Foreign interference in Singapore extensively discussed since 2018: Shanmugam

THE issue of foreign interference in Singapore has been discussed extensively since 2018, with most of the evidence heard during a select committee of Parliament on fake news, Law and Home Affairs Minister K Shanmugam said on Monday.

"Some have said there have been no discussions, why is the bill being put through so quickly, and have there been no discussions? We have been talking about this very seriously for more than three years extensively," Mr Shanmugam said during the Second Reading of the Foreign Interference (Countermeasures) bill (Fica) in Parliament.

At that time, 20 persons and organisations, including experts gave testimonies at the Select Committee on Deliberate Online Falsehoods, he noted.

"Experts also highlighted that Singapore has been targeted and is especially vulnerable when race and religion is used as an issue of protest potential," said Mr Shanmugam.

He also outlined examples where Singapore had been subjected to cyber attacks and manipulation in recent times, including a 2018 incident where hackers stole the data of 1.5 million patients from SingHealth's databases.

"The threat of foreign interference and its seriousness is not disputed by most people. Most people also agree that something needs to be done, so this is the context in which we are moving this bill," he said.

GET BT IN YOUR INBOX DAILY

Start and end each day with the latest news stories and analyses delivered straight to your inbox.

Sign UpVIEW ALL

The Fica bill, first tabled on September 13, targets hostile information campaigns conducted by foreign parties while dealing with foreign interference through local proxies.

It grants the Minister for Home Affairs a suite of powers that include directing entities such as social media services to block "hostile communications" of foreign origin, as well as to compel politically significant persons to disclose foreign affiliations or donations.

Mr Shanmugam noted that there has been some degree of misrepresentations on Fica, that the bill seeks to curtail normal interactions with foreigners.

"That is not true. Singapore depends for its success and vitality on being open, and a government that seeks to close down that will lead Singapore to ruin," he said.

Comparing Fica to the United State's Foreign Agents Restriction Act and Australia's Foreign Influence Transparency Scheme, Mr Shanmugam said Singapore's approach differs, with a much narrower definition and designation of politically significant persons.

In Singapore, this applies to individuals and non-individuals whose activities are directed towards a political end as assessed by a competent authority, which also determines that it is in the public interest that countermeasures be applied.

In the case of hostile information campaigns, action can be taken if the minister assesses it is in the public interest to do so against internet activity that is made on behalf of a foreign principal.

The definition of "public interest" hinges on what is "necessary" or "expedient", said Mr Shanmugam.

"So if a decision has to be made on the basis that it's necessary or expedient, you've got to look at the facts carefully and the actions you want to take must be proportional," he said.

"The vast majority of collaborations, linkages will not meet the required conditions, and they will also not meet the requirement of proportionality," he added.

Collaborations and partnerships with a foreign person by itself is not the trigger, he said, but the authorities could give orders for transparency if, for example, there is deception involved, such as if a foreigner hides his identity or masquerades as local.

"The difficulty we face at MHA, and which many other countries face in dealing with this foreign interference issue, is that out of 10,000 interactions, one might be the sort that you're interested in, where there is an attempt to interfere and foreign agencies, and even (non-government) agencies, NGOs, others will try and present a legitimate front," he said.

"So the language has got to be broad enough to cover that - that what is apparently normal but is actually not normal."

Since the bill was first tabled, it has drawn concern from some lawyers and academics on the potentially wide-sweeping powers it affords the government as well as the risk of abuse.

Addressing these concerns, Mr Shanmugam said: "It's a degree of risk. There are also risks in not giving the power. The real issue is what power should you give, what are the risks in not giving the power."

The risk is if the government abuses its power so that perfectly normal collaboration is interfered with, he said.

"You have to weigh the risks of a rogue government doing that versus a rogue foreign interference. The latter is a far greater risk," he said.

READ MORE:

• Calls for public consultation and more accountability among objections to Fica
• 'Legitimate business activities' will not be captured within scope of Fica: MHA
• Fica could affect perceptions of Singapore as global hub