Skip to main content

Advertisement

Advertisement

Proposed foreign interference law will not affect academic discussions on controversial issues: MHA

SINGAPORE — Academic activities that are currently encouraged, such as participation in international collaborative research projects, will not be affected by Singapore’s proposed foreign interference law, the Government said on Sunday (Oct 3).

The Ministry of Home Affairs' responses came a day before a parliamentary debate is expected to take place on the foreign interference Bill.

The Ministry of Home Affairs' responses came a day before a parliamentary debate is expected to take place on the foreign interference Bill.

Follow TODAY on WhatsApp

  • Four academics had voiced concerns over the proposed foreign interference law
  • The Ministry of Home Affairs said the proposed law would only apply if academics act on behalf of a foreign agency to conduct a hostile information campaign online directed against the country’s public interest
  • The ministry also took issue with parts of Senior Counsel Harpreet Singh Nehal’s comments about Fica, calling them ‘untrue’

 

SINGAPORE — Academic activities that are currently encouraged, such as participation in international collaborative research projects, will not be affected by Singapore’s proposed foreign interference law, the Government said on Sunday (Oct 3).

Neither will discussions in foreign journals, foreign symposia and foreign universities — unless “the Singaporean academic was acting on behalf of a foreign agency to conduct a hostile information campaign online” directed against the city-state’s public interest.

The Ministry of Home Affairs (MHA) said this in a statement on Facebook on Sunday in response to an editorial published on Friday on Academia.sg, a website that was started in 2019 to reflect academics’ concerns about impending legislation against online falsehoods.

Apart from the response to the academics, MHA also addressed a senior lawyer’s concerns on Sunday — a day before a parliamentary debate is expected to take place on the foreign interference Bill.

The editorial was signed off by four academics: Dr Cherian George, a media studies professor at Hong Kong Baptist University; Associate Professor Chong Ja Ian of the National University of Singapore’s Department of Political Science; economist Linda Lim and Associate Professor of Sociology Teo You Yenn of Nanyang Technological University.

In the editorial, the academics expressed concern that the proposed Foreign Interference (Countermeasures) Act, or Fica, will suddenly transform certain academic activities into a “legal minefield”.

They said that several activities are under threat, such as participation in international collaborative research projects and in international funding opportunities, as well as partaking of fellowships, visiting appointments and training programmes.

Specifically addressing this, MHA said: “Please allow us to state without qualification: None of these activities will be affected by Fica.

“If the professors are able to get their articles accepted in international journals, their books published by prestigious academic presses overseas, or if they receive splendid fellowships and awards from any foreign university, they will face no hindrance whatsoever from Fica – or for that matter, any other law in Singapore.”

ACADEMICS ‘REMAINED FREE’ DESPITE PASSING OF POFMA

MHA also stated that Fica would not hinder the following three examples that the editorial gave of recent works that involved foreign collaborations and online dissemination:

  • A PhD student who challenges “the criminalisation of gay sex” in an online cultural studies journal published by a research centre based at Osaka University

  • A journal article in Asia Bioethic Review spotlighting the “’multiple barriers to access’ to healthcare faced by migrant workers in Singapore”. One of the co-authors is employed by a university overseas

  • A political scientist on a webinar sponsored by the University of Sydney speaking about “current political issues in Singapore”

MHA said: “What possible reason can there be for Fica to apply in any of these instances?

“Fica would only apply if the Singaporean academic in each of these instances were acting on behalf of a foreign agency to conduct a hostile information campaign online directed against Singapore’s public interest – eg, to create discord and unrest among Singaporeans.

“Discussion on any number of controversial issues – in foreign journals, in foreign symposia, in foreign universities – will not be touched by Fica.”

The ministry pointed out that universities here would not have acquired enviable reputations in international league tables “if the Singapore Government were as oppressive and authoritarian as (the academics) suggest”.

MHA noted that the same professors had previously raised concerns when the Protection from Online Falsehoods and Manipulation Act (Pofma) was passed, but academics here have “remained free to pursue whatever research they wish on any subject”.

“We are certain that Fica will similarly allow for the same in the future,” the ministry said.

REJOINDER

The four academics responded to MHA by Sunday evening, publishing a rejoinder below its editorial piece to say that while the ministry’s assurance was a “welcome start”, it was “incomplete and inconclusive”.

They explained that it was incomplete because it addressed only particular stages of academic research, such as journal publication and presentation at conferences, and neglected the fact that research is a long, multi-stage process.

“Many existing political hindrances occur upstream. In our survey of academics in Singapore, some reported non-academic pressure to change findings even before publication, for example,” they said.

“Many said they encountered pressure to avoid controversial, potentially cutting-edge, research topics entirely. Even more respondents pointed to politically motivated obstructions to engaging with media and the public, which should be part and parcel of academic work,” they added.

MHA’s assurance was inconclusive because “there is a gap between its statements of intent and non-intent on the one hand, and Fica’s actual language on the other”, they said.

The academics also asked why Fica had to define key terms such as “political ends”, “public interest”, and “collaboration” so broadly that it could cover the legitimate work of academics and other active citizens.

“A plain reading of Fica’s language amounts to a powerful statement of discomfort with debates on controversial issues. It will feed into a culture that already strongly discourages critical, public-facing academic work, encouraging further self-censorship by university administrators,” they continued.

In response, MHA suggested that the academics read the definitions in Fica “carefully”, adding that they will be dealt with in Parliament on Monday.

It then reiterated that Fica “will have no effect on academic freedom in Singapore”.

‘PUBLIC INTEREST’ REQUIREMENTS

On Sunday, MHA also issued a separate statement to the media to respond to Senior Counsel Harpreet Singh Nehal’s comments on the foreign interference Bill in a Facebook post on Saturday, calling parts of it “untrue”.

Mr Singh had first stated in an opinion piece published in The Straits Times on Sept 28 that the Bill is problematic for its extremely broad language, restrictions on judicial review and questionable procedural rules. This drew rebuttals by diplomat Ong Keng Yong and Senior Counsel Stanley Lai.

In a Facebook post on Saturday, Mr Singh argued that the writers had put forth a weak argument when saying that there is sufficient protection built within the Bill because before the minister exercises the very wide powers given to him, “it must be determined that it is in the public interest” to do so.

Mr Singh said this fails to fairly consider that Fica’s language “sets an extremely low bar for the public interest requirement to be met”.

The proposed legislation, he added, “simply requires that the minister form the opinion that it is in the public interest to exercise his powers… (and) does not require that the opinion be reasonably held, or that the specific Fica orders that are issued be proportionate”.

MHA said Mr Singh’s assertions that Fica’s language sets an “extremely low bar” and that the Bill does not look at proportionality are “untrue”.

Stating that proportionality is incorporated into the “public interest” requirement of the Bill, it said: “The statutory test of ‘public interest’ stipulates that it should be necessary or expedient in the public interest to use those powers.”

It then pointed out that Mr Singh himself had accepted the need for wide definitions, including the one used for “public interest”, to address the risks posed to the national interest when he took issue with definitions in the Pofma bill in 2019.

MHA also said that it had already given Mr Singh “the benefit of doubt” and “assumed that Mr Singh may not have read the Bill carefully” in a response that preceded this statement – a letter to the Straits Times that was published on Saturday.

“If he did read it (as he now asserts), then in the context of the above facts, readers can draw their own conclusions on Mr Singh’s reasons for making inaccurate assertions – which he himself must know were inaccurate,” it said.

Related topics

foreign interference Parliament law Politics MHA

Read more of the latest in

Advertisement

Advertisement

Stay in the know. Anytime. Anywhere.

Subscribe to get daily news updates, insights and must reads delivered straight to your inbox.

By clicking subscribe, I agree for my personal data to be used to send me TODAY newsletters, promotional offers and for research and analysis.