Since 29 June 2026, Singapore has had a dedicated regulator for online harms. The Online Safety Commission (OSC) supports the Commissioner of Online Safety, an office created by the Online Safety (Relief and Accountability) Act 2025 (OSRAA), which Parliament passed on 5 November 2025. For a principal dealing with harmful content, it is a genuinely new option: free, administrative, and able to direct platforms directly. It is also, for now, limited to five harms.
What it covers today
OSRAA defines 13 categories of online harm. In its first phase, the OSC handles five (MinLaw and MDDI release):
- Online harassment, including online sexual harassment
- Doxxing
- Online stalking
- Intimate image abuse
- Image-based child abuse
The remaining eight categories will be phased in. Until they are, a damaging but non-harassing falsehood about you, such as a misleading article or a false review, is not something the OSC can act on. That remains POHA and defamation territory.
How a report works
| Harm | First step |
|---|---|
| Online harassment, online stalking | Report to the platform first. If it fails to respond, or responds inadequately, within 24 hours, report to the OSC. |
| Intimate image abuse, image-based child abuse, doxxing | Report directly to the OSC. |
Reports are filed through the OSC’s website, with no fee. Someone else can file on your behalf with your written authorisation. Parents and guardians can file for anyone under 18 (OSC announcement).
What the Commissioner can order
If there is reason to suspect an online harm has occurred, the Commissioner can issue directions to the person who posted the content, to the administrator of the group or page, or to the platform. Directions can require access to the content to be disabled, or the perpetrator’s account to be restricted. Not complying is a criminal offence.
The Act also addresses anonymity. Where appropriate, the Commissioner can require a platform to disclose identity information about the user responsible. A victim can apply for that information, but only for specified purposes, such as bringing a court claim, and under conditions against misuse.
New grounds to sue
From the same date, statutory torts under OSRAA allow victims of the five phase-one harms to take the poster, the group administrator or the platform to court, for damages and injunctions. Platforms must take reasonable measures once notified of a specified harm, and larger platforms face additional obligations, including on response times.
Where it fits against the older tools
| OSC | POHA | Defamation | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Forum | Administrative, no court | Court | Court |
| Cost to file | None | Court and legal costs | Court and legal costs |
| Covers false statements about you | Not in phase one | Yes, including orders against platforms | Yes |
| Produces damages | No (the statutory tort is a separate court claim) | Limited | Yes |
For harassment, doxxing and image abuse, start with the OSC. For a falsehood about your conduct or your company, the OSC is not yet the tool.
What this means for principals and family offices
Doxxing is the phase-one harm most relevant to principals: home addresses, children’s schools and travel patterns published to intimidate. There is now a direct, free route to get that content down, without first identifying who posted it. Keep evidence before you report: screenshots with URLs and timestamps, and the platform’s response if you reported there first. The OSC’s decisions are subject to a two-stage review, so the record matters.
Reducing what can be doxxed in the first place is still the better position. See removing your data from broker sites and what is actually exposed. For false statements, read POHA versus defamation.
This is general information, not legal advice. The OSC’s scope will widen as further categories come into force. Check osc.gov.sg for the current position.