Members of the arts community and civil society in Singapore – 28 groups in total – released a joint statement expressing shared concerns over the Protection from Online Falsehoods and Manipulation Bill that was proposed by the government in April and is due for a second reading in Parliament in May. Groups include Maruah, Function 8, Arts Engage, Beyond Hijab, Humanitarian Organisation for Migration Economics (HOME), Dream Academy, Independent Archive, Pink Dot, Penawar, and The Online Citizen.

The statement notes that the bill “would grant excessive discretionary powers of censorship to the executive branch of government”. It adds that any action to address misinformation and disinformation shouldn’t take the form of broad censorship powers as set out in the bill which also lacks robust safeguards to limit their use.

Concerns raised include the sweeping powers afforded to ministers to declare falsehoods and compel individuals or corporations to make corrections or remove ‘falsehoods’, the lack of safeguards outline in the bill, and provision that allow ministers to exempt anyone from the bill, and provisions that state legal and professional duties are no defence to non-compliance among others.

Read the full statement here:

Joint statement regarding the Protection from Online Falsehoods and Manipulation Bill

We are members of the arts community and civil society who wish to express our shared concerns about the Protection from Online Falsehoods and Manipulation Bill, which would grant excessive discretionary powers of censorship to the executive branch of government.

Action to address misinformation and disinformation should not take the form of the very broad powers of censorship set out in the Bill, which lacks robust safeguards to limit their use. In our view, by empowering a government to silence critical voices, the law, if enacted, will promote fear and distrust. Like the “fake news” it is said to combat, it would undermine healthy debate and public confidence in our common institutions.

The Bill empowers any Minister to provide for executive orders compelling a person (individual or corporate) to take down their online communication and promulgate corrections as directed by the order. The Minister can also compel online platforms to take measures to disable access to a communication and publish corrections in the form directed. In both cases, failure to do as instructed would be a criminal offence.

The Bill applies to all kinds of online communication—a single text message in a private conversation qualifies. Orders can be issued regardless of the knowledge or intent of the person making the communication.

It has been claimed that these powers could only be exercised when a false statement of fact damages the public interest, and that the courts would be the final arbiter of truth. However, in practice, these are unlikely to be adequate safeguards. Even if an order were made regarding an opinion or a true statement of fact, it would be prohibitively expensive, time-consuming and intimidating for most people to apply to the courts. Moreover, they would also only be allowed to do so after exhausting an appeal to the Minister who had required the order to begin with.

Even if someone has the resources and confidence to embark on this process, before it is completed—which could take weeks or months—they could be censored and legally required to make public statements that they conscientiously disagree with. The Bill also provides that legal and professional duties are no defence to non-compliance, which means it can threaten (for example) attorney-client privilege, medical confidentiality, source protection and other important principles which allow vital services to operate for the benefit of the public.

The “public interest” requirement is also inadequate because it is satisfied as long as the Minister is of the opinion that the statement is against the public interest. The court cannot question this judgment. In reality, this subjective requirement would barely constrain a Minister’s actions in any way.

Disturbingly, the Bill also empowers Ministers to endow all public servants and employees of statutory boards to exercise powers under the Criminal Procedure Code, even though it is doubtful that they would have received the training ordinarily relevant to police officers.

Finally, under the Bill, a Minister can exempt any person or class of persons from any of its provisions. This means that a Minister can unilaterally decide to create two tiers of people in society, one which can spread falsehoods with impunity and another who are subject to this strict discretionary regime. This is a most perplexing provision for which we cannot see any justification.

The above broad powers are likely to inspire fear and distrust rather than encourage confidence. In other jurisdictions, legislation has granted a far more limited scope of powers and made judicial scrutiny an important and built-in first step to the process of halting communications. We strongly urge the government to withdraw this Bill and undergo more thorough consultation on less overbroad legal measures for combating misinformation and disinformation. We also urge all parliamentarians to scrutinise and question the Bill with a view to protecting the freedom of expression which is guaranteed in our Constitution.

Signed by:

Arts Engage
Arts Equator
Association of Women for Action and Research (AWARE)
Beyond the Hijab
Bras Basah Open
Community Action Network Singapore
Dance Nucleus
Drama Box
Dream Academy
Function 8
Humanitarian Organisation for Migration Economics (HOME)
Independent Archive
Intercultural Theatre Institute
The Necessary Stage
No Readgrets, Singapore
The Online Citizen
Pink Dot
Post Museum
Singapore Unbound
The Theatre Practice
Teater Ekamatra
Transient Workers Count Too (TWC2)
Wild Rice

Notify of
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
You May Also Like


新的选民册已经修订好了,其中包含了2019年2月1日的合格选民名单,从本月26日起至3月11日,经由选民局(ELD)公开给民众查阅。 总理公署属下选民局于2月25日发出文告指出,公众可以上网查询个人资料,或携带身份证或护照,到选民局柜台或民众俱乐部查阅。国外的选民也可以携带他们的身份证件或护照,到指定的海外领事馆或大使馆查阅。指定的海外领事馆或者大使馆可上网到选民局查阅,或是亲自到选民局询问。 选民局表示,在这段查阅期间,选民如察觉选民册中的个人资料和身份证上的不符合,可提交纠正申请。相关的个人资料包括了姓名(如果已经被省略)、或者更新姓名或地址。 这段期间,选民也能提出反对意见,要求自所在选区中除名。 想要做出申请或除名的选民,也可以上网到选民局网页,透过个人的政府电子密码(SingPass)进行提交。海外的居民除了上网,也亲自到指定的社区中心俱乐部进行提交。 复名申请需尽快提交 在上届大选没能投票而被除名的选民,可在查阅期间重新登记为选民,以便能够在来届大选履行选民权利。 选民局促请需要重新登记的国民尽早做出申请,因为选举令状(Writ of Election)一经颁布,所有登记工作将停止,一直到提名日(没有对手的情况下)或投票日(有对手的情况下)后才能继续。换句话说,就是来不及重新登记为选民的国人,只能等下一届才能行使选民权了。 选民局指出,自2016年2月1日至2019年1月31日,这三年期间名字列于选民册,在国内居住了至少30天以上的国人,可以申请为海外选民,并在来届大选期间到指定的海外投票站投票。 随着选民册每年的修订,先前已经注册为海外选民,并希望继续留作海外选民的国人,需要重新登记。选民局补充说,海外新加坡人受促通过上述渠道提前进行注册。…

【冠状病毒19】8月28日 94例新增确诊病例 10例入境病例

根据卫生部文告,截至本月28日中午12时,本地新增94例冠病19确诊,10例入境病例,四例社区病例,均为本地公民或永久居民 本地累计确诊已增至5万6666例。 其余80例新增病例为住在宿舍的客工,当中有58名是已经被隔离的双溪登加客工宿舍(Sungei Tengah Lodge)住户。他们大多数都是在隔离期间接受检测,或是通过例行检测发现的。 目前被隔离的4500名双溪登加客工宿舍住户已有大约3千人完成检测。 入境病例在入境我国后履行居家通知。 当局表示,未来数日内的新增宿舍病例数字仍会偏高,直到被隔离的客工都完成检测。 当局正在搜集新病例的详情,并会在今晚提供更多细节。

At least six former employees of Keppel O&M involved in Brazil corruption scandal

It has been reported that a US court document shows that at…


早前,因为文章被指涉及诽谤内容,和本社总编许渊臣一同接受警方调查的读者Willy Sum(笔名),在沉寂一段时日后,于昨日撰文阐述对近期发生在自身的事件表达看法,表示自己是秉持良心发声,也吁请大家不要停止对努力建设美好社会的追求和坚持。 亲爱的新加坡国民, 对于《网络公民》许总编和我本人来说,自被“逮捕”以来,我们经历了较动荡的两周。 我当时受到警方来函,逮捕令指示我必须在指定时间内现身录供,但即使重大案件的嫌犯,也会被给与两、三星期的期限来釐清嫌疑! 在“刑事诽谤”指控下接受调查期间,我感到我被当作国家敌人般处理。即便我寄给工人党议员毕丹星、和此案完全无关的电邮和信息也要被调查,令我感到冒犯,完全没有人的尊严。 执法当局没收了我们的电子设备,这是都是我们赖以反抗现代压迫的工具,向老百姓们揭示种种的不公和差异。如果这些议题继续扫在地毯下,无需接受民众质询,民间生活不会获得改善。 促使我仍继续为社会正义落笔的原因,是我国寡头政治体系施政造成的诸多严重问题。绝对的权力几乎不受审查,国家机构的职能形同虚设!对建制派提出的质疑声音,也会遭来政府机关的蛮力威胁。 我从未诋毁并造成他人对政府失去信心,但是种种事件,包括总统制修宪、2015选举承诺跳票增消费税、屋龄40以上的老组屋屋价下跌,还有欧思礼38号风波,都在考验着国人对政府的信任。 敢问,这会是我们国父建立这个国家的价值观吗?如果不是,那么在李光耀先生仙逝后,我们的国家怎么了?我恳请大家好好思考,我们究竟要一个怎样的新加坡社会?现在的施政制度,真的符合您的理想吗? 我们作为部落客和社运份子,秉持良心竭尽心力,通常是自掏腰包和安危自负的情况下,为公众发声和争取大家的权益。但如今一个接着一个,被国家以诉讼和刑事指控来对付。若我们无法继续走下去,我们恳请您,还有更多有志之士,能把共建美好社会的使命传承下去。