新加坡内政部：不能随意删除網絡文章

2024年5月8日，新加坡内政部長尚穆根在國會上回複蔡厝港集選區議員周凱年關于以色列駐新加坡大使館社交貼文事件的補充問題。

以下内容為新加坡眼根據國會英文資料翻譯整理：

以色列駐新加坡大使館删除社交媒體文章事件的最新情況(2)

議長先生：有請周凱年先生補充發言。

周凱年先生 (蔡厝港集選區議員)：謝謝議長先生。 我感謝部長閣下的回應。同意部長的說法，即這種冒犯性的文章将所有社群都置于危險之中，包括我們這裡的猶太社群。

我有兩個補充問題：

首先，在這種網上發帖行為中，鑒于此類潛在發帖的敏感性，内政部如何確定此類發帖在被認為具有冒犯性時能夠迅速、緊急地删除？

第二個補充問題是，假設未來案件中的外交豁免被放棄，我們如何確定公開法庭的正當程式得到妥善處置，因為它可能在民意法庭發生，并加劇當地的某些緊張局勢或情緒？

尚穆根先生：議長先生，我能否向這位議員澄清一下，或許我聽得不太清楚。關于第一個問題，他指的是任何公衆釋出的文章還是大使館釋出的文章？

周凱年先生：具體地說，隻是大使館的。是以是僅就專門針對大使館的文章。

尚穆根先生：我将結合具體情況來回答。如果是公衆釋出的文章，當然，根據不同的立法，我們有多種權力。新加坡有《網絡犯罪危害法令》（Online Criminal Harms Act）、《維持宗教和諧法令》（Maintenance of Religious Harmony Act）和《廣播法令》（Broadcasting Act）。如果你檢視一下不同的法令，根據不同的侵權行為，我們有權阻止通路。根據《維持宗教和諧法令》，甚至有權簽發限制令。雖然自該法生效以來我們從未簽發過限制令（我想已有将近 30 年了），但這一事實本身就說明了該法是多麼有用，也說明了新加坡社會的性質。

但如果是大使館，那麼出發點就是主權豁免。是以，舉例來說，你不能直接指令大使館删除其網絡上的文章。你可以考慮采取更一般的措施，比如阻止整個平台的通路，但這将是一個非常重要的步驟，我認為我們需要謹慎行事。在這種情況下，當大使館釋出文章時，我認為處理方式就是我們的處理方式—與大使館溝通。

如果他們拒絕，我不想過多地進行假設，但舉例來說，如果他們拒絕删除，那麼一個國家可以對另一個國家采取通常的外交步驟。但你必須評估侵權行為的性質，以及如何校準。在極端的情況下，你可以根據允許多少人進入使館，或者允許多少人在新加坡，或者要求一些人離開來校準；你已經看到過這類事情的發生。即使他們在從事間諜活動，你也不能對他們提出指控，更不用說他們釋出貼子了。

是以，這是國際法的一部分。我們必須按照國際法行事，但在這個架構内，我們必須看看可以做些什麼。

議長先生，關于這位議員提出的第二個問題，我認為任何大使館放棄外交豁免而允許另一個國家對他們提出指控都是非常假設的。這種情況雖然不常發生，但假設性極高。各國通常會說：”聽着，我們會把他送回去，然後用我們自己的方式處理他”。各位成員可能還記得羅馬尼亞的伊奧内斯庫先生的案例。他回羅馬尼亞後，羅馬尼亞人對他進行了指控。

是以，議長先生，如果存在放棄豁免權的案例，那麼對這個問題的簡短回複是，如果檢方如認為此舉可能激起憤怒及造成恐慌，并可能導緻暴力後果，便可就案件的性質作出評估。他們總是可以申請不公開審理，但我認為他們必須表明公衆的利益。除了在大使館放棄豁免權的情況下采取行動之外，還可以根據不同的法律采取其他措施。

以下是英文質詢内容：

UPDATE ON INCIDENT WHERE SOCIAL MEDIA POST WAS TAKEN DOWN BY ISRAELI EMBASSY IN SINGAPORE(2)

Mr Speaker: Mr Zhulkarnain Abdul Rahim.

Mr Zhulkarnain Abdul Rahim (Chua Chu Kang): Thank you, Sir. I thank the hon Minister for the response. I agree with the Minister’s statement that such offensive posts put all communities at risk, including our Jewish community here.

I have two supplementary questions. Firstly, in such conduct of online posts, how can MHA ensure that such postings, if deemed offensive, can be taken down swiftly and urgently, given the sensitive nature of such potential postings? The second supplementary question is how do we ensure, assuming diplomatic immunity in future cases are waived, that due process in open court can be dealt with sensitively, given that it may play out in the court of public opinion and escalates certain tensions or emotions on the ground?

Mr K Shanmugam: Sir, can I just clarify with the Member, maybe I did not hear fully. On the first question, is he referring to posts by any member of public or is he referring to posts by embassies?

Mr Zhulkarnain Abdul Rahim: Specifically, just on embassies. So, specific to embassies’ posts.

Mr K Shanmugam: I will provide an answer with context. If it is by members of the public, of course, we have a variety of powers, under different pieces of legislation. There is the Online Criminal Harms Act, the Maintenance of Religious Harmony Act, the Broadcasting Act. If you look at the different pieces of legislation, depending on what infringements there are, there are powers to block access. There are powers under the Maintenance of Religious Harmony Act to even issue a restraining order. Though the very fact that we have never issued a restraining order since the legislation came into force – I think it is nearly 30 years – shows how useful the legislation has been and also shows the nature of the community we have in Singapore.

But if it is specifically an embassy, the starting point is there would be sovereign immunity. So, you would not be able to, for example, issue directly an order to the embassy to remove a posting on its website. You could look at more general steps, like blocking entire access to the platform, but that would be a very high signature step and I think we need to be careful. In these cases, when an embassy puts up a post, I think the way to handle it is the way we handled it – talk to the embassy.

If they refuse, and I do not want to be going too much into hypotheticals, but for example, if they refuse to take it down, then there are the usual diplomatic steps that one country can take vis-à-vis another country. But you got to assess the nature of the infringement, as it were, and how you calibrate it. It can be calibrated to how you give access or how many people you allow in the embassy to be in Singapore or you ask some to leave, in an extreme case; you have seen those sorts of things happen. Even when they are spying you cannot charge them, let alone when they put up a post.

So, that is part of international law. We will have to act in accordance with international law but within that framework, we will have to see what is possible to do.

On the Member’s second question, Sir, it is, I think, very hypothetical that any embassy would waive diplomatic immunity and allow another country to charge them. It has happened infrequently, but it is extremely hypothetical. What countries will normally say is, “Look, we will deal with the person by sending him back and then deal with him in our own way”. Members may recall the case of Mr Ionescu from Romania. The Romanians charged him after he went back to Romania.

So, if there is a case where immunity is waived, then the short answer to the question, Sir, is that the prosecution can make an assessment as to the nature of the case if it feels that this may stir up anger and create a spectacle with potentially violent consequences. They can always apply for it to be heard in camera, but they have got to show public interest, I think. Short of taking action if the embassy waives immunity, there are other steps that can be taken under various pieces of legislation as well.

CF丨編輯

HQ丨編審

新加坡國會丨來源

新加坡國會丨圖源

1.凡本網站注明文章類型為“原創”的所有作品，版權屬于看南洋和新加坡眼所有。其他媒體、網站或個人轉載使用時必須注明：“文章來源：新加坡眼”。

2.凡本網站注明文章類型為“轉載”、“編譯”的所有作品，均轉載或編譯自其他媒體，目的在于傳遞更多有價值資訊，并不代表本公衆号贊同其觀點和對其真實性負責。