口头答复 · 2026-07-07 · 届国会 15

调查针对新加坡印度裔社群的社媒帖文,及检讨抵御此类外部影响的国家框架

调查针对新加坡印度裔社群的社媒帖文,及检讨抵御此类外部影响的国家框架

人民行动党议员 David(Mr Darryl David)与官委议员梁国荣博士(Dr Neo Kok Beng)就 14 则针对印度裔社群、破坏多元文化的网络社媒帖文,口头质询国家安全统筹部长兼内政部长:调查是否显示这是某机构或组织有协调的行动、将采取何种行动,以及是否检讨抵御此类外部影响的国家框架、如何提升居民的辨识能力。内政部政务部长吴培源(Mr Goh Pei Ming)代部长答复:目前没有证据显示这是某个特定政府或组织的协调行动,相关内容很可能源自一个位于中国的平台后被转载;帖文企图挑起对印度裔社群的敌意、动摇多元种族模式,已被评估触犯《刑法》第 298A(a) 条,政府依据《网络犯罪危害法》(OCHA)发出"禁用指令",封锁新加坡用户对这 14 则帖文的访问。他指出,近年由人工智能(AI)驱动的不实内容渗入本地信息空间明显增多,尤其 AI 让制造此类帖文变得更容易,政府会仔细追踪每一起案例、调查背后是否有国家行为者介入,并动用 FICA、《维护种族和谐法》、POFMA、OCHA 等立法杠杆主动"向上游"应对(FICA 网络指令自 2024 年 7 月起首次启用且总体有效)。除立法外,政府通过国民教育与全面防卫、SG101 网站、国家图书馆的 S.U.R.E 计划,以及内政部 2025 年针对深伪视频与 AI 生成内容的宣传活动,培养能明辨、有韧性的民众——这被视为对抗分化最有效的防线。

关键要点

  • 14 则针对印度裔社群的帖文无证据属特定政府或组织协调,内容很可能源自一个位于中国的平台后被转载
  • 帖文被评估触犯《刑法》第 298A(a) 条,政府依 OCHA 发出"禁用指令"封锁新加坡用户访问
  • 近年 AI 驱动的不实内容渗入本地信息空间明显增多,AI 让制造此类帖文更容易
  • 政府握有 FICA、《维护种族和谐法》、POFMA、OCHA 等立法杠杆,FICA 网络指令自 2024 年 7 月起首次启用且总体有效
  • 以国民教育、SG101、S.U.R.E 计划及 2025 年深伪/AI 生成内容宣传活动培养能明辨的民众,被视为对抗分化最有效的防线
政府立场

政府对 AI 助长的外国干预与分化内容采取"果断执法 + 主动防御 + 全民韧性"三管齐下:以 OCHA、FICA 等既有杠杆果断封堵并强调法律须与时俱进,同时把培养能明辨、有韧性的民众视为最根本的防线,通过教育与宣传主动"接种免疫"。

质询立场

提问议员(David、梁国荣)追问:政府是否追踪未公开的潜在协调案例、此类案例是否在上升、若涉及国家行为者将如何应对;并质疑 FICA/POFMA/OCHA 等现行框架偏"事后反应",要求政府说明有哪些"预防性"举措及其成效如何衡量。

政策信号

新加坡把"AI 助长的外国信息操弄"正式纳入国家安全治理视野:一方面确认现有法律工具箱(OCHA、FICA、《维护种族和谐法》、POFMA)足以果断处置并将持续检讨更新,另一方面把重心前移到"全民信息韧性",显示政府对 AI 生成虚假内容的应对正从"事后封堵"转向"上游预防 + 公众免疫"。

“我们注意到此类帖文数量有所增加,尤其是因为 AI 让制造这类帖文变得更容易……我们会非常仔细地追踪每一起案例,包括调查背后是否可能有国家行为者。”

参与人员 (3)

完整译文(中文)

Hansard 原始记录 · 2026-07-16

1 David 先生(Mr Darryl David)询问国家安全统筹部长兼内政部长,就 14 则疑似针对印度裔社群、破坏新加坡多元文化的网络社媒帖文:(a) 调查是否显示这些帖文是某个机构或组织有协调、有预谋的行动;(b) 若是,已经或将对该机构或组织采取何种行动。

2 梁国荣博士(Dr Neo Kok Beng)询问国家安全统筹部长兼内政部长,鉴于近期为封锁针对印度裔社群的网络帖文而发出的"禁用指令"(Disabling Directions):(a) 部门是否会考虑检讨当前用于抵御此类外部影响的国家框架与工具;(b) 正在筹划哪些计划或举措,让居民(无论个人还是通过社群协作)具备辨识此类负面外部影响的能力。

内政部政务部长吴培源(Mr Goh Pei Ming)代部长答复:目前没有证据显示这是某个特定政府或组织有协调的行动。调查显示,相关内容很可能源自一个位于中国的平台,随后被其他平台和网站转载,包括进入本地信息空间。

这些帖文企图挑起对印度裔社群的敌意、制造不和,并动摇新加坡的多元文化模式。相关内容被评估为触犯《刑法》第 298A(a) 条——蓄意在不同种族群体之间散播敌意、仇恨或恶意,作出危害新加坡和谐的行为。政府已依据《网络犯罪危害法》(OCHA)发出"禁用指令",封锁新加坡用户对这 14 则社媒帖文的访问。

近年来,各类由人工智能(AI)驱动的、不真实的内容不断增多,并渗入新加坡的网络信息空间。我们密切监测信息空间,只要符合新加坡利益,就会毫不犹豫地采取措施。政府也定期检讨法律,确保其与时俱进、切合应对不断演变的形势。

除了立法手段,培养能明辨是非、有韧性、能抵御外部影响的民众同样重要。国防部推动国民教育与全面防卫,建立国人对新加坡立国价值观的共同认知,深化身份与国家认同,强化对可能破坏社会凝聚力威胁(包括外国干预)的警觉与集体意志。SG101 网站是一站式政府平台,汇集有关外国干预的教育资源,以及新加坡在敏感议题上的立场,帮助公众更好理解国家立场、抵御分化企图。

国家图书馆管理局致力于把批判性阅读培养为基础能力,并通过"溯源、理解、查证、评估"(S.U.R.E)计划与公众互动,让国人具备核实与事实查核网络内容的技能。此外,我们定期为公务员、国民服役人员和学生等群体举办简报、对话与工作坊,提高对外国干预的警觉。内政部还在 2025 年推出一项宣传活动,揭示深伪(deepfake)视频、AI 生成内容及其他不真实网络帖文如何被用于影响他国,提醒国人警惕这一威胁;这项工作将持续开展。

归根结底,一个善于明辨的民众,是抵御分化与影响社会企图最重要的防线。我们呼吁国人在获取和传播网络信息时保持明辨,拒绝一切分裂社会的企图。我们严肃看待对社会凝聚力与种族和谐的威胁(包括外部行为者),并将坚决对其采取行动。

David 先生(宏茂桥集选区)追问:虽然本案没有外部影响的证据令人欣慰,但政府是否确实追踪那些可能并未公开、却助长组织与机构协调行动的潜在案例?若有,此类案例是否在上升?其次,若这些案例还显示出国家行为者(state actors)介入的迹象,政府通常会采取什么行动?

吴培源答复:正如我先前所说,我们注意到此类帖文数量有所增加,尤其是因为 AI 让制造这类帖文变得更容易。因此我们确实看到上升趋势,并会非常仔细地追踪每一起案例,包括调查帖文背后是否可能有国家行为者。其中部分信息,我们未必认为适合向公众公开,但我们会审视每一起案例、长期追踪数据,确保不存在有协调的行动。更重要的是,一旦有必要保护新加坡利益,我们绝不会犹豫采取行动。我们认为,任何国家都会认同——我们只是在守护自己的信息空间。

梁国荣博士(官委议员)追问:我们当前抵御外部影响的框架,主要基于几部法律——《防止外来干预(对抗措施)法》(FICA)、《防止网络假信息和网络操纵法》(POFMA)以及《网络犯罪危害法》(OCHA)。在民众看来,这些大多属于事后反应式(reactive)的手段。问题是:这些手段究竟多有效?如何衡量成效?部门是否在探索比这些反应式手段更具预防性的措施?有哪些属于预防性质的计划或举措,又如何教育、训练或"接种免疫",让居民不轻信、不传播此类恶意影响?

吴培源答复:政府必须对这些视频果断采取行动,因为它们企图破坏新加坡的凝聚力、攻击我们的多元种族社会、按种族制造分裂。我们的社会和谐不能被视为理所当然——它是数十年苦心经营的成果,新加坡每一个社群都同样被珍视、拥有平等的位置。多元正是新加坡最大的优势,但这需要刻意且持续地防范分裂。政府手中握有多种立法杠杆,其中一些是近期才引入的,包括 FICA、《维护种族和谐法》、POFMA 以及 OCHA。这些法律让我们能够非常主动地"向上游"行动。我们依据 FICA 发出的网络指令于 2024 年 7 月首次启用;这些指令总体有效,因为社媒公司一直与我们合作、遵从政府指令。归根结底,一个善于明辨的公众,才是对抗分化企图最有效的工具。

英文原文

SPRS Hansard 原始记录 · 抓取日期:2026-07-16

1 Mr Darryl David asked the Coordinating Minister for National Security and Minister for Home Affairs regarding the 14 online social media posts which seemingly targeted the Indian community and undermined Singapore's multiculturalism (a) whether investigations have revealed the posts to be a coordinated and deliberate effort by any particular agency or organisation; and (b) if so, what action has been or will be taken against such agency or organisation.

2 Dr Neo Kok Beng asked the Coordinating Minister for National Security and Minister for Home Affairs in view of the Disabling Directions recently issued to block online posts targeting the Indian community (a) whether the Ministry will consider reviewing the current national framework and tools to counteract such external influences; and (b) what upcoming programmes or initiatives are being planned to equip residents with the competencies to discern such negative external influences, whether individually or through community efforts.

The Minister of State for Home Affairs (Mr Goh Pei Ming) (for the Coordinating Minister for National Security and Minister for Home Affairs): My response will cover oral Question Nos 1 and 2 on today's Order Paper, and will also address a related question filed by Ms Hany Soh for a later Sitting. There is currently no evidence to suggest that this is a coordinated campaign by any particular government or organisation. Investigations revealed that the content likely originated from a China-based platform, and was subsequently carried on other platforms and websites, including those in our local information space.

The posts attempted to sow discord by inciting ill-will against our Indian community and sought to undermine Singapore's model of multiculturalism. The content was assessed to constitute an offence of knowingly promoting feelings of enmity, hatred or ill-will between different groups on grounds of race and doing acts prejudicial to the maintenance of harmony in Singapore under section 298A(a) of the Penal Code. The Government has issued Disabling Directions under the Online Criminal Harms Act (OCHA) to block access by Singapore users to the 14 online social media posts.

In recent years, there has been an increase in artificial intelligence (AI)-enabled and inauthentic content on a range of topics which has seeped into Singapore's online infospace. We monitor the infospace closely and will not hesitate to take measures if it is in Singapore's interests. The Government regularly reviews our laws to ensure that they are updated and fit for purpose to deal with the evolving landscape.

Aside from the legislative measures, building up a discerning and resilient populace against external influences is equally important. The Ministry of Defence drives National Education and Total Defence to build a shared understanding of Singapore's foundational values and principles to deepen our public's sense of identity and nationhood, and to strengthen awareness of and collective resolve against threats that may undermine social cohesion and resilience, including foreign interference. The SG101 website is a one-stop Government site that consolidates educational resources on foreign interference, as well as Singapore's positions on sensitive issues to help the public better understand our national positions and to stay resilient against attempts to divide us.

The National Library Board works to cultivate critical reading as a foundational skill and to engage the public through its Source, Understand, Research, and Evaluate (S.U.R.E) programme, and this equips our citizens with the skills to verify and fact-check online content. In addition, we regularly conduct briefings, dialogues and workshops to raise awareness of foreign interference amongst groups including our public servants, national servicemen and students. The Ministry of Home Affairs also rolled out a campaign in 2025 on the use of deepfake videos, AI-generated content and other inauthentic online posts to influence overseas jurisdictions to alert Singaporeans to this threat. This effort will continue, so as to raise awareness of the role that our Singaporeans can play.

Ultimately, a discerning population is the most important defence against attempts to influence or divide our society. We urge Singaporeans to be discerning when consuming and disseminating information online, and to reject all attempts to divide our society. We take a serious view of threats to our social cohesion and racial harmony, including external actors, and will act resolutely against them.

Mr Darryl David (Ang Mo Kio): I have two supplementary questions. While it is heartening to know that there has been no evidence of external influence in this case, I would like to ask if the Government does indeed keep track of possible cases that fuel the possible coordinated efforts of organisations and agencies that may not be made so public and if so, are such cases on the rise? The second question would be, if these cases show evidence also of the influence of state actors, what actions would our Government typically take?

Mr Goh Pei Ming: Like I said in my response earlier, we have noticed an increase in the number of such posts, especially given the use of AI enabling the creation of such posts. So, we do see an increase and we do track very carefully every single case, including investigating whether there are possibly state actors behind the posts. Some of this information, we may not find that it is suitable to release to the public, but we do look at every single case. We track the data over time to ensure that there is no coordinated campaign. More importantly, we will not hesitate to take action if there is a need to protect Singapore's interests. Ultimately, we hold the view that any country out there would agree with us that we are just safeguarding our information space.

Dr Neo Kok Beng (Nominated Member): Our current framework of preventing external influences is primarily based on a couple of Acts: the Foreign Interference (Countermeasures) Act (FICA), the Protection from Online Falsehoods and Manipulation Act (POFMA) and also OCHA. These are, in the view of our population, pretty much reactive in nature. The question is, how effective are they and how do we measure this effectiveness? Is the Ministry exploring more preventive measures? What are the programmes or initiatives that are preventive in nature and how effective are they? Specifically, how to educate or train or inoculate our residents from believing or disseminating such malicious influence?

Mr Goh Pei Ming: The Government had to act decisively against these videos because they seek to undermine Singapore's cohesion, and they seek to attack our multi-racial society and attempt to divide us based on our race. Our societal harmony cannot be taken for granted because it has been painstakingly developed over decades and every community in Singapore is valued. This diversity in Singapore's fabric is our greatest strength, but it requires deliberate and constant protection against division. The Government has various legislative levers, some more recently introduced, in place to deal with such threats. These include FICA, the Maintenance of Racial Harmony Act, POFMA, as well as OCHA. Having these laws allows us to be very proactive, going upstream. Our online directions under FICA were first issued or first used in July 2024. They have been generally effective as the social media companies have worked with us and complied with the directions issued by the Government. In my main reply earlier, I have also listed various efforts in terms of public education. A discerning public is the most effective tool to fight against such interferences to split our society.

同主题更多