Debated in Parliament on 7 May 2019.
Debate resumed.
Singapore must be bold in making legal moves in light of global trends which have disadvantaged the citizenry, public institutions and Governments via a deluge of falsehoods.
It is easy to wave a banner, whip up emotion and say freedom of speech at all cost. But, much harder to sit down, study the subject and put in place measures to ensure that freedom of speech does flourish without the destructive nature of falsehoods. In essence, the proliferation of online falsehoods undermines freedom of speech. It does not promote it.
Why? Because no discerning Member here could disagree with the following contention – that falsehoods, cyberbullying, trolling and hate speech corrode, rather than promote, public debate.
They damage society's shared public space and reality. If non-reality is allowed to become reality, this harms society as decision-making is prejudiced by falsity.
Falsehoods can unfairly inflame passions, to prevent rational debate.
Falsehoods, especially when amplified by bots and trolls, can intimidate other voices, thereby preventing people from being exposed to a diversity of views. It devalues and de-legitimises the voices of experts and authoritative institutions, thus undermining society's ability to engage in rational discourse based on shared facts.
These can have major ramifications.
The Brexit referendum is a classic example of how falsehoods can penetrate and prejudice even mature democracies. We must learn from that and prevent falsehoods from penetrating the precious crucible of public debate in Singapore.
Indeed, some of the things that had been said in Brexit could have led to Michael Gove's exasperated comment during the height of the Brexit referendum campaigning in which he said, "People in this country have had enough of experts."
Falsehoods can undermine the concept of an objective truth. This may have the negative effect of causing citizens to disengage from public discourse altogether.
In the Czech Republic, a survey showed that 53% of Czechs believed that there was both pro-Russian and anti-Russian propaganda in the Czech public space, and they could not trust anything.
My next point is that legislation cannot be viewed as the antithesis to freedom of speech. To the contrary, legislation is needed to protect freedom of speech.
Why? Because leaving corrections to somehow organically or innately work themselves out is simply ineffective. As a result, truth suffers.
Some examples would help. In October 2014, NationalReport.net, a fake news website, published a story that street artist Banksy had been arrested in London and that the City of London Police had identified Banksy as Paul William Horner, a 36-year-old male born in Liverpool, England. This article received a total of 60,402 shares on Twitter and Facebook. By contrast, it took nine debunking articles by major news outlets, such as The Independent, The Huffington Post, and so on, to reach the same total of 60,000 shares.
The point I am making is that to rely on existing legal remedies would be far too insufficient to deal with the threat at hand. As Dean of SMU Law, Prof Goh Yihan stated, existing laws are limited in terms of speed, scope and adaptability. Simply put, while criminal penalties may apply to punish perpetrators, there are no legislative levers to ensure the timely correction or removal of fake news.
Many people have expressed concern that the Bill will create a chilling effect on public discussions. That is far too broad a criticism.
The corrections regime encourages free speech, by ensuring that people are exposed to more viewpoints and more facts – not less. This is in line with the "marketplace of ideas" theory.
In line with this, we need good public debate. Therefore, I would like to ask: what are the Government's plans to assure well-meaning members of society that they should continue to contribute to meaningful civic discussions?
Mr Pritam Singh questions why the Executive needs to be part of the solution. He says that the Courts should be part of the solution in the first instance. Now, do we need an appropriate decision-making body? Yes. But the type of decision-making model is key.
And for the record, I disagree with Mr Pritam Singh, and I do not think that the Courts are the best placed to hear this in the first instance and decide whether a take-down notice needs to be made or a Correction Direction needs to be made.
Why do I say that the type of decision-making model is key? Because we should be completely aware of the nature of the threat which lies before us. It is dynamic. It evolves swiftly. Falsehoods can spread like fire in hay. They need to be curbed and responded to robustly before they can cause harm. Falsehoods can threaten public safety and create riots.
So, against the nature of the beast, what factors ought to shape the model of the decision-making in the first instance?
The need for speed, a nimble response. That is clear. In these situations, there is no luxury of time to make decisions, going through the Court process, and so on.
In the words of the Select Committee report, recommendation 12, "The measures will need to achieve the objective of breaking virality by being effective in a matter of hours." Hours! And that could be after Court hours. A riot can break after the Courts close.
The decision-maker also needs to be equipped with the information to make the decisions speedily. The decision-maker must also be the right person to weigh in on issues of public interest.
Now, it is a dynamic situation. Let us say that there is a riot. And during the course of the riot, there is a statement that the Police killed the person because of the person's race. Now that needs an immediate intervention by the Executive in the form of a Minister to say, "That is incorrect." He has to decide whether or not it should be taken down, or put up a Correction Direction in the form of what is the truth.
You want to refer to the Courts for that?
Half an hour later into the riot, it says that the Police are opening fire on innocent people. That is false. The Minister again, having to deal with the consequences, must look and say, "What correction must go out?", "Does it need to be taken down?", "Does another piece of information need to go up to put that in perspective, to balance it?"
Refer to the Courts again? Surely not.
Half an hour later, oh, another allegation, out of the blue, "The Police are trying to disarm the CCTVs to get rid of the evidence." That is false. Again the Minister, at the time well after court hours, maybe, will have to make a decision, "What do I do? Take that down? Issue a Correction Direction?" Surely, the Minister, being the Executive, has the play of all the facts. He is in the mix. He has got the officers reporting to him. He has to make decisions very quickly, life and death.
So, this may not only just be about falsehoods per se, but the consequence of what those falsehoods would lead to. Refer to the Courts?
Mr Pritam Singh says philosophically, he has a disagreement; philosophically, it should not be the Courts. But I ask Mr Pritam Singh to look through and decide practically what Singaporeans need in times of crises.
And after all, after all, in the first instance when the Executive makes the decision, that is reviewable. It is reviewable through two mechanisms and not one. The first is a statutory appeal mechanism, and the second is judicial review. So, the Minister's decision is reviewable.
I do not think we should be debating on philosophy and getting tongue-tied over illusions of philosophy.
What happens if there is an endemic that is breaking out in the hospital when every minute matters? Refer to the Courts?
I have great respect for the Courts, and I think as a tier above the Minister, a tier of review – I should rephrase it – a tier of review, they are best placed to decide whether that order was correct or not to begin with, but not to put the Courts in a mix where it is such a dynamic situation.
Ms Irene Quay has also discussed this issue of another body, I think, I read the Order Paper Supplementary, and I think it is called an independent council that looks into the issue of falsehoods. I do not agree that there is a need for that council.
If one looks at the Order Paper Supplementary, one of the functions of the council seems to want to replace the Ministerial decision-making and also determine what is fact. So, it seems to want to do two things: both the Executive role as well as the Judicial role; when actually, there is, every time we sit, an ability to hold the Minister to account in this decision-making process.
So, I think we have to be very clear about the nature of the beast that we are dealing with. I do not think that we should be blind to the fact that there are major issues around the world and that falsehoods can tear a multi-racial and multi-religious society like Singapore, can tear it quite quickly and quite swiftly, and we must guard against that.
Therefore, for principle reasons and for practical reasons, I am in support of the model of allowing the Executive to make the first instance decision, and then have it reviewed by the Courts. And we have heard the Minister state that in subsidiary legislation this is going to be an accelerated process – actually within nine days you could get a hearing if, indeed, the complainant uses his right quickly within the 14 days that he has.
So, for these reasons, I do not think we should be waving a banner of freedom of speech without understanding the consequences of what that entails in dynamic situations where falsehoods can catch like fire in hay. And for those reasons, I support the Bill.
Mr Pritam Singh.
Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. I would like to clarify a point made by the hon Member Mr Christopher de Souza. I am quoting from the Executive Summary of the report of the Select Committee on Deliberate Online Falsehoods and I want to deal with the point he made about riots and having to wait for a Court order.
I want to suggest to him that sometimes Executive action in itself can be problematic and I am going to quote from this example. Para 24, page 5, "Falsehoods that undermine trust and public institutions can impede constructive policy-making and the ability to respond to crisis and threats effectively. For example, when German police debunked a false claim that immigrants have raped a girl, they were falsely accused of covering up crimes committed by immigrants. This contributed to street protests."
I can understand the Member's view that urgent action is important but Executive action in itself may not always be the solution that will solve the problem. I think it is important to understand that there could be other solutions that may inevitably work, that members of the public could be persuaded by other forms of action like a Court order.
Mr Christopher de Souza.
Mr Deputy Speaker, I would invite Mr Singh to actually look at the report. Principally, I will quote four sections of the report where it states specifically that swift action is key. Swift action is key. The importance of stemming the spread of online falsehoods – para 357(a). "Specific objectives; – Provide swift access to the facts" – para 361 of the report. And in page 103 of the report, Part c: "neutralise false amplifiers,...swiftly."
I think this brings to bear why in recommendation No 12 at page 133, we want to be able to discredit falsehoods swiftly.
In all of these instances, I would humbly suggest to the House that our Executive, our ministers, the office-bearers who are fed with information on what is happening on the ground can make the best decisions within the limited time that they have. And if there is any delay, goodness knows what the consequences could be and that would harm Singaporeans.
Ms Irene Quay, you want to make your clarification?
Yes, I would like to make a correction that when I meant "independent council", I am not referring to a council that will make Executive decision. So, what we are proposing is a post review council for learning purposes.
I thank Ms Quay for that. I studied the Order Paper Supplement and, actually, under the functions of the council under (h) at page 7, it says "to perform such functions as the Minister may, by order published...assign, provided such functions do not compromise the independence of the Panel."
It would seem to me that this council suggested through this suggested amendment envisions practising some of the Ministerial functions. And in addition to that, at (f) at page 7, under functions of the Council, it says "to liaise with scientific, specialist, and technical experts to advise the Government on examining contested facts of a specialist nature." And it seems that the Council that this amendment envisions is taking on the adjudication role of what is fact and what is not.
So, I do think that we should take it seriously, the amendment, look at it for what it is and, in my considered view, the Executive plus an oversight of the Judiciary is the best way forward.
Ms Irene Quay.
We are not suggesting that the oversight committee take over this Executive decision so we still maintain for Ministers to make the Executive decision. So, our stand of independent oversight Council is for review of the past cases to fine-tune future Bills. That is all.
Indeed, I thank Ms Quay for that clarification. Hitherto, I do not think the wording in the Order Paper Supplement suggested that explanation but if it is a clarification then it does put some perspective.
Mr Low Thia Khiang.
(In Mandarin): [Please refer to Vernacular Speech.] Mr Deputy Speaker, the Minister for Law just now said that the powers of the Government under this Bill is narrower than the existing legislation. The fact is, however, after this Bill is passed, the Government will continue to have the same powers as before; powers given to the Government under other legislation will not be rescinded by this Bill. The important thing is that in the other legislation, the powers of the Government is directed at websites or companies, but this Bill is targeted at remarks made by individuals on the social media.
The Minister also said that the Bill is to deal with online falsehoods with calibrated legislation. Mr Deputy Speaker, the crux of the issue is that this piece of calibrated legislation is directed at remarks made by individuals on the social media. This is most worrying.
The WP opposes the Protection from Online Falsehoods and Manipulation Bill. We agree that it is necessary to legislate to deal with those who use online falsehoods to destabilize our current political system and multi-racial society, to prevent foreigners from influencing election results through the internet, and to order tech companies to take down remarks which could cause social divide. However, the Bill presented to the Parliament is very disappointing and surprising.
In our view, the purpose of the Government in introducing this bill is not simply to deal with the challenges mentioned above. The underlying motive is in fact to deter critics on the social media.
As soon as the Bill was presented to the Parliament, the main stream media has started reporting and one of their key points is the harsh penalties prescribed in the Bill. In the future, the Government can selectively punish a few offenders to achieve a chilling effect, this is so called "to scare the monkey by slaughtering the chicken." People will try to protect themselves by self-censorship. The true aim of the Government, is to protect the ruling party and achieve political monopoly through this Bill.
Today, there are various types of online falsehoods, and they indeed have brought challenges to the political system and social management. No doubt we need strategies to deal with them. But do not forget, the internet and social media have also empowered common citizens to discuss politics and hold the Government accountable. This is a positive development brought about by technology. Nowadays, people do not just discuss politics at coffee shops or only start to open up after a few drinks. When people have doubts about the Government or certain political figures, the talk is not limited to quiet whispering only. This shows that Singaporeans have stepped out the shadow of the white terror of the ISA which allows the Minister to detain people for a long period of time without a trial. This is a great step towards openness and democracy for Singapore.
In fact, modern technology and the prevalence of internet has provided opportunities for modern democracy to improve and develop. Online opinions have provided the Government with a feedback and response platform which is effective, timely, and can change flexibly as scenarios change. The Government can communicate with the people directly, know their needs and issues they face, hence make better policies to improve people’s lives. Public opinions are no longer reflected only during elections. A Government that can make good use of this platform will be able to accurately introduce policies that are pro-people, therefore making sure it stays in power. At the same time, people can also express views on Government policies through the internet, or become an organized force through the internet to exert pressure on the Government.
Mr Deputy Speaker, this is a headache faced by a modern Government. If a common citizen can express his opinions online and criticize Government policies or a certain politician, the whole world can see. Even if the mainstream media controlled by the Government is ambiguous or try to trivialize the matter, it is becoming more difficult to do so.
The Government believes that any rational person will agree that we need to legislate to deal with online falsehoods, and takes this opportunity to empower the Minister to judge public comments, and have absolute power to take actions. This is a Bill with a hidden agenda.
The Workers' Party opposes this Bill. First, this Bill allows the Minister to have absolute power to decide what are falsehoods and what punishment to mete out. It is like during a match, the Minister is both player and referee.
Prime Minister Lee pointed out recently that the prevalence of technology and social media has made it very easy for hate speech and falsehoods to spread. People with malicious intent can easily manipulate opinions, and even influence elections. This is seemingly convincing, but how can we be sure that the Ministers from the ruling party will not manipulate opinions and spread falsehoods in order to win elections? Although the Bill stipulates that during an election, the Minister must appoint a Government official to perform the duties on behalf of the Minister to avoid conflicts of interests, who can ensure that this Government official will not do things that could harm public interests to benefit himself and the Minister?
Although this Bill allows people to appeal to the court against the Minister’s actions, for a common citizen, after being dealt with by the Minister then having to go to the court to complain, it is both time consuming and energy sapping. No common person can have the kind of resources like the Government which has the whole AGC behind it. To engage in a legal tussle with the Government, it is easier said than done.
In a word, the WP cannot accept that the Bill empowers the Minister to judge and decide how to mete out punishment, when it is a basic right concerning people’s freedom to comment on politics. The WP believes that the Minister should complain to the court first and prove to the judges that the news published online is false and there is ill intent behind the news. It should be up to the judges to decide. This is the acceptable procedure.
Secondly, the definition of falsehoods covers too wide an area, and is ambiguous. For example, Clause 2 stipulates that the Government has power to deal with misleading remarks, but what is the dividing line between misleading and false statement? In fact, the Government has no interest in studying this further; it just wants the people to hand the power to it and decisions are up to the Government to make.
After the Bill was tabled in Parliament, the Government has faced many opposing voices. To win support, the Government has to clarify on what constitutes falsehoods. The Government has been trying to convince people that they are only targeting fake news, not personal opinions. However, in this regard, I have no faith in the Government. After the implementation of the Bill, will the Government show its true colours? For example, if I say the Pioneer and Merdeka Generation Packages are to buy votes, is this considered information or opinion?
I think, because of the wide definition of falsehoods in the Bill, the Minister can make a decision on whether it is information or opinion according to need. Similarly, the same words coming from different people may be interpreted differently by the Minister.
For example, "the older generation can’t accept a non-Chinese PM", if these words come from the minister himself or his supporter, the minister may say that this is a personal opinion. However, if these words come from the minister’s political opponent on the social media, the minister may say that spreading such falsehoods will create racial conflicts even riots, endangering national security. He can demand this person to publish what is acceptable to the Government, otherwise he will be punished. This is a modern version of "literary inquisition".
The Government had previously misinterpreted laws to deal with those it disliked. For example, when Protection from Harassment Bill was passed in Parliament, the purpose was to protect individuals. But a few years ago, the Government tried to use this Act to include Government agencies as objects to be protected. Although the High Court ruled that the Government had no right to cite this Act, because the Government is not an individual. The case dragged on for a few years which would be a huge burden for any individual who has limited resources.
I think that the correct way for a society to develop immunity to falsehoods, is to enhance civic education and to instil in citizens a habit of finding facts from online news, so that they will not believe in online news easily, nor react to 'big news' or internet instigations.
The internet is an open platform, netizens can rebut irrational, extreme and unfair online remarks. Relevant Government agencies and ministers can also come out to clarify and state the stance. By doing so, the true nature of online rumours, fake news and misleading remarks will be known, netizens can also be educated and enhance their ability to judge.
In conclusion, even though the WP realizes that we need to have new strategies to deal with the challenges brought about by the issue of authenticity in the process of information dissemination, the Government, on the other hand, is trying to use this opportunity to make the minister the sole judge on the issue, without a court trial, to deal with the space for speech and commentary created by the modern technology. We therefore oppose this Bill.
Although the Government says that the court will be the final judge, this may be so theoretically. In the situation where possession of resources is totally unequal, to be engaged in a legal tussle with the Government is like hitting stone with an egg. To introduce such a Bill is not what a Government which claims to defend democracy and public interests should do. It is more like the actions of a dictatorial Government that will resort to any means to hold onto absolute power.
Mr Deputy Speaker, the Minister has large ambitions for this Bill, and I wonder if the Bill as it stands can live up to them. My suspicion is, perhaps not. Given our society today, I wonder if we ask too much of the law and too little of ourselves?
First, let me say that I agree with the premise of the Bill – that the impediments to full, transparent discourse is less a matter of lack of information than one of too much, too complex and partly false information. The word "partly" is important because online falsehoods are seldom completely false. Most misleading messages hold a grain of truth, but their sum total is a lie. The Minister has given a few examples, and I will give one more later on.
Second, I also agree with the instrumental value of the Bill – namely to reduce the instances of such falsehoods and to empower the government to correct and as last resort, remove such falsehoods that are deemed to cause public harm. The threshold for the application of this law is necessarily very high – as it should be.
We should not allow this law to stymie public discourse, robust debate and the growth and flourishing of contested views.
The hon Member Mr Pritam Singh expressed deep concerns about how the Bill supposedly confers the Executive excessively broad and unprecedented power. But I think Mr Singh does not address Minister Shanmugam's explanation that the Bill in fact narrows power under existing laws which themselves have been around for more than 30 years. Mr Singh also raised the example of Nas Daily. But Minister Shanmugam had also addressed the example in his speech and explained when and why statements in respect of that would be covered.
Last year, I had spoken in Parliament about this arguing that any proposed legislation on Deliberate Online Falsehoods stands against two common misconceptions about freedom in discourses – that truth will emerge naturally from a contestation of ideas. Political scientists know that ideas are a function of power as well as merit. This is the very concern of academics and advocates. I say it straight – that the hegemony of the People’s Action Party will lead to their ideas travelling further and hitting harder than others.
The Minister for Education had last week said that this Bill does none of that. It is less a matter of giving power to some ideas, than correcting falsehoods. In the majority of cases, merely putting out the right facts against the wrong ones, rather than taking down the latter altogether. The assumptions are less to do with political power than the behavioural bias embedded in all of us.
I had previously spoken about two false assumptions that unfettered freedoms rely on: first, that people have infinite time and capacity to make decisions; and second, that people change their minds when presented with new facts.
Given that these two assumptions are largely false, the state has a public duty to reduce falsehoods. As a member of the Select committee, we examined and noted the extent and serious consequences that Deliberate Online Falsehoods can cause. This duty to reduce Deliberate Online Falsehoods is one whose specific form is being debated in democratic countries across the world. Singapore needs to move fast.
Last year, when I had spoken on the motion on Deliberate Online Falsehoods, I had said that current provisions were manifestly inadequate and requires further action on two fronts: the private sector and society itself. Social media platforms must recognise the primacy of public interest over private profit. In fact, Minister had stressed this in his speech earlier. I had also argued for the moral duty of members of the public to think before sharing falsehoods. At the time, I had in mind political information and content of the sort that related to political events in Britain, and the elections of other countries that Minister had also spoken about.
In light of events in recent weeks, I would say this moral duty of the public requires a lot more attention. Given this limited application of the law, the ambition to protect trust in our institutions and democratic discourse, is mere conceit if we conceive of it as being the preserve of the law alone. There are too many falsehoods, promoted and fanned by too many parties, with harm caused by a million paper cuts.
The law does not touch these, and I repeat, rightly so. I do not ask for the law to be widened – far from it – what I would ask of all of us in this House is to record our resolve to respond to the rise of such falsehoods through extra-legal means. Chief among these must be the development of online norms against guerrilla justice and vigilantes.
The recent case of Ms Monica Baey in NUS is instructive. The truth is that Nicholas Lim committed a terrible act and Monica Baey suffered greatly. Monica Baey deserves to feel safe in her own hall of residence. Nicholas Lim deserves to be punished for what he did. But he certainly does not deserve the online hate, flames and persecution. This is something Ms Baey herself has disavowed. But the punishment of Nicholas Lim cannot depend on the grace and magnanimity of Monica Baey.
Justice is not a lynch mob to be swayed and directed like a throw flame of moral panic. It answers neither to Facebook nor Instagram posts, no matter who writes them, nor to the distress or trauma of victims alone.
But in today’s context, lynch mobs are easily and cheaply formed. Minister shared how much the market rates are for some of them. Digital technology such as social media platforms and digital advertising tools can be a force for good. Yet, increasingly, we have seen how they have been abused by bad actors to weaken society, to affect democratic processes and to inflict harm. They provide convenient, accessible and cheap platforms for bad actors to exploit.
On Facebook, we saw a live stream of Christchurch shootings, which reached a wide audience through re-sharing. This is the glamorising of terrorism, which many may participate in inadvertently.
Twitter has allowed hate speech to proliferate on its platform. For example, in the name of freedom of expression, it has refused to ban Alex Jones’ Infowar account even after there was clear evidence of him spreading hate speech and disinformation.
Closer to home, In Indonesia, after four Chinese nationals were arrested for allegedly planting imported chili seeds contaminated with "bacteria". These were false claims were spread on Twitter, with the contagion spreading to Indonesian newspapers which accused China of using a "biological weapon" against Indonesia. This made its way back to social media, with many posts carrying anti-Chinese sentiments.
On Google, in October 2017, during the Las Vegas shooting, divisive hoaxes continue to appear in top search results – anti-Semitic material topped search results. In the meantime, there were Youtube sites which were monetising these harmful content. Today, we continue to see the use of bots and avatar accounts to spread falsehoods and amplify viewpoints.
So, what is our response? This piece of legislation must take its bearing from the Select Committee’s recommendation. As a member of the Committee, I must say that we decided to give a large role to ignorance and agnosticism. Sometimes, we do not know; sometimes, we cannot decide what is false or true.
This piece of legislation is a scalpel, not a sledgehammer as it provides a calibrated tool-kit to address the problem of disinformation. In terms of the tools to address falsehoods: most of the time, we will use Corrections Directions will be used sparingly. Take-downs will only be for serious cases.
These "Correction Directions" are a unique remedy, whose purpose is not to censor content, but to provide a broader range of facts for the public to consider. In line with our earlier laws on information, we do not stop the flow of information, but we do want to stop bad actors from profiting from falsehoods. The last resort, criminal sanctions; these will only apply to individuals who deliberately spread falsehoods which harm the public interest. Upstream measures include Code of Practices. The current form of legislation sticks closely to many of the Select Committee’s recommendations.
The Select Committee comprised Members of Parliament from both sides of the House. The Select Committee’s recommendations were detailed, and signed off collectively. As expected, some opponents now criticise the legislation, but they have little to offer in response, except mere generalities.
They did not contest the Select Committee’s findings that online falsehoods are a serious problem, that they cause serious consequences in a very, very short time, that "drip feed" falsehoods have enduring harm. But when we offer a practical and calibrated solution, when this is proposed, they cry foul.
If we all agree that this is a serious problem, what are the solutions? Since the Select Committee’s recommendations, the Government has moved on many of the recommendations: first on the non-legislative front, and now on the legislation.
I would like to ask the Minister to also provide a detailed update on the implementation of the Select Committee’s recommendations. What more can the public expect in the near-term, for example, can there be an establishment of a fact-checking entity, something which have been done in some countries?
Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I had started my speech by asking if we ask too much of the law, and too little of ourselves. Even if POFMA had been in operation today, given the way the law has been drafted, there would have been very few take-down orders. Instead, there will be additional facts for people to consider – perhaps to accept if they are convinced, perhaps to reject if they are not.
Online contestation is a vaccine. We cannot grow strong unless we are first made weak. We cannot develop unless we have freedoms, including the freedom to make mistakes and identify falsehoods for ourselves.
In the process, we must develop an online culture of what it means to be a Singaporean, to be fair-minded, seeking recompense and justice; to be compassionate; dispensing mercy and second chances. As a young nation, we must grow into the best version of ourselves as Singaporeans, not just in our real and daily lives, but in our online norms and dialogues. We should not ask this of the law only. We should ask this of ourselves. Sir, I support the Bill.
Senior Parliamentary Secretary Sun Xueling.
Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, in Mandarin, please.
(In Mandarin): [Please refer to Vernacular Speech.] Deputy Speaker, the Minister and a few members of this house has talked about the problem of online falsehoods.
The extent of destruction that online falsehoods can cause is evident. It is like a new form of 'virus' that can spread widely within a very short period of time. Societies afflicted by online falsehoods are like people who have been infected by viruses. If we cannot find a new treatment for these new viruses, we will continue to be plagued by them.
If we are sick, we should see a doctor. We cannot delay treatment just because we are afraid of seeing a doctor. This new Bill, is therefore a new treatment to deal with this new 'virus'.
Singapore is not the only country that is battling against this virus. Last year, together with Senior Minister of State Edwin Tong and Mr Pritam Singh, leader of the Workers' Party, I attended the Committee of Hearing on International Fake News and Falsehoods organised by the British Parliament. We discussed the issue of falsehood with representatives from eight countries. Many other countries such as France and Germany are also drafting new laws to counter fake news online and setting up regulatory regimes specifically for digital platforms.
Therefore, our measures are not unusual. Countering online falsehoods is also a common practice in other countries. Singapore and other countries are working together to fight against this new virus in order to safeguard the well-being of our nation.
Well then, is this proposed new treatment a good treatment? I think we need to look into two aspects when we are considering the merits of this treatment. First of all, is this treatment better than the existing treatment? Secondly, is this new treatment targeting the root of the problem? Will there be any side effects?
Let us now look into these two aspects.
First of all, is the new bill better than our existing legislation?
Earlier, Mr Low Thia Khiang said he does not believe that the new bill has given less authority to the Minister. But the Minister had explained earlier that existing legislation in Singapore, such as the Broadcasting Act, was implemented 23 years ago. Back then, there was no social media or large-scale internet platforms. Therefore, we did not have legislation that target online falsehoods specifically, which is a new kind of "virus", and this new Bill does the job of plugging the gap. Under existing legislation, blocking out content is the primary measure taken. However, the Minister has explained that under the new Bill, correction orders would be the main tool used to clarify false information. Internet platforms that have been issued correction orders will only need to put up corrections alongside the falsehood to avoid punishment.
Now, this is an innovative approach. In many other countries, the primary measure taken is to request the internet company to take down the falsehood entirely. Comparatively, the new Bill proposed by Singapore is more tolerant and more in line with the needs of the new environment.
Secondly, Mr Low Thia Khiang also believe that this new Bill has greater legal powers than existing legislation, as it is not only targeted at companies, but also individuals. Here, I think there is a need to clarify that this new Bill is not targeted at ordinary folks but purveyors of deliberate online falsehoods that is detrimental to public interest.
Furthermore, the new Bill is targeted at false statement of facts, while personal opinion is not considered falsehood. Therefore, we will not face criminal punishment if we express our opinions in our daily lives, or if we accidentally share online fake news.
Here, I would like to share my personal experience. I have quite a few elderly relatives who are very health conscious and often share information with each other, especially with regards to food safety. Some time ago, they received information from friends, claiming that consumption of broccoli together with prawns will trigger a chemical reaction in our bodies that will cause originally harmless substances to turn arsenic. By consuming prawns with broccoli, one may start to bleed and eventually die.
After listening to this horrific piece of information, I assured them that fried broccoli with prawns is a common dish and there is no need to worry. Then they started to worry if they would face criminal punishment under the new Bill, if they had unwittingly shared the information with family and friends. I told them firmly that the new Bill is not targeted at kind-hearted common folk who are unaware that certain information is false. Instead, it is meant to deal with purveyors of falsehoods, people who deliberately spread falsehoods with malicious intent.
Then, will this new Bill affect freedom of speech? This is also what Mr Low Thia Khiang is concerned about. I believe that by requesting for the correct information to be put up alongside the false information, we are turning on a spotlight for everyone, so that they can refer to more information and judge for themselves.
Therefore, the new Bill will not affect freedom of speech. Instead, there will be more information channels and greater freedom to obtain information.
A further question is, will this new Bill lead to the abuse of ministerial powers?
I have a personal view, which I believe can help allay some of the concerns raised by Mr Low Thia Khiang. I think that the Chinese character "众" (zhong) used in "公众利益" (gong zhong li yi), the Chinese phrase that refers to public interest, is made up of three "人" (ren), the Chinese character that refers to people.
Just like the three "人" or "people" that make up the character "众" (zhong) or "public", the Minister will be monitored on three fronts under this new Bill. Firstly, he will be monitored by the public. Individuals or organizations that have been issued the correction order can lodge an appeal at the courts and challenge the Minister’s decision. Secondly, he is monitored by the court because the court is the final adjudicator. Thirdly, he is monitored by the Parliament as members can also question the Minister's decision. If the Minister requests that certain information be taken down, this directive will also be published. Therefore, the new bill monitors the Minister on three fronts to ensure that he does not abuse his power and the process is indeed in public interest.
Senior Minister of State Edwin Tong also explained that although the courts can try to expedite the trial for cases concerning falsehoods, this is plagued with challenges as a lot of details are involved, and if we do not stop the spread of falsehood quickly, it can do a lot of harm.
Earlier, the Minister also mentioned that this Bill merely provides a framework. Within this framework, we must all do our part to combat falsehoods. Therefore, I would like to come back to the Chinese character "众" (zhong) or "public", which is made up of three Chinese characters "人" (ren), or "people". It is symbolic of the need for society to work together to tackle this problem. Only then, can we succeed.
Dealing with falsehoods is not only the Minister's responsibility, but also the court's responsibility, the parliament's responsibility, and every Singaporean's responsibility. The new Bill encourages everyone to co-operate in countering the problem of fake news. At the same time, mechanisms are put in place to ensure that there are checks and balances, so as to avoid side effects.
Mr Low Thia Khiang also mentioned earlier that he does not feel confident about delegating a senior government official to take over the decision-making role of the Minister during elections. I felt upset to hear this and I am sure any civil servant who hears this would be upset too. As I explained earlier, dealing with falsehoods requires everyone to work together, not just the Minister. This new Bill merely provides a framework.
Mr Low Thia Khiang also mentioned a few examples earlier. He was worried that there is a hidden agenda behind this framework by using very broad definitions, it will allow the Government and ministers to decide for themselves what is public interest and falsehoods to satisfy their personal motives.
I would like to clarify this. The Bill does not specify what constitute public interest as we cannot possibly imagine every instance that will harm public interest. The Minister has also explained earlier that these circumstances have not surfaced yet. However, he did give a few examples to illustrate the difference between falsehoods and personal opinion.
By giving examples, the broad principles and basis are laid out to provide some kind of guideline that is applicable for different situations.
I think, to say in parliament that the Pioneer Package or the Merdeka Package is a vote-buying tactic by the Minister, is being suspicious of others’ good intentions without having proper justifications. So, I do not think that we should engage in such extreme behaviour in a solemn setting like this. We should discuss this very meaningful Bill positively.
In conclusion, this new Bill can solve what existing legislations cannot resolve. It is also more tolerant, more refined and more targeted. Singapore is not the only country that is combating online falsehoods. Other countries are also drafting new laws to suppress online falsehoods. Various checks and balances have been put in place within this new Bill to ensure that the Government’s executive powers remain in check.
Today, our focus is on online falsehood, which should not be confused with conversations by common folk in coffee shops. Online falsehood is a new form of 'virus' that requires new, more targeted and more advanced innovative treatment. Let’s all work together to counter the harm inflicted on our society by online falsehoods. Thank you.
Deputy Speaker, Sir, in Mandarin, please.
(In Mandarin): [Please refer to Vernacular Speech.] Senior Parliamentary Secretary Sun talked about a very interesting Chinese character "众" (zhong). Of course, there is nothing wrong in saying that there are three "人" (ren) or "people" in the character "众" (zhong), but ultimately, there is a "人" (ren) on top in this character.
Under this Bill, even though in theory, you can go to the Court and question the Minister’s interpretation of the text, and say that it is wrong to issue the correction or take down order, but before that, the Minister would have arrived at his own conclusion and made a decision.
Besides, public interest is up to the individual’s interpretation as it is not clearly stipulated in the Bill. Therefore, it is all up to the Minister to decide what is in public interest, what is falsehood, and what he will do about it. This means he wields all the powers, and I do not wish to see Singapore's Ministers having so much power. The problem with this, is that they may make the wrong decision. Even though you can go to court and there is a procedure, things are not so simple.
So, we believe that the correct way, is for the Minister to lodge a complaint in court, and let the judge decide. This is the convincing way. However, under this Bill, for the three characters that represent "people" in the character "众" (zhong), the one on top, which is the Minister, makes the decision, while the other two "people" just sits below him. You can decide whether this is in public interest or not based on the above interpretation of the character "众" (zhong).
(In Mandarin): [Please refer to Vernacular Speech.] I thank the Member for his clarification. I do not agree with what the Member has said. When I spoke about the Chinese character "众" (zhong) or "public", I meant to talk about everyone working together, but he insisted on interpreting the character "众" (zhong) as being made up of a big character "人" (ren) or "person" on top. I have stated clearly that the court is the ultimate adjudicator for what is considered falsehood. Furthermore, when the Minister executes his power under this law, he must satisfy two conditions. First, there must be falsehood. Second, he must prove that public interest is affected. If one really insists on interpreting the character "众" (zhong) as being made up of a "person" on top, with two "people" below, then I think the one on top should represent the court.
I was the one who used the Chinese character "众" (zhong) for illustration. Since I used this as an example and have clearly stated that the court is the ultimate adjudicator, I can say that in the character "众" (zhong), the "人" (ren) on top represents the court.
Mr Low also say that "public interest" was not adequately explained in the new Bill, and he is uncomfortable with that. However, I would like to clarify that "public interest" is already covered in existing legislation, and many examples have also been included in the new Bill, so the principles and possible scenarios have been laid out. I mentioned in my speech, that when you explain these principles clearly using examples, it serves as a more meaningful guidance. Thank you.
PAPERCUTS