SINGAPORE — The law will allow young victims of harassment to seek recourse in court by allowing third parties to file civil proceedings on their behalf, said Senior Minister of State for Law Edwin Tong in Parliament on Tuesday (May 7).

Mr Tong was responding to a query from Nominated Member of Parliament (NMP) Anthea Ong, on how victims under the age of 21 could seek recourse against harassment during the debate on the amendments to the Protection from Harassment Act (Poha), which criminalises harassment, stalking and other anti-social behaviour.

The amendments to the Act, which were passed on Tuesday, allow only for those aged 21 and above to seek protection orders under the law. Younger victims require a guardian to make applications on their behalf.

Ms Ong had raised concerns that this could deter young victims from seeking redress.

Citing instances where harassment victims under 21 had avoided approaching the courts, Ms Ong said: “We need to be cognisant of the social pressures that survivors might face, and understand that some may not be ready to involve their family.”

Enhancing punishments under Poha may not necessarily serve as an effective deterrent to harassers or assure victims, said Ms Ong, who called for more support to help victims report harassment incidences.

“Improving the chances of securing convictions will do more to promote deterrence than imposing harsh penalties,” she added.

DEALING WITH ANONYMOUS HARASSERS

Several Members of Parliament (MPs) raised concerns about identifying perpetrators who were anonymous.

For instance, Mr Patrick Tay recounted an incident where a victim who was the target of online hate messages was told by the police that they were unable to proceed with her case as she lacked the harasser’s real name and contact information.  

In such cases, the anonymity of the harasser could add to the sense of loss of control and fear already experienced by victims, said the MP for West Coast Group Representation Constituency (GRC).

“Law enforcement agencies must strengthen their capabilities in identifying these unknown perpetrators to send a strong message to these harassers that they cannot get away with such behaviour,” he added.

Mr Tong assured the House that with the amendments, those who attempted to conceal their identities could still be identified by law enforcement agencies.

“The amendments to Poha are intended to provide tools to deal with the unique nature of online falsehoods," he said.

"Poha currently provides for, where the respondent or publisher is anonymous, they may be identified by internet location address, their website, their username and account or an email address, or any other unique identifier as the court may order.” 

He added that even if the harasser could not be tracked down, victims could still rely on the law to stop the spread of falsehoods, such as by seeking to take down orders to get other parties to stop publishing false statements.

SCOPE OF DOXXING

Other MPs sought clarification for when an action could be considered doxxing, which involves publishing someone else’s personal information with the intention to harass, threaten or facilitate violence against them.

MP for Nee Soon GRC Louis Ng asked if posting the vehicle plate number on Facebook to identify the driver of a car which had been involved in an accident could count as doxxing, especially if netizens subsequently harassed the car’s owner.

Mr Pritam Singh, MP for Aljunied GRC and Workers’ Party chief, asked if posting a hyperlink on Facebook which led to the personal information of someone else could also be considered an offence under doxxing.

Mr Tong emphasised that each case would be dependent on the facts and circumstances involved and that it was up to the courts to determine the intention of the act.

Some factors that the courts could consider include: Words or actions that accompanied the sharing of someone’s personal information, or the context in which the personal information was publicised.

For instance, if the personal information was supplied to an online forum dedicated to online vigilantism, this could be considered a doxxing offence.

He added that the law would focus on the intention of the person who had published the personal information of another or the knowledge that he had when he published the personal information.

This meant that even if the original publisher of the personal information did not have any ill intent, any subsequent persons who published it with malicious intent could be committing an offence, said Mr Tong.