SINGAPORE (Apr 8): People are more likely to share a false rumour than a fact, according to a study by the Ministry of Law. In a survey of 2,500 people in Singapore, the ministry found that a false article run by a small news outlet would reach as many people as correct versions run by 10 major newspapers. What is more, people tend not to see a correction to a false story that is published later.
The spread of so-called fake news has had dire consequences. Between 2017 and last year, child abduction rumours led to killings in India; in Myanmar in 2014, a false rape claim from a Buddhist woman against two Muslim men that was published on Facebook led to two people being killed, with dozens of others injured and mosques burned.
Given these examples highlighted by the Law Ministry, tackling falsehoods has become a high priority for it. A year after the Select Committee on Deliberate Online Falsehoods’ hearings took place, the ministry has now introduced the Protection from Online Falsehoods and Manipulation Bill, to “protect society against damage from online falsehoods created by malicious actors”.
The bill is meant to deal with false statements online that undermine public interest in the security of Singapore, public health or public finances friendly relations of Singapore with other countries, election outcomes, or incite enmity between groups of people and diminish public confidence in the government. In a statement, the ministry says, “Such online falsehoods have had serious consequences. They are being used to divide society, spread hate and weaken democratic institutions. Combined with digital technology, the dangers of falsehoods have become more serious and greater in scale.”
Current laws allow for prosecution under the Sedition Act, or can compel individuals to take down posts under the Protection from Harassment Act. The key distinction of the new Bill is the speed with which corrective action can be taken. Additionally, the requirement to place a correction next to the offending statement is aimed at ensuring that it would be read by all.
If the false statement is seen to be very serious and harmful, it can be ordered to be taken down. Individuals and internet platforms, including Facebook, must comply with correcting the falsehood or take it down. The companies could face fines of up to $1 million, while individuals could even be jailed for a year on top of a maximum $20,000 fine.
Opinion divided
Singapore is among 20 countries that have implemented or are considering implementing laws to tackle false news. But the Law Ministry’s proposal has elicited significant concern. Facebook has said in a statement it was concerned about the broad powers given to the executive branch to compel the removal and correction of content. Meanwhile, the Asia Internet Coalition, which represents the views of major tech firms including Apple and Google, says there was “lack of meaningful opportunities for public consultation during the drafting process of the bill”. Jeff Paine, managing director of the coalition, says, “The proposed legislation gives the Singapore government full discretion over what is considered true or false. As the most far-reaching legislation of its kind to date, this level of overreach poses significant risks to freedom of expression and speech, and could have severe ramifications both in Singapore and around the world.”
Hong Kong-based academic Cherian George published a commentary highlighting a worst-case scenario of the law being used to quash legitimate criticism. Political analyst Terence Lee from Murdoch University called the Bill “invasive to Singaporean social and political life” and wanted greater clarity on what constitutes a falsehood and a manipulation.
The ministry has stressed that the bill targets falsehoods, or statements of fact that are false or misleading, “It does not cover opinions, criticisms, satire or parody,” it said.
Most stakeholders talking to The Edge Singapore seem to be giving the legislation the benefit of the doubt. They agree on the necessity of legal mechanisms that can deal with false news, given how falsehoods published in other countries have led to violence, or interference in votes.
Lawyer Eugene Thuraisingam says, “Philosophically, there is no justification to allow falsehoods to circulate. Falsehoods contribute nothing to the marketplace of ideas and cannot be justified as part of freedom of speech. Particularly in a multi-racial and multi-religious society, there is the danger that deliberate falsehoods may be a tool used by mischievous individuals to agitate people.”
The proposed legislation, adds lawyer Sunil Sudheesan, is Singapore’s way of putting in measures the government can use in the future when trying to deal with destabilising false reports.
Despite the internet companies’ discomfort, experts say the impact on internet businesses is minimal, since companies should not be profiteering off falsities anyway. Carol Soon, a senior research fellow from the Institute of Policy Studies (IPS), says combating falsehoods and keeping Singapore stable and safe creates a better business environment in the long run.
What has divided opinion, rather, was whether political officeholders should be decreeing what a falsehood is. Kokila Annamalai, member of Community Action Network Singapore, says the Bill, once enacted, may result in ministers stopping criticism directed at their ministries. “The bill, as it stands, will severely impact the ability and willingness of publications to write bold stories, to expose corruption or critique powerful institutions and actors,” she says.
Annamalai believes an independent body or an ombudsman may be better placed to look at reports of falsehood rather than the government.
This was also suggested by IPS’ Soon when she went before the Select Committee on Deliberate Online Falsehoods in March last year. But she says if the falsehoods pose “eminent and egregious harm to national security or public health, it demands timely responses which may not be possible when you have to consult or wait for a decision to be made by an independent third party”.
However, lawyer Amolat Singh says politicians were elected for their posts and should be trusted as custodians of public interest in Singapore. “Naturally, when we elect a representative, we must have enough faith and confidence that he will act for the good of the country. And the minister will have far more information and intelligence about a matter than the public will ever have,” Singh says, adding that the court system is not always suitable in the first instance because possibly sensitive information — such as that on national security — will then have to be made public.
To be sure, Law and Home Affairs Minister K Shanmugam has told reporters that, while ministers could make the initial decision on what is false so that the government can act fast and prevent its spread, it is “the courts that decide ultimately what is true and what is false, and they will be the final arbiters”.
Additionally, those on the receiving end of such directives can apply to the minister to vary or cancel the direction. If they are rejected, they can then take the matter to the High Court.
Freelance journalist and activist Kirsten Han, however, says that the courts option is not realistic for most people. “It is a significant amount of expense in terms of time, money, as well as mental and emotional energy,” she says. Lawyer Thuraisingam agrees: “These [legal] costs can be significant and may be something that needs to be addressed.”
Public education key
On its part, the government is encouraging people to continue sharing opinions on issues such as how lapses by the government show that standards are slipping, or that the government is to be blamed for rising inequality and how local policies are often elitist.
It also reiterates that the bill will deal with falsehoods that affect public interest. Examples of this would include claims that foreign workers have vandalised places of worship in Singapore, or that the government has declared war on its neighbours.
In fact, the government intends to leave the false statements online and have the correction placed alongside it. “It is not as if [people are] primarily required to take down [their posts]. So, what is the abuse?” Shanmugam told The Straits Times.
Ultimately, education of the public is the best defence against false news. Says Soon, who is also vice-chair of the Media Literacy Council, “Law is only one way. Technology evolves so rapidly, and user behaviour also changes. So we cannot anticipate, even with a really, really clear crystal ball, the threats we have to contend with five years down the road. We will always have to play catch-up.
The long-term solution is clear to her: “The continued emphasis has to be on building society’s resilience and immunity towards current and emerging threats. One way is to look at increasing the competency and capability of individuals to navigate the online space smartly and safely, and more responsibly. We need to equip people with knowledge, sensitivity and more healthy scepticism.”
Singapore’s ‘fake news’ bill compared with France’s and Germany’s
| Singapore | France/Germany |
| Any minister may decide that a statement of fact that has been communicated is false and against public interest.Once that judgment is made, the minister will work with the competent authority on the action.What constitutes “a false statement of fact” is to be defined by the government,which can then choose to issue a demand for a correction, removal of the off ending post,or to pursue legal action against the poster or social network. | Under the law against the manipulation of information in France, a judge is appointed to qualify the “fake news”.A specific request must first be filed by political groups, public authorities or individuals. The judge will act within 48 hours from the notification. |
| A person must not communicate a statement knowing or having reason to believe that it is a false statement of fact that is prejudicial to the security of Singapore; to public health, public finances, public safety or public tranquillity;to the friendly relations of Singapore with other countries; or could influence the outcome of an election; incite feelings of enmity, hatred or ill-will between diff erent groups of persons; or diminish public confidence in the performance of any duty of or exercise of power by the government. | France’s law is mainly aimed at preventing foreign state-owned media companies from influencing French democracy during electoral periods with false information and propaganda. It builds upon an 1881law that outlaws the dissemination of “false news”.Now, a judge will qualify the false news in accordance with three criteria: The fake news must be manifest, be disseminated deliberately on a massive scale, and lead to a disturbance of the peace or compromise the outcome of an election. |
| No time limitations are mentioned in the bill. Therefore, the new law, if passed, will apply at all times from its commencement. | In France, candidates and political parties will only be able to appeal to a judge to help stop “false information” during the three months before an election. |
| An individual who is deemed to have violated this proposed law could face a fi ne of up to $50,000 or imprisonment for up to five years, or both. Where an inauthentic online account or a bot is used, the individual could face a fine of up to $100,000 or imprisonment for up to 10 years, or both.But the bill targets other individuals and groups as well. For example, a person who makes or alters a bot that is used for the communication of a false statement of fact could also face a fine and jail term.The same applies to someone who solicits, receives or agrees to receive any financial or material benefit for providing any service that is used for the communication of false statements of fact.The bill also enables action to be taken against internet access service providers; internet intermediaries such as Facebook, Google, YouTube and Whatsapp; news outlets; and digital marketing or advertising intermediaries. | Germany’s Network Enforcement Act, or Netzdurchsetzunggesetz (NetzDG), which was passed in 2017 and came into full eff ect on Jan 1, 2018, targets only social networks with no fewer than two million registered users in Germany.The new law applies to sites such as Facebook, Twitter, YouTube, Instagram and Snapchat.Users will flag off ensive posts they want to report. The provider of the social network will take immediate note of the complaint and checks whether the content reported in the complaint is unlawful and subject to removal or whether access to the content must be blocked.Under the law, these online platforms face fines of up to €50 million ($76 million) if they do not remove “obviously illegal” hate speech and other postings within 24 hours of receiving a notification.A seven-day period is granted for removal of “illegal” content. — Compiled by Jude Chan |
