Measures to Enhance Online Safety – Singapore Introduces New Legislation
Singapore has been making concerted efforts towards enhancing the safety of digital spaces for Singapore users, particularly for children. This is in recognition of the inherent risks posed by harmful online content, and the amplification of such risks through the proliferation of social media services.
The Ministry of Communications and Information (“MCI“) had, earlier in 2022, given an indication of what changes and enhancements may be expected in the digital regulatory and compliance framework, including the introduction of codes of practice for online platforms to protect Singaporeans against harmful online content. The proposed measures have been steadily advancing along the course of implementation, and are now being further developed, with new legislation being introduced in Parliament, and responses to public feedback on the proposed measures.
From 13 July 2022 to 10 August 2022, MCI conducted a Public Consultation on Proposed Measures to Enhance Online Safety for Users in Singapore (“Public Consultation“). On 29 September 2022, MCI released a summary of its responses to the feedback received from the Public Consultation, giving further indication of the direction that the proposed measures may take. The proposed measures raised in the Public Consultation include: (i) Code of Practice for Online Safety, which sets out the required measures and safeguards against harmful content to be implemented by designated social media services; and (ii) Content Code for Social Media Services, which empowers the Infocomm Media Development Authority (“IMDA“) to direct social media services to disable access to harmful content.
On 3 October 2022, the Online Safety (Miscellaneous Amendments) Bill (“Bill“) was introduced in Parliament. If passed, the Bill will empower IMDA to better regulate online communication services accessible by Singapore end-users and give effect to the proposed measures. The main proposed amendment in the Bill include: (i) allowing IMDA to issue blocking directions to online communication services to deal with “egregious content”; and (ii) empowering IMDA to issue online Codes of Practice for providers of regulated online communication service.
For more information, click here to read our Legal Update.
Amendments to Carbon Pricing Act Tabled in Parliament
The carbon tax regime in Singapore is governed under the Carbon Pricing Act 2018 (“CPA“) that provides for, among other things, requirements relating to registration, reporting and payment of tax in relation to greenhouse gas emissions. Singapore recently consulted on raising its climate ambition to achieve net zero by 2050. Increasing carbon tax is part of Singapore’s strategy to achieve its raised climate ambition. On 3 October 2022, the Carbon Pricing (Amendment) Bill (“Bill“) was tabled for First Reading in Parliament. This follows an earlier consultation by the Ministry of Sustainability and the Environment (“MSE“). You may read about the main aspects of the consultation in our Legal Update here. MSE also provided its Response to feedback received on the consultation.
The Bill seeks to amend the CPA in the following key aspects:
- Revising the carbon tax rate and carbon price. Under the CPA, a taxable facility is required to pay carbon tax. The current carbon tax rate is $5/tCO2e. The Bill provides for the progressive increase in the carbon tax rate. The CPA also sets out the concept and value of a carbon credit, and governs how a carbon credit may be dealt with. Currently, each carbon credit has a value of $5. The Bill renames “carbon credits” as “fixed-price carbon credits” and provides for progressive increase in the carbon price.
- Providing for the grant of allowances for eligible taxable facilities to reduce carbon tax. In the consultation, a transition framework was proposed to provide time for emissions-intensive trade-exposed companies to adjust to a low-carbon economy. The Bill sets out provisions for the grant of allowances to eligible taxable facilities to reduce the amount of carbon tax payable for an emissions year. Please refer to the new Division 1A of Part 5 set out in the Bill.
- Providing for the surrender of eligible international carbon credits in place of fixed-price carbon credits for the purposes of paying the carbon tax. There are also provisions to establish the International Carbon Credits Registry and international carbon credit registry account, as well as for various related matters.
- Revising registration and emissions reporting obligations (in particular, where there has been a transfer of operational control over a business facility), and the basis for liability for carbon tax. The Bill also contains provisions to allow the deregistration of a business facility as a reportable facility or a taxable facility if the registered person of the business facility, despite having operational control over the business facility, has ceased to operate the business facility and has no intention of resuming its business activity within the next 36 months after such cessation.
For more information, click here to read our Legal Update.
SICC's Jurisdiction over Cross-Border Restructuring and Insolvency Matters
Singapore has been strengthening its position as a key nodal jurisdiction for cross-border restructuring and insolvency. In 2015, the Singapore International Commercial Court (“SICC“) was established specifically to handle international commercial disputes. Singapore adopted the UNCITRAL Model Law on Cross-Border Insolvency as part of the extensive changes to its debt restructuring regime in 2017. In 2018, the Insolvency, Restructuring and Dissolution Act (“IRDA“) was introduced to consolidate and further augment Singapore’s restructuring and insolvency framework.
This process continues with amendments to the laws to provide that the SICC has jurisdiction over international restructuring and insolvency matters. These amendments came into effect on 1 October 2022. This development is expected to further enhance Singapore’s capabilities and attractiveness as a forum of choice for cross-border insolvency.
The SICC will have jurisdiction to hear any proceedings relating to corporate insolvency, restructuring or dissolution under the IRDA (or under the Companies Act before the IRDA came into effect). Such proceedings must be international and commercial in nature.
Foreign lawyers are allowed to appear in relevant proceedings before the SICC to make direct submissions on permitted matters of foreign law, provided they are duly registered. This would allow foreign lawyers to make submissions before the SICC on matters of foreign law and certain factual matters relating to the restructuring proceedings in the foreign jurisdiction. However, submissions on the IRDA and Singapore law issues would require the involvement of local counsel.
Further, lawyers representing clients in certain insolvency cases before the SICC will be able to enter into conditional fee agreements with their clients for proceedings commenced in the SICC.
For more information, click here to read our Legal Update.
Clarifying the Right to Private Action under the Personal Data Protection Act
The Personal Data Protection Act (“PDPA“) sets out the duties of businesses and organisations regarding the collection, use and disclosure of personal data. To enforce these obligations, the Personal Data Protection Commission is empowered to issue directions for compliance and impose financial penalties. In addition, affected individuals are entitled to bring private actions against the offending organisation if they have suffered loss or damage from the breach of such duties.
However, not all forms of loss give rise to the right of private action under the PDPA. In Reed, Michael v Bellingham, Alex [2022] SGCA 60, the Singapore Court of Appeal provided some much-anticipated clarification on what constitutes “loss or damage” that would entitle an individual to initiate civil proceedings under the PDPA.
The Court of Appeal held that emotional distress falls within the scope of “loss or damage” under the PDPA, but the mere loss of control over personal data does not. In reaching its decision, the Court of Appeal considered the general purpose of the PDPA and adopted a wide interpretation of its private enforcement provisions.
The Court of Appeal also considered when an employee should be held responsible for a PDPA breach, and when the employee’s actions should be attributed to the employer instead. As the relevant PDPA obligations do not apply to an employee who is only acting in the course of his employment, the Court of Appeal set out the applicable principles for determining when an employee can rely on this defence.
The Court of Appeal’s decision provides important guidance for organisations and individuals that manage or deal with personal data in the course of operations, shedding light on when they may be exposed to private action for PDPA breaches.
For more information, click here to read our Legal Update.
Trends in Cartel Enforcement in Singapore
With the world gradually adapting to the “new normal”, competition authorities worldwide, including the Competition and Consumer Commission of Singapore (“CCCS“), are looking at cartel enforcement with renewed interest. It is therefore critical for businesses in Singapore to be alert to possible infringements under Singapore’s competition laws and review their business practices accordingly.
In Singapore, Section 34 of the Competition Act 2004 prohibits agreements, decisions and practices that have the object or effect of preventing, restricting or distorting competition within Singapore (“section 34 prohibition“). This includes the prohibition of cartel activities, which are agreements between competitors that have the object of preventing, restricting or distorting competition, such as price-fixing, bid-rigging, market sharing agreements and agreements to limit output or control production/investment.
Here, we highlight key trends in CCCS’s cartel enforcement with reference to case statistics.
- Financial penalty. CCCS has become increasingly aggressive in its imposition of penalties for anti-competitive conduct. In 2018, CCCS issued its two largest financial penalties to date – S$26.9 million (reduced to S$20.1 million upon appeal) and S$19.6 million, respectively.
- Appeal. To date, the Competition Appeal Board has reviewed appeals relating to seven CCCS infringement decisions involving the section 34 prohibition, most of which have only succeeded in reducing the amount of penalty payable.
- Leniency. CCCS has handled 33 leniency cases as of 31 March 2021 and has seen an increase in the number of leniency cases between FY2017 to FY2020. The leniency programme has led to the issuance of infringement decisions and the impositions of financial penalties in nine out of 16 section 34 infringement decisions.
- Fast Track Procedure. Since the inception of the Fast Track Procedure in 2016, there has only been one published case where the procedure was applied. In this case, two out of the three parties benefited from an additional 10% reduction in financial penalties as a result of their cooperation with CCCS under the Fast Track Procedure.
- Length of investigation. The length of investigations appears to have increased – the average duration of investigation for infringement decisions issued from 2016 to date was 45.6 months, compared to 25.4 months for infringement decisions issued before 2016.
- Scope of liability. The section 34 prohibition is extraterritorial in scope. CCCS has prosecuted three cartels involving foreign jurisdictions.
For more information, click here to read our Legal Update.
Please note that whilst the information in this Update is correct to the best of our knowledge and belief at the time of writing, it is only intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter and should not be treated as a substitute for specific professional advice
