Tag: MCI

Cybersecurity (Amendment) Bill

My speech during the Second Reading debate on this Bill on 7 May 2024.

The Cybersecurity (Amendment) Bill seeks to extend the regulatory reach of the Cyber Security Agency of Singapore (CSA) by updating the existing Cybersecurity Act of 2018. This includes the broadening of oversight across newly classified critical information infrastructure (CII) and the introduction of stringent compliance and reporting requirements, all aimed at addressing the escalating challenges within our digital environment. 

In this age of digitalisation, cyberattacks on critical infrastructure can pose a significant threat to our national security and well-being. Examples of cyber attacks around the world abound.

Cyber attacks worldwide

In December 2015, Ukraine experienced a significant cyberattack targeting its power grid, which resulted in widespread electricity outages across several regions. This was one of the first known successful cyberattacks on a power grid. The attackers, who were sophisticated and well-coordinated, used phishing schemes to install malware on the networks of several regional electricity companies. They were able to gain control of the company’s systems and shut down substations, cutting off power for approximately 230,000 people for several hours. This incident not only disrupted everyday life but also exposed the vulnerability of essential infrastructure to cyber threats and the potential for state-sponsored cyber warfare.

In May 2017, the UK’s National Health Service (NHS) was struck by the WannaCry ransomware, a global cyberattack that infected over 200,000 computers across 150 countries. The NHS faced significant disruption as the ransomware encrypted data on infected machines, demanding payment to restore access. Approximately 19,000 appointments and operations were cancelled, and patients had to be diverted from emergency rooms which were unable to access critical digital services. The attack highlighted the importance of cybersecurity hygiene, as it exploited a known vulnerability in older Windows operating systems that had not been updated with available patches.

Here at home, in 2018, hackers infiltrated SingHealth’s healthcare system, stealing personal data of 1.5 million patients. This included information like names, addresses, and dates of birth. Additionally, medical records of 160,000 patients, including that of the Prime Minister, were also compromised. The sophistication of the attack, the type of data targeted and the resources needed for such a breach suggested that this cyberattack may have been state-sponsored. 

Each of these incidents serve as stark reminders of the chaos and danger posed by cyberattacks. They underline the need for robust cybersecurity measures and the ability to rapidly respond to and manage cybersecurity threats, particularly when critical national infrastructure is at risk.

Operational intervention by CSA

Under this Bill, the CSA is empowered to regulate, monitor and enforce compliance through penalties and directives. I would like to ask the Minister if the Bill grants the CSA, or any other national body, explicit authority to take over the operations of critical systems if their owners fail to secure them adequately, despite directions from the Authority. The current provision in Section 23 allows the Minister to direct organisations to take measures to counter serious and imminent threats but does not explicitly grant the authority to directly take over operations of critical information infrastructure. This explicit authority may be necessary in situations where immediate action must be taken to prevent or mitigate a cybersecurity threat that poses a critical security risk.

In contrast, the Bus Services Industry Act 2015 is more explicit in its wording about operational intervention. Section 30 of that Act grants the Land Transport Authority (LTA) the power to make a “step-in order” in certain circumstances. This order allows the LTA to take over the operations of a licensed bus operator or appoint a step-in operator to do so.

The Bus Service Industry Act also specifies the powers and functions of the step-in operator, such as having the same powers as the original licensee and requiring the licensee to provide access to premises, assets and employees. The Cybersecurity Act is less specific about what the emergency “measures and requirements” may entail.

Incorporating similar provisions in the Cybersecurity Act could provide a clearer legal framework for the CSA to directly intervene and take control of critical information infrastructure when necessary to protect national security or the lives of Singaporeans. This would ensure that the government has the necessary tools to respond swiftly and decisively to imminent cybersecurity threats.

In addition, while the CSA’s regulatory and enforcement roles are crucial, in instances where national security is at imminent risk, are there any additional protocols for bringing in the SAF’s Digital and Intelligence Service (DIS) to manage the cybersecurity defences of critical information infrastructure?

Does the Minister see it necessary to develop a framework that enables either the CSA or the DIS to respond rapidly and directly to imminent threats to our critical information infrastructure, ensuring that operational control can be swiftly transferred in a crisis? Having this operational backstop is desirable precisely because cybersecurity attacks have high potential severity and could unfold very quickly.

This will require the strengthening of public-private collaboration to ensure the seamless integration of state and commercial resources in fortifying our national cybersecurity infrastructure. In addition, the CSA will need to ensure it has the necessary expertise to undertake such responsibilities when called upon to do so. The agency needs to be adequately staffed and equipped with the requisite skills and technology in order to effectively manage and mitigate cybersecurity threats. Such an arrangement will be a long-run investment in our own capabilities that is worth making, both in defensive terms but also to enable public-private knowledge diffusion.

Extraterritoriality

Regarding the new sections 7(1A) and 16A(1), how will the government enforce its extraterritorial judgments on overseas providers of critical information infrastructure if the owner is not in Singapore? Can the Commissioner take enforcement action outside of Singapore? If we aren’t able to enforce the laws overseas, what purpose do these extraterritorial provisions serve?

Monitoring

In section 29A on monitoring, relying primarily on examining historical records and conducting ad-hoc inspections may not be sufficient to provide the real-time, continuous monitoring needed to keep pace with rapidly evolving cyber threats. More proactive oversight measures, potentially including direct access to providers’ systems, may be required for effective supervision. WannaCry, the global ransomware attack in 2017, rapidly spread across computer systems over seven hours, while the 2015 Ukraine power grid hack led to electricity outages lasting up to six hours. These are events that unfolded in less than one day. If we really want to monitor with a deterrent view in mind, we need to have operational integration and develop our backstop capabilities.

Conclusion

In conclusion, Mr Speaker, while the Cybersecurity (Amendment) Bill makes important strides towards enhancing our national cybersecurity posture, our approach must remain adaptable to the realities of digital warfare and capable of decisive action in times of emergencies. 

Sir, I support the Bill but I look forward to the Minister’s responses to my concerns.

Global leadership in AI

5 Feb 2024, Parliament

The government unveiled its National AI Strategy 2.0 report (NAIS 2.0) last December. The report outlines Singapore’s plans to harness artificial intelligence (AI) for the public good, focusing on enhancing AI capabilities, addressing potential risks and fostering a thriving AI ecosystem. 

I appreciate the hard work that many policymakers have put into writing this report, including their efforts to consult with industry. 

However, I believe that Singapore needs a more comprehensive AI industrial policy and clearer outcomes for each industry. We need a strategy that aims to make our nation the global leader in selected AI fields. 

Under NAIS 2.0, the government’s main role revolves around enabling an environment for AI to grow and enhancing the efficiency of public agencies. While these are important, the government certainly has the resources and capability to do much more. In this AI-driven era, we need the government to intercede more proactively to create a world-leading AI industry. Simply leaving things to the free market may not produce the desired results because of the constraints of our local private sector and our small domestic market. It will risk forfeiting some promising economic growth opportunities that AI can bring for our nation.

Singapore’s small population should not deter us from global AI leadership. Historical industrial successes have been built on strategic government interventions, such as Taiwan’s support of TSMC, which played a pivotal role in its journey to becoming a global semiconductor manufacturing juggernaut. 

Today, I will address NAIS 2.0’s AI labour policy and advocate for a strong AI industrial policy so that Singapore can aim for global leadership in selected AI domains. 

AI labour policy

Let’s begin with the AI labour policy. The goal in NAIS 2.0 to generate 15,000 AI jobs sparked a blend of enthusiasm and apprehension among Singaporeans. Concerns linger that, as has happened in the past, foreigners may dominate lucrative positions — including leadership positions — leaving Singaporeans with mainly the routine and lower-paying jobs. This could impede our citizens’ career advancement alongside the advancing AI landscape.

NAIS 2.0 has three labour planks. Scaling up AI-specific training programmes; scaling up technology and AI talent pipelines; and remaining open to global tech talent. 

Will the government commit to ensuring that a sizable majority of at least two-thirds of the 15,000 new “AI practitioner” jobs will go to Singaporeans? 

I acknowledge the importance of global AI talent. However, there must be a clear differentiation between exceptional global talent and the average foreign tech worker. We should welcome the former, but should avoid importing too many of the latter, as they may end up competing with Singaporeans who can do the job just as well. Any global talent that we bring in must be expected to transfer their skills to locals, not just use Singapore as a springboard for greater pursuits in other countries. This can be done through tying company grants to the achievement of knowledge transfer, or through limited-term foreign work passes tied to the training of Singaporean workers.

The AI playground is level, with a highly collaborative open-source community. The core techniques and frameworks are mature enough and reasonably accessible through papers and code. With the right training, mentorship and opportunities, Singaporean talent can deliver as well as anyone in the world.

To raise a body of local AI talent, AI-training programme places and talent pipelines must be focused on Singaporeans. We need to plan ahead and start training all our students early in AI — not just students who are academically strong in the sciences and mathematics. 

For mid-career workers, hands-on interaction with AI tools is one of the best forms of training. The government should expand the scope of SkillsFuture Credits to cover expenses for subscriptions to AI assistants like ChatGPT Plus or Github Co-pilot to accelerate their productivity. This will level the playing field for Singaporeans with less means to pay for such subscriptions. Paid models like GPT-4 have been assessed to be significantly better than their free counterparts, and we should give our workers more opportunities to use the best models.

Moonshots in industry

Next, on industry. It was once unclear if it were possible for humans to reach the moon. But US President John F. Kennedy made a speech to Congress in 1961, rallying his nation to achieve the goal of landing a man on the moon and returning him safely to Earth before the end of that decade. And NASA’s Apollo 11 mission achieved it ahead of schedule on 20 July 1969.

A “moonshot” is an ambitious, exploratory and groundbreaking target that has the possibility of spurring breakout growth. We need moonshots in AI, which NAIS 2.0 appears to lack.

The government has the resources and capacity to take on more risks on a longer timescale to pursue high-reward moonshots. These could catalyse future engines of growth. But first, the government must catch the vision and have the determination to make our country number one in our chosen AI domains.

Achieving some of these AI moonshots has implications on our economic security and even our sovereignty. 

Advances in AI rely on large, high-quality data sets. We must ensure that foreign tech firms and governments do not end up extracting our data overseas to build AI products, which then get sold back to Singaporeans. This will allow such firms to profit immensely while local expertise flounders. 

Currently no global framework governs cross-border data flows and ownership. This allows predatory dynamics to continue between countries and companies. Once market dominance is achieved, network effects and the dynamics of chasing a moving target make it almost impossible for new entrants to catch up. 

If we are not careful, Singapore may become only a consumer of such platforms, while the economic benefits and the best jobs go overseas. Singapore should avoid this by proactively building comprehensive local data sets for homegrown AI development. 

Management of moonshots

We should pursue a few ambitious, publicly-funded moonshot projects. These projects must prioritise transparency and align their outcomes with the national interest, ensuring that economic gains directly benefit our citizens. 

A new government-owned AI startup will be needed to catalyse this moonshot, and I will refer to it as the AI Catalyst Corporation. It should be independently run with commercial dynamism, yet be ultimately answerable to Singaporeans.

What constitutes a well-chosen moonshot? I would like to propose five key principles:

First, its products or services must directly benefit Singapore and Singaporeans. Second, it should have export potential and become part of Singapore’s economic growth engine. 

Third, it needs to have “moats” — which are durable advantages to prevent it from being quickly outcompeted or swallowed up by global tech giants. 

Fourth, there must be a genuine unmet global market gap that Singapore has advantages in tackling. And fifth, the industry should be ripe for fundamental disruption, not just incremental improvements.

Healthcare AI as a moonshot

Healthcare AI could be a moonshot that Singapore can aim for. I will present the case for this, and answer the five questions in reverse order.

Is healthcare ripe for fundamental disruption? Yes. Healthcare systems worldwide are under strain due to ageing populations and chronic disease burdens. Healthcare institutions tend to treat diseases late in their course, when symptoms are severe and care is expensive. Yet major conditions like obesity, heart disease and cancer, are driven by shared underlying factors. This outdated care model no longer aligns well with scientific reality. Healthcare AI, supported by population-scale data, has the potential to predict risks and intervene early to significantly improve health outcomes.

This will require a reorganisation of healthcare delivery that focuses on early prevention and action. Singapore has started this journey through the Healthier SG programme. Let’s turbocharge it with healthcare AI.

Second, is there a genuine unmet global market gap? Yes. Electronic health record (EHR) systems remain fragmented worldwide. Even in the US, no dominant player exists in healthcare AI. The players are fragmented among various entities like EHR providers, tech firms, life sciences companies, insurers and hospitals. Those with vast healthcare data may not have efficient AI models, and vice-versa.

Singapore, on the other hand, has a unique opportunity to build a population-scale healthcare data ecosystem tailored for AI. We can more easily overcome the coordination challenges that may oblige larger ecosystems to build healthcare AI components in a piecemeal fashion. A platform called MOH TRUST already aggregates multiple healthcare research datasets, and the National Electronic Health Records (NEHR) system aggregates clinical data across Singapore. So the government is already collecting and coordinating healthcare data. What is missing is the impetus to use this data to drive the future of AI through an industrial policy.

Third, are there “moats” against global tech giants? Yes. Healthcare AI depends a lot on having local healthcare teams and physical sensors to collect and manage clinical data. AI can serve as an assistant to local healthcare workers and give Singapore an edge over others. Singapore has already signalled its commitment to generating comprehensive data, like in the SG100K genome study. Healthcare also has more durable data moats than other AI spheres like linguistics, where SEA-LION’s defences against global tech giants in low-resource languages is uncertain.

Fourth, does healthcare have export potential? Yes, as a public good, healthcare AI can benefit other countries while facing fewer sovereignty concerns. Debates are taking place globally about where large AI systems are trained and deployed. However AI, when used for healthcare, which can potentially benefit everyone, is less likely to attract controversies or nationalist and protectionist tendencies. 

By assuming a leadership role in this field, Singapore can export our healthcare AI innovations, generate much international goodwill and even use this to advance our foreign policy.

And finally, does it benefit Singaporeans? Yes, through improved public health, economic growth and global technological leadership.

Singapore has other comparative advantages in the race for global leadership in healthcare AI. We have a robust healthcare system, the SingPass digital ID, cross-domain talent and a history of government investments and interventions in specific industries. 

Singapore’s demographic diversity provides rich healthcare data across ethnicities and ages. Healthcare AI can catalyse the development of adjacent fields like computational genomics and precision medicine.

Singapore has the ingredients for a breakthrough in Healthcare AI. To succeed, the government needs to take the lead in putting these ingredients together. 

What should we do in Healthcare AI?

To realise a healthcare AI moonshot, Singapore must combine existing ingredients into a coherent strategy. We should aim to export specialised services and medical diagnoses, not raw data. 

We can create an advanced AI model trained on genetics, protein biomarkers, histology and electronic health records. We should aim to radically improve our ability to prevent disease, intervene and make causal inferences.

A multi-modal healthcare AI foundation model moves beyond narrowly specified “point-solutions”. By having a single foundation model for, say, both chest X-rays and retinal image interpretation, we can overcome data fragmentation across medical specialties and make it increasingly possible to uncover foundational principles of diseases.

As for electronic health records, the NEHR system is valuable, but it needs to be AI-ready in order to consolidate complex datasets such as histology imaging, genetic data or protein data. We should create comprehensive longitudinal patient histories spanning years. Existing data needs to be sufficiently standardised to serve AI analysis without a massive amount of preprocessing.

An AI Healthcare Company under the AI Catalyst Corporation could drive this moonshot. This AI Healthcare Company needs its own versatile multi-modal foundation model integrated with the NEHR. This will enable large-scale analysis to identify at-risk groups, conduct preventative screening and perform early treatment. It will also enable high-quality acute care, as a simultaneous expert in genomics, biology, general medicine and the specialties.

The AI Healthcare Company could build the world’s best multi-modal healthcare AI and healthcare dataset. This could establish an unmatched resource — built in Singapore, for the world. 

Local AI startups can also benefit from this foundation model to build their own applications to sell to the world.

Just like how OpenAI’s access to ChatGPT queries provides unmatched data for improving their future large language models, the first company to create a versatile multi-modal healthcare foundation model would likely find itself at the frontier of healthcare AI.

Conclusion

Mr Speaker, in conclusion, a healthcare AI moonshot strategy will position Singapore as a global leader in AI by leveraging our unique capabilities in consolidating biomedical and healthcare data. It is a national approach designed to secure data sovereignty, navigate data-privacy concerns, ensure Singapore captures the benefits of AI, and maximise public by-in. This isn’t about picking winners; it is a proactive strategy to ensure Singapore thrives in the AI-driven future to benefit all Singaporeans.

I have presented just one example of a moonshot that Singapore could pursue. There may be other moonshots of equal or greater merit. I welcome open debate on selecting moonshots, but we cannot pull our punches if AI is truly the new industrial revolution. 

Singapore possesses the talent, resources and infrastructure needed to compete for the top spot in selected AI fields. Achieving it requires political will, a readiness to embrace risks and proactive intervention by the government. We can do it, and we must do it, for the benefit of Singapore and Singaporeans.

Preventing disclosure of confidential data through ChatGPT

In April 2023, reports emerged that engineers from Samsung Electronics accidentally leaked internal source code. They had uploaded it to ChatGPT, presumably as part of their input prompt to the large language model (LLM). In response to this incident, Samsung took swift action, banning employees from using popular generative artificial intelligence (GenAI) tools like ChatGPT. Additionally, the company urged employees who utilised ChatGPT and similar tools on personal devices to refrain from submitting any company-related information or personal data that could potentially unveil its intellectual property.

Furthermore, a research report released in June 2023, titled “Revealing the True GenAI Data Exposure Risk” by LayerX Security, highlighted a troubling trend. It revealed that 6% of employees had pasted sensitive data, including source code, internal business information and personal identifiable information, into GenAI tools. This concerning behaviour could inadvertently result in organisations unknowingly sharing their plans, product details, and customer data with competitors and potential attackers.

While this research primarily focused on private sector employees, I was concerned about the possibility of inadvertent sharing of sensitive official secrets with GenAI tools by civil servants and government contractors.

In light of these concerns, I raised several questions in Parliament regarding the government’s use of large language models (LLMs) owned by private or foreign companies:

a) How does the government ensure that confidential data is not disclosed in the input prompts for LLMs?

b) Whether the government has signed any non-disclosure agreements (NDAs) with these companies?

c) What are the companies that the government has signed NDAs with?

d) How does the government monitor compliance with such NDAs by these companies?

In response, Mrs. Josephine Teo, the Minister for Information and Communications, provided an explanation of the government’s approach. She assured Parliament that highly sensitive applications and data remain shielded from exposure on the Internet. For instances involving LLMs and sensitive data, open-source models may be customised for use but are strictly deployed on government servers and computers.

For less sensitive data use cases, AI models may be owned and managed by commercial and private companies. The government’s contracts with these companies include clauses pertaining to data handling and security. These clauses encompass non-retention of data and restrictions on data usage for training other products or models. She did not reveal which companies the government has signed NDAs with. She said that the government has implemented a range of technical, visual, and governance measures to ensure data security and enforce compliance. The Minister emphasised the government’s commitment to continuously reassessing the adequacy of these measures as technology evolves.

Here are the original questions raised and answers on 9 January 2024 in Parliament:

REGULATIONS ON INPUT PROMPTS FOR LARGE LANGUAGE MODELS TO PREVENT DISCLOSURE OF CONFIDENTIAL DATA

Dr Tan Wu Meng asked the Minister for Communications and Information whether the Government has plans to develop in-house artificial intelligence capabilities to ensure that input prompts for large language models need not be processed by private firms not under the purview of the Government, or by cloud computing units located in foreign territories or under foreign jurisdiction or control.

Mr Gerald Giam Yean Song asked the Minister for Communications and Information (a) when using large language models owned by private or foreign companies, how does the Government ensure that confidential data is not disclosed in the input prompts; (b) whether the Government has signed any non-disclosure agreements (NDAs) with these companies; (c) what are the companies that the Government has signed NDAs with; and (d) how does the Government monitor compliance with such NDAs by these companies.

Mrs Josephine Teo: Large language models (LLMs), such as those powering ChatGPT, have the potential to enhance the delivery of public services and the productivity of public officers. We adopt a risk-managed approach for LLMs, consistent with the existing public sector framework for the handling of classified information when using technologies such as Internet-based applications and the commercial cloud.

Highly sensitive applications and data are not exposed to the Internet. Where use cases involve sensitive data, open-source models may be finetuned for use but must be deployed on Government servers and computers.

For use cases involving less sensitive data, the artificial intelligence (AI) models may be owned and managed by commercial and private companies. Our contracts with these companies are governed by service agreements which include clauses on data handling and security, such as the non-retention of data, and limitations on the use of data to train other products or models. Beyond contractual safeguards, the Government has also implemented technical measures to screen sensitive data, visual cues to remind users on data security practices, and governance measures to enforce compliance.

We continuously re-assess the adequacy of our measures as the technology evolves.

Source: Singapore Parliament Reports (Hansard)

#ChatGPT #AI #Parliament #WorkersParty #MakingYourVoteCount

Tackling the scourge of scams

The rise of sophisticated online scams and the resulting financial devastation on victims is a critical concern impacting Singaporeans from all walks of life. Across our nation, residents, both young and old, tech-savvy and not, have fallen victim to these fraudulent schemes.

I have met constituents who have lost their life savings to scammers, with even fixed deposit accounts being cleared out by these criminals. Some have joint accounts with their children or parents, doubling the impact on families. These incidents demonstrate a concerning vulnerability that affects us all. While I consider myself relatively tech-savvy, I have to admit that even I feel the looming threat of becoming a victim one day.

Many victims I have spoken with describe a disheartening response from their banks. Upon reporting the fraud, they frequently receive responses that are frustratingly vague and non-committal. They offer little information, citing banking secrecy, and at times, a goodwill payment that doesn’t fully cover the loss. Victims are sometimes told by the police that the funds have been transferred overseas and nothing further can be done to retrieve the funds.

The technical nature of these scams is deeply concerning. “Drive-by download” attacks and the more advanced “zero-day” exploits make it possible for malware to be installed on phones with little or no user action. These methods exploit vulnerabilities in operating systems and applications.

In view of these sophisticated attacks, how far do the authorities investigate each reported scam, especially those involving screen reading and keylogging malware? Without thorough investigations, it will not be possible to ascertain fault and ensure that innocent victims are not held responsible for losses they did not cause. Is the default blame then placed on the victims who have to bear most of the financial loss?

Scams have emerged as a formidable obstacle in advancing digital access for our citizens, particularly in our senior community. Numerous elderly residents I have encountered express a fear of using internet banking or online payments because they are apprehensive about falling prey to scams. Consequently, I find myself hesitant to advocate the use of digital banking to them, despite its convenience, due to the real risk of them losing their entire life savings if they are targeted by scammers.

This situation has precipitated what the Member for Aljunied, Ms Sylvia Lim, aptly describes as a “crisis of confidence” with the digital banking system. Unless the authorities address the issue of scams more effectively and establish stronger consumer protections, our extensive efforts to transition all our citizens into a digitally empowered society will come to nought.

One tool the government has on hand to deal decisively with scams is the Online Criminal Harms Act. This will allow the government to, inter alia, direct online platforms to disable access to accounts suspected to be involved in scams. Parliament passed this Act last July, however it is only set to be progressively rolled out from this year. When will the Online Criminal Harms Act be fully operationalised? Given that an average of 87 scams are taking place every day in Singapore, each day of delay will be one day too late for many scam victims.

Banks must shoulder a greater responsibility in protecting their customers. I echo Ms Sylvia Lim’s earlier call for banks to reintroduce physical tokens as the default measure for multi-factor authentication for all their customers. Multi-factor authentication relies on a combination of “something you know” and “something you have”. However, when phones are compromised by malware, allowing scammers to view screens and keystrokes, this system collapses into a single factor. This allows scammers, who have access to the password entered by the user, to bypass the additional security layer. Therefore, bringing back physical tokens will reinstate the crucial second layer of security.

The Monetary Authority of Singapore (MAS) must more assertively and decisively tackle the problem of scams in the banking system to protect consumers. In my dealings with MAS when advocating for constituents victimised by scams, I have observed that MAS tends to forward these critical cases to the banks for follow up, instead of directly addressing and resolving the issues on behalf of victims. This delegation process then places the onus on the banks to determine who is at fault — the institution or the victim — for the occurrence of the scam. Such a practice raises serious concerns about the impartiality and effectiveness of the investigation.

I have also observed a discrepancy in MAS’ approach to enforcing actions on financial institutions for different violations. On one hand, MAS imposes very punitive measures like restrictions on acquisitions and additional capital requirements on banks when there are brief downtimes in online banking and ATM services. On the other hand, this level of decisiveness and rigour is markedly absent when addressing scam cases. MAS should require banks to tackle scams with the same level of intensity and rigour as they do in safeguarding consumers’ interests for system outages. 

Scam victims need a comprehensive explanation from a knowledgeable and impartial entity like MAS about how the scam occurred. This explanation should detail the roles of banks, telcos, customers and other entities in both the occurrence and prevention of such scams. This will determine who is responsible and who should bear the cost of these fraudulent acts.

Furthermore, responsibility should not be limited to financial institutions, telcos and consumers. Social media companies and mobile phone handset manufacturers should be held accountable for securing their platforms against scams. All handsets sold in Singapore should be required to disable side-loading of apps by default and make it difficult for end users to override critical security features. Social media platforms should be required to have processes in place to remove fraudulent posts soon after being notified.

The Ministry of Communications and Information has revealed that a notable proportion of residents, approximately 37%, do not regularly update their devices. Many of these may be less tech-savvy users. It is not reasonable to expect that everyone will have the technical proficiency to keep their devices updated. Therefore, consumer protection strategies must be designed on the premise that a significant number of users will not know how to keep their devices updated, and should incorporate additional layers of security to safeguard these users.

A central agency should oversee all scam investigations and responses. I am aware of the Anti-Scam Command (ASCom) and the important work their officers are doing. However, given that ASCom is a department under the Commercial Affairs Department of the Singapore Police Force, I don’t think they can be held accountable for whole-of-government efforts to combat scams. Who, therefore, is ultimately accountable for the government’s anti-scam efforts?

To summarise, my recommendations are as follows:

First, banks must significantly increase their responsibility towards customer protection, including by providing physical tokens to customers.

Second, MAS should take a more active role in ascertaining responsibility for scams carried out on banks’ digital platforms and supporting victims.

Third, the Online Criminal Harms Act needs to be fully operationalised without further delay.

Fourth, the government needs to hold technology companies more accountable for the security of their platforms and devices.

And finally, a central anti-scam agency should oversee and be ultimately accountable for the government’s anti-scam efforts.

Mdm Deputy Speaker, we stand at a critical juncture in the battle against scams. Our actions in the face of this scourge will define our commitment to protecting our citizens in the digital age. Let’s act swiftly and decisively to protect our people and, indeed, ourselves. I support the Motion.

Use of SkillsFuture Credit for online courses

During Question Time in Parliament on 3 December 2023, I asked the Senior Minister of State for Information and Communications, Mr Tan Kiat How, to clarify if SkillsFuture Credit (SFC) could be used for courses run by Udemy, a popular online course provider. He had replied to another parliamentary question that “Singaporeans who have continued interest in courses offered by Udemy can use their SkillsFuture credits for such courses and submit their claims directly to SSG (SkillsFuture Singapore) for reimbursement, upon completion of the courses.”

It was my understanding at that point that SFC funding for courses by Udemy had been discontinued for some time already and there was only one remaining online course provider, eCornell, that still received SFC support.

Mr Tan replied that he needed to check on that and clarified later that afternoon that what he had said earlier was accurate. Yet at the time that he said that, the SkillsFuture Singapore website still stated that:

Frequently asked questions

Can I use my SkillsFuture Credit to pay for Massive Open Online Courses such as Coursera or Udemy?

Nov 21, 2023 – Courses by Coursera and Udemy are no longer eligible for SkillsFuture Credit since 5 Jan 2020 and 8 Jan 2022 respectively. Currently, only the Massive Open Online Courses offered by ECornell (delivered under Genashtim Pte Ltd) are still eligible for SFC, till 9 Jul 2025.

However, the SkillsFuture website was amended later that night and it now states:

Frequently asked questions

Can I use my SkillsFuture Credit (SFC) to pay for online courses such as Coursera or Udemy?

Dec 03, 2023 – Singaporeans who want to use their SkillsFuture Credit (SFC) for online courses such as Coursera and Udemy can submit their claim request directly to SSG through SSG-WSG service portal.

Supporting documents required are:

– Course/exam invoice/receipt; and

– Completion of course certificate or proof of exam attendance.

You will be reimbursed of your out-of-pocket course/exam fees through your available SFC balance upon SSG’s approval of your claim request.

Source: SkillsFuture Singapore

It appears that SkillsFuture Singapore has decided to fund Coursera and Udemy online courses after discontinuing support in 2020 and 2022 respectively. This is good news for Singaporeans who wish to upskill themselves through online courses offered by these providers but were hitherto disappointed by the discontinuation of SFC support for Coursera and Udemy, as well as the expiration of the National Library’s contract with Udemy Business from 15 December 2023.

Note: I have no financial stake in Udemy and Coursera but I have taken courses from both providers (some using my SFC) and found them useful professionally. 

Here is the full exchange in Parliament:

Sitting Date: 22-11-2023
Section Name: Oral Answers to Questions

SOLUTIONS TO DEFRAY COST INCREASES IN NATIONAL LIBRARY BOARD’S DECISION TO CEASE SUBSCRIPTION TO E-LEARNING PLATFORM

Ms Hany Soh asked the Minister for Communications and Information with respect to the announcement by the National Library Board on 7 November 2023 that it will cease its subscription to an e-learning platform from 15 December 2023, whether the Ministry has considered any solutions to defray the cited reason of a significant increase in cost so that public will be able to continue benefiting from access to the platform.

The Senior Minister of State for Communications and Information (Mr Tan Kiat How) (for the Minister for Communications and Information): Sir, the National Library Board (NLB) is committed to making e-learning resources accessible to all, as part of its expanded range of content formats to support reading, learning and discovery.

The current contract for Udemy Business will expire on 15 December 2023. NLB has decided not to award a fresh contract to Udemy Business because the new licensing model will cover a much smaller number of courses than what is available today and restrict the number of users allowed to access these courses. The new licensing model is also several times more expensive than the current contract. Notwithstanding this, Singaporeans who have a continued interest in courses offered by Udemy Business can use their SkillsFuture Credit for such courses and submit their claims directly to the SkillsFuture Singapore (SSG) for reimbursement upon completion of their course.

NLB will also continue to identify suitable e-learning resources to replace the offerings by Udemy Business and expects to make available new resources in the coming months. NLB will continue to work with SSG and other local and overseas partners to provide more online learning resources and encourage lifelong learning among Singaporeans.

Mr Speaker: Ms Hany Soh. 

Ms Hany Soh (Marsiling-Yew Tee): Thank you, Speaker. I have three supplementary questions for this question.

Firstly, can the Senior Minister of State share on a per user basis, what would be the cost involved if the subscriptions were kept as opposed to how much it cost before the cost increases?

The second supplementary question is in relation to alternative platforms for the users. How does it measure up against the current Udemy Business platform?

And finally, how will the Ministry or specifically, NLB assist members of the public with the transitions from the current platform to its replacements, especially when it comes to addressing their needs on work or studies? 

Mr Tan Kiat How: Sir, the refreshed proposal from the Udemy Business on its online resources is through an open tender, open procurement approach. I do not think it would be appropriate for me to share some of the commercial sensitivities that might be tied to the proposal. But perhaps, allow me just to elaborate. It is not just about the cost per user. It is about the restricted access to the courses that are available under this new licensing model, which we do not think will meet the needs of the learners in Singapore. 

Allow me to use an analogy to make it easier to explain. In the past, you go to a restaurant, you pay a price at the door, you go in, it is a buffet, choose what you want, eat all you can. You can go to the cooked food section, there is a seafood section, a salad section, there are hot stations where they prepare food for you, then you have the drinks section and the desserts section. Choose what you want, eat all you can for a fixed price. But with a new model, maybe a restaurant tells you that the price that you pay at the door is a few times higher now; and you go into the restaurant, you are only entitled to a plate of rice and maybe two or three dishes from the cooked food. Anything else, you would have to top up, pay extra; and now, you are no longer able to go to the salad section, you cannot go to the drink section, you cannot go to the dessert section, you cannot go to the seafood section.

So, the question for us is: with a much more expensive and costly model, does this still meet the needs of our learners? 

We assure the Member Ms Hany Soh and other Members that NLB is very concerned about the nutritional needs of our Singaporeans, especially the nutrition of the mind, their learning needs. We are actively exploring what other platforms can provide such needs for our learners.

At the same time, we also shared with many of members of the public who wrote in about some of the other alternative resources. For example, you have LearnX, which is on learning.nlb.gov.sg. It is a platform where NLB provides curated resources for our learners. We also shared a list of other platforms that are available for learners to tap on in the meantime, as we look at other resources, other online platforms for our learners, in the future.

So, I wish to assure Members that this is something that NLB is very, very keen on because we want to support the lifelong learning and discovery needs of Singaporeans of all ages.

Mr Speaker: Mr Gerald Giam. 

Mr Gerald Giam Yean Song (Aljunied): Thank you, Mr Speaker, and I thank the Senior Minister of State for his reply just now. 

I just heard the Senior Minister of State say that learners can use the SkillsFuture credit to claim for Udemy courses. But the last time I checked, on the SkillsFuture website, Udemy courses are not available. It used to be, a long time ago, but it was discontinued for some time already. And, as far as I know, there is only one online course provider called eCornell. So, can the Senior Minister of State confirm that what he said just now is still accurate?

Mr Tan Kiat How: Sir, I would have to get back to Mr Giam’s question. [Please refer to “Clarification by Senior Minister of State for Communications and Information”, Official Report, 22 November 2023, Vol 95, Issue 117, Oral Answers to Questions section.]

From the information I am given, it is possible for Singaporeans who have continued interest in courses offered by Udemy Business to use their SkillsFuture credit for such courses and submit these claims directly to SSG for reimbursement upon completion of their course. But perhaps, if Mr Giam would like to seek specific clarification on specific courses, he can write to us. We will take a look and check it out.

Source: Singapore Parliament Hansard

Sitting Date: 22-11-2023
Section Name: Clarification

CLARIFICATION BY SENIOR MINISTER OF STATE FOR COMMUNICATIONS AND INFORMATION
(Clarification to Question No 3)

Mr Speaker: Senior Minister of State, Tan Kiat How.

The Senior Minister of State for Communications and Information (Mr Tan Kiat How): Sir, thank you. I just wanted to reply to Member Mr Gerald Giam‘s question just now. I have verified with SkillsFuture Singapore (SSG) colleagues. Just to reaffirm what I said – Singaporeans who have continued interest in courses offered by Udemy can use their SkillsFuture credits for such courses and submit their claims directly to SSG for reimbursement, upon completion of the courses. [Please refer to “Solutions to Defray Cost Increases in National Library Board’s Decision to Cease Subscription to E-learning Platform”, Official Report, 22 November 2023, Vol 95, Issue 117, Oral Answers to Questions section.]

Source: Singapore Parliament Hansard

Questions to the Minister on inflated newspaper circulation numbers

On 16 June 2023, SPH Media Group’s Audit and Risk Committee published its report investigating the issues surrounding the inflated circulation numbers of SPH. 

The report highlighted a barter arrangement between SPH and another media company, which it called “X”. Media company X provided an unspecified number of e-paper digital subscriptions to SPH in exchange for 15,000 Straits Times and Business Times digital subscriptions (from SPH). The amounts paid by X to SPH and vice versa were offset against each other. SPH reported these 15,000 copies in its (inflated) circulation numbers. According to the report, there was no evidence that the digital access codes for the Straits Times and Business Times digital copies were distributed.

In Parliament on 6 July, I asked Minister for Information and Communications Josephine Teo whether there would be any investigation into media company X as to whether they too were inflating their circulation numbers. The Minister replied that she was not at liberty to disclose the full range of the Police’s investigations. She added that it was for the Police to decide whether to specifically look into establishing liability on the part of X.

Separately, a fund, known as the NIE Fund, was set up to pay for the distribution of newspaper samples to students, needy families, halfway houses and charities. The report found that during the review period, approximately $748,000 from the NIE Fund was used to pay for bulk copies of newspapers to “shore up” the circulation numbers, cushion the fall in print circulation numbers and to meet circulation number KPI targets. The report found evidence to suggest that some of SPH’s clients were not aware that monies they had paid would be used for the purposes of purchasing bulk copies.

I asked the Minister what kind of accountability had been given to the donors and the clients who had contributed to the NIE Fund on the understanding that they were helping the underprivileged in society but were instead used to shore up the circulation figures for SPH. The Minister replied that the purpose of making “full disclosure” on the findings was to allow these entities to decide if they wanted to take further action. She added that they could, if they chose to, but the Government would not decide on their behalf.

This is the link to the full Audit and Risk Committee Report: https://static.sph.com.sg/uploads/2023/06/Annex-ARC-Report.pdf

This is the Parliament exchange I had with the Minister:

Mr Gerald Giam Yean Song (Aljunied): Thank you, Madam. Madam, the ARC report stated that the X Barter Deal was not a genuine arrangement. The corresponding revenue and expenses should not have been recognised and the corresponding circulation numbers should not have been counted. So, my question is, if it was found that the X Barter Deal was not a genuine arrangement, will there be any investigation into the other media company, which was named as “X” in the report, and whether they were also inflating their numbers?

Secondly, the Minister said that the question of loss of public funds does not arise. But what kind of accountability has been given to the donors and the clients who had contributed to the NIE Fund on the understanding that they were helping the underprivileged in society but were instead used to shore up the circulation figures for SPH?

Mrs Josephine Teo (Minister for Communications and Information): Mdm Deputy Speaker, at this point, we will not be at liberty to disclose the full range of the Police’s investigations. Are they specifically looking to establish liability in the context that Mr Giam described? That is for the Police to decide.

On the Member’s second question on accountability to the donors and the other parties that made resources available to SPH Limited, the purpose of making full disclosure on the findings is precisely to allow these entities to decide if they want to take further action. So, they can, if they choose to. It is not for us to decide on their behalf.

Source: Singapore Parliament Reports (Hansard)

MCI: Digitalisation for Seniors

Digitalisation has taken off in a big way in Singapore. Unfortunately, this has also left many elderly and less tech-savvy citizens behind.

What takes digital natives a few seconds to complete can be painfully difficult for some seniors. Many struggle to come up with strong passwords, and have difficulty typing them. Tapping a phone screen or double-clicking a mouse poses dexterity challenges.

The solution, however, is not to run manual and digital services in parallel forever. That would negate the productivity benefits brought about by digitalisation. Instead, firms and government agencies should provide in-person assistance to seniors to navigate their digital services. 

I am aware that ServiceSG centres have been set up to assist seniors with government digital services. However, there are only six such centres, which may not be within easy reach for all residents. 

Can more ServiceSG centres be set up in every neighbourhood? More importantly, how is the Government raising awareness among residents about their availability?

Are private sector organisations like banks expected to provide such services for their less digitally savvy customers?

Many seniors are already wary of using technology. The threat of scams amplifies their fears. While seniors are not the only victims of scams, they tend to feel much more vulnerable. Their adult children, government advertisements and the media are constantly sounding warnings to them. That message has sunk in to such an extent that many of them avoid using digital services like internet banking altogether, for fear of being scammed. However, without internet banking accounts, they will encounter many roadblocks in an increasingly cashless society. 

How is the Government tackling the challenge of getting seniors to embrace digital technology while also ensuring they are informed about basic precautions to avoid falling victim to scams?

____

This is a speech I made in Parliament during the Committee of Supply Debate for the Ministry of Information and Communications on 28 Feb 2023.

Photo by congerdesign on Pixabay

SPH Media’s falsification of circulation data

I filed several questions for the Minister for Information and Communications to answer in Parliament regarding the revelations of the falsification of circulation data by SPH Media. In summary, I will be asking:  

1) What are the terms of reference of the Ministry’s review of SPH Media and under what conditions will public funding to SPH Media be reduced?

2) Were the increased circulation figures cited by the Minister in Parliament in 2021 used as a basis for funding and are they still reliable?

3) How many newspaper copies were printed, counted and destroyed and what is the environmental impact of these actions?

These are the detailed questions I will be asking:

*4103. Mr Gerald Giam Yean Song: To ask the Minister for Communications and Information regarding the Ministry’s review of SPH Media following their admission of falsification of circulation data (a) what are the terms of reference of this review; (b) when did this review begin and when will it be completed; (c) what have the findings been so far; (d) whether the report will be made public; and (e) what are the conditions under which public funding to SPH Media will be removed or reduced.

*4104. Mr Gerald Giam Yean Song: To ask the Minister for Communications and Information (a) what was the source of the figures cited on 10 May 2021 in Parliament that SPH’s newspapers’ circulation had grown by 5% and The Straits Times’ circulation had grown by 20% from 2017 to 2020; (b) how much bearing did this data have on the Government’s decision to fund SPH Media; and (c) whether the Minister still considers this data reliable in light of recent admissions by SPH Media.

*4102. Mr Gerald Giam Yean Song: To ask the Minister for Communications and Information (a) what is the total number of newspaper copies that were printed, counted and destroyed by SPH Media or its predecessor company for the entire duration of the scheme to inflate circulation numbers; (b) what is the estimated total weight of paper used; and (c) what is the environmental impact of these actions.

These questions are likely to be answered during the Parliament sitting on the week of 6 Feb 2023. If you have further insights into this issue to share with me, please email me at gerald.giam@wp.sg or WhatsApp 89250747. 

New licensing framework for online news sites

On 8 July 2013, Parliament debated the Government’s new licensing framework for online news websites. These are the questions I asked the Ministers for Communications and Information and his responses.

On 8 July 2013, Parliament debated the Government’s new licensing framework for online news websites. These are the questions I asked the Minister for Communications and Information and his responses.

—————–

Mr Gerald Giam Yean Song asked the Minister for Communications and Information (a) how many times in the past has MDA directed Internet Content Providers to remove content from, or prohibit access to, websites because of objectionable material in violation of the Internet Code of Practice; (b) what are the content of these materials; and (c) whether the Internet Content Providers have complied with MDA’s directive and, if not, what action has MDA taken against them for non-compliance.

Assoc Prof Dr Yaacob Ibrahim (Minister for Communications and Information): Madam, Members have raised questions about various facets of MDA’s new licensing framework for online news sites. I will answer them in terms of its rationale, what MDA introduced, its expected impact, and the notice period given for the change.

Madam, a “healthy” public discourse, in Mr Chen Show Mao’s words, must be grounded in accurate facts. This is true whether the discourse takes place online, or in the physical world. Entities that publish the news have a duty to ensure that the news is accurately and fairly reported because they provide the basic elements of information upon which individuals make decisions or form judgements and opinions on any matter. Hence, traditional news providers in broadcast and print have always operated under individual licensing.

As the media landscape converges, news is published not only in print and broadcast, but also on the Internet. As online sites have become a more significant source of news, our regulatory framework has to evolve to keep pace with the changing landscape. The new licensing framework seeks to place online news sites and traditional news sites on a more consistent regulatory basis, while recognising that they are not identical.

Mr Pritam Singh asked whether MDA considered the efficacy of introducing rules that apply to traditional media, into the online space. I would like to stress that we have never taken the approach that the Internet space is to be unregulated. If online conduct leads to offences under the Penal Code or other laws of the land, the persons responsible are held accountable. As far as other content is concerned, we have regulated with a light-touch through the Class Licence Scheme, introduced in 1996. This has not changed, Madam. The new licensing framework affects only 10 sites, and they are subject to a few more specific obligations under their licence, commensurate with their role as news providers.

In the new licensing framework, online news sites will be individually licensed if they (i) report an average of at least one article per week on Singapore’s news and current affairs over a continuous period of two months; and (ii) are visited by a monthly average of at least 50,000 unique IP addresses from Singapore over the same two months. Requiring these news sites to take up individual licences also places a stronger onus on the licensees operating these websites to be aware of their legal obligations, and to report incidents and occurrences responsibly.

The online news site licence will require licensees to adhere to a set of content standards which are no different from existing standards under the Internet Code of Practice and Class Licence. These content standards are meant to safeguard racial and religious harmony, public order, as well as good taste and decency. I wish to stress that nothing in the content standards prevents licensees from commenting on Government policies. Since the content standards have not changed, licensees will enjoy the same freedom of expression they have hitherto enjoyed under the Class Licence Scheme. Fears that the new licensing framework will stifle Internet freedom are unfounded. The vibrant online environment that critics purport to cherish emerged under the same set of content standards in the Class Licence Scheme.

There are only two additional requirements which will be imposed on licensees. Firstly, when directed by MDA, they have 24 hours to take down content which is in breach of the content standards. This is important, as news on these high-reach sites can go viral very quickly and have a detrimental impact on society if they undermine racial harmony or raise public order concerns.

Secondly, licensees have to provide a $50,000 performance bond. A similar requirement is imposed on other individual licensees, such as niche TV licences. This is to ensure that licensees exercise their best efforts to keep their websites free of prohibited content and when there is such content, to remove it expeditiously within the timeframe of 24 hours when directed by MDA. The performance bond need not be provided in cash to MDA, but can be in the form of a banker’s guarantee, or insurance. None of the licensees of the 10 sites have raised any concerns with posting the performance bond.

Madam, we do not expect the new licensing framework to affect in any way the operations of the 10 online sites identified for individual licensing.

Several Members have asked about the scope of the licensing framework and the types of sites that will be covered.

In general, bloggers, Internet commentators and niche sites provide their personal perspective of issues, and do not regularly report on the news and current affairs of the day. As a result, they have not been determined to be reporting on Singapore news and current affairs, and so these websites do not fall within the scope of the licensing framework. However, should these websites morph into online sites reporting on Singapore news, MDA will have to separately assess if they meet the two criteria for licensing. For now, MDA is working with the organisations that own the 10 sites. MDA is not considering individually licensing any other sites at this point in time.

Some sites claim that if subject to individual licensing, they will not be able to furnish the $50,000 performance bond, or even a guarantee. I would like to make three points here, Madam. Firstly, the $50,000 performance bond was set in view of the financial means of the 10 identified online sites. Secondly, the MDA has already stated that if the performance bond is beyond the financial means of a future licensee, it is willing to consider the specific circumstances of that licensee and adjust the performance bond accordingly. The key is that the performance bond must provide a meaningful incentive to the licensee to make the best effort to comply with the licensing conditions. Thirdly, and in response to Mr Zaqy’s question, it would not be a sound regulatory approach to exempt entities on the basis that they intend to operate non-commercially. Our rationale for this new licensing framework is based on the special responsibility that news providers hold. This responsibility is not diminished simply because the operators choose to operate on a non-profit or non-commercial basis, if they indeed set themselves out as providers of news content.

Another concern expressed by sites not identified for individual licensing is that it has a “chilling effect” on their activities. I think, Madam, this is far-fetched. In any case, I do not think they are so easily ‘chilled’. I have already explained that the MDA will set a reasonable performance bond commensurate with the financial position of a future licensee. The intention is not to prevent the site from operating under a licence. On the contrary, the intent is to allow a qualifying site to continue to operate, under an individual licence.

Members have asked about the manner in which the licensing framework was implemented and whether the potential licensees were engaged. The licensing framework is a refinement of the existing Class Licence Scheme which Internet content providers are already familiar with, and is not a major shift. The 10 potential licensees were informed of the new licensing framework before it was introduced, and MDA’s engagement with them on the exact terms of the licence is on-going. The entire process of engagement, which started in May, is expected to take four to five months, after which the licence will actually take effect. This, Madam, should provide sufficient time for the industry to give its feedback on the detailed licence conditions.

The Government is committed to wider consultation on issues that affect the public. Over the past few months, Singaporeans have given their views on various Government policies as part of “Our Singapore Conversation”. However, in this instance, the licensing framework only applies to a small number of news sites and does not affect the overwhelming majority of Internet content providers. Besides, content standards have remained unchanged and the licence will not impact the public in general. So therefore, when implementing the framework, we did not feel there was a need for wider public consultation before the licensing framework was announced. Nevertheless, Madam, we will continue to engage stakeholder groups on this issue to allay any concerns that they may have.

As to whether the framework would be extended to overseas-based websites, the issue will be studied further in tandem with planned amendments to the Broadcasting Act. The broad intent is to ensure that overseas broadcasters that are specifically targeting Singapore will be covered under our regulatory frameworks. This has become imperative with technological advances increasingly blurring the line between local and foreign broadcasters. However, we recognise that this is a complex issue and will therefore consult widely before tabling the amendments to the Broadcasting Act in Parliament sometime next year.

Madam, let me now deal with the remaining issues raised by Members.

Mr Gerald Giam asked about past issuance of takedown notices by MDA. Since 1996, MDA has issued 24 take-down notices. One instance was for a religiously-offensive video, 21 were for pornographic content or advertisements soliciting sex or sex chats, and two were for inappropriate gambling-related content. MDA has not encountered any instance where a site-owner has refused to comply with a take-down notice. The track record has shown that, notwithstanding that the same contents standards have been in existence since 1996, MDA has not directed websites to take down content just because it is critical of the Government. There is therefore no cause for concern that the new online news licensing framework would reduce the vibrancy of online discourse or negatively impact the promotion of a more active and engaged citizenry.

Mr Zaqy Mohamad suggested setting up an independent body to review sites to be included in the licensing framework, content to be taken down, as well as hear appeals from licensees. MDA has convened panels drawn from members of the community, to help it provide input on community standards. However, Madam, it would be wrong in principle for MDA to abrogate its regulatory responsibility, and to pass decisions such as whether an entity should be licensed, to another body. There are already established processes for parties aggrieved by a regulatory decision under the Broadcasting Act to seek redress.

Mr Zaqy Mohamad also asked whether media accreditation is a potential end-result of the licensing framework. Accreditation is accorded to news organisations that cover government events and functions regularly to facilitate their work. Accreditation is not compulsory for news-related organisations to engage in news-gathering and many organisations do operate without seeing the need to apply for accreditation. The criteria considered before accreditation is conferred include the reach or distribution of the media organisation and its professional standing. Accrediting media organisations and licensing news sites are assessed and determined on very separate considerations.

Madam, in conclusion, I want to reiterate that the new licensing framework is designed to enable identified sites to move seamlessly from the existing class licence to hold an individual licence. The rationale for the change is based on the special responsibility that news providers have, because the news they produce is used by the public to come to informed decisions and opinions on matters of public interest. The licensing framework places traditional news providers and online news providers on a more consistent regulatory framework. We do not expect the new framework to have any effect on the degree of expression that currently exists in the online space. Since the introduction of the Class Licence framework in 1996, the MDA has shown itself to be balanced and restrained in the exercise of its powers to regulate online content. It has never used them to order the removal of content that is critical of Government policy or Government Ministers. Concerns that the Internet will be stifled are thus far-fetched and will prove to be unfounded in due course.

——————————

Mr Gerald Giam Yean Song: Madam, I thank the Minister for revealing that there have been 24 take-down orders since 1996 and that all of these take-down orders have been complied with. May I just ask: Were these take-down orders complied with within the time frame that MDA gave? If not, which are the sites that did not comply? Second question is since the Class Licence Scheme is working fine, why does the Government see a need to introduce this new scheme so urgently?

Assoc Prof Dr Yaacob Ibrahim: For the 24 sites that I mentioned earlier, they were subject to the Class Licence rules. Under the Class Licence rules, there is no time frame for the take-down. It is defined as “the best effort”. We worked with the website owners, discussed with them, and in most cases, the take-down was almost immediate. Out of the 24 cases, I was told by my staff, 23 cases were public complaints. People saw something on the sites which they did not agree with – it had to do with sex or gambling. The site that was featuring the video on “The Innocence of Muslims” took us some time to work through because it was hosted by a different entity altogether.

On the change, I mentioned earlier that the Class Licence Scheme has worked and – you are right. But the environment has changed; the landscape has changed. There is now a growing number of online news sites, reporting. I mentioned the example of Yahoo, but The Global Mail from Australia has been operating as an online news site.

Let us anticipate that this will grow, and put a framework in place. The framework is not so onerous. Yes, you may argue that the $50,000 bond is a challenge. As I mentioned in my reply, we will work with the companies. If they really cannot meet that, then there are other ways in which we can overcome that.

The 24-hour take-down order was really because of the nature of online news. If it goes viral and it creates havoc and panic, we need to be able to take it down within 24 hours. Even then, as I mentioned in my reply to the media when I met them after the announcement, MDA will be flexible, we will seek to understand your circumstances. You may need to take some time. We are not going to ramp this down their throat and say “You must take it down, whatever the case may be!” There may be other constraints that they are facing. And we will work with them to understand their circumstances.

The fact that there is a notice, they know that they have to behave responsibly. I think is an important point for all of us, so that we can sleep better that these sites are doing their work responsibly because they are reporting news. And news – we must all agree – is an important part of our lives and we make decisions based on the news. We have to make sure they report accurately and responsibly.

Mr David Ong (Jurong): Mdm Speaker, two supplementary questions. One, is to ask the Minister how confident the Ministry is in compelling global online news sites to remove objectionable content in breach of the MDA’s content standards within 24 hours notice, given their internal take-down regime as well as time zone differences? Secondly, why should the online news sites’ performance bond of $50,000 be pegged to the same requirement of niche TV broadcasters?

Assoc Prof Dr Yaacob Ibrahim: For the Member’s second question, I have mentioned in my reply when we looked at what criteria we wanted to impose on the online news sites, the performance bond has worked well for the niche TV licensees. Again, the $50,000 I mentioned in my reply was based on the financial means of the 10 sites. We think the idea of a bond is very important because it will hold them accountable to their actions. As I mentioned in response to Mr Giam earlier, we will be very flexible and work with the companies. If they cannot meet those requirements, we will see how best to come to an arrangement which is mutually acceptable both to MDA and the licensee.

On the first question as to whether 24 hours is a reasonable time frame for the take-down order for companies, again, we are not going to rush in and make sure we clamp them down within 24 hours. We will have to work with them. But it is something which we think is important, to hold them accountable for, whether they make the best efforts. MDA will definitely have to study each case because each company is different. So we will seek to understand the merits of their case, and if they really cannot do it within 24 hours, we can be flexible about it but at least they recognise that this is objectionable content, and that they have to take it down, and they have to make their best effort to do so. We will then see what we can do to ensure that they meet this requirement.

——————-

Source: Singapore Parliament Reports (Hansard)