In a speech in parliament during the debate on the Protection from Online Falsehoods and Manipulation Act (POFMA) hours before the bill was passed, Worker’s Party (WP) Non-Constituency MP Leon Perera said that while ridding falsehoods from public discussion is the right thing to do, the bill is ‘a cure worse than the disease’ and it requires a radical overhaul instead of just minor tweaks.

While WP agrees with the ruling People’s Action Party (PAP) on the need for tools to “limit the reach of truly dangerous falsehoods spread by malicious actors”, Mr Perera notes that the two parties disagree on the means of achieving said goal.

Mr Perera said that POFMA would create a country where too much power is given to individual ministers and where free speech, debate and even thinking could be stifled, especially on important matters of public policy and politics.

Defining what is misleading

Mr Perera highlights that Section 2 of POFMA defines falsehood as statements of fact that are false or misleading, not false and misleading. This mean that a Minister could deem a statement to be misleading just by virtue of the omission of facts. The statement could also be construed as misleading if the ‘opposite facts’ are not given as sufficient weight according to the Minister.

He said, “Under POFMA, a falsehood can be deemed grave enough to warrant correction or penalties for being a misleading collection of facts, even if it does not contain one single false statement of fact.”

On top of that, the same Minister may not even correct statements made by the government of its supporters that present only ‘their facts’. Mr Perera notes that politicians are likely to further their political interests where possible.

“In this case, shouldn’t the court at least be the first arbiter of truth?” asks Mr Perera.

Defining a real risk

Moving on to the definition of risk, Mr Perera highlights Section 4 which sets out various criteria by which false statements are deemed harmful to the “public interest.” He adds, however, that the language in the bill lacks any reference to a real risk threshold.  Instead, the bill uses words like “necessary” and “expedient” while failing to elaborate clearly on the threshold of impact.

He adds that Section 17 Part 5 limits what the High Court can take into consideration on appeals of correction or take down orders. The court cannot take into consideration, for example, the degree to which public interest is impacted by the alleged false statement.

Mr Perera warns, “This lack of a threshold of significance raises the risk of abuse of POFMA powers to correct matters which have a very minor impact on the public interest.”

Chilling free speech

On the matter of the effect of POFMA on free speech, Mr Perera noted the ‘bill’s peculiar cocktail of three things’ that would likely to chill free speech and debate about government policies and politics, particularly expressions of views that run counter to the government narrative. These are:

  • Section 2 – defining what a Minister deems a misleading presentation of facts, not only false claims of fact, as correctable;
  • Section 4(f) defining harmful falsehoods as including those that diminish confidence in the government; and
  • Section 6, which establishes Ministers as the decision-makers of truth and falsehood in the first instance.

To demonstrate his point, Mr Perera asked the house to cast their minds to the future and imagine a world where correction and take down orders could damage if not destroy reputations and careers – for journalists, activists, academics, public intellectuals, politicians, professionals of various kinds and many citizens in general.

He said that the heavy fines and jail term provided under the bill is for a single offence of ‘having reason to believe’ that one’s statement is false or harmless is “not just of chilling free speech but of hurling it into an industrial freezer.”

Mr Perera adds, “By free speech here, I refer particularly to public speech regarding policies and politics that may contain criticism of the government of the day or the ruling party.”

Subsequently. He added that it would be difficult if not impossible to subject “offshore sponsors of deliberate online falsehoods” to these criminal penalties, meaning that the burden of these penalties fall primarily on Singaporeans.

Mr Perera suggested that self-censorship would grip Singaporeans and that they would begin to restrict their comments online as “many citizens will not have the stomach to risk a correction order or a criminal charge even if they are confident about their facts.”

He added, “Many will not want to take on the effort, time, cost and risk entailed by a legal appeal, let alone a full-blown judicial review action.”

Wording of correction statements

On the matter of correction statements, Mr Perera repeated concerns that the broad language in the bill does not specify that the correction statements should be as concise, factual, reasonable and non-pejorative as possible. He questions the lack of requirement of proportionality in the wording of correction statements as directed by ministers.

Lack of public interest defence

Moving on, Mr Perera pointed out that under Section 7 of POFMA, potentially even the expression of a public suspicion or the publishing of information from confidential sources by reputable journalists and writers using accepted journalistic and investigative methodologies could attract criminal penalties which would result is a significant restriction of the freedom of press.

He said, “POFMA Bill as it stands lacks a public interest defence, something the UK is reportedly considering including in its eventual fake news policy.”

He suggested, “there should be a public interest defence whereby a statement that was “false” according to the strict standards of POFMA, ie it could have been deemed misleading at the time that it was made, may still not be an offence (or would be a far smaller class of offence carrying smaller penalties) if made in good faith, using a defensible investigative process and to serve the greater public interest.”

Impact on media and academia

Echoing concerns raised by members of the media and the academic community, Mr Perera posited that POFMA would lead to hesitation on the part of researchers with a different view from the government – for example on public health matters – out of fear that they may be subject to a correction order because they did not also publish, in the same statement the ‘opposite facts’. When academics are forced to stifle discourse and research for fear of personal consequences, that leads to an impoverishment of policy debate, said Mr Perera.

“How do we mitigate the risk that academics and the media may come to see a need to “soft-launch” their ideas before publication with government officers to minimise the risk of POFMA action, or worse yet simply self-censor or water down outputs that may disagree with the government’s narrative and hence be deemed to undermine confidence in the government under Section 4?” he questioned.

Rise of abuse by a rogue government and damage to democratic politics

On how the anti-fake news law would affect politics in Singapore, Mr Perera said a post-POFMA Singapore will see ministers correcting statements they deem to be misleading while themselves avoiding the stringent, immediate and broad strictures of the law.

He said, “ Ministers and government spokespersons can say what they want, including misleading statements with a partisan political character. What is the restraint on the government here?”

He adds, “Can victims of possible government falsehoods go to POHA Courts? Evidently not.”

He questions if an individual could take government ministries and agencies to Court for defamation and how long the process would be. He also questioned this: if a falsehood affects the outcome of an election and a positive defamation verdict only comes after the election, would that even help?

On the matter of ‘harm to public interest’, Mr Perera highlighted, “Section 4(f) describes diminution of confidence in the government as one definition for a falsehood being harmful to the public interest, a feature of this law that is different from most similar Fake News laws or draft laws in other countries.”

He questions if is a responsible thing to do to vest such broad powers in the government of the day, asking what happens if a rogue government decides to use these powers to silence critics and bury their own mistakes.

He says, “What if a rogue government uses these powers to stifle criticism, block the circulation of embarrassing information about lapses, abuses or corruption, perpetuate fear and entrench itself in power? What if such a rogue government exploited the reluctance of many Singaporeans to sue the government in Court to its advantage? What if such a government exploited the lack of a public interest defence to suppress investigative journalism?”

Mr Perera then repeated what the Law Minister had said in response to concerns that future rogue governments might abuse POFMA which was, “I cannot vouch for how a future government will act.” The Law Minister added that a rogue government or Minister who abuses their POFMA powers will be held to account in elections and many PAP members of this House has made much of that.

However, Mr Perera says this response ignores the fact that a rogue government can use POFMA powers to stop voters from learning negative information about its actions, which could be a factor in those very elections.

He continued, “To say Parliament is a check against abuse is neither here nor there – the abuse may affect the composition of Parliament itself. Mr Speaker sir, this argument is, to a large extent, circular.”

WP’s Alternative

An an alternative, Mr Perera put forth WP’s suggestion that the Courts should be the first arbiter, not the final arbiter.

To do this, WP suggest that the law require judges to approve correction orders at the point of implementation – similar to the model that is being considered by the French. Additional, WP wants proposed that resources be provided to ensure that duty judges provide fast prima facie decisions in time-sensitive cases.

Concluding his speech, Mr Perera said that a post-POFMA future is one where the only the rich and brave would dare to speak out. He also described how the ‘chill on political free speech’ would affect young people who will likely start self-censoring their thoughts and expressions.

Using an analogy of a surgeon dealing with a disease, Mr Perera said, “The problem of fake news needs a surgical tool, welded by objective, non-conflicted surgeons, to strike at the diseased organ and not the healthy limbs. But this Bill is not a carefully crafted tool. It is a blunt weapon handed to a conflicted surgeon, able to cause a great deal of collateral damage to the democratic body politic in this country.”

Mr Perera had also asked the Law Minister if it is in anyway possible to increase the capacity of the courts so as to process the applications from the Ministers in a speedy manner, just as how the United States have set up their system in certain states. The Law Minister as seen in the video below, did not reply to that and instead ask Mr Perera if he do not agree to the findings of the Select Committee on Deliberate Online Falsehoods.

Notify of
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
You May Also Like

为遏制武汉肺炎疫情扩散 武汉暂关闭离汉通道“封城”

中国武汉爆发新型冠状病毒肺炎疫情,疫情目前呈现扩散的现象,因此武汉市新型冠状病毒感染的肺炎疫情防控指挥部今日(23日)发布公告,即日10时起,武汉市城市公交、地铁、轮渡、长途客运暂停运营,机场、火车站离汉信道暂时关闭。 文告内指出,为全力做好新型冠状病毒感染的肺炎疫情防控工作,有效切断病毒传播途径,坚决遏制疫情蔓延势头,确保人民群众生命安全和身体健康,故将于1月23日10时起,全市城市公交、地铁、轮渡、长途客运暂停运营;无特殊原因,市民不要离开武汉,机场、火车站离汉通道暂时关闭。恢复时间另行通告。 尽管在文告内并未提及“封城”,但也迅速被大量网友理解为“封城”。 《BBC中文网》报道,截至22日夜间,官方宣布仅湖北省的感染病例就已经上升至444例,其中武汉新增62例,死亡8例。 当局亦确认,另有2197名曾与患者亲密接触的可疑病例,显示这种新型冠状病毒,可以通过呼吸道传播。当局同时也警告,病毒存在变异可能,疫情或出现社区性爆发风险。 此外,病情亦扩散至国外的迹象,截至目前,日本通报确诊病例1例、泰国通报确诊病例增至3例,韩国通报确诊病例1例、澳门通报确诊病例1例、台湾通报确诊病例1例。 与此同时,美国疾病控制与预防中心(CDC)21日下午宣布,确诊的患者在1月15日从武汉返回华盛顿州西雅图,随后前往华盛顿州的一家医院就诊。 美国确诊第一例新型冠状病毒肺炎病例。 这是首例在亚洲以外的确诊案例。 中国卫生健康委会还指出,目前尚未涨到新型冠状病毒传染源,而且疫情传播途径也尚未完全掌握,所以存在变异的可能,疫情也有进一步扩散的风险。 专家分析认为,病例主要与武汉相关,而且目前已出现人传人和医务人员的感染,并存在在一定范围的社区内传播。 世界卫生组织亦于1月21日发表文告,将于1月22日在日内瓦召集紧急委员会会议,评估近期在中国及周边国家发生的新型冠状病毒疫情是否构成“国际关注的突发公共卫生事件”,并就如何控制疫情传播提出建议。…

总理李显龙更新脸书头像 戴迷彩布口罩

总理李显龙今日(23日)更新他的官方脸书头像,发布自己戴上布口罩的自拍照。 照片中可见他穿戴着深绿色数字迷彩布口罩,并表示感谢Sheila和Hedy Khoo母女为他缝制的这件布口罩,并赞扬非常实用和时尚。 总理曾在今年1月30日,表示理解国人无法买到口罩的焦虑,但重申只有身体不适时才需要戴口罩。他指出,卫生部建议只有生病时才需要戴口罩。如果身体健康就不用。 不过,随着本地疫情局势升温,总理李显龙在本月3日的直播中,坦言政府重新思考对口罩的建议。 “之前建议民众不适才戴口罩,当时还没有社群传播,且政府仍给每户家庭四张口罩。但如今社群中可能仍有未发现的感染者,也可能传染给人,故此世卫组织和美国传染病中心也在重新检讨。但目前也有证据显示,冠状病毒19感染者也可能没出现症状,仍会把病毒传给他人。” 故此,对于那些可能已被感染而不自知的,穿戴口罩也可保护他人。也能让年长者获得更好的保护。


应对电子商务和网购需求,为能提高运营效率,新邮政(SingPost)自12月2日起,将停止挂号邮件与普通邮件寄送小包裹,同时也取消上门派送服务。 新邮政周三(30日)宣布新政策,表示自12月2日期将递送服务简化为基本包裹(Basic Package)与追踪包裹(Tracked Packages),而且重量必须不超过两公斤。这些包裹将会递送至信箱内。 新邮政表示,“新政策反映着我国对小包裹的高需求,因此为了能节省服务时间,将包裹送至信箱内,同时也代表顾客无需待在家全天候等候包裹,也使邮差的工作更加有效率,提高服务的标准。” 目前,不超过两公斤的包裹可以通过“普通邮件”(Ordinary Mail)寄送,其价格不逾3.35元,再收取额外2.24元注册该包裹。但从12月2日起,“普通邮件”将改名为“基本邮件”(Basic Mail),这将会用于不超过500克的信件与列印文件。 因此,未来顾客欲寄送不超过两公斤的包裹可以通过“基本包裹”(Basic Package)寄送,其价格约0.90至3.50元,而基本包裹是不含追踪与通知服务。另一方面,若顾客想要寄送不超过两公斤的包裹,并且含追踪与通知服务,可以选择“追踪包裹”(Tracked Package)服务,其价格约3.20至4.80左右。 两者的递送均送达信箱内,由顾客自行收取。…