens themselves have to keep an open mind to weigh both sides of the argument, even as those who are being taken to task will be expected to protest their innocence and should be encouraged to put their case across and be listened to.”
Dr Jayakumar said the introduction of a significant law like Fica was an opportunity to set the tone of discourse and public engagement to come, but some of what has happened could be seen as a missed opportunity.
In the run-up to the parliamentary debate on Fica, the Ministry of Home Affairs (MHA) responded to a number of commentaries that expressed reservations over the draft law, including one by academics Cherian George, Chong Ja Ian, Linda Lim and Teo You Yenn published on Academia.sg and another by Senior Counsel Harpreet Singh Nehal published in The Straits Times.
Dr Jayakumar said that although it was helpful for the MHA to outline the academic activities that would not be affected by Fica, he was puzzled by the “somewhat combative tone” adopted by the ministry in its rebuttals.
5 things to know about Fica, the law to counter foreign interference
Foreign interference law is necessary, but so too is good communication
“With a law as broad as Fica, it is natural to want light to be shed on whether freedom to engage in certain kinds of work is going to be affected. These are legitimate concerns,” he said.
“I would prefer it if MHA had dealt with these questions in a more measured manner, especially for those which were either clearly legitimate concerns, or legitimate bearing in mind that there was a great deal unknown about how the Government intended to wield provisions within the Bill.”
Mr Shanmugam has argued that Fica is scoped more narrowly compared with similar laws in other jurisdictions.
But Dr Jayakumar said the public’s perception of this will rest on how Fica is actually used, with various groups, including the younger generation, likely to scrutinise issues like how proportionality and public interest are determined in practice.
International reputation
Another concern is whether and how Fica will impact Singapore’s status as a global hub.
Speaking in Parliament, Nominated MP Shahira Abdullah said Fica defines the meaning of a foreign principal very broadly to capture anything and everything remotely foreign in nature, including permanent residents.
She cautioned against enacting legislation that could potentially be discriminatory.
Legal powers in foreign interference law a necessity because of seriousness of threats: Shanmugam
“This may have unintended effects on Singapore’s reputation as a hub for global trade and investments that upholds its constitutional values of equality and fairness,” she said.
But Dr Mustafa said this is unlikely as most companies and investors are driven by pragmatism, and would be more interested in how much tax they have to pay, whether they can get a good return on their investments and whether they can use Singapore as a regional hub.
None of these aspects is affected by Fica, he said.
He added that the Government would have taken into account the question of whether Fica would threaten Singapore’s status as a global hub and concluded that it would not.
He said: “Singapore has a longstanding record of adopting a certain approach to political liberties. It’s not sudden or surprising.”
Dr Jayakumar said the challenge that the authorities face is one of obtaining the people’s buy-in.
“Even after enactment, it is in the Government’s interest to engage and try to win more acceptance for Fica, and to do this it will need to tell its story better.”
The cat-and-mouse game of ferreting out influence operations
Gerasimov Doctrine? Spamouflage Dragon? 10 unusual terms from the Fica debate
===========
.
The Straits Times’ Editorial says
Timely deterrence against foreign interference
PUBLISHED3 HOURS AGO on 6th Oct 2021 in ST.
Monday 4th Oct, marked a significant day for Singapore’s legislature with Parliament passing a law against foreign interference after a 10-hour airing in the House, three years after it was first raised and three weeks after the extensive, hotly debated legislation was tabled.
The Foreign Interference (Countermeasures) Act, or Fica, aims to prevent, detect and disrupt foreign interference in domestic politics conducted through hostile information campaigns (HICs) and the use of local proxies.
The Act continues the vigorous tradition of pre-emptive legislative action to ensure that Singaporeans and only Singaporeans can decide on the overall direction and particular outcomes of domestic politics.
What makes this piece of legislation special is that it is calibrated finely to meet the special challenge of hostile digital campaigns aimed at undermining the integrity of the Singapore political and social systems.The nature and extent of the threat are clear from the success of such campaigns internationally.
From allegations of foreign meddling in the American presidential electoral process to Australia’s experience of combating foreign disinformation campaigns, international borders have become porous in ways that would not have been possible in the pre-Internet age.
Today, the traditional tools of espionage are being complemented by equally opaque and insidious methods of disinformation that target stress points in countries through the anonymity of social media.
The methods involve spreading seemingly credible but actually fake information to foment suspicion, discord and even political and social change. The results can be deadly and difficult to contain once an attack has been carried out successfully.
The whole point therefore is to make such attacks difficult by bringing their medium – the digital sphere – within the ambit of national legislation.
A multiracial and multi-religious society such as Singapore is particularly vulnerable to HICs, especially through the clever use of local proxies.
For the Government not to take the threat seriously would have amounted to dereliction of its national duty.
Academics, civil society groups, businessmen and individuals whose work involves collaboration with foreigners have nothing to fear so long as it does not become a conduit for external ill intent towards Singapore.
The purpose of the Act is to prevent the foreign manipulation of such collaboration. Likewise, the popularity of social media as a form of communication cannot be allowed to provide a convenient camouflage for devious campaigns that seek to direct Singaporean public opinion so as to favour external actors and their plans.
The safeguards built into the Act protect legitimate external collaboration and communication, but its purpose is clear. Singapore’s political space belongs exclusively to its citizens.
.
=====
.
The nine..
.=======
.
MHA asks 9 to correct false statements, apologise for misrepresenting minister’s remarks on rule of lawMr K Shanmugam’s comments came towards the end of the 10-hour long debate where he was responding to MPs’ remarks on the role of the judiciary in overseeing Fica.PHOTO: MCINg Wei Kai
PUBLISHEDOCT 8, 2021, 12:00 AM SGT in Straits Times.
SINGAPORE – The Ministry of Home Affairs (MHA) has issued letters to nine entities, asking them to correct false statements and apologise for misquoting what Home Affairs and Law Minister K. Shanmugam had said on the rule of law in Parliament on Monday (Oct 4).These misrepresentations were also published by news website Mothership in its article on Wednesday (Oct 6).As at Thursday (Oct 7) night, seven have corrected their posts and apologised for what they did, MHA said in a statement.Checks show the seven are activists Andrew Loh, Kirsten Han, Martyn See, Julie O’Connor, Kokila Annamalai and Lynn Lee, and Facebook page Wake Up Singapore.The other two are Peoples Voice chief Lim Tean and activist Jolovan Wham.Mothership has also published an editor’s note to clarify and correct the misrepresentation, the ministry added.The posts in question had completely misstated what Mr Shanmugam had said at the debate on the Foreign Interference (Countermeasures) Act, or Fica, MHA said.”The minister had said in Parliament that rule of law is fundamental and basic for Singapore and its success, and the Government has always been committed to the rule of law and continues to be committed to it,” MHA’s statement said.”He also said that there are countries around the world where the rule of law is a concept for lawyers, but does not operate in the real world, and their societies live in utter misery.”MHA added: “The nine persons put up posts which attributed to the minister the very opposite of what he had said. They suggested that the minister had said that rule of law does not operate in Singapore. That is false.”Mothership, in its apology note, said an earlier version of its story had given the impression that Minister Shanmugam had changed his mind on rule of law.”This is wrong and taken out of context,” the website added.Mr Shanmugam’s comments came towards the end of the 10-hour long debate where he was responding to MPs’ remarks on the role of the judiciary in overseeing Fica.The minister said he agreed that while executive powers must be subject to checks and balances, the questions are in what form and what are the appropriate and best solutions for Singapore’s context.He added that Fica offered a more calibrated approach for the Internet age.
MORE ON THIS TOPICFica debate: Foreign interference one of the most serious threats facing S’pore, says ShanmugamProposed law to tackle foreign interference calibrated for the Internet age: ShanmugamParliament approved Fica on Monday, three years after it was first raised and three weeks after the extensive, hotly debated legislation was tabled.The debate saw MPs surface criticisms and concerns raised by lawyers, experts and activists, including over the law’s broad language and lack of judicial oversight.All 11 opposition MPs present voted against it, while two Nominated MPs abstained.
MORE ON THIS TOPIC5 things to know about Fica, the law to counter foreign interference
.
=============
.
FICA is law now.
Let us watch who will be the first to be given the order under FICA, and how many in the first 100 days.
PSP… politically significant persons…..
Included in FICA as definition is: any member of a CEC of a political party is a PSP. That means cadre card-carrying ordinary members of a political party are not PSPs.
FICA will not go after all the birds in the sky…the insignificant persons. How to be a SPS under FICA? An ordinary journalist or commentator of no significance, import or repute will not be a SPS under FICA.
.
We watch who will be the first to get the order, and how many will get it in the first 100 days? How will the FICA law be used/applied to protect or harm Singapore. We watch.
The acid test of FICA will be in the tasting and eating. Who will be the first to receive the ministerial order under FICA? How many will be given the orders under FICA in the first 100 days? We watch.
.
====
.The acid test of FICA will be in the tasting and eating. Who will be the first to receive the ministerial order under FICA? How many will be given the orders under FICA in the first 100 days? We watch.
.
We watch who will be the first to get the order, and how many will get it in the first 100 days? How will the FICA law be used/applied to protect or harm Singapore. We watch.
=
.
Shut down TRS
5 October 2021 at 17:00 in Facebook · Pritam Singh, the leader of the opposition, knows that the Government has been mulling on the introduction of FICA for many months.In fact, the government has been mulling it for over 2 years. The public consultations were extensively carried out with various experts inputs for the bill. Why didn’t Pritam voice out all these while since it was first mooted back in 2019 by Edwin Tong and Shanmugam? Sources:https://www.todayonline.com/…/over-2-years-making-govt…https://www.channelnewsasia.com/…/fica-parliament…
.
=================
.
5 things to know about Fica, the law to counter foreign interference
The Ministry of Home Affairs has said foreign interference poses a serious threat to Singapore’s sovereignty and national security.PHOTO: MHARei Kurohi
PUBLISHEDOCT 5, 2021, 7:55 PM SGT in Straits Times.
SINGAPORE – Parliament passed the Foreign Interference (Countermeasures) Act (Fica) on Monday (Oct 4) after a 10-hour debate.Here are five things to know about the law to counter foreign interference.1. What is Fica?Fica is a law to empower the authorities to deal with covert attempts by hostile foreign entities to interfere in domestic politics.Examples of such actions include artificially amplifying certain views to manipulate public opinion on hot-button issues, stir up discord and unrest, or undermine confidence in institutions.2. Why was it introduced?The Ministry of Home Affairs (MHA) has said foreign interference poses a serious threat to Singapore’s sovereignty and national security. Many instances of hostile information campaigns being carried out against other countries have been uncovered in the past few years.The need for a law to counter these campaigns was mooted by the 2018 Select Committee on Deliberate Online Falsehoods.3. What and who does it target? Fica targets foreign entities believed to be carrying out hostile information campaigns here, including state actors.It does not target Singaporeans or other local entities that express their views, unless they are being used by foreign entities as proxies for interference, said MHA.4. What is the process like?Third parties like online platforms, Internet service providers and website operators can be compelled to block certain accounts or content in Singapore. PHOTO: ST FILEFirst, the authorities identify a suspected hostile information campaign believed to be of foreign origin. If they determine that the campaign is directed at a political end and it is in the public interest to take countermeasures, meaning it is necessary or expedient to do so, they can issue directions to stem the spread of disinformation.Third parties like online platforms, Internet service providers and website operators can then be compelled to block certain accounts or content in Singapore.Identified culprits can be arrested and prosecuted, but cannot be detained without trial.MORE ON THIS TOPICProposed law to tackle foreign interference calibrated for the Internet age: ShanmugamForeign interference law is necessary, but so too is good communicationThe Act also sets requirements for certain individuals and entities defined as “politically significant persons” (PSPs), including political parties, political office holders, MPs, election candidates and their election agents.Others can also be designated as PSPs if their activities are directed towards a political end, and it is in the public interest for the authorities to apply countermeasures.PSPs can be directed to disclose information about donations received, leadership or membership of organisations, and affiliations with foreign entities. Their activities can also be restricted where necessary. Targeted entities can appeal against directions issued under Fica to the Minister of Home Affairs or an independent reviewing tribunal headed by a Supreme Court judge.5. What concerns have been raised and what were the responses?MHA has said the law will not be applied against most academic activities. PHOTO: ST FILESome have expressed concern that Fica could have a chilling effect on legitimate entities such as academics studying controversial issues and foreigners expressing opinions on Singapore politics.In response, MHA has said the law will not be applied against most academic activities including collaborating with others overseas, writing for international journals and receiving international funding.Fica is also not intended to target foreigners who comment on local matters in an open and transparent fashion, the ministry said.The Workers’ Party (WP) and other commentators have argued that the broad language of Fica opens up the possibility of abuse, including by a future government.
MORE ON THIS TOPICPritam calls for more checks in law on foreign interference to guard against abuseLegal powers in foreign interference law a necessity because of seriousness of threats: ShanmugamSpeaking in Parliament, Law and Home Affairs Minister K. Shanmugam said there are indeed trade-offs between the need to enable the Government to act effectively when necessary and to have checks against abuse.He noted that equivalent laws in other countries like Australia and the United States have even broader definitions, and that such laws must enable governments to deal with a wide range of threats.At the same time, there are clear conditions that need to be met before Fica can be applied. “(Fica) represents the best balance that we can find between dealing with the risks and providing checks against abuse,” he said.The WP also said the Act restrains judicial oversight as it is not possible to challenge directions through a judicial review.But Mr Shanmugam said the court process is unsuitable for dealing with foreign interference, given that the process may involve highly sensitive intelligence and that any leaks could have serious consequences.
MORE ON THIS TOPICGerasimov Doctrine? Spamouflage Dragon? 10 unusual terms from the Fica debateGovernment already has laws to deal with foreign interference, says Leong Mun WaiAnother concern is that Fica has been rushed through Parliament without being subjected to public consultation or scrutiny by a Select Committee.To this, Mr Shanmugam said the issue of foreign interference has been discussed extensively for more than three years in Parliament, public forums and the media. Most people agree that the threat is serious and something needs to be done, he said.
.
===========
.
Forum: Need for laws to ensure transparency and accountability of funds raised from crowdfunding
PUBLISHED7 HOURS AGO on 6th Oct 2021 in ST Forum.
\The raising of funds through social media platforms, commonly known as “crowdfunding”, is becoming rapidly popular to raise money for a cause or an event – charitable or otherwise.A recent example is that of marathoner Soh Rui Yong, who started a crowdfunding campaign to raise funds after he was ordered to pay $180,000 to former teammate Ashley Liew over defamatory statements.The rise of crowdfunding has prompted complex professional, ethical and practical questions that the community, courts and Government must carefully work through.This is to ensure that what is done with good intentions does not have the unintended consequence of undermining the rule of law and public confidence in our judiciary or even allowing foreign interference in our domestic politics.The immense rallying power of fund-raising appeals can be significant, raising substantial amounts of donations.An example reported in the news is the case of Kwek Yu Xuan, the world’s tiniest baby who was born about four months premature and weighed only 212g, and whose parents raised $300,000, largely online, to support her intensive treatment and lengthy hospital aftercare stay.It is heartening to see Singaporeans respond generously to these appeals.However, the reach and scale of these online appeals highlight the need for laws that promote accountability to maintain a high level of trust and integrity, to prevent people abusing online giving platforms to cash in on Singaporeans’ generosity.With millions of dollars raised online each year for a vast range of causes, there seems to be little legislation regulating the practice of crowdfunding to ensure the transparency and accountability of funds raised through platforms in Singapore.This runs the risk of enabling people with less noble goals to take advantage of well-intentioned donors, and even to manipulate the legal system to their advantage.The possibilities range from money laundering through a crowdfunding campaign, to the use of crowdfunding to promote frivolous litigation, to the use of foreign actors using a “fabricated crowd” to disguise the identity of the true funder to manipulate our domestic politics and undermine our political sovereignty.Currently, there is no legislation or authority regulating the practice of crowdfunding in Singapore.Crowdfunding platforms that have adopted the Code of Practice for Online Charitable Fund-raising Appeals pledge to ensure the veracity of their campaigns and accountability of funds raised through their platforms.I’m concerned because crowdfunding by its nature may appeal to less sophisticated people who will invest in a project they have great empathy for.Typical crowdfunding donors may not be able to discern if a cause is real or fraudulent.Many scam artists may tell compelling stories that captivate the crowd, presenting their investments on paper to meet the very basic disclosures of crowdfunding.To this end, would it be possible for the Government to update existing laws so there are more mechanisms in place to make it a requirement for people who seek crowdfunding to disclose as much information as possible?Ewen Lim Wei Shen
.
===================
.
Singapore passes law to counter foreign interference after 10-hour Parliament debate
Justin OngPolitical Correspondent
- UPDATED1 HOUR AGO on 4th Oct 2021 in Straits Times.
SINGAPORE – A law against foreign interference was on Monday (Oct 4) passed by Singapore’s Parliament after a 10-hour airing in the House, three years after it was first raised and three weeks after the extensive, hotly debated legislation was tabled.
“This Bill is intended to address a serious threat that concerns our national security and sovereignty,” said Law and Home Affairs Minister K. Shanmugam.
“And these are important to ensure that Singaporeans continue to make our own choices on how we should govern our country and live our lives.”
The Foreign Interference (Countermeasures) Act, or Fica, aims to tackle foreign meddling in domestic politics conducted through hostile information campaigns and the use of local proxies.
During the debate, 16 MPs from both sides of the aisle surfaced criticisms and concerns raised by lawyers, experts and civil society activists in recent days, including over the law’s broad language and lack of judicial oversight.
These resulted in a parliamentary petition to delay its passage put forward by Non-Constituency MP Leong Mun Wai, a raft of proposed changes tabled by the Workers’ Party (WP), and recorded dissent from opposition MPs at the final vote – but the ruling People’s Action Party’s supermajority meant Fica’s passage was a given.
At around 11.15pm, the Bill was passed with 75 MPs saying “yes”, 11 from the WP and Progress Singapore Party objecting, and two Nominated MPs abstaining.
WP chief Pritam Singh had called for a division in which each MP’s vote is recorded.
Some proposed amendments to the Bill by the WP were accepted by the Government, including to expand the list of defined politically significant persons to include a member of the executive committee or similar governing body of a political party.
Another accepted modification was to make it obligatory to publicise the designations of these persons, as well as some stepped-up countermeasures against them.
The party had also suggested additional provisions allowing appeals to the court and a public registry of politically significant persons among other changes, which it said would lower the likelihood of abuse of power and lead to greater transparency.
Other MPs had also suggested for greater checks and balances to be incorporatedinto the law, citing “extensive” discretion granted to the authorities.
Fica debate: Foreign interference one of the most serious threats facing S’pore, says Shanmugam
Risk of foreign interference ‘far greater’ than risk of Govt abusing its powers: Shanmugam
Mr Shanmugam offered a biting response, noting that “rhetoric alone doesn’t solve problems”.
“Parliament is not just a forum for reading out speeches with an intent of putting it out in social media eventually… without offering real suggestions. We need to engage on the issues,” he said.
Mr Shanmugam agreed that while executive powers must be subject to checks and balances, the questions are in what form and what are the appropriate and best solutions for Singapore’s context.
Earlier, in a speech running more than two hours long to kick off the debate, Mr Shanmugam said Singapore’s interracial and inter-religious mix was easily exploitable by foreign actors, who have been steadily building up covert, clever narratives to try an condition Singaporeans’ thinking.
“In my view, this is one of the most serious threats we face, and our population and I think most MPs are not really aware of this,” he said.
While international media regularly identifies Russia, China, Iran and North Korea as perpetrators, the United States and other Western countries have similar, or in the case of the US, even superior capabilities, added the minister.
Pritam calls for more checks in proposed law on foreign interference to guard against abuse
Government already has laws to deal with foreign interference, says Leong Mun Wai
He also said foreign interference and the need for legislation have been extensively discussed and debated for more than three years now, dating back to 2018, when a select committee set up to study the issue of fake news gathered detailed evidence on the seriousness of the threat.
Mr Shanmugam also described Fica as offering a more calibrated approach for the Internet age in contrast to blunter levers in other laws, and argued that the risk of rogue foreign interference was far greater than the risk of a rogue government abusing its power.
He also noted that the scope of Fica was narrower than that of laws in America and Australia on political activity by foreign persons or entities, and rejected suggestions by the WP to classify senior civil servants as politically significant persons.
And to protect sensitive information, appeals against directions issued should be heard by an independent reviewing tribunal instead of the courts, he said.
Mr Shanmugam also addressed the law’s impact on trust in public institutions.
“Let’s get real… Trust doesn’t depend on putting in a series of legislation, just copying other (jurisdictions) whose trust levels are abysmally low.”
High trust levels in Singapore can be attributed to its performance, probity, leaders’ behaviour and exercise of powers, he said, adding that trust would also dissipate quickly in the face of abuse and corruption – particularly in a small place like the Republic.
S’poreans who join foreign political parties must declare under proposed law on foreign interference
Not appropriate to classify civil servants as politically significant persons: Shanmugam
The minister admitted that in the process of drafting Fica with his officers, there were parts he wished had turned out differently.
“But the threat we face is people armed with bazookas, and I describe this legislation as a toy gun,” he said.
“Singapore believes in the law, so we give ourselves legal powers. But in reality the kind of threats we face, the kind of adversaries and the resources they have in terms of manpower, are far greater than what we have.
“Our people haven’t even begun to realise what the problem is, and the nature of the problem.”
Court process unsuitable for appeals under anti-foreign interference law: Shanmugam
Gerasimov Doctrine? Spamouflage Dragon? 10 unusual terms from the Fica debate
===========
.
Shanmugam rejects claims that foreign interference Bill being rushed through and would curtail foreign collaborations
By NG JUN SEN
Published OCTOBER 04, 2021 in Today newspaper
Updated OCTOBER 04, 2021
Law and Home Affairs Minister K Shanmugam speaking in Parliament on Oct 4, 2021.
Follow us on Instagram and join our Telegram channel for the latest updates.
In a speech exceeding two hours, Home Affairs K Shanmugam sought to clarify some misconceptions about the Foreign Interference (Countermeasures) Bill
The proposed law was not rushed, with more than three years of discussions about foreign interference, he said
It had to be broadly worded since foreign countries use “legitimate-looking fronts” to carry out influence operations
Mr Shanmugam also took aim at Fica’s critics Thum Ping Tjin and Kirsten Han, who had a history of dealings with Malaysia
SINGAPORE — The draft law designed to detect and counter foreign interference in Singapore’s politics will not unnecessarily restrict interactions with foreigners, curtail academic work with them, or be used disproportionately against legitimate collaborations and links with foreigners, Law and Home Affairs Minister K Shanmugam said.
The Government has been talking “extensively” about the issue for more than three years, and rejected claims that the Bill to enact the Foreign Interference (Countermeasures) Act, or Fica, was being rushed through with little consultation, he added.
The issue of foreign interference has been discussed publicly as well as being addressed in the parliamentary select committee on deliberate online falsehoods in 2018, he noted.
Mr Shanmugam was responding in Parliament on Monday (Oct 4) to some of the common criticisms of Fica, which aims to safeguard Singapore’s political sovereignty by granting powers to the Government to target foreign interference operations if there is a public interest to do so.
In his speech exceeding two hours, Mr Shanmugam opened the debate on the Bill by correcting “misconceptions” of Fica that have emerged since the Bill was introduced in Parliament last month, taking aim at historian Thum Ping Tjin and freelance journalist Kirsten Han’s campaign against Fica at one point in his speech.
READ ALSO
Singaporeans unaware of serious threat of foreign influence operations: Shanmugam
He said: “Some of the doomsday scenarios — that Fica is a way to close off foreign collaborations, if that is correct, we as a Government must have suddenly gone mad, because in a country like Singapore, which depends so much on the flow of ideas and international collaboration, is that even thinkable?”
The minister pointed to other jurisdictions with laws that have broader powers, such as the United States’ Foreign Agents Restriction Act and Australia’s Foreign Influence Transparency Scheme.
Subscribe to our email newsletter
SUBSCRIBE
By clicking subscribe, I agree for my personal data to be used to send me TODAY newsletters, promotional offers and for research and analysis.
The law in the US, for example, states that any political activity designed to influence the government’s decision-making on behalf of a foreigner will require registration, but the same scenario is unlikely to trigger Fica’s proposed disclosure rules for politically sensitive persons, which cover a “narrower” group, Mr Shanmugam said.
“Singapore depends for its success and vitality on being open. A Government that seeks to close (that) down will lead Singapore to ruin,” he added.
PUBLIC CONSULTATION ON NEW LAW
Responding to assertions that the Bill is being rushed through without public consultation, he said that there have been extensive discussions about this for more than three years, since the 2018 public hearings on online fake news.
READ ALSO
Draft law grants new extraterritorial powers to pursue overseas actors, online platforms: Shanmugam
One of the testimonials provided in the public hearings had highlighted how foreign states could engage in information operations targeting Singapore’s faultlines as a means of “asymmetric warfare” considering the country’s military might in the region.
“What that means is that the internet becomes a particularly attractive theatre for adversaries who would seek to do us harm. I will ask MPs (Members of Parliament) to register this point in particular, because our conventional military superiority ironically means we become a bigger target online,” he said.
The topic of foreign influence operations had also been discussed in Parliament several times, during Budget debates and also in response to parliamentary questions filed by MPs.
Publicly, Mr Shanmugam spoke about the need for legislation in an international conference in 2019, which was covered extensively by the media.
“The trend of foreign interference and its seriousness is not disputed by most people. Most people also agree that something needs to be done,” he said.
MISCONCEPTIONS AND DOOMSDAY SCENARIOS
READ ALSO
Draft law doesn’t bar meetings by groups with foreigners who have no control over them: MHA
During Mr Shanmugam’s speech, handouts were distributed to MPs that compiled the various arguments advanced by opponents to Fica, some of which were brought up by Senior Counsel Harpreet Singh Nehal and some Singapore academics in the past week.
These misconceptions include:
The proposed law defines “foreign interference” and “public interest” too broadly, in a way that means legitimate online activity can run afoul of the law, even when there is no hostile information campaign involved
Political debates that legitimately require collaboration with international experts, researchers and non-governmental organisations (NGOs) may be curtailed
Academics who conduct research with foreign authors, whose work are featured on foreign publications and are funded by foreign universities, foundations and states may be affected
Legitimate advocacy work undertaken by civil society organisations and activists, as well as journalistic reporting and analysis or opinion pieces, may be targeted by the law
Religious organisations with foreign links that has a position on an issue, such as abortion or other rights issues, could be affected
Reiterating the rejoinder on Sunday by the Ministry of Home Affairs (MHA) to Mr Singh and Academia.sg, Mr Shanmugam said that the key point is that the authorities have to consider the public interest before issuing a direction under Fica.
That means that the decision has to be made on the basis that it is “necessary and expedient” to do so, he explained.
Granted, it may be difficult to determine if it is necessary or expedient in issuing a Fica direction, such as if two academics collaborate on a paper on a sensitive LGBT (lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender) issue.
Mr Shanmugam said that the difficulty for the authorities lies in the reality that out of 10,000 interactions, only one may be the sort where there is an attempt to interfere in domestic politics.
READ ALSO
Govt issues first Pofma correction directions over alleged falsehoods about the fake-news law itself
Since foreign agencies may use “legitimate-looking fronts” to further their aims, the language of Fica needs to be broad enough to cover what looks normal, he added.
“It is not only the classic foreign agency, subversion sort of situation. There could be foreign associations, NGOs, persons who want to change our laws, for example.”
Hence, one must consider whether it is proportional to exercise Fica’s proposed powers, as well as to look at the facts, such as whether there is a hostile campaign, the extent of the damage to Singapore, and the involvement of a foreign agency.
“Collaboration and partnership with a foreign person by itself is not the trigger. You have to go further, look at the facts,” he said, stressing that a vast majority of collaborations and foreign linkages will not be affected by the proposed law.
SPREADERS OF MISINFORMATION
Mr Shanmugam then noted that there are some people who are “actively trying to put out misinformation” about the Bill, naming New Naratif’s co-founders Thum Ping Tjin and Kirsten Han as the chief culprits.
READ ALSO
Beware of collateral damage of Fica
He said that their sociopolitical website receives significant foreign funding and it had organised a series of democracy workshops on Malaysia supported by the US Embassy in Kuala Lumpur.
Dr Thum had said in the past that Singapore should become a part of Malaysia again, and met former Malaysian prime minister Mahathir Mohamed with Ms Han in 2018 to urge him to bring democracy to Singapore, Mr Shanmugam said.
He noted that Ms Han, too, had previously said that Singaporeans should push back against the idea that foreigners should avoid influencing domestic affairs, and had organised a petition with The Online Citizen’s chief editor Terry Xu against the Bill.
“So (MPs) can see why (Dr Thum and Ms Han) are very concerned that Fica will focus on foreign funding and have been mounting their own disinformation campaign,” Mr Shanmugam said.
As for Mr Xu, he said that The Online Citizen website has hired Malaysian and other foreign writers to write incendiary articles about Singapore.
“Now, Mr Xu and others can continue to do this after Fica (is passed), but a direction can be given to them to make it clear that the article is written by a foreigner.
“We all want transparency, right? So it will be useful for Singaporeans to know whether the writer of the article is local or foreign.”
.
==============
.
FICA….how to go forward with this Bill?
=======
Foreign interference one of the most serious threats faced by S’pore; law considered for over 3 years: ShanmugamTraditional spying and subversion operations have inevitably increased in scope and intensity, said Mr K. Shanmugam in Parliament on Oct 4, 2021.PHOTO: MCIJustin OngPolitical CorrespondentPUBLISHED7 MIN AGO on 4th Oct 2021 in Straits Times.FACEBOOKWHATSAPPTWITTERSINGAPORE – Law and Home Affairs Minister K. Shanmugam on Monday (Oct 4) described the covert escalation of foreign interference tactics targeting Singapore’s multicultural makeup as one of the most serious threats faced by the Republic, with its people remaining largely oblivious to the dangers.In a speech extending over two hours to open a parliamentary debate on the proposed Foreign Interference (Countermeasures) Act or Fica, he also said such issues have been discussed at length and in depth for more than three years now – since 2018 when a select committee was set up to study the issue of fake news.That process eventually led to the Protection from Online Falsehoods and Manipulation Act (Pofma) being passed the next year.”Our racial and religious mix is easily exploitable by different countries, and we see a steady buildup of different narratives, which is being very cleverly done,” said Mr Shanmugam. “It’s not obvious propaganda but it conditions people to think in certain ways, particularly on foreign policy issues, often appealing to a larger racial identity beyond the Singaporean identity.”He said this in the context of a French think-tank’s report released in late September, which observed that Singapore had several characteristics making it both vulnerable and resilient to Chinese influence operations.The minister cited the report as he sought to explain the reasons underpinning the Bill, which targets foreign interference in domestic politics conducted through hostile information campaigns (HICs) and local proxies.”The philosophy is that our politics, it’s for Singaporeans to deal with. We can argue, disagree, but ultimately it is for us to decide,” he said. “It’s not for anyone else to tell us what to do.”He noted that traditional spying and subversion operations have inevitably increased in scope and intensity, due to modern ease of communications, increased interactions, travel, evolving technologies and the Internet as a powerful new medium.Mr Shanmugam brought up the Gerasimov Doctrine – a military doctrine for the Internet Age developed by Russia – in which aggressors identify issues of “protest potential” in a target country, and use information operations to polarise society in that country and keep it in a constant state of turmoil, so as to more easily achieve their political and military outcomes.He also outlined several examples of foreign interference across the world, noting that the international media regularly identifies Russia, China, Iran and North Korea as perpetrators.”I don’t know whether these countries in fact did what they are said to have done, but few doubt that they have the capabilities,” he said.While the United States and other Western countries are not mentioned in these Western media reports, they have similar, or in the case of the US, even superior capabilities, he added. “Really, there are no angels in this game.”Mr Shanmugam pointed to a Washington Post report in February 2020 on a Swiss encryption communications provider which had sold devices rigged by American and German intelligence agencies to over 120 countries .The story came years after internal documentation by the agencies as early as in 2004, and was simultaneously published by the Post and a German broadcaster last year.”It has all the hallmarks of a deliberate planned leak,” said Mr Shanmugam, adding that the US government was at the time warning about the dangers of relying on technology from China. “So basically, without embarrassment, this leak came out saying ‘we did it, now be careful about the Chinese’.”Have the Americans actually stopped? We can only guess. But it’s now got to be taken as a given that this sort of thing will be done regularly, and everyone will face this.”Mr Shanmugam then reiterated instances of foreign interference in Singapore that had been flagged when Fica was first tabled in Parliament on Sept 13 – including the 2017 expulsion of China-born academic Huang Jing for trying to influence senior decision-makers in Government; the 2016 impounding of the Singapore army’s Terrex vehicles in Hong Kong while en route home from Taiwan; and a 2018 spike in critical comments online during tensions with Malaysia.The Terrex episode led to a coordinated hostile information campaign that attempted to undermine Singapore’s foreign position, while online narratives largely in Chinese attempted to influence sentiments amongst Singaporeans.So far, efforts targeting Singapore have been relatively low-level – except for ongoing strategic moves and attempts to condition Singaporeans’ thinking, said Mr Shanmugam.He acknowledged some concerns over the Bill being debated just three weeks after it was first tabled. “We have been talking about this very seriously for more than three years, extensively,” he said.The 2018 select committee on fake news, for instance, had gathered extensive evidence on the seriousness of the foreign threat, he said, including from:- Disinformation expert Ben Nimmo, who testified on the tactics used by internet research agencies controlled by Russia, to boost support for former US president Donald Trump’s election campaign.- Cybersecurity expert Kevin Limonier, who spoke of an alleged Russian HIC that tried to sway the 2017 French presidential polls using bots and leaked e-mails.- Dr Shashi Jayakumar, head of the Centre of Excellence for National Security at the S. Rajaratnam School of International Studies (RSIS), who said it would be a mistake to assume that foreign HICs were not already happening in Singapore.- RSIS research fellow Gulizar Haciyakupoglu, whose closed-door testimony included indicators of information warfare being practised against Singapore.- Nanyang Technological University academic Liew Kai Khiun, who said Myanmar-based social media accounts had made inflammatory, Islamophobic comments inciting backlash from Singaporean Muslims.- RSIS cyber warfare expert Michael Raska, who highlighted how foreign states could engage in information operations targeting Singapore’s fault lines as a means of “asymmetric warfare”.Mr Shanmugam elaborated on Dr Raska’s point, noting that Singapore’s conventional military superiority in the region ironically meant it was an even larger target online, with the Internet as a particularly attractive theatre for adversaries seeking to harm the Republic.The minister also noted that aside from at the select committee, the topic of foreign interference was also discussed several times at conferences here, in studies commissioned by think-tanks, in the media and in Parliament, with him and other ministers stating at various points that legislation would be necessary.”The threat of foreign interference and its seriousness is not disputed by most people,” said Mr Shanmugam. “Most people also agree that something needs to be done.”
.
=============
.
Proposed law on foreign interference is aimed at hostile actors: Singapore envoy tells UN reviewUN Ambassador Umej Bhatia (above) told a UN meeting that Singapore’s intent is not to prevent all forms of foreign influence, only those which are aimed at manipulation.UN Ambassador Umej Bhatia (above) told a UN meeting that Singapore’s intent is not to prevent all forms of foreign influence, only those which are aimed at manipulation.ST PHOTO: ALPHONSUS CHERN
Grace HoSenior Political Correspondent
PUBLISHEDOCT 3, 2021, 1:00 PM SGT in Straits Times.
SINGAPORE – It is not the Government’s intent to prevent all forms of foreign influence, only those which attempt at manipulation. Neither does Singapore intend to use the powers under a proposed law on foreign interference against those who engage in legitimate commentary, news reporting, civil activities or academic research, the Republic has told a United Nations (UN) meeting.These individuals and groups may do so even if their views are critical of Singapore or the Government, said the permanent representative of Singapore to the UN Office in Geneva, Ambassador Umej Bhatia, as he delivered Singapore’s national statement at the adoption of its third Universal Periodic Review (UPR) outcome last Friday (Oct 1).”Our concern lies with the use of coordinated, deceptive methods by hostile foreign actors to manipulate our political discourse and disrupt our society,” Mr Bhatia added.The adoption of the report on Singapore’s UPR took place at the 48th session of the UN Human Rights Council. The UPR looks at the human rights records of all 193 UN member states every five years. Singapore submitted its report to the UN in January and participated in its UPR on May 12.The Inter-Ministry Committee on Human Rights reviewed the 324 recommendations that Singapore received from UN members, and Singapore was able to support 210 of them.”Singapore has supported the majority of recommendations consistent with our ongoing efforts to ensure that Singapore continues to be an inclusive, cohesive and resilient society, taking into account the appropriateness of these recommendations to our national context,” said the Ministry of Foreign Affairs in a statement.”We are fully committed to our human rights obligations under international law,” Mr Bhatia said. “We remain fully cognisant that the improvement of human rights is an ongoing process and our approach must continue to evolve.”During the review, several civil society groups had raised concerns about the proposed Foreign Interference (Countermeasures) Act, or Fica – which will be debated in Parliament on Monday.Mr Bhatia said the Singapore government does not intend to use the powers under the proposed law against foreign individuals, publications, non-governmental organisations and academics engaged in legitimate commentary, news reporting, civil activities or academic research that are open, transparent and with attributed comments about Singapore that are not part of a hostile information campaign.”There are appeal mechanisms to ensure that there are no overreaching powers. Persons issued with hostile information campaign direction(s) under (the Bill) may apply to the Minister for Home Affairs for reconsideration, before appealing to an independent reviewing tribunal,” he added.As in the previous two reviews, some civil society groups also raised concerns about the continued application of the death penalty in Singapore.Mr Bhatia noted in his statement that international law does not prohibit the death penalty. There is no international consensus against the use of the death penalty when applied according to the due process of law and judicial safeguards.
.
MORE ON THIS TOPICParliament to debate proposed law to counter foreign interferencePSP NCMP submits petition to Parliament to delay anti-foreign interference lawIn Singapore, the death penalty is reserved only for the most serious crimes such as murder, drug trafficking and the use of firearms, and has been an effective deterrent against such offences, he added.As for concerns raised during the review over freedom of assembly and the treatment of human rights defenders, Mr Bhatia said that the right to freedom of speech and expression is guaranteed under the Singapore Constitution.”Consistent with international human rights law, this right is not absolute,” he said.He added that the provisions of the Public Order Act “ensure adequate space for an individual’s rights of peaceful assembly and expression while preserving public order”, and a police permit is required for cause-based public assemblies or processions, so that the authorities can assess the public order risks.Regarding the ratification of human rights treaties, Singapore’s approach is to ensure that the necessary legal, policy and institutional frameworks are in place to fully implement a treaty before it ratifies it, said Mr Bhatia.”We actively review Singapore’s ability to ratify additional human rights treaties and to ensure the full and effective implementation of our treaty obligations.”MORE ON THIS TOPICHow other countries have thwarted foreign interference and enacted laws against itHow real is the threat of foreign interference?On lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender (LGBT) issues, Mr Bhatia noted that just like other Singaporeans, LGBT persons have access to opportunities and social support such as education, employment and healthcare.Violence against, and abuse, discrimination and harassment of any person for any reason is not condoned, and the law protects LGBT individuals the same as everyone else, he added.While Section 377A of the Penal Code – which criminalises sexual acts between men – remains in the lawbooks, the Government has stated clearly that it is not enforced, he said.He added that as attitudes towards homosexuality are still evolving in Singapore and various communities hold different views, any move on this issue must be made carefully and sensitively, taking into consideration the sentiments of all communities.Mr Bhatia stressed that Singapore has not supported recommendations predicated on unfounded assertions, inaccurate assumptions, or erroneous information.”We cannot implement recommendations which are not appropriate in our national context,” he said.”Singapore will continue to review our policies to ensure that they are fit for purpose. The context may change, and our challenges may evolve, but our objective of achieving better outcomes for our people will remain constant.”MORE ON THIS TOPICAcademic activities not under threat from anti-foreign interference law: MHAAnti-foreign interference Bill – a sharper tool for the digital age
.
===========
.
=
.
It is all about money.
Why the interference? For what purpose?
If red dot is in the red by S$1 trillion, the foreigners will not bother to look at this red spot for even a second.
The S$1 trillion is up for grabs. Winners take all.
.
=======
.
Freedom of Expression; Freedom of Speech; …..it does not feed hungry stomach of the lower income groups. It is a concern more for the learned, powerful, well-heeled, rich, and well-connected in society, the verbal group, those who has the power of the pen and words….and those at the top, the higher than the middle-income groups and above.
.
The definitions in the proposed Law are very broad and wide. Can see that the Govt wants it to be super wide and all encompassing catching all under the sky though it is aimed more at the big birds [the politically significant persons in cahoot or having clandestine malevolent intentions and purpose], not the sparrows, etc, or all the birds in the sky.
.
“politically significant persons” – not all the birds in the sky, but the super big one like the vulture or the bald-headed eagle, the predator, not the sparrows or humming birds..
.
“politically significant persons” – suggest: provide a list of some 20 that are considered PSP. Those not in the list [like those debating climate crisis] will not be considered PSP. If the participants who are on the list, and when they engage in debating climate crisis [for example] hotly, they will be considered with vested interest as PSP that has a politically-driven agenda or motive for political reason. If there is no foreigners’ interference directly or indirectly involved in whatever form or from whatever source, such participation by PSP in debates on Singapore issues or matters shall not be deemed or construed to fall within the ambit of this Law.
.
Quote: ” the proposed FICA Bill seeks to establish a “reviewing tribunal” to whom persons subject to Part 3 Directions (among others) may appeal.” Unquote.
I hope the Bill will provide for judiciary review but also the ‘Reviewing Tribunal’, where necessary, to have the power of review, and the RT’s ruling shall be final, and no appeal is allowed.
Have a two-level review in the Bill as the ‘judiciary review’ is more on a point of law and not on ‘interference’ per se.
Singapore should not have a court of law to give the verdict on what is ‘foreign interference’ and what is not. A court of law should not meddle with politics or matters of foreign interference.
.
.
Suggestion:
To allay the fears, doubts, concern and scepticism of Singaporeans, the proposed Bill should state clearly and unambiguously that Singapore citizens while in Singapore and who participate whether verbally, in writing or in whatever form or media of communication in debates, discussion and public discourse on Singapore issues and matters, and are free of foreigners’ interference in whatever form or source directly or indirectly or from anywhere, shall not be deemed or construed to fall within the ambit of this Law.
.
===========
.
Bertha Henson in her Facebook on 29th Sept 2021:
· Won’t anybody else in Singapore say something about this? We had one Senior Counsel writing but aren’t there more legally trained types who’ve gone over the Bill who can elaborate as well? #berthablowsup I object vehemently to this phrase in the story – WHEN passed into law….can at least preserve a modicum of respect for the legislative process or not? It should be IF passed into law….
.
.========
.
.
===========
.
Singapore’s draft anti-foreign interference law ‘worded very broadly’, says Facebook
Justin OngPolitical Correspondent
- UPDATEDSEP 28, 2021, 6:14 PM in Straits Times.
SINGAPORE – Facebook on Tuesday (Sept 28) said Singapore’s proposed law to counter foreign interference is “worded very broadly” and it will be watching how the Government distinguishes between hostile campaigns and others.
But the tech giant’s global head of cyber-security policy, Mr Nathaniel Gleicher, stressed that Facebook and the Singapore Government ultimately share the same goal.
He said: “We don’t want foreign interference, in particular covert influence operations, on our platform.”
Mr Gleicher was asked at a press briefing over Facebook’s position on the Foreign Interference (Countermeasures) Act, or Fica, which was tabled in Parliament on Sept 13.
The Act seeks to prevent, detect and disrupt foreign interference in domestic politics conducted through hostile information campaigns and the use of local proxies.
When passed into law, it will allow the Minister for Home Affairs to issue directions to various entities, including social media companies and Internet access providers, to help the authorities investigate and counter hostile communications activity from abroad.https://fbb7ffc13d5bd4f7eda9127c80c70778.safeframe.googlesyndication.com/safeframe/1-0-38/html/container.html
Mr Gleicher’s comments on the Bill being broadly worded echoes reactions from security experts and lawyers in recent days.
He said on Tuesday: “Foreign interference as a concept is actually a very broad concept. You can imagine it covering both a covert operation that misleads people about what’s happening, and who’s behind it; and an open public effort to persuade being run by an authentic NGO (non-governmental organisation) or community of users.
“Lumping those two things together is tricky and can lead to some real challenges. One of the things we’re going to be looking for is exactly how these divisions are broken up.”
Noting that Singapore is one of the first countries to tackle foreign interference using laws, Mr Gleicher added: “As with any new legislative approach, you want to be careful to understand how it’s going to work in practice, what its implications will be, what it means for user privacy, for freedom of expression and for security.”
He said that Facebook already does a significant amount of work to tackle such threats – whether foreign or domestic – and that the social media giant’s enforcement efforts are publicised.
He said: “The question that I always ask when we’re looking at legislation is, what does that add to the work that’s already being done? How does it improve the community that has already been built to tackle these?”
The entire ecosystem of governments, platforms and civil society must work together, with each playing its role and finding ways to be most effective, said Mr Gleicher.
“We hope in our conversations with the Government that we can find a way of working together to allow us to continue to meet our obligations under laws around the world, not just in Singapore, particularly in respect to user privacy and disclosure of user data,” he added.
“We also hope the Government is going to strike a balance with protecting freedom of expression as we seek to do in our work with our policies and enforcement.”
One of the countermeasures in the proposed law is a technical assistance direction requiring providers like Facebook to disclose information to help the authorities determine if hostile information campaigns are afoot.
From black ops to bots: Countering hostile, foreign meddling in Singapore’s affairs
List of ‘politically significant’ people will be made public: MHA
Separately, Facebook global threat disruption director David Agranovich said the company has not picked up on foreign coordinated inauthentic behaviour targeting Singapore.
Coordinated inauthentic behaviour is defined by the social media giant as any coordinated network of accounts, pages and groups that relies on fake accounts to mislead Facebook and its users about who is behind it and what it is doing.
“We’re constantly looking for these types of operations, constantly monitoring threat actors and regions,” said Mr Agranovich.
While Facebook has not spotted any in Singapore, he said: “It doesn’t mean that they don’t exist, but that we just haven’t seen them.
“It’s certainly a threat that we know we need to be prepared for.”
A history of foreign interference in Singapore
Anti-foreign interference Bill – 3 areas of concern
=======
.
The use of multiple fake accounts…. but not on Yahoo, which requires authentication of user’s data, eg. email and phone verification.Yahoo does not allow duplicate accounts. Facebook does.How should Facebook end the duplication of accounts, and the setting up of fake accounts?Solutions? Make every Facebook account unique not duplicated must be the first step for this platform to curtail spreading of fake information and misinformation on Facebook.
.
=========
.
The cat-and-mouse game of ferreting out influence operations
Fake accounts that pop up by the thousand overnight. Content farms for hire that churn out material to tear down opponents or as clickbait for ad revenue. Perception hacking to fool people into an alternate reality. Welcome to the evolving world of influence operations.
Chua Mui HoongAssociate Editor
Influence operations to manipulate public opinion can now be mounted with ease and anonymity using influence networks for hire.PHOTO: REUTERS
PUBLISHED5 HOURS AGO on 1st Oct 2021 in Straits Times.
Way back in 2016, Facebook founder Mark Zuckerberg famously dismissed as “pretty crazy” the notion that Russian networks were spreading divisive messages to influence the 2016 United States presidential election. Much later, he had to admit the platform was a conduit for fake election news.In the five years since, Facebook and other social media companies have awakened to the threat that influence operations (IOs) pose to their platforms. Most now have dedicated teams to protect their platforms from such manipulation; some are working together; and all want to work with government, academics and civil society groups.Over the past week, I took part in four virtual events on IO-related issues, organised by Facebook and the Lee Kuan Yew School of Public Policy, National University of Singapore.My takeaway: This is a newfangled cloak-and-dagger world with unknown operators using shady means to spread misinformation, to derail opponents or just create traffic for profit. Digital sleuthing is needed to sniff out, stamp out and outwit such operations.It is a cat-and-mouse game.Every action has a reaction; just as fast as the “defender community” (as the folk engaged in this IO-fighting enterprise are called) comes up with tools to fight IOs, the threat actors (the bad guys) morph and come up with new methods.CIB: Coordinated inauthentic behaviourFacebook has come a long way since its denial in 2016. It now has over 40,000 people working on safety and security issues, four times as many as in 2017. It has invested at least US$13 billion (S$17.7 billion) in teams and technology to enhance safety since 2016.Facebook defines influence operations as “coordinated efforts to manipulate or corrupt public debate for a strategic goal”.Of particular concern is what it terms coordinated inauthentic behaviour (CIB) – defined as any coordinated network of accounts, pages and groups on Facebook’s platforms that relies on fake accounts to mislead people about who are behind the operation and what they are doing.The team leading anti-CIB efforts is over 200 strong, with expertise in open-source research, threat investigations, cyber security, law enforcement and national security, investigative journalism, engineering, data science and academic studies in disinformation.Facebook’s head of cyber-security policy Nathaniel Gleicher said that from 2017 to mid-2021, the network has taken down and publicly reported on over 150 covert IOs that violated Facebook’s policy against CIB. These originated from over 50 countries. In the Asia-Pacific region, most targeted domestic audiences.For every such network takedown, other efforts such as automated account detection would have stopped hundreds more in their tracks. Facebook now even has a threat ideation team actively looking out for new threats.
From wholesale fakes to retail fraudOne common way to spread misinformation is through the use of multiple fake accounts to share content and comment on them. When done in sufficient numbers, it can discredit a candidate, an ideology or a government; or create a buzz over an idea or product.The main platform companies like Facebook, Twitter and Google have all developed automated tools to detect fake accounts and bots, take them down and ban the people responsible from the networks.At Twitter, a proactive detection and enforcement framework screens accounts, looking at whether actors (account holders, people, organisations or governments), behaviours (how accounts interact with one another), and content put out are inauthentic. For example, whether they artificially amplify or suppress information; or engage in behaviour that manipulates or disrupts people’s experience on Twitter.One way Twitter does this is to track behavioural signals like how accounts interact with one another, to pick up suspicious behaviours such as high-volume tweeting, repetitive use of the same hashtags, or tweeting to someone’s handle without a corresponding reply. Twitter may then ask the account holders to confirm they control the accounts using identity verification.
MORE ON THIS TOPICFake news, fake people, real objectivesNo one is immune to misinformation, not even the youngMs Kathleen Reen, senior director of public policy and philanthropy in the Asia-Pacific at Twitter, said: “Our latest Transparency Centre update from July to December 2020 showed that Twitter removed 3.8 million tweets that violated the Twitter Rules; of these, 77 per cent received fewer than 100 impressions prior to removal.”Such upstream detection has forced IO actors to move from “wholesale” production of mass fake accounts, to “retail” efforts that take over existing users’ accounts, or create a few higher-quality accounts used to share content. Such accounts take effort to maintain and are harder to scale up.One common way to gain access to bona fide accounts is through old-fashioned methods such as password hacking or phishing.Google designs products with built-in security features like protections against phishing or features enhancing safe browsing in its browser. In addition, says Google’s Asia-Pacific information policy lead Jean-Jacques Sahel: “We dedicate substantial resources to develop new tools, new technology to help users identify and track and to stop this kind of activity, as it evolves, and it constantly does. So we have to move with it and continuously improve.”
MORE ON THIS TOPICPandemic-related fake news shifts from science, health issues to S’pore govt policies: StudyAI can generate fake reports to fool the expertsInfluence for hireOne issue of growing concern is the rise in companies offering their services to sway social media agendas for clients.An ecosystem has grown around such efforts: Strategists coordinate the campaigns, and hire content farms operating out of lower-cost countries, which hire digitally savvy workers on gigs to set up fake accounts or create misleading content cut-and-paste style. Political candidates, parties, businesses and even governments are said to use these.Such commercial, influence-for-hire entities create a buffer of deniability for clients. They can be successful in domestic campaigns. Philippine President Rodrigo Duterte’s election in 2016 was in part supported by a social media manager who controlled an Internet brigade that, among other things, circulated the falsehood that Mr Duterte was endorsed by the Pope.But many of these operations struggle to succeed in other countries because they lack convincing domestic context. For example, Chinese networks targeting Taiwanese audiences may use simplified Chinese characters or terms more commonly used on the mainland.Facebook’s May 2021 Threat Report on The State of Influence Operations 2017-2020 said: “In May 2019, for example, we identified and removed an Israeli firm – Archimedes Group – that was running campaigns on behalf of its clients in Nigeria, Senegal, Togo, Angola, Niger and Tunisia, along with some activity in Latin America and South-east Asia. This network repeatedly made blatant mistakes in posts regarding the on-the-ground reality in the countries targeted.”The campaigns did not gain much local traction.
MORE ON THIS TOPICHow social media shifts burden of fact checking to news consumersFacebook takes action against ‘inauthentic’ accounts ahead of S’pore GEThe Singapore contextSo is Singapore a target?When I asked the platforms this at the webinars, I heard the same answer: not directly.Singapore is, however, part of the Chinese diaspora that may be targeted by broad campaigns from China. But China tends to use overt campaigns, not covert CIB, to drive its narratives. China’s efforts take the form of Chinese state entities or related individuals putting out their perspectives on, say, origins of the Sars-CoV-2 virus that causes Covid-19, or to denigrate Hong Kong protests, or pronounce that US democracy and society are in decline.Facebook director of global threat disruption David Agranovich said: “We actually haven’t seen foreign coordinated inauthentic behaviour targeting Singapore.”It’s not for want of looking. We’re constantly looking for these types of operations, constantly monitoring threat actors in the region. And so, it doesn’t mean that they don’t exist, but that we just haven’t seen them. That said, it’s certainly a threat that we know we need to be prepared for.”While targeted campaigns seek to discredit a specific individual or government, broad-based campaigns to reshape narratives can be both more insidious (shadowy) and invidious (divisive).
MORE ON THIS TOPICSocial media users more likely to believe misinformation: StudyAnalysts now talk about perception hacking, when threat actors capitalise on the public’s fear to create the perception that everything is tainted and nothing is true. For example, they may foster the view that the electoral system is hacked even when there is no such evidence. Such efforts, if successful, can erode trust invisibly and quickly.As influence operations to manipulate public opinion can now be mounted with ease and anonymity using influence networks for hire, every state will want to safeguard its political process from shadowy threat actors.In Singapore, legislation is one tool to combat this threat. The Foreign Influence (Countermeasures) Bill is to be debated in Parliament next week. While legislation is one tool, the law should not overreach and stifle legitimate debate on political issues.At the same time, as those in the defender community know, when it comes to this cat-and-mouse game of staying one step ahead of the bad guys, it’s all hands on deck.Laws are not enough, and the Government and regulators have to work with platform companies, academics, corporations, civil society, schools and the public to combat this emerging information infection.Two case studiesTwinmark Media, The PhilippinesOn Jan 10, 2019, Facebook’s head of cyber-security policy Nathaniel Gleicher announced that it had banned a digital marketing group in the Philippines – Twinmark Media Enterprises and all its subsidiaries – from Facebook.He said: “This organisation has repeatedly violated our misrepresentation and spam policies – including through coordinated inauthentic behaviour, the use of fake accounts, leading people to ad farms, and selling access to Facebook pages to artificially increase distribution and generate profit.”We do not want our services to be used for this type of behaviour, nor do we want the group to be able to re-establish a presence on Facebook.”The company was set up in 2015 and, when taken down, had 220 Facebook pages, 73 Facebook accounts and 29 Instagram accounts. About 43 million accounts followed at least one of these Facebook pages.In a report after the takedown, Nikkei Asia said Twinmark was one of the major sources of spam and fake news in the Philippines.Before it was banned, Twinmark made millions on Facebook and Google, reported ABS-CBN News, a Philippine media company. An employee said the company could earn as much as US$100,000 (S$136,000) for a Facebook page in a month, via clicks on “Instant Articles” that let users read stories or view videos within the Facebook site, keeping them exposed to advertisements within the ecosystem.The takedown of Twinmark in 2019 put the spotlight on Philippine content farms, outfits that tap a young, digitally savvy, English-speaking workforce to create social media accounts, content and comments to fuel engagement. Such activity might be used to talk up a client, discredit opponents, or simply to generate traffic to sell advertisements.In March 2019, Facebook took down another network that was linked to the social media manager of Philippine President Rodrigo Duterte’s election campaign.Announcing this, Facebook said: “The individuals behind this activity used a combination of authentic and fake accounts to disseminate content across a variety of pages and groups.”They frequently posted about local and political news, including topics like the upcoming elections, candidate updates and views, alleged misconduct of political opponents, and controversial events that were purported to occur during previous administrations.”Although the people behind this activity attempted to conceal their identities, our investigation found that this activity was linked to a network organised by Nic Gabunada.”Despite the action against his network, Mr Gabunada was awarded a contract in June this year by the Philippine Department of Finance to carry out communications campaigns for the Duterte administration.The Philippines has a large, influential disinformation ecosystem that is “embedded within the political system and the creative industries”, according to a report released in August by the Australian Strategic Policy Institute, titled Influence For Hire: The Asia-Pacific’s Online Shadow Economy.The report said media strategists and even government departments use disinformation tools, sometimes collaboratively.”State disinformation producers or political strategists may collaborate with specialists operating clickbait websites, just as local PR firms worked with Chinese business entities to promote specific political candidates in 2019,” wrote Dr Jonathan Corpus Ong, one of the report’s co-authors.China spam networkGoogle’s threat analysis group reported on its blog last October that since summer 2019, it had been tracking a large spam network linked to China that was attempting to run an influence operation, primarily on YouTube.”This network has a presence across multiple platforms, and acts by primarily acquiring or hijacking existing accounts and posting spammy content in Mandarin such as videos of animals, music, food, plants, sports, and games,” wrote Mr Shane Huntley from the threat analysis group.”A small fraction of these spam channels will then post videos about current events. Such videos frequently feature clumsy translations and computer-generated voices.”Researchers at Graphika and FireEye have detailed how this network behaves – including its shift from posting content in Mandarin about issues related to Hong Kong and China’s response to Covid-19, to including a small subset of content in English and Mandarin about current events in the US (such as protests around racial justice, the wildfires on the West Coast and the US response to Covid-19).”FireEye is a cyber-security firm while Graphika specialises in analysis of the social media landscape.Google’s teams terminated more than 3,000 YouTube channels linked to this network. “As a result, this network hasn’t been able to build an audience. Most of the videos we identify have fewer than 10 views, and most of these views appear to come from related spam accounts rather than actual users,” wrote Mr Huntley.
.
=========
=
.
I doubt this draft Bill was crafted by a loner….at his or her whims and fancy. I wonder how many months or weeks it had taken this loner to write the 249 pages alone.
.
=======
.
If a loner is involved, no one else, I wonder who is this powerful, learned and super smart guy to have the gift of words and legal mind to craft this draft Bill, which has gone passed the Cabinet. I wonder whether the Cabinet has given it three full sold punches. Did they, and did it stand up to the three solid punches to get the nod from them? Or, was it that it did not get even the full Cabinet endorsement? Is the Cabinet only a lame rubber stamp, chop chop on it, and that was it? We must be goner if this were the case to govern this red dot while with eyes half closed.
.
====
.
A capable PM will know how to take the draft law and give it to three selected ministers [of substance and experience], and ask them to bring it home [and tell them don’t spend too much time with the spouse to be distracted] and come back on a A4 paper within 48 hours in less than 500 words give their individual comments, changes, recommendations, opinion, and questions on the draft Bill.
.
========
.
Paranoid with foreigners? S$1 trillion up for grabs, winners take all. If red dot were S$1 trillion in the red, no foreigners would eye red dot for even a second. Let us bankrupt this nation and it will end the foreigners’ interference for good without the need to enact this FICA thing to stop them.
.
=======
Bertha Henson in her Facebook on 28th Sep 2021.
Yesterday at 13:10 · I think we should lobby our MPs to put a brake on the passage of the Foreign Interference Bill. Just go to their FB page and say that it should have longer period of consultation, and not just two readings one after the other. Even if it’s marathon all-nighter debate, it’s not good enough. Parliament must pause and ponder over the Bill. Lest I be seen as trying to influence public opinion or working towards a different political end, I make no bones about it. I am doing so as a citizen and there is absolutely no foreign influence or any collaboration involved. Any such suspicion will be entirely unwarranted. Please do so. Template in case you need :I am your constituent and I hope that as my MP, you will make sure that the Bill goes through a longer process of consultation and debate – rather than the usual quick legislative process. PS. I hope to see you in action in the next sitting of Parliament.
.
========
.
On the FICA proposed Bill, I agree the definitions should be reworded to make it comprehensive, absolute, leaving no doubts or ambiguities in the minds of the demagogues. I hope the 10 WP MPs will know what to ask and debate on in Parliament come 4th Oct. If they don’t, I hope they will brainstorm it well [both in and outside WP or even on the Internet] to prepare well, and go in to Parliament with solid stuff, both in questioning the minister, and countering the minister and other MPs out to beat them into a pulp.
.
==========
.
Harpreet Singh Nehal on 2nd Oct 2021..
2 h · ANTI-FOREIGN INTERFERENCE BILL – A REJOINDER
An important Parliamentary debate takes place Monday, 4th Oct 2021 on the Foreign Interference (Countermeasures) Bill (“Fica”).
Mr Ong Keng Yong and Dr Stanley Lai SC have penned a rebuttal in the Straits Times to my earlier opinion piece on the subject. Both pieces are accessible below.
I welcome Mr Ong and Dr Lai’s write up. It is an important contribution to the upcoming debate. Their responses, however, do not sufficiently address concerns about the Bill.
Given how important the issues are, I offer some brief responses for readers’ consideration.
First, Mr Ong and Dr Lai say that the various examples of collaboration with foreigners I gave in my earlier piece (covering climate change, immigration, treatment of foreign workers etc) should not give cause for concern because these “do not appear to be covered by the Bill”. This is not a strong argument. It fails to properly consider the very wide language used in the Bill.When our Courts interpret legislation like Fica to see what conduct it covers, their starting point is the legislative language. As I pointed out in my op-ed piece, there’s no question that Fica uses extremely broad definitions of “foreign principal”, “foreign interference” and “public interest”. One only needs to read the Bill to appreciate that. Mr Ong and Dr Lai have not shown how the examples I cited do not fall within Fica’s very broad wording.
Second, they argue that there is sufficient protection built within the Bill because before the minister exercises the very wide powers given to him, “it must be determined that it is in the public interest” to do so. This, too, is not a very strong argument. It fails to fairly consider that Fica’s language sets an extremely low bar for the public interest requirement to be met.The Bill simply requires that the minister form the opinion that it is in the public interest to exercise his powers. As drafted, the Bill does not require that the opinion be reasonably held, or that the specific Fica orders that are issued be proportionate.
Third, the writers argue that we should not be concerned because Fica’s broad language is “not new” and has been used in other legislation. This argument assumes, without any analysis, that all the other cases are examples of good and balanced legislation. That’s a highly questionable assumption. What is more – in the writers’ examples involving the Criminal Procedure Code and the Broadcasting Act, there is no equivalent attempt like Fica to limit judicial review.
Fourth, Mr Ong and Dr Lai’s arguments on the restriction of judicial review avoid addressing one key point – given the 5-Judge ruling in Nagaenthran’s case that the court’s judicial review powers cannot be excluded by any ordinary piece of legislation, on what basis does Fica seek to restrict the judiciary’s powers of review to procedural compliance only? This is a fundamentally important point that must be addressed. It goes to the heart of our constitutional system of separation of powers.
Fifth, apart from that omission, Mr Ong and Dr Lai argue that decisions under Fica will involve sensitive, operational matters that may not be “amenable to being resolved through the judicial process”. This is not a valid argument. It misunderstands the court’s role in judicial review proceedings.
In judicial review proceedings, judges do not substitute their views for a minister’s assessment of, say, what is in the public interest. Rather, in undertaking judicial review, courts take a non-intrusive approach and, via rules which have been carefully and wisely developed over many decades, seek to ensure that discretionary powers that have been given to government ministers are exercised within proper legal bounds, while still giving great leeway to the relevant ministers to exercise their judgment.
This is a fundamentally important oversight mechanism provided under the law.
Mr Ong and Dr Lai’s analysis does not explain why it would be in the public interest to do away with this important judicial supervision.
Also, concerns with preserving the confidentiality of national security information are easily dealt with through well-established court procedures that permit hearings in camera.
Given all this, it is difficult to understand Fica’s provisions which seek to limit the Court’s oversight powers only to questions of procedural compliance.
Monday’s Parliamentary debate is important.
One core question facing members is this: is it wise to craft legislation giving very broad, discretionary powers without adequate oversight by our Supreme Court?
How each member answers that question in the context of Fica will represent their legacy to present and future generations of Singaporeans.
PS: A separate commentary “Fica – Concerns arise from misunderstanding of Bill”) penned by Mr Sam Tee of the Ministry of Home Affairs published this morning, [2nd Oct 2021 in ST Forum] has been drawn to my attention.
No, I have not misunderstood the Bill.
Neither have other lawyers, academics, journalists and politicians who have read its plain terms. https://www.singaporelawwatch.sg/…/anti-foreign…https://www.straitstimes.com/…/anti-foreign…
.
===========
.
Forum: Concerns arise from misunderstanding of Foreign Interference (Countermeasures) Bill
FICA – a new law: Foreign Interference (Countermeasures) Bill (Fica) – with all encompassing broad definitions to catch all under the sky though it is aimed at the big birds, not the sparrows;
===========
.
It is all about money.
Why the interference? For what purpose?
If red dot is in the red by S$1 trillion, the foreigners will not bother to look at this red spot for even a second.
The S$1 trillion is up for grabs. Winners take all.
.
=======
.
Freedom of Expression; Freedom of Speech; …..it does not feed hungry stomach of the lower income groups. It is a concern more for the learned, powerful, well-heeled, rich, and well-connected in society, the verbal group, those who has the power of the pen and words….and those at the top, the higher than the middle-income groups and above.
.
The definitions in the proposed Law are very broad and wide. Can see that the Govt wants it to be super wide and all encompassing catching all under the sky though it is aimed more at the big birds [the politically significant persons in cahoot or having clandestine malevolent intentions and purpose], not the sparrows, etc, or all the birds in the sky.
.
“politically significant persons” – not all the birds in the sky, but the super big one like the vulture or the bald-headed eagle, the predator, not the sparrows or humming birds..
.
“politically significant persons” – suggest: provide a list of some 20 that are considered PSP. Those not in the list [like those debating climate crisis] will not be considered PSP. If the participants who are on the list, and when they engage in debating climate crisis [for example] hotly, they will be considered with vested interest as PSP that has a politically-driven agenda or motive for political reason. If there is no foreigners’ interference directly or indirectly involved in whatever form or from whatever source, such participation by PSP in debates on Singapore issues or matters shall not be deemed or construed to fall within the ambit of this Law.
.
Quote: ” the proposed FICA Bill seeks to establish a “reviewing tribunal” to whom persons subject to Part 3 Directions (among others) may appeal.” Unquote.
I hope the Bill will provide for judiciary review but also the ‘Reviewing Tribunal’, where necessary, to have the power of review, and the RT’s ruling shall be final, and no appeal is allowed.
Have a two-level review in the Bill as the ‘judiciary review’ is more on a point of law and not on ‘interference’ per se.
Singapore should not have a court of law to give the verdict on what is ‘foreign interference’ and what is not. A court of law should not meddle with politics or matters of foreign interference.
.
.
Suggestion:
To allay the fears, doubts, concern and scepticism of Singaporeans, the proposed Bill should state clearly and unambiguously that Singapore citizens while in Singapore and who participate whether verbally, in writing or in whatever form or media of communication in debates, discussion and public discourse on Singapore issues and matters, and are free of foreigners’ interference in whatever form or source directly or indirectly or from anywhere, shall not be deemed or construed to fall within the ambit of this Law.
.
===========
.
Bertha Henson in her Facebook on 29th Sept 2021:
· Won’t anybody else in Singapore say something about this? We had one Senior Counsel writing but aren’t there more legally trained types who’ve gone over the Bill who can elaborate as well? #berthablowsup I object vehemently to this phrase in the story – WHEN passed into law….can at least preserve a modicum of respect for the legislative process or not? It should be IF passed into law….
.
.========
.
.
===========
.
Singapore’s draft anti-foreign interference law ‘worded very broadly’, says Facebook
Justin OngPolitical Correspondent
- UPDATEDSEP 28, 2021, 6:14 PM in Straits Times.
SINGAPORE – Facebook on Tuesday (Sept 28) said Singapore’s proposed law to counter foreign interference is “worded very broadly” and it will be watching how the Government distinguishes between hostile campaigns and others.
But the tech giant’s global head of cyber-security policy, Mr Nathaniel Gleicher, stressed that Facebook and the Singapore Government ultimately share the same goal.
He said: “We don’t want foreign interference, in particular covert influence operations, on our platform.”
Mr Gleicher was asked at a press briefing over Facebook’s position on the Foreign Interference (Countermeasures) Act, or Fica, which was tabled in Parliament on Sept 13.
The Act seeks to prevent, detect and disrupt foreign interference in domestic politics conducted through hostile information campaigns and the use of local proxies.
When passed into law, it will allow the Minister for Home Affairs to issue directions to various entities, including social media companies and Internet access providers, to help the authorities investigate and counter hostile communications activity from abroad.https://fbb7ffc13d5bd4f7eda9127c80c70778.safeframe.googlesyndication.com/safeframe/1-0-38/html/container.html
Mr Gleicher’s comments on the Bill being broadly worded echoes reactions from security experts and lawyers in recent days.
He said on Tuesday: “Foreign interference as a concept is actually a very broad concept. You can imagine it covering both a covert operation that misleads people about what’s happening, and who’s behind it; and an open public effort to persuade being run by an authentic NGO (non-governmental organisation) or community of users.
“Lumping those two things together is tricky and can lead to some real challenges. One of the things we’re going to be looking for is exactly how these divisions are broken up.”
Noting that Singapore is one of the first countries to tackle foreign interference using laws, Mr Gleicher added: “As with any new legislative approach, you want to be careful to understand how it’s going to work in practice, what its implications will be, what it means for user privacy, for freedom of expression and for security.”
He said that Facebook already does a significant amount of work to tackle such threats – whether foreign or domestic – and that the social media giant’s enforcement efforts are publicised.
He said: “The question that I always ask when we’re looking at legislation is, what does that add to the work that’s already being done? How does it improve the community that has already been built to tackle these?”
The entire ecosystem of governments, platforms and civil society must work together, with each playing its role and finding ways to be most effective, said Mr Gleicher.
“We hope in our conversations with the Government that we can find a way of working together to allow us to continue to meet our obligations under laws around the world, not just in Singapore, particularly in respect to user privacy and disclosure of user data,” he added.
“We also hope the Government is going to strike a balance with protecting freedom of expression as we seek to do in our work with our policies and enforcement.”
One of the countermeasures in the proposed law is a technical assistance direction requiring providers like Facebook to disclose information to help the authorities determine if hostile information campaigns are afoot.
From black ops to bots: Countering hostile, foreign meddling in Singapore’s affairs
List of ‘politically significant’ people will be made public: MHA
Separately, Facebook global threat disruption director David Agranovich said the company has not picked up on foreign coordinated inauthentic behaviour targeting Singapore.
Coordinated inauthentic behaviour is defined by the social media giant as any coordinated network of accounts, pages and groups that relies on fake accounts to mislead Facebook and its users about who is behind it and what it is doing.
“We’re constantly looking for these types of operations, constantly monitoring threat actors and regions,” said Mr Agranovich.
While Facebook has not spotted any in Singapore, he said: “It doesn’t mean that they don’t exist, but that we just haven’t seen them.
“It’s certainly a threat that we know we need to be prepared for.”
A history of foreign interference in Singapore
Anti-foreign interference Bill – 3 areas of concern
=======
.
The use of multiple fake accounts…. but not on Yahoo, which requires authentication of user’s data, eg. email and phone verification.Yahoo does not allow duplicate accounts. Facebook does.How should Facebook end the duplication of accounts, and the setting up of fake accounts?Solutions? Make every Facebook account unique not duplicated must be the first step for this platform to curtail spreading of fake information and misinformation on Facebook.
.
=========
.
The cat-and-mouse game of ferreting out influence operations
Fake accounts that pop up by the thousand overnight. Content farms for hire that churn out material to tear down opponents or as clickbait for ad revenue. Perception hacking to fool people into an alternate reality. Welcome to the evolving world of influence operations.
Chua Mui HoongAssociate Editor
Influence operations to manipulate public opinion can now be mounted with ease and anonymity using influence networks for hire.PHOTO: REUTERS
PUBLISHED5 HOURS AGO on 1st Oct 2021 in Straits Times.
Way back in 2016, Facebook founder Mark Zuckerberg famously dismissed as “pretty crazy” the notion that Russian networks were spreading divisive messages to influence the 2016 United States presidential election. Much later, he had to admit the platform was a conduit for fake election news.
In the five years since, Facebook and other social media companies have awakened to the threat that influence operations (IOs) pose to their platforms. Most now have dedicated teams to protect their platforms from such manipulation; some are working together; and all want to work with government, academics and civil society groups.Over the past week, I took part in four virtual events on IO-related issues, organised by Facebook and the Lee Kuan Yew School of Public Policy, National University of Singapore.
My takeaway: This is a newfangled cloak-and-dagger world with unknown operators using shady means to spread misinformation, to derail opponents or just create traffic for profit. Digital sleuthing is needed to sniff out, stamp out and outwit such operations.It is a cat-and-mouse game.
Every action has a reaction; just as fast as the “defender community” (as the folk engaged in this IO-fighting enterprise are called) comes up with tools to fight IOs, the threat actors (the bad guys) morph and come up with new methods.CIB: Coordinated inauthentic behaviourFacebook has come a long way since its denial in 2016. It now has over 40,000 people working on safety and security issues, four times as many as in 2017. It has invested at least US$13 billion (S$17.7 billion) in teams and technology to enhance safety since 2016.
Facebook defines influence operations as “coordinated efforts to manipulate or corrupt public debate for a strategic goal”.Of particular concern is what it terms coordinated inauthentic behaviour (CIB) – defined as any coordinated network of accounts, pages and groups on Facebook’s platforms that relies on fake accounts to mislead people about who are behind the operation and what they are doing.
The team leading anti-CIB efforts is over 200 strong, with expertise in open-source research, threat investigations, cyber security, law enforcement and national security, investigative journalism, engineering, data science and academic studies in disinformation.Facebook’s head of cyber-security policy Nathaniel Gleicher said that from 2017 to mid-2021, the network has taken down and publicly reported on over 150 covert IOs that violated Facebook’s policy against CIB.
These originated from over 50 countries. In the Asia-Pacific region, most targeted domestic audiences.For every such network takedown, other efforts such as automated account detection would have stopped hundreds more in their tracks. Facebook now even has a threat ideation team actively looking out for new threats.
From wholesale fakes to retail fraudOne common way to spread misinformation is through the use of multiple fake accounts to share content and comment on them. When done in sufficient numbers, it can discredit a candidate, an ideology or a government; or create a buzz over an idea or product.
The main platform companies like Facebook, Twitter and Google have all developed automated tools to detect fake accounts and bots, take them down and ban the people responsible from the networks.
At Twitter, a proactive detection and enforcement framework screens accounts, looking at whether actors (account holders, people, organisations or governments), behaviours (how accounts interact with one another), and content put out are inauthentic.
For example, whether they artificially amplify or suppress information; or engage in behaviour that manipulates or disrupts people’s experience on Twitter.One way Twitter does this is to track behavioural signals like how accounts interact with one another, to pick up suspicious behaviours such as high-volume tweeting, repetitive use of the same hashtags, or tweeting to someone’s handle without a corresponding reply. Twitter may then ask the account holders to confirm they control the accounts using identity verification.
MORE ON THIS TOPICFake news, fake people, real objectivesNo one is immune to misinformation, not even the youngMs Kathleen Reen, senior director of public policy and philanthropy in the Asia-Pacific at Twitter, said: “Our latest Transparency Centre update from July to December 2020 showed that Twitter removed 3.8 million tweets that violated the Twitter Rules; of these, 77 per cent received fewer than 100 impressions prior to removal.”Such upstream detection has forced IO actors to move from “wholesale” production of mass fake accounts, to “retail” efforts that take over existing users’ accounts, or create a few higher-quality accounts used to share content.
Such accounts take effort to maintain and are harder to scale up.One common way to gain access to bona fide accounts is through old-fashioned methods such as password hacking or phishing.Google designs products with built-in security features like protections against phishing or features enhancing safe browsing in its browser.
In addition, says Google’s Asia-Pacific information policy lead Jean-Jacques Sahel: “We dedicate substantial resources to develop new tools, new technology to help users identify and track and to stop this kind of activity, as it evolves, and it constantly does. So we have to move with it and continuously improve.”
MORE ON THIS TOPICPandemic-related fake news shifts from science, health issues to S’pore govt policies: StudyAI can generate fake reports to fool the expertsInfluence for hireOne issue of growing concern is the rise in companies offering their services to sway social media agendas for clients.An ecosystem has grown around such efforts: Strategists coordinate the campaigns, and hire content farms operating out of lower-cost countries, which hire digitally savvy workers on gigs to set up fake accounts or create misleading content cut-and-paste style.
Political candidates, parties, businesses and even governments are said to use these.Such commercial, influence-for-hire entities create a buffer of deniability for clients. They can be successful in domestic campaigns. Philippine President Rodrigo Duterte’s election in 2016 was in part supported by a social media manager who controlled an Internet brigade that, among other things, circulated the falsehood that Mr Duterte was endorsed by the Pope.But many of these operations struggle to succeed in other countries because they lack convincing domestic context.
For example, Chinese networks targeting Taiwanese audiences may use simplified Chinese characters or terms more commonly used on the mainland.Facebook’s May 2021 Threat Report on The State of Influence Operations 2017-2020 said: “In May 2019, for example, we identified and removed an Israeli firm – Archimedes Group – that was running campaigns on behalf of its clients in Nigeria, Senegal, Togo, Angola, Niger and Tunisia, along with some activity in Latin America and South-east Asia. This network repeatedly made blatant mistakes in posts regarding the on-the-ground reality in the countries targeted.”The campaigns did not gain much local traction.
MORE ON THIS TOPICHow social media shifts burden of fact checking to news consumersFacebook takes action against ‘inauthentic’ accounts ahead of S’pore GEThe Singapore contextSo is Singapore a target?When I asked the platforms this at the webinars, I heard the same answer: not directly.Singapore is, however, part of the Chinese diaspora that may be targeted by broad campaigns from China.
But China tends to use overt campaigns, not covert CIB, to drive its narratives. China’s efforts take the form of Chinese state entities or related individuals putting out their perspectives on, say, origins of the Sars-CoV-2 virus that causes Covid-19, or to denigrate Hong Kong protests, or pronounce that US democracy and society are in decline.
Facebook director of global threat disruption David Agranovich said: “We actually haven’t seen foreign coordinated inauthentic behaviour targeting Singapore.”It’s not for want of looking. We’re constantly looking for these types of operations, constantly monitoring threat actors in the region. And so, it doesn’t mean that they don’t exist, but that we just haven’t seen them. That said, it’s certainly a threat that we know we need to be prepared for.”While targeted campaigns seek to discredit a specific individual or government, broad-based campaigns to reshape narratives can be both more insidious (shadowy) and invidious (divisive).
MORE ON THIS TOPICSocial media users more likely to believe misinformation: StudyAnalysts now talk about perception hacking, when threat actors capitalise on the public’s fear to create the perception that everything is tainted and nothing is true. For example, they may foster the view that the electoral system is hacked even when there is no such evidence.
Such efforts, if successful, can erode trust invisibly and quickly.As influence operations to manipulate public opinion can now be mounted with ease and anonymity using influence networks for hire, every state will want to safeguard its political process from shadowy threat actors.In Singapore, legislation is one tool to combat this threat.
The Foreign Influence (Countermeasures) Bill is to be debated in Parliament next week. While legislation is one tool, the law should not overreach and stifle legitimate debate on political issues.At the same time, as those in the defender community know, when it comes to this cat-and-mouse game of staying one step ahead of the bad guys, it’s all hands on deck.
Laws are not enough, and the Government and regulators have to work with platform companies, academics, corporations, civil society, schools and the public to combat this emerging information infection.Two case studiesTwinmark Media, The Philippines
On Jan 10, 2019, Facebook’s head of cyber-security policy Nathaniel Gleicher announced that it had banned a digital marketing group in the Philippines – Twinmark Media Enterprises and all its subsidiaries – from Facebook.He said: “This organisation has repeatedly violated our misrepresentation and spam policies – including through coordinated inauthentic behaviour, the use of fake accounts, leading people to ad farms, and selling access to Facebook pages to artificially increase distribution and generate profit.”We do not want our services to be used for this type of behaviour, nor do we want the group to be able to re-establish a presence on Facebook.”The company was set up in 2015 and, when taken down, had 220 Facebook pages, 73 Facebook accounts and 29 Instagram accounts. About 43 million accounts followed at least one of these Facebook pages.In a report after the takedown, Nikkei Asia said Twinmark was one of the major sources of spam and fake news in the Philippines.Before it was banned, Twinmark made millions on Facebook and Google, reported ABS-CBN News, a Philippine media company. An employee said the company could earn as much as US$100,000 (S$136,000) for a Facebook page in a month, via clicks on “Instant Articles” that let users read stories or view videos within the Facebook site, keeping them exposed to advertisements within the ecosystem.
The takedown of Twinmark in 2019 put the spotlight on Philippine content farms, outfits that tap a young, digitally savvy, English-speaking workforce to create social media accounts, content and comments to fuel engagement.
Such activity might be used to talk up a client, discredit opponents, or simply to generate traffic to sell advertisements.In March 2019, Facebook took down another network that was linked to the social media manager of Philippine President Rodrigo Duterte’s election campaign.Announcing this, Facebook said: “The individuals behind this activity used a combination of authentic and fake accounts to disseminate content across a variety of pages and groups.”They frequently posted about local and political news, including topics like the upcoming elections, candidate updates and views, alleged misconduct of political opponents, and controversial events that were purported to occur during previous administrations.”Although the people behind this activity attempted to conceal their identities, our investigation found that this activity was linked to a network organised by Nic Gabunada.”Despite the action against his network,
Mr Gabunada was awarded a contract in June this year by the Philippine Department of Finance to carry out communications campaigns for the Duterte administration.The Philippines has a large, influential disinformation ecosystem that is “embedded within the political system and the creative industries”, according to a report released in August by the Australian Strategic Policy Institute, titled Influence For Hire: The Asia-Pacific’s Online Shadow Economy.
The report said media strategists and even government departments use disinformation tools, sometimes collaboratively.”State disinformation producers or political strategists may collaborate with specialists operating clickbait websites, just as local PR firms worked with Chinese business entities to promote specific political candidates in 2019,” wrote Dr Jonathan Corpus Ong, one of the report’s co-authors.China spam networkGoogle’s threat analysis group reported on its blog last October that since summer 2019, it had been tracking a large spam network linked to China that was attempting to run an influence operation, primarily on YouTube.”This network has a presence across multiple platforms, and acts by primarily acquiring or hijacking existing accounts and posting spammy content in Mandarin such as videos of animals, music, food, plants, sports, and games,” wrote Mr Shane Huntley from the threat analysis group.”A small fraction of these spam channels will then post videos about current events.
Such videos frequently feature clumsy translations and computer-generated voices.”Researchers at Graphika and FireEye have detailed how this network behaves – including its shift from posting content in Mandarin about issues related to Hong Kong and China’s response to Covid-19, to including a small subset of content in English and Mandarin about current events in the US (such as protests around racial justice, the wildfires on the West Coast and the US response to Covid-19).”FireEye is a cyber-security firm while Graphika specialises in analysis of the social media landscape.Google’s teams terminated more than 3,000 YouTube channels linked to this network. “As a result, this network hasn’t been able to build an audience. Most of the videos we identify have fewer than 10 views, and most of these views appear to come from related spam accounts rather than actual users,” wrote Mr Huntley.
.
=========
=
.
I doubt this draft Bill was crafted by a loner….at his or her whims and fancy. I wonder how many months or weeks it had taken this loner to write the 249 pages alone.
.
=======
.
If a loner is involved, no one else, I wonder who is this powerful, learned and super smart guy to have the gift of words and legal mind to craft this draft Bill, which has gone passed the Cabinet. I wonder whether the Cabinet has given it three full sold punches. Did they, and did it stand up to the three solid punches to get the nod from them? Or, was it that it did not get even the full Cabinet endorsement? Is the Cabinet only a lame rubber stamp, chop chop on it, and that was it? We must be goner if this were the case to govern this red dot while with eyes half closed.
.
====
.
A capable PM will know how to take the draft law and give it to three selected ministers [of substance and experience], and ask them to bring it home [and tell them don’t spend too much time with the spouse to be distracted] and come back on a A4 paper within 48 hours in less than 500 words give their individual comments, changes, recommendations, opinion, and questions on the draft Bill.
.
========
.
Paranoid with foreigners? S$1 trillion up for grabs, winners take all. If red dot were S$1 trillion in the red, no foreigners would eye red dot for even a second. Let us bankrupt this nation and it will end the foreigners’ interference for good without the need to enact this FICA thing to stop them.
.
=======
Bertha Henson in her Facebook on 28th Sep 2021.
Yesterday at 13:10 · I think we should lobby our MPs to put a brake on the passage of the Foreign Interference Bill. Just go to their FB page and say that it should have longer period of consultation, and not just two readings one after the other. Even if it’s marathon all-nighter debate, it’s not good enough. Parliament must pause and ponder over the Bill. Lest I be seen as trying to influence public opinion or working towards a different political end, I make no bones about it. I am doing so as a citizen and there is absolutely no foreign influence or any collaboration involved. Any such suspicion will be entirely unwarranted. Please do so. Template in case you need :I am your constituent and I hope that as my MP, you will make sure that the Bill goes through a longer process of consultation and debate – rather than the usual quick legislative process. PS. I hope to see you in action in the next sitting of Parliament.
.
========
.
On the FICA proposed Bill, I agree the definitions should be reworded to make it comprehensive, absolute, leaving no doubts or ambiguities in the minds of the demagogues. I hope the 10 WP MPs will know what to ask and debate on in Parliament come 4th Oct. If they don’t, I hope they will brainstorm it well [both in and outside WP or even on the Internet] to prepare well, and go in to Parliament with solid stuff, both in questioning the minister, and countering the minister and other MPs out to beat them into a pulp.
.
===========
.
Forum: Concerns arise from misunderstanding of Foreign Interference (Countermeasures) Bill
- PUBLISHEDOCT 2, 2021, 12:00 AM SGT in ST Forum.
Mr Harpreet Singh Nehal expressed some concerns on the Foreign Interference (Countermeasures) Bill (Anti-foreign interference Bill – 3 areas of concern, Sept 28).
Mr Singh’s concerns arise from a basic misunderstanding of the Bill and its provisions.
He says that the broad language of the Bill may capture “perfectly legitimate collaborative activity” undertaken by Singapore citizens and non-governmental organisations, which seek to “influence and improve” our laws and policies.
He also says that directions under Part 3 of the Bill could be issued against “legitimate online activity”, even in the absence of any manipulation or influence by a foreign government or its agents.
These assertions are quite inaccurate.
The Bill does not apply to Singaporeans discussing issues, or advocating any matter (regardless of what the Government or anyone else thinks about that).
The Bill will also not cover the vast array of collaborations between Singaporeans and foreigners, on many matters.
However, if a Singaporean acts on behalf of a foreign principal, and if such actions are contrary to public interest, then directions can be issued to such a person.
One example of this would be if a foreign government agency pays a Singaporean to conduct an online campaign, to create discord and unrest among Singaporeans. Such modus operandi have been repeatedly used around the world.
If the above involves covert activity, the persons involved can be prosecuted.
The philosophy underpinning the Bill is a longstanding one – we should not allow foreign subversion of our country and society.
The Bill complements our existing legislation, by providing a targeted and calibrated approach to be used against hostile information campaigns, conducted by foreign agencies and foreigners.
More information on the Bill can be found on the Ministry of Home Affairs’ website: https://www.mha.gov.sg/mediaroom/press-releases/first-reading-of-foreign…
Mr Singh also says that the Bill restricts the role of the Singapore courts to review some actions.
The offences in the Bill relating to criminal conduct are all required to be prosecuted in the courts.
For directions against hostile information campaigns, the oversight will be by a tribunal, headed by a Supreme Court Judge.
Such provisions are not new, and exist in several pieces of legislation.
The matters to be considered in the issuance of directions, (including information obtained through intelligence) may often have to be kept highly confidential.
The courts have also recognised, on several occasions, including in the Nagaenthran case (which Mr Singh refers to), that the judicial process may not be best suited to deal with such issues. Instead, as stated earlier, a tribunal headed by a High Court judge will deal with these matters.
Sam Tee
Senior Director, Joint Operations Group
Ministry of Home Affairs.
.
==========
.
Anti-foreign interference Bill – a sharper tool for the digital age
A rebuttal to points raised about over-broad language and restrictions on courts’ role
Ong Keng Yong and Stanley Lai
The building housing the Supreme Court of Singapore. The writers disagree with an earlier article in The Straits Times on the Foreign Interference (Countermeasures) Act that said the anti-foreign interference Bill “restricts the role of the Singapore courts to review the legality of the Government’s exercise of powers”. ST PHOTO: LIM YAOHUI
PUBLISHED6 HOURS AGO on 1st Oct 2021 in Straits Times.
We refer to the article “Anti-foreign interference Bill – 3 areas of concern” by Senior Counsel Harpreet Singh Nehal in The Straits Times on Tuesday. We wish to share our perspectives on the subject and respond to some of the points he makes.Mr Singh makes two primary points in his articulation of concerns about the Foreign Interference (Countermeasures) Act (Fica).First, he says the Bill suffers from “extremely broad language” and risks capturing “perfectly legitimate collaborative activities” undertaken by Singapore citizens and local non-governmental organisations.Second, he says that the Bill “restricts the role of the Singapore courts to review the legality of the Government’s exercise of powers”. Instead, appeals against Part 3 directions provided for under the Bill are made to a reviewing tribunal, which is governed by its own procedural rules.We do not agree with his interpretation of the Bill.As regards the “broad language” of Fica, we do not see how the examples of “legitimate” collaborations with foreigners referred to by Mr Singh in his article can be proscribed under the Bill. (He cites public policy issues such as climate change and women’s rights).One of the key purposes of the Bill is the protection of the public interest. It includes countermeasures against hostile information campaigns on electronic platforms.However, before the powers under the Bill can be invoked, the following conditions must be met: First, there is an online communications activity, or planning for such an activity. Second, the activity is conducted by or on behalf of a foreign principal. Third, it must be determined that it is in the public interest for a direction (provided in the Bill) to be issued.
MORE ON THIS TOPICAnti-foreign interference Bill – 3 areas of concernHow real is the threat of foreign interference?The Bill prescribes a statutory regimen requiring a foreign element, and it also must be considered necessary to protect the public interest against this foreign interference.The language issueThe powers provided under the perceived “broad language” of the Bill are also not new. There is other legislation with similar language.The Criminal Procedure Code requires anyone to give information to the police, where this is necessary or desirable for any investigation or inquiry (Section 20). Under the Broadcasting Act (BA), directions can be issued under Section 3 to take down a site, where this is “necessary in the public interest or in the interests of public security”. Extensive directions may be issued by the authorities against a licensee to comply with the BA and Section 16 of the Internet Code of Practice.Turning to some of the specific language of the Bill, such as “public interest” and “directed towards a political end”, these are again not new.The Public Order Act (POA) allows the prohibition of public assemblies if it is necessary in the “public interest” to do so (Section 13).
MORE ON THIS TOPICS’pore’s draft anti-foreign interference law ‘worded very broadly’, says FacebookA history of foreign interference in SingaporeWithin the framework of the POA, the Commissioner of Police’s decision on whether to grant a permit for a public assembly can turn on a number of factors, such as whether “he has reasonable ground for apprehending that the proposed assembly or procession may… be directed towards a political end and be organised by, or involve the participation of… an entity that is not a Singapore entity; or an individual who is not a citizen of Singapore” (Section 7).The observation that we would make is that the POA applies to gatherings in a physical space. As a corollary, there is no reason why the safeguarding of Singapore public interest should not apply to online space where the potential for harmful virality is that much higher.The courts’ roleWe turn to Mr Singh’s second broad point – the courts’ role.Mr Singh cited Nagaenthran v PP, which is a well-known decision of a five-judge Court of Appeal in 2019, in making the case that “the rule of law demands that the courts should be able to examine the exercise of discretionary power”.However, the same Court of Appeal also recognised that it is “apparent” that there may be matters which are not amenable to being resolved through the judicial process, because of “a lack of manageable judicial standards against which a court would be able to arrive at a decision”.
MORE ON THIS TOPICHow other countries have thwarted foreign interference and enacted laws against itPowers granted under proposed foreign interference countermeasures law include blocking social media accountsIt is natural to assume that appeals under the Bill will involve intelligence and sensitive information that relate to operational matters, the confidentiality of which may need to be preserved in the public interest. These are matters that may not, inherently, be amenable to the courts’ judicial review.Indeed, in a case cited by the Singapore Court of Appeal in Nagaenthran v PP, the Court of Appeal of England and Wales also struck out a claim on the basis that its trial would require the police to disclose sensitive information that ought in the public interest to remain confidential to the police. “Ouster” clauses (clauses that preclude judicial review) are present in several other statutes in Singapore.Mr Singh’s reference to “perfectly legitimate collaborative activities with foreigners” and the examples he cited do not appear to be covered by the Bill, and should not give cause for concern under the Bill.If the Bill was not tabled for enactment, the existing regime under the Internal Security Act may nevertheless be invoked against hostile information campaigns and clandestine activities involving foreign interference. It appears to us that the Bill presents a “sharper tool” that addresses a growing malady in the world today.
MORE ON THIS TOPICProposed law seeks to counter foreign interference in S’pore politicsWe are heavily into the digital age, and cyberspace is clearly the operating paradigm for friends and foes.The Foreign Interference (Countermeasures) Bill should be read and scrutinised in that context.Mr Ong Keng Yong is Ambassador-at-Large at the Ministry of Foreign Affairs. Senior Counsel Stanley Lai is a partner at Allen & Gledhill.
.
========
.
Anti-foreign interference Bill – 3 areas of concern
The Fica Bill as currently drafted is problematic because of its extremely broad language, restrictions on judicial review and questionable procedural rules.
Harpreet Singh Nehal for The Straits Times
Foreign interference is a matter of growing concern, but the challenge is to craft balanced legislation that effectively addresses undesirable foreign influence while not curtailing legitimate citizen-led activity, says the writer.
.
PUBLISHED2 HOURS AGO on 28th Sept 2021 in Straits Times.
The Foreign Interference (Countermeasures) Bill (Fica) was recently introduced in Parliament. It seeks to reduce the risk of acts of foreign interference by strengthening the Government’s ability to prevent, detect and disrupt such interference.
The Bill creates new offences which target clandestine online activity. It also imposes substantial financial reporting obligations on politically significant persons, as well as obligations on parties providing social media services and online content.
Foreign interference is a matter of growing concern, especially for small states, in a fast-changing geopolitical context where significant players are seeking to strengthen their reach and carve out spheres of influence.
Any responsible government needs to be adequately equipped to protect the public interest by counteracting such acts of foreign interference.The challenge is to craft balanced legislation that effectively addresses undesirable foreign influence while not curtailing legitimate citizen-led activity.
Here are three aspects of the Bill which give cause for grave concern.
Broad definitions
First, the extremely broad language of the Bill risks capturing perfectly legitimate collaborative activity undertaken by Singapore citizens and local non-governmental organisations (NGOs) to influence and improve our laws and public policies.
To appreciate the broad sweep of the Bill, it is important to note that apart from creating new offences targeting clandestine foreign interference via hostile information campaigns, Part 3 of the Bill empowers the minister to approve a wide range of mandatory directions against individuals, organisations and social media service and online content providers.
Failure to comply is a serious offence. Individuals can be fined and/or jailed. Corporate entities may be subject to fines of up to $1 million. Importantly, the minister is empowered to authorise these wide-ranging directions even if foreign interference is merely suspected and no offence has been committed by any party.
The Bill defines “foreign interference” and “public interest” so broadly that legitimate online activity undertaken by Singaporeans to influence our laws and public policies potentially risks being the subject of a Part 3 direction by the minister, even in the absence of any manipulation or influence by a foreign government or its agents.
As currently drafted, “foreign interference” is not limited to influence by a foreign government, a foreign political organisation or a foreign government agent.
A “foreign principal” is defined to include any foreigner, even a private foreign citizen who has no links whatsoever with a foreign government or its agents.
The Bill also provides that conduct or activity “on behalf of” the foreign principal is not limited to acts undertaken on the order of or under the control, direction or supervision of the foreign principal, or activity undertaken with foreign funding.
Instead, the Bill’s broad language provides that conduct undertaken “on behalf of a foreign principal” includes any activity “in collaboration with the foreign principal“. “Collaboration” is undefined. In plain language, it covers a very wide range of participation.
“Public interest“, too, is defined very broadly to include not just matters related to the security of Singapore or to public health, public order or public finance but also any activity “directed towards a political end in Singapore”.
Under the Bill, the words “directed towards a political end in Singapore” include activity which seeks to influence views on matters “that have become the subject of a political debate in Singapore”. That basically covers issues that Singaporeans are most concerned about.
Taken together, even open, non-clandestine “collaboration” between a Singaporean and any ordinary, private foreign citizen to improve any aspect of our laws and public policies constitutes “foreign interference”, notwithstanding the absence of any foreign state manipulation or foreign funding.
How real is the threat of foreign interference?
A history of foreign interference in Singapore
One can easily imagine a wide range of public policy issues that are currently, or which may in future become, the subject of political debate in Singapore where there is legitimate reason for concerned Singaporeans to “collaborate” with international experts, researchers and NGOs.
These could include:• Climate change, including whether any of our laws and policies need to be reviewed and updated. This is an issue with international dimensions.• Trade policy and movement of persons which, again, is not a localised issue.• Social issues on which there is in-principle international consensus, but which still attract healthy debate, such as further improving women’s rights and entrenching gender equality.• Treatment of foreign workers within Singapore which, again, at least raises some legitimate concerns by NGOs and citizens of the sending state.• Treatment of businesses and tax policy.
As currently drafted, the Bill empowers the minister to authorise intrusive Part 3 orders in relation to online activity that seeks to influence these and other areas of public policy so long as it is the result of any form of “collaboration” between Singaporeans and any non-Singaporean.
It is difficult to see any legitimate basis for such a broad sweep, particularly where the relevant “collaboration” on these policy issues involves no foreign government actor or agent and is undertaken under the control or direction of Singapore citizens.
In such cases, there is no covert activity or clandestine operation to speak of. Nor is the initiative being funded by or is the product of manipulation by a foreign government or its agents.
Legitimate activity undertaken by Singaporeans cannot translate into illegitimate “foreign interference” simply because of a mere collaboration with private foreign citizens.
Such citizen-led activities are par for the course in any democracy.If it is not the Government’s intention to prohibit such types of private collaboration, the legislation should be amended to make this clear.
How other countries have thwarted foreign interference and enacted laws against it
Powers granted under proposed foreign interference countermeasures law include blocking social media accounts
Courts’ role
Second, the Bill seeks to very substantially restrict the role of the Singapore courts to review the legality of the Government’s exercise of powers under the legislation. This is a troubling intrusion into the judicial powers granted to our Supreme Court under the Constitution.
In a constitutional system of governance such as Singapore’s, our courts are ordinarily vested with the power to decide all disputes.
Judicial review is that area of law where our judges review the legality of the Government’s actions. It is a very important role that the Constitution entrusts to the judiciary.
In 2019, a five-judge bench of our Court of Appeal in Nagaenthran v PP unanimously reiterated that the court’s judicial review powers cannot be excluded by any ordinary piece of legislation.This is because that judicial power flows from the Singapore Constitution which is the supreme law of the land.
The court emphasised that “any society that prides itself in being governed by the rule of law, as our society does, must hold steadfastly to the principle that (a)ll power has legal limits and the rule of law demands that the courts should be able to examine the exercise of discretionary power”.
The notion of unfettered power is contrary to the rule of law.Given these observations, it is odd that the Bill seeks to restrict the jurisdiction of our courts from reviewing the legality of Fica decisions and orders.
• The Bill seeks to establish a “reviewing tribunal” to whom persons subject to Part 3 Directions (among others) may appeal.• Importantly, while the chair of every reviewing tribunal must be a Supreme Court judge, the reviewing tribunal is not part of the Supreme Court of Singapore established under the Singapore Constitution.
It is not part of the Singapore judicial system nor subject to the de rigueur appeal process within our court system.• Surprisingly, despite the full court’s observations in the Nagaenthran case, clause 104 of the Bill (entitled “Limited judicial review”) provides that the minister’s and the reviewing tribunal’s decision is “final” and “is not to be challenged, appealed against, reviewed, quashed or called in question in any court” except regarding any question of procedural non-compliance.
The Bill, thus, seeks to limit the court’s powers of judicial review to procedural compliance when the grounds for judicial review at law are broader. This attempted restriction impermissibly infringes upon the court’s powers. Even if technically permitted, why would it be desirable to prohibit our courts from independently reviewing the legality of the minister’s and reviewing tribunal’s decisions?
Our courts have in numerous judgments emphasised that it is illegitimate for the judiciary to overstep its constitutional role and usurp Parliament’s power by acting as a “mini-legislature”. Conversely, it is equally important for Parliament not to attempt to curtail judicial powers which have been enshrined under the Constitution.
Proposed law seeks to counter foreign interference in S’pore politics
S’pore studying new laws to protect Republic from foreign interference, says Josephine Teo
Procedural rules
Third, the Bill further seeks to empower the minister to make extensive new rules of practice and procedure for hearings before the reviewing tribunal which risk undermining the ability of persons to fairly challenge the Government’s decisions under Fica.
It is unclear what the eventual rules of procedure will be and how they will impact the ability of persons to fairly challenge ministerial and other decisions under Fica.The sub-sections of the Bill, however, give a clue.
It is not inconceivable that the new rules may:• Alter the burden of proof and rules on admissibility of evidence from those which apply in court proceedings. If so, these changes could have far-reaching implications for persons affected by Fica orders.• Require the reviewing tribunal to hear appeals without the affected person “having been given full particulars of the reasons for any conduct” which is the subject of the appeal. This begs an important question: How is an affected person to fairly challenge Fica orders if he or she is not given full particulars of the reasons for any conduct?• Enable or require the reviewing tribunal “to give a summary of any evidence taken in its absence” to the affected person. One of the principal features of the court system is the right of a person to have evidence taken in his presence and to challenge any adverse evidence. The Bill’s new rules seem to contemplate a fundamental inroad into this important principle.• Appoint a person to represent the interest of the party which files the appeal to the reviewing tribunal. This suggests that affected persons may not have the right to appoint their own lawyers in reviewing tribunal proceedings. This, too, is of concern.
The cumulative effect of the eventual rules can be very far-reaching indeed. They could well operate to unfairly prejudice the ability of affected persons to challenge Fica orders.Given these potential implications, prudence dictates that Parliament should direct that the rules should not take effect automatically.
Instead, the rules should be separately approved by Parliament so that members may scrutinise them and assess their fairness.
One final point. Given the importance of this Bill and the legitimate concerns which arise concerning its provisions, a hurried passage should be avoided.
The Bill and its Explanatory Statement run into 249 pages, covering 127 separate clauses. It is a very substantial piece of legislation.If the Bill is debated at Parliament’s next sitting on Oct 4 to 5, that leaves just under three weeks from introduction to debate. If so, it is difficult to understand why the passage of this Bill is being rushed or why the debate on the Bill cannot be pushed back by one to two months to allow for proper scrutiny and consultation with a wider range of stakeholders.
Just earlier this year, the Government established a two-month-long public consultation process for the Copyright Bill.
A rushed passage of the Fica Bill would be undesirable.
Harpreet Singh Nehal is a Senior Counsel and managing partner of Audent Chambers LLC.
Singapore needs laws to tackle foreign interference in domestic matters: Shanmugam
..
=========
tankoktim 