The Protection from Online Falsehoods and Manipulation Act (POFMA) is officially in effect as it’s been published in the Government Gazette online on 25 June at 5pm.

The bill which was introduced in Parliament on 1 April was passed after a second reading on 8 May. It was then sent to President Halimah Yacob who assented to the law on 3 June before it was published in the Gazette last Friday, making it the law of the land.

During the 105th session of Parliament on 8 May, POFMA was hotly debated – mainly addressing questions and concerns of Worker’s Party MPs – before being passed with 72 votes in support of the bill. There were 9 votes against and 3 abstentions.

The 9 MPs who voted against POFMA were all Worker’s Party members while the 72 who voted for the bill were 72 present PAP MPs and Nominated Members of Parliament (NMP). 3 NMPs abstained from voting after not having their proposed amendments to the bill passed.

A controversial bill

The introduction of POFMA triggered a shockwave of debates around the island about the need for such a law and the possibilities of how the law could be manipulated by errant government ministers to further their political agenda. Overwhelmingly, the concerns revolve around the issues of freedom of speech and freedom of the press.

Countless experts, activists, NGOs, and members of the public echoed similar concerns, pointing several problems with the law such as:

  1. Any minister can declare a statement to be a falsehood and order an immediate removal or correction of the statement
  2. The person accused of making a falsehood can only seek recourse at the High Court once the minister who made the declaration first rejects their appeal
  3. The High Court can only decide whether the statement was indeed false. It cannot judge on whether the minister’s original declaration and/or order of removal was made ‘in the public interest’ as the law outlines.

Regional and International organisations such as the Asian Internet Coalition, ASEAN Parliamentarians for Human Rights, the UN Special Rapporteur, Reporters without Borders came out against POFMA almost immediately citing infringement of rights and proposing adjustments to the bill. Global tech firm Google said that POFMA would be detrimental to innovation. FORUM-ASIA and CIVIUS described the law as yet another tool for the government to silence dissent and criticism.

Locally, 28 civil society and arts community groups including Maruah, Pink Dot, AWARE, Sayoni, HOME and Function 8 wrote a strong letter of concern over POFMA.

These groups also urged the Singapore government to make several key amendments to the draft of the bill before passing it in order to mitigate the concerns that were raised. However, the law was passed without any amendments.

What the bill is suppose to do, according to the Law Minister

Law and Home Affairs Minister K Shanmugam has consistently asserted that POFMA will not infringe on rights such as freedom of the press and freedom of speech as it is only targeted towards individuals who intentionally spread falsehoods. “99% of people don’t have to worry about it 99% of the time,” he said. Many remain unconvinced.

At one point, several NMPs proposed a number of amendments and commentary on the proposed bill. While acknowledging the need for such a law, the NMPs raised concerns that the Act does not contain assurances that limit how the powers can be used in addition to having “broadly worded clauses defining what is a false statement and what constitutes public interest”.

“We are concerned that these broadly worded clauses give the Executive considerable discretion to take action against online communications, without protection in the primary legislation that codifies the assurances given by the Government in explaining the Bill to the public,” said the NMPs.

In response, the Minister cited the potential use of subsidiary legislation to supplement POFMA, indicating that the government does intend to address the concerns raised by the MPs regarding the ministers unfettered discretion to issue orders under the legislation.

Details of this subsidiary legislation have yet to take form, however.

Besides that, in response to criticism that POFMA is redundant as Singapore already has several laws in place that deal with the same issue, Mr Shanmugan said that POFMA has a “narrower set of powers than under existing legislation” which focuses on falsehoods online. He added that the remedies provided for POFMA are “calibrated and provided greater judicial oversight on Executive Action”.

The counter to this is that while the law does afford the High Court jurisdiction to decide on whether a statement is false or not, the judge is still not specifically allowed to make a decision on whether the minister’s executive action is in-line with the provisions of the law – that an order can be made if a person knowingly makes a false statement and that the statement is likely to threaten public interest.

Additionally, Mr Shanmugam explained that the law will go a long way to tighten regulation of tech companies which cannot be expected to regulate themselves. Highlighting incidents such as in Sri Lanka where online rumours led to ethnic violence, attacks and a state of emergency eventually being declared, he said “Facebook users lodged thousands of complaints over hate speech. Facebook did nothing”.

So POFMA, the Law Minister asserted, will help address that issue.

As to whether or not the law will be as effective at combating the spread of fake news as the Minister suggested it would be, that remains to be seen. We also have to wait and see if POFMA will be used as intended on paper or whether it will be used by unscrupulous politicians to silence their critics and stamp out dissent.

Correction to the number of supporting votes and absentations 

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

Electricity: Why does Singapore’s tariff raising ranked 2nd amongst 21 cities?

Electricity tariffs have risen 60% since 2005, according to report. Leong Sze Hian.

淡马亚人物专访(续)– 倡议多党多元声音 “一党独大如恐龙般将灭绝”

民主党主席淡马亚认为,要为民众提供可负担的医疗福利,新加坡应该回归更为公平、进步的税务系统。目前,外资或投资者,在狮城都不需要还遗产税、不需还资产利得税、也不需还股息税,定期存款利息也免税。 他不认为在这些事项征税,会减少新加坡作为金融管理枢纽的竞争力,因为我们有卓越人才和完善基础设施,外资在这里投资,或资金寄存于此,即使要求他们多付些代价,并不会让他们感到不满。 另一个淡马亚关注的课题,就是我国公共住房政策已经偏离宗旨。居住本是基本人权,结果政府推出资产增值政策,组屋变成了增加财富和投机的工具。 “应该鼓励民众如果有余钱,比较适合投资在私人房地产,现有的组屋增值说法是误导民众。“ 他说,国家发展部也承认了组屋屋契的限制(屋契到期价值归零,且只有4巴仙组屋能获选参与重建计划),他认为,政府最终必须面对和解决这问题,这可是个政治计时炸弹,可能他们会延长将到期的屋契。“ 反对党的前景 民主党不久前积极邀请其他政党代表,出席该党主办的交流会。淡马亚说,各党发现大家都有许多共同点,争取透明、政治信用和社会正义,都是我们的信念。 他举例,例如前国会议员陈清木,虽然未克出席上述活动,但还是派了三名自身代表前来。他赞扬陈清木久经政坛,在选举竞选富有经验,能扮演团结各群体的角色。 民主党在两周前,邀请马来西亚公正党副主席暨前峇都区国会议员蔡添强,与新加坡反对党成员分享大马变天心得。 “我不确定陈清木的政治动向,仍有许多政治可能,如果他有意自组政党,若能登高一呼,可拉拢所有反对党组成联盟。” 纵观人民行动党自2011年选举以来,屡屡推出新政和改善表现,亚洲新闻台记者巴拉蒂,询问淡马亚如何领导民主党在来届选举,赢得选民支持。 淡马亚分析,执政党推出乐龄补贴计划和终身护保,是推动乐龄退休养老和全面性医疗保险的一小步。但是两者仍有许多限制,例如乐龄补贴计划只能每月领取最高250元,终身护保的免赔额过高,意味民众仍要自行承担一部分医疗费用。…

为年满40国人提供两年领薪培训期 助2000人转投科技领域

年满40岁的就职国人都享有就业保障,且能参加政府的新培训计划,转投科技领域的工作,预计能让2000人受惠。 通讯及新闻部长易华仁今天在国会上,就国会拨款委员会辩论部门开支预算时指出,无论是否拥有信息及通讯科技的工作经验,都可在有关保障下受惠。 他指出,40岁或以上的中途专业或求职者,可在新加坡资讯通讯媒体发展局(IMDA),旗下的“职业中期技能提升计划”(Tesa Mid-career Advance)下,到计划伙伴公司内就职24个月。 求职者会在领薪培训过程中,将获得培训和指导,以学习掌握科技领域的工作,其中包括数据分析和网络安全工程、云端计算工程师等。 政府也将为参与计划的10家企业,提供培训津贴,而在制定培训计划方面,资讯通信媒体发展局将会提供协助。 在该计划下,预计将提供500个该领域的工作机会。