After the Protection from Online Falsehoods and Manipulation Bill (POFMA) was proposed in Parliament on 1 April, it instantly became the talk of the town and received a high volume of criticism and concerns from various parties across Singapore and around the world.

One of the first few groups to raise its worries were The Asian Forum for Human Rights and Development (FORUM-ASIA) and the global civil society alliance CIVICUS.  They released a joint statement highlighting that the bill “is merely a smokescreen to increase curbs on the freedom of expression, and to further silence dissent in this already tightly controlled State”, adding that the provisions in the bill are inconsistent with human rights laws and standards on freedom of expression and information.

That’s not all. The two organisations also noted that the new law gives authorities to a single party (the Government) to decide what is true and false, which can “be abused to target online criticism of the State, including from activist and civil society groups”.

Echoing the same concerns, the Asian Internet Coalition (AIC) pointed out that the proposed legislation will hand the Singapore government full discretion over what is considered true or false.

In its statement AIC added, “As the most far-reaching legislation of its kind to date, this level of overreach poses significant risks to freedom of expression and speech, and could have severe ramifications both in Singapore and around the world”.

Although AIC supports the government’s goals to protect “social cohesion, harmony, and integrity of institutions and political processes”, it’s “disappointed by the lack of meaningful opportunities for public consultation during the drafting process of this bill, given the significant implications it could have for diverse stakeholders, including industry, media and civil society, in Singapore, the region and internationally.”

AIC is an industry association comprising leading internet technology giants like Apple, Facebook, Google, Expedia group, Amazon, LINE, LinkedIn, Rakuten, Airbnb, Twitter, Yahoo! as well as Booking.com.

As such, the organisation stays put with its position, which is shared among many experts around the world, that “prescriptive legislation should not be the first solution in addressing what is a highly nuanced and complex issue”.

Focusing on POFMA, AIC noted that it will be working closely with the government to handle misinformation, and hoped that this new bill “will not be at the expense of the benefits that public debate and exchange of ideas can bring”.

Highlighting a similar concern, independent literary publisher Ethos Books pointed out that they have “reservations with the proposed bill in its entirety” as it gives sole power to any Ministry and its Minister in determining what is harmful and false.

Under POFMA, ministers will be allowed to have the power to issue a correction direction or stop communication direction – basically to compel an individual or company/website to issue a correction of the ‘falsehood’ or remove the content entirely, if they say a certain content is fake.

However, there is no definition in the bill to state what determines if a statement is false or who or what entity(ies) will determine the authenticity of the statement. This would mean the Minister can simply point at a statement of fact or any report, and say that it is fake.

As such, the publisher said, “There are multiple truths that we each hold, in varying gravities. This will impose rigid structures that may be antithetical to the practices of art-and culture-making”.

Emphasising its concerns, Ethos added that giving this responsibility to a single person, regardless of their designation, is “potentially demoralising and casts a censorial effect on works of art”, sometimes even before these works can be materialised.

Besides Ethos, the current and former media practitioners have also released a statement on 18 April (Thursday) to all MPs expressing their disappointment and problems with POFMA, particularly its freedom to render the government a reactive player in the fight against false news rather than a proactive and engaged partner of media outlets, as well as granting the government total power that can be abused by this government or the next.

In addition, the media members also highlighted that the proposed bill would infringe freedom of expression as it does not sufficiently account for the distinctive nuances that lie between facts, opinion and outright disinformation.

Based on the issues they have with POMFA, their statement also talked about some of the suggestions that they recommended the MPs to consider, the first being a refinement of existing laws for the government to treat media entities as valuable partners, rather than as the enemy in fighting against false news.

The next direction is to remove excessive executive power that is given to the government so that the Singaporean authorities can be encouraged to better engage with media outlets in a timely fashion, in case POFMA is enacted. They also reiterate the formation of an independent body to decide on falsehoods, a proposal that many media practitioners and outlets have recommended.

On the other hand, another party that offered recommendations on what the government can do to manage online content is the International Commission of Jurists (ICJ).

The international human rights non-governmental organisation highlighted that POFMA is “vague” and “inconsistent” with international legal standards as “its provisions present a real risk that it can be wielded in an arbitrary manner to curtail important discussion of matters of public interest in the public sphere, including content critical of the government”.

This is because ICJ believes that critical arguments, exchange of opinions and free access to information are crucial in order to have an informed society and “ensure transparency, accountability and informed debate on crucial matters of public interest”.

Citing David Kaye’s Special Rapporteur on the Promotion and Protection of the Right to Freedom of Opinion and Expression, ICJ suggested that state regulation of online content should include “smart regulation, not heavy-handed viewpoint-based regulation”; restriction of content should be made by an independent authority which follows the “standards of legality, necessity and legitimacy” and “not impose disproportionate sanctions”; and any restrictions restraining freedom of expression and opinion must be clearly provided in law and it can only be done in serious threats like protection of national security and public order, which must be in accordance with international law standards.

Besides the above mentioned groups, on Wednesday (24 April), 27 famous journalists have also come forward and signed a letter addressed to the Minister of Communications and Information S Iswaran to express the issues that they have with the Bill.

The letter criticised the Bill’s “failure to take into account the realities on the ground”, given that stories are filed by journalists “as situations develop and facts are still emerging”.

“By failing to distinguish between a malicious falsehood and a genuine mistake, the proposed legislation places an unnecessarily onerous burden on even journalists acting in good faith”, and as a result, the upcoming Act will “hinder rather than encourage the free flow of accurate information”.

The letter added, “News organisations might feel compelled to withhold important stories simply because certain facts cannot be fully ascertained”, particularly “in Singapore where it is often not possible to get a response in time from the government”.

After POMFA was proposed in the beginning of the month, Law and Home Affairs Minister K Shanmugam has gone all out to defence the Bill and said it will only be applied on statements of fact and not opinions. Referring to his statement, the journalists opined that the distinction between “statement of fact” and “opinion” is “not always clear”.

“Opinion writers regularly cite facts to back up their positions, and a journalist’s interpretation and presentation of a set of facts might contradict a minister’s own understanding of what took place,” stressed the journalists.

In addition, highlighting the same concerns just like the other groups, these prominent journalists also said that by granting a broad scope of powers to Ministers under POMFA, it can be “misused for selfish gain”.

As such, this group urged the Singapore government to withdraw the Bill, and to instead replace what they have dubbed a “draconian” legislation with “genuine and robust discussion” on how best to fight the spreads of online falsehoods.

Additionally, the groups in the local arts community and civil society raised similar concerns about POFMA in their joint statement published on 29 April which noted much of the same concerns as other groups such as the sweeping powers of the bill and lack of clarity in defining what constitute falsehood. The 28 groups also noted in their statements, “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 statement points out an additional point that the bill provides that legal and professional duties are not a defence to non-compliance, meaning that “it can threaten attorney-client privilege, medical confidentiality, source protection and other important principles which allow vital services to operate for the benefit of the public”.

Rather significantly, it appears that SPH and Mediacorp have also neglected to report the letter sent by the UN Special Rapporteur David Kaye to PM Lee urging him to withdraw the proposed legislation and provide additional time for legislative and public consideration to ensure that the Bill aligns with international human rights standards.

In his letter, Mr Kaye argued that the impending legislation would serve as the basis to deter fully legitimate speech – including public debate, criticism of government policy and political dissent – as well as serving as a model for far-reaching restrictions on vague and discretionary grounds of falsity.

Mr Kaye wrote, “In my experience as Special Rapporteur, I have seen laws against “false information” be used to target journalists, activists, and others, and the proliferation of such laws are cause for grave concern.”

Finally and to date (30 April), both media conglomerates have also not reported the event held at Hong Ling Park which saw over 250 members of the public gather at to discuss their concerns over the fake news bill. Speakers at the event included lawyer and advocate Khush Chopra, former politician and founder of Asia Centre Dr James Gomez, media professional and political activist Brad Bowyer, and activist and former social worker Chan Wai Han. The 2.5 hour event saw concerned Singaporeans, young and old, showing up to make a stand to protect the freedom of speech which they feel the bill threatens.

Looking at all these concerns raised by these groups on POFMA, it’s surprising to see Straits Times (under SPH) and Mediacorp sites Channel NewsAsia and Today Online – who have been constantly updating the public on the Government’s points and arguments for POFMA – fail to report on the different perspectives and worries that were brought up by these various important parties.

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

国内外影响因素众多 我国多家餐厅关闭

最近一些餐厅面临着倒闭,紧急为未到期的租赁单位寻找新的承租人,甚至愿意免费提供配有家具、固定装置和厨房,而今年关闭的餐馆和咖啡馆包括有位于风华南岸的Atmastel、由米其林星级厨师安德里亚·塔里尼(Andrea Tarini)负责的意大利餐厅,以及巴西班让的On the Table。 但是这些餐厅关闭的原因众多,包括受到外籍员工聘请政策所约束、国际经济环境影响、外卖服务的打击等。 留下厨房设备给承租者 两周前,由米其林星级厨师德维托(Beppe de Vito)经营的意大利餐厅SONS,以零成本接受收购。 房产经纪人指出,餐馆老板多数在出售单位时,都会有接管费,以弥补之前用于开餐厅的花费。 他对《海峡时报周日刊》指出,这家设备齐全的SONS餐厅设有大理石吧台,可容纳200人以上,是德维托在四年前,已超过一万元的价格打造。 这坐落在中国广场中心,占地2800平方英尺且月租为2万5000元的单位,德维托当时签下的租赁将持续到2021年3月,即距离目前还有大约一年半的时间。…

鄞义林赞我国疫情应对表现佳 欠缺人民参与度为一大纰漏

旅台部落客兼维权人士鄞义林,赞扬我国在此次应对武汉冠状病毒(COVID-19)的表现,认同当局采取非常好的应对策略,并对策划者提早拟定对策表示佩服,只是他指出我国政府没有顾及人民的策略参与度,甚至指责人民没有“纪律”,遗憾成为一大败笔。 昨早(13日)在脸书上帖文,赞扬我国的医疗系统在应对冠毒疫情上,采取了非常好的设施,并相信有参与策略者,如他的前上司国家传染病中心临床主任、高级顾问医生苏安·华素(Shawn Vasoo)以及主任梁玉心,对他们的表现由衷敬佩。 医疗措施纰漏或增患者压力 他指出,建议诊所医生给患有呼吸道症状的患者五天病假,向永久居民和公民收取低廉费用;或者将患者送到医院进行免费的冠毒检测和住院治疗,都有助于减少疫情传播。 惟,他认为“该措施存在着漏洞”。他指出,短期到访的人群并不在可获得低廉或豁免医药费的群组中,可能有一部分的人们就不愿接受检测,而本身患有其他疾病的患者,因为入院,是否也必须为其他疾病支付医药费,似乎为患者徒增压力。 “在冠毒疫情之外,这些都是新加坡昂贵医药系统所需解决的漏洞。” 全国策略不能欠缺人民参与 鄞义林指出,新加坡在应对疫情来袭时,非常依赖卫生系统,且获得警方协助追踪接触者。换言之,我国在这部分已经建立强大的体系来应对流行病等危机,这也意味着我国策略中并没有充分考量人民的参与度,导致新漏洞的出现。 他表示,从部长们的发言中,可察觉到他们已预先计划了应对疫情的措施,且预计有关流行病将持续一段时间。其他国家在面对疫情时遭受严重打击,新加坡却能相对地自保。 但是,他也批评部长们在策划时,并没有将国民和居民纳入考量,以致国民和居民行事偏离了他们的计划时,就开始批评,甚至怒骂。 “国民和居民都没有被告知过有关策略,想当然的就无法根据计划集体行事,引起了恐慌性大抢购行动,部长却称这为愚蠢和笨蛋的行为,令部长们感到尴尬,成为了国家在做充分准备应对疫情事件上的污点。这也是为什么部分患者被指责为没有负起社会责任,因为他们若有社会责任,就不会有这么多起感染病例,也能让国家看起来更完美。”…

TOC Gazetted: It’s not about politics, but media

by Howard Lee In the administration of any nation, there is always…

BTO: 32 months to build – Really?

(Part 3 of the Singapore Census 2010 series) by Leong Sze Hian…