PERISCOPE - POFMA: TRUE OR FALSE, WHO DECIDES?
- ejorigin
- May 11, 2019
- 4 min read
Written by: Sit Jie Ren (19-I4), Current Affairs Team
Designed by: Jo Yeoul (19-A2)
Foreword
With the inception of internet penetration and new media in the 21st Century, the proliferation of online falsehoods and manipulative statements has become ubiquitous1 in recent years. This article will examine the various implications of deliberate online falsehoods, and discuss the recent legislation passed by the Singapore Parliament. Do use the Universal Concepts (UC) to guide you.
Background
Fake news bring about wide-ranging ramifications to society. Firstly, it can be used to influence political sentiment. For example, in the recent Indonesian elections, online “buzzers” were used to spread fabricated information about some candidates (Mokhtar, 2019). These misinformation attempts aimed to manipulate the opinions of voters in an appeal to sensitivities, with the potential to affect the outcome of elections, which clearly demonstrates the damage which fake news can potentially inflict on democracy, and politics as a whole.
In addition, fake news can also pose a cataclysmic menace to social cohesion and stability (Yahya, 2019). As Singapore has a racially diverse societal structure, fake news perpetuated with racial overtones could influence the mindsets of Singaporeans, and result in increased communal tensions.
Therefore, the government has recently implemented the Protection from Online Falsehoods and Manipulations Act (POFMA), which seeks to grant the state new mechanisms to combat fake news.
Under this Act, any Minister of state may issue a direction to remedy false statements of fact online, which the individual issued with the direction may then appeal to the Minister. Should the Minister uphold his decision, the individual may then appeal to the courts. There are also other provisions under the bill which allow for the Minister to direct that the social media site or website to take actions to curtail the spread of fake news, restrict false accounts, as well as requiring internet service providers to block websites which fail to comply (Singapore Statutes Online, 2019).
Points of Contention
Who decides on what is false? (UC: Power & Influence)
However, the allowance for any Minister to decide on what constitutes a false statement of fact initially, as opposed to the judiciary has been highly controversial. This is provided under Section 10(1) of the bill, which states that any minister may issue a directive if (Singapore Statutes Online, 2019):
It is a false statement of fact being communicated in Singapore
It is for ‘public interest’
This is in contrast to the mechanism employed in other countries such as Germany (German Law Archive, 2017) where the government files an injunction2 to the courts, and the arbitration of truth is solely done by the Judiciary. Singapore’s involvement of the Executive while being more efficient in controlling fake news, could be seen as granting too much power and influence to the government.
However, the oversight by the government over free speech may not be welcomed by all. Opposition leader Pritam Singh recently said in Parliament that the law “gives broad latitude to the Executive to clamp down on what it deems to be even misleading statements which may not be false per se” (Sim, 2019). Many, including the United Nations Special Rapporteur3, David Kaye, also believe that Ministers should not be granted such overarching powers (Hakeem, 2019). In addition, several “broadly defined” clauses such as the definition of “public interest” in the act could result in the misuse of the law to stifle meaningful discussion and as a result, the freedom of speech (Channel News Asia, 2019). Thus, the implication of this law on freedom of expression still remains a contentious point of debate.
Free Speech vs Regulation of Falsehoods (UC: Beliefs & Values)
The dichotomy4 of free speech and regulation was clearly encapsulated in this recent legislation. Despite repeated assurances from the government that it will not affect freedom of speech (Tham, 2019), some concerns remain over the fact that the law provides for a third party to judge a statement of fact as false will, which could inadvertently result in a limitation on the freedom of speech (The Guardian, 2019).
However, it must be noted that the intent of the bill is aimed at preserving the values which our nation ascribes to, which Minister Shanmugam stated in the parliamentary debates (Mokhtar and Lim, 2019). These values have also been articulated in the 1991 “Shared Values White Paper” which stated that Singapore is a fundamentally Asian society, valuing collective interests over individual interests, which is said to have “strengthened social cohesion” (National Archives Singapore, 1991). Thus, it can be argued that the regulation of falsehoods could be deemed as a necessary evil in the preservation of our social cohesion, in spite of its implications on freedom of speech. Therefore, the beliefs & values of our society are imperatives5 in the intent of the legislation.
Definitions
Ubiquitous
1
- seeming to be everywhere
Injunction
2
- an official order given by a law court, usually to stop someone from doing something
Rapporteur
3
- someone chosen by an organisation to prepare reports of meetings or to investigate and report on a problem
Dichotomy
4
- a difference between two completely opposite ideas or things
Imperatives
5
-
of vital importance; crucial
* Word definitions sourced from the Cambridge and Oxford Online Dictionaries
References
For more in-depth reading about this issue, feel free to access the following links.
Mokhtar, F. (2019, April 14). Fake news causing confusion in Indonesia presidential election.
Retrieved from
Yahya, Y. (2018, September 21). Select Committee on fake news: Singapore a target of hostile info campaigns.
Retrieved from
Singapore Statutes Online (2019, April 1).
Retrieved from
German Law Archive (2017, September 1).
Retrieved from
Sim, F. (2019, May 7). Worker’s Party opposes online falsehoods Bill, says Pritam Singh.
Retrieved from
Kaye, D. (2019, April 24). Mandate of the Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of the right to freedom of opinion and expression OL SGP 3/2019.
Retrieved from
Channel News Asia (2019, May 1).
Retrieved from
Tham, Y.C. (2019, April 2). Parliament: Law against online falsehoods will not stifle free speech: Shanmugam.
Retrieved from
The Guardian (2019, May 9).
Retrieved from
Mokhtar, F. and Lim, J. (2019, May 9). Laws to fight fake news passed, Worker’s Party rapped for opposing move.
Retrieved from
https://www.todayonline.com/singapore/laws-fight-fake-news-passed-workers-party-rapped-opposing-move
National Archives Singapore (1991, January 2).
Retrieved from
Comments