Senior Minister of State for Law Edwin Tong (Tong) has, in an interview with TODAY, reaffirmed the government’s commitment to “combat online falsehoods” by suppressing their operations to prevent such “fake news “from circulating. While I understand that the perpetuation of genuine lies can have severe repercussions on society, I think that the government really needs to flesh out what it considers fake news. Is it just news that the government considers harmful to the public or is there going to be an objective standard? Without a crystal clear objective standard, how do we as a society ensure that the government will not misuse the label of “fake news” to take now news that it just doesn’t like as opposed to genuine falsehoods?

I am not suggesting that the government is intending to misuse the label. However, the potential for misuse will be there if there is no objective test set. In coming up with new laws, isn’t it the responsible thing to do to ensure that the laws are clear and incapable of misuse?

When pressed on the issue of the definition of “fake news”, Tong said that the definition of falsehoods has been set out in laws relating to defamation and civil frauds.

In the book, The Law of Contract in Singapore, edited by current Supreme Court Judge of Appeal Andrew Phang, he stated that a statement “is false when the facts as asserted do not correspond with the facts as they exist”. If this law is meant to apply to the general public, shouldn’t its explanation be more accessible to the average Joe instead of being tied up in legalistic hyperbole?  Which layman is going to read The Law of Contract in Singapore or be familiar with what it says? Why not just spell it out clearly on government websites?

The lack of clarity could create an atmosphere of self-censorship which is harmful to not just to free speech but the rights of citizens to be kept informed by third-party objective sources.

The scary thing about the label “fake news” is that it can be used as a hammer against any information that could harm the government even if it may be beneficial to the general public. Which body will regulate the control of “fake news”? Will it be made up of a committee involving key members of the media (including online alternative media sites such as The Online Citizen and the like)? For something to be considered fair and above all, it cannot just involve The Straits Times (which has the reputation, whether rightly or wrongly) as the government’s mouthpiece and members of the government. It has to include prominent online journalists such as Kirsten Han to have a semblance of credibility.

Subscribe
Notify of
0 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
You May Also Like

新冠病毒最长潜伏24天? 淡马亚:追踪接触者资料或不全

日前,中国流行病学专家钟南山领导的团队,发表论文称2019新型冠状病毒潜伏期最长可长达24天。 该研究由中国工程院院士钟南山领衔,也是迄今为止样本量最大的一项新冠肺炎回顾性研究成果,已发表于医学研究论文预印本平台medRxiv。研究基于全国552家医院的1099例病例数据,名为《中国2019年新型冠状病毒感染的临床特征》调查报告。 medRxiv亦提醒,该研究尚未经评议,不应用于指导临床实践。其中引起争议的则是报告中提及,新冠病毒的潜伏期介于零至24天,而其极端值也被媒体广为报道,引起关注。 对此,临床微生物学与传染病学亚太学会会长淡马亚(Paul Tambyah)医生分析,潜伏期是指病毒入侵宿主细胞时间,一般不需要很久,其他冠状病毒如沙斯(SARS)病毒的潜伏期为二至七天,中东呼吸道综合征(MERS)病毒为二至14天,流感病毒则是二至四天。 病毒从细胞汲取养分后破坏细胞,接着人体免疫系统消灭被感染的细胞时,病患就会出现症状。 而研究指出,潜伏期中位数为三天,尽管只有三天,但多数呼吸道疾病的病毒最长潜伏期为14天,因此我国实施14天隔离期是适当的措施,而中国确诊病例相当多,追踪接触者手机到的资料也未必百分百准确,可能会出现遗漏。 可能出现二次传染 淡马亚表示,“你可能以为是A传给B,而两者之间可能最后一次接触是在24天前,但这可能是错的,因为中间可能出现C,是C比B早接触A,被感染了再由C传给B。” 淡马亚是接受《联合早报》采访时,这么分析。此前他曾接受《海峡时报》采访,其中也分析坊间戴不戴口罩的疑惑。 淡马亚医生是国立大学医学教授、国大医院传染病学部高级顾问,也是新加坡民主党主席。 另外,上述中国论文并未针对追踪接触者的方法加以说明。…

Lured into a Singapore Multilevel Marketing Firm (Disguising its Membership as a Part-time Job Offer)

by Permas I noticed that  Multilevel Marketing (MLMs) like to prey on…

律师事务所涉嫌保护客户个资不当,遭罚款8000新元

日前,一家律师事务所Matthew Chiong Partnership,因误将顾客个资寄送出去而遭个人资料保护委员会(PDPC)罚款8000新元。 据悉,律师事务所的行政人员2017年在使用电子邮件与客户通信时,先后误寄客户个资,将客户详细资料曝光。而第三次是由的合伙人与事务所的资料保护官员通信时误将其他客户的公司资料传送出去,涉泄漏疑云。 资讯通信媒体发展管理局(IMDA)副局长杨子健表示周一接获投报,说明Matthew Chiong Partnership涉嫌违反个人资料保护法令,在局长陈杰豪的裁定下,决定对该律师事务所进行罚款。 他指出,律师事务所将客户曝光,即是对客户的资料保护不力。其个资即指个人敏感讯息如客户银行名字、客户与姐妹的身份证字号、用于借贷的银行行长好、借贷信息以及抵押品信息,都被曝光。 “根据所被曝光的资料显示,均属客户的隐私资料,一旦曝光很可能使申诉人与其姐妹的个资被不法之徒盗取。” 杨子健阐述,“既然该公司旨在提供法律相关服务,而且每天都需要处理大量的客户资料,公司与其工作人员应需谨慎保护个资。“ 虽然律师事务所反驳只是一次性的错误,但个资保护委员会却拒绝律师事务所的说法。 副局长强调,“身为律师事务所的行政人员,在同一个月内先后将含有个资信息的电子邮件传送到错误的邮箱中,而公司选择忽视错误,显示公司内对于个资保护的意识并不足,对于客户的个资缺乏保护的责任。…