View of Singapore Parliament. Singapore is a unitary multiparty parliamentary republic, with a Westminster system of unicameral parliamentary government (Photo by Phuong D. Nguyen from Shutterstock.com).

After a two-day debate that lasted slightly over 14 hours, the controversial Protection from Online Falsehoods and Manipulation Bill (POFMA) has been passed in Parliament on Wednesday (8 May).

A total of 74 Members of Parliament (MPs) supported the Bill, while nine MPs comprising those from Workers’ Party (WP) and Non-Constituency MPs (NCMPs) went against it. However, one Nominated MP (NMP) Lim Sun Sun abstained from voting on the Bill in the first division.

In the final division, after which the Bill was passed at around 10.20 p.m., 72 MPs voted for the Bill, while the nine MPs and NCMPs remained dissenting, and three NMPs – Anthea Ong, Walter Theseira and Irene Quay – abstained from voting on the Bill after Parliament had rejected their proposed amendments.

During the debate, 31 members spoke and the majority of concerns were raised by WP MPs as well as three NMPs. In addition, a few People’s Action Party MPs also voiced suggestions and seek clarifications about the Bill.

MP for Aljunied GRC Low Thia Khiang said in his speech on Tuesday (7 May) that the Bill has a “hidden agenda” that gives minister the “absolute power” to decide what is fake news and truth, and what punishment to mete out. He added that the definition of falsehoods is too wide and ambiguous.

Following that, Law and Home Affairs Minister K Shanmugam refuted his points in his closing speech by noting that the Bill calls for transparency – one of the main principals of the WP.

“You put up an article, Government says this is not correct. You carry a correction (and) let your readers judge. What’s the problem? More transparency, the better,” Mr Shanmugam said.

In addition, the Law Minister also acknowledged the points brought up by Mr Low and WP secretary-general Pritam Singh on citizens having to bring their appeal against a minister’s directions to the High Court, and arguing that most people will not be keen to do so.

He added the orders are, looking at the legal framework, and most probably to be mainly made against technology companies, and they can certainly challenge the Government.

Mr Shanmugam then said that there’s a “very serious logical fallacy” in WP’s suggestion that the courts should be the arbiter of what constitutes a falsehood.

“The point that both of you make is that people don’t want to go to court. But what you’re proposing will require people to go to court in every single case because you want the Government to sue them. So each time the Government wants to do something, somebody has to be sued,” Mr Shanmugam said.

The Law Minister also reiterated the Government’s stance before the House that POFMA will not be abused by the Executive as a tool to wield unfettered political power against critics and dissenting voices.

“(Debates) should be based on a foundation of truth, foundation of honour, and foundation where we keep out the lies, that’s what this is about. It’s not about the Workers’ Party or the PAP or today, it’s about Singapore,” he said.

Upon reading on the passing of POFMA, many netizens have expressed their sadness over this news on the Facebook pages of CNA and Yahoo Singapore, highlighting the end of democracy in the country. They also added that this is something that they “deserve” as they voted the current Government, and most of them turned out to be “yes-men” and agreed to the passing of the law without much debate or disagreements.

Some online users called for more voices in the opposition party as they were hardly heard during the debate. They even said there’s barely a debate in Parliament on this Bill as most people in the ruling party voted for POFMA.

Others opined that this Bill gives too much power to the ministers to decide on what is wrong or who is wrong, adding that it also controls information and it is something done by the elite to try and control the people. On the other hand, William Yap said that “with internet and power of speeches, comments and articles, that’s when people decide what is truth and join hands, truth revealed”.

As such, a large number of them have also pointed out that it’s time to vote wisely in the next election so they can put a stop to this.

 

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

全职国民服役人员、战备军人 每月津贴增70至120元

国防部高级政务部长王志豪,在国会参与辩论该部开支预算时,表示即日起,全职国民服役人员和战备军人的每月补贴,将调高70到120元。 上述调整也包括最少50元的职阶津贴,包括武装部队、警队和民防部队的服役人员都有份。 上次国会调整国民服役津贴,已是2015年12月的事,当时各军阶都获得约80元的调整。 这意味着,一名过去在武装部队或民防部队的服役人员,原本560元的津贴将增至630元。国民服役中尉和警长级别,也从原本1260元津贴增至1330元。 此外,当局还让拥有战备军人协会会员的新兵,可使用全岛24个ActiveSG的健身房;服役人员报读技能创前程培训课程时,将能获得全额津贴。 以往,他们报读课程可享有90巴仙津贴。国立大学和工艺教育学院也加入国民服役人员技能创前程计划,九家机构共提供超过4000个培训课程。 另外,军营医疗中心将利用科技,为服役人员远程看诊。

Mother of Dinesh Raman files statement of claims against S’pore government

By Andrew Loh – The mother of a former prison inmate has…

Perhaps ‘Lowly Skilled’ Workers are too lowly paid?

By Terry Xu A news article writes – “Singapore is too fixated…

杨南强:疫情下曝露新加坡结构性缺失 冀改善医疗体系提升社会保障

新加坡政府投资公司前首席经济师杨南强认为,在当前的冠状病毒19疫情下,也曝露了新加坡在贫富不均和社会保障上的结构弱点。 他在今日(16日)在脸书发文点评,其中三大结构性弱点,包括常规的收入支援不足,以及绝对贫穷群体的公共住房需求。 就业入息补助计划(Workfare Income Supplement)和乐龄补贴计划的补贴仍少得可怜,这致使他们在阻断措施下面对更大的困难。再者过于拥挤的租赁组屋也存在着风险。 其二,杨南强也提及近期感染人数激增的客工宿舍感染群,他们居住在欠佳的环境,也担忧会造成人道主义灾难,以及让我们的医疗系统不堪重负。 再者,当前疫情也揭示我国对医院的投资不足之处,我们每一千人口才拥有2.5个病床,但在其他经合组织(OECD)成员的平均比例是4.7,如日本的比例就高达每千人有13.1病床;南韩12.3、台湾6.9以及香港5.4个病床。 他认为,这也致使让我国医院系统面对可能不堪负荷的风险。 但他仍希望政府能藉此机会重新反思,加强对于绝对贫穷群体的辅助和社会保障,提供贫困家庭和外籍客工更体面的居所,同时提升医疗体系。