'The most powerful law' in Singapore: Foreign Interference bill brings concerns for civil society

With Singapore imposing fresh Covid-19 restrictions in recent days amid surging new cases, the vaccine pacesetter's stuttering approach to adhering to its once-vaunted "living with the virus" blueprint has been the talk of the town.

In all likelihood, that topic - heatedly being debated by residents on social media, online forums and sparsely occupied coffee shops - will be on the back burner when the country's parliament convenes on Monday.

Instead, political observers expect the main action to come during the second reading debate on the draft foreign interference bill.

Do you have questions about the biggest topics and trends from around the world? Get the answers with SCMP Knowledge, our new platform of curated content with explainers, FAQs, analyses and infographics brought to you by our award-winning team.

Described by veteran political commentator Eugene Tan as having "the makings of being the most powerful law on our statute books", the 249-page Foreign Interference (Countermeasures), or Fica, bill was introduced for a first reading on September 13.

In tabling the Fica bill, the ruling People's Action Party (PAP) government said the legislation's introduction was necessary and timely, given the highly connected city state's vulnerability to foreign meddling in the internet-era.

It did not spell out whether Fica was targeting specific governments, although the Ministry of Home Affairs' press release on its introduction described instances that resembled alleged Chinese-linked activities in Australia and the European Union.

With Fica, the government will have the ability to direct global internet and social media companies to disgorge user information, remove applications from app stores, and block content, among other things. In some instances, authorities can use these measures pre-emptively - without having to give reasons.

Individuals, meanwhile, can be designated as "politically significant persons" - a status that would be publicised and require them to abide by strict rules pertaining to political donations and declaration of their links to foreign entities.

Those who wish to challenge the countermeasures imposed will have a right to appeal, but only via mechanisms that exist outside the remit of the judiciary.

The courts will otherwise have limited say in how authorities use the law, with judicial review restricted under the proposed bill. The government has said its proposal for these oversight measures took into account the likelihood that decisions may involve sensitive information and intelligence that cannot be divulged in open court processes.

Rights activists, lawyers and the opposition have in recent days expressed alarm over the sweeping nature of these powers.

Of particular worry is that the PAP, with a long track record of being thin-skinned when it comes to dissent, could potentially abuse Fica by using the law against domestic opponents.

"Thus far, the government is predisposed to giving its assurance that it would wield Fica's powers in a lawful manner and not for political ends," said Tan, a Singapore Management University law professor. "However, such assurances must find unequivocal expression in the law itself. That is necessary to ensure that Fica will not be abused".

Compounding this concern about Fica's expansive reach has been the seeming haste the government has displayed over passing the law.

Expectations are that the second reading debate will take place on Monday, with a third reading and a vote for the legislature to approve the bill likely taking place on the same day.

With the PAP controlling 83 of the legislature's 104 seats, Fica's passage into law - after receiving assent by President Halimah Yacob - is a formality.

Gerald Giam, a lawmaker with the opposition Workers' Party, said the bill's length and multiple sections - 127 in total - made it difficult to understand.

"Yet if passed without amendment, it will potentially have a significant impact on free speech and government accountability," Giam wrote on social media on Thursday.

His party, which is the main opposition group in the country with 10 elected MPs, has tabled various amendments to the bill which it says will limit authorities' powers under Fica and prevent abuse, ensure greater transparency and provide for greater oversight over how the legislation is used.

Leong Mun Wai, a non-constituency MP - a position reserved for best-performing losing election candidates - suggested the bill was a distraction, given the country's ongoing surge in Covid-19 infections and deaths.

"We have no heart to debate Fica but we still have to do it on October 4 because it is so important for us to deliberate thoroughly on it," wrote the Progress Singapore Party politician on Twitter.

OPPOSING COMMENTARIES

Given the esoteric, highly technical nature of the debate surrounding the bill, much of the talk about it has been among experts, including civil rights-focused lawyers.

Harpreet Singh Nehal, a senior lawyer, in a Straits Times commentary on Tuesday flagged the "extremely broad language" of the bill.

This risked "capturing perfectly legitimate collaborative activity undertaken by Singapore citizens and local non-governmental organisations [NGOs] to influence and improve our laws and public policies," Singh wrote.

The lawyer also took issue with the special provisions proposed that will allow appeals against so-called Part 3 directions - which are directives by the executive to individuals or organisations - to be heard by a reviewing tribunal, noting that this mechanism was "not part of the Singapore judicial system nor subject to the de rigueur appeal process within our court system".

Carol Soon, a researcher with the state-linked Institute of Policy Studies think tank, meanwhile flagged the bill's provision that even "collaboration" with a foreign principal could be construed as conduct or activity on behalf of that external actor.

The legislation does not specify what "collaboration" entails, potentially meaning a wide range of activities involving foreign actors - including in research and civil society - could be proscribed.

"The definition of foreign interference and its measurements would have to be sharp and clear so as not to diminish Singapore's position as a node in the global network of collaboration and creation," wrote Soon in a commentary for the Today newspaper.

On Friday, establishment stalwart Ong Keng Yong, an ambassador-at-large, co-authored a rebuttal to Singh's views, saying there was no reason to be concerned about "legitimate" collaborations with foreigners, among other things.

In the commentary, Ong, a lawyer by training, and top intellectual property lawyer Stanley Lai, said various instances of "broad language" used in the bill were in fact also present in existing laws - including the Public Order Act which governs public assemblies in the country.

The government for its part told This Week in Asia in an emailed response to questions that the proposed law was "primarily concerned about covert and clandestine activities" that polarised society, created public disorder, manipulated domestic politics or undermined political sovereignty.

Fica was not aimed at "open, transparent and attributable activities, transactions, relationships, or even criticisms" and "does not stop businesses and organisations from building overseas partnerships or soliciting overseas business, networking with foreigners, going to conferences or seminars, or supporting charities," the Ministry of Home Affairs said.

Involvement with foreign principals alone would not trigger countermeasures, and the home affairs minister can only issue directives to deal with "hostile information campaigns" when clear thresholds set out in the proposed law are met, it said.

The ministry did not directly respond to a question on whether the bill was being rushed, but noted that the topic of foreign interference had been "extensively discussed" in the country, including during parliamentary proceedings since 2019.

CIVIL SOCIETY CONCERN

For the country's civil society, concerns about the bill are far from just about technicalities.

Apart from its pre-emptive powers and attempted circumscription of judicial powers, the law had the potential to be the most powerful law of the land, said Tan of the Singapore Management University, as it could potentially "provide the government of the day with significant wherewithal to curb legitimate civil society activity".

Said Tan: "I would want to see the government making the case persuasively that the Bill does balance the scales [power vs safeguards] without thwarting the government's proclivity for an ample legal arsenal and enervating the ground-up activism that is also needed to counter foreign interference."

Thirty-three arts and civil society groups were among the signatories of a petition that called for Fica to be put through a select committee following the debate. The petition called for the law's passage to be delayed pending more extensive public consultation on the effects and implications of the proposed legislation.

Leong, the PSP politician, will present the petition to parliament on Monday, according to the order paper for the sitting.

Kirsten Han, a prominent local journalist, activist and critic of the PAP, in a commentary for the Rest of World website on Friday, said she was worried officials who previously sought to deliberately paint her as a recipient of foreign funding would now be able "to take action based on their suspicions and opinions".

She noted that the Minister of Law and Home Affairs, K. Shanmugam had previously "misrepresented comments that I made about civil resistance and organising to paint a picture of me taking foreign funding to incite Singaporeans to protest in the streets".

"Instead of just being talked about, I could end up designated as a 'politically significant person' and required to report all my affiliations with foreigners and foreign entities to the government - even if they aren't related to political activity in Singapore," wrote Han, author of the widely read We, The Citizens newsletter.

Shanmugam, who in 2019 first publicised the need for updated foreign interference legislation - citing covert threats he said were potentially greater than conventional military force - is expected to open Monday's debate with a speech detailing the government's rationale for introducing the law.

In its statement to This Week in Asia, the Ministry of Home Affairs underscored that Singapore was "not the only or first country" to introduce legislation aimed at tackling foreign interference, and said the republic had studied similar laws implemented overseas.

It said some countries had laws governing local proxies of foreign actors that were "wider in coverage" than Fica, "but our measures are more comprehensive to protect against the various ways in which foreign interference can be conducted".

This article originally appeared on the South China Morning Post (SCMP).

Copyright (c) 2021. South China Morning Post Publishers Ltd. All rights reserved.