Reporters Without Borders (RSF) in a statement on Friday, expressed that it is appalled by the totalitarian aspects of Singapore’s new, highly controversial “anti-fake news” law, under which the authorities issued two directives ordering “corrections” to Facebook posts within the space of a week. Below is RSF’s report and comments on the new law and the takedowns.

The “corrections” are posted on a government web page called “Factually” that was up and running as soon as the law, the Protection from Online Falsehood and Manipulation Act (POFMA), took effect in October. This page claims to present the “correct facts” as opposed to what the law calls “online falsehoods and manipulation” and displays each “corrected” item with the word “FALSE” stamped on it in large red letters.
The first directive was sent by the finance minister on 21 November to an opposition politician who had posted a note on Facebook questioning the investments made by two Singaporean sovereign wealth funds. It forced him to post a “Correction notice” at the top of his post with a link to the government web page with the “correct facts.”
A second directive was issued two days later, this time by law and home affairs minister K. Shanmugan. It ordered Alex Tan, a journalist responsible for the States Times Review blog on Facebook, to “correct” an article reporting that a whistleblower had been arrested in Singapore in connection with revelations about a ruling party candidate.
After Tan, who lives in Sydney, refused to comply, the government pressured Facebook to take down the student web page that Tan cited as a source. Facing a possible fine of 1 million Singaporean dollars (660,000 euros), Facebook did remove the page, albeit on the grounds that it violated its “authenticity policies” – because it had allegedly misused the official student union’s name.
“Ministry of Truth”
“The Singaporean government’s recourse to this ‘anti-fake news’ law is a very worrying violation of journalistic pluralism and independence,” said Daniel Bastard, the head of RSF’s Asia-Pacific desk.
“In both of these cases the authorities could have disputed the claims they disagreed with and, in the process, could have contributed to the public debate, which is what happens in a democracy. Instead, the city-state government preferred to impose its own vision of the ‘facts.’ In so doing, it acted exactly like an Orwellian Ministry of Truth and, on the grounds of preventing online manipulation, simply imposed its own manipulation of public opinion.”
Last April, RSF published an analysis of the draft version of this law, saying it had the potential to be a horrifying tool for censorship and intimidation.
Singapore is ranked 151st out of 180 countries in RSF’s 2019 World Press Freedom Index.

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

Function 8 and CAN: Article 14 of Singapore Constitution guarantees freedom of speech, expression, assembly and association

Joint statement by Function 8 and Community Action Network on the arrest…

GONGOs’ presence in ASEAN civil society conference needs to be addressed

by Jean Chong Yesterday I was terribly upset by what I saw.…

Kuching High Court dismisses pro-independence activists’ suit challenging validity of Malaysia Agreement 1963

The Kuching High Court in Sarawak, Malaysia, dismissed a suit last Thursday which challenged the validity of the Malaysia Agreement 1963 (MA63). Judicial Commissioner Alexander Siew How Wai ruled that the suit lacked a reasonable cause of action and was misconceived. He emphasized that the Federal Constitution establishes Sabah and Sarawak as part of Malaysia, and any changes would require two-thirds majority parliamentary approval and the consent of Sabah and Sarawak. The judge also ordered the plaintiffs to pay costs amounting to RM10,000. The suit was filed in March 2022 by 11 Sarawakians seeking declarations on the agreement’s legality and the decolonization process.

M’sian human rights group alleges “brutal, unlawful” state execution process in Changi Prison

CORRECTION NOTICE: This article contains false statements of fact made by Lawyers…