Debated in Parliament on 4 May 2020.
Mr Lim Biow Chuan asked the Minister for Home Affairs what actions are being taken to track down the originators of fake messages claiming a "partial lockdown" in Singapore and whether the culprits will be prosecuted once they are identified.
The Police take a serious view of all reports of falsehoods regarding the COVID-19 situation, including those that claim “partial lockdown”, as these may cause public alarm. The Police will investigate such cases and take firm action against the culprits.
For instance, Police identified a 40-year-old man who allegedly circulated a false message claiming that he had "intel" that the Government would close all coffee shops and food courts, and open supermarkets only two days a week. He urged readers to go "stock up" on items. The man was charged on 27 April 2020 for an offence of communicating a false message under the Miscellaneous Offences (Public Order and Nuisance) Act. This carries an imprisonment term of up to three years, a fine of up to S$10,000, or both.
Sir, considering considering the impact of such fake messages on the public, may I ask the Senior Parliamentary Secretary, how else can Police signal that perpetrators of such fake messages will face the full brunt of the law? Can the punishment be more severe for people who make such fake messages?
The Police have taken this very seriously and have taken stern measures. The law is quite strict on this and I think it is adequate deterrence for those who persist in such conduct. We have, in addition to the law, also taken complementary measures such as advisories and various other measures. I think it is important that broader public communication efforts to clarify and rebut inaccurate information are done in tandem with legal enforcement.
In this case, the Government has issued a clarification via the Gov.sg WhatsApp channel on the same day that the rumour of the partial lockdown was circulated. A clarification was also issued on the MOH website. But I think the point Mr Lim Biow Chuan made is very clear – that we will not go easy, we will not take this lightly and perpetrators, if caught, will be taken to task.
Ms Rahayu Mahzam. I will try to recognise all of you with your mask on.
Thank you, Speaker. I would like to seek a clarification from the Senior Parliamentary Secretary on why action against this message claiming partial lockdown, was not taken under POFMA, whether it is relevant and whether that was something that could have been used against the perpetrator.
The offences under the Miscellaneous Offences Act and POFMA while similar, involve different elements which the prosecution is required to prove. Every case of communication of false message is assessed based on the findings rising from investigations and the Public Prosecutor exercises his discretion on the most appropriate charge. The approach is on a case-by-case basis and is calibrated on what is necessary and appropriate in the circumstances.
I would like to point out that offences under the Miscellaneous Offences (Public Order and Nuisance) Act are also regarded as serious and carry an imprisonment term of up to three years or fine of a maximum of $10,000, or both.
PAPERCUTS