“外国干预（应对措施）法令”将可能让学术活动
陷入在“法律上存在困难重重的局面”

FICA will potentially turn academic activity
into a "legal minefield"
Remy Choo Zheng Xi

MHA has issued a Facebook Post in response to a group of academics who have expressed concerns that FICA will potentially turn academic activity into a "legal minefield". Since MHA Facebook Posts don't have the force of law, it might be helpful to see what the proposed law actually says.

Under s20 of the Bill, the Minister can authorize directions such as Take Down directions or Disabling Directions to any online publication viewable in Singapore that is:

(1) undertaken by or on behalf of a foreign principal, and

(2) if the Minister believes that it is in the public interest to issue that direction.

What is the definition of a "foreign principal"? Under s4 of the Bill, any foreigner or foreign public enterprise (like a University) would fall within the definition.

Under s5(1)(a) of the Bill, a person engages in conduct on behalf of a foreign principal if the person undertakes that activity "under an arrangement with the foreign principal" or "in collaboration with the foreign principal". This language is basically wide enough to capture any sort of activity conducted together with a foreign educational institution.

How is "in the public interest defined"? Under s7 of the Bill, it is in the public interest to do anything necessary or expedient to "to prevent any foreign interference directed towards a political end in Singapore".

How is "directed towards a political end in Singapore" defined?

Under s8 of the Bill, an activity or a conduct can be defined as "directed towards a political end in Singapore" if a purpose of that activity is to "influence...ANY aspect...or public conduct relating to activities that have become the subject of a political debate, in Singapore".

TLDR: anything can be interpreted as being "directed towards a political end in Singapore" if it has become the subject of a political debate in Singapore, e.g. climate change, the legality of gay sex, access to healthcare for migrant workers.

If you have read this far, congratulations, you are part way through navigating the "legal minefield" of FICA.

Unfortunately, even MHA doesn't seem to be able to navigate this legal minefield safely because they appear to have incorrectly pointed out, in their Facebook Post, that the following activity won't be caught under FICA: -

• A PhD student who challenges “the criminalization 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”.

Read the definitions I've set out again above. It seems clear that FICA CAN apply in these situations.

While our current Government might protest: WE will never use FICA in this manner, the law is broad enough that it can be abused by a less "benevolent" Government.

If the law is abused, can a rogue Government's powers under FICA be checked by the Courts? No, because s92 of FICA makes the Minister's decisions appealable only to a Reviewing Tribunal, and under s104 of the Bill, any decision by the Reviewing Tribunal cannot be challenged through the Courts.

Checkmate.

P.s.: if any of the above is incorrect, I hope it can be clarified in Parliament so that it goes on Hansard. Because, unlike a Facebook Post clarification, that has force of law.