Singapore has passed a law prohibiting “foreign interference” that the government said was aimed at preventing threats to national security and sovereignty, but which critics warned would have a chilling effect on free speech.
The Foreign Interference (Countermeasures) Act, or Fica, gives authorities broad powers to target people who act on behalf of a “foreign principal” and carries the threat of imprisonment and fines.
The legislation was approved by the ruling party-dominated parliament late on Monday after a 10-hour debate, having been tabled last month.
The law covers online hostile information campaigns conducted by foreign parties as well as interference through local proxies deemed to be “politically significant persons”.
Singapore’s governing People’s Action party wrote on its Facebook page the aim of Fica was to “stop foreign states from dividing our society and interfering in our politics”.
“The philosophy is that our politics is for Singaporeans to deal with,” K Shanmugam, the law and home affairs minister, said during a second reading of the bill on Monday. “We can argue, disagree, but ultimately it is for us to decide.”
Responding to what he called “common misperceptions” about the law, Shanmugam argued that Fica would not substantively expand the government’s powers, comparing it to efforts by the US and Australia to tackle foreign interference in democratic processes.
He added that government investigations under the act would be held in check by a tribunal led by a Supreme Court judge, rather than in open court, to protect “sensitive information”.
However, opposition MPs argued during the debate that the law’s sweeping provisions risked enabling abuse by people making malicious claims.
“If these draconian measures are not properly limited, they could have a chilling effect on freedom of speech and the exchange of information among Singaporeans,” said Gerald Giam, an MP with the centre-left Workers’ party, in remarks quoted on the party’s Facebook page.
Under the law, the government could compel internet service providers and social media platforms to block or remove content found to be harmful to the city-state’s interests and to provide user information or terminate user accounts.
Daron Tan, a legal consultant with the International Commission of Jurists, an advocacy group, said Fica was “not compliant with human rights law and standards”.
“The language used in Fica is vague and overbroad, and is likely to be used to unduly curtail the rights to freedom of expression, information and association and the right to privacy,” said Tan. “Also troubling is the subversion of the rule of law by [Fica’s] attempts to curtail the role of the courts to review the government’s exercise of powers.”
Shanmugam railed on Monday against critics of Fica, who he accused of “actively trying to put out misinformation about the bill”, under which “politically significant persons” will be required to declare “foreign affiliations” and donations.
He also claimed that billionaire philanthropist George Soros’s Open Society Foundations, a frequent target of nationalist governments worldwide, had “a history of getting involved in the domestic politics of sovereign countries”.
Kirsten Han, an independent journalist who Shanmugam accused by name on Monday of spreading misinformation about the law, said it was overly broad, allowing the minister of home affairs to issue orders based on suspicions of local proxies working for foreign actors.
In 2019, Singapore passed an “online falsehoods” bill that carried fines of up to S$1m ($740,000) and jail sentences of up to 10 years for publishing false or misleading information with “malicious intent”.
“The government’s assurances during the debate yesterday were not actually assuring,” Han told the Financial Times. “They’re saying that you have nothing to worry about unless you’re a foreign proxy, but they’re the ones who get to point the finger.”
Follow John Reed on Twitter: @JohnReedwrites
