Left: US Ashok Kumar Mirpuri, Right: The Washington Post

The Singapore government, via its Ambassador to the United States Ashor Kumar Mirpuri, has challenged the Washington Post on its article about Singapore’s anti-fake news law which the paper said amounted to “censorship” and had a “chilling effect” on freedom of expression.
In a letter dated 7 December to the Post, Mr Mirpuri wrote, “Censorship entails banning or suppressing offending material. But the Government has not banned or suppressed anything. It has only required Facebook to append to the offending post a link to a factual correction. The original post remains intact.”
He added, “Readers can read it together with the Government’s response, and decide for themselves which tells the truth. This can no more have ‘a chilling effect on online free expression’ than your publishing this letter can stun The Washington Post into silence.”
The article by the Pulitzer prize-winning publication dated 2 December titled “Facebook issues disclaimer demanded by Singapore Government” is a report about the second direction issued by the Singapore government to Facebook to correct a post on States Times Review’s Facebook page which it says contains falsehoods. The direction was issued under the newly minted Protection from Online Falsehoods and Manipulation Act (POFMA).
The article was later updated to also include excerpts from Mr Mirpuri’s letter. In it, he had invited Mr Robertson to engage with any Singaporean minister on a debate on the topic, with the ambassador adding that the proceedings can be “live-streamed on Facebook”.
Mr Mirpuri, who has written to the Washington Post before (Singapore has a right to fight online falsehoods with its laws, 15 April 2019), went on to say that Singapore is especially vulnerable to threats of online falsehoods being an English speaking, diverse society that is open to the world.
“Your paper, like many others, has called out tech companies for publishing and spreading falsehoods online, and warned of the threat this poses to democracy,” he wrote.
“Pofma seeks to restore balance to the debate, by requiring tech companies to carry clarifications to reach the same target audience as the false statements.”
The Washington Post article noted that an order was issued to States Times Review (STR) to run a correction on one of its Facebook posts which contained accusations about the arrest of an alleged whistleblower, something the government denied. Editor of STR Mr Alex Tan declined to comply, stating that he is an Australian citizen and does not live in Singapore.
Subsequently, the Singapore government issued an order to Facebook to run a disclaimer on the offending STR post. The Post notes that this is the first time an American tech company is known to have complied with POFMA.
Facebook did so with a disclaimer on the post that read: “Facebook is legally required to tell you that the Singapore government says this post has false information.”.
The Post article said, “It’s the first time an American tech company is known to have complied with the country’s Protection from Online Falsehoods and Manipulation Act (POFMA), which took effect in October.”
It went on to describe the law as “one of the most aggressive statutes drafted to date as governments around the world step up their regulation of tech giants”.
The article also quoted Human Rights Watch (HRW) Deputy Director Phil Robertson who said, “Singapore’s law is designed specifically to put Internet companies like Facebook in a headlock to comply with these rights abusing edicts.”
“With huge, onerous fines and the possibility of even prison time, it’s going to be hard for any company to not comply,” he added.
The article went on to say, “The Facebook correction is just the latest flashpoint in an ongoing debate about the law. Government officials say it’s a key line of defense against misinformation and interference in elections, but critics worry this could just be the beginning of a flood of government requests that could have a chilling effect on online free expression.”
Mr Robertson also noted that the manner in which Facebook complied with the direction signals that the tech giant does not support POFMA.
“By phrasing the correction the way it did, putting it only on the post that is the subject of Singapore’s action and ensuring the correction notice is only seen by those in Singapore, Facebook is doing the legal minimum and signalling it is not supportive of Singapore’s requirement but it has no other choice,” said Mr Robertson to the Post.

HRW declines Singapore government’s invitation to ‘fake news’ hearing

In his letter to the Post, Mr Mirpuri also noted that in 2017, the HRW issued a report in which it accused the Singapore government of suppressing freedom of expression. He said that the government had then invited the HRW to appear before a parliamentary committee to back its claims but the organisation declined.
“HRW initially accepted, but when told the parliamentarians would have questions on the report too, said that the dates were not suitable, despite being offered eight alternative dates plus a video-conferencing option,” said Mr Mirpuri.
Back in 2017, HRW had released a statement to say that it declined to attend the hearing because it was not a “true consultation” but a “media event”.
The organisation said: “We have … reluctantly come to the conclusion that these hearings are not a true consultation on how best to deal with ‘fake news’, but a media event aimed to showcase those who agree with the government’s views and criticize those who do not.”
After the hearing – which lasted for 8 days in 2018 – those involved in the hearing released a statement with complaints on how the hearing was conducted and the way how the summary was written. It was signed by civil societies Community Action Network and Function 8, journalist Kirsten Han, historian Dr Thum Ping Tjin and TOC chief editor Terry Xu.
The statement noted that the select committee did not adhere to its own terms of reference and did not appear to be interested in soliciting the views of those being questioned. The statement also said that during the proceedings, articles were presented and selectively quoted in ways that were sometimes misleading and that some submissions were grossly misrepresented within the official Summary of Evidence.
This year, Dr Thum penned another post on his submission at the select committee hearing, reiterating the same points he made during the hearings and in his follow-up submissions a couple of months later. He asked if POFMA would be used against him in this posting.

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

疑煮食时没注意酿大火 75居民被迫疏散

兀兰街13巷第104座组屋一单位发生火灾,75居民临时紧急疏散。 据网络新闻网站《Stomp》报导指出,署名Jun Ze的网民表示,火患于周日(15日)晚上发生。 从照片可见其中一个单位中,整个房间都被橙色火焰吞没,且至少有两辆救火车和警车赶抵现场。 新加坡民防部队受询及有关火警时指出,他们于当晚8时35分接获投报后,立刻动员到现场。 当局出动了一支水柱(water jet),成功将烧毁该单位厨房的大火扑灭。 民防部队发言人指出,该组屋第9层到第12层楼的居民在火警期间,已经被紧急疏散,目前没有接获任何伤亡事件的报告。 “初步调查显示,起火原因是因为有人煮食却没有注意到火势。” 也有居民Shah分享现场的照片,只见着火单位在经过民防部队的努力扑灭火势后,现场浓烟飘散。  

长期待业青年易成“茧居族” 私召车成热门工作

近日《海峡时报》一篇报导,探讨我国不工作、不就业、不培训的“尼特族”现象,以及长期失业问题。 其中提及一名20几岁的青年,在失去工程师工作后,迟迟未能找到工作,最终他把自己幽闭在家中,终日以电脑游戏为伍,成为茧居族(hikikomori)。 隐蔽人士,俗称茧居族(hikikomori),由日本心理学家齐藤环在1990年代提出,指人处于狭小空间、不出社会、不上学、不上班,自我封闭地生活6个月以上。他们通常带有低自我价值和社会排斥,本国研究院刘光明(译名)表示。 据悉,该名男子三年未曾出门,对社会产生排斥。他甚至还为自己理发来逃避出门剪头发。一开始,他的妻子还支持他,但最终妻子忍受不了选择离婚。 另一方面,其他失业青年在迫不得已的情况下,最终选择成为私召车司机。 上月,交通部长许文远在国会被要求公布,目前现有各个年龄层的德士司机和私召车登记人数细项。 逾四万人持私召车司机执照 许文远回应,截至今年2月,有4万1000人持有私召车司机职业执照(Private Hire Car Driver Vocational…

Lawyer’s key role in coup

“… if people are so ignorant, I think I want to teach them,” says Thio Su Mien.

“脱口罩才说话!” 侮辱商场职员、涉袭警 妇女被捕

妇女拒绝戴口罩,还与商场工作人员起争执,以及涉嫌袭警,有关妇女已被捕并在今日(9日)被控上庭。 本月7日,一名妇女因戴口罩问题,在三巴旺太阳广场(Sun Plaza)与工作人员起争执。她声称工作人员戴上口罩说话,她听不清楚,要求对方脱下口罩才说话。 尽管工作人员多次劝诫,对方仍不配合;后来警员接到投报到场,警方要求妇女拿出身份证,对方仍不肯合作,还将身份证上的地址标签撕掉。 另一名警察试图阻止却遭袭击。该名妇女因涉嫌蓄意伤害执勤公务员,可能触犯刑事法典第332节条文。一旦罪成可面对最高七年监禁、罚款或鞭刑。 此外,防止骚然法令下,使用侮辱性语言骚扰他人,可判处最高半年监禁、5千元罚款或两者兼施。 至于拒绝戴口罩,警方则在冠状病毒疾病(临时措施)法令下调查妇女。