Closing Speech by Minister for Law and Second Minister for Home Affairs Edwin Tong SC on the Second Reading of the Online Safety (Relief and Accountability) Bill 2025
5 November 2025 Posted in Parliamentary speeches and responses
I. INTRODUCTION
Mr Speaker,
1. Thank you. I also thank all Members who have spoken in support of the Bill and for their thoughtful contributions to this very important debate. I am very heartened to see that actually we are on very common ground, not just in our thoughts, and in the way in which we want to advance the Bill and the work of the Online Safety Commission (“OSC”), but also in our views and in our values on what this means to society. And I think, ultimately, after almost eight hours, I think we are not really disagreeing on much.
2. I found speeches on both sides of the House thoughtful with good suggestions, and even if we are not able to take them on board today, I think they will be relevant for future iterations of this Bill.
3. Members have raised a number of questions, in fact, many questions, and I thought I will take them thematically as Minister of State (Health and Digital Development and Information) Rahayu Mahzam has done, but I beg your indulgence that I am not going to be able to respond to every Member’s specific question, nor I suspect would you want me to.
II. RECAP OF THE BILL’S FRAMEWORK
4. But let me quickly recap the fundamentals of what this Bill seeks to achieve, to set it in perspective.
a) The OSC is set up as an independent agency to provide quick relief and can grant directions quickly in respect of Platformsm something that, today, if you wanted to deal with the Platforms directly, you almost certainly would find that you have a huge hurdle to scale.
b) Second, we provide, in complementary to that, a private remedy framework by way of the Statutory Torts. The law on torts itself is not new. It is established and the jurisprudence is well-established, but to allow victims and individuals to avail themselves of that framework is something that is new and novel.
5. Finally, the End-User Identification, which supports the tortious framework, because without understanding and knowing who it is, you cannot bring the action. It is important to remember that we do not have any of these tools today.
6. And this Bill, therefore, in my view, will create a low-barrier and accessible framework for victims to obtain remedies. In many ways, this has democratised relief for victims. And as I respond to questions, I would like to say that I hope we can keep it that way, because it is a key design feature, as I said at the outset, for this Bill to be speedy, to be efficacious, and to allow there to be a low barrier to getting the relief obtained. And I think we would like to keep it that way as far as possible. I like the way in which Mr Sharael Taha and Mr Xie Yao Quan put it - give it space to grow up, build up and let it take off, and I think that is exactly what we would like to see it do.
III. QUESTIONS FROM MEMBERS
7. Many Members spoke about the Statutory Torts framework, and I will respond to this as much as I can.
8. The Courts have contended with issues of establishing liability, quantifying damages and enforcing judgments for as long as the law of torts has existed. It is not going to be a novel area in which they look at the way you assess the breach of duty, the way in which you assess proof of damages, and also whether the damage is foreseeable or too remote.
A. Balancing Protection and Freedom of Expression
9. But I think the speeches have put the different issues that are at tension with one another into perspective.
10. On one hand, Ms Elysa Chen made a very thoughtful speech and cautioned against over-censorship – that Administrators and Platforms might then remove content too readily. On the other hand, Mr Henry Kwek said we should be careful not to allow this to be weaponised.
11. Ms He Ting Ru also said that over-censorship is already happening today. People today are already, in some cases, withdrawing from social media entirely. So you can see the tension pulling in different directions.
12. What this Bill tries to do is to set up a framework that allows individual relief, but also one which allows you to go to a third party, in this case, the OSC, for quick relief by a regulator.
13. On top of that, I want to also emphasise that this Bill is, however, not intended to remove discourse. You take, for example, the Explanatory Statement on the Incitement of Enmity. You will see in there that we have specifically provided in the Explanatory Statement that when you have statements that express an opinion, you are free to do so, even if they may be an opinion on the law or on Government policy. That alone, an opinion, is not something that would fall foul of the provisions of this Bill.
14. Neither is expressing a person’s belief or the practices of a group of persons, inconsistent with another set of beliefs, something that will fall foul of this Bill. It would not. You are entitled to your views, expressing your opinions, pursuing discourse as much as you can, as long as you keep to ensuring that you do not fall into one of the buckets of online harms.
15. To do this, we have carefully calibrated the Statutory Tort framework, and I thought I would just reiterate in my answer to Members’ questions how this framework is designed to work.
a) First, we are dealing with online harms with a clearly defined threshold. There is a formula that is set out in the Bill, and in respect of all online harms, the OSC must make an assessment, and the Statutory Torts framework must reach that standard. Those are the duties that are set out in this Bill. You must fall below those duties before it becomes actionable, so there is a threshold that is fairly clear-cut. In fact, many of them, you will find that these standards are not inconsistent with what the Platforms self-profess to be their standards as well.
b) Second, I think Members will know that there is no criminal offence, or liability, or criminal punishment for the online harm. This is not the design architecture of this Bill. When there is an online harm, OSC determines it. It then makes a direction as may be appropriate.
c) Third, by and large, liability under this Statutory Torts framework is compensatory. It seeks to compensate a victim sometimes for loss of earnings, sometimes for distress. But it is compensatory in nature, by and large. To Mr Henry Kwek’s question, the Courts will know when a case is frivolous, or taken on trivial or unmeritorious grounds. It is well-established. There are cost consequences, there are ways in which you can stop a vexatious litigant.
d) Fourth, liability for Platforms is conditional on them receiving proper notice. We designed that framework because we do not expect the Platforms to trawl the Internet, trawl the social media to look out for these harms. But once you get a notice, then that duty arises and you then have to act in a manner in which the duty would be commensurate with the remedy.
e) Mr Pritam Singh made the point about what is “reasonable”. I think the Honourable Member talked about an illustration, and asked whether “prompt” means it must be forthwith and so on. We have put the formula as “reasonable” because, in some cases, you can simply disable access with a flick of the switch. Now, in that situation, unless you have some other reason you cannot do that very quickly, then otherwise, we expect the timeframe to be much shorter. In other situations where you might take a bit more time to comply with the Order, and some steps must be taken, or you might have to make some enquiries, or there are some other technological issues or challenges, then the framework that we have for “reasonable” allows the Court to take all of that into account. So, it is not a single standard. We are not able to say it must be x number of days in every case, but “reasonable” in the context of the particular circumstances of that case.
f) Fifth, we will prescribe the contents and mode of service of these notices. I know many Members have talked about whether it is going to be difficult to fill up, or is it something that we have to go back and forth with the Platforms. The answer is as far as we can, we will prescribe the contents and the way in which we would do service of these notices.
16. So that you have almost like a fixed framework of information that you will have to provide. Once the Platforms receive it, they will have to respond to this.
17. I know what the Honourable Member Ms Chen said about how there might be an overreaction. Platforms might then be a bit more conscious when dealing with online harms. Sir, in many ways, I will say it is not a bad thing. That with this framework, the Platforms, the Administrators, the Communicators, there is a pause for thought to think about whether an item crosses the threshold or not, and whether you should be doing it. I think that is the kind of mindset we hope to build - for everyone to be a little bit more conscious, not self-censor in the way which I have told you.
18. All opinions are welcome, discourse is welcome, but to have a care, to think about it one more time whether that is something that passes muster for online harms. And I think if they have to take a second look and thereby improve protections for users and for potential victims, then I think we have achieved something.
B. Empowering Victims While Ensuring Fair Process
1. Empowering Victims to Pursue Claims
19. Mr David Hoe, Mr Sharael Taha, Ms Lee Hui Ying and Ms He Ting Ru observed that some claimants may lack the means to pursue a claim. Let me just put it in perspective. We have introduced this now, as an additional avenue for victims to pursue this claim. Previously, on whatever resources you might have, it was not possible. But today, you now have an additional framework.
20. We will always, in the context of how we discuss and enhance access to justice, we will have people who fall at the margins, and may not be able to be well resourced enough to pursue the claim. In those cases, my Ministry, the Ministry of Law, will continue to work on Access to Justice principles, to ensure that those who deserve assistance, whether through Legal Aid with the usual means and merits tests, or Pro Bono SG or the Community Law Centres, or various other legal clinics or pro bono schemes around Singapore. We will continue to support these schemes to ensure that those who are at the end of the spectrum, who are unable to have resources to pursue their own claims, will not be left by the wayside.
21. In many ways, that is just as an aside – that is precisely why we created the OSC framework, that is simple, really cost-efficient and fast. You don’t have to pursue a claim in Court to get the immediate relief of having the takedown or right-of-response or any other of the measures that OSC can prescribe.
{:start=“22”} 22. I note that Ms He Ting Ru talked about the prospect of engaging in court proceedings will be daunting for victims, and asked what simplified processes could be introduced. In a similar vein, Ms Lee Hui Ying made the same point, and talked about the Small Claims Tribunal (“SCT”). I am not immediately currently persuaded that the SCT is set up to investigate and hear tortious claims like this, but the points are taken, and we will see whether there is a way in which we can introduce a simplified framework and process that will be able to handle these cases, particularly the simpler ones, much quicker, much easier and much more cost-efficient.
2. Ease of Use and Accessibility of Online Harm Notices
23. Mr David Hoe suggested that it should be easy for victims to send “online harm notices” to them and should avoid asking for unnecessary information. I covered this earlier. I will just make one other point – we will also be working with the Platforms to ensure that the process is straightforward and accessible. So, we will be designing this process with them. They will tell us what is it that they need to identify the harm appropriately, and we will work with them as well to design this into the information that will be needed to trigger the process with the Platforms.
3. Non-monetary Losses and Evidence of Losses
24. Mr David Hoe and Ms Cassandra Lee asked whether non-monetary damages or losses can be considered under the Bill’s Statutory Torts framework.
25. The short answer is yes – the claimants are not limited to monetary compensation. Indeed, many of the harms that are contemplated in this Bill, they lead to – whether it’s online harassment or intimate image abuse – distress and humiliation.
26. The Bill does empower the Court to grant any damages that it thinks just and equitable. Of course, the usual tortious principles, as I outlined earlier, will have to apply. Is it foreseeable? Is it too remote, and so on.
4. Protecting Victims’ Identity in Court Proceedings
27. Ms Cassandra Lee asked if the identifying information of victims who commence civil proceedings can be automatically redacted.
28. I would say that whilst redaction will be appropriate in some cases, there will also be many where it would not be. I think you have got to put it in context.
29. You are not having to face a civil suit, and you have to understand and know who is bringing the claim. So, in most cases, I think that would not be the case. Not all, but most cases. Once an assessment has to be made, as to whether it is appropriate, then an automatic redaction upfront would not be suitable for this scheme.
5. Online Safety (Relief and Accountability (OSRA) Torts and Protection from Harassment Act (POHA) Torts
30. Mr Ng Shi Xuan and Ms Tin Pei Ling asked for clarifications on how the Statutory Torts framework in OSRA might interact with that in POHA. Let me just quickly explain this.
31. Victims of Harassment, Doxxing or Stalking should continue to sue the Communicator or bring action under POHA.
32. I made the point in my opening speech that we will provide for remedies against the Administrators and the Platforms for these harms under OSRA.
33. We did consider, but ultimately decided not to subsume the POHA Statutory Torts under OSRA. Harassment, Doxxing and Stalking under POHA all have offline dimensions to them as well, which continue to call for protection, and it is therefore necessary to preserve this. OSRA deals with online harms, so we thought it would be more expedient and better coverage not to subsume that under OSRA.
34. Mr Ng also suggested that guidance be issued to help parties understand the interaction. We will do so. I noted what the Honourable Member said about having a healthy online culture, and I think that is what we would like to promote.
6. OSC and the Courts
35. The OSC and the Courts provide complementary avenues for victims to obtain protection from online harms. Some Members asked what happens if there are inconsistencies. In most cases, victims will want to use the OSC’s directions at the first instance. As I said, it is quick, fast and swift relief.
36. Many might consider going further. For example, you might need to seek an injunction from the Courts. Like OSC’s directions, injunctions are also intended to be quick and can protect the victim. But for tort claims, the claims in Court, it seeks to impose a civil liability on the other party. And so, for these reasons, the Courts are better placed to address such cases, which sometimes will need a more complex evaluation of the evidential positions on both sides and also considering the legal position and the arguments of parties.
37. Mr Henry Kwek asked what happens if the OSC and the Courts take a different view on whether an online harm occurred.
38. The decisions of the OSC and the Court will not bind the other. The former is an administrative decision by an agency, and the latter is a matter of law decided by the Judiciary.
39. But the OSC may take the Court’s decision and after a while, a body of case law and jurisprudence into account. Nothing to stop the OSC from having regard to the body of jurisprudence developed over time as a result of this framework.
40. The OSC is also empowered to revisit past decisions and to vary or cancel them to the extent relevant and appropriate.
41. Mr Andre Low asked whether the OSC would be bound by the Ministers’ clarifications made in the House today. Sir, it is usual that Parliamentary intention as discerned from the debate that we have engaged in, and as recorded in Hansard, can and should be taken into account when interpreting the Bill, and this is not just by the OSC, but also by the Courts at a subsequent juncture when construing the interpretation and construction of a particular provision in this Bill.
7. Right of Reply and Existing Law of Defamation
42. Ms Valerie Lee asked whether the Right-of-Reply Directions which OSC may issue are intended to complement civil remedies for defamation.
43. The short answer is yes, and it is because they serve different purposes.
44. Currently, a successful claim in defamation provides compensation for reputational loss.
45. But as I said at the outset, not all victims want that financial compensation. They do not want just to go to Court for monetary compensation.
46. We have learned this from many consultations with the stakeholders.
47. Instead, many of them want to set the record straight as quickly as possible before their reputation is further harmed.
48. That is where the Right-of-Reply mechanism meets this need, and victims can choose to pursue either or both remedies.
49. I would say that it is not a prerequisite to seek a Right-of-Reply Direction first before commencing court proceedings for defamation.
50. But the Court may consider the claimant’s duty to mitigate loss, and if an avenue is available for you to have a Right-of-Reply, and you do not trigger that for good reason, then that might be taken into account as part of the claimant’s duty to mitigate.
C. Ensuring Accountability of Wrongdoers while Preventing Misuse of their Personal Data
51. Several Members asked questions about the balance between the desire to ensure accountability of wrongdoers, and the need to safeguard personal information. This is under the End-User Information.
52. Let me explain the framework in this context.
53. In my opening speech, I covered the safeguards to ensure that information disclosed is not misused. The OSC may impose any condition in disclosing the information, including limiting the use of the information to the approved purpose. Further, any misuse of the information may be an actionable wrong in itself.
a) So for example, if the victim uses the information to dox the perpetrator, that may be an offence under POHA. It may also be an offence under OSRA.
54. These safeguards would protect the information disclosed and prevent any misuse.
55. The foregoing answers the questions of Dr Wan Rizal, Mr Henry Kwek, and Ms Mariam Jaafar.
56. Mr Henry Kwek also asked how the OSC’s directions under the End-User Identification measures and how they interact with the PDPA. The short point is that the obligations imposed by the PDPA do not prevent Platforms from complying with the OSC’s directions.
57. Ms Eileen Chong also asked, I think, similar questions about the End-User Identification. Apart from what I have just said, I would like to refer to Clause 53, which allows conditions by the OSC, to be set in the course of providing information. I know the Honourable Member Ms Chong said that these proposals have, and I quote the Member, “real value”, and I thank her for that, but that giving information to the victim is a “one-way door”. That is also correct. But likewise, posting an online harm to the world is also a “one-way door”.
58. And so, the question for us really is, with most of the issues in this Bill, to grapple with the right balance to be struck. On one hand, you have information or a post to the world that is harmful. On the other hand, you are getting information that might be subject to conditions, and there are also consequences, some of which are penal in nature if you misuse it.
59. So, we believe overall that this provides the right balance to redress the victim’s harm and provide an avenue to pursue the action. Without the identity, you cannot pursue the action, and also ensure that the information is not used in a collateral way. So I hope that answers Ms Chong’s questions.
60. Mr Henry Kwek noted that some anonymous perpetrators may abandon their account when a Platform subsequently after finding out that there is an online harm, attempts to collect their identity information through the Collection Notice.
61. Sir, that is possible. In such cases, the reality is that their information will not be collected and both the OSC and victims will then not be able to identify the perpetrator. But we did consider what the alternative would be.
62. And the alternative would be to collect all, to require all Platforms to collect all information upfront, regardless of whether or not anyone has conducted online harms.
63. As I said at the outset, the vast majority of users will not fall in that category. So it will inconvenience, and in some cases perhaps, add an additional hurdle, and there is also a burden on Platforms. So, taking into account as I said earlier, that balance – we decided that we will require the Platforms to do so once we have established the online harm. We know that with doing that, there is a real risk that in some cases, they will just abandon.
64. But at the very least, with the provisions that the OSC has under this Bill, the OSC will be able to take action to deal with the harm being continued online.
IV. CONCLUSION
65. I believe I have covered most of the points.
66. I would just want to address Mr Low’s point about Clause 4 – I think you raised a point about Clause 4. The general position in law is that the Government is not bound by legislation unless it provides expressly for that to be so. In Clause 4, Mr Low will be aware that neither will the Government be bound by this legislation nor can it avail itself of this legislation. So, on that basis we do not think that it is suitable not to include the Government, either way, and for the reasons we have set out in the Explanatory Statement. I hope that answers your question.
67. Sir, I think that’s really all the questions. And as I said I apologise if I have not been able to go into the specifics. But I think what I have said on both End-User identification and the Statutory Torts framework elucidates our thinking behind those two measures in this Bill.
68. We ask for Members’ support, because like MOS Rahayu, I believe this will be a gamechanger in the online space, not just in what we do online but it will translate into how we interact with one another offline as well.
69. With that Sir, thank you very much.
Last updated on 5 November 2025