SINGAPORE: Over three in four Singaporeans believe that the government, tech firms and users should do “much more” to improve online safety, according to an online safety study by the Institute of Policy Studies (IPS).
Of 600 respondents to an IPS survey, 94.8 per cent and 94.9 per cent of respondents felt that tech companies and users respectively should be doing “somewhat more” or "much more” to improve online safety.
The study, titled “Online Harms in Singapore, from Evidence to Action”, was conducted by IPS between June 2024 and May 2025.
Funded by the Ministry of Digital Development and Information (MDDI), the study comprised focus group discussions, in-depth interviews, as well as a survey of 600 Singapore citizens and permanent residents.
The demographic of survey respondents generally reflected the gender distribution and age distribution of Singapore’s resident population in 2024.
Principal investigator Dr Chew Han Ei said the findings reflect
Co-principal investigator, Dr Carol Soon added: “Clearly, there's this sense of shared responsibility that every stakeholder, including users who are really in the front line, in cyberspace, to play their part in combating online harms, and we do not just need top-down enforcement.”
The study comes on the back of the Online Safety (Relief and Accountability) Bill (OSRA) tabled in parliament last Wednesday (Oct 15).
The Bill proposes measures to empower victims of online harms to seek timely relief and obtain redress, amid recent survey results from MDDI that show that almost 85 per cent of respondents in Singapore encountered harmful online content in the past year.
Unlike the recent MDDI survey, which highlighted the prevalence of online harms, the authors said this study focused on the perceived severity of such harms.
In the final phase of the study, participants had to assess a total of 16 online harms in a survey.
These excluded “top-of-mind” harms such as scams and cyber crime, child sexual exploitation and abuse, violent or terrorism-related content and content supporting vice and organised crime, which were discussed in earlier phases of the study.
The remaining harms were broken down into finer categories to broaden the understanding of the harms.
These nuances are important to understand the pathways of relief for victims, said Dr Chew.
Of the remaining online harms, non-consensual sexual content was ranked highest in terms of perceived relative severity across all age groups and genders.
During in-depth interviews, participants said that threats to the release of private images are a form of domestic violence that often goes under-recognised, which can often continue even after physical separation.
The promotion of dangerous behaviours, such as self-harm, suicide and eating disorders, was ranked second in perceived severity. Targeted harassment was ranked third on the list.
False statements about an individual, hate speech against groups outside of Singapore and online statements instigating harm, such as starting a cancel campaign, were ranked lowest on the list.
Researchers found that the perception of severity differed across different demographics. For example, consensual sexual content was ranked fifth overall. However, females and middle-aged respondents perceived it as more severe, while older respondents ranked it as less severe.
In judging the seriousness of an online harm, three in four respondents rated harm to individuals and the vulnerability of potential victims as very or extremely important factors.
Dr Soon said the ranking helps with prioritisation of resources.
“We have a wide range of harms. Given limited resources, government, social service agencies, what do we first prioritise? So the study clearly flags the more important harms,” she said.
She added that these harms are perceived to be more severe to members of the public, either because they may have personally experienced them or know of people who have.
Survey respondents showed strong support for legal remedies against online harm.
Nearly eight in 10 respondents said laws which hold perpetrators accountable for their actions would be “very” or “extremely” helpful.
Meanwhile, 77 per cent of respondents wanted harmful content and accounts removed more quickly by social media platforms.
Moving forward, the authors proposed areas for action to reinforce what is working, address what is lacking, and anticipate emerging harms.
The proposed OSRA Bill is already a “big step in the right direction”, said Dr Chew.
Under the Bill, a new Online Safety Commission will be established to administer a statutory reporting mechanism for victims of online harms.
Statutory torts will also be introduced to provide a clear legal basis for perpetrators to be held accountable.
However, more can be done to address ambiguities to improve reporting and enforcement, and correct misconceptions, said the authors of the IPS study.
Director of research at SG Her Empowerment (SHE) Natalie Chia, who was also a research collaborator, gave the example of an individual who had encountered harassment after the end of a relationship.
Although the individual had managed to pursue legal remedies, she faced procedural challenges as she was unsure of how to upload evidence.
“And if you can put yourselves in the shoes of a victim, it would be very confronting, because at each juncture, there are a lot of questions you have to answer,” she said. “They are facing a lot of considerations, so these add up.”
Policymakers and platforms can address ambiguities by publishing clear, regularly updated reporting guidelines and using plain language to explain legislative provisions.
Dr Soon added that while OSRA covers most of the legal remedies explored in the study, it does not cover restorative justice and rehabilitation.
“I think that is something that law cannot do on its own. It is something that really involves other stakeholders, like social service agencies, educators, schools, et cetera,” she said.
The authors added that the culture of shared responsibility can be built through public campaigns that challenge attitudes that trivialise harm.
Dr Chew said that a worrying trend he noticed is the normalisation of online harms across the years, such as the practice of catfishing or dealing with online trolls.
He added that different generations may perceive such harms differently.
He emphasised that ultimately, it is not just the government and tech companies who have a role to play.
“It's users ourselves (who) have to step up. Parents, educators and social service organisations all have to do our part to improve our online safety,” he said.
Continue reading...
Of 600 respondents to an IPS survey, 94.8 per cent and 94.9 per cent of respondents felt that tech companies and users respectively should be doing “somewhat more” or "much more” to improve online safety.
The study, titled “Online Harms in Singapore, from Evidence to Action”, was conducted by IPS between June 2024 and May 2025.
Funded by the Ministry of Digital Development and Information (MDDI), the study comprised focus group discussions, in-depth interviews, as well as a survey of 600 Singapore citizens and permanent residents.
The demographic of survey respondents generally reflected the gender distribution and age distribution of Singapore’s resident population in 2024.
Principal investigator Dr Chew Han Ei said the findings reflect
Co-principal investigator, Dr Carol Soon added: “Clearly, there's this sense of shared responsibility that every stakeholder, including users who are really in the front line, in cyberspace, to play their part in combating online harms, and we do not just need top-down enforcement.”
The study comes on the back of the Online Safety (Relief and Accountability) Bill (OSRA) tabled in parliament last Wednesday (Oct 15).
The Bill proposes measures to empower victims of online harms to seek timely relief and obtain redress, amid recent survey results from MDDI that show that almost 85 per cent of respondents in Singapore encountered harmful online content in the past year.
Related:
PERCEIVED SEVERITY OF ONLINE HARMS
Unlike the recent MDDI survey, which highlighted the prevalence of online harms, the authors said this study focused on the perceived severity of such harms.
In the final phase of the study, participants had to assess a total of 16 online harms in a survey.
These excluded “top-of-mind” harms such as scams and cyber crime, child sexual exploitation and abuse, violent or terrorism-related content and content supporting vice and organised crime, which were discussed in earlier phases of the study.
The remaining harms were broken down into finer categories to broaden the understanding of the harms.
These nuances are important to understand the pathways of relief for victims, said Dr Chew.
Of the remaining online harms, non-consensual sexual content was ranked highest in terms of perceived relative severity across all age groups and genders.
During in-depth interviews, participants said that threats to the release of private images are a form of domestic violence that often goes under-recognised, which can often continue even after physical separation.
The promotion of dangerous behaviours, such as self-harm, suicide and eating disorders, was ranked second in perceived severity. Targeted harassment was ranked third on the list.
False statements about an individual, hate speech against groups outside of Singapore and online statements instigating harm, such as starting a cancel campaign, were ranked lowest on the list.
Researchers found that the perception of severity differed across different demographics. For example, consensual sexual content was ranked fifth overall. However, females and middle-aged respondents perceived it as more severe, while older respondents ranked it as less severe.
In judging the seriousness of an online harm, three in four respondents rated harm to individuals and the vulnerability of potential victims as very or extremely important factors.
Dr Soon said the ranking helps with prioritisation of resources.
“We have a wide range of harms. Given limited resources, government, social service agencies, what do we first prioritise? So the study clearly flags the more important harms,” she said.
She added that these harms are perceived to be more severe to members of the public, either because they may have personally experienced them or know of people who have.
STRONGER LEGISLATION, RECOMMENDATIONS
Survey respondents showed strong support for legal remedies against online harm.
Nearly eight in 10 respondents said laws which hold perpetrators accountable for their actions would be “very” or “extremely” helpful.
Meanwhile, 77 per cent of respondents wanted harmful content and accounts removed more quickly by social media platforms.
Moving forward, the authors proposed areas for action to reinforce what is working, address what is lacking, and anticipate emerging harms.
The proposed OSRA Bill is already a “big step in the right direction”, said Dr Chew.
Under the Bill, a new Online Safety Commission will be established to administer a statutory reporting mechanism for victims of online harms.
Statutory torts will also be introduced to provide a clear legal basis for perpetrators to be held accountable.
However, more can be done to address ambiguities to improve reporting and enforcement, and correct misconceptions, said the authors of the IPS study.
Director of research at SG Her Empowerment (SHE) Natalie Chia, who was also a research collaborator, gave the example of an individual who had encountered harassment after the end of a relationship.
Although the individual had managed to pursue legal remedies, she faced procedural challenges as she was unsure of how to upload evidence.
“And if you can put yourselves in the shoes of a victim, it would be very confronting, because at each juncture, there are a lot of questions you have to answer,” she said. “They are facing a lot of considerations, so these add up.”
Policymakers and platforms can address ambiguities by publishing clear, regularly updated reporting guidelines and using plain language to explain legislative provisions.
Dr Soon added that while OSRA covers most of the legal remedies explored in the study, it does not cover restorative justice and rehabilitation.
“I think that is something that law cannot do on its own. It is something that really involves other stakeholders, like social service agencies, educators, schools, et cetera,” she said.
SHARED RESPONSIBILITY
The authors added that the culture of shared responsibility can be built through public campaigns that challenge attitudes that trivialise harm.
Dr Chew said that a worrying trend he noticed is the normalisation of online harms across the years, such as the practice of catfishing or dealing with online trolls.
He added that different generations may perceive such harms differently.
He emphasised that ultimately, it is not just the government and tech companies who have a role to play.
“It's users ourselves (who) have to step up. Parents, educators and social service organisations all have to do our part to improve our online safety,” he said.
Continue reading...