WP pushes safeguards for suicide content, sexual grooming; public interest checks in online safety bill

SINGAPORE: The Workers’ Party (WP) filed proposed amendments to the Online Safety (Relief and Accountability) Bill (OSRA), which is scheduled for its second reading in Parliament on 4 November 2025.

The OSRA Bill, tabled on 15 October, aims to strengthen online safety by providing individuals with timely legal recourse and redress for online harms.

It is jointly introduced by the Ministry of Digital Development and Information (MDDI) and the Ministry of Law (MinLaw).

If passed, the Bill will establish a new statutory body — the Online Safety Commission (OSC) — tasked with administering reporting mechanisms for victims and enforcing compliance among online service providers.

Addressing five key categories of online harm

First announced by Prime Minister Lawrence Wong in 2024, the OSC is expected to become operational by mid-2026.

Under the proposed OSRA, the OSC would regulate 13 categories of online harm, including harassment, doxxing, stalking, intimate image abuse and child exploitation. Individuals could face fines of up to S$20,000 or 12 months’ jail, while platforms may be penalised up to S$500,000.

WP’s proposed amendments, revealed on 29 Oct, seek to expand this list to better reflect evolving online risks and provide stronger protection for vulnerable groups.

Expanding harmful content definitions

Among the central proposals, WP recommends that the definition of harmful online content be broadened to include publication of online material that encourages or promotes suicide or deliberate self-injury, and sexual grooming of persons below 18 years old or vulnerable adults.

The proposed addition recognises the growing concern around online material that normalises or glorifies self-harm, as well as the increasing prevalence of grooming behaviours targeting minors and vulnerable individuals.

The amendment provides that legitimate academic, medical, or artistic communications would not fall under these definitions, as long as they do not pose undue risk to individuals below the age of 16.

Ensuring “public interest” protections

In addition to expanding the scope of online harms, WP has also introduced several provisions to safeguard legitimate public discourse.

Under the proposed amendments, online communications that form part of fair comment on matters of public interest would not be classified as harassment.

Similarly, disclosures of private information would be exempted from liability if the public interest in disclosure outweighs the interest in maintaining privacy.

The proposal lists examples of such public interest grounds, including:

• Informing the public on issues of significant concern;

• Exposing wrongdoing, corruption, or miscarriages of justice;

• Protecting public health and safety;

• Supporting national security; and

• Ensuring open justice and proper governance.

A similar clause would apply to communications that could otherwise be seen as causing “disproportionate harm” online, provided they relate to public interest matters.

WP has argued that these additions would prevent the Bill from being used to suppress legitimate expression, such as investigative journalism or advocacy.

Transparency and accountability requirements

To enhance oversight, WP proposed that the Commissioner of the Online Safety Commission be required to submit an annual report to Parliament.

The report would outline:

• The number and types of online harm reports received;

• Directions and enforcement actions taken;

• Risk assessment findings and emerging trends;

• Privacy protection measures; and

• Accessibility of redress mechanisms, especially for vulnerable adults.

Additionally, WP’s proposal mandates that online service providers publicly disclose their own risk assessments, privacy practices, and procedures for complaints and reporting harmful content.

These measures are aimed at promoting transparency, accountability, and public confidence in how the OSRA is implemented.

Appeals process to the High Court

WP has also proposed the insertion of a new clause allowing appeals to be made to the General Division of the High Court.

Under this amendment, individuals or entities may appeal decisions or directions made by the OSRA Appeal Committee on specific grounds — such as points of law, questions of fact, or technical impossibility of compliance.

The High Court would have the authority to confirm, vary, or set aside such decisions and issue further orders as deemed appropriate.

Additional provisions for reporting and consultation

Further amendments propose new sections mandating risk assessment, reporting, and accessibility requirements.

The Commissioner would be empowered to consult with advocacy groups representing women, children, and vulnerable adults when preparing annual reports.

Online platforms would also be compelled to provide and publish publicly accessible information on:

• Risk assessments and privacy measures;

• User reporting and complaint mechanisms; and

• Timelines and remedies offered to victims.

These changes aim to ensure greater transparency and collaboration between regulators, industry stakeholders, and civil society in addressing online harms.

Civicus Monitor warns new OSRA bill risks deepening censorship of free expression

Earlier, Global civil society group Civicus Monitor has raised concerns over the OSRA bill.  It warned that the Bill reflects a continuing trend of shrinking civic space in Singapore.