Intent matters, says Law and Home Affairs Minister K Shanmugam when it comes to spreading false news. Speaking to The Straits Times, Mr Shanmugam said that only those who deliberately fabricated news and spread falsehoods are liable to face criminal charges under the proposed Protection from Online Falsehoods and Manipulation Act (POFMA).

He added that those who spread fake news without knowing the truth will have nothing to fear. Also, those who start something based on a misunderstanding will not face penalties either.

Mr Shanmugan said that there might be just one person who deliberately publishes the falsehood online which then thousands of others might spread. However, ‘the bill doesn’t seek to impose criminal penalties on the thousands who spread the original post’ said Mr Shanmugan, adding that many do so without knowing the truth. These people need not be concerned, he emphasised.

In order to determine the intent behind a statement that is deemed as a falsehood or is misleading, the police will look at objective facts, circumstances and context, says Senior Minister of State for Law Edwin Tong. He noted that if necessary, the police will refer the case to the Attorney General’s Chamber which will then decide whether to prosecute or not.

So if intent matters and, as Minister Shamugam said, if people who share a ‘false statement’ without knowing that it was false need not be concerned, why is Leong Sze Hian being sued by the Prime Minister?

Yes, the case between Mr Lee and Mr Leong is a civil suit between two persons, not involving the government. However, the circumstances of the case are pertinent.

Mr Lee has brought a defamation suit against Mr Leong for sharing an article by Malaysian based news site The Coverage on his personal Facebook timeline. The article, titled “Breaking news: Singapore Lee Hsien Loong Becomes 1MDB Key Investigation Target – Najib Signed Several Unfair Agreements with Hsien Loong In Exchange For Money Laundering” alleged that Mr Lee has entered “several unfair agreements” with Malaysia’s former premier Najib Razak.

Mr Leong has shared the article on 7 November 2018 on his Facebook page without any accompanying text. Mr Leong subsequently removed his post on 10 November upon receiving a notice of removal from the Info-communications Media Development Authority (IMDA) on 9 Nov. At the time of removal, Mr Leong’s post had received 22 reactions, five comments, and 18 shares.

However, Mr Lee then filed a writ of summons against Mr Leong on the grounds that the offending article created the “false and baseless” impression that Mr Lee had misused his position as Prime Minister to assist Mr Najib’s money laundering activities in relation to 1MDB’s funds.

Now, Mr Leong wasn’t the one who wrote the article nor did he write a comment when sharing the article. He was merely one person, among many others, who shared it on social media. In fact, when ordered to remove the post, Mr Leong did so promptly.

And yet, Mr Lee persists with the defamation suit against Mr Leong, not the others who had also shared the post nor is he going after the person who actually wrote the article in the first place.

Next we look back at the bill which allows any Minister to use the powers vested in the proposed law to issue correction and takedown orders.

According to the proposed law, it is an offence for any person to perform an act in or outside in order to communicate in Singapore a statement of falsehoods or whatever covered in the subsection. The term “Knowing or having reason to believe” is very contentious because one would have to argue how he or she would find it believable that the statement of fact is true if the communication is faulted upon.

 

We can see from the bill that the definition of communicate is a communication to one or more end-user in Singapore on or through the internet. And it is also covered for communication through MMS and SMS.

Meaning that sharing of posts and even writing, sharing of an article to your friend on WhatsApp or Facebook can be considered an offence if the Minister so wish to pursue the matter.

So what does these tell us about how POFMA might be used by the Ministers if it is passed into law? Are internet users who share articles without knowing for a fact that the article is 100% truthful be spared as Mr Shanmugam said they would? Will Mr Shanmugam put what he has said into law instead of making empty promises outside of Parliament?

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

何晶转载文章“为何总理薪资那么高” 为夫君高薪说理

还记得荣誉国务资政吴作栋,在去年引起网民怒火的“部长高薪论”吗?吴作栋当时捍卫“高薪养廉”,也批评要部长减薪的建议乃民粹主义做法,引起网民热议。 时隔一年,总理夫人何晶,在个人脸书分享一则文章,题为《为何新加坡总理的薪资那么高?》,并且发表个人观点,似乎也有意为夫君的高薪说理。 她开头先言“对于谁值得拥有什么”没有意见,但对于他所分享的文章表达看法,指出在新加坡“裸薪”政策下最大的区别是,为官期间除了薪资外不会再享有任何其他额外待遇,即便离职后也不会有任何退休金和其他福利。 她续指,即使不是全部,大部分其他国家的领导在位时,都能享有许多待遇,例如可以有管家、理发师、乘坐免费航班,甚至家庭假期;而如美国等国的领袖,即便退位后都还享有其他待遇。 她在贴文中说道:“不论是对公共服务,还是在协助贫穷、弱势群体的社会服务领域,我们都需要的确有热诚、肯付出之人,且拥有相符的能力和知识,且拥有智慧和理解长远影响和可持续性的体制。” “不应占便宜”给不足薪资 她需称,如果这些能人都拥有这些卓越的素质,更不应该“占他们便宜”给他们过低的薪资,或者强要他们戴上圣人的高帽”。 然而,当她提及在其他国家,从政者即便退休后都有额外待遇,但不禁令我们想起,包括前总理公署部长林文兴2011年在离开政坛后,隔年就加入淡马锡基金;前副总理兼内政部长黄根成也受聘为淡马锡旗下子公司星桥腾飞董事长,尚有其他例子,不胜枚举。 至于有关探讨为何总理李显龙薪资为何全球居首的文章,作者声称“没有任何政治背景”,仅是透过研究分析,摆事实讲道理,来厘清网络上对总理薪资的各种流言。 文章内容不外乎对比包括中、美、英和邻国马来西亚领导人的薪资,并提出尽管总理的年薪(220万新元),几乎是香港特首林郑月娥的两倍(约86万6千新元),但文章也指出,许多私人企业的总裁,例如星展银行总裁高博德(Piyush Gupta)的薪资,在2018年入账约1千190万新元。 文章又继续阐述,试图透过说明国内生产总值(GDP)自独立以来节节上升,以该表现来合理化本地领导人的高薪。文内举例,美国在2017年的人均GDP达到8万0662元,而新加坡是7万8161元,顺序排在后面的是香港、英国、马来西亚和中国。…

可见度非常低 印尼烟霾情况堪忧

印尼加里曼岛林火肆虐,烟霾笼罩该国、马来西亚及新加坡,导致两国国民频频抱怨,要求印尼采取必要措施。 我国和马来西亚的空气污染指数都非常“糟糕”,就新加坡环境局官网指出,我国西部和南部的空气污染指数都超过了100点,迈入不健康水平中。相对的,马来西亚的空气污染指数也非常不健康,已有三个地区的空气污染指数超过200点了,东马的斯里阿曼甚至达到了416点。 然而,身为烟霾源头的加里曼丹,其空气污染指数可想而知,一定不会良好的。 今天在脸书群组All Singapore Stuff上,就有网民分享了一个据悉是加里曼丹烟霾情况的视频。 该仅两分钟的视频是由读者Yap所提供,据说已经在信息平台WhatsApp上流传了。视频中只见车辆停在路旁,可见度非常低,汽车和电单车骑士都停车不敢行驶,真的让人看得心惶惶。 视频间中有类似警车的讯号声音频频传来,电单车骑士也站在路中间帮忙指挥交通。不久后便看到白底红色条纹,类似救伤车的车辆经过,后面紧跟着两辆罗厘。 试想想,若当时没人在中间帮忙指挥,在可见度非常低的情况下,两车要发生车祸的几率将会高出很多。 有关的视频传出两小时后已经吸引了1万4000人观看,243人做出反应,77条评论以及189人转发。 署名Michael Kvm的网友则问到,马国已经开始进行人工造雨的工作了,“我们的政府做了什么?”

行动党15市镇会下月起 禁PMD在组屋底层和公共走廊使用

据了解,从下月1日起,人民行动党15个市镇理事会将禁止所有个人代步工具在组屋底层和公共走廊使用。 人民行动党市镇会协调主席张俰宾博士,在今日(7日)发文告声称,市镇会已经检讨已有条例(bylaw),一旦获得新加坡总检察署批准后,将实行新禁令。 有鉴于个人代步工具(PMD)事故频发,包括陆路交通局等各造也着手管制PMD。 在前日的国会上,交通部兼卫生部高级政务部长蓝彬明指出,许多国人依赖PMD出行和维持生计,但是在前两年(2017和2018年)涉及PMD的公共路径事故就多达228宗,而今年上半年也爆发了49宗涉及PMD的火患,所以采取提前措施是有必要的。 明年4月起,所有新的电动踏板车,都必须通过UL2272标准认证检查,并确保重量、宽度和车速符合规格,才能注册使用。 陆交局因电动踏板车火警事件频传,自上个月规定必须注册后,昨日宣布将强制电动个人代步工具(简称PMD)符合UL2272标准的措施提前半年实行,所有个人代步工具必须在明年7月起达到有关防火标准。 上个月起,陆交局已强制电动踏板车进行注册,惟至今已经注册的9万辆电动踏板车中,有将近九成不符合UL2272的安全标准。 相关的电动踏板车原定于2021年起就会自动注销注册,不能再公开使用了。 他指出,当局将UL2272期限提前半年,主要认为这是最早能做到的合理期限,也让零售商有更多时间引进拥有UL2272防火标准认证的足够货源。

SDP introduces five more candidates for GE

The Singapore Democratic Party introduced its second slate of candidates on Friday…