Singapore Online Safety Office Gets 500 Reports in First Test

Singapore’s Online Safety Commission received more than 500 complaints in its first two months, Channel News Asia reported, giving the new digital-harm process an early test across doxxing, harassment and intimate image abuse cases.

The commission began operations on June 29 under the Online Safety (Relief and Accountability) Act.

By August 31, doxxing accounted for 44 per cent of eligible complaints, making it the largest category in the early caseload.

Online harassment followed at 38 per cent.

Intimate image abuse made up 8 per cent, online stalking 7 per cent and image-based child abuse involving victims under 16 accounted for 3 per cent.

Those figures show the process is being used for personal-safety harms rather than only broad platform complaints.

The youngest victim was seven years old and was subjected to doxxing, while the oldest was in the 60-to-69 age band.

Minister for Digital Development and Information Josephine Teo said the numbers were not statistics alone but represented people exposed to anxiety, embarrassment and fear.

The commission resolved more than 90 per cent of eligible complaints it received, although it did not state how many of the more than 500 total cases met eligibility requirements.

An eligible filing must be made by an eligible victim or on that person’s behalf and must involve online harmful activity covered by the Act.

Resolution depends on removing the harmful content.

That can happen through flags to online platforms, formal directions, communications with the person responsible for the material or restrictions on a perpetrator’s account.

Cases remain unresolved when platforms, websites or communicators do not comply with the commissioner’s directions by the deadline, creating a non-compliance case for further investigation.

The process is designed to move without forcing victims into a long legal route.

The commission can assess applications, issue directions and require action from services or communicators, while victims may apply directly through its website rather than hire lawyers or begin court proceedings.

Content may have to be disabled for Singapore users within a specified period after a direction is issued, making speed a central part of the relief mechanism.

The early caseload also exposed a privacy boundary.

The commission does not publicly identify the platforms involved, because doing so could reveal details about victims and complainants.

That limit makes the agency’s enforcement pattern less visible from the outside, but it is meant to protect people who are already dealing with sensitive or humiliating material.

Young victims formed a meaningful share of the work.

About 17 per cent of eligible cases involved someone under 18, and online harassment made up 51 per cent of cases involving younger victims.

The commission also described cases involving AI-generated deepfake nude images, repeated stalking accounts and a forum thread that solicited identifying details about a victim.

Teo framed the office as part of a wider shift in online accountability, saying victims should not be left helpless when content is used to expose, threaten or shame them.

The first two months suggest the mechanism is already drawing a steady stream of complaints; its longer test will be whether fast takedowns and non-compliance investigations can keep pace as more victims learn the relief process exists.