Earlier this week, World Politics Review (WPR) released a 36-minute interview podcast with Cherian George, a Professor in the Department of Journalism at Hong Kong Baptist University. In it, the learned professor addressed Singapore’s new fake news law also known as Protection from Online Falsehoods and Manipulation Act (POFMA).

A Singaporean himself, Prof George explained in detail his many concerns about POFMA. According to him, POFMA arms the government with excessive power that it can wield in any way it likes. The law, he says, has very little to do with “cleaning the information environment” like dealing with genuine problems such as the spread of hate propaganda.

In effect, Prof George says the Act erodes the trust the public have in the institutions of the government.

“You have to build trust in the institutions. Both in the government as well as in the press. And so on”, he quips.

This law, he explains, works counter intuitively as it kills the freedom of speech which includes good faith in journalism. As a result, it creates more cynicism in the eyes of the public.

“It tells people, we can’t even trust the academics. We can’t even trust good faith” he said.

Prof George also noted that the closest targets of POFMA in recent months have been alternative online news sites.

This is in reference to States Times Review (STR) being served correction orders on three separate occasions for publishing falsehoods on various issues, including the coronavirus situation in Singapore. Earlier this month, the STR Facebook page was designated a Declared Online Location (DOL) and an order for Facebook to ban access to the page in Singapore. This led to the page being effectively shut down and converted into a Facebook page for a different alternative news site called The Real Singapore.

Apart from this, the professor says that POFMA has been used to go after political opposition members who are just engaging in a public debate. Therefore, openly it can be seen as an abuse of the Act rather than its original intention to protect Singapore’s national security, he pointed out.

However, with the upcoming General Election, the Professor opines that POFMA will not hinder or limit the speech of opposition politicians. Over the years, the opposition members have become more experienced in navigating the Singapore political terrain.

At the same time, the Professor forecasts that the Act may be used against foreign media who operate with more freedom to cover the local elections.

Given that scenario, Prof George believes there could be a calibrated censorship where the government does not really impose open restrictions but instead creates a haze in the minds of journalists to self-censor themselves.

In response to a question by the interviewer on how people, as consumers of news, could be protected from falsehoods that is prevalent in the media, the professor proffered that the long term solution would involve pre-bunking instead of fact checking the posts. In other words, this means the minds of the public have to be cultivated not only to be more media literate but also to be more politically literate.

“You need to understand that there are more powerful interests in the information eco-sphere that is trying to manipulate some debates. You need to understand what their interests are. You need to understand, for example, who is behind the certain things you might hear. So it is to warn the audience, ahead of time to the kinds of manipulation that they are likely to face”, added Prof George.

The professor elaborated that this type of manipulation is “scapegoating”, especially when the blame is squarely placed on minority groups by politicians. It is understandable that there would be a manipulation of emotions, and therefore, when approaching issues such as these, the Professor recommends that people should be trained to practice scepticism and being objective.

On whether other Southeast Asian countries would follow Singapore’s footsteps to introduce similar laws, the Professor believes that this would not occur.

“I would predict a far greater push back against any such bill. These are countries that have bigger oppositions, more vocalized society, and fairly active legal communities. You probably would have lawyers on the streets, in Indonesia, Malaysia and other countries in Asia if something as extreme as Singapore’s law was ever mooted” he said.

The professor concluded, “Singapore is an unusual case of an illiberal regime that believes in doing things by the book to an almost obsessional degree. It’s been called ruled by law as opposed to rule of law, which is why you end up with this which is uniquely a Singaporean creature of a very detailed sophisticated written statute to achieve what most non democracies would simply do by fear.”

Last year, the professor had written an exhaustive document entailing his observations and concerns that he had on the law.

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

HDB files $2 billion deficit but did the Singapore government lose money?

The Housing and Development Board (HDB) reported an annual deficit of $1.99…

Low Thia Khiang explains his decision to move out of Hougang

TOC’s report will be published later tonight.   Video by TodayDigital  

国大生犯非礼罪判缓刑遭质疑 法官:不应视缓刑为“判刑较轻”

今年9月,国大生萧凯运(译音)于地铁站和车厢内三度非礼女性大腿和臀部被控上法庭,却因成绩好判处21个月缓刑,引起公众不满,认为判决过轻。法官对此回应,不应将缓刑视为“判刑较轻”的判决。 《海峡时报》报道,地方法官Jasvender Kaur表示,“在21个月的缓刑期间,他必须完成150个小时的社区服务,接受宵禁与参加针对罪行而设置的课程,减低再犯风险,使他能够再重回社会。” 23岁的被告萧凯运(译音)为一名国大生,他承认于去年9月12日晚上11时25分,在乘搭朝榜鹅地铁站方向的东北列车上,用左手触碰一名28岁女郎的双腿以及臀部。 地方法官认为被告在犯罪时显然是不成熟的心智状态,才会犯下罪行,所以目前的判处不仅符合被告,也符合社会最佳利益。 然而,对检察官而言,非礼行为是严重的指控,尤其是发生在公共交通工具上。检察官Deborah Lee和 Benedict Chan评估,萧凯运已符合成年人嫌犯条件,因此缓刑对他而言更像是一起例外,而非常态。 检察官进一步补充道,萧凯运自2016年8月开始,便出现恶习。针对萧凯运过往的行为,其表现并未出现强烈的改变意图,也正因他过去曾在公共交通工具上非礼,而强化了他的犯罪行为,成为根深蒂固的恶习。目前检察官将对判决提出上诉,要求判处6周监禁。 法官称罪行为受害者带来痛苦,但却未有受害者受到心理创伤 对此,法官承认,在公共交通上犯下非礼罪为严重罪行,但即使罪行相当严重,但伤害性质相对较轻,因此更应该注重其后的康复工作。…

Netizens mock woman who accuses Singapore Go-Jek driver tries to kidnap her when he obviously didn’t

A Singapore Go-Jek driver uploaded a video on Thursday (31 January) on…