Protection from Online Falsehoods and Manipulation Bill

Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. Let me start by saying I rise in support of the Bill standing in the name of the Minister for Law. My views are informed by my Ministry's and its agencies' experience in administering current content related legislation, in dealing with tech companies across a spectrum of issues, working with industries on the digitalisation of our economy and nurturing digital readiness in our society.

Sir, the digital information age has had a profound impact on our work, leisure and communication patterns. Let me illustrate.

A recent MCI study found that while broadcast and print media remain relevant, there has been a pronounced shift towards online news consumption. More than 96% of Singaporeans below the age of 50 regularly get their news from online sources. Similarly, and perhaps more starkly, 79% of Singaporeans in their 50s and 63% of those in their 60s, use online news sources, compared to 35% and 10% just five years ago.

Most consumers of online news typically access at least four or more digital sources. These sources are of varying reliability, ranging from the online version of mainstream media like CNA and The Straits Times, to international news media like CNN and BBC, and social media platforms like Facebook and Twitter. Closed messaging services like WhatsApp and WeChat have also become prevalent with more than 50% of Singapore residents using them to communicate and share information.

These trends will only gather pace and intensify, in tandem with the growing reach and accessibility of technology.

Singaporeans are avid users of technology. Our mobile population penetration rate, at about 150%, is among the highest in the world. As for Internet broadband, the wireless penetration rate for our population is over 200%. And the wired household penetration rate is 93.5%. IMDA reported that there has been a doubling of mobile data consumption in Singapore between 2016 and 2018. So, simply put, Singaporeans are highly connected and voracious consumers of data.

Connectivity and data are also essential to our digital economy. From 2012 to 2016, Singapore's cross-border data flows grew by 65% per annum to reach 24,000 gigabits per second, the highest per capita compared to other highly-digitalised economies. MTI's Economic Survey of Singapore in the third quarter of 2017 reported that, between 2005 and 2015, our share of global merchandise trade remained stable at about 2%, that is the trade in goods. But our share of the global trade in digitally-deliverable services nearly doubled from 3.5% to 6.5%.

The major global technology companies (FAANGs) have a significant presence in Singapore. We also have a vibrant news and media ecosystem – more than 60 media organisations are accredited in Singapore, and large media organisations, including BBC, Bloomberg and Thomson Reuters – have their regional offices in Singapore.

So, it is unambiguous and undeniable that the flow of data and information, like the flow of goods, services and capital, is vital to our economy and to our society. And that is why, any suggestion that this Bill is aimed at curtailing the online flow of information, or that it will be used by Ministers to make arbitrary decisions, is wholly unfounded and completely off the mark.

Any action to do so would be ill-advised and inimical to our interests. Why would any Minister want to put in jeopardy, jobs for Singaporeans and opportunities for our businesses? That just does not make good economics nor good politics.

Moreover, these kinds of decisions would also be subject to intense scrutiny and it will called out by a highly connected citizenry, as well as the tech and media organisations who have a substantial presence in Singapore. So, we have an eco-system that relies or derives great value from the flow of information and data. And that eco-system itself is going to be a natural check against any tendency to act or over-reach.

So, what then is our intent? As Minister Shanmugam has explained in detail and many Members of this House have agreed, this surge in the flow of information is a double-edged sword. It can be used to educate, to foster understanding and build trust but it can also be abused to spread falsehoods, sow discord and harm society. At the same time, technology companies' algorithms, policies, and design features have made it easier for echo chambers to be created and exploited

We face the most serious challenge in the digital realm because advances in technology have greatly increased the volume, reach and impact of online information flows. In the past decade alone, global cross-border data flows have risen 64 times. A further three-fold increase in Internet traffic is forecast from 2017 to 2022, and global mobile data traffic will increase seven-fold.

So, against this backdrop, we need new modes of engagement with the digital information landscape to ensure that our citizens are well-informed and equipped to navigate the vast and diverse online terrain, discern truth from falsehood and engage in meaningful discourse and make informed choices.

Some Members have asked how today's tools fall short. Our present laws, which were mainly conceived in the era of print and broadcast media, were not designed to address the issue of online falsehoods. For example, there are powers under the Broadcasting Act which regulates all broadcast content to issue take-down notices and block websites for public interest or security reasons.

However, in administering the Act, IMDA has found these to be blunt tools. It would mean blocking an entire online platform for a single falsehood, which Mr Low Thia Khiang may think it is all right. But it runs completely contrary to our desire for proportionality and calibrated regulatory interventions.

That is why this POFMA legislation is necessary. It is an essential and important addition to our regulatory architecture that introduces a calibrated set of measures to deal with the virulence and virality of online falsehoods.

The powers under the Bill range from Targeted Corrections, to General Corrections and, ultimately, Stop Communications or "take-down" Directions. These powers, as have been emphasised several times, can be exercised only if firstly, there is a false statement of fact and, secondly, it is in the public interest, as defined in the Bill, to act.

Within this spectrum of measures, our preference in the main is to issue correction directions. The merits of juxtaposing the facts with falsehoods should be self-evident. It will allow readers to make informed judgements, draw their own conclusions about the arguments that are being made and promote a more vigorous online discourse. As we have explained, the Disabling and Stop Communication Directions will only be used in extreme cases where there is a threat of serious harm.

Some have expressed concerns whether the powers under the proposed legislation will be used judiciously. I would cite for Members' reference our experience with the Broadcasting Act about which there were similar concerns. Since the inception of the class licence scheme under the Broadcasting Act in 1996, IMDA has issued only 39 take-down notices. You do the math, it is slightly more than one a year on average. I think that is certainly not over-reach.

There has been much debate over who should wield the powers under this Bill. Sir, there are three main considerations behind the proposal in this Bill.

First, as many have spoken, we need swift action against an online falsehoods given their virality and potential to cause harm.

Secondly, and I think this is crucial, consequently, we need deep domain knowledge to expeditiously assess whether there is an online falsehood and if it is in the public interest to act. This is important especially because online falsehoods can occur in domains as diverse as healthcare, finance or security. And if each of these case we expect one single authority to render a judgment in a timely manner and take expeditious action, I think that is a very tall order.

Finally, the third consideration is there must be accountability for the exercise of these powers.

I would argue that vesting the authority in Portfolio Ministers with the availability of judicial oversight, as proposed in the Bill, best meets all three considerations. The Minister, supported by his Ministry's officials and resources, would have the requisite domain expertise to make an assessment and act quickly to stem the potential harm arising from an online falsehood. Accountability is ensured as aggrieved parties can take action in Court against the Minister's decision. They are also answerable in Parliament. Therefore, in assigning the powers under the Bill to Portfolio Ministers, the Bill, I humbly submit, appropriately and correctly locates authority with accountability, supported by the requisite knowledge and expertise to make expeditious decisions, which is essential when you are dealing with the virality of online falsehoods.

I am, therefore, somewhat surprised by the allegations, bordering on the melodramatic, of some Workers' Party Members of Parliament who suggested that this Bill allows Ministers to arbitrarily decide what is true, to impose penalties on individuals, and to suppress any commentary.

This is completely not the case. Let me break it down for you.

First, the primary focus of this Bill is not individual per se; it is actually the larger tech platforms. Having said that, content often originates because of individual action, and therefore you cannot complete exempt it from the focus of this Bill.

So, assume someone puts up something online that is falsehood. The Minister – the Portfolio Minister – has to decide if it is false and is it in the public interest to act against it. If so, he has to then decide to issue a Direction, whether it is a correction or take-down, depending on what is the appropriate course of action.

The individual – since we decide to focus on individuals taking up the case made by Mr Low and other Members of the Workers' Party –then has a choice: you comply with the Direction, or you disagree and you appeal to the Minister; you apply to the Minister for either a cancellation or a variation. If the Minister decides a Direction is still valid, then the individual can still appeal to the High Court within the prescribed period.

Now, what then on the part of the Executive? If the individual does not comply with the Direction, the competent authority will commence investigations, or may commence investigations for non-compliance with direction under section 15 of this Act. Reasonable excuse is a defence to the criminal offence of not complying with the Direction. The outcome of the investigation will be presented to the Public Prosecutor in the Attorney-General's Chambers (AGC) for decision on prosecution. If the Public Prosecutor decides to proceed, the matter will be brought to the Courts, and the Court will then decide on guilt and penalties.

So, this process is one where there is very clear due process. I fail to see how one can jump to the conclusion that Ministers are judge and jury, or indeed exercise nuclear options. Also, the Courts decide on the penalties, not the Ministers. And, the right to comment, that is the right to free speech, continues in the course of this process until and unless it is sub judice. In other words, the individual can, and other interested parties can, put up online commentary to say that: I am the subject of POFMA action, or as Prof Lim Sun Sun put it, "I am being POFMAed", and you can take it up as a commentary and discussion.

I fail to understand how this encroaches on the rights of the individual, how it has this purported chilling effect that many Members of the Opposition claim. Certainly, given the safeguards and the due process that I have outlined, I do not see how this can be seen as Ministers having excessive powers.

Mr Png Eng Huat also talked about the Election period. I do not know whether he has read section 52 of the Act. That section provides clearly for Alternative Authorities during the Election period. So, your entire speech about conflicts of interest during the Election is addressed by that section because during the Election period, the Ministers from different Ministries will appoint their Permanent Secretaries or the equivalent senior officials to act and exercise the authorities under this Bill.

Sir, Prof Lim Sun Sun suggested that Ministers should nonetheless also be guided by independent advisory panels. There is nothing in the Bill that prevents Ministers from consulting and seeking views from experts outside of their Ministries, where necessary and the circumstances permit.

In addition, certain broader powers such as those to block funding and access to online locations under part 5 of the Bill are given only to the Minister for Communications and Information as these decisions have broader implications, beyond individual Ministries, for Internet users, the industry and the digital infrastructure.

Let me now turn to the Competent Authority. Under section 6(1), the Minister may appoint a Statutory Board or senior official as the Competent Authority. Hence, to administer the Bill, we intend to establish a new POFMA Office – it may not be the most literary elegance – but it is calling a spade a spade. So, we will establish a new POFMA office within IMDA which will be the Competent Authority.

As enumerated in section 6(2), a key function of the Competent Authority is to give effect to the instructions of the Ministers. IMDA's experience in administering the Broadcasting Act and other content regulation policies, and its regular interaction with the media and technology companies will be relevant to the administration of this Bill.

This POFMA Office will support the Portfolio Ministers with technical advice on the precedents, the types of levers available, the feasibility, and the effectiveness. The Competent Authority will thus help provide consistency across the Government in the implementation of the Bill.

This office will also work with technology companies on the Codes of Practice and monitor compliance with the directions and Codes.

Apart from the measures proposed in the legislation, there is also a need to address issues upstream. Upstream safeguards like authenticity of users and transparency of advertising are issues that technology companies are also trying to address in different ways. The more we can work with tech companies on such upstream systems and processes, the less we will need to take action downstream.

To that end, clause 48 of the Bill empowers the Competent Authority to issue one or more Codes of Practice. These Codes will apply only to prescribe digital advertising and Internet intermediaries, and we are now developing them in consultation with these intermediaries. The Codes aim to first prevent and counter the misuse of online accounts where malicious actors act behind online anonymity. Among other things this would require intermediaries to use reasonable verification measures to prevent inauthentic accounts or bots from being created or used for malicious activities.

Second, these Codes will enhance the transparency of political advertising. Intermediaries will have to ensure that political advertisements disclose who the source is. This encompasses Elections advertising and advertisements on issues of public interest or controversy in the Singapore context, including those pertaining to race or religion.

Third, the practice will also require de-prioritising online falsehoods. This will ensure that credible content is given prominence and/or falsehoods are prevented from gaining prominence.

Ms Joan Pereira has asked about the Codes and how they were being developed. The scope of these Codes of Practice takes reference from international norms including the EU Code of Practice on Disinformation, as well as, we have been having consultations with companies and international experts. All of these will inform the final formulation of the Codes of Practice.

The implementation of the Codes will be targeted and graduated, and the focus will be on ensuring that intermediaries have adequate systems and processes in place. When breaches occur, the Competent Authority will consider factors such as the seriousness of the breach, whether there has been a pattern of similar breaches, and whether it reflects systemic deficiency in processes, and whether intermediaries' efforts to remedy the breaches are adequate.

There has been a question, and some Members have articulated this: how or whether this Bill will affect Singapore's attractiveness as a technology hub and our relationship with the tech companies.

The tech companies are an important part of Singapore's business ecosystem, especially our digital economy. Our value proposition to tech companies is anchored on several factors and that includes our political stability, our rule of law, conducive business environment, international connectivity and our skilled workforce. This is why the major tech companies have continued to expand their operations in Singapore in the past years. We continue to have regular engagements with the technology companies on a broad range of issues pertaining to investments, research and development, talent development and other collaborations of mutual interest.

With respect to this Bill, our officials have been working with the tech companies that are most affected to incorporate their comments and feedback and where possible, work together on solutions. We have sought to incorporate their feedback into the main body of this Bill. We are working with the tech companies in developing the Codes of Practice and the Competent Authority will also work with the intermediaries to develop company-specific Annexes to the Codes.

And this is important. Why? Because these Annexes will clarify how each intermediary will operationalise the broad outcomes, principles and objectives of the Codes, taking into account the unique characteristics of each intermediary’s platform, its existing systems and measures to combat disinformation, technical capabilities, as well as effectiveness. In other words, some of these will have to be customised because of the nature of the different intermediaries and those will be captured in the Annexes to these Codes of Practice.

The Competent Authority will regularly review these Codes of Practice and Annexes to ensure that they keep pace with developments in technology, in market environment and user behaviour and preferences.

Prof Lim Sun Sun said that we should approach these tech companies under a "collaborate framework". Where there are falsehoods that affect the public interest, defensive action should and must be taken and we need to have regulatory tools to deal with the problem. However, there is also scope for collaboration. And that is why we have sought to deeply engage the tech companies throughout this process. Ms Irene Quay asked if we could consider legislative routes taken by other countries, where companies are tasked to proactively monitor and filter content.

I would say in response that this is neither necessary nor desirable. We do not want to outsource the responsibility for our national and public interest to private companies. Neither is it necessarily even in the interest of the tech companies.

Faced with broad demands and heavy penalties, companies would be compelled to be excessively cautious. It also increases compliance costs. For example, it has been reported that following the passing of the German law, one in six of Facebook moderators is now based in Germany.

Left to independently interpret Government objectives, companies would be accused of being politicised and biased by their users. Since 2018, Twitter and Facebook have been dogged by accusations of "shadow-banning" conservative opinions.

In contrast, our approach is for the ministers to assume the responsibility. They will issue unambiguous and detailed directions for the companies then to carry out.

I want to turn to non-legislative measures. Mr Seah Kian Peng asked quite eloquently yesterday whether we are asking too much of the proposed legislation and too little of ourselves. He raises a very important point. Amid the heat and dust generated by this vigorous debate on this Bill, we must not lose sight of the larger point – and that is, legislation is necessary but it is by no means sufficient in the fight against online falsehoods. Ultimately, our first and most important line of defence against online falsehoods is a well-informed and discerning citizenry, equipped with tools to combat online falsehoods.

The Select Committee highlighted the role of trusted fact-checking initiatives in combatting deliberate online falsehoods, and recommended that different media organisations, and partners from other industries, consider establishing a coalition in Singapore to debunk falsehoods swiftly and credibly, as well as to provide support to such fact-checking initiatives.

The Government agrees that it is important to have such fact-checking initiatives in society. However, such initiatives should go beyond fact-checking to ensure that the discourse is authentic and responsible, and citizens are well-informed of the principles of engagement.

Over time, through the collaborative efforts of different parties and agencies, we envisage a tighter nexus between the different entities, including academia and journalists in Singapore so that high-quality information can reach the general public, to engender greater understanding of current affairs and complex issues.

These efforts will also be aligned with the Government’s commitment to support the growth of a robust and vibrant information eco-system, with a variety of entities contributing to the overall effort.

To do so, we will continue support ground-up efforts by interested members of the community and student groups and invest in resources and efforts to build up digital literacy. There have been many community efforts already in this regard.

Ms Joan Pereira and Dr Intan Mokhtar spoke about the need for media literacy for the young, and digital literacy for the elderly. Various Government agencies, such as the National Library Board, MOE and MINDEF, provide information literacy resources to students, adults and seniors. The Government also launched Digital Defence as the sixth pillar of Total Defence this year, with the call to be secure, alert and responsible online. The Media Literacy Council runs the Better Internet Campaign and provides seed funding for youth-led initiatives to address digital literacy and cyber safety and security.

There are also collaborations among our local Universities, tech companies and media companies to enhance media and information literacy, such as the hackathon called, quite dramatically, “Fake News Must Die” and it was held in late 2017 supported by Google, our Institutions of Higher Learning (IHLs) and mainstream media.

Over time and taken together, these measures will empower citizens to make informed decisions on their consumption of information and to be more discerning on multifaceted issues, thereby helping to grow an informed citizenry.

Sir, let me conclude by emphasising a few key points.

First, it is abundantly clear that we need a new and fit-for-purpose set of regulatory tools to deal with the challenge of online falsehoods in the digital age. This legislation is a pragmatic response to that challenge, providing for a set of calibrated measures.

By vesting in Portfolio Ministers the authority to issue directives and providing for judicial oversight, the Bill strikes the best possible balance between the needs for swift action, accountability for decisions and the requisite domain expertise to make quick assessments.

In drafting this legislation, we have engaged the tech companies and other stakeholders and sought to incorporate their concerns where possible. We also continue to have constructive discussions with the tech industry on a broader range of issues of mutual interest.

Ultimately, the scourge of online falsehoods is an ever present and evolving threat. That is why legislation is not enough. We need a concerted whole-of-nation effort, from citizens, industry, stakeholders and Government and, in particular, a well-informed and discerning citizenry is the first and most important line of defence against online falsehoods.

And I hope that all Singaporeans will join us in this important effort, give their full support to the intent of this legislation and the impact it seeks to have in raising the quality and integrity of discourse in the digital realm and help to raise the digital readiness and strengthen the Digital Defence capabilities of our society. [Applause]

Mr Deputy Speaker, I rise in support of the Bill, which I believe to be necessary for the welfare of all Singaporeans.

I would like to speak on the importance of this new Act, from the perspective of healthcare, and specifically from the viewpoint of the pernicious and harmful effects of deliberate online falsehoods and malicious misrepresentations in regard to medical and health information. And I hope that this also illustrates why I feel that the approach this Bill takes is indeed the right approach to protect us all from online falsehoods.

It was not too long ago that healthcare professionals and ordinary citizens alike hailed the Internet as the great equaliser by helping to reduce information asymmetry between healthcare providers and their patients. While many doctors were initially apprehensive when their patients became so much better informed due to the amount of medical information available online, healthcare professionals gradually learnt to welcome this and appreciate how this made the doctor-patient relationship more equal and more participative.

But it soon became apparent that the Internet, like any powerful tool, can be a double-edged sword. Medical misinformation and outright falsehoods began gaining a larger and larger footprint in the data-sphere, and it was exasperating to many healthcare providers that such falsehoods online were significantly impacting the health-seeking behaviour and ultimately the health of their patients, so much so that life and limb were at risk.

In an op ed piece earlier this year by Dr Haider Warraich, with the byline “Fake news threatens our democracy. But fake medical news threatens our lives”, he notes that and, I quote, “While misinformation has been the object of great attention in politics, medical misinformation might have an even greater body count. As is true with fake news in general, medical lies tend to spread further than truths on the Internet – and they have very real repercussions”. Mr Deputy Speaker, in Mandarin, please.

(In Mandarin): [Please refer to Vernacular Speech.] I am sure that Members of this House are aware of the many examples of fake health news online that have led to very real harm. False information about statins, which are cholesterol-lowering medicines, has led to many people choosing not to go on these medicines and so significantly raising their risk of heart attacks; fake claims about cancer treatments have led many to forego lifesaving treatment for curable tumours, in favour of treatments that have no known efficacy and which can even be dangerous. There is also a lot of false information online about the dangers of various types of vaccines.

In recent months, some residents have approached me with their concerns about the safety of vaccination programmes that we have been advocating for public health reasons. Some expressed their belief that vaccination could lead to serious mental or neurological damage, others were convinced that many vaccines contain poisons. When asked about the source of this information, they all indicated articles they had read on the Internet, or information circulated via WhatsApp or SMS. This is unsurprising, because such untruths cannot be circulated in print or other physical media as there are regulations against the promulgation of such false information.

(In English): The consequences of fake medical news are clear to see: it is startling that we are now seeing measles epidemics around the world, with very real loss of life, that could have been entirely preventable through vaccination, vaccination that increasing numbers are choosing to refuse partly due to untrue information available online.

Closer to home, the timely decision by MOH to introduce anti-HPV vaccination for female schoolchildren, which will save the lives of many of our future wives and mothers, has been greeted with the rise of online falsehoods regarding the vaccine, which seek to derail this very important and life-preserving programme. Online falsehoods have very real consequences. Misleading information spread by the anti-vaccine movement using social media can cause parents to reconsider vaccinating their children, exposing them to significant health risks.

Prof Heidi Larson, who is a public health expert at the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, wrote in the journal Nature that: "The next major outbreak of a fatal strain of influenza or something else will not be due to a lack of preventive technologies. Instead, emotional contagion, digitally enabled, could erode trust in vaccines so much as to render them moot. This deluge of conflicting and manipulated information on social media should be recognised as a global public health threat."

Like other Members before me, I do not think that this Act will be an impediment to free speech, nor should it have any chilling effect on public discourse or creativity. I believe it will actually accomplish the opposite.

The problem we have now is that in the online arena, those that shout the loudest, trumpet that which is sensationalist, novel or frightening regardless of its veracity, will garner the most attention and drown out other voices, leading to an imbalance which actually prevents equitable and meaningful discussion.

A lie is a lie, no matter how much you may wish it to be true, and no matter how you paint it, and the distinction between truth and falsehood is simple where it counts, in matters of life and death, and of sickness and health. Particularly in issues of healthcare, there is really no need for committee after committee, council after council, or for the Courts to decide what is true and what is not. This yardstick does not apply to truth in advertising or standards in claims about medical treatments offline, so why should offline or online untruths be spared? Therefore, I feel that the same should apply to online information and also misinformation about healthcare.

Make no mistake about it, much of this information online are deliberate and carefully crafted and cultivated. This new disease on online space, as hon Member Ms Sun Xueling has so eloquently put in her speech yesterday, needs a targeted yet calibrated response with legislation such as the one we are debating today, or these bad actors of the social media space will gain the upper hand to the detriment of us all.

It is, of course, important that we continue to invest in public education, but the general public cannot be always relied on to tell what is fake news and what is not. In fact, in a recent study by MIT, it showed that people are 70% more likely to share online falsehoods rather than facts. Laws still need to be in place to safeguard the public interest and for public safety.

Hence, I agree that domain Ministers are best placed to decide if the falsehood concerning their area impacts public interest, as the correction of online medical falsehoods, for example, constitutes a public health urgency, and demands to be expedited, and speed here is indeed necessary.

If there is a physical threat to public security or public health, an Executive decision needs to be made as to how to counter this threat, and certainly decision by committee or by prior application to the Courts certainly would not work. Imminent or existing threats, either physical or in the online space, must be dealt with expediently, though I do agree that for the falsehoods, there should still be an appeals process, and the Courts should have the final say on what is false.

Here I do seek a clarification from the Minister as the process through which an online falsehood will be dealt with in terms of the action or the corrective action taken: how will it be decided if a simple corrective rebuttal is all that would be required, or if a take-down is needed?

This is because like most situations in healthcare, prevention is always better than cure. Once a medical lie has entered the public domain, it takes root very quickly and becomes very hard to eradicate, if not impossible. Posting the real facts alongside the falsehood will probably be of little use. It is so much more powerful and engaging to read a snippet of alarmist fake medical news, and believe it to be true due to the strong human element, than to believe the reams of boring but rigorous scientific and medical evidence that can be posted alongside it. For example, there is news circulating online about how a promising young person was reduced to a cripple some weeks after receiving a vaccine, and how the vaccine was responsible for her horrific condition. Imagine if we were just to post alongside this untrue article the links to the many scientific papers showing it to be untrue, I wonder how many would think otherwise or have their opinions changed as a result of this corrective posting?

Way back during the SARS epidemic, for instance, what if there was fake news online that going to a quarantined area or to a hospital would lead to loss of life, or maybe things like eating white salt would be able to cure you of SARS, if this was allowed to spread unchecked on the internet, how many lives would have been lost?

I am going to end by just making a little bit of a small comment. I actually have a contrarian view that perhaps this law may in fact be a little bit too narrow. In fact, it is very far from the nuclear option that hon Member Mr Png just spoke about. From the perspective of an academic, which I think in some areas of my job roles I do consider myself as an academic, it has always been the case that when we do research or publish papers about various aspects of science or research, these are already subject to many rules and regulations. And the veracity of such publications, if they are erroneous conclusions or problems with the data, this is subject to very real scrutiny and there is already a due process for corrections or even retractions.

However, such avenues do not exist if such papers are published online, which is one of the criticisms for the emerging breadth of so-called research articles that are sprouting online. For example, if I were to take some data that had been rejected by all of the highly regarded and respected medical journals, and decided to take it in my own hands and publish it online, and many people could read it. There is actually very little recourse for the scientific community or for various agencies to be able to correct such falsehood.

Sir, in closing, I would like to end by expressing my thanks to the Select Committee on Deliberate Online Falsehoods for their work and for their contributions towards the formulation of this Act, and I support the Bill.

Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, over the past two days, we have heard from more than 30 speakers. We have had hours of debates. We have had some rather bizarre images ranging from decapitations to usage of phrases like "nuclear", "chilling", "afraid", "fear" – makes you wonder sometimes whether we are watching a very disturbing B-grade, post apocalyptic movie. We have also heard some very compelling, logical and rational arguments as well.

One thing, despite the sheer diversity of views, is clear. And that is that all of us in this House agree that we need to assiduously tackle deliberate online falsehoods that have the potential to cause social and economic damage, by putting in place a response framework to prevent such hoaxes, misinformation and falsehoods from negatively impacting our society. Of course, where we differ is the form and manner of that framework.

I rise in support of the Protection from Online Falsehoods and Manipulation Act (POFMA) as a mechanism that will curtail the potential dangers of falsehood and misinformation but I do have some points of clarification I would like to raise in my speech.

A key tenet of the POFMA is that deliberate online falsehood and misinformation campaigns will undermine social trust among communities, lead to the diminution of confidence in our public institutions and inflict harm on public interest.

Indeed, clause 4 of the Act clearly spells out instances where public interest will be compromised and that the Act can be invoked when such instances occur. While clause 4 spells out these instances, it also provides the Government some discretion to act under POFMA. As such, I would imagine that while falsehoods that deliberately promote ill-will among different communities would warrant the Government to invoke POFMA to "prevent feelings of enmity, hatred and ill-will between different groups of persons", other forms of falsehoods and manipulations might be less clear cut. For example, it is stated in point (f) in clause 4 that POFMA could be exercised "to prevent diminution of public confidence in the performance of any duty or function of, or in the exercise of any power by the government”.

Could the Government please provide some clarity or examples of incidences on what it could consider as a diminution of public confidence in our public institutions or bearers of public office that would result in the Government exercising their powers under POFMA?

Another point I would like to raise pertains to the appeal mechanism that goes via the Courts. The present Act provides an eventual avenue for appeals against the Government’s decision to be made to the Courts, after an appeal to the Minister. There has been some criticism that this might result in an appeals process that is too overwhelming and even financially prohibitive.

Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I had initially considered the possibility of having the appeals process heard by a tribunal, rather than through the Courts. However, I realised that this would then raise the issue of who would appoint the members of this tribunal, as if the tribunal was appointed and approved by the Executive branch of the Government, then it would ultimately be handling an appeal on a decision made by that same Executive branch.

So, I do see the merits of the appeals being handled by the Judiciary, which is set apart from the Executive Branch. However, Sir, the reality is that for most people, the prospect of "going to Court" is an intimidating one and could actually be onerous and demanding, especially for individuals or organisations of modest means, who might not be financially equipped for such a legal appeals process, or who might find just find the whole process of legal appeal via the Courts too overbearing and intimidating.

Nevertheless, I do appreciate the fact that the Minister for Law has stated that the appeals process via the Courts will be kept as affordable and simple as possible, and I trust that the Government will do periodic reviews of this process to ensure that it always remains so.

Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, falsehoods that get repeated often enough and shared widely enough will be perceived to be true. We need to be cognisant about the slow drip effect of deliberate online falsehood on our social fabric and how it could erode trust between communities. As such, I believe that the Government has the responsibility to nip deliberate attempts to undermine social cohesion before these attempts can take root. However, I also feel that we need to get the balance right between making the right decision when it comes to curtailing deliberate online falsehoods, and being judicious in how those decisions are made.

Notwithstanding my concerns, I ultimately believe that the potential benefit of this Act far outweighs the potential pitfalls, and I thus conclude my speech in support of the Bill.

Sir, online falsehoods are a global problem. From developing to developed countries, they have seeded distrust, sparked violence and shaped elections. Singapore is right to take a proactive stance against the spread of online falsehoods. As we do so, I hope we can take a measured approach that balances the urgency of combating falsehoods with the costs to society.

I would like to thank the Minister for addressing the concerns about how long a Minister will take to consider an appeal and also the speed and cost of subsequent appeals to the High Court. I thank the Minister for providing assurances.

As the Minister has already addressed many of my concerns I was going to raise, and as many Members have raised many of the points I was going to raise – that is the luxury of being the last speaker – I just have three quick points for further clarifications.

First, in addition to the process of an appeal to the High Court, can the Minister also provide details of how long it would take and how much it might cost when cases go on further appeal to the Court of Appeal?

Would we also direct that the appeal be heard within a certain time-frame? I understand that it might be difficult to provide an estimate but would be grateful for a rough estimate of cost and timeline.

Second, the Ministry has said that the Bill does not cover satire or comedy. However, this exclusion is nowhere to be found in the Bill. It is not uncommon for satire or comedy to exaggerate or invent facts by intention. At the same time, online falsehoods have sometimes been perpetuated, for instance, by state actors in the guise of comedy. Can the Minister elaborate on how satire and comedy will be excluded from the law?

Lastly, Sir, the fight against the spread of falsehood must also be the fight for the spread of truth. The battle against falsehoods demands not only the stick but also the carrot. Having the tools to react promptly to falsehood is important. However, the Government cannot constantly be on the back foot playing whack-a-mole whenever another falsehood pops up.

If we want people to present the truth, we must demonstrate readiness to give the truth and then the data they need. Instead of being reactive, we can be proactive in spreading the truth by helping people, who would like to report on the truth, to obtain government data needed to verify their facts.

This is not a new proposal. The Select Committee itself proposed that public institutions should "pre-empt vulnerabilities and put out information in advance, where possible, to inoculate the public."

The Government should channel more resources and take greater efforts to engage Singaporeans. It can do so by sharing data and information more frequently and in greater detail. Other countries have done so through the freedom of information laws. More than 80 countries have some form of freedom of information laws. These include those closest to us such as China, India, Japan, South Korea, Taiwan and Thailand. While Hong Kong has not legislated on the freedom of information, it has a Code of Access to Information. This is the formal framework for access to information held by government departments. The Code requires civil servants routinely or on request, to provide information unless there are specific reasons for not doing so. Further, there are procedures for review of complaint if the provisions of the Code have not been properly applied.

Our concern may be that excessive openers may compromise national security. However, there are common exceptions in freedom of information laws around the world, including national security, public safety, prevention of criminal activities and personal privacy. The freedom of information laws has been implemented to varying degrees of successes and effectiveness in these countries. With more than 80 case studies available, there are ample lessons that we can learn from both the successes and the failures.

The Select Committee has suggested that the Government should study the experiences of countries with freedom of information legislation and ombudsmen. Can the Minister share whether the Government is looking into this and provide an update. Sir, notwithstanding my clarifications, I stand in support of the Bill.

Thank you, Sir. I thank the Members for speaking. Some of the points raised by Members have also been addressed by Minister Ong Ye Kung and Minister Iswaran. Let me try and deal with the questions that have been raised.

Mr Vikram Nair and Mr Henry Kwek asked some questions relating to other parts of the Bill that were not covered in the opening speech, either by myself or Senior Minister of State Edwin Tong.

These provisions are fairly self-explanatory. But let me take Members briefly through these other provisions.

Part 6 of the Bill empowers the Government to direct an intermediary to prevent an inauthentic account from communicating content within Singapore, and interacting with users in Singapore, when the stipulated conditions are satisfied.

Part 5 of the Bill contains the levers relating to websites that put out falsehoods repeatedly. Such a website can be "declared" by the Minister. A number of consequences will then follow. The website will be de-monetised. The owner or operator of the website will be required to put up a notice warning users that the website has been declared and the website cannot then be promoted using digital ad tools.

Mr Henry Kwek asked about the defence of "reasonable excuse" and how it would work in practice. The Directions deal with the impact of falsehoods; they are not punishments. Non-compliance with the Direction, without reasonable excuse, is however an offence.

Clause 27, in particular, sets out factors that the Court must consider when deciding if the defence is available to an intermediary. These are the state of the art at that point in time, the cost of complying with the Direction relative to the means available to the Internet intermediary, and any other relevant factor. These are really all common sense factors. The bigger an intermediary is, the more it can be expected to invest in keeping its systems safe for those who use it. This also ensures that regulation does not become a barrier to entry for new entrants, thereby further cementing the dominance of the large incumbents.

But it should not be seen as licence for non-compliance. An intermediary that does not currently have the technical features to comply with the Direction, does not automatically have reasonable excuse. If that were so, an intermediary can just deliberately refrain from adopting product features that are needed, so that it does not have to comply with the Directions. And that would subvert the intent of the defence. That is why the Bill spells out these relevant factors. But the Court will look at all the circumstances and decide what would be reasonable.

Mr Vikram Nair asked if this Act will cover past statements. The Bill will come into force hereafter, with relevant subsidiary legislation, on a date to be specified, as is usual. Any statement after the Act, assuming it is passed, comes into force, will be covered. It could also cover future statements that may be made by reference to something said in the past, or statements which repeat past statements.

Ms Irene Quay asked about the relationship of this Bill with the Defamation Act and the Internal Security Act.

The Defamation Act deals in the private law sphere, with damage to reputation. For example, if someone says you are corrupt, then if it is not true, you can sue to clear your name. And many people will want to.

The Internal Security Act (ISA) deals with threats to national security. This Bill deals with falsehoods, to mitigate the impact and deter those who deliberately peddle in falsehoods, with the specific framework that is different from ISA.

Prof Lim Sun Sun agrees with the need for legislation, but refers to a "collaborative framework" within the Bill. There will be Codes of Practice for upstream regulation of tech companies. I think I can refer Prof Lim to the Select Committee's findings on the question of regulating tech companies and it was quite unequivocal. I can give you the paragraph references – paragraphs 406, 436, 476, 536. So, the Select Committee looked at the evidence that was presented and it was quite clear that regulation was necessary.

International sentiment. If we look at what the UK Digital Secretary Jeremy Wright said, and I quote, "The era of self-regulation for online companies is over. Voluntary actions from industry to tackle online harms have not been applied consistently or gone far enough." And, of course, Mr Zuckerberg himself, one day before this Bill was tabled said, and I quote, "I believe we need a more serious active role for governments and regulators ... I believe we need new regulation in four areas: harmful content, election integrity, privacy and data portability."

Assoc Prof Theseira articulated what the three Nominated Members of Parliament accept – the definitions of falsehood and of public interest in the Bill. They accept that the Executive must have the power to act. And they accept that trying to introduce judicial or independent oversight first, risks harm in the event of an imminent threat.

And I think Ms Ong said that the Independent Council proposed by the Nominated Members of Parliament was not meant to intervene with the decision-making process set out in the Bill.

As for the actual points in the Notice of Amendments, I do not think you want me to repeat the points I made yesterday. So, I will skip that.

Then, a number of comments were made on the definition of falsehoods. I think Mr Singh asked, fact and comment divisions not so clear; false or misleading in whole or in part is very wide. Mr Ng talked about satire and comedy. I think Ms Rahayu Mahzam asked about efforts to educate Singaporeans.

Mr Dennis Tan talked about misleading according to whose standards. If I say something according to my own views, but what if the Minister or Court interprets your meaning differently? Why should I be subject to corrections or take-downs? That I find a little surprising.

Let us say, Mr Tan, you put out a statement that three Chinese Police officers raped a Malay girl and the Police are covering it up. And then, you refuse to put a correction on the basis that it is not misleading according to your standards. There have got to be objective standards in these things. And I think, as a lawyer, you will understand that quite easily. Or for that matter, an actual case, Mr Nicholas Lim, that he was not charged because his parents were influential. I think you know who his parents are. And if you continue to insist your statement that his parents were influential and that is why the Police did not take action — I think there must be some objective standards. The law deals with objectivity in all these areas. So, I find this statement particularly troubling.

Ms Ong gave an illustration about an NGO that has evidence from a sexual assault victim, was unwilling to disclose the same details to the authorities. And Mr Chen made a similar point as well.

I think the definition of what constitutes a "statement of fact", I have gone through in some detail and so have others. It has been laid down by the Courts.

Some, including Mr Faisal and Assoc Prof Daniel Goh, have asked why do we use the word "misleading". This reflects existing jurisprudence that statements can also be false by reason of having misled through omission. It reflects existing jurisprudence. At the end of the day, whether by omission or by express statement, the Bill deals with material that is false.

And I will quote the the Court of Appeal which has said the test for distinguishing between "comment" and "statement of fact" is an objective one. And I quote here, "whether an ordinary, reasonable reader on reading the whole article would understand the words as comment[s] or [as] statements of fact". The Courts are equipped to apply the legal test and have regularly done so.

The Nominated Members of Parliament, for example in their Explanatory Note, have said they do not propose amendments to the definition of a "statement of fact". The Bill relies on existing case law. And before the Select Committee, law academics gave evidence about the law, including professors from NUS and the Dean of the SMU Law School.

Ms Rahayu's question about education, about what is covered and not covered. Yes, of course, that will continue to be done.

[Deputy Speaker (Mr Charles Chong) in the Chair]

Yesterday, I referred to the Yellow Vest movement, trying to erode trust in the police. That would be one example. Secondly, there was a case of a forged letter from Sweden to Ukraine, asking Sweden to ensure the dismissal of a court case in the Swedish courts concerning Ukrainian war crimes. The letter suggested that Sweden was prepared to do so, to make people believe their governments were not above interfering with justice. And that is a serious diminution of public confidence and ultimately eroding trust. The third example, a real example, was a false claim that Swedish police had said, "There were 50 'no go' areas in Sweden, filled with illegal immigrants, and these areas were too dangerous for even the police to enter". The Swedish police had said no such thing. The effect was to suggest that the police did not have things under control, that they cannot be relied on to protect society.

You can make those comments, but if you want to refer to facts, then you should get your facts right. But if you were to make you a comment, "Swedish police do not have things under control" or "Singapore Police do not have things under control" you are welcome to say that. That would not be covered by the Bill. But if you say, by specific reference, that these are "no go" areas, and that is either true or it is not true.

Mr David again spoke about Advisory Council, but I hear his latest remarks, and I think Prof Lim Sun Sun also said something similar. I think Prof Lim's suggestion was Advisory Panel to Minister who makes a final order. My point is simply this. There are many examples of how quickly these things move. Nominated Member of Parliament Irshad spoke about what happened in Myanmar. Within, I think, 24 hours, armed mobs were on the streets because of a false claim that two Muslims had raped a Buddhist woman. This led to two days of violence, and left people dead. In Indonesia, there was a rumour that a Chinese woman threw items at a mosque and stopped prayers. Within 24 hours, 14 Buddhist temples were burnt and destroyed.

Another was the falsehood which Mr Singh referred to – the cryptocurrency's founder had died in a car crash. Within five hours, it wiped out $4 billion. If it was on the stock exchange, and say, it relates to a bank in Singapore, and such a rumour, then there would be some public interest in going to deal with it, in terms of how stock exchanges and MAS deals with these issues.

These are things where immediate Executive action will be necessary. It does not mean that the Ministers will move or act without consideration. The amount of consideration depends on the time that they can take; but it has to be quick. This is one of the reasons why it is different Ministers, because one day it could deal with Finance, one day it could deal with Health, one day it could deal with the SAF, and another day it could deal with the Police. So, the domain experts, Ministers advised by civil servants, will have to decide quickly and open themselves up for challenge, if there is a challenge and it has all got to be done in public, quite apart from questions in Parliament.

Other Members, including Mr Christopher de Souza, Mr Cedric Foo, Mr Gan Thiam Poh and Mr Saktiandi Supaat have mentioned the need for speed. Some Members have suggested some other alternate third party to have the power to decide whether to allow falsehoods to carry on. You have a third party; the Government deals with the consequences often times of the falsehood. So, you then separate the responsibility of dealing with the consequences, from the power to stop the falsehoods in the first place. Dr Chia Shi-Lu made a similar point.

I think the Executive exercises a power and makes itself accountable to the Courts and to Parliament. It is a completely defensible, open system that places no great power within the Executive and in that context, I think all the nine Workers' Party's Members of Parliament's speeches are remarkable for the fact that they do not deal head-on with the point I made, which is that the powers here are narrower than the powers that currently exist. So, the Armageddon that we were threatened with if this Bill comes into law, I am still trying to see the logical flow of that argument. But I will come back to it.

Mr Louis Ng spoke about cost and Mr Dennis Tan asked about judicial review applications and costs and Mr Murali Pillai talked about parallel procedures providing for judicial oversight. Quite a lot of the points I wanted to make about the speeches by the Workers' Party Members of Parliament have already been made by Mr Pillai in a very lucid way.

Mr Ng's concerns about the cost of appeals, I have already set out in some detail the process and what will happen. But when we talk about judicial review, that is quite a separate exercise. Appeals on question of fact should be fairly straightforward. In fact, in my view, it should be disposed of fairly quickly, but we have provided for three days of free hearing. And after that, for normal fees to be paid to Court and for the Court to have ultimate discretion to decide who should pay the cost. Because if someone carries on and on and on for several days of argument unreasonably, that is something the Court should take into account, for example.

Mr Tan asked about the costs regime for judicial review and an expedited process. Ms Lim made a similar point. I think these are very different processes for appeal on truth versus falsehoods versus a judicial review. There is a whole body of administrative law, principles, and that has to be dealt with – judicial review – in the usual way, and could involve very detailed arguments.

Mr Murali asked about the risk of inconsistency in parallel tracks. I think this is not the only area of the law where that occurs and there are procedures that the Courts can adopt to resolve that.

Ms Lim and Mr Perera, I think they have conflated Directions with criminal punishments, if I am not wrong. Directions simply require you to put up corrections, or take-down the material as appropriate, in an appropriate case. They are not criminal punishments. As I said yesterday, it could appear in your article, "Look there is a correction required on this because this article contains untruths or inaccuracies. And for the truth, go to such and such a website". And a link will be given. And then the reader is open to read this article and he is open to read the other article and decide for himself. So, there are no criminal consequences, unless the person refuses to comply with the Directions.

Mr Chen had suggested that penalties under this Bill are harsh. I would say the existing penalties are comparable. As I said yesterday, the criminal provision under the Bill is actually narrower because it requires both a false statement of fact and for public interest to be impacted.

Er Dr Lee and Mr Melvin Yong asked for clarification on what consequences there will be, for those who inadvertently forward falsehoods. If you do not know that the content was false, then as I said yesterday, there is no question of criminal punishment. You may receive a Correction from the platform to inform you. Look at it like this, it is a falsehood that has travelled to 20,000 people. Does it make sense for the Government to go and look for 20,000 people and ask them to do things? It does not make sense, it is not practical. The Bill is primarily aimed at tech platforms, so the tech platforms are to carry the Corrections and push it down to the people who have received the original falsehood. There will be questions on what technology allows and does not allow.

That is the primary, in essence, focus of the Bill. And in some cases, the tech platforms could be asked to "take down" and ensure the "take down" applies across the board. It simply does not make sense to go and find and look for thousands of people, and individually go to each one of them. It makes sense if there is one creator of falsehoods, deliberately creating and sitting somewhere and pushing out falsehoods, that person can be dealt with.

Ms Irene and Dr Intan asked about other legislation and how they apply. Dr Intan also asked about academics and assurance that academics and researchers can continue to enjoy academic freedom. Mr de Souza asked about plans to assure well-meaning members of society that they would continue to contribute to meaningful civic discussions, and Mr Yam said some of the constituents he has spoken with have asked if the Bill will cover academic research.

My colleague, Minister Ong Ye Kung, gave a comprehensive response on academia. I do not think I really have much to add. I think it is clear. On your specific question, Mr Yam, you asked about historians and mentioned a specific example, Operation Coldstore.

The Bill does not cover academic opinion but, in the same measure, as Minister Ong said, there is no carve out for academics either, for statements which are false. Let us say a historian says, "Communists did not intend to conduct armed insurrection in Singapore". And he relies on some documents. He interprets them one way; that is his opinion. But supposing that there is no such document, and he says that there is such a document and that he manufactured his claim. Then, it is false. I think these situations are fairly clear.

But say, he refers to figures in the documents and there are no such figures and he just invented it. That is false, so the Courts will easily be able to deal with all of these. Or say, he gave an interpretation of a document but on oath he subsequently admits that his interpretation of the documents was misleading, and that he had given an untrue characterisation, and inaccurate reflection of the documents. In such a situation, of course, the academic's reliance on the underlying documents, based on his own admission, would be false.

The remedy in such situations – put up a clarification, for example, that he has admitted that his statements were misleading, an untrue characterisation, inaccurate reflection of the documents. Then, let readers judge for themselves. Ultimately, it depends on an objective interpretation, as I said earlier about the Courts, but that does not preclude challenging conventional wisdom, challenging established thinking. Those are different things.

Assoc Prof Theseira asked about the scope of his review of statements that the Government has made. I do not have the precise figures, but he said that there was a small number of cases where the interpretations were based on facts, rather than facts themselves. I have not seen them. All I can tell you is, I will make two general points: if the facts are accurate – meaning you set out whatever accurately – and the views are expressed based on those facts, it is not within this Bill.

But also, as I said just now, we must not assume that all those statements in the past which have referred to a variety of things, as if this Bill has been drafted with those statements or those statements had anticipated this Bill. Quite a few of those statements may well not come within the rubric of this Bill. And anyway, public interest has got to be established and it does not mean that each time, the Government responds, automatically, public interest was involved or had been involved in the past. That could have been made with a number of considerations in mind. But it does not mean that, automatically, the standard for public interest set out in the Bill would have been invoked. I do not know. I have not looked at it but these are sort of commonsensical points.

And there was a question on Government transparency and Freedom of Information Act. Ms Irene Quay asked about this and Mr Louis Ng asked about it. This is one of my favourite topics – Freedom of Information Act. I think Mr Louis Ng said that a number of countries, including China, Pakistan, Zimbabwe, they all have a Freedom of Information Act. I would say we should consider and this is a serious issue. Who uses the Freedom of Information Act and what has it been used for? And I am making some serious points here. You first start looking at the requests and I will tell you what sort of requests have been made. You can see some governance issues.

Going to the UK, these are some of the requests that were made: (a) total amount spend on Ferrero Rocher chocolates in UK embassies; (b) how many toilet rolls were used during Tony Blair’s administration. Imagine the civil servants would have to go and calculate that across all government agencies in the 10 years that Tony Blair was Prime Minister; (c) what kind of tea is drunk at the Ministry of Defence? (d) what is John Prescott’s weight? He was the Deputy Prime Minister; (e) registration numbers of all vintage lorries held by local authorities; (f) eligible bachelors in the police force between the ages of 35 and 49 by someone who said that she liked men in uniform; (g) statistics of reported sex with sheep and any other animal in Wales, if possible, since records began.

Freedom of information sounds popular. It even sounds sexy. But it basically means anyone can ask for any information, regardless of the reasons why and without having to be responsible as to how they will use it. But the key question for us in Parliament is when we put in a Freedom of Information Act, does it improve governance or does it affect governance? If it can be shown that it improves governance, we should have it. There is no question. But does it? Let me go through the experience of the countries which have put it in. John Lloyd, Australia's Public Service Commissioner, I quote: "Ever since they introduced Freedom of Information Act (FOIA), public servants have a culture of 'don’t put it in writing'", because if you put it in writing, it can be FOIAed "due to the very pernicious Freedom of Information laws”. And I am quoting him.

John Fraser, Australia’s Secretary of the Department of Treasury, said this: “Freedom of Information has made people extremely careful in the public service about what they put on paper and that is sad...Open policy debate means people have got to be candid.” So, it is affecting open debate within government because nobody wants to put it on paper because if you put it on paper, under the Freedom of Information Act somebody will get it.

Lord O’Donnell, former Cabinet Secretary and UK Head of Civil Service: "Civil servants were 'mentally' working on Brexit plans, to avoid the Freedom of Information Act."

Tony Blair, 2010 – he introduced Freedom of Information Act – but after stepping down, he said in 2010: “The Freedom of Information Act…is a dangerous Act [because] governments need to be able to debate, discuss and decide issues in confidence."

So, does it improve trust? I quote you Francis Fukuyama: "Legislators and officials must preserve deliberative space, just as families need to protect their privacy when debating their finances, or how to deal with a wayward child. And they need to be able to do so without donning a straight-jacket of rules specifying how they must talk to each other, and to citizens.”

So, you will get a lot of requests which are very odd, to say the least. Civil servants will have to deal with all these requests at taxpayers’ expense. All of this comes at a cost.

And if you look at the countries and you look at who uses them, it is not the average man in the street. Of course, the average man or woman in the street uses it some of the time but, mostly, it actually ends up privileging and giving more advantage to those who are better organised. What do I mean?

Businesses – they go to the Freedom of Information Act to find out lots of information to help their business. Lawyers, lobbyists, journalists – these are the people who put in the bulk of the requests. And when I give you the examples, it is immediately clear to you why.

Is that the best way of improving governance? May I suggest that a better way is what we have now – this Parliament. You are all representatives who are elected by the people, some of you are appointed as Nominated Members of Parliament. But you are here in a representative Parliament which is sovereign. You can ask for any information that you want and we will either have to give you the information or we will have to explain to you why we cannot give it.

And if you look at the questions that have been raised in this Parliament just in the last two sessions, February to May, we debated since the Budget Debate two Private Members' Motions, one Adjournment Motion by Mr Pritam Singh, data security, election procedures, CPF pay-outs, racial religious harmony, regard for women, including protection, development of the Malay/Muslim community, long-term care financing, mental health, bilateral relations with Malaysia, foreign policy positioning, safe use of personal mobility devices, management of stock exchange, power failures, NUS. You name it. Anything that is happening out there, we are discussing them here, month by month.

And you look at the number of questions. If you cannot have time, you do not have enough time for the Orals, you convert it to Written, it has to be answered. And, again, if it is not answered, there has got to be a good reason. Questions have been raised about Mr Pang – Committees of Inquiry have been held, Government has been questioned on the findings; it is held accountable, it has provided information.

Now, if your residents have questions, or anybody else has questions, they can approach the Members of Parliament, they can approach the Nominated Members of Parliament.

"Representative democracy" means at your level, you go through those questions and if somebody comes and asks you, "I want to know who are all the eligible women in SAF?", I do not think "representative democracy" means you will come here and ask that question. And if you did, I doubt very much if you will remain a Member of Parliament for very long after that.

So, there is a certain responsibility on you to mediate the questions that your residents ask and then come here and ask sensible questions, ask questions that matter for governance, ask questions that matter for society at large and ignore the frivolous questions and, indeed, explain to your resident why those questions ought not to be asked. That makes a lot of sense, rather than an Act and legislation which has, firstly, tied up resources. Let us not talk theory, let us talk reality. I have given you examples in the UK from the Head of Civil Service and very senior people in Australia about how civil servants have started behaving, how discussions within government have been tied up.

And second, the kind of requests that are being made. Can you imagine any Member here asking about how many toilet rolls MHA may have used up? Of what public interest is that? Why should it take up Parliament's time? Why should it take up my civil servants' time? And if you did, if you did ask me, I will ask you to explain why you are asking it.

So, let us have some faith in representative democracy. We have the institutions and we are using them well. We do not need to run after new institutions just because the UK, Australia, China, Pakistan and Zimbabwe have them. Do they help in better governance?

Then, there were questions about, what if Government itself spreads falsehoods? POFMA is here to deal with a serious problem. Everyone accepts it is a serious problem. So, the question of whether there should be POFMA should be dealt with by reference to whether it is a serious issue that needs to be dealt with. The Select Committee says it is a serious issue. I have not heard any speech that says it is not a serious issue.

Do we have a Bill? I think there is very little disagreement that there should be legislation. There is some argument about how that legislation ought to be. I will come to that. But then to say, "Oh, well, what about other aspects, what about Government?" It is not really an answer.

The second point I make is, what is the extent, what is the extent of Government spreading falsehoods, and what has been the damage to society so far in the context of all the evidence that I have laid out to you yesterday, to the House, about how falsehoods have been damaging society after society, country after country around the world?

And assuming Government puts out a falsehood, are there no remedies? I just talked about representative democracy. Can Members here ask questions? Expose? Can you ask for an explanation? Will there have to be an explanation? And if there is no credible explanation, what happens to the Minister or Ministry that puts out that falsehood? That is what debate in Parliament means. That is what questions in Parliament means. That is what an open Parliament means. You deal with the Government in Parliament.

If you mislead Parliament, you will have to resign.

I am reminded by Senior Minister Teo that if you mislead Parliament, you will have to resign. There are serious processes available to haul up anyone who misleads Parliament – Member of Parliament or Minister. And certainly, on this side of the House, anyone who misleads Parliament will be made to resign.

Let me move on to some things that Mr Low has said. I think it is equally important to see what he did not say. We face a serious problem. The report sets out the problem and it made recommendations. The Government and Parliament have spent the last 18 months considering the problem. The Green Paper was in early January. Mr Low, I think, first does not disagree that this is a serious problem.

Two, I set out how the powers in the Bill are narrower and there is more judicial oversight. I did not hear him disagree with that either. Nevertheless, he says the Government will amass more powers under the Bill. I will say, "How so?" It is directly contrary to what I have said and contrary to what he seems to accept, that the powers under the Bill are narrower. He knows also that the current powers are quite broad. In fact, he said today, the Government can shut down Facebook. So, he knows the current powers are very broad. He has also suggested that making an order under the Bill, it is like chopping off a head first and then reporting to the Emperor. It is typical of Mr Low, it is very colourful. But, in this case, quite inaccurate.

Let me explain. There is an original article, a correction is carried. The article stays in full. It could still be there. The head on the shoulders continues to be there. Even the hands are there, they are not cut off. And the hands can be on the computer to continue to type. And they can complain in public and the person can go to Court and the Minister will have to defend himself in Court.

So, nothing has been chopped off. Even take-down, the same process, even if there is a take-down. And, of course, proportionality has to be shown as to why it is a take-down as opposed to corrections.

The true analogy is this. It is like shining a torch-light, a flood light, on falsehoods. The Minister is given the torch-light to shine. The person who is upset can decide to go to Court and nobody's head is chopped off, nobody's hands are chopped off. It is shining a torch-light.

What is the problem when we ask for transparency – I mean, it is one of the key tenets of the Workers' Party – is this not transparency? You put up an article, the Government says this is not correct, you carry a correction, let your readers judge. What is the problem? The more transparency, the better.

I would say a First World Parliament should deal with the evidence and facts. If the Bill is narrower and there is greater judicial oversight, the crucial question that has been side-stepped by every single one of the Workers' Party Members of the Parliament, is, how does it then create a greater chilling effect? How does it create more fear? Why? It is the elephant in the room that nobody has answered. Two days of rhetoric.

Mr Low says this Bill is going to have a chilling effect and he makes a passing reference to a coffeeshop – I do not think he meant it in this context – he said speech is no longer confined to coffeeshops. That immediately reminded me of another speech by Mr Low. Mr Low is senior to me. I have a great deal of respect for him, in particular, his political skills. He has been in the House for almost as long as me and perhaps we both immediately think in terms of coffeeshops, which is, of course, a key node of local community and talk. So, I think it will be useful to look at what he had said previously.

I think he will remember three years ago, the debate on the Administration of Justice (Protection) Act (AOJPA) in this House. Mr Low said, "This Bill" – referring to that Bill – "covers talk at coffeeshops, makes the Government the sole decision maker of public interest. Elements are similar to the Internal Security Act (ISA)"; all actually completely inaccurate. He said and I quote, "I stand by what I say, based on my understanding of the effect and implication of the Bill if passed. For instance, there is a definition of publication and according to clause 2 of the Bill, a person is said to have published something when he communicates even orally or even if it is just one member of the public, so that I think it applies to people who talk, discuss at coffeeshops." And then he said, "Madam, what I am most uncomfortable with is clause 3(4) of the Bill that gives the Government the right to make statements and allows the Government to become the sole interpreter and decision maker of what constitutes public interest. And this, I smell a similar element in the ISA."

My response at that time, I said this is a strange case. A Minister for Law who puts up the Bill after extensive consultation with the Courts, I kept saying ad nauseam that the law was the same as before it was – common law – and it is intended to be the same on those clauses that you referred to. And Mr Low disagreed with me. He said the law is different in respect of the clauses that you referred to. But he was unable to explain how, why the Bill changed the law, as Mr Low claimed. There were other clauses where there was a change and I explained in that long debate what the changes were and where it was the same.

Likewise, in this Bill, I have explained why the Bill is narrower. No response. As I had said during the AOJPA, how does a person sitting in a coffeshop in Hougang, saying that something is wrong in the Courts, how does that statement impact on either the Judge, the witnesses or the proceedings? I mean, it is common sense. You are trying to frighten people unnecessarily saying that people in coffeshops now cannot talk after the AOJPA was passed. And they cannot sit there and have their coffee and talk about Court cases. I said that is completely inaccurate.

It has been three years since then. Coffeshops, I think, have grown louder since then. I do not think it has prevented talk. So, after all that talk of chill and fear, I can tell you coffeeshops in Yishun do not even think of the AOJPA. And I am sure it is the same in Hougang and Aljunied and everywhere else in Singapore. Quite vibrant and we want it to be so. So, what Mr Low says about this Bill amassing power is not quite right and Mr Low must know that. Just as he would have known that what he said about the AOJPA actually was not accurate. So, what is the purpose of saying this, because people listening to Mr Low might be misled?

Let me move on to the Pioneer Generation Package (PGP) and Merdeka Generation Package (MGP). He said that if one says Government introduced the PGP and MGP to buy votes, that may be covered by the Bill. Or to say that older Singaporeans are unable to accept a non-Chinese Prime Minister would be covered and can be used selectively by the Government to target statements by the Government's opponents. I say to Mr Low, come on, you must know, everybody here knows, none of these are covered by the Bill.

So, let us have a debate that deals with the terms of the Bill. Let us not try and get people misled by using examples which have nothing to do with the Bill. These are all comments, even under the Telecoms Act which was in existence all this while.

But there is one statement which Mr Low made which is inaccurate and seriously inaccurate. He said on POHA, and I quote, "When POHA was passed in Parliament, the original purpose was only to protect individuals. But a few years ago, the Government then tried to include Government agencies as one of the groups protected by this Act." That is, on its face, not correct. And it is most unfair. It really should not have been made without basis. Mr Low is not a lawyer so maybe please bear with me.

POHA has got, primarily, provisions on harassment, people getting harassed. Mr Low, sit back and think about it. How can the Government be harassed in the context of POHA? How is it possible for the Government to be harassed? And the Government has never claimed that it can be harassed, nor has it brought a single action on the basis of it being harassed. If we had tried it, we would have been laughed out of Court. There was a subsequent exchange between the Law Ministry and the Workers' Party where we said harassment provisions cannot apply to the Government. But POHA, the Bill, the Act, also contains section 15, which does not have anything to do with harassment. It has got to do with statements and refers to statements and persons.

Mr Singh asked me, does this Bill apply to corporates? And I said, the Interpretation Act will apply. So, Interpretation Act has got to apply and, depending on the context, it can apply to corporates or it may not apply to corporates. Obviously, when it comes to harassment, it cannot apply to the Government. But when it comes to statements, our view was that it can apply to the Government. So, harassment, stalking would be sections 3 to 7 of POHA as it existed, and section 15, the Government believed, applied to the Government but not any of the other provisions. And the Government has never sought to rely on any of the other provisions.

But on section 15, in the Court of Appeal, two Judges thought that it did not cover the Government, the Chief Justice thought that it did, and the Government accepted that view. It is public, it is transparent, this is rule of law. We intended and we believed, but if the Court disagrees with us, we just accept it. That is that. But we have never suggested or tried to rely on any of the harassment provisions. Nor can we. It would be absurd for us to try and rely on the harassment provisions.

On taking people to Court, Mr Low and Mr Singh said Ministers can make decisions but how often will people take Ministers to Court?

The first point, I said orders are, as a matter of looking at the framework, likely to be made primarily against tech companies. They certainly can challenge the Government. The second point, there is a very serious logical fallacy at the heart of this point and what is that? The point that both of you make, is that people do not want to go to Court. But what you are proposing will require people to go to Court in every single case because you want the Government to sue them.

So, each time the Government wants to do something, somebody has to be sued whether or not the person wants to go to Court. People, they put up a falsehood, maybe they did not really, after getting the notice, they just want to accept it, they really do not want the fuss of having to go to Court, but you will require them to be sued and brought to Court, every single time. That is the difference between your proposal and the Government's proposal.

The Government's proposal – we intervene, we ask for clarifications. In some cases, we ask for a take-down. The person who is on the other end will decide, "Am I going to challenge?" And he knows he has got three days free in Court, he knows that on the issue of falsehoods, he does not even need a lawyer, so it is very low cost and he has got to decide. If he wants to challenge, he can challenge. If he does not want to challenge, he does not have to challenge.

Which is better for the citizen do you think?

So, how does your proposal make sense if your true objection is, well, you know, people are reluctant to go to Court? Then you should be supporting the Government's position. Leave it to the people who want to go to Court. And do you know we are talking theory here. I told you yesterday a large number of these people would not be found. Quite a few might be overseas. They might be foreign state actors. They might be people working with foreign state actors. There are a variety of people. So, it is more sensible, what we are proposing.

Let me share something with Mr Low which will explain what we are really doing. Something that Mr Lee Kuan Yew said a very long time ago. He was making a speech in 1963 in the days when Barisan was active. I think the opponents were shouting, disrupting when he was speaking, but they did so while remaining in the dark. They wanted to disrupt and engage in rowdyism but did not themselves want to be seen. Mr Deputy Speaker, with your permission, can I show the video please?

Thank you, Deputy Speaker. In the analysis of Government actions against misinformation over the past few years, I found that sometimes, Ministries were imprecise in their language. They would label, for example, differences of opinion as false. What I am suggesting is would the Minister consider working with the whole-of-Government to ensure that once the Act is in place, Ministries do not label differences of opinion as false, because I think it has real meaning. If you call it false, the public will expect that you should be using the Act against it. And if it is not at that level, maybe just call it a misrepresentation or what you wish, instead.

Two things. Assoc Prof Theseira, I thought you were my friend. I really do not want more work. I have enough as it is. The second point is, you can have false opinions. Your opinions could be wrong, your opinions could be false, but that is not covered by the Bill. But I have no doubt that any Minister who wants to exercise his powers under the Bill when it becomes an Act and if Parliament agrees, will have to be very careful, because, while I have not gone into it in great detail – it is primarily something that might be used against tech companies and platforms. It does not make sense to use it against individuals. You think the tech companies would not challenge? So, when the challenge comes, the Minister will have to justify and it is going to be something that Ministers would have to think carefully about, take proper advice and act only when it is really something that he can stand on.

That is why we have not sought to, as I said yesterday, over-egg the pudding in terms of trying to define fact and what is not fact. We have relied on existing jurisprudence and leave it to the Courts, if necessary. Thank you.

Thank you, Deputy Speaker. The Minister referred to what I and some others have said in the 2016 debate on the Administration of Justice (Protection) Bill. Of course, I do not want to belabour the House with that debate, which is over. But the fact is that those concerns that we had about how codifying the law has changed the common law by making contempt arrestable offence, bringing the Police in, giving the Minister immunity – I think those points have been made and I leave the public to judge what was said in that debate.

Two specific points on today's debate. First of all, the Minister earlier referred to what Mr Low had mentioned regarding the Court case where the Government tried to use POHA. The circumstances, if I remembered it, were the Government tried to apply under POHA against a falsehood rather than for harassment. I wonder if the Minister could confirm that actually, what the Court of Appeal said in its decision was that it examined what was said during the Second Reading of the Bill. And Justice of Appeal Andrew Phang, if I am not wrong, said that if the Government had intended to use POHA for any relief, it should have been made clear during the Second Reading of the Bill. And looking at what was recorded in the Hansard, the Minister in fact had only referred to scenarios involving vulnerable victims. So, the Court of Appeal came to the conclusion that looking at the intention that was expressed during the Second Reading in the Hansard, the government was not a proper person to apply because that was not the intention that was articulated in Parliament, which, of course, raises concerns about the effect of Hansard today for future actions of the Government.

And finally, if I may ask him to clarify one point. He mentioned in his round-up that during an appeal under POFMA, proportionality would have to be shown. I believe he did say something like this. So, I would like him to clarify that because looking at the grounds of appeal, it does not look as if the High Court can look into proportionality. So, is it actually under judicial review and not at the appeal?

I thank the Member for raising the points. The third point is easily answered. Proportionality relates to the kind of remedies that might be directed like take-down or corrections, and it would be judicial review. Appeal is just on a question of fact or falsehood. And it is a straight appeal. So, the Court can look and substitute its view for that of the Minister; that is what I meant by straight appeal. So, proportionality is more the traditional exercise of government powers; and that would be judicial review. So, thank you for asking for that clarification.

The other point that Ms Lim made, in terms of section 15, I have not looked at the Court of Appeal judgment recently or the Hansard, but based on memory, what I had said in Parliament is, the word "persons" in POHA must be interpreted in accordance with the Interpretation Act. That is, I think, on the record and that is what we stand by. If you go to the Interpretation Act, it sets out how "persons" are defined.

So, the Court of Appeal had to look at the context of the Act and look at who it applied to. And it took a different interpretation from what I had thought was correct, or what we had intended. But that is the Court and we are bound by the Court. They did go through the Hansard and they applied the Interpretation Act, but they looked at it and they said "persons", applying it here, does not include corporate entities. So, okay, if that is their view. But it is not as if we misled Parliament. We said Interpretation Act. It has got to be decided in accordance with the Interpretation Act and they decided according to the Interpretation Act, except that they took a different view from us. And we stick by that.

But that is only for section 15. For the rest of POHA, there is no question that the Government could have relied upon — As I have said, it is absurd to suggest that the Government could be harassed. Legally, it does not make any sense, if I could say that. And I note your points on the Contempt Act.

I thank the hon Law Minister for his comments. Just three brief clarifications. Firstly, I would just like to ask the hon Minister to comment on the argument I made in my speech about circularity. I think it has been said that the Ministers make decisions, Part 3, Part 4 directives, they will be held to account by the electorate, they are accountable to Parliament. I did make the argument that actually by using a part 4 directive to stop the circulation of potentially embarrassing information, the presence of a chilling effect on free expression – which I think we have talked about – the possibility that efforts at investigative journalism will be cowed due to the lack of a public interest defence within the Bill, as a result of that, potentially embarrassing information may not come into circulation and that may, in fact, partly insulate the Minister from electoral accountability and may even affect the composition of the Parliament that is meant to hold the Minister accountable. So, I just wanted to ask for the Minister's comment on that.

The second one is very simple. I would like to ask the Minister what recourse would a victim of Government-originated fake news have. Here, I am not talking about defamation action that could be taken against individual Ministers. I am talking about fake news that may originate from a Ministry, from a Government agency. I know the Minister said that this does not happen very much, it is a question of scale. It could happen, it may happen more in the future. What recourse would a victim of such Government fake news have. POHA is apparently not a recourse, defamation may not be a recourse.

The third and last one, the Minister mentioned that compared to some of the existing remedies, the penalties and the powers are actually a scoping down. I think clause 45 of the Telecommunications Act and the Broadcasting Act were mentioned. Clause 45 of the Telecommunications Act, very briefly, let me read it: "Any person who transmits or causes to be transmitted a message which he knows to be false or fabricated shall be guilty of an offence and shall be liable on conviction", and so on and so on. Now, there are two senses in which actually the definition of that is widened in POFMA. Because POFMA allows for a misleading statement to deemed false, meaning a collection of true statements that are misleading could be deemed false. The Telecommunications Act said just "fabricated" or "false". Also, POFMA says that if you have reason to believe that something is false. The Telecommunications Act just says that he knows to be false; so, he must have knowledge, not reason to believe.

The Broadcasting Act, and I refer to Prof Goh Yihan's submission, does not apply to non-licensees, it does not apply to websites run by individuals, persons communicating via closed platform groups like WhatsApp, Telegram and so on. In this regard, viz-a-viz the criminal penalties against individuals, which is in section 7 of POFMA, POFMA will appear to widen powers and penalties, insofar as that is concerned viz-a-viz Telecommunications Act and Broadcasting Act. So, I would just like the Minister to comment on that.

The first point on falsehoods and public interest, that an investigative journalist is prevented from publishing something that is embarrassing. I think I would say this: it could be embarrassing, it may not be embarrassing. All those are subsidiary factors.

The primary factors, as far as the Bill is concerned is, it has got to be false, and it has got to be of public interest. It could additionally be embarrassing, but that is an irrelevant consideration.

Your point, I think really, if I understand it, is, it may not be false, and it may not be of public interest, but because it is embarrassing, a Minister tries to stop it. I think that is the point you really make.

Let us follow that example through. A journalist is stopped. Now, a journalist can go to court and say, "Why am I being stopped? What is false?" because the Minister's Direction has got to set out what is false. On the face of it you can tell whether it is credible or not credible. If on the face of it, it is not false, you think the journalist will keep quiet? An investigative journalist? He will go to Court. I have said in nine days, you can be in Court. And the Minister will suffer greater embarrassment. You know why? Because not only did he try to suppress something embarrassing, but now he would be shown to have used and abused his powers, and overruled by a Court. So, double blow. It is far worse for a Minister to do that. It is very serious.

Not many Ministers in many countries will survive that kind of action. If a Minister had tried to suppress and the Court says this was neither in the public interest, nor was it false, I think not many Ministers will survive that, particularly if it comes out that it was for an extraneous purpose. And judicial review is available as well. So that’s the first answer.

That is why I keep emphasising that the argument does not seem to have engaged, because, Mr Perera, you and your colleagues talk about it as if the Ministers decide and that is the end of the matter. But I keep emphasising that there is a sword hanging over with the Courts; and if we get it wrong, we will be publicly embarrassed. And we have deliberately made the test lower as in, it is an appeal rather than a judicial review. So, the Ministers put their personal reputations at stake every single time a decision is made. It is a very high onus.

Second, what recourse does one have if the Government is the originator of fake news? I have dealt with it fairly extensively in my round-up speech; I am not going to repeat it again.

Sir, third, the penalties. Mr Perera said compared with section 45 of the Telecommunications Act, the definition is actually broader because it is misleading. Here the Bill, it is both misleading and false. I explained it just now, misleading but it must come back to being false.

The second point is, I consider it to be narrower because of the intention. You have two things to prove in terms of intention, not just the misleading falsehood part, but also public interest. In the Telecommunications Act, the knowledge of harm to public interest is not necessary. So, there are two mens rea requirements under the Bill, as opposed to one mens rea requirement under the Telecommunications Act.

You then said Broadcasting Act, non-licensees, closed platform groups and all these are not covered. I think you missed my speech. I explained it in some careful detail yesterday how the current Broadcasting Act can through class licensing scheme and through subsidiary legislation be made to apply to all.

I repeat, one amendment to the legislation in Parliament would be necessary to bring us to the same position that we are under the Bill, and that one amendment is on territoriality, to extend it to people outside. And I do not think anyone here has a problem with that amendment.

So, when I say this and I said it yesterday, I said it advisedly. But in order to explain it to Members, I also then went into some detail as to how it could have been done. If you want, I would send you a copy of my speech as to how the Broadcasting Act could have been with subsidiary legislation and the class licensing and so on, could have applied to all of these people while remaining much broader in scope, and while the judicial review or the judicial oversight is more restricted.

If what this Government really wanted was just to amass powers, why do we put up a legislation for debate that gives the Courts greater oversight? Ask yourself that.

If we had come to the Parliament and said, "We now want to extend the Broadcasting Act to extra-territoriality, how much debate you think there would have been? And then, that is subsidiary legislation. You could ask us questions, and we would explain this is the Act and we are doing subsidiary legislation to extend. Why are we reducing our powers in that sense and allow, saying the Courts should have greater oversight? Precisely for the points that some of you made. It is not just this Government, it is the future governments. It is a system; it is an institution. So, we want to set in place more judicial oversight as these powers get exercised, but that does not mean that the powers are being expanded. Powers are actually being narrowed. Mr Pritam Singh said sharper, but they are narrowed. Thank you.

Thank you, Deputy Speaker. Just a clarification for the Minister. Would the Minister agree that POFMA would not be able to prevent an incumbent party from spreading falsehood to influence the outcome of an election, as in the example I gave for GE 2015? Also, I did mention about the alternate authority in my speech, so you could check the Hansard.

Let me try and understand this question: POFMA will not prevent the incumbent party from spreading falsehoods. Well, POFMA deals with falsehoods which are affecting institutions. So, if the falsehoods affect the PAP or the Workers' Party, that does not come within POFMA, regardless of who spreads them. You may be "POHAed" but not "POFMAed".

— but POFMA is supposed to address falsehoods during elections?

I would suggest that, I really think I have given the best clarification I can, Sir.