Mr M Ravi

International human rights lawyer, speaker and author M Ravi took to his Facebook account on Monday (8 April) to question the feasibility and practicality of using legal aid to appeal fake news directives in High Court.

“Honestly, I have not heard of legal aid being grated to lay litigants to challenge the government in court. And if they are eligible to sue the government, the far majority of people who not qualify for legal aid will not have the means to pursue legal proceedings against the government,” he wrote.

Last Monday, the Protection from Online Falsehoods and Manipulation Act (POFMA) was tabled as a way to combat the spread of false and/or misleading information online.

Under the newly drafted law, ministers are given the power to order for corrections or removal of online falsehoods, as well as demand for sites spreading such falsehoods to be blocked when they harm public interest.

However, if someone wish to challenge the decisions, it can be done in court after applications to the ministers to vary or cancel the orders are rejected, as the court is the final arbiter.

What is even more worrying for M Ravi is that the Bill does not give citizens an avenue to challenge the government if it spreads fake news. He said, “What is equally troubling is that the Bill does not give the citizens an avenue to challenge the government if it spreads fake news (like the Marxist Conspiracy) in using the state media to manipulate such news by exempting the state media under Sections 61 of the Bill where the Minister can exempt certain persons/bodies from the Act.”

In the Facebook post, M Ravi was responding to comments given by Deputy Speaker of Parliament Charles Chong and Senior Minister of State for Law and Health Edwin Tong who failed to provide “convincing answers as to how the average person is going to afford legal costs in the range of $80,000 to challenge the decision of the Minister in the High Court or appeal against the decision made in the High Court”.

Mr Chong, who chaired the Select Committee on Deliberate Online Falsehoods last year said that mounting a challenge against a minister’s order for corrections or takedowns of online falsehoods should be less onerous, without actually suggesting what exactly the government should do.

By doing so, he said it will provide assurance that there are sufficient avenues to seek redress when there is a disagreement with the government’s decision. He said this as a respond to public feedback that had come in since POMFA was tabled last Monday.

On the other hand, Hong Kong Baptist University professor of media studies Cherian George felt that the Bill is broadly written which may be abused by the government to repress criticism. He also said that the law gives politicians a “tempting tool for dodging accountability”, while suggesting an independent regulator should be appointed to decide what is fake news and what isn’t.

As a reply to this, Mr Tong said that ministers will have to be accountable for their decisions before the High Court, if at all an appeal is filed. He added that ministers are politically accountable as elected officials, but a regulator does not have to account to the electorate.

Besides that, Prof George also mentioned that what the court can decide on when a person wants to challenge the government’s decision. He explained that the Bill allows the courts to decide if something was actually a falsehood, and not whether the minister is acting in the public interest.

For this concern, Mr Tong noted that the Bill follows an established position of the courts, which have mentioned that public interest is best handled by public officials.

Despite highlighting various concerns about the Bill, both the Ministers did not talk about the monetary costs that will burden an average person if they do decide to challenge the government’s decision under the proposed law.

According to the law, any government minister has the power to declare something as falsehood and issue a directive, free of the moderating influence of their colleagues in the cabinet or experienced civil servants within a specialised ministry.

On top of that, a minister gets to also decide that he’s acting in the public interest by using this law to insulate his ministry or statutory board from “diminution of public confidence”. And he or she can do so without having to consult with any independent regulatory body, committee or even other ministers. Basically, POFMA would give individual politicians the capacity to police speech, which puts the state in full control of political leaders.

Although critics are concern that the laws are too broadly defined, but the government is saying that it does not affect free speech but merely a way to fight online misinformation.

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

副总理王瑞杰 下月18日发表2020财政预算案

新加坡财政部在2020年首日(1月1日)发表文告,副总理兼财政部长王瑞杰,将在下月18日发表2020财政预算案。 该部也欢迎民众透过社交媒体、电邮或热线等管道,向当局提供针对预算案提供反馈和意见。 王瑞杰称提前预告调消费税避免被炒作 在去年11月10日的人民行动党65周年党大会,王瑞杰称政府将在明年财政预算案,公布消费税援助配套细节;也强调上述配套“不是大选红包”。 他表示尽管调高消费税不受欢迎,“但如果我不提,反对党会提,因此直接从我这边听到比较好”。 今年8月,他透露在筹备2020年财政预算案的工作上,积极接触商界、工会等各造,将拟定协助企业渡过转型期的经济援助配套。 新财案料透露消费税抵消计划详情 至于总理公署部长兼财政部及教育部第二部长英兰妮曾透露,消费税的抵消计划仍在编制中,详情将在2020年财政预算案公布。 她指出,为了确保财政的可续行,需要在2021年至2025年逐步提高消费税(GST),以此为年轻家庭与老年员工持续提供支援,应变放缓现象。 针对社会支出,政府也将负担高质量的住屋与看护服务,并完善学前教育。据悉,学前教育领域的拨款每年达8亿4000万元,而且可能还会逐年翻倍,提高消费税将能够消耗这些支出的增长。

Absurd inconsistencies in SHRI’s administrative processes

~by: Jewel Philemon~ “Mr See had not stated the subject matter of…

PSP’s Lee Hsien Yang urges S’poreans to make their votes count to “end the status quo of the supermajority”

Progress Singapore Party (PSP) member Lee Hsien Yang on Monday (29 June)…

The five Cs of political leadership in Singapore

Leadership renewal is taking shape, with significant changes to the Central Executive…