Singapore’s Parliament has passed a law that intends to prevent foreign interference in its domestic politics. The same is being criticised by the opposition and human rights activists, terming it a tool to crush dissent.
The final discussions happened on October 4, stretching into midnight (Singapore time) after more than ten hours of intense debate in Parliament. The main drivers behind this law include apparent threats Singapore is facing owing to foreign interference. Singapore’s law and home affairs minister K Shanmugam said Singapore was vulnerable to “hostile information campaigns” carried out from overseas and through local proxies.
The Foreign Interference (Countermeasures) Act (FICA) will allow authorities to induce internet service providers and social media platforms to block content and remove applications used to spread content deemed hostile and provide user information to help investigate and counter hostile communications activity of foreign origin. It will also empower the Minister for Home Affairs to order takedowns of content deemed part of hostile information campaigns.
What is FICA?
FICA is a measured piece of regulation that empowers the government to act surgically against “threats that have come and continue to loom over us”, commented Law and Home Affairs Minister K Shanmugam. People’s Action Party, which he is a part of and the party that has governed Singapore for more than six decades, passed the bill with 75 votes in favor. Eleven votes were against the bill, and there were two abstentions.
This law has been in the pipeline for a few years now. In 2019, law and home affairs minister K. Shanmugam opined that new measures were required to deal with a threat that was at times graver than conventional military force.
While the Singapore government did not effectively name any specific country or government trying to interfere in Singapore’s internal affairs, the Ministry of Home Affairs outlined two recent instances of foreign interference that resembled incidents involving alleged Chinese-linked activities. Experts say that multiple factors point towards China being the prime reason for Singapore’s coming up with this law as China has been the most active country in employing unfair and illegal lobbying efforts in the region.
Minister Shanmugam added, “The bill will strengthen our ability to prevent, detect and disrupt foreign interference in our domestic politics conducted through hostile information campaigns and the use of local proxies”.
“These provisions do not apply to Singaporeans expressing their own views on political matters unless they are agents of a foreign principal. Singaporeans have the right to discuss politics. Nor do they apply to foreign individuals or foreign publications reporting or commenting on Singapore politics, in an open, transparent, and attributable way, even if their comments may be critical of Singapore or the government.” the statement added. “And these are important to ensure that Singaporeans continue to make our own choices on how we should govern our country and live our lives.”
The law also enables the government to ask platforms like Facebook and Twitter to disable or limit functions that allow content deemed to be improper to go viral. In a more extreme measure, the Singapore government can order app distribution services such as the relevant Apple or Google stores to block apps being used for foreign interference from being downloaded in Singapore.
Additionally, the government can also issue a “technical assistance direction” to social media services to divulge information related a post or an individual to determine if the harmful communications activity is being undertaken by or on behalf of a foreign principal. The ministry can pre-empt incidents that lead to harmful online activity.
The law will look to clamp down on individuals and organizations that act as proxies for foreign governments looking to interfere in Singapore’s internal affairs. Even members of parliament, ministers and election candidates will come under this rule. Those outside of this ambit, who are still deemed to be indulging in activities that have political ends will be termed “politically significant persons” while being subjected to these laws.
To review cases on hostile information campaigns and other items that come under this law, an independent tribunal consisting of a High Court judge and two other individuals outside the government will be convened. Members of the tribunal will be selected based on their areas of expertise, Shanmugam said. They will have to undergo security vetting because they will be receiving highly classified information and must protect it under the Official Secrets Act.
Subtly reminding the parliament of the need to safeguard the secular and multicultural aspect of the country, Minister Shanmugam commented that “The island-nation’s racial and religious mix made it easily exploitable by foreign manipulation aimed at swaying opinion and sowing division.”
What triggered FICA?
In recent years, there have been numerous cases of foreign interference in European nations, Australia and even in Singapore, albeit on a very small scale. While this law has induced a lot of discussions on the need for it, Singapore is not the first to pass such a law and Australia and Russia have already passed laws of similar nature.
In his debate speech, Law and Home minister Shanmugam referred to a particular report by the Strategic Research Institute of France’s military college on influence operations, which named Singapore as among the country case studies. The report is called “Chinese influence operations – a Machiavellian moment”. The 646-page report talks extensively about how Beijing is trying to increase its infiltration and coercive methods resembling the methods employed by Russia in the past and present. It is a “Machiavellian moment” in the sense that China now seems to believe that, as Machiavelli wrote in The Prince, “it is safer to be feared than to be loved”.
The report also focuses on China’s advances, with its ambition to cover the entire spectrum of influence, from the most benign (public diplomacy) to the most malignant interference (clandestine activities). It lists down China’s exploits and actions taken by Beijing regarding the diasporas, the media, diplomacy, the economy, politics, education, think tanks and in terms of information manipulation, among other levers; and finally, some case studies (Taiwan, Singapore, Sweden, Canada, and operations targeting Hong Kong protesters in 2019 or trying to make people believe in the American origin of Covid-19 in 2020).
Minister Shanmugam explained why no foreign governments or actors were not referred to directly, stating, “We have taken the approach not to name foreign state actors whom we suspect to be involved in these attempts. There are wider national and foreign policy considerations in doing so…National security concerns may make it impractical to publish the reasons for actions taken”.
A noteworthy example of what the Singapore government was protecting itself against is the story of Sam Dastyari, the ex-NSW senator (Australia), who resigned from the upper house four years ago after his links with billionaire Chinese political donor Huang Xiangmo were revealed. Sam Dastyari was found to have contradicted the Labor party’s stand on the South China Sea in a press conference to a Chinese media house in Sydney in 2016 while being accompanied by Huang, whose Yuhu Group had covered a $5000 legal bill for him. While Huang was being surveilled, he also warned him of his phone being bugged. This gave rise to Australia’s Foreign Influence Transparency Scheme in the year 2018.
Similar cases have also been reported and established in the EU and other parts of the world. This law will also make it easier for Singapore to deal with incidents like the one in May 2021, where the US Embassy in Singapore was hosting a webinar with an LGBT rights group. The Singapore government had commented that “foreign missions here are not to interfere in our domestic, social and political matters”.
What are the concerns for critics and the opposition?
Campaigners against this law voice out that this will further curb civil liberties of Singaporeans. The principal opposition in Singapore, the Workers’ Party had actively participated in the 10-hour long debate and called for changes to be made to the draft bill, raising concerns about its broad provisions.
The deputy Asia director for Human Rights Watch, Mr. Phil Robertson, has put out a statement saying that the government of Singapore is using foreign influence as a “bogeyman to justify their expanded persecution of opposition politicians, civil society activists and independent media”.
ALSO READ: North Korea says it fired anti-aircraft missile, fourth recent test
Other critics also point out the possibility of these laws being used against those who may not toe the line set by the government and ruling party, starting with independent media outlets. This concern is strong due to the closure of The Online Citizen, one of Singapore’s oldest independent political news websites owing to the Singapore government’s pressures. The government had asked the media group to fully declare its funding sources after a long dispute.
Before the final discussions, the Workers’ Party released a statement saying the party wants the country’s high court to hear appeals against decisions made under the planned legislation rather than an independent tribunal. The party also wants revisions to a clause that defines activities “directed towards a political end in Singapore” which would be covered under the law.
“While the WP believes in countering legitimate acts of foreign interference, we disagree with the current form of the Bill in achieving the said objective,” the party said. Following this, the Singapore parliament debated the bill for over ten hours before passing it as a law.
The high level of executive power introduced by a Bill to counter foreign interference in Singapore demands that there should also be robust judicial oversight to prevent abuse, said Leader of the Opposition Pritam Singh in the Parliament debate over the bill. He said there was “considerable disquiet in some quarters” over the speed at which the bill had been presented to the House, adding that the Government should have sought public feedback first. He also questioned why the Government had been “largely muted” on non-legislative measures to fight foreign interference, such as through public education.
In 2019, Singapore introduced a law aimed at combatting online misinformation that was similarly criticised by rights groups and tech giants for curbing free speech. Recently, Arvind Kejriwal’s unfair comments on Singapore had almost pushed Singapore to book him under this law.
Will other nations follow suit?
The trend of foreign interference and influence in local affairs and politics is not a new one. But the modus operandi and the effects of the same has radically changed in the last decade, more so owing to the burgeoning amount of data and social media presence. Therefore, Singapore’s new law may become a new basis of sorts for other governments, especially in Asia, to look at and adopt as per their internal needs and requirements.
As the largest democracy, India has had issues about fake news, foreign interference, and other aspects covered in this law. We have seen many foreign NGO’s accused of interfering in local affairs and their licenses cancelled owing to improper funding details and conduct. We have also seen foreign think tanks and organisations accused of trying to peddle foreign narratives and interests into the Indian ecosystem. In recent times, India has taken strong objections to statements by people like President of Canada Justin Trudeau, who berated the country for using water cannons and tear gas on farm law protesters. Here, it was evident that Trudeau was attempting to pander to his Sikh voter base in Canada. Before this, the CAA (Citizenship Amendment Act) was heavily criticised by the Labour party in the UK. The Indian government has also been critical of many foreign media houses for showing India in a bad light during the COVID pandemic when countries like USA and others continue to struggle with a fraction of the population India has.
So, it looks a strong possibility that India may see the need to adopt a page from this new legislation passed in Singapore.
Similarly, countries like Sri Lanka and the Maldives may also adopt something similar to this owing to excessive amounts of foreign interference in their strategic affairs. The critics of such laws will continue to opine strongly against such curbs. The extensive range of powers in the hands of the government coupled with the limited powers of the courts to review and thereby interfere are becoming a challenge to the proponents of democracy.
The Singapore government to its defence insists that the law is not intended to curtail criticism or legitimate interaction with foreigners, saying it is instead targeting “coordinated, deceptive methods by hostile foreign actors to manipulate our political discourse and disrupt our society. We do not believe that the legislation prevents the bona fide exchange of ideas”.
(India Today)
