Jump to content

Foreign Interference (Countermeasures) Act 2021: Difference between revisions

Edit links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
Restored revision 1049112975 by Kingoflettuce (talk): Revert vandalism
Tags: Twinkle Undo Reverted
Undid revision 1052041018 by Kingoflettuce (talk) Reverted. It is '''not''' vandalism. Refer to the talk page and RESPOND to it before adding it back.
Tags: Undo Reverted references removed
Line 1: Line 1:
{{POV|date=October 2021}}
{{Infobox legislation
{{Infobox legislation
| short_title = Foreign Interference (Countermeasures) Act 2021
| short_title = Foreign Interference (Countermeasures) Act 2021
Line 39: Line 40:


==Reactions and statements==
==Reactions and statements==
{{POV-section|date=October 2021}}
===Support===
===Support===
[[Facebook]] issued a statement agreeing with the goals of the bill, while also noting that it was worded "very broadly".<ref>{{cite news|url=https://www.channelnewsasia.com/singapore/foreign-interference-fica-singapore-facebook-2206726|title=Facebook agrees with Singapore Government on tackling foreign interference, but says proposed law worded 'very broadly'|date=28 September 2021|first=Aqil Haziq|last=Mahmud|newspaper=[[CNA (TV network)|CNA]]}}</ref>
[[Facebook]] issued a statement agreeing with the goals of the bill, while also noting that it was worded "very broadly".<ref>{{cite news|url=https://www.channelnewsasia.com/singapore/foreign-interference-fica-singapore-facebook-2206726|title=Facebook agrees with Singapore Government on tackling foreign interference, but says proposed law worded 'very broadly'|date=28 September 2021|first=Aqil Haziq|last=Mahmud|newspaper=[[CNA (TV network)|CNA]]}}</ref>


===Opposition===
===Opposition===
[[Reporters Without Borders]] described the act as "legal monstrosity with totalitarian leanings", while asserting that "(i)t is clearly independent media outlets that the FICA is targeting on national sovereignty grounds."<ref>{{cite web|url=https://rsf.org/en/news/singapores-foreign-interference-bill-legal-monstrosity-totalitarian-leanings|publisher=[[Reporters Without Borders]]|title=Singapore’s foreign interference bill – legal monstrosity with totalitarian leanings|date=23 September 2021|accessdate=3 October 2021}}</ref> Activist [[Thum Ping Tjin]] claimed that the bill was a "coup" attempt by Minister for Home Affairs [[K. Shanmugam]].<ref>{{cite news|url=https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoGbFo5vJL0|newspaper=[[CNA (TV network)|CNA]]|title=K Shanmugam on misconceptions about Foreign Interference (Countermeasures) Bill (FICA) in Singapore|date=4 October 2021}}</ref><ref>{{cite news|url=https://www.scmp.com/week-asia/politics/article/3151144/singapore-law-minister-defends-foreign-interference-bill-best|title=Singapore parliament passes foreign interference bill amid opposition calls for checks on abuse of power|first=Bhavan|last=Jaipragas|newspaper=[[South China Morning Post]]|date=4 October 2021}}</ref> Member of Parliament [[Gerald Giam]] opined that the bill had a "significant impact on free speech and government accountability".<ref name=scmp021021/> In a joint statement published on 1 October, Singaporean academics Cherian George, Chong Ja Ian, Linda Lim, and Teo You Yenn expressed their concern that Fica would curtail academic freedom in the country.<ref>{{cite news|url=https://www.straitstimes.com/singapore/politics/academic-activities-not-under-threat-from-anti-foreign-interference-law-mha|title=Academic activities not under threat from anti-foreign interference law: MHA|date=3 October 2021|first=Rei|last=Kurohi|newspaper=[[The Straits Times]]}}</ref> A day after the legislation was passed, [[Amnesty International]] described Fica as "a tool for crushing dissent".<ref>{{cite web|url=https://www.amnesty.org/en/latest/news/2021/10/singapore-foreign-interference-law-dissent/|title=Singapore: Foreign interference law is a tool for crushing dissent|date=5 October 2021|publisher=[[Amnesty International]]|accessdate=6 October 2021}}</ref> Following K. Shanmugam's parliamentary speech on Fica, several activists, including [[Kirsten Han]], [[Lim Tean]], [[Jolovan Wham]], and [[Terry Xu]], were served with correction orders under the [[Protection from Online Falsehoods and Manipulation Act]] for insinuating that he had said that "rule of law does not operate in Singapore".<ref>{{cite news|url=https://www.straitstimes.com/singapore/politics/pofma-office-to-issue-targeted-correction-direction-to-twitter-after-activist|title=Pofma Office to issue targeted correction direction to Twitter over Jolovan Wham's post|date=9 October 2021|first=Nadine|last=Chua|newspaper=[[The Straits Times]]}}</ref>
Member of Parliament [[Gerald Giam]] opined that the bill had a "significant impact on free speech and government accountability".<ref name=scmp021021/> In a joint statement published on 1 October, Singaporean academics Cherian George, Chong Ja Ian, Linda Lim, and Teo You Yenn expressed their concern that Fica would curtail academic freedom in the country.<ref>{{cite news|url=https://www.straitstimes.com/singapore/politics/academic-activities-not-under-threat-from-anti-foreign-interference-law-mha|title=Academic activities not under threat from anti-foreign interference law: MHA|date=3 October 2021|first=Rei|last=Kurohi|newspaper=[[The Straits Times]]}}</ref> Following K. Shanmugam's parliamentary speech on Fica, several activists, including [[Kirsten Han]], [[Lim Tean]], [[Jolovan Wham]], and [[Terry Xu]], were served with correction orders under the [[Protection from Online Falsehoods and Manipulation Act]] for insinuating that he had said that "rule of law does not operate in Singapore".<ref>{{cite news|url=https://www.straitstimes.com/singapore/politics/pofma-office-to-issue-targeted-correction-direction-to-twitter-after-activist|title=Pofma Office to issue targeted correction direction to Twitter over Jolovan Wham's post|date=9 October 2021|first=Nadine|last=Chua|newspaper=[[The Straits Times]]}}</ref>


==Legislative history==
==Legislative history==

Revision as of 01:37, 27 October 2021

Foreign Interference (Countermeasures) Act 2021
Parliament of Singapore
  • An Act to counteract foreign interference in the public interest, to repeal the Political Donations Act (Chapter 236 of the 2001 Revised Edition) and to make consequential and related amendments to certain other Acts.
Considered byParliament of Singapore
Passed4 October 2021
Legislative history
Bill titleForeign Interference (Countermeasures) Bill
Bill citationBill 24 of 2021
Introduced byK. Shanmugam (Minister for Home Affairs)
Introduced13 September 2021
First reading13 September 2021
Second reading4 October 2021
Third reading4 October 2021

The Foreign Interference (Countermeasures) Act 2021, or Fica,[1] is a statute of the Parliament of Singapore that was enacted in 2021 that seeks to "protect the public interest by counteracting acts of foreign interference".[2] The bill was introduced on 13 September 2021 and passed on 4 October 2021.

Background

Legislation targeting foreign influence in Singapore had been mooted in as early as 2017.[3] In March 2021, Second Minister for Home Affairs Josephine Teo announced that the government was considering the use of "legislative levers" to combat foreign influence.[4]

Key provisions

The act grants the Minister for Home Affairs the authority to investigate individuals suspected of being foreign agents engaged in "hostile information campaigns". An independent panel, chaired by a judge, will consider appeals against the minister's findings, although persons marked as "political significant" will not be allowed to file such appeals. Authorities will also be allowed to compel social media platforms and website operators to hand over user data,[5] without any justification in select instances.[6]

Reactions and statements

Support

Facebook issued a statement agreeing with the goals of the bill, while also noting that it was worded "very broadly".[7]

Opposition

Member of Parliament Gerald Giam opined that the bill had a "significant impact on free speech and government accountability".[6] In a joint statement published on 1 October, Singaporean academics Cherian George, Chong Ja Ian, Linda Lim, and Teo You Yenn expressed their concern that Fica would curtail academic freedom in the country.[8] Following K. Shanmugam's parliamentary speech on Fica, several activists, including Kirsten Han, Lim Tean, Jolovan Wham, and Terry Xu, were served with correction orders under the Protection from Online Falsehoods and Manipulation Act for insinuating that he had said that "rule of law does not operate in Singapore".[9]

Legislative history

The Foreign Interference (Countermeasures) Bill was introduced to Parliament on 13 September 2021 by Minister for Home Affairs K. Shanmugam.[10] On 30 September, Non-constituency Member of Parliament Leong Mun Wai filed an unsuccessful petition to delay the passage of the bill.[11][12] A second reading of the bill took place on 4 October,[6] during which Shanmugam gave a two-hour-long speech defending Fica,[13] while stating that the government would accept some of the 44 amendments proposed by the Workers' Party.[14] The bill was passed in Parliament the same day, at around 11:15 pm; 75 Members of Parliament (all 70 from the People's Action Party and 5 Nominated Members of Parliament) voted in favour of the legislation, whereas 11 from the Workers' Party and the Progress Singapore Party objected with 2 abstentions (all NMPs).[15][16]

References

  1. ^ Ong, Justin (29 September 2021). "WP proposes changes to S'pore's draft anti-foreign interference law, citing need for greater transparency". The Straits Times.
  2. ^ "Foreign Interference (Countermeasures) Bill". Singapore Statutes Online. 13 September 2021. Retrieved 3 October 2021.
  3. ^ Chua, Alfred (1 August 2017). "Discerning electorate best defence against foreign influence: Chan Chun Sing". Today.
  4. ^ Baharudin, Hariz (1 March 2021). "S'pore studying new laws to protect Republic from foreign interference, says Josephine Teo". The Straits Times.
  5. ^ "Singapore parliament to debate 'foreign interference' law". Al Jazeera. 4 October 2021.
  6. ^ a b c Jaipragas, Bhavan (2 October 2021). "'The most powerful law' in Singapore: Foreign Interference bill brings concerns for civil society". South China Morning Post. (subscription required)
  7. ^ Mahmud, Aqil Haziq (28 September 2021). "Facebook agrees with Singapore Government on tackling foreign interference, but says proposed law worded 'very broadly'". CNA.
  8. ^ Kurohi, Rei (3 October 2021). "Academic activities not under threat from anti-foreign interference law: MHA". The Straits Times.
  9. ^ Chua, Nadine (9 October 2021). "Pofma Office to issue targeted correction direction to Twitter over Jolovan Wham's post". The Straits Times.
  10. ^ Baharudin, Hariz (13 September 2021). "Proposed law seeks to counter foreign interference in S'pore politics, measures include take-down and blocking orders". The Straits Times.
  11. ^ Ong, Justin (30 September 2021). "PSP NCMP submits petition to Parliament to delay anti-foreign interference law pending more consultation, scrutiny". The Straits Times.
  12. ^ Ong, Justin (4 October 2021). "Debate on proposed law to counter foreign interference goes ahead after petition to delay it fails". The Straits Times.
  13. ^ "K Shanmugam on Singapore's Foreign Interference (Countermeasures) Bill". CNA. 4 October 2021.
  14. ^ Jaipragas, Bhavan. "Singapore law minister defends foreign interference bill as 'best balance' to face risks, check against abuse". South China Morning Post.
  15. ^ Ong, Justin (4 October 2021). "Singapore passes law to counter foreign interference after 10-hour Parliament debate". The Straits Times.
  16. ^ "Singapore passes foreign interference law allowing authorities to block internet content". The Guardian. 5 October 2021.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Foreign_Interference_(Countermeasures)_Act_2021&oldid=1052042787"